Brill - Byzantine Authors

BYZANTINE AUTHORS. LITERARY ACTIVITIES AND PREOCCUPATIONS

THE

MEDIEVAL MEDITERRANEAN PEOPLES, ECONOMIES AND CULTURES, 400-1500 EDITORS

Hugh Kennedy (St. Andrews) Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews) David Abulafia (Cambridge) Benjamin Arbel (Tel Aviv) Mark Meyerson (Toronto) Larry J. Simon (Western Michigan University)

VOLUME 49

BYZANTINE AUTHORS: LITERARY ACTIVITIES AND PREOCCUPATIONS Texts and Translations dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides

EDITED BY

JOHN W. NESBITT

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2003

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Byzanthine authors : texts and translations dedicated to the memory of Nicolas Oikonomides / edited by John W. Nesbitt. p. cm. – (The Medieval Mediterranean ; v. 49) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-12975-8 1. Byzantine prose literature–Translations into English. I. Oikonomides, Nicolas. II. Nesbitt, John W. III. Series. PA5196.E54B98 2003 888’.020808–dc21 2003045164

ISSN ISBN

0928–5520 90 04 12975 8

© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter One—Cosmological Confectionary and Equal opportunity in the Eleventh Century. An Ekphrasis by Christopher of Mitylene (Poem 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Paul Magdalino Chapter Two—Two Teaching Texts from the Twelfth-Century Orphanotropheion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Timothy S. Miller Chapter Three—Alexander the Monk’s Text of Helena’s Discovery of the Cross (BHG 410) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 John W. Nesbitt Chapter Four—Elias the Monk. Friend of Psellos . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 George T. Dennis Chapter Five—Five Miracles of St. Menas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 John Duffy/Emmanuel Bourbouhakis Chapter Six—Elias of Heliopolis. The Life of an Eighth-Century Syrian Christian Saint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Stamatina McGrath Chapter Seven—Two Military Orations of Constantine VII. . . . . . 111 Eric McGeer Chapter Eight—A Byzantine Instructional Manual on Siege Defense: The De Obsidione toleranda. Introduction, English Translation and Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Denis Sullivan Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE This volume was born from a wish to honor the memory of a man who was for many of the contributors both a mentor and a friend. From this wish evolved the idea of publishing a group of texts and translations. The authors were free to choose their texts and as a result the contributions are of varying length and content. The longest, the De obsidione toleranda (chapter eight), is a military manual, an instruction booklet on techniques of countering the investment of a town or fort. The publication of Prof. Sullivan’s translation provides the opportunity to reprint the (Brill) Greek text of 1947. In contrast with defensive tactics, the two orations (chapter seven) which Dr. McGeer has translated reflect on imperial military policy and the outward expansion of Byzantium into Moslem territories. Dr. McGrath (chapter 6) has translated a text which offers a glimpse of the precarious nature of the practice of Christianity within the borders of Islam. In a much lighter vein are Prof. Magdalino’s translation of an ekphrasis (chapter one) celebrating the merits of a cake decorated with signs of the zodiac and Prof. Dennis’s translations of letters of Psellos (chapter 4) describing the ribald doings of a monk named Elias. Dr. Nesbitt’s text (chapter 3) on Helena’s discovery of the cross is offered as a contribution to the history of pilgrimage. Prof. Miller’s texts (chapter 2) provide a valuable insight into the educational activities of the Orphanotropheion of St. Paul and the teaching techniques in vogue among instructors at this orphanage. Prof. Duffy and his student have contributed a hagiographical text relating some five miracles of the popular Egyptian saint, St. Menas. The volume presents a wide spectrum of literary genres and topics which claimed the attention of Byzantine writers and their reading public. The editor gratefully acknowledges the help of Dr. McGrath in resolving computer-related problems. He also wishes to thank Dr. McGrath, and his wife Carla, for help with proofreading. Thanks are also expressed to Dr. Karen Rasmussen for her patience in formatting this book and preparing the Adobe Acrobat version from which it is printed.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ONE

This page intentionally left blank

COSMOLOGICAL CONFECTIONERY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. AN EKPHRASIS BY CHRISTOPHER OF MITYLENE (POEM 42) Paul Magdalino Although published a century ago, the poems of Christopher of Mitylene deserve to be better known for their rich information on the realities and mentalities of Byzantine secular society.1 A short article by Nikos Oikonomides remains the best introduction to this material.2 It therefore seems fitting that a collection of translations dedicated to Nikos’ memory should include one of Christopher’s least known and more unusual pieces.3 As an ekphrasis, or rhetorical description, it is singular in three ways: in describing a piece of confectionery, in celebrating a work of art by a woman, and in attesting to a type of representation which is hardly ever encountered in Byzantine art of the medieval period. ... in a circle the Zodiac in dough, to his cousin I saw the heavens as works of your fingers. For from modest but smooth dough, you have stretched out the heavens for us like a curtain,4 and you have adorned it with houses of the stars. By houses I mean the double sextet of the Zodiac, which you have put forward as symbols of the virtues and passions, most vividly for all people: Leo for the manly, Taurus for the savage, Gemini for fornicators5 and Virgo for the continent, Cancer for the twisted, most fittingly, Libra for the just, and Sagittarius for the malevolent. Capricorn is for those whose bed has been dishonoured, while for the senseless, Aries is wisely chosen. Aquarius is appropriate to the dropsical, speechless Pisces to all quiet types, and Scorpio to all stinging slanderous tongues. These are the houses of the wandering stars. Two trios of duck eggs keep the exact shape of the Pleiades, while the hens’ eggs you may understand as the planets, Mercury, Moon, Sun and Jupiter, Venus, Mars and Saturn too, for though 1 2 3 4 5

Ed. Kurtz (1903) from MS Grottaferrata Z. a.29 Oikonomides (1990). Ed. Kurtz (1903) no.42, 23-6; Italian translation with short introduction by Milazzo (1983). Psalm 103: 2. This is presumably an allusion to the use of the word ‘twins’ (d¤dumoi) to mean testicles.

2

PAUL MAGDALINO

they may be fixed and established, they are still seven in number. Of the five larger eggs, the middle one is to be taken as the star of Orion, for Scorpio aspects him diametrically, signifying the ancient wound just as it happened.6 But the other four acquire a novel significance. For the four positions of the four eggs are a most exact fourfold fixation of the four cardinal points, of the ascendant, that is the east, of the setting, that is dusky evening, of the meridian, that is mid-day, and the anti-meridian, the northern quarter. The eggs themselves signify the foursome of winds, blowing from the four points of heaven.7 For Zephyr comes out of the west, Apeliotes from the eastern parts, while Notos proceeds from the south, and as for the Arctic wind, even if explanation falls silent, the very name shows whence it blows. What then of the quartet of pastry finials which cap the eggs? This is the quartet of seasons in the sky, for as the wise rhapsody bears witness, the seasons dwell at the gates of heaven. I would even have seen here what the starless sphere of heaven looks like, were it not completely invisible to mortal men; for it is fashioned and is present here, but is not seen: that is its nature. So wise and resourceful in her mind is the creator of this new sky. O all wise Providence of God the Word, what arts you bestow even upon women, what minds you implant in them too! Others may talk of men like Pheidias, Zeuxis indeed and Parrasios, Polygnotos the actually unknown, Polykleitos who rather is inglorious, and Aglaophon of the murky intellect, even the resourceful hands of Daidalos: it is all trash and bombast, nothing any more. But let the script admire the novel art-works of all women, saying, ‘Who gave to female nature a consummate knowledge of textiles, and every aspect of the science of embroidery?’8 Not wishing to go in for mass generalization, I would rather marvel at the art of one woman, who has skilfully given me such a work to behold. But you, O glory of virgin women, I wish to address you yourself: if you make these things out of flour and dough, what, I want to know, will you make with warp and woof? But as one can learn from what you have crafted, you would indeed in the art of weaving also surpass all Penelopes and Helens, amen I say unto thee, and women of Lesbos too. The poem evokes a loaf or cake sculpted with representations of the twelve signs of the Zodiac, and studded with eighteen eggs, from differ6 Aratos, Phaenomena 634-46 (Martin ed., pp. 38-9) tells a version of the myth of Artemis and Orion, according to which the the goddess killed the huntsman, in revenge for violating her, by setting a scorpion on him; this explains why the constellation of Orion sets when that of Scorpio rises. 7 Iliad V.749. 8 Cf. Job 38: 36.

COSMOLOGICAL CONFECTIONERY

3

ent birds and of different sizes, symbolising the Pleiades, the seven planets known to the ancient and medieval world (the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn), the star of Orion, and the four cardinal points. It is not clear that all the symbolism expounded by the poet was intended by the confectioner, and this makes the confection somewhat difficult to visualise in detail. Nevertheless, since the representations of the Zodiac appear to be unambiguous, it is reasonable to suppose that they formed a band around the rim of a circle of baked dough, with eggs set before the figures of Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn; these eggs were surmounted with crusts, which were probably fashioned in the form of personifications of the four seasons. Bread decorated with eggs is attested in Byzantium by the twelfthcentury canonist Theodore Balsamon, in his commentary on canon 23 of the Council in Trullo. Balsamon records that one Easter, at a village in Thrace, he observed the local peasants, both men and women, coming to the parish church after vespers and presenting the priest with gifts of food which included “birds’ eggs set together in bread dough” (metå Ùrniye¤vn »«n §n zÊm˙ êrtou sunhnvm°nvn).9 Such loaves are still baked as part of traditional Easter fare in Modern Greece. Another traditional practice, though more associated with weddings than with Easter, is the confection of ornamental loaves encrusted with finely-wrought figures, foliage and other designs. In recent practice, the two types of confection are not combined, being made for different occasions, and with different types of dough, baked to a different finish in each case. The Easter bread tends to be simply shaped, with braiding the most elaborate form of ornamentation, and it is soft enough to eat, whereas the wedding bread is baked hard almost to the consistency of plaster of Paris. Almost as unusual as the medium of representation is the design itself. Although the artistic representation of the Zodiac was well established in the secular culture which Byzantium inherited from antiquity, surviving examples are very rare, and Christopher of Mitylene’s poem is the only literary attestation. Of the two extant zodiacal cycles earlier than the thirteenth century, one is part of a complex celestial diagram illustrating an eighth-century manuscript of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables (Vat.gr.1291); the diagram has a precise astronomical significance, which, however, continues to elude satisfactory explanation.10 The other representation is depicted on the opus sectile floor of the katholikon of the Pantokrator Ed. Rallis and Potlis, vol. II (1852) 355; cf. Koukoules (1955) 161. For the date, see Wright (1985) 355-62; for the diagram, see Tihon (1993) 194-200. On fol. 2v of the same manuscript is a miniature representing the northern celestial hemisphere with half the zodiac (Aries to Virgo). 9

10

4

PAUL MAGDALINO

monastery.11 Executed c. 1130, it is closer to the work described in our ekphrasis not only in date, but also in its inclusion of the four seasons, depicted in personification at the four cardinal points. The rarity of the zodiacal cycle in Byzantine art is possibly to be explained by the church’s condemnation of astrology, although the Zodiac had been thoroughly tamed for Judaeo-Christian use,12 and representation of it did not necessarily serve an astrological agenda; in itself, it could signify the solar year or stand as a two-dimensional symbol of the heavenly spheres. It is evidently in this non-astrological sense that Christopher of Mitylene chooses to interpret his cousin’s handiwork. He assigns no qualities or influences to the planets, and while he alludes to their zodiacal houses, he does not comment on the association between planetary positions and zodiacal signs which was the essence of astrology, and he does not even specify the locations of the eggs representing the planets on the loaf. The moral attributes which he attaches to the zodiacal signs are based on a facile and obvious symbolism that has nothing to do with astrological doctrine. He ignores the astrologers’ classification of signs into male and female, diurnal and nocturnal, hot and cold,13 and he does not imply that people are born under the signs whose qualities they exhibit. In another poem (no. 92), where Christopher praises the beauty of the night sky, he likens the stars to angels praising God. The author seems less concerned with the cosmological significance than with the artistry of the work he describes. The point of his poem is to praise a novel work of art, novel because it is fashioned from everyday foodstuffs, and by a woman. The point is emphasised by the rhetorical synkrisis with famous ancient artists — a topos of ekphrasis which Christopher here puts to doubly subversive use. Instead of citing the great exempla from antiquity as models to be emulated, he derides and dismisses them. This was a common device of Christian homiletic, yet the contrast which Christopher draws is not between the outdated absurdities of pagan mythology and the revealed truth of Christianity, but between the inflated reputations of dead males and the unsung but tangible achievements of living women. One should be wary of reading feminist sentiment into a piece of stylish rhetorical inversion by a male author of the eleventh century, whose works also include a poem celebrating the artistic genius of the spider, complete with an ekphrasis of the spider’s web (no. 122). However, Christopher does not confine his attention to one domestic example or to the domain of home baking, but uses 11 12 13

Ousterhout (2001) 133-50, esp. 144-6. Hübner (1983). Bouché-Leclercq (1899), ch. 5.

COSMOLOGICAL CONFECTIONERY

5

the art of one woman to exemplify the skill of all women as producers of finely woven and embroidered textiles. Unfortunately, it is not clear from his brief allusions whether he he is referring to domestic production, or to the more commercial and guild-based manufacture which is implied in the description by his contemporary, Michael Psellos, of the festival of Agathe: the yearly occasion, on 12 May, when the women involved in the carding, spinning, and weaving of wool and linen gathered for a religious ceremony followed by dancing.14 It is also unclear whether he is thinking only of wool and linen textiles, or also envisages the manufacture of the high-quality silks for which Byzantium was famous.15 The elevated terminology which he uses to describe female expertise – the knowledge (gn«siw) of textiles, the science (§pistÆmh) of embroidery, the art (t°xnh) of weaving – would seem appropriate to artefacts at the top of the range. The tenth-century Book of the Eparch mentions women engaged in the silk industry, and women were prominent among the silkweavers of Thebes in the twelfth century. A cautiously feminist reading of the ekphrasis is appropriate to both the period and the author. The eleventh century was a time when imperial women were especially important on the political scene, and their prominence was recorded by two historians, Michael Psellos and Anna Comnena, who both in their different ways clearly found it remarkable.17 Psellos also wrote three gender-specific works which are key sources for the role and image of women in Byzantine society: his funeral orations on his mother and adopted daughter, Styliane,18 and the text on the festival of Agathe, which provides a unique aperçu of a public event organised by and for women. Yet for all his insight and interest, Psellos’ view of women’s place in society shows a condescension which we do not find in Christopher of Mitylene, either in the ekphrasis we have examined or in his other poems concerning women (nos. 52, 57, 61, 66-7, 70, 75-7, 81, 140). Psellos says that his mother was second to none at weaving, but had little time for it; “she was terribly annoyed that she did not have a male nature, and that it was not possible for her to converse fearlessly with letters”.19 As for Styliane, he says, one must not imagine that because she was literate, she neglected her “womens’ work” of weaving Ed. Sathas, vol. 5 (1876) 527-31; Laiou (1986) 111-22. On Byzantine silk and other textile production, see in general the chapters by A. Muthesius and G. Dagron in Laiou (2002); Jacoby (1991-2) 452-500; Kaplan (1998) 313-27. 16 Leo VI, Liber Praefecti 7.2 (Koder ed., p. 100); John Tzetzes, Epistulae 101-2; Choniates 74, 98. 17 See in general Hill, James, Smythe (1994) 215-29; Hill (1999). 18 Ed. Sathas (1876) 3-61, 62-87; cf. Leroy-Molinghen (1969) 155-63. 19 Ed. Sathas 7. 14 15

6

PAUL MAGDALINO

and embroidery.20 Unlike Psellos, Christopher of Mitylene is not writing from the lofty perspective of the philosopher,21 but approaches mundane, material reality for its own sake and on its own terms. Although his poems are educated and elegant commentaries on everyday life, they draw simple morals and do not strain to relate their subject-matter to higher levels of meaning or of being. He does not need to relativise the artistic achievements of contemporary women, because it is enough for him to reflect the real value their products were accorded in the home, the market-place and the ceremonial magnificence of the court.

Ibid. 66. Psellos makes his philosophical priorities clear in all the minor works cited above, and a recent study argues that they are basic to his writing of history: Kaldellis (1999). 20

21

CHAPTER TWO

This page intentionally left blank

TWO TEACHING TEXTS FROM THE TWELFTH-CENTURY ORPHANOTROPHEION Timothy S. Miller Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92 contains a short poem (folios 145v-46) and a prose essay (folios 207-08) which offer valuable information concerning the Orphanotropheion of Saint Paul, the premier philanthropic institution of Constantinople and, during the twelfth century, one of the capital’s leading educational centers.1 Although the Orphanotropheion outranked all other charitable institutions of the Byzantine Empire, no typikon has survived which outlines how the orphanage functioned, nor do any extant hagiographical sources describe the buildings, monasteries, and churches which formed part of this complex institution.2 To understand how the Orphanotropheion educated its children, organized its administration, and financed its operations, one must analyze a wide variey of sources, from the laws of the emperor Leo I (45774) to twelfth-century literary works such as Anna Komnena’s Alexiad.3 The two texts, published here for the first time, provide new information concerning both the teaching methods used at the orphanage as well as its administrative organization, information which supplements what scholars have gleaned from published sources. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92 was copied in the last decades of the thirteenth century in Southern Italy. It belongs to a large group of manuscripts, which preserve short poems and prose texts used to teach Classical Greek grammar, vocabulary, orthography, and syntax. Some of these short works were extracted from Classical Greek literature, while others were composed by Byzantine teachers to illustrate difficult grammar rules or to introduce unfamiliar vocabulary.4 Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92 is unusual among these instructional codices in that, beginning on folio 122v, it identifies the Byzantine instructors who composed the original poems and prose essays. As Carlo Gallavotti has demonstrated, many of these author/instructors taught in Constantinopolitan schools of the twelfth century.5 This manuscript iden1 2 3 4 5

For a detailed description of Vat. Pal. gr. 92, see Gallavotti (1983) 21-30. Miller (1994) 83-104. Anna Komnena, Alexiad, 15.7.3-9 (Leib ed. 3.214-18); Prodromos, “Monodie” 1-14. Gallavotti, (1983) 21-30. See also Browning (1976) 21-34. Gallavotti (1983) 24-30.

10

TIMOTHY S. MILLER

tifies the author of the poem on folios 145v-46 as “Leo of Rhodes” and that of the prose work on folios 207-08 as “of Rhodes”. Since the manuscript identifies no other author as “of Rhodes”, and both of these texts refer to exactly the same issue, we can safely assume that Leo of Rhodes wrote both texts. The poem and the prose work prove that Leo of Rhodes taught at the Orphanotropheion of Saint Paul in Constantinople. This Leo is most likely the same man who became metropolitan of Rhodes sometime before 1166.6 During the twelfth century, the patriarch of Constantinople and the emperor often selected metropolitan bishops from among prominent teachers at the Orphanotropheion. The emperor John II (1118-43) confirmed Stephen Skylitzes, one of the leading teachers and eventually director of the orphan school (not the orphanotrophos), as metropolitan of Trebizond.7 At the end of the twelfth century, Constantine Stilbes attained the metropolitan see of Kyzikos after beginning his career as a catechism teacher at the Orphanotropheion.8 During the same years, Basil Pediadites taught grammar at the orphan school and then advanced to shepherd the metropolitan church of Kerkyra.9 It would, therefore, not be unusual for a teacher at the Orphanotropheion, like Leo, to receive a promotion to an important see such as Rhodes.10 Leo wrote both of these texts for teaching. Greek grammar manuscripts, like Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92, contain many short iambic dodecasyllabic poems such as Leo’s first text. Students used such poems to learn both Classical meters based on vowel length and the more recent stress rhythms used in Byzantine dodecasyllabic poetry. Leo’s second text belongs to a category of teaching tools called schede. The ancient Greek word schedos meant a riddle or puzzle. In the eleventh century, Michael Psellos used the word to describe a teaching exercise, a short essay that provided examples of difficult words or confusing grammatical constructions from ancient Greek. In the Alexiad, Anna Komnena described students at the Orphanotropheion hard at work recopying schede, exercises she considered to be innovations of her generation.11 In claiming that schede were a recent innovation, Anna was probably referring to a new type of schedos, associated with Theodore Prodromos and Stephen Skylitzes, both gramHierarchia (1988) 1.203. Prodromos, “Monodie” 9-10. Browning (1963) 26-32. 9 Ibid. 20-22. 10 Browning (1976) 25, where Browning assumes that the attribution toË ÑRÒdou refers to the bishop of Rhodes. 11 Anna Komnena, Alexiad 15.7.9 (Leib ed. 3.218). 6

7 8

TWO TEACHING TEXTS

11

mar teachers at the Orphanotropheion. In a recent article, Ioannis Vassis has shown that authors of twelfth-century schede, such as Prodromos, deliberately used misspellings, tricky elisions, and changes in pronunciation of both vowels and consonants to give their compositions two or more possible meanings. To determine the correct meaning of such texts, students had to rewrite the schede following the strict rules of Classical Greek pronunciation, orthography, and grammar.12 It is also possible to classify Leo’s poem as a schedos exercise since it too contains what appears to be a deliberate misspelling. On line 12 the manuscript reads efiw Œw, which would mean “into the ear”, echoing the prÚw Œta of line 11. It could also be recast, however, as ‡svw which in the context makes better sense “so in the same way”. Because of many deliberate misspellings in schede exercises, it is extremely difficult to provide an accurate printed text of such prose compositions. Should it be presented in its form as a puzzle, or should the modern editor recast the text as the students were supposed to recopy it?13 As Vassis has shown, Prodromos prepared difficult schede. Fortunately, Leo of Rhodes wrote easier exercises. The prose schedos edited below has only two passages where strange orthography and elisions make the meaning unclear. Leo seems to have written this schedos primarily to teach his students to observe proper rules of accentuation and to check carefully for proper breathing marks.14 Some twelfth-century intellectuals attacked the use of schede. Anna Komnena condemned them as a confusing intertwining of words (plokÆ). Both John Tzetzes and Theodore Balsamon used the same term, ploke, to describe the useless complexity of the schedos exercises, as designed by Prodromos and Skylitzes.15 In place of such schede, Anna Komnena recommended a return to reading the original works of the ancient Greeks.16 In preparing this edition, I have reproduced both the poem and the prose schedos, found in Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92. I have included in the Vassis (1993-94) 1-19. Vassis (1993-94) 14-19, where he resolves the problem by presenting the schedos first as transmitted by the manuscript (überlieferte Fassung) and then written out with the errors and contradictions eliminated (entschüsselte Fassung). 14 For example, on folio 207v, the schedos text has the reading ≥syh eÈfrÒsunon. A review of the forms of afisyãnomai, however, shows that ≥syh does not exist, but if the readerchanges the breathing mark to ¥syh (a change which would not alter the pronunciation of the word), the verb becomes the third-person, singular, aorist, passive of ¥domai, a verb which occasionally appears in a construction with a neuter substantive adjective, such as eÈfrÒsunon. 15 Vassis (1993-94) 9-10, and notes 33 and 34. 16 Anna Komnena, Alexiad, 15.7.9 (Leib ed. 3.218). For additional information concerning schede, see Garzya (1974), section VII (pp. 1-14). 12 13

12

TIMOTHY S. MILLER

apparatus criticus the words that have been written above the line in smaller letters. The same hand which copied the body of the text appears to have added these superscripted words. The copyist probably included these words to assist students in understanding the text since, in most cases, the superscriptions offer a common synonym for a more obscure Greek word in the text. THE POEM

5

10

15

20

Fol. 145v ToË ÑRÒdou kuroË L°ontow NËn oÈ prÚw Ímçw toÁw §n èm¤ll˙ n°ouw oÈd¢ prÚw Ímçw toÁw sunelyÒntaw f¤louw, éllå prÚw aÈtÚn t∞w sxol∞w tÚn prostãthn §jagoreÊv tØn §mØn ékhd¤an. ka‹ tØn ÙdÊnhn §kf°rv t∞w kard¤aw ka‹ pr°sbin aÈtÒn, oÈk ¶xvn ˘ ka‹ drãsv, t“ pammeg¤stƒ poimenãrx˙ prof°rv. k°kmhka ka‹ går proslal«n brefull¤oiw pl°kvn épe›pon toÁw èmillhthr¤ouw. …w oÔn §fãnhw, PaËle, kur¤ou stÒma | l°gvn prÚw Œta t“ sof“ didaskãlƒ. oÏtv per ‡svw tlhpayoÁw éndrÚw xãrin t“ patriãrx˙ frãze t∞w ofikoum°nhw. d¤dajon aÈtÚn toÁw makroÁw §moÁw pÒnouw ˜souw én°tlhn s∞w xãrin klhroux¤aw. ékoÊsetai s«n fllar«w prosfyegmãtvn. prosd°jetai sou toÁw lÒgouw éspas¤vw. §nde¤jetai tÚ f¤ltron ˘ prÒw se tr°fei. tÚn går ımo›on o‰da file›n toÁw trÒpouw ka‹ =Êseta¤ me t∞w pikrçw plinyourg¤aw.

4 ékhd¤an] yl¤cin supr. scr. || 6 pr°sbin] parãklhton supr. scr. | aÈtÒn] ka‹ prostãthn supr. scr. || 7 prof°rv] prosp°mpv supr. scr. || 8 k°kmhka] épe›pon supr. scr. || 10 …w] kayÉ supr. scr. || 11 didaskãlƒ] XrusostÒmƒ supr. scr. || 12 ‡svw] efiw Œw ms

TWO TEACHING TEXTS

TRANSLATION Now, neither to you, the youths in the contest, nor to you, my assembled friends, but to him, the patron of the school, I confess my apathy, and I set forth the pain of my heart, and having no course of action, I present him as my ambassador to the exceedingly great patriarch. For I am worn out in addressing the tribes of young children, and I renounce my weaving contentious words. Therefore, just as you appeared as the mouth of the Lord, Paul, when you spoke into the ear of the wise teacher [John Chrysostom], so, in the same way, on behalf of a wretched man speak to the ecumenical patriarch. Teach him my long painful labors, as many as I have endured on behalf of your inheritance. He will listen joyfully to your utterances. He will readily accept your words. He will show the affection which he nourishes toward you. For I know that a similar person loves these ways. And he will rescue me from this bitter brick making.

13

14

TIMOTHY S. MILLER

THE PROSE Schedos Fol. 207 ToË ÑRÒdou ÉEpaxy¢w ¶rgon pçsa didaskal¤a, polÁ pl°on d¢ paidodidaskal¤a, to›w d¢ trighrãsasin efis°ti pl°on, ıpo›ow êra kaÉgΔ kayå ka‹ sÁ épofÆn˙ per‹ §moË: ˘ pçn êr˙w, tel« gÉ, Œ ka‹ m°litow ≤d¤vn tª frãsei, dikaiodÒta ka‹ ÙrfanotrÒfe lamprÒtate, kr¤nv går =ipØn pãlin §n lo|gism“ sunet“ tÚ efikÚw ka‹ énagka›on t«n lÒgvn moi prÚw s¢ épote¤nasyai, ka‹ tolmhr«w §rvt∞sai tosaÊthn [ka‹ dÊnamin] ¶xein §m°, tØn ékmØn ˘w ±nãlvsÉ efiw tÚ leitoÊrghmÉ éteir∞, toËto neËra mØ eÈtux«n. mØ går oÈk ênyrvpÒw tiw §gΔ ·nÉ §park« tosoËton xrÒnon prÚw tÚ mustagvge›n, ≥dh dÉ êskhnow êggelow. miÉ ≤ §mØ oÈs¤a m«n, efi fulãttei tØn ofike¤an fÊsin, t«n épay«n; polloË ge ka‹ de›. ÉEpe‹ oÔn Íp¢r pãntaw o‰syÉ ¶rgon ≥dh §m°, filoiktÒtate, tÚ §paxy¢w t∞w mustagvg¤aw §p‹ xrÒnoiw makro›w §nergÆsanta, ˜ti ka¤ soi, yesp°sie, Œsmai efiw taÊthn, ˜ti mãlista dejiÚn ¶krinaw metå toË thnikaËta sofoË érxipoim°now. efi går mÆ, dialanyãnei tÚ makroxrÒnion taÊthw mÉ, e‡kosi talaipvr¤& §ntaËya d¢ ¶th §st¤—tå d¢ t∞w Ífedr¤aw pare¤syvsan. o‰sya går ka‹ aÈtÚw tØn ≤m«n §fore¤an √ diempisteuye‹w metå ka‹ êllvn meg¤stvn érx«n, ìw efi ka‹ y°lv t“ lÒgƒ perilabe›n, ne›mai tr‹w §k kair«n t«n nËn énast°llomai. Efiw o‰kton kamfye¤w, sumpay°stat°, moi él°jei, §kkakÆsonti t“ mustagvge›n. §pikoÊrei ta›w sa›w prÚw tÚn patriãrxhn eÈprosd°ktoiw fvna›w. ka‹

1 ÉEpaxy¢w ¶rgon] fortikÚn prçgma supr. scr. || 2 épofÆn˙] épofπn˙ ms || 3 ˘ pçn] ˜p ín ms et ka‹ fvnØn supr. scr. | êr˙w, tel« gÉ] ka‹ épçr˙w ka‹ Ípãrxv supr. scr. | ≤d°vn] ka‹ glukÁw supr. scr. || 6 [ka‹ dÊnamin] supr. scr.] dunatÚn ·nÉ ms | ±nãlvsÉ ms] ka‹ kathnãlvsa supr. scr. || 7 éteir∞] éblabØ supr. scr. || 8 êskhnow] ka‹ és≈matow supr. scr. || 9 m«n] ka‹ îra supr. scr. | efi] ka‹ §peidÉ supr. scr. | de›] pr°pei supr. scr. || 10 o‰syÉ] ka‹ gin≈skeiw supr. scr. || 11-12 Œsmai ms] ka‹ §mb¤blhmai supr. scr. || 12 mãlista] ka‹ l¤an supr. scr. || 14 o‰sya] gin≈skeiw supr scr. || 15 §fore¤an] ka‹ tØn §pitÆrhsin supr. scr. | √ ] ka‹ kayÉ supr. scr. | meg¤stvn érx«n] ka‹ §jousi«n supr. scr. || 16 ne›mai] ka‹ parasxe›n supr. scr. | tr‹w] ka‹ §k tritÒw supr. scr. || 18 él°jei] ka‹ boÆyei supr. scr. | t“] ka‹ t¤ni supr. scr. || 20 e‰ar] ka‹ ¶ar supr. scr. | efiste›nai] ka‹ stena‹ supr. scr. ||

TWO TEACHING TEXTS

15

TRANSLATION All teaching is difficult work, but especially teaching children, and even more difficult for those who are very old, such as I am, as even you make known concerning me. Everything you happen to take up, I finish, o chief justice (dikaiodotes), sweeter than honey in your diction, and most illustrious orphanotrophos. For, after wise deliberation, I judge it reasonable and necessary for me to let my words rush forth to reach you, even daring to ask that I have so much strength, a man who expended the strength of his prime in this unyielding service, a man not fortunate in physical strength. For I am not such a man that I am strong enough to serve so long in this mystagogia, already an incorporeal angel. If my being guards its own nature, it is not one of those who suffer no changes, is it? Not at all! Because you already know, most merciful one, that I have performed beyond all others in the arduous work of the mystagogia for a long period of years, and that I have exerted myself to such an extent in your interest, reverent one, you have judged me especially acceptable, together with the wise arch-shepherd [serving] at that time. If not, then I receive no credit for this long service—at this time twenty years of drudgery, omitting the years in subordinate service. For you yourself know our supervisory position with which I was entrusted along with all the other offices. Although I want to include these in the speech, I restrain myself from reciting them most especially at the present moment. Most sympathetic one, protect me, bent down in supplication, since I am exhausted by this mystagogia. Give help with your acceptable appeals to the patriarch. May your meeting with him, o honorable one, lead me from the oppressions of winter to reach the spring air. He has

16

TIMOTHY S. MILLER

§k xeim«now yl¤cevn efiw e‰ar efiste›nai, [Œ] pan°time, prÚw aÈtÚn ¶nteujiw sØ diagãg˙ me. ¥syh eÈfrÒsunon, ˜ti oÈ fa¤nontai kekleism°nai tis‹n afl pÊlai t∞w eÈsplagxn¤aw aÈtoË, éllÉ ín eÔrow efiw svthr¤an ényr≈pou mçllon §kte¤non. yarr« goËn …w ín nuxyÆsonta¤ soi ka‹ énapetasyÆsontai, |ka‹ tª makrò mou talaipvr¤& ·levn ı f¤loiktow §nidΔn lÊtron ofl mogÆsanti d≈sei moi. éndrÚw tÚ loipÚn tlhpayoËw Íperlãlei. tÚn PaËlon ßjeiw tÚn m°gan sunergãthn ˘n pr°sbin aÈtÚn égaya›w §pÉ §lp¤si pros∞ja t“ =hy°nti. tØn tÒlman bl°peiw: toÊtƒ d¢ ka‹ s¢ sÆmeron suneisf°rv. ka‹ går ˜sow moi PaËlow §n to›w èg¤oiw, tosoËton aÈtÚw §n broto›w ¶rrei fyÒnow.

21 ¥syh] ≥syh ms et ka‹ §l°xyh supr. scr. | tis‹n] tÉ efis‹n ms || 22 eÔrow] ka‹ plãtow supr. scr. || 23 nuxyÆsonta¤] ka‹ diegeryÆsontai supr. scr. || 24 mogÆsanti] ka‹ kakopayÆsanti supr. scr.

TWO TEACHING TEXTS

17

rejoiced in what is gracious so that the gates of his mercy appear not to be closed to some, but rather he is stretching wide for the salvation of man. I am confident that [these gates] will be stirred by you and spread wide. Seeing my long suffering, the compassionate one will give his merciful release to me struggling on his behalf. For the rest, speak on behalf of a long-suffering man. You will have Paul as your great colleague whom, with good hopes, I have added as an ambassador to the one under discussion. You appear bold. Today I commission you [ to go] to him. For as much as Paul [is my ambassador] among the saints, so much does this jealousy among mortals disappear. COMMENTARY REGARDING THE ORPHANOTROPHEION Both Leo’s poem and his schedos describe how his teaching duties have wearied him and how he longs for the patriarch of Constantinople to relieve him from his labors among “the tribes of young children” (poem, line 8). In the poem, he addresses his appeal to the heavenly patron of the school, Saint Paul. From earlier sources we know that Saint Zotikos founded the orphanage of the capital city, probably in the fourth century, but that the emperor Justin II rededicated the institution to Saints Peter and Paul in the late sixth century when he built a splendid church for the Orphanotropheion.17 Peter gradually receded in importance, and by the twelfth century sources often connected the Orphanotropheion with Saint Paul.18 In the prose schedos, on the other hand, Leo refers directly to the supervisor of his school, the director of the Orphanotropheion of Constantinople.19 As in the poem, so also in the prose schedos, Leo mentions only Paul the apostle as the patron of the school where he was teaching. These two instructional texts, thus, provide additional evidence that by the twelfth century Paul had emerged as the sole patron saint of the Orphanotropheion. Leo’s poem opens by describing youths in a contest (toÁw §n èm¤ll˙ n°ouw); line 9 refers to weaving contentious words, an expression which clearly refers to Leo’s work in writing schede.20 Why were schede contentious and the children of the orphanage involved in contests?

Theophanes 1.244. Vie de St. Cyrille le Philéote, chap. 47.4-6 (pp. 229-31). See also Basil Pediadites identified as a teacher sxol∞w grammatik«n toË PaÊlou, in Browning (1963), 20-22. 19 For the office of orphanotrophos, see Miller (1994) 99-104, and Guilland (1965) 205-21. 20 Vassis (1993-94) 9-10, and notes 33 and 34. 17 18

18

TIMOTHY S. MILLER

Several instructional poems, similar to Leo’s poem presented here, demonstrate that grammar schools of Constantinople held some form of student contests in connection with schede. In two eleventh-century poems, Christopher of Mytilene and John Mauropous, later metropolitan of Euchaita, referred to students engaged in schede competitions.21 Moreover, Giuseppe Schirò published an anonymous poem, also from the eleventh century, which invoked heavenly assistance for two children participating in a schedos contest.22 More recently, Robert Browning cited a nine-line verse composition in Marcianus graecus XI.31 which called on St. Paul to reward the victor in a grammar and schedos competition. Since Paul was the sole patron of the Orphanotropheion, this schedos contest surely took place in the orphanage of Constantinople.23 In view of such references to schede contests at grammar schools in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, we can safely assume that Leo’s arduous duties included training students to contend in such events. In both his poem and his prose schedos, Leo emphasizes how difficult he found working with the children at the orphanage. Leo compares his duties to the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt when they labored in making bricks for Pharoah (Exod. 1:14). It is not clear why Leo considered his work with the children so difficult. Perhaps he had discipline problems. We know from the frank letters of a thirteenth-century metropolitan of Naupaktos, John Apokaukos, that among the orphans at his episcopal school, some were difficult to control.24 Leo’s schedos also offers some new information regarding the Orphanotropheion’s staff organization. Leo claims to have worked at the school for more than twenty years. He began his cursus honorum in humble positions, but at the time of writing this schedos, he held some sort of supervisory position (§fore¤an), a post he attained after having served in other important offices. Although Leo did not mention specific offices, his schedos clearly reveals that there were several ranks of instructors at the Orphanotropheion. In the prose schedos, Leo addresses his appeal that he be assigned a post outside the Orphanotropheion to the institution’s director, the orphanotrophos. Leo pleads with the director to obtain a promotion from the patriarch of Constantinople. In his funeral oration in honor of Stephen Skylitzes, Prodromos also described the patriarch as involved in deciding promotions on the teaching staff of the Orphanotropheion, 21 22 23 24

Schirò (1949) 13 (Christopher of Mytilene) and 18, note 21 (John Mauropous). Ibid. 27-28. Browning (1976) 32 (verses reproduced from Marcianus gr. XI.31, folio 277v.). Apokaukos, ep. 27 (pp. 85-86) and ep. 100 (pp. 150-52).

TWO TEACHING TEXTS

19

although he also mentioned that the emperor had made the final decision to appoint Skylitzes head of the teaching faculty at the orphan school.25 In both the poem and the prose schedos, on the other hand, Leo viewed the patriarch as playing the key role in personnel decisions at the Orphanotropheion. In neither text does the author refer to the emperor, even though we know from many lists of state officials that the orphanage director was ranked as a member of the imperial bureaucracy. From other sources, it appears that the orphanotrophos dealt primarily with financial and legal issues and functioned as an imperial magistrate. The teachers of the orphanage school, however, received their right to teach from the local bishop, in the case of Constantinople, from the patriarch. Thus, according to Theodore Prodromos, the patriarch confirmed Stephen Skylitzes’ promotion to a high teaching post at the Orphanotropheion by anointing Stephen with holy chrism.26 In the prose schedos, Leo addresses his immediate superior. the orphanage director, as dikaiodotes and orphanotrophos. During the twelfth century, the dikaiodotes had evolved into one of the leading judges of the imperial bureaucracy.27 Several other sources of the twelfth century reveal that orphanotrophoi also held important judicial posts. An oration of Theodore Prodromos addressed Alexios Aristenos as both orphan director and nomophylax, a post which by the twelfth century included judicial duties.28 According to a speech by Niketas Choniates, the orphanotrophos John Belissariotes had excelled in the study of law.29 Leo’s schedos, thus, provides additional evidence that the men who served as directors of the Orphanotropheion of Saint Paul had extensive legal training in Roman/Byzantine law and often filled high-ranking judicial posts at the same time they supervised the orphan home and school. Both these teaching texts offer internal evidence that Leo wrote them for the students to present in public schede contests. In his poem, Leo specifically mentions that he is not addressing the children who were participating in the competition nor his colleagues who were either spectators or coaching other young contestants. Rather, he is offering a verse prayer to the school’s patron, Saint Paul. Although he implores Saint Paul to present his plea to the patriarch, the flattering references to the Prodromos, “Monodie” 9. Prodromos, “Monodie” 9. See also Criscuolo (1975) 378-79 and 387 note 37. 27 ODB 624. 28 Prodromos, “Eisiterios” (PG, 133, cols. 1268-74) not only mentions Alexios Aristenos as holding the office of nomophylax and orphanotrophos, but the speech stresses Aristenos’ role as magistrate. 29 Choniates 1.151. 25 26

TIMOTHY S. MILLER

20

head of the church in Constantinople suggest that in fact the patriarch was present at this academic contest. In the case of the prose schedos, on the other hand, it seems that only the orphanotrophos attended the event. Another twelfth-century source reveals that high officials sometimes attended these student contests. In one of his orations, Constantine Manasses described a contest for grammar students which took place in the presence of the orphanotrophos and the emperor Manuel I (114380).30 Like Leo and Theodore Prodromos, Manasses also taught in the grammar schools of Constantinople and composed a number of extant schede.31 If the emperor presided over some of these events, it is not surprising that the patriarch also attended grammar competitions held in the Byzantine capital, as Leo’s poem suggests.

30 31

Mannases 181. Browning (1976) 26-27.

CHAPTER THREE

This page intentionally left blank

ALEXANDER THE MONK’S TEXT OF HELENA’S DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS (BHG 410) John W. Nesbitt In 1991 Stephan Borgehammar published a well-researched, stimulating book entitled How the Holy Cross Was Found.1 Borgehammar was interested in reconstructing Gelasius of Caesarea’s account, in his lost Church History, of Helena’s discovery of the cross at Jerusalem. Accordingly he was led to consider whether Alexander the Monk’s Historical Treatise on the Finding of the Cross might contain, in the section dealing with Helena and her travels to Jerusalem, some traces of Gelasius’s text. In the end he concluded his objective was beyond reach because “the edition is very unsatisfactory, leaving room for hesitation about individual phrases.”2 Borgehammar’s assessment is just. The edition to which he refers is the one printed in PG, a text originally edited and published by J. Gretser in his De cruce Christi of 1600.3 Gretser’s edition is based (as I understand matters) upon: a) a Munich manuscript of the 16th century; b) a manuscript owned by the humanist and Jesuit, Andreas Schott; and c) a manuscript of Grottaferrata.4 The Munich manuscript is corrupt, the Schott manuscript has never been identified, and the Grottaferrata text is now lost.5 Such is the state of research on the text after some 400 years. The Historical Treatise occupies some 31 columns in the PG edition and may be fairly described as a “World Chronicle”. It commences with a discussion of the Divine Logos and proceeds to a listing of the occa-

Borgehammar (1991). Borgehammar (1991) 25. 3 J. Gretser, De cruce Christi, II (Ingolstadt: 1600) 1-52; eadem editio Opera Omnia, II (Regensburg:1734) cols. 1-30 (notes cols. 31-6). The latter was the source of the text reprinted in PG 87.3, cols. 4016-76 (Helena’s recovery of the cross is found at cols. 4061-64). The PG also prints a condensed version, cols. 4077-88. The “edition” published in 1913 by P. C. Pennacchini is simply a re-publication of Gretser’s text: see Pennacchini’s Discorso storico dell’invenzione della Croce del monaco Alessandro (Grottaferrata: 1913) 7-75. The full title of Alexander Monachus’s Treatise, as it appears regularly in manuscripts, is LÒgow flstorikÚw per‹ t∞w eÍr°sevw toË tim¤ou ka‹ zvopoioË StauroË. 4 Schott collated the manuscript in his possession with the manuscript preserved at Grottaferrata. In the notes to his edition Gretser distinguishes between “Cod. Bav.”, “Cod. Sch.”, “Sch.”, and “Cod. Crypt. Ferr.”. The Munich manuscript used by Gretser is of the 16th century and has the shelf number ms. gr. 271. 5 H. G. Opitz tried to locate the Grottaferrata manuscript which Gretser mentions, but he was unsuccessful. Opitz (1934) 539. 1 2

24

JOHN W. NESBITT

sions on which the cross is pre-figured in the Old Testament. The author continues with a narration of Christ’s life and historical events beyond Christ’s death (in particular, persecutions of Christians) to the end of the reign of Constantine I. Then follows: a) Cyril of Jerusalem’s “Letter to Constantius” of 350/351 regarding an appearance of the cross over Jerusalem; and b) a lengthy eulogy of the cross. The Historical Treatise was a popular text; a new editio princeps would involve (either in whole or in part) some forty manuscripts. Our goal here is fairly modest. It is our intention to offer an edition of the section of the Historical Treatise’s account dealing with Helena’s discovery of the cross. The edition incorporates prior editions and adds ten more manuscripts that have been selected, for the most part, because of their age and general reliability. We have included later manuscripts in order to give an idea of the range of variations within the manuscript tradition. After presenting our edition of what might be considered the culminating section of the Historical Treatise, we shall then turn to larger questions, such as the date of the Treatise’s composition, the author’s intent and his anticipated audience. LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS. Am B BN1 BN3 Bu L M P T V

Milan, Ambrosiana Library, gr. A 63 inf. (11th century) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium E.2.6 (12th century) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Ancien gr. 1454 (10th-11th century) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Coislin 306 (16th century) Bucharest, gr. 595 (13th century) Athos, Lavra D 78 (11th century) Monte Cassino, gr. 431 (11th century) Patmos, gr. 257 (12th century) Thessalonica, Vlatadon gr. 6 (12th century) Vatican, gr. 504 (1105) EDITIONS.

Gr Penn. GH

PG 87.3, col. 4061, line 19-col. 4064, line 25 Pennacchini, 59, line 6-61, line 27 Georgii Hamartoli Chronicon in: PG 110, col. 620, line 12col. 621, line 25

DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS

25

TEXT Metå taËta ép°steilen ı basileÁw tØn •autoË mht°ra El°nh n tØn éji°painon ka‹ yeofil∞ efiw ÑIerosÒluma metå grammãtvn ka‹ xrhmãtvn éfyon¤aw prÚw tÚn fer≈numon Makãrion, tÚn t∞w Afil¤aw §p¤skopon, §p‹ énazhtÆsei toË §ndÒjou 5 stauroË ka‹ ofikodomª t«n èg¤vn tÒpvn, aÈt∞w afithsam°nhw t∞w basil¤dow, faskoÊshw Ùptas¤an tinå ye¤an •vrak°nai, keleÊousan aÈtª tå ÑIerosÒluma katalabe›n ka‹ toÁw èg¤ouw tÒpouw efiw f«w égage›n xvsy°ntaw ÍpÚ t«n énÒmvn ka‹ éfane›w genÒmenouw, §p‹ tosoÊtouw xrÒnouw. MayΔn d¢ ı §p¤skopow 10 éfikom°nhn tØn basil¤da, sunagagΔn toÁw t∞w §parx¤aw §p¤skopouw metå t∞w deoÊshw tim∞w épÆnthsen aÈtª. EÈy°vw d¢ parek°leuse to›w §piskÒpoiw tØn zÆthsin toË poyoum°nou jÊlou poiÆsasyai. ÉAporoÊntvn d¢ pãntvn per‹ toË tÒpou ka‹ êllvn êllvw §j Ípoc¤aw dihgoum°nvn, ı t∞w pÒlevw §p¤skopow pãntaw 15 parekãlei ≤sux¤an êgein ka‹ spoudaiÒteron eÈxØn Íp¢r toÊtou

1. Metå] d¢ add. VGH | ép°steilen] ép°stilen M aneteilen T | tØn] om. BuGr | •autoË] aÈtoË V || 2. tØn éji°painon ka‹ yeofil∞] om. GH | éji°painon] ajiepenon T | yeofil∞] yeofile› AmT yeofhl∞ M yeÒsepton BN1 || 3. éfyon¤aw] éfyon¤an BN1 | fer≈numon] om. BuGr || 4. tÚn t∞w Afil¤aw §p¤skopon] tÚn t∞w pÒlevw §p¤skopon BN1 ÑIerosolÊmvn MGr tÚn t∞w èg¤ou pÒlevw V || 4-5. toË §ndÒjou stauroË] toË tim¤ou stauroË B toË zvopoioË jÊlou toË §ndÒjou stauroË BN1 BN3P toË zvopoioË jÊlou Gr || 5. aÈt∞w] toËto add. BN1 BN3PGH toË add. T | afithsam°nhw] §thsam°nhw M traithsamenhw T || 6. basil¤dow] basile›dow M ka‹ add. V | faskoÊshw] fãskousan M | tinå] om. AmBuGr post ye¤an trsp. BN1BN3 | •vrak°nai] •orakenai M || 7. aÈtª] aÈtØn AmGH | katalabe›n] katå labe›n BN1 || 8. xvsy°ntaw] xosy°ntaw M | énÒmvn] paranÒmvn M nom«n T || 9. genÒmenouw] genãmenouw M | §p‹ tosoÊtouw xrÒnouw] §p‹ tosoÊtou xrÒnou GH || 10. éfikom°nhn] éfhkom°nhn BLT BN3 | basil¤da] basile¤da M || 10-11. sunagagΔn toÁw t∞w §parx¤aw §p¤skopouw] sÁn t∞w §parx¤aw §piskÒpoiw Gr | §parx¤aw] §parxe¤aw TV || 11. metå t∞w deoÊshw tim∞w] om. Gr | épÆnthsen] épÆnthsan M épÆnthse Gr ÍpÆnthsen GH | aÈtª] tª basil¤di BuBN1VGr | EÈy°vw] Euyeow T || 12. parek°leuse] parek°leusen B parekeleÊsato BuBN1Gr pareskeÊasen MT pareskeÊase V | to›w §piskÒpoiw] toÁw §piskÒpouw BVGH | poyoum°nou] pepoyhm°nou BN1 poyeinoË GH || 13. poiÆsasyai] §p°trecen add. BN1 | toË tÒpou] toÊtou GH || 13-14. êllvn êllvw] êllon êllo B êllou êllow M êllou êllo PTV êllou êlla GH | êllvn êllvw §j Ípoc¤aw] êllow éllaxØ ÍpÚ c¤aw BN1 || 14. dihgoum°nvn] dihgoum°nou GH | pÒlevw] pÒleow M || 15. parekãlei] para¤nh M | êgein] aghn T | spoudaiÒteron] spoudaivt°rvn B spoudeot°ran BN3MPTV spoudaiot°ran GH ||

26

JOHN W. NESBITT

t“ Ye“ prosf°rein. ToÊtou d¢ genom°nou eÈy°vw §de¤xyh yeÒyen ı tÒpow t“ §pikÒpƒ, §n ⁄ Âdruto t∞w ékayãrtou da¤monow ı naÚw ka‹ tÚ êgalma. TÒte ≤ bas¤lissa tª basilikª aÈyent¤& xrvm°nh, sunagagoËsa pl∞yow polÁ texnit«n ka‹ §rgat«n §k°leusen §k 20 bãyrvn énatrap∞nai tÚ musarÚn ofikodÒmhma ka‹ tÚn xoËn pÒrrv pou éporrif∞nai. ToÊtou d¢ genom°nou, énefãnh tÚ ye›on mn∞ma ka‹ ı tÒpow toË Kran¤ou ka‹ oÈ mÆkoyen tre›w stauro‹ kexvsm°noi. ÉEpimel«w d¢ §reunÆsantew eron ka‹ toÁw ¥louw. ÉEke›yen loipÚn émhxan¤a ka‹ yl¤ciw kat°labe tØn bas¤lissan, 25 §pizhtoËsan po›ow êra e‡h ı DespotikÚw staurÒw. ÑO d¢ §p¤skopow diå p¤stevw tØn diãkrisin ¶lusen. Gunaik‹ går érrvstoÊs˙ t«n §mfan«n ka‹ épegnvsm°n˙ ÍpÚ pãntvn ka‹ tå teleuta›a pneuoÊs˙ prosagagΔn •kãteron t«n staur«n, tÚn zhtoÊmenon eren: mÒnon går ≥ggisen ≤ skiå toË svthr¤ou stauroË tª 30 ésyenoÊs˙, eÈyÁw ≤ êpnouw ka‹ ék¤nhtow ye¤& dunãmei

16. prosf°rein] prÚw f°rein BN1 | genom°nou] genam°nou MT | eÈy°vw] om. MV || 1617. ı tÒpow] ante yeÒyen trsp. GH post §piskÒpƒ trsp. BN1MV || 17. t“ §pikÒpƒ] t«n §piskÒpvn M | Âdruto] ∏druto BL ¥druto BN3 | da¤monow] ÉAfrod¤thw add. VGH || 18. bas¤lissa] bas¤leissa M | basilikª] basileike› M basilhkh T | aÈyent¤&] aÈyente¤& AmBBN1 | xrvm°nh] maxom°nh P || 19. pl∞yow] pliyow T | polÁ] poll«n BuGr t«n add. M | texnit«n] te add. Am texnhtvn T || 20. énatrap∞nai] katå straf∞nai BN1 anatrapinai T énaskaf∞nai V || 20-21. tÚ musarÚn-éporrif∞nai] tÚn t∞w da¤monow naÚn Gr | musarÚn] mussarÚn V | ofikodÒmhma] ”kodÒmhma BN1 || 21. pou] poË BMBN1 | éporrif∞nai] épÚ rifÆnai BN1 ka‹ add. BBuBN3Gr | d¢] om. AmGr | genom°nou] genam°nou TGH | ye›on] ye›oon BN3 || 22. oÈ] mØ BuGr | mÆkoyen] mÆkon M || 23. kexvsm°noi] kexosm°noi M kaixvsmenoi T §xvsm°noi GH | ÉEpimel«w] §pimelow T §p‹ mel«w BN1 | §reunÆsantew] diereunÆsantew GH | eron] hron BMT | ¥louw] ilouw T || 24. §ke›yen] PrÚw oÂw BN1V | loipÚn] om. AmB post émhxan¤a trsp. BN1 | émhxan¤a] pollØ add. GH | kat°labe] kat°laben B BN1MT | bas¤lissan] basil¤da BuMGr bas¤lleissan M | êra e‡h] ín e‡h AmB BN1 ara hei T | e‡h] ∑n BuBN3Gr || 25. DespotikÚw] basilikÚw Am || 26. diå] metå GH | diãkrisin] émfibol¤an BuGr diãfisin V | ¶lusen] ¶luse AmBuBN3LTGr | Gunaik‹] GunaikØ T | érrvstoÊsª] arrvstousi T || 27. §mfan«n] §pifan«n AmBuGrGH | épegnvsm°n˙] apegnvsmen˙ T | teleuta›a] teleutea T || 28. prosagagΔn] prÚw agagΔn BN1 | •kãteron] ßkaston Bu V Gr •kãtervn M | t«n staur«n] tÚn staurÚn M | staur«n] staurÒn P | tÚn] tÚ BN3PVGH || 29. eren] ere AmBN3PGH hren MT | mÒnon] …w add. BuGr | går] post ≥ggisen trsp. BuGr | ≥ggisen] ≥ggise BuGr | stauroË] om. BuGr || 30. ésyenoÊs˙] yanoÊs˙ BuGr | eÈyÁw] eÈy°vw BN1MTV om. BuGr | dunãmei] =vsye›sa add. M ||

DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS

27

paraxr∞ma énepÆdhse megãl˙ tª f≈n˙ bo«sa ka‹ dojãzousa tÚn YeÒn. ÑH d¢ bas¤lissa ÑEl°nh metå xarçw megãlhw ka‹ fÒbou énelom°nh tÚn zvopoiÚn staurÒn, m°row m°ntoi sÁn to›w ¥loiw énekÒmise prÚw tÚn pa›da: tÚ d¢ loipÚn glvssÒkomon érguroËn 35 poiÆsasa, par°dvke t“ §piskÒpƒ t∞w pÒlevw efiw mnhmÒsunon pãsaiw genea›w. Ka‹ yesp¤sasa §kklhs¤aw gen°syai §n t“ zvopoi“ mnÆmati ka‹ §n t“ èg¤ƒ Golgoyò ka‹ §n tª Bhyle¢m §n t“ sphla¤ƒ, ¶nya ı KÊriow ≤m«n ÉIhsoËw XristÚw tØn katå sãrka g°nnhsin Íp°meine, ka‹ §n t“ ˆrei t«n ÑElai«n ¶nya ı KÊriow eÈlogÆsaw toÁw 40 mayhtåw énelÆfyh. Ka‹ êlla pollå poiÆsasa §n ÑIerosolÊmoiw én°strece prÚw tÚn pa›da. ÑO d¢ metå xarçw aÈtØn Ípodejãmenow, tØn m¢n toË tim¤ou stauroË mer¤da §n xrusª yÆkh époy°menow par°dvke t“ §piskÒpƒ efiw tÆrhsin, §niausia¤saiw mnÆmaiw •ortãzein tØn énãdeijin toË stauroË prostãjaw. T«n d¢ ¥lvn 45 toÁw m¢n efiw tØn fid¤an perikefala¤an énexãlkeuse, toÁw d¢ én°mije t“ salibar¤ƒ toË ·ppou aÈtoË, ·na plhrvyª tÚ =hy¢n ÍpÚ toË Kur¤ou diå toË profÆtou l°gontow ÑEn tª ≤m°r& §ke¤n˙ ¶stai tÚ §p‹ tÚn xalinÚn toË ·ppou ëgion t“ kur¤ƒ Pantokrãtori (Zacharias 14: 20).

31. paraxr∞ma énepÆdhse] énepÆdhsen paraxr∞ma BN1V | énepÆdhse] énepÆdhsen BMP anephdeisen T | tª] ti T om. GH | bo«sa ka‹] om. AmBuGr | ka‹] om. B || 32. bas¤lissa] bas¤leissa M | ÑEl°nh] om. BuGr | megãlhw] om. Am Bu || 33. énelom°nh] énelvm°nh M | zvopoiÚn] om. GH | m°ntoi] m°n ti AmV men ti T menti BN1 BN3 | ¥loiw] hluw T || 34. énekÒmise] énekÒmhsen BM anekomisen T énekom¤sato GH | tÚ d¢ loipÒn] t“ d¢ loip“ Am tv d¢ lupon T | érguroËn] érgÊreon Am BN1MV érgurÚn BLT | par°dvke] par°dvken BBN1T par°doken M || 36. pãsaiw] ta›w add. AmM | §kklhs¤an] §kklhs¤aw BN1 || 37. t“] to T | Golgoyò] Golgoyã M | tª] èg¤& add. BN1 | Bhyle¢m] Biyle¢m MT | §n t“ sphla¤ƒ] en to sphlev V om. BuGr || 38. ≤m«n ÉIhsoËw XristÚw] om. BuGr || 39. Íp°meine] Íp°meinen B BN1

BN3MPV upeminen T | §t°xyh BuGr | ˆrei] ˆri M | ÑElai«n] Ele«n T || 40. énelÆfyh] énele¤fyh B | pollå] ple›sta A | pollå kalå] katory≈mata BN1 | §n ÑIerosolÊmoiw] om. BuVGr || 41. én°strece] én°strecen BMTV | tÚn] •aut∞w add. B | Ípodejãmenow] épodejãmenow BN1 || 42. §n] om. GH | époy°menow] yemenow T || 43. par°dvke] par°dvken BBN1MV | §niausia¤saiw] §niausia›sew (corr.: §niausia›aiw) B §niausi°aiw BN3L eneausieaiw T | mnÆmaiw] mnhmew T || 44. énãdeijin] anadijin T || 45. perikefala¤an] per‹ kefala¤an BN1 perikefalhan T | énexãlkeuse] §xãlkeuse AmBGH énexãlkeusen BN1 MPV exalkeusen T | én°mije] én°mijen BBN1 MTV || 46. salibar¤ƒ] silibariv T xalin“ V salbar¤ƒ GH || 46-47. =hy¢n-profÆtou] ÍpÚ toË profÆtou Zaxar¤ou diå toË Kur¤ou GH || 47. ÑEn tª ≤m°r& §ke¤n˙] om. T | §p‹] ÍpÚ M || 48. tÚn] om. BuGr | tÚn xalinÚn] tÚn xalin«n M t“ xalin“ GH | Pantokrãtori] Pantokrãtvri BM

28

JOHN W. NESBITT

TRANSLATION Afterwards the emperor [Constantine] despatched his praiseworthy and God-beloved mother Helena to Jerusalem with letters and money in abundance for the bishop of Ailia, by name Makarios, in order to search for the glorious cross and erect buildings upon the holy sites, the empress herself having made the request, asserting that some divine vision appeared, commanding her to go to Jerusalem and to bring to light the holy places buried by the impious and become hidden from sight, up to her own day. The bishop, learning of the coming of the empress, assembling the bishops of his province, met her with due honor. At once she ordered the bishops to make a search for the longed-for wood. Since all were at a loss concerning the place [of its burial] and from feelings of uneasiness began describing an array of different things, the bishop of the city ordered all to affect silence and in earnest offer prayer to God on behalf of this. Upon doing so the place by the will of God was revealed to the bishop, in which was situated a temple and cult statue of the unclean daimon. Then the empress, using imperial authority, gathering together a very great quantity of builders and workers, ordered the foul building to be overthrown to its foundations and to cast away the dust far off from there. Upon this being done, there came to light the divine monument and the place of Golgotha and not far off three buried crosses. Diligently searching they also found the nails. From whence therefore despair and anxiety gripped the empress, who demanded which was the cross of the Lord. The bishop through faith resolved the problem. For there was a woman (one of the leading citizens) in ill-health and all despaired of her chances. And while she was breathing her last [the bishop], bringing each of the crosses, found the answer. For it required only the shadow of the salvific cross to approach the sickly woman for the motionless and limp patient at once through divine power to jump up, crying with a great voice and glorifying God. Empress Helena with great joy and fear having taken up the lifegiving cross carried off a portion with the nails for her son. She had made for the remainder a silver casket that she gave to the bishop of the city for a remembrance to all generations. And she decreed that churches be built in the form of lifegiving remembrances on Holy Golgotha and in Bethlehem in the cave where our lord Jesus Christ submitted to a birth according to the flesh, and on the Mount of Olives where the Lord upon blessing his disciples ascended. And so after doing many other good things in Jerusalem she returned to her son. Having received her with joy, he placed the piece of the precious cross in a

DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS

29

gold box; this he gave to the bishop for safekeeping, decreeing that the appearance of the cross be celebrated with annual commemorations. Some of the nails he had forged for his helmet, whereas others he had added as studs to his horse bridle, in order that he might fulfill what was said by the Lord through his prophet, to wit “On that day shall there be holiness upon the horse bridle unto the all-powerful Lord” (Zachariah 14: 20). Before we can set this text into an historical context, we must first try to fix the date at which Alexander the Monk was active.6 We begin by noting that Alexander the Monk may have authored two extant texts: the Historical Treatise and an Encomium of the Apostle Barnabas. The editor of the latter work, Peter van Deun, observes that in the manuscripts the text “is attributed to a certain Alexander, monk at the monastery of St. Barnabas near Salamis.”7 It was written at the urging of the priest and “keeper-of-the-keys” of the saint’s sanctuary and was read out in the presence of the metropolitan of Salamis. In van Deun’s opinion, based upon internal references, the Encomium was written sometime about the middle of the sixth century.8 The Encomium is relatively easy to date, the Treatise is difficult to date. And so one would like to use the Encomium to date the Treatise, but one may do so only if there is compelling evidence that the two texts derive from the hand of the same author. Such a pre-condition is lacking, but it is nonetheless worthwhile to note one parallel. I do not refer to the obvious fact that both works detail the invention of relics: the Encomium with the invention of the remains of St. Barnabas during the reign of Zeno (474-491) and the Treatise with the discovery of the wood and nails of the cross during the reign of Constantine the Great. I am alluding to opening statements. In the introduction to the Encomium, the author, Alexander the Monk, observes that the priest who asked him to write the Encomium was the scion of a well-educated family. In contrast Alexander is of very humble origins (“the poorest of men”) and must balance his want of education against the proposal that he compose a panegyric of Barnabas. For this reason he has been inclined to request exemption from obedience, “shrinking from this duty.” He asks, rhetorically, “How can such a sorry wretch as I, drowned by countless afflictions, swim across the apostolic sea?”9 Let us now compare these statements with the proem of the 6 For a discussion of the various dates proposed for Alexander’s career see the Introduction to Peter van Deun’s edition of Laudatio Barnabae apostoli 16. 7 Laudatio Barnabae apostoli 15. 8 Laudatio Barnabae apostoli 21. 9 In my opinion the phrase, which I have translated as “by countless afflictions” (ÑÍpÚ mur¤vn pay«n), is to be understand in the sense of “countless illnesses”.

30

JOHN W. NESBITT

Treatise. As in the case of the Encomium, the writer has received a request from an ecclesiastical superior to write a composition, in this case an historical essay on the finding of the life-giving cross. Upon receipt of the request the author “was exceedingly agitated...I shrank from the undertaking as it is way beyond my ability; such a work is better realized through others than through me. For we do not possess the educational grounding and lack experience of such pursuits from our training. Truthfully we are ignorant not only in language but also in knowledge on account of the lengthy hold on us of diseases (pay«n).” Although Byzantine authors were fond of self-deprecation, it seems to me that the similarity of phraseology in the two introductory statements is too close to be a matter of coincidence and may be an indication that the author of the Encomium and the author of the Treatise were one and the same person. I am suggesting that, like Mozart, Alexander the Monk plagiarized himself. It is doubtful that someone else plagiarized him, for who would want to appear as an ignorant hypochondriac? Are there any references in the Treatise which either support or contradict a sixth-century date? As Father M. van Esbroeck has pointed out, one finds a terminus post quem in a passage where the author castigates Origen in terms which reproduce virtually word for word the first of fifteen anathemas pronounced against Origen slightly before the council of 553 concerning belief in the pre-existence of souls.10 In all honesty, one can not point to another passage and say that here is the terminus ante quem. In order to establish an upper date one needs to begin by examining the whole of the text which Gretser printed and determining which parts are to be attributed to Alexander’s pen. In his Introduction the author states that it is his intention “to compose a historical narrative on the finding of the life-giving cross, the all-holy and all-revered cross on which our lord Jesus Christ allowed himself to be stretched out, whereby he destroyed the power of the devil and the tyranny of death and bestowed on those believing in Him unknowable salvation.” I accept the

10 Esbroeck (1979) 107. The text of the anathema, published by Diekamp (1899) 90, reads: E‡ tiw tØn muy≈dh proÊparjin t«n cux«n ka‹ tØn taÊt˙ •pom°nhn terat≈dh épokatãstasin presbeÊei, énãyema ¶stv. The text of the Treatise, as published by Gretser (4020A), reads: ....mani≈dhw ÉVrig°nhw §blasfÆmhsen oÈsi≈dh tinå proÊparjin cux«n ka‹ tØn taÊt˙ •pom°nhn terat≈dh épokatãstasin gravd«w... A number of manuscripts have, instead of oÈsi≈dh, muy≈dh. Cf. Cyril of Scythopolis’s Life of Euthymios (E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis [Leipzig: 1939] 39-40: diemãxeto genna¤vw tØn parÉ aÈto›w muyeuom°nhn t«n no«n proÊparjin ka‹ tØn taÊt˙ •pom°nhn terat≈dh épokatãstasin diasÊrvn panto¤vw én°trepen). Price (1991) 36 has translated this section, which deals with Cyril’s struggles with a group of Origenists in the region of Caesarea, as follows: “he [Cyril] combated courageously their myth of a preexistence of minds, he completely refuted, and with ridicule, the consequent monstrosity of a general restoration.”

DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS

31

author at his word and therefore reject the notion that he copied out and appended to his composition Cyril of Jerusalem’s letter to Constantius about the appearance of the cross over Jerusalem. Alexander was not concerned with the post-Constantinian history of the cross and indeed the opening lines of Cyril’s narration (at 3.1-4) totally contradict portions of Alexander’s story of Helena’s adventures in Jerusalem. The relevant section of Cyril’s letter reads as follows: ÉEp‹ m¢n går toË yeofilestãtou ka‹ t∞w makar¤aw mnÆmhw Kvnstant¤nou toË soË patrÚw, tÚ svtÆrion toË stauroË jÊlon §n ÑIerosolÊmoiw hÏrhtai, t∞w ye¤aw xãritow t“ kal«w zhtoËnti tØn eÈs°beian t«n épokekrumm°nvn èg¤vn tÒpvn parasxoÊshw tØn eÏresin: “For...in the days of your Imperial Father, Constantine of blessed memory, the saving wood of the cross was found in Jerusalem (divine grace granting the finding of the long hidden holy places to the one who nobly aspired to piety)....”11 In Cyril’s account, there is no mention of the identity of the person who found the cross, but it is specified that the person who discovered “the long hidden holy places” was a man. Additionally, Alexander was not a mere copyist. He was an historian. He was not a great historian, but he told his story in his own way and for this reason I submit that Cyril’s letter represents nothing more than a later addition to Alexander’s original text. The same, I think, can be said of the concluding portion of the text which Gretser printed, the Encomium of the Cross. The author does not say in his opening statement that he includes an Encomium and, again, if we take the author at his word, we must assume that Alexander’s Treatise properly ends with Constantine’s death. As in the case of Cyril’s letter, the Encomium is a later addition and I submit that what Gretser’s text represents (the Treatise, the Letter, and the Encomium) is a festal dossier. At some date, a cleric or monk brought the three pieces together in order to have available a small library of pertinent sources for quotation in sermons delivered on the feastday of the Elevation of the Cross and the feastday of Saints Constantine and Helen.12 In sum, the Encomium plays no role in the task of determining the date at which Alexander was active. To fix the date of Alexander’s text we must rely solely on the materials which extend from the Introduction to Constantine’s demise. 11 I quote here, with minor modifications, the translation of McCauley and Stephenson (1970) 232. For the Greek text see Bihain (1973) 287. 12 A. Kazhdan (1987) 229 has written: “Were we to assume that Alexander the Monk wrote around 800...his opuscule would be a natural culmination of...interest in the cross...his panegyric of the life-giving cross and of its cosmic ubiquity...matches well the trends of this time.” Were we to assume that Alexander wrote the Encomium of the Cross, one would have reasonable grounds for advancing a date of circa 800. Without it the best evidence for a ninth-century date of composition falls away. On the other hand its presence suggests that the period when the festal dossier was compiled might be as early as circa 800.

32

JOHN W. NESBITT

Within these confines, does the author develop topics which better reflect a sixth-century milieu than a later one? I would say most emphatically “yes”. There is nothing in this text which involves arguments for or against Iconoclasm. There is nothing which leads one to suspect that the Arabs have seized the Christian East. On the contrary, there is good reason to believe that the author lived in a period before the rise of Islam. Alexander’s overall theme is Salvation and accordingly some of the specific topics which he takes up are of a theological bent; but since he is writing an historical treatise, the main focus is on historical events, particularly events which unfolded in the Holy Land. “For us and for our Salvation Christ made the heavens slope and he descended...and dwelling in the womb of the holy, glorious and ever-virgin Mary...the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”13 The author then commences to narrate the events of Christ’s life on earth: His birth in Bethlehem, the journey of the Magi, the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt, the return to Nazareth, and Christ’s baptism by John.14 Passing over Christ’s miracles the narrator proceeds directly to the crucifixion. “For our Lord Jesus Christ willingly suffered for us, true God and true man, there being two natures in Him, admitting of no separation or division. For on the cross and in the grave the economy of the two natures remained undivided, in which is known our one and only Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word of the living god.”15 He further states that “the Lord died truthfully for us and he was crucified in the flesh, and not make-believe....”16 The author interweaves into his account of biblical history events of a political order. He alludes to Pompey the Great and discusses the careers of two members of the Hasmonean Dynasty: Aristobolus II, and Hyrcanus II. He speaks of Antipater, Herod the Great, Archelaus and Cleopatra. Although Alexander’s discussion of theology and history is admittedly banal, it nonethless allows us to form an idea of the author’s intention and audience. His readers (or listeners) are, I suggest, humble pilgrims. For their sake the author has incorporated into his Treatise materials which provide a brief regarding the history of Palestine and the theology of the crucifixion. In this manner he supplies the background necessary for a full appreciation of the holy sites at Jerusalem. If this view is correct, then it would seem to me quite reasonable to propose as terminus ante quem the occupation of the Holy Land

Gr 4025C.30-35 (and John 1: 14). Gr 4032B-4033B. 15 Gr 4034D. 16 Here at Gr 4036B.13-14 I have read the Greek somewhat differently. The passage seems to depend on Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechesis XIII.37. 13 14

DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS

33

by the Persians and Arabs during the reign of Heraclius (610-641), a conclusion which accords quite well with the dates proposed for the composition of the Encomium of Barnabas. Let us now conclude by examining in some detail Alexander’s narrative regarding Helena’s finding of the cross. The purpose here is to compare Alexander’s narration with prior accounts, to see in what ways it is similar or varies and, following that, to suggest what purpose Alexander had in mind in writing his specific version of Helena’s invention. We shall proceed with the first task by summarizing each section of the Treatise’s version and listing within the section the versions of earlier writers regarding the same events. SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPETUS FOR FINDING THE CROSS. Alexander the Monk: Constantine and Helena share joint responsiblity for initiative. Constantine sends his mother to Jerusalem to identify the location of the cross and build churches; Helena is inspired to the same task by a divine vision. V(ita) C(onstantini): Constantine orders the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Helena visits the Holy Land and initiates construction of various churches. No mention of cross.17 Ambrose of Milan: Helena goes to Jerusalem and visits. The Spirit inspires her to search for the wood of the cross.18 Gelasius of Caesarea (reconstruction): (Spurred by divine visions), Helena travels to Jerusalem (“in order to lay hold of the holy places and seek out the venerable wood of the Cross”).19 Rufinus: “Helena...was alerted by divine visions and traveled to Jerusalem (divinis admonita visionibus, Hierusolyma petit).”20 Socrates: Helena, summoned by dreams, goes off to Jerusalem.21 Theodoret: Helena, now aged, travels to Jerusalem with letters for Bishop Makarios from Constantine.22 In these letters Constantine 17 Eusebius, De vita Constantini at III.25 and at III.42-3. See the translation and remarks of Cameron and Hall (1999) 132, 137, 291-292. 18 For Ambrose’s account, see his De obitu Theodosii, cap. 40-51. 19 Under the rubric Gelasius of Caesarea I either paraphrase or directly quote Borgehammar’s own paraphrase of Gelasius’s narration, as set forth on pages 54-55. The parentheses are Borgehammar’s (see Borgehammar, 53) and indicate places “which may derive from Gelasius, but are poorly attested ....” Borgehammar’s reconstruction rests on Rufinus’s Church History, Socrates’s Church History, Gelasius of Cyzicus’s Church History, and Theodoret’s Church History. 20 The translation is from Amidon (1997) 16. We have quoted Amidon’s translations throughout. For the text see Rufinus, p. 969.13-14. 21 Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, p. 55.13-14. 22 Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, p. 63.20-21.

34

JOHN W. NESBITT

directs Makarios to clear the area of Christ’s tomb and to erect on the spot a church. SECTION 2. THE INQUIRY. Alexander the Monk: Helena, met by Makarios, orders the bishops to search for the wood. Gelasius of Caesarea (reconstruction): Helena inquires of inhabitants of the town where Christ was crucified. Rufinus: “[Helena] traveled to Jerusalem, where she asked the inhabitants where the place was where the sacred body of Christ had hung fastened to the gibbet (atque ibi locum, in quo sacrosanctum corpus Christi patibulo adfixum pependerat, ab incolis perquirit).”23 Socrates: Helena searches zealously for the tomb of Christ, where buried, he arose.24 SECTION 3. THE DISCOVERY. Alexander the Monk: God reveals the place to dig, an area where there was situated a pagan temple and cult statue. She gathers workmen and they clear the site. Three crosses are found and the nails. No mention of the titulus. Ambrose: Helena goes to Golgotha and has the ground opened where three gibbets are found, the nails and the titulus. Gelasius of Caesarea (reconstruction): the location is revealed, a place where there was a statue of Venus; workmen topple “the polluted structures” and, upon excavating, bring to light three crosses. Rufinus: the location is “indicated to her by a sign from heaven (locum caelisti sibi indicio designatum)”; beneath a statue of Venus set there (simulcrum in eo Veneris fuerat defixum) are uncovered, in a jumble, three crosses and the titulus.25 Socrates: those opposed to Christianity had covered with earth the site of Christ’s passion and established a temple there with a cult statue. The situation becomes clear to Helena. She has the statue toppled and the earth cleared. The cross is uncovered in the tomb, along with the crosses of the two thieves, and the titulus composed by Pilate.26 Theodoret: “When [Helena] saw the area where the passion had occurred, she immediately commanded that the abominable temple be knocked down and the statue be carted off”.27 23 24 25 26 27

Rufinus, p. 969.14-15. Amidon (1997) 16. Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, p. 55.15-16. Rufinus, p. 969.16-22. Amidon (1997) 16. Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, p. 55.18-21; and p. 56.1-7. Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, p. 64.3-6.

DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS

35

SECTION 4. THE CONUNDRUM AND THE SOLUTION. Alexander the Monk: confronted by three crosses Helena wonders which cross was the one on which Christ was crucified. Makarios solves the problem. He approachesa lady of rank who is close to death. It requires only the shadow of one (the true) cross to fall near the woman and at once she is cured (see Acts 5: 15: the sick await Peter, hoping that at the least his shadow will fall upon them). Ambrose: the identity of the true cross is guaranteed by the presence of the titulus attached to it. Gelasius of Caesarea (reconstruction): With the empress, Makarios visits a noble lady who is gravely ill. He brings all three crosses. He prays and then touches the woman in vain with two crosses. As soon as the shadow of the third draws near she is cured. Rufinus: the titulus is of no help. Accompanied by the empress, Makarios, bringing along all three crosses, visits a woman of distinguished position who is near death. He touches her with all three crosses, but only the true cross cures her. Socrates: the titulus plays no role. Makarios seeks a sign from God and God sends one. “And the sign was such”. A certain woman of the district was near death. Makarios arranges that she receive the touch of all three crosses. When touched by the first two she shows no improvement but when she receives the touch of the third cross, she is healed.28 Theodoret: confusion reigns over the identity of the true cross. Makarios solves the problem. He has a woman who is near death touched by the three crosses: it requires only the approach of the true cross and the lady is cured.29 SECTION 5: AFTERMATH. THE CROSS FRAGMENTS AND THE NAILS. Alexander the Monk: Helena reserves a portion of the true cross and the nails for Constantine. She has a silver casket made for the remainder and gives it to Makarios. She has churches built on Golgotha, in Bethlehem, and on Olivet. Constantine places the piece of cross in a gold box and gives the box to the bishop, ordering the day of the cross’s discovery to be annually commemorated. Some of the nails are added to his helmet and others to his bridle. Ambrose: Helena finds the nails: from one she has made a bridle and from the other a diadem. 28 29

Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, p. 56.10-18. Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, p. 64.12-17.

36

JOHN W. NESBITT

Gelasius of Caesarea (reconstruction): Helena builds a church at the findspot of the cross. She searches for the nails and finding them she has several inserted into Constantine’s helmet, and others are smelted and mixed with metal of his bridle. She returns with a portion of the cross for Constantine, but leaves behind the remainder, which is placed in a silver casket and given to Makarios. Rufinus: Helena has a church built at the site of the discovery of the cross. The nails still adhered and these she brought to Constantine. From some he has made a bridle and with othershe outfitted himself with a helmet. “As for the healing wood itself, part of it she presented to her son, and part she put in silver reliquaries and left in the place; it is still kept there as a memorial with unflagging devotion (ligni vero ipsius salutaris partem detulit filio, partem vero thecis argenteis conditam dereliquit in loco, quae etiam nunc ad memoriam sollicita veneratione servatur).”30 Socrates: “The mother of the emperor had a splendid house of prayer built on the site of the sepulchre (called “New Jerusalem”).... She left behind there a portion of the cross enclosed in a silver casket (yÆk˙ érgurò) as a memorial for those wishing to observe [it] (to›w flstore›n boulom°noiw), the remainder she despatched to the emperor.” Helena also finds the nails and sends them to Constantine. He has them fashioned into bridlebits (plural: xalinoÊw) and a helmet. Helena has other churches built: one at Bethlehem and another on the mount of the ascension.31 Theodoret: mention of the nails and their disposition. Helena has some nails placed in the imperial helmet; the remainder she had made into a horse bridle in order to fulfill the ancient prophecy of Zacharias. She has a portion of the cross sent on to Constantinople and the rest placed in a silver casket which is given to the bishop of the city, requesting that he watch over these “memorials of salvation”. She has churches of great workmanship constructed.32 The invention of the cross involves three different traditions. We have been following only one, and so before we proceed, we might take a moment and reflect upon the other two. As Drijvers observes, the beginning of the fifth century saw the emergence of two new versions of the finding of the cross. Both are of Syrian origin and are reworkings of the

30 31 32

Rufinus, p. 970.24-25. Amidon (1997) 17. Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, p. 56.19-23, p. 57.1-15. Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, p. 64.18-23, p. 65.1-9.

DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS

37

older Helena version.33 One is the “Protonike” legend: a story in which the central character, Protonike, said to be the wife of emperor Claudius (41-54), converts to Christianity and visits Jerusalem where she discovers the true cross in the sepulchre, hands it over to James, and builds a church over the tomb. This version was known at first only in Syriac, then later in Armenian. The second is the“Judas Cyriacus” legend: a version in which Helena goes to Jerusalem and orders an assembly of the Jews. Among them is a certain Judas who is brought before her and interrogated. He asks God to show him the place where the cross is buried. God gives him a sign and he uncovers three crosses, one of which restores a dead man. Helena provides the cross with a mount and encases it in a casket. She builds a church on Golgotha and Judas converts. Judas, now Cyriacus, finds the nails for her; she has bridles made from them. This retelling, popular in the Middle Ages because of its antiJewish flavor, was read in many languages, the earliest versions of which are in Syriac, Greek, and Latin.34 The fifth-century Byzantine historian, Sozomen, knew of the Judas Cyriacus legend: “Some say that a certain Hebrew who lived in the East had prior knowledge [of the location of the cross] from paternal records....”35 Sozomen rejects the legend, declaring it more likely that divine matters are revealed through “signs and dreams”, than through records of the past. We may reasonably assume that Alexander the Monk had knowledge of this legend. Borgehammar has observed that two unusual words are to be found in Alexander’s text: a) glvssÒkomon (the silver casket in which Helena has the cross encased); and b) salibãrion (the bridle fashioned from the nails of the cross). Both these words are found in a Greek manuscript of Sinai relating the legend of Judas Cyriacus.36 Like Sozomen, Alexander rejected the Judas Cyriacus tradition. It is not difficult to understand why: one of his objectives is to give full and sole credit for the discovery of the cross to Constantine and his mother. We see this in the way Alexander has crafted his narration. In the Introduction he has Constantine send his mother to Makarios with letters

J. W. Drijvers (1992) 147. For the latest edition in Syriac of the Judas Cyriacus legend and translation into English, see Drijvers and Drijvers (1997). Recently Feiertag (2000) has affirmed the Syrian origin (Antioch?) of the Judas Cyriacus legend, based upon its anti-Jewish elements. 35 Sozomenus, Kirchengeschichte, p. 48.5-9. Sozomen wrote about the middle of the 5th century. He relied on Rufinus’s Church History and for this reason we have not listed his work in the summaries above. 36 Borgehammar (1991) 24 and note 56. For the Greek text see E. Nestle (1895) p. 330.18 and p. 331.17. The word salibãrion also occurs in Romanos the Melode’s Cantica, Hymn 39, section 22, line 5. 33 34

38

JOHN W. NESBITT

and money for the purpose of uncovering the cross and erecting churches on holy places. Alexander has borrowed the phrase “with letters” (metå grammãtvn [Alexander]; ToÊtoiw grãmmasin [Theodoret]) from Theodoret (p. 63.20), as well as the notion of Constantine’s participation in the cross’s discovery. The latter states that Constantine had a letter composed in which he directs Makarios to clear the area where Christ was entombed and to build on the site a church. In a second letter he speaks of the financial arrangements for the construction. In other words, Constantine knows where Christ’s tomb is located and hence, by implication, where the cross is to be found. All that is required is for Helena to go to Jerusalem and seek it. On the other hand, there was a strong tradition, beginning with Ambrose (395), that Helena, aroused to action by dreams, traveled to Jerusalem on her own initiative. To accommodate this version, Alexander simply grafted it on (though awkwardly) to his initial statement: “the queen herself, having made the request, asserting that some divine vision appeared, commanding her to go to Jerusalem....” From this point until almost the very end, Helena occupies center stage. She finds and identifies the cross and is reponsible for the building of churches on Golgotha, in Bethlehem, and on Olivet. Constantine reappears in an interesting context. Helena returns to her son and Constantinople bearing a piece of the true cross. Upon placing it in a gold box and giving the relic to the bishop of the city, Constantine decrees that the appearance of the cross be celebrated with annual commemorations. Since the geographical setting of Alexander’s remark is Constantinople, we may reasonably infer that Alexander is attesting that in his own day (the sixth century) the feast of the Cross was being celebrated at the capital. At base Alexander’s Treatise is a work of pilgrimage literature. If anyone doubts the validity of Scriptures—of Christ’s birth, crucifixion, and ascension—they need only visit Jerusalem and its environs. All the important sites connected with the unfolding of salvation are marked by holy structures.37 The cross exists. It was prefigured in the Old Testament. It became hidden after Christ’s death. Pagan rulers came and went. But now, through the efforts of Constantine and Helena, it can be seen, if not touched.38 But the miracle of the infirm woman, related in the various accounts of Helena’s discovery, including Alexander the Monk’s,

37 I briefly touch here on aspects of pilgrimage which have been well and fully exploited by others: see e. g. Hunt (1982) 83-106. 38 In the days of the pilgrim Egeria (381-384), it was possible on Good Friday to approach the cross, observe it directly, and kiss it. See Egeria, p. 137: “Thus all the people go past one by one. They stoop down, touch the holy Wood first with their forehead and then with their eyes, and then kiss it....”

DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS

39

makes it clear that one may expect benefits (a cure of physical affliction?) from “only the shadow of the salvific cross”. Propinquity is sufficient. In concluding I would observe that Alexander’s Treatise differs from previous accounts of Helena’s discovery of the True Cross in length. Nevertheless the Treatise is a coherent example of pilgrim propoganda. It is clearly meant to entice people to undertake a trip to Jerusalem and to explore the sites where the drama of Salvation occurred and where testimony in Gospel accounts can be visually affirmed. In the same visit the infirm might find physical, as well as spiritual, comfort. Since it is pilgrimage-driven, I would say it is reasonable to postulate that the Treatise was written before the reign of Heraclius and the disruptions to pilgrimage traffic which his rule witnessed. Alexander’s emphasis on the joint responsibility of Constantine and Helena for the discovery of the cross raises an interesting possibility about the date of their sainthood. Some thirty years ago Laurent published a seal (poorly known) of the seventh century depicting on the obverse a representation of a saint holding a globus cruciger who is identified on the reverse as St. Constantine.39 The seal indicates that by at least the late seventh century Constantine had become a saint. In my opinion, one of Alexander’s goals was to promote the cult of Saints Constantine and Helena and it was for this reason that he joins the two together and emphasizes their equal credit for the discovery of the cross.

39

Laurent (1972), no. 1922.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FOUR

This page intentionally left blank

ELIAS THE MONK, FRIEND OF PSELLOS George T. Dennis Some years ago Nikos Oikonomides showed me an early fifteenth century Greek text he was preparing for publication, a scurrilous bit of writing, very earthy and very amusing, directed against an individual whose name was downgraded from Katablattas to Skatablattas. Professor Oikonomides believed that, if we are to understand the Byzantine people, we should read more than their religious, literary, or legal writings. We should find out what made them angry and, perhaps more important, what made them laugh. And so, the slanderous little pamphlet was published, together with a French translation and commentary. 1 In the course of our conversation I referred to some letters of Michael Psellos which featured a wandering monk named Elias and which, albeit under a more pedantic veneer, were also very earthy and amusing. He strongly encouraged me to translate and publish them. And that is exactly what I present in these pages, although I regret that it is in a memorial volume rather than a living Festschrift. Of the letters of Psellos presented below, nine mention the monk Elias by name; the tenth portrays an unnamed friend who so resembles the wandering monk that it seems reasonable to include it. Since older editions of the Letters are still available and a new, critical edition is in the first stages of preparation, I have not, with the exception of Letter 10, reprinted the Greek text here. 2 Limitations of space also had to be considered. Still, I have read through the manuscripts again and have made a few, minor changes, to be noted suo loco. Translating these letters, written in the eleventh century of our era but in an idiom dating to fifteen hundred years before that, can be daunting. I think I have more or less correctly rendered his often convoluted thought and expression into presentable English, but I am still uncertain about several passages.3 I have appended some notes to aid the reader in understanding the letters, but I have left a more extended commentary to a future publication of his entire correspondence. In the meantime, though, I think it important, as

Canivet and Oikonomidès (1982-3). About a projected new edition, see Papaioannou (1998). 3 I am indebted to Professors E. Papaioannou and P. Magdalino for their helpful suggestions concerning the translation. 1

2

44

GEORGE T. DENNIS

did Professor Oikonomides, that these few letters be made available to scholars and to everyone interested in the civilization we refer to as Byzantine. The central figure in these letters is a monk, Elias, probably his monastic name. All that we know about him is contained in these letters. His surname seems to have been Kroustalas (Krystalas), which is rare in the extant sources. It is found, coincidentally, as the family name of another monk, John Kroustalas, a popular public reader for whom Psellos has the highest praise, but there is no indication that the two were related.4 In reading any work of Psellos, of course, we must always be aware of his love of hyperbole and his subordination of fact to literary effect. This is obviously the case with his presentation of Elias. Nonetheless, this monk is not a fictitious character. 5 He is clearly a real person for whom Psellos has a great deal of affection and whose company he genuinely enjoys. The letters must be read with that in mind; we must, as it were, stand next to the addresees as they received these letters, presumably, from the hands of Elias himself. Psellos does not name the monastery, if any, in which Elias was tonsured and to which community he belonged. He was, simply put, a wandering monk with no fixed abode, of which there were not a few in Byzantium. He wandered, so these letters tell us, to Syria, through Asia Minor and down into Greece and the Peloponnesos, as well as the streets of Constantinople. The purpose of his journeys, so it seems, was to raise money to support himself, his mother, and a large number of relatives. To assist him Psellos wrote letters of introduction commending him to important personages, particularly several thematic judges. In exchange for a financial contribution, they will, so Psellos assures them, be greatly entertained by this gifted monk, a talented musician, comedian, and mimic with a very broad and diversified repertoire. Psellos cannot resist comparing this Elias with his biblical namesake. 6 The fiery chariot conveyed the prophet to heaven, whereas this Elias cannot get off the ground, so strong are his earthly ties. This Elias does not appear to be running away from some Jezabel and he dines more bountifully than the widow with her oil and barley meal. In fact, he does not seem to be imitating the prophet at all. Moreover, his understanding and practice of the monastic virtues, especially chastity, greatly amuse Psellos and, presumably, those to whom he addressed these letters. It has been pointed out that the prime characteristic of Elias is earthiness and

4 Gautier (1980-82). Psellos also wrote to a protonotary named Elias, but there is no connection with our Elias: Karpozilos (1980). 5 Ljubarskij (1978) 74-79. 6 1 Kings: 17 - 2 Kings: 2.

ELIAS THE MONK

45

he has been called a Rabelaisian monk.7 How much of what Psellos wrote about Elias is based on fact and how much on talk is not clear, but it does make for an interesting and, despite some exaggeration, credible story. Elias, however, was much more than a convivial extrovert and connoisseur of bordellos. Psellos valued his scribal skills; he could write rapidly and beautifully as well as correctly. One would expect him, like all known friends of Psellos, to have been well educated. He could hardly have copied the letters, much less understood them, with their classical allusions and literary affectations, had he not received some education. Still, in Letter 9, Psellos recalls that he employed circumlocutions in dictating the letter so that Elias would not understand what he was saying. The dating of these letters can only be approximate. If Letter 1 was written about 1067 or soon thereafter, we can assert that the monk was well into his wandering career at that time, but that is about all we can assert. More thorough research on all the letters and their addressees is needed before we can propose any dates. Our knowledge of the men to whom these letters were addressed is also limited. Letter 1 is addressed to the judge of Thrakesion. In the eleventh century the chief administrative officer of a theme (province) was the judge, but the extent of his authority is not clear; apparently it was concerned with civilian matters, not military. 8 The judges to whom Psellos wrote were, like himself, well educated members of the civil aristocracy. Thrakesion was a very prosperous theme in Western Asia Minor, named after a body of troops from Thrace settled there. 9 Its capital and, presumably, residence of the judge may have been Chonai, perhaps Ephesus. Letter 1 gives Sergios as the name of the judge. Letter 5, also addressed to the judge of Thrakesion, does not give a name. Other letters sent to that official, although no name is given, are K-D 61, 66, 150, 151, 248, and one ed. by Karpozilos (see n. 4). In two letters (Sathas 47, 51) the name of the judge is recorded as Xeros. The Lower or Southern Themes (tå Katvtikã) included the themes of the Peloponnesos and Hellas, as is clear from other letters (Sathas 32, K-D 154). 10 Other letters sent to that official are Sathas 26, 32, 33, 34, 134, 135, 141, 147, K-D 55, 69, 70, 74, 86, 93, 154. Letter 4 was addressed to Nikephoros, who held the high dignity of sebastophoros, but who cannot be identified any more closely.

7 8 9 10

Ljubarskij (1978) 79. ODB 1078. De Thematibus 124-6; ODB 2080. Eustathii Thess., 316.10; LBG (2001), s.v.

46

GEORGE T. DENNIS

The judge of Opsikion was the recipient of Letters 7 and 8. Opsikion, whose name is derived from Latin obsequium, was one of the four original themes set up in Asia Minor, but subsequently limited to the northwestern area with its capital at Nicaea. 11 Two letters (Sathas 29, 190) give the name of the judge as Zoma (Zvmç, Zvm∞). Other letters sent to the judge of Opsikion are: Sathas 29, 43, 77, 190, K-D 81, 99, 100, 107, 108, 116-120, 140, 142-144, 155, 187, 200, 243, 258. Two versions of Letter 9 are preserved in the Barberini manuscript (cod. Vat. Barb. gr. 240). The first is addressed to a frequent correspondent of Psellos, the Caesar John Doukas, brother of the emperor Constantine X Doukas (1059-67). 12 The second was dictated by Psellos and written down by Elias who, so it seems, personally handed it to the sebastos Constantine, the nephew of the patriarch (Michael Keroularios) and a close friend and correspondent of Psellos. 13 Constantine held a number of influential offices as well as prestigious titles: droungarios, megas droungarios, proedros, protoproedros, magistros, sakellarios, epi ton kriseon, sebastos, genikos. Letters addressed to him are: Sathas 1, 45, 46, 83-86, 117, 157, 174, 184, 186, K-D 31, 211, 214. The anonymous addressee of Letter 10 was obviously a close friend of Psellos who entertains him with an account of the conversation, or monologue, provided by a mutual friend, perhaps the monk Elias. Since the vocabulary may be of some interest, the Greek text is presented in an Appendix. EDITIONS. Kurtz and Drexl (1941) = K-D: Letters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Sathas (1876) = Sathas: Letters 2, 3. Westerink (1951) 43-5 = Westerink: Letter 1. Gautier (1986) = Gautier: Letter 1.

11 12 13

De Thematibus 127-30; ODB, s.v. See Polemis (1968) 34-41. See Ljubarskij (1978) 62-69.

ELIAS THE MONK

47

TRANSLATION 1. To Lord Sergios, Judge of Thrakesion. This new Elias, my most illustrious and beloved brother, is not being sent on a journey up to heaven. For he is not so reckless as to try the fiery chariots, but he does travel around every place under heaven in hopes of finding repose for his soul.1 He has divided the whole inhabited world into two parts. By his reckoning, half of it consists of mountains, caves, and deserts. The rest contains groves, meadows, pleasant gardens, and open spaces for riding horses. He first tried out the first half. But, since he did not feel comfortable there, he moved to the other half. Still, he did not get there without a struggle. Even here he had to pass over the wooded glens and first descend into deep chasms but, with his eyes fixed upon his goal, he paid no heed to whatever stood in his way. He has left behind the villages cowering in fear after experiencing the weapons of the enemy or, rather, which barbarian hands had plundered.2 He makes his way to Thrakesion, not yet under siege. It is not so much your Eden that he loves as you who cultivate and protect it. Neither is it the beauty and gracefulness of Thrakesion that he prizes, for the man is not a lover of graceful objects but of those made of gold. If the summer were somehow suddenly to sprout gold, then show the crop to the man so he might reap his beloved harvest. But if this cannot be done, then open up your golden soul to him. It is indeed pure gold and has never sounded a false note as if mixed with baser metal; it has been rubbed alongside many gold testing stones and has always been proven pure, very pure. 3 This much I enjoin upon you — a teacher has the right to give orders to his student — do not accord him special reverential treatment because of his habit. If, however, he maintains his self respect, you in turn would not be wrong in accommodating yourself to his grave demeanor. But if he should change his behavior, then you should change your tune. Do not be afraid of this Elias. He cannot call down fire from heaven or, after pouring on water, can he miraculously ignite a fire, even though he may himself be cheerfully consumed by another sort of fire. 4

1

2

3 4

Elias is said to have been taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot: 2 Kings 2: 11. ‘Repose’ recalls Matthew 1: 29 and 12: 43. This probably refers to Turkish raids in eastern Asia Minor in 1067: Psell.Chron. 7.67; 7.Eud.6-7. See Herodotus 7.10.1. See 1 Kings 18: 31-38; 2 Kings 1: 10.

48

GEORGE T. DENNIS

I swear by your holy soul that he is very clever and can do anything, more noble deeds as well as worse ones. He is not totally sunny nor is he totally cloudy. But he gives the impression of being both. He is a man with two faces. He can be Dorian and Phrygian at the same time, diatonic and enharmonic.5 He can be Greek and barbarian, a real gentleman and, at the same time, quite indecorous. Right now he chants the songs of David, but on the flip side he may suddenly take up the flute of Timothy.6 He speaks with every voice, in keeping with the riddle of the Sphinx, and he changes into every shape as did Proteus the Pharian. 7 He is a creature who assumes every kind of form, more complicated than Typhon.8 He is an enchanting melody, adapting himself to the times and the events. At one moment he is a lion who has relaxed his shaggy frown; at another he dances off with the apes. At one time he will cast his eyes down like Heraclitus and bewail human vanity; at another he will pretend to laugh like Democritus.9 And, if you ask him, he will alter the appearance of his garments and transform himself into any shape at all. This great good fortune, then, is yours. The man for whom you would have gone about hunting and searching has invited himself and you now have him with you. For my sake get to know this multifaceted man.Human nature is not unrelenting and untiring in facing every trial, but it requires some cheer and playfulness. Indeed, when you feel the need to come down to this level, you ought not to cast about for the players of the lyre or the flute, but before all else enjoy this multiform man. If you pay a little something as a harbor fee, you will find anchorage for the ship of your soul and, after a nice rest, you may once again put out to sea. [Ed. Westerink (1951) 8; Gautier (1986) 27; from cod. Laur. San Marco 303, f. 209v-210].

5 Dorian and Phrygian were types of flute music. From one to the other was a proverbial expression for change of tone. 6 The songs of David are the Psalms, which monks were obliged to recite daily. Timothy, a favorite of Alexander the Great, was a famous flutist and composer of secular songs. 7 The Sphinx asked travelers: What creature first uses four feet, then two feet, then three feet? Oedipus gave the correct answer: man. The legendary Proteus was noted for his ability to change shape. 8 Typhon was the hundred-headed giant struck by a thunder bolt from Zeus: Iliad 2.782. 9 Heraclitus despised the body and human activity. Democritus was noted for laughing at human frivolity.

ELIAS THE MONK

49

2. To the Judge of the Lower Themes. This monk Elias had no desire to possess any earthly thing or to be concerned about such, just as his namesake also owned nothing. 1 This Elias wanted to liberate himself from the practical virtues, to pass through the whole rational universe and to journey through the air to God and to find anchorage in the ineffable harbors. This is what our Elias wanted and he struggled very hard for it. But there was the body he was tied to. There was his heavy burden. There was his earthly tabernacle.There was the weight he was dragging. No matter how many times he started up, they held him down. When he flew up they forced him down again. When he jumped up they dragged him back down. Twice he attempted it, many times in fact, but the same constraints pulled him down. His ascent to heaven is not easy. But neither is he able to maintain himself on earth. For he does not have only himself to support — that would be a simple enough problem for him — but he has his mother who relies on him and a whole tribe of relatives. This is what motivates him to undertake long journeys. Now he heads up north. Now he heads down south. He is split between the rising of the sun and its setting. His purpose is not to learn how far Thule is from the British Isles or how the fabled Ocean flows around the earth, or which Ethiopians dwell to the east and which ones are off to the west.2 But his goal is to find safe anchorage in your harbor and there perhaps to obtain some provisions. His life is that of a rover. Let me also add a philosophical note. Plato is reported to have taken the measure of Charybdis three times and to have sailed that many times through the narrow strait of Sicily.3 But Plato ended up encountering the Dionysiuses. He not only purchased nothing with his philosophy, but barely escaped being sold himself and was ransomed by Annikeris of Aegina.4 May our wanderer not meet up with that sort of hospitality but with such as Odysseus received among the Phaeacians. 5 May he return bearing in his hands guarantees from your hand so his mother may be brought back to life and the throng of his relatives may join in the festive dance. [Ed. Sathas 153; from cod. Paris. gr. 1182, f. 223 v (P); a shorter and less reliable version is found in cod. Laur. gr. 57-40, f. 44 v-45 (L); but the title of the addressee is found in L, not in P]. 1 2 3 4 5

Cf. 2 Kings 1: 5 et alibi. See Strabo, Geographica 1.4.2.6. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 1.35.5-7. Cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 2.86 and 3.20. Homer, Odyssey 5.35 ff.

50

GEORGE T. DENNIS

3. Our Elias does not come down from the sky or go up to the sky. 1 He does not come to you from Mount Carmel, but from a stage prop, rough and ready, wearing the tunic of a rower or a slave. Only he would know whether he might be running away from some Jezabel. 2 At any rate, up to now he has given the impression of fleeing from some horrible Erinys and heading for the furthest reaches of the earth.3 He took my advice about which people he should visit first and what guides he should follow to the ends of the earth. And so he comes to you. At the same time, he will see Coele-Syria and indeed your holy self governing it. 4 You know what you will do. As long as you have the man with you, hold on to him, as Aeolus did to the man from Ithaca.5 Then, after sewing up the western winds in a bag and presenting them to him, send him off to Libya or Asia. Because you are busy with very serious tasks, you need some relaxation such as he provides. Let me describe the man to you in a more philosophical vein. There are two extremes of virtue and of wickedness. The first is characterized by the monastic life, I mean the monastic life which is the solitary life at its best. At the other extreme — please do not reproach me for what I say — is the way of life associated with taverns. This man, so as not to leave any part of these extremes untouched, has taken the middle road. He undergoes a complete transformation from both sides. Whichever of the two he wishes that is what he is. He will arise early in the morning with you and sing the sacred songs. Then he will change and join you in a dance. From the Dorian melody his voice will change to the Phrygian.6 If you should be angered at such a transformation, he will immediately shift back to the first mode. His eyes will remain fixed; his hands will be gently folded on his chest. You will observe that his feet are not moving back and forth but stay together. Once again, as the tides change in the Euripus, he will start going against the current. 7 His ambition is

2 Kings 2: 11. Cf. 1 Kings 18: 20.42. 3 The Erinys were fearsome female demons. 4 Coele-Syria designated the Roman province in northwest Syria with its capital at Antioch; in the late 10th and 11th centuries it was a Byzantine province under a duke. The addressee of this letter may well be the Caesar, John Doukas, who held authority in Antioch for several years: see Laurent (1962) 252-53); Polemis (1968) 34-39; Ljubarskij (1978) 69-74. 5 Homer, Odyssey 10.20-26. 6 See Letter 1, n. 5. 7 The narrow strait between Boeotia and Attica where the current was reported to change direction seven times a day. 1

2

ELIAS THE MONK

51

to be able to change shapes like the legendary Proteus. Instead, he is taken over by lower creatures. What an imitation he can do of the roaring of the lion, while the leaping about, so to speak, of the monkeys is part of his inborn nature. Therefore, since we are downcast by nature and need something to soothe our spirits, when your ship is just about to sink, you will find refuge in his harbor. While it is not completely free of the sea’s swells, it will not crush the ship. But if ... the ship’s timbers and ... securely joined together nor anything short ... how his thoughts are very focused and how long beforehand he prepares to repel assaults and lets nothing get in his way. 8 Gently, then, I set the man before you. I have shown you his serious side and clued you in on his less serious one. But if he should step outside the bounds, then it will be up to you to bring him back within them. Here is a riddle. I declare that he is the one who has written this letter. May this declaration now, in accord with Aristotle’s dictum, be made public and not be made public. 9 Just as Aeschylus, therefore, may this man compose a drama with many new elements and, in turn, you will find even more that is new. [Ed. Sathas 154; from cod. Paris. gr. 1182, f. 223 v-224].

8 9

The manuscript has several small blank spaces. Aristotle, Epistle 6, to Philip of Macedon.

52

GEORGE T. DENNIS

4. To the Sebastophoros Nikephoros. If your spirits are lifted up by the mere mention of the famous names of Greece: the Piraeeus, Sounion, Schoinous, the Gardens of the Philosophers, Rion, Antirrion, the Thriasian Plain, Krommyonia, the rocks of the Skeironides, other places and, for your total gratification, going to Phaleron and returning from Phaleron and — there is no need to list any more — it means nothing to you that this earthbound Elias has been elevated to such great distances. 1 While he may not know how to explain the names to you, he can convey the reality. Let him personify that famous epigram for you: “Here is the Peloponnesus, not Ionia” or the contrary. 2 He may indeed not know how to compose epigrams, such as those of Archilochus or Simonides, but he would be content, if someone might wish to do this, to have inscribed everywhere, instead of on a public monument: “He is turned in both directions, toward the rising sun and toward evening. Not only is he under the regular signs of the zodiac but also the very unusual ones and, for that matter, with those at the solstice”. Get to know him, therefore, in whatever direction you may prefer. Only, may you have a pleasant laugh and may you come to love the man. [Ed. K-D 8; from cod. Vat. gr. 712, f. 73-73v].

1 2

Most of these names occur in Strabo, Geographica. Strabo 9.1.6.7.

ELIAS THE MONK

53

5. To the Judge of Thrakesion. This monk, acclaimed for his virtue and not unknown to you, has set for himself the goal of traveling about the entire inhabited world. He is even anxious to prowl about your Thrakesion and to become acquainted with your illustrious and most excellent self and to receive something from you as well as to give something. He would contribute a glib tongue, a pleasant disposition, and the service he knows how to render. In exchange, he would receive something from your keen mind or, if you will, also from your hand. I am well aware that there is a frown on your face, that you are refraining from laughing, and that your soul is unmoved. But may this man make you feel completely relaxed and make you laugh and fill you with every pleasure and delight. People like yourself who are preoccupied about very weighty matters frequently need some humor and relaxation. This man will provide you with an abundance of occasions for such things and he will do so while clad in the venerable habit of a monk. [Ed. K-D 270; from cod. Heidelberg. Palatin. 356, f. 46 v] 6. 1 There is a certain Elias here with us, but this Elias is just the opposite of that one who was ‘taken up’. 2 This one is attached to the earth and incapable of flying up above it. Still, he often kept pace with the charioteers in the spectacles and was bold enough to climb up in the same chariot with them so he could himself learn exactly how to maneuver it and to fly up in the air. But the chariot of the Thesbite still runs behind the Lydian and offers absolutely no competition.3 This Elias has no fear at all of Jezabel, but bravely stands up to her and, as the old saying goes, counterattacks with his own sallies. 4 He does not try to avoid the forty-day journey and he does not need a widow to take him in, for he knows how to get along with married couples. 5 Think of him simply as an ogler of maidens, with magnificent hair after the fashion of Priam’s son Alexander, at least his hair if not his beard. 6

1 In the manuscript this letter is addressed ‘To the same’(t« aÈt«), which K-D conjecture as a reference to the Judge of the Lower Themes, but the preceding letter is inscribed: ‘to the Judge of the Boukellarioi’ (t« krit∞ t«n Boukellar¤vn). 2 See 2 Kings 2: 11. 3 Elias was called the Thesbite (Tishbite): 1 Kings 17: 1. Comparison with the Lydian chariot was a proverbial expression for falling far behind. 4 1 Kings 19: 3. 5 1 Kings 17: 9-16; 19: 8; cf. Luke 4: 25-26. 6 Homer, Iliad 11.385.

54

GEORGE T. DENNIS

The bread which nourishes this man is not a small measure of roasted barley meal baked in the ashes, rather, he dines on barley cakes at a bountiful table. 7 It is not a mere flask of oil which pours for him, but he very generously draws from a barrel. 8 Even more marvelous! Because he is not concerned about closing and opening heaven, he searches out the remote corners of the earth; he quickly crawls down into them and just as quickly comes up again, in the manner of those giants who were originally planted there.9 Not once but many times he raises up that nature which he had put to death. 10 To sum it up, this Elias is quite earthbound and not at all ‘taken up’. [Ed. K-D 93; from cod. Laur. gr. 57-40, f. 45-45v].

1 Kings 17: 12-16; 18: 45. Above the word for barrel (piynãkhw, sic in the ms.), the scribe has added: mikrÚn ÍpolÆnion, ‘a small vat’(for wine or oil). 9 The giants were fierce monsters born from the union of Tartarus and Earth. Anna Komnene alludes to the same myth: Alexiad 12.5.1.2. 10 Monastic profession was regarded as putting one’s worldly nature to death. 7

8

ELIAS THE MONK

55

7. To the Judge of Opsikion. After putting out from Trigleia, we sailed along the mountainous promontory and sailing with us was the great ascetic Elias. 1 For this reason, the sea flowed smoothly under the ship and all was full of calm. Because of him the sea refrained from becoming rough. But he rode the crest of many waves; his heart was throbbing and, at the same time, his soul was swelling with rushing passions. At that moment, to put it mildly, it was not Mount Carmel that he recalled or some other place of retreat, but all the brothels in the city, all the taverns. 2 He recalled how many courtesans were exercising their craft in a professional manner and how many were not so professionally qualified. 3 He was also commenting about whether a certain barmaid might not also be making her debut on the street or a courtesan might not also be pandering or a pimp might not also want to act as a consort. He also compiled a catalogue of how many might be campaigning out in the open and how many were secretly lying in ambush. Most people found this discourse of his to be marvelous. At that moment, in fact, the oarsmen from Syke were just about worshipping him and so were many of the passengers, especially when he went through the names of the courtesans at some length and ran his tongue glibly through the catalogue. 4 As for myself, I was greatly amazed that a terrible tempest did not fall upon the sea or that it did not become stirred up. When Jonah disregarded a small call of Providence, the water rose up and the wild beasts of the sea opened their jaws wide before him. 5 But nothing at all terrible confronted this man even when he was so outrageous in what he was thinking and saying. He did, however, offer a good solution to my problem and solved the riddle by stating that his fornication was limited to words and he denied that it ever went as far as deeds. If, therefore, he is telling the truth, he would be evil only half way. But if he should be lying, may the sea monster not swallow him, for he would not spit him out again. [Ed. K-D 97; from cod. Laur. gr. 57-40, f. 46v-47].

1 Trigleia (modern Tirilye) is on the Bithynian (Asiatic) coast of the Sea of Marmara. See Janin (1975) 185-87. 2 Cf. 1 Kings 18: 42. 3 Courtesan: the Greek text has ‘female companion’. 4 Syke (Syge) must refer to a location on the Bithynian coast near Trigleia: see Janin (1975) 183. 5 Jonah 1: 3-15.

56

GEORGE T. DENNIS

8. To the Same Person. A certain portion belongs to God and another to Mammon. 1 To the first belong pure spirits and to the second natures full of passion. And up to the present there has not been any third class.2 This monk Elias, however, has recently invented one. He does not simply give to God what belongs to God or to Mammon what belongs to Mammon, but he has donated a fitting portion to both. To God he gives the monastic habit, our holy anchor, and to Mammon he gives the powers of his soul and the organs of his body. And so it is that while singing songs to God he fornicates in his thoughts, behaving outrageously all day long. Then he will turn to acts of deep piety; he weeps and straightway repents of his passion. Then he changes place again. He knows only two residences, the brothel and the monastery. Going from the former to the latter he seems like Philoktetes. From the latter to the former he becomes another Achilles. The first has his legs incapacitated while the second is described by the poet as swift footed. 3 Now, if God were actually to apportion a third lot to humans, this would be neither the kingdom of heaven or gehenna, but it would be something else beside these, quite distinct and independent, truly a suitable place for him. But if no such place exists, let him stand between paradise and the river of fire, scorched on one side, soothed on the other. Otherwise, the division could be on alternate days, on one day absolutely delightful but on the next all chains and scourging. This is just how he has been accustomed to behave here. During the day he gives himself to God but he allots the night to Satan. [Ed. K-D 98; from cod. Laur. gr. 57-40, f. 47-47v].

See Matthew 6: 24; Luke 16: 13. ‘The present’: the ms. has ‘a certain point’ (tinÒw), but the scribe has erased two words before that which may well have read: toË nËn, ‘now’. 3 Homer, Iliad 2.718-725; 1.21 et passim. 1

2

ELIAS THE MONK

57

To the Sebastos Constantine, the Nephew of the Patriarch, by the Monk Elias Krystalas.1 The Greeks marvel at the Muses and at the Graces, the former because they dance in chorus around Helicon, sing hymns to their father Zeus, and take the lead in the veneration and the love of wisdom, and the Graces inasmuch as they are the cause of joy and pleasure for men. 2 For these reasons they likened the more venerable men to the Muses and those more attuned to pleasure to the Graces. Now, if a person were to possess the distinctive features of both, that is, the nature of the Muses as well as that of the Graces, that individual would be the most perfect and advanced in virtue. Such a person in our own generation is this most admirable monk.3 He displays sublime musical talent, singing a great deal and delighting in rhythms and melodies, only not in Pieria and Helicon but in his favorite place — for now let it remain without a name. 4 He both bubbles over with the qualities of the Graces and showers fountains of pleasure on those people he cares for — neither should they be mentioned by name in a letter. In either manifestation of both lives, I mean that of the Muses and that of the Graces, he appears more distinguished than anyone else. If, then, you are interested in the Muses, he will immediately assume a solemn mien, in accord with the images of Xenocrates, and will play the role of the most dignified personages, the evangelist, the bishop, and anyone else of the same status. 5 But if you sacrifice to the Graces and are in the mood for something witty, a pleasant laugh, some game playing, then you will marvel at this man. He will set up his tragic stage and for hours on end will transform himself. Now he appears as Ajax the Telemonian, now as Mithaikos and Pataikos or the tavern keeper Sarambos. 6 There are so many facets to the man that he is not inferior to Proteus in his changes. I myself have often stood in admiration of the man and I swear by your holy soul that I have greatly loved him. How else would you 9.

1 B is addressed: ‘To the same’, i.e. to the Caesar John Doukas. At the bottom of f. 138v another hand has added: diå tÚn monaxÚn ±l¤an tÚn krustalãn, followed by some illegible writing. B 2 is addressed: toË aÈtoË t« sebast« kvnstant¤nv ka‹ énec¤v toË patriãrxou diå tÚn monaxÚn ±l¤an tÚn krustalçn. The Greek, dia, with the accusative, as here, usually means ‘by’, ‘with the help of’, which best seems to fit the context. It can also convey the idea of ‘about’, ‘concerning’, ‘for’. 2 Hesiod, Works and Days 2; Theogonia 1-7. 3 t∞ kayÉ ≤mçw geneç ı yaumasi≈tatow B2 to›w kayÉ ≤mçw ı yaumãsiow B. 4 Pieria in Thessaly and Helicon in Boeotia were sites sacred to the Muses. ‘His favorite place’and the unnamed people in the next sentence must be some sort of private joke. 5 Xenocrates 70-71. 6 See Plato, Gorgias 518b.6.

58

GEORGE T. DENNIS

phrase it? He has just now performed a much needed service for me with his exquisite and rapid handwriting. He then turned about and switched to songs and harmonious tunes. And next — how could I not be amazed at this?— he clothed himself in a tunic and other garments and assumed a great variety of roles with his posturing and mimicry. By your holy soul, this man is fully deserving of your attention and favor. For since human life takes so many forms and, as Euripides reminds us, we are moved and preoccupied according to our fortunes, so that on some days we are downcast and on others more cheerful, this man will present himself to you in the guise suitable for every shape and circumstance of life.7 He will serve you not only in the most exalted matters but just as readily in lowly and base ones. Not only will he be prepared to write, but he will also bathe you, gather up your bedding, saddle your horse and bring it to you, and he will do all the other chores which may please his lord. Such is the man who comes to you. If he should find you in a gloomy mood, he will right away display such dejection of soul as to rival yours. But if he finds you laughing and joking, he will laugh and joke with you. Allow yourself to be transformed, then, along with this individual, changing your personality the way he changes his. March straight ahead when he marches straight ahead. Go off to the side when he goes off to the side. If my words strike you as mysterious and very imaginative, do not wonder. 8 I have been speaking in a veiled manner. For he was listening with both ears while I was dictating this letter. For my part, though, I spoke like a Cretan to Cretans, at the same time employing intricate circumlocution, but I have still made clear what I had in mind. 9 [Ed. K-D 212; from cod. Vat. Barb. gr. 240, f. 138 v-139 (B). Another version is found on f. 185v-186 (B2); since it seems closer to the archetype, I have followed the second version in my translation, noting only the more important variant readings].

7 Euripides, Hippias 701. The words, ‘We are moved’ and ‘This man will present’, are omitted in B. 8 Instead of ‘You as mysterious’, B has ‘mythical’. 9 In antiquity the Cretans had a reputation for telling lies, thus this proverbial expression. Instead of ‘In mind’, B has ‘on my tongue’.

ELIAS THE MONK

59

10. Our good friend has arrived here, my most beloved and illustrious brother, as though coming from Egypt, as though from Ethiopia, as though from India itself. 1 His travels have taken him to every city, every country, every language. Instead of a large shipment of merchandise he arrived with a full cargo of emotion and high spirits; instead of a lot of baggage he brought his tongue brimming over with amazing tales. How he found lodging in the village of Byridoi. 2 How, settling in the place for a few days, he learned all about it, everything in the place, everything surrounding it, the vineyards, the vast fields of wheat, the rivers flowing into it, the vapors arising from them, what the air above your head is like, how the village is adjoined, how it is divided. What the men are like.What the women are like. Which ones twist the wool and which ones use the shuttle on the loom. Then, as I was just barely applying the brakes to his tongue, he slipped away and moved off to Herakleia and, as though contemplating the Heraklean mouth of the Nile, he inundated me with a stream of words. 3 How the fortress has been relocated and about the metropolis in it. How it drinks from marvelous fountains. How it is soothed by the westerly wind more than by the others. This is how he diverts himself. Unable to deal with this torrent of words, I pretended to fall asleep. But all of a sudden he thundered from the earth. He would not let me miss hearing even about Rhaidestos. 4 And so, if he has filled your ears with such urbane discourse, you may deal with it. For me, though, he has completely sated my soul with all his tales. He took me on a tour throughout the west. He crossed verbally over the Adriatic itself to the land of the Italians, the plains of Campania, the twofold Alps, the Apennine mountains, the Ligurian Sea.5 Then, having left these behind and having stood me by the pillars of Hercules and Dionysius, he moved his discourse around to you. 6 1 The ‘good friend’is not named but the remarks about his travels and incessant talking remind one of Elias. The ‘friend’gives the appearance of having journeyed to distant lands whereas, in fact, he has merely been visiting places very close to Constantinople. But he describes them in admiring detail as though they were far off, exotic cities. As if that were not boring enough, he goes on to discuss the personality and even the kitchen utensils of the addressee. 2 Byridoi (tå Bur¤dou, tå Bur¤dvn) was a small port a few kilometers southwest of Constantinople: Janin (1964) 444. 3 Herakleia (modern Eregli) was a city on the Sea of Marmara not far from Constantinople. On the Herakleian mouth of the Nile, see Heliodorus, Aethiopica 1.1.1. 4 Rhaidestos (modern Tekirdag) was a small city on the north shore of the Sea of Marmara. 5 See Strabo, Geographica 4.1.1.21. 6 The straits of Gibraltar and Sicily.

60

GEORGE T. DENNIS

As amazing as the thundering, as the crashing falls, as the cataracts of the Nile may be, he did not leave one detail about you unrecorded.7 How your right hand was completely immune to bribes. Your nobility of mind, your generosity and upright way of life. Then he stepped down and described your table, your manners, your behavior, your laughter. What kind of large pot you have, what kind of goblet, what kind of platter, the pot stand, the soup ladle. Among your cups one finds the beaker, the ivory one, the so-called adolescent, the one fashioned of horn, the one with finger-like handles, the pitcher shaped one, the cube shaped one, the rustic wooden one. Your manner of drinking and toasting your friends. And the wines! How you decline the Phalerian because it stuffs the head and you prefer the Chian which sets the liver on fire. 8 How the servant mixing the bowl pours your cup and gently places it in your hands. After he furnished me with a minute account of your drinking party, he was all set to provide more details about the activities which followed it. I realized what a swarm of words that would produce. And so, I feigned a deep sleep and in that way got rid of the man. But may he show up again, even many times, and say more than he has already said. And for you, may all else be well. But do not extend your right hand so far that your left hand is not aware of it. 9 Do not harvest in a way so fruitless that you cannot have some barley grains left over for yourself. 10 [Ed. K-D 9, and in Appendix below; from cod. Vat. gr. 712, f. 73 v-74 (K)]

7 8 9 10

On the cataracts and falls of the Nile, see Herodotus 2.17. See also Psell. Or. min.14.143; 16.54. Cf. Matthew 6: 3. Cf. Luke 12: 18-20.

ELIAS THE MONK

61

APPENDIX 10. ÉAf¤keto ≤m›n ı kalÒw, f¤ltate ka‹ per¤blepte édelf°, …w §j AfigÊptou, …w §j Afiyiop¤aw, …w §j ÉInd¤aw aÈt∞w, pãsaw m¢n pÒleiw, pãsaw d¢ x≈raw, pãsaw d¢ gl≈ssaw §mporeusãmenow. éf¤keto g°mvn yumoË ka‹ fronÆmatow ént‹ 5 megãlhw fort¤dow, ént‹ poll«n égvg¤mvn tØn gl«ttan aÈtoË kom¤zvn plÆrh yaumas¤vn dihghmãtvn, …w kat°luse m¢n efiw tÚ xvr¤on Burid«n, …w ≤m°raw tinåw t“ tÒpƒ §naulisãmenow ±kr¤bvse pãnta, ˜sa §n toÊtƒ, ˜sa p°rij, tåw émp°louw, tå purofÒra ped¤a, toËw efisbãllontaw potamoÊw, tåw §ke›yen énapnoãw, ıpo›ow Íp¢r kefalØn éÆr, ˜p˙ tÚ xvr¤on sun∞ptai, ˜p˙ 10 mem°ristai, ¥tiw t«n éndr«n ≤ fÊsiw, ¥tiw t«n gunaik«n, t¤new m¢n afl tÚ ¶rion pl°kousai, t¤new d¢ afl tª kerk¤di xr≈menai prÚw fistÒn. ÑVw dÉ oÔn mÒliw aÈt“ tØn gl«ttan §p°sxomen, eÈyÁw §jolisyÆsaw aÈtomole› prÚw ÑHrãkleian. ka‹ Àsper tÚ ÑHraklevtikÚn stÒma toË Ne¤lou fidΔn kat°klus° me t«n lÒgvn t“ =eÊmati, …w én–kistai tÚ pol¤xnion, ¥tiw 15 ≤ §n toÊtƒ mhtrÒpliw, …w p¤nei yaumas¤vn phg«n, …w éne›tai zefÊrƒ mçllon dØ t«n én°mvn t«n êllvn ka¤ §stin aÈt“ paidikã. §gΔ d¢ mØ f°rvn tØn =Êmhn t«n lÒgvn Ípn≈ttein prosepoihsãmhn: ı d¢ brontÆsaw éyrÒon épÚ t∞w g∞w oÈd¢ t∞w ÑRaidestoË me éf∞ken énÆkoon. Efi m¢n oÔn ka‹ tØn sØn ékoØn t«n éstik«n dihghmãtvn peplÆrvken, aÈtÚw 20 ín efide¤hw: §mo‹ d¢ tØn cuxØn proskor∞ pantÚw épe¤rgastai dihgÆmatow. §pe‹ d° me pantax∞ periÆgage t∞w •sp°raw, diabibãsaw t“ lÒgƒ tÚn ÉAdr¤an aÈtÒn, tØn ÉItal«n x«ran, tå Kampan«n ped¤a, tåw dittåw ÖAlpeiw, tå ÉAp°nnina ˆrh, tÚ LigustikÚn p°lagow, toÊtvn éf°menow ka‹ prÚw ta›w stÆlaiw me stÆsaw ta›w ÑHhrakl°ow ka‹ Dionus¤ou, §p‹ s¢ tÚn lÒgon perikuklo›. 25 Baba‹ t«n bront«n, t«n KatadoÊpvn, t«n toË Ne¤lou katarrakt«n. oÈd°n soi t«n èpãntvn katal°loipen émnhmÒneuton: tØn dejiån …w pantãpasin édvrÒlhptow, tØn t∞w gn≈mhw eÈg°neian, tÚ filÒtimon, tØn genna¤an proa¤resin. e‰ta dØ kataba¤nvn §j°fras° soi tØn trãpezan, tÚ t∞w dia¤thw e‰dow, …w diait–hw, …w gel–hw, potapÚw m°n soi ı fipnol°bhw, ıpo›on d° soi tÚ 30 kupell¤on, ıpo›ow ı pinak¤skow, ı xutrÒpouw, ≤ §tnÆrusiw, …w t«n pothr¤vn sou tÚ m¢n ¶kpvma, tÚ d¢ §l°faw, tÚ d¢ ¶fhbow, tÚ d¢ =utÒn, tÚ d¢ daktulvtÒn, tÚ d¢ kãlpiw, tÚ d¢ kuboeid°w, tÚ d¢ kissuboeid°w, …w p¤noiw, …w prop¤noiw to›w f¤loiw ka‹ …w t«n o‡nvn tÚn m°n Faler›non paraitª plhroËnta tØn kefalÆn, tÚn d¢ X›on proairª tÚ ∏par §pixeil¢w poioËnta purÒw, p«w §pixe› soi tÚ 35 kÊpellon ı tÚn krat∞ra kirn«n, p«w ±r°ma to›w daktÊloiw §nt¤yhsin.

9. ı add. Kurtz || 14. kat°kluse K-D kat°luse K || 16. dØ K-D d¢ K || 22. kampan«n K-D kapan«n K | ép°nnina K-D ép°nina K || 31. daktulvtÚn K-D daktulvgÒn K || 34. soi K-D s‹ K ||

GEORGE T. DENNIS

62

40

ÉEpe‹ d° soi §leptolÒghse tÚ sumpÒsion, §boÊleto d¢ ka‹ tØn metå taËta §jakrib«sai diatribÆn, sm∞now §gΔ lÒgvn §nteËyen ır«n bayÁn Ïpnon ÍpokrinÒmenow oÏtvw éphllãghn toË éndrÒw. éllÉ otow m¢n ka‹ aÔyiw ≤m›n parag°noito ka‹ pollãkiw toËto, ka‹ e‡poi ple¤ona œn efirÆkei: so‹ d¢ tå m¢n êlla ¶xoi kal«w, tØn d° ge dejiån mÆte tosoËton §kte¤noiw Àste mØ laye›n tØn éristerån mÆyÉ oÏtvw sunagãg˙w Àste mãthn mØ dÊnasyai kénteËyen §pilipe›n soi tå êlfita.

40. §kte¤noiw K-D §nte¤noiw K 4 13 25

cf. Plato. Resp. 411c.6. cf. Heliod. Aeth. 1.1.1. Herod. 2.17.

CHAPTER FIVE

This page intentionally left blank

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS John Duffy and Emmanuel Bourbouhakis The cult of St. Menas, an Egyptian martyr whose feastday is celebrated on November 11, led to the development of one of the most popular pilgrimage centers of the early Middle Ages. It was located in the Egyptian desert southwest of Alexandria and Lake Mareotis and consisted of a large complex of buildings whose full extent was brought to light by the excavations of C. M. Kaufmann in the opening decade of the last century.1 Sophronius of Jerusalem in the early seventh century described the saint’s shrine as “the pride of all Libya”. 2 Many examples of St. Menas flasks, image-bearing clay ampullae for carrying blessed water from the shrine, have been found throughout the territories of the Byzantine Empire and further afield, thus bearing witness to the far-flung fame of the saint and his influence. 3 In addition to the physical traces of the cult we have a collection of miracle accounts, attributed in part of the Greek tradition to Patriarch Timothy of Alexandria (380-384), though there is not a shred of evidence to support the ascription apart from a manuscript title, and it hardly deserves to be taken seriously. 4 Alongside Greek, the miracles of Menas survive in one form or another in various other languages including Coptic, Ethiopian, and Slavic. As far as the Greek text is concerned, there is essentially only one serviceable printed version of thirteen miracles, namely that published in 1900 on the basis of a single Moscow manuscript by the Russian scholar I. Pomjalovskij. 5 Writing some ten years

Kaufmann (1910). In the Miracles of Cyrus and John, no. 46: TÚ Mhnç toË mãrturow t°menow ka‹ tÚ prÚ toË tem°nouw domãtion pãshw LibÊhw kay°sthke frÊagma. In the edition of N. F. Marcos (1975), the text is on p. 351. 3 See the article “Menas Flasks” in vol. 2 of the ODB 1340. 4 A sentiment expressed long ago by H. Delehaye in an article of considerable importance for Menas studies: Delehaye (1910) 117-150 (present point 127-8). 5 Zhitie prepodobnago Paisija Velikago i Timofeja patriarkha Aleksandrijskago povestvo vanie o chudesakh Sv. velikomuchenika Miny (St. Petersburg: 1900) 62-89. The manuscript in question is Moscow Sinod. gr. 379 dated to the eleventh century. We should also mention another, rather strange, printing of the first five miracles from a different Greek manuscript of similar date. In “De Wonderverhalen van den Heiligen Menas,” R. Miedema (1918) 212-21 provides from Vaticanus gr. 866 a transcription that not only omits accents entirely but also reproduces the myriad orthographical peculiarities of the copyist. The transcription does help us, however, in one place; see below n. 20. 1

2

66

JOHN DUFFY AND EMMANUEL BOURBOUHAKIS

later Delehaye remarked how that Russian edition continued to remain unnoticed.6 He also drew attention to the fact that there were quite a few other manuscripts in existence which would be worth examining. After the lapse of a century, however, the groundwork of collecting and comparing all the surviving witnesses has still not been carried out and the absence of much basic information, therefore, imposes limits on the ongoing discussion of these documents. On the other hand, Delehaye himself had looked at a sufficient number of the manuscripts to determine that not all offered the same number of miracles, noting that in some the collection was confined to the first five. This was also the case, he added, in the menaia for November 11, whose texts were “notablement abrégés”. 7 It is our purpose here to publish the first account, consisting of text, translation and notes, of one of these abridged versions that were specially tailored for use in liturgical books. The manuscript witness is a little-known synaxarion of the 12th century, formerly housed in the monastery of St. John the Theologian on the island of Lesbos, but purchased by an American bibliophile from a dealer in New York in 1947 and bequeathed to Harvard College in 1984. It is now in the Houghton Library at Harvard University and carries the designation Ms. Typ 243H.8 The text of this six-month synaxarion, covering the feastdays of saints from September to February, is severely truncated in its present state, having suffered the loss of its first eleven quires. The surviving part begins with the commemorations for November 11, i.e. with a brief account of the martyrdom of St. Menas, followed by the short collection of miracles. The five miracles of St. Menas found in the Harvard copy are a representative selection of one of the oldest and most popular genres of Christian literature, the beneficial tale. These versions are interesting examples of the final installment of the story of such beneficial tales and religious literature of this type more generally. For by the tenth century much of it was being gathered, abridged, and having its language adjusted (usually up, but occasionally down) to more canonical forms and vocabulary. In the process the original verve was often dampened and even extinguished. One need only compare the miracle of the crippled man and the mute woman (no. 4) with the longer, earlier version that we have reprinted from Pomjalovskij’s edition and translated here for the

Delehaye (1910) 128. Delehaye (1910) 128. 8 See John Duffy (forthcoming). For a very brief and incomplete description see also Bond and Faye (1962) 26. 6

7

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS

67

first time into English. Not only has a kind of Byzantine bowdlerization taken place, a fact quite significant in itself, since it tells us something about what was deemed appropriate for the audience of a twelfth-century commemorative service, but the extreme distillation of this and the other stories into their most salient elements has put them on the margins of narrative; they appear less and less as vivid accounts of singular events and rather more as illustrations of important lessons. 9 Nevertheless, they are still quite revealing, both for the changes they have undergone and for what they preserve. Indeed a significant core of motives and values survives from the longer into the abridged versions. The mercantile community of lower Egypt portrayed here, with its servants, horses, and purses of gold, remained familiar to a middle Byzantine audience. Theft and trickery amongst this class must not have been so foreign as to render the stories implausible, at least not in the eyes of some. Finally, the intervention of the saint in such situations, resulting in one story at least in a sizeable donation to his shrine, reflects the role which an immanent spiritual world was believed to play in the daily lives of Byzantine Christians. The stories published here represent the continued efforts to ensure the recognition of that role and the consequences for those who failed to heed its lessons.

9 It is no surprise that the eye-catching original version of no. 4 drew comments from modern scholars. Delehaye (1910) 131 characterizes it as a “plaisante et peu édifiante histoire” and Karl Krumbacher, in a short review of Pomjalovskij’s work ( BZ 10 [1901] 343-4) must sure ly have had it uppermost in his mind when he referred to the “zum Teil sehr sonderbaren und zur Lektüre von Comtessen wenig geeigneten Wunder des hl. Menas”!

68

JOHN DUFFY AND EMMANUEL BOURBOUHAKIS

TEXT. I Pot¢ d° tiw éperxÒmenow proseÊjasyai §n t“ na“ aÈtoË, §d°xyh parã tinow efiw monÆn. ka‹ §pe‹ ı ÍpodoxeÁw ¶gnv tÚn Ípodexy°nta §gkÒlpion f°rein xrusÒn, énaståw §n m°sƒ t∞w nuktÚw fone¤& xeir‹ toÊtƒ §p°yeto: ka‹ melhdÚn katakÒcaw efiw spur¤da §n°bale ka‹ éph≈rhse, tØn ßv §kdexÒmenow. ka‹ ∑n loipÚn §nag≈niow …w pÒte ka‹ poË épagãgoi §n éfane› tÒpƒ katakrËcai boulÒmenow. Ka‹ …w §n toÊtoiw ∑n ≤ mel°th, ı ëgiow toË XristoË mãrtuw ¶fippow …w §n tãjei strati≈tou énafane‹w per‹ toË §ke›se katalÊsantow ±reÊna j°nou. toË d¢ fon°vw mhd¢n gin≈skein diabebaioum°nou, toË ·ppou épobåw efis∞lyen §n t“ §ndot°rƒ ofikÆmati, ka‹ katagagΔn tØn spur¤da ka‹ t“ fone› blosurÚn §mbl°caw, “t¤ §sti toËto;” fhs¤n. ı d¢ Àsper ¶kplhktow genÒmenow ÍpÚ d°ouw to›w pos‹ toË èg¤ou pt«ma deinÚn •autÚn kat°bale. Tå goËn katatmhy°nta m°lh ı ëgiow sunarmologÆsaw ka‹ proseujãmenow én°sthse tÚn nekrÚn efipΔn “dÚw dÒjan t“ ye“.” ı d¢ …w §j Ïpnou énaståw ka‹ katanoÆsaw ˜sa ka‹ oÂa pãyoi parå toË Ípodejam°nou §dÒjase tÚn yeÒn, ka‹ t“ fainom°nƒ strathlãt˙ eÈxaristÆsaw tØn proskÊnhsin §d¤dou. énastãntow te toË fon°vw ı ëgiow tÚn xrusÚn épÚ toÊtou labΔn doÁw aÈt“ ¶fh “tØn ıdÒn sou poreÊou.” tÚn d¢ fon°a §pistrafe‹w tÊcaw …w efikÚw ka‹ kathxÆsaw pros°ti, ka‹ tØn êfesin toË §gklÆmatow xarisãmenow, ka‹ Íp¢r §ke¤nou proseujãmenow, toË ·ppou §pibåw ép°pth épÚ t«n Ùfyalm«n aÈtoË.

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS

69

TRANSLATIONS. I There was a man once who having gone to pray at the saint’s church was given a place to stay by a certain individual. And because the man who received him realized that the guest was carrying gold on his person,10 he got up in the middle of the night and set upon him with a murderous hand. And cutting his body into pieces he put him in a basket, suspended it, and waited for morning. And then he was filled with anxiety about when and where he might take (the remains) to hide them in some remote place. Now while his mind was preoccupied with these things, Christ’s saintly martyr appeared on horseback dressed as a military man11 and began to inquire about the stranger who had spent the night there. And although the murderer assured him he knew nothing, the saint dismounted from his horse, went into the inner part of the building and bringing down the basket and fixing a fearsome stare on the murderer, he said “What is this?” And the man, going into a state of shock from fright, cast himself at the feet of the saint like a wretched corpse. The saint then reassembled the severed limbs and, having prayed, he raised up the dead man, saying “Give glory to God.” While he, rising as if from sleep and realizing the extent of his sufferings at the hands of the man who had given him lodging, praised God, and thanking the person dressed as a military officer he made obeisance to him. And when the murderer got up from the ground, the saint took the gold from him and gave it to the other saying “Continue your journey.” And turning to the murderer he chastised him as was fitting and lectured him as well, granting him pardon for the crime. Then he offered a prayer on the man’s behalf, got on his horse and disappeared from his sight.

10 The Greek phrase §gkÒlpion f°rein could possibly be interpreted to mean that the man was wearing a gold cross or some other type of phylactery. However, later in the story we are told that the saint returned “the gold” to its owner, and that also agrees with the longer version published by Pomjalovskij (1900) 63-5, in which the coveted object was money carried in a purse or money-bag (balãntion). 11 This may be a reflection of some accounts of the saint’s earlier career which make him a soldier. Beyond that Delehaye (1910) 135 draws attention to the fact that St. Menas as horserider fits into a general pattern for Egyptian saints.

70

JOHN DUFFY AND EMMANUEL BOURBOUHAKIS

II ÜEterow d° tiw d¤skon §j érgÊrou t“ èg¤ƒ §paggeilãmenow paralabΔn t“ texn¤t˙ dÊo toÊtƒ d¤skouw kataskeuçsai Íp°yeto ka‹ §pigrãcai §n m¢n t“ •n‹ tÚ toË èg¤ou ˆnoma, §n d¢ t“ •t°rƒ tÚ •autoË. kataskeuasy°ntvn oÔn t«n d¤skvn, §pe‹ xari°sterÒw te ka‹ lamprÒterow ı toË èg¤ou §de¤knuto, t∞w §pigraf∞w mhdÉ ıpvsoËn melÆsaw •aut“ toËton prosÆrmose. to¤nun ka‹ katå yãlattan diå toË ploÚw tØn pore¤an poioum°nou ka‹ §n tª nh˛ toË de¤pnou diå toË §juphretoËntow aÈt“ eÈtrepisy°ntow tå paratey°nta §n t“ toË èg¤ou d¤skƒ énupostÒlvw ≥syie. metå taËta t∞w trap°zhw §k m°sou genom°nhw ı §juphret«n aÈt“ doËlow labΔn tÚn d¤skon prÚw tÚ §kplËnai toËton §n tª yalãtt˙ §bÊyizen. Íposure‹w dÉ ı d¤skow §k t«n xeir«n aÈtoË, p«w ên tiw e‡poi, §n tª yalãss˙ éperr¤fh. ı goËn doËlow sÊntromow genÒmenow ka‹ deil¤& susxeye‹w ¶ti d¢ katanarkvye‹w Ípoxaun≈saw •autÚn éperr¤fh ka‹ aÈtÚw katapÒdaw §n tª yalãss˙. ToËto fidΔn ı kÊriow aÈtoË §leeinologoÊmenow ¶legen, “oÈa¤ moi t“ éyl¤ƒ ˜ti zhl≈saw tÚn toË èg¤ou d¤skon prosap≈lesa sÁn aÈt“ ka‹ tÚn doËlon. éllå so‹ kÊrie ı yeÒw mou tØn §paggel¤an taÊthn pepo¤hmai, ˜ti §ån tÚ le¤canon ka‹ mÒnon toË paidÚw eÍrÆsv, d¤dvmi t“ yerãpont¤ sou èg¤ƒ Mhnò ka‹ toËton tÚn d¤skon ka‹ tØn toË épolesy°ntow diat¤mhsin.” ka‹ §jelyΔn épÚ

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS

71

II Another man, having promised a silver plate to St. Menas, employed the services of the silversmith 12 and commissioned him to make two plates for him and to engrave the saint’s name on the one and his own on the other. When the plates had been made, the one dedicated to the saint turned out to be more elegant and dazzling, so the man kept it for himself, totally disregarding the inscription. And while 13 was making the journey by sea 14 his dinner was prepared for him aboard ship by his servant and he ate the food placed on the plate of the saint without misgivings. Later, when the meal had been cleared away, the servant took the plate and dipped it in the sea in order to wash it. And the plate, snatched one might say out of his hands, fell into the sea. Whereupon the servant became terrified and, seized by fear and reduced moreover to numbness, he slackened his grip a little and he, too, fell immediately into the sea. Seeing this, the servant’s master said in a piteous voice, “Woe to me the wretch, for in coveting the plate belonging to the saint I have lost not only it but my servant as well. But to you Lord, my God, I make the following promise: if I should only find the remains of the boy, I shall give your servant St. Menas both this plate and the value of the one that has been lost.” And disembarking from the ship onto 12 The Greek reads paralabΔn t“ texn¤t˙, which, in spite of the unexpected use of the dative, we have translated in the sense of “ to hire”; cf. Lampe’s Lexicon, meaning no. 6. Still, it could well be the case that the participle has undergone an easy corruption from parabal≈n. That verb would provide a good reason for the dative and give the sense “having gone to a craftsman”, which would have the added benefit of more closely approximating the Pomjalovskij text, ép°rxomai efiw texn¤thn, “I am going to a craftsman”. 13 We have restored a missing subject, toÊtou, in the Greek. 14 Although the Havard version has katå yãlattan, the longer Greek version refers not to any sea but to a lake. In the original form of the story the lake is without question Lake Mareotis which lies between Alexandria and the nearby desert region in which the shrine of St. Menas was located. Fraser (1972), 1, 144-6, describes the system of ports and boat travel which would have ferried most pilgrims to the shrine of Abu Mina. The change from “lake” in the older version to “sea” in the synaxarion illustrates an interesting element of metaphrasis, namely, the removal or replacement of locally significant references in a bid to produce more universal and less specifically rooted contexts. A generic reference to a “journey by sea” would have been familiar to most Byzantine pilgrims of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. “The lake” and similar references to Alexandria, when taken out of the synaxarion text, deprive the account of local color but on the other hand enhance the sense that the saint may intervene anywhere, anytime. This in turn would be in tune with the ecumenical cult of St. Menas whose shrines proliferated around Christendom. He became a saint that the faithful could call upon at any time or place. It should be noted that, in using the term metaphrasis above, we are not claiming any association with the specific rewriting activity of Symeon Metaphrastes. Further research, in the first instance into the whole of the Greek manuscript tradition of these Menas stories, would need to be conducted before any such connection could be confidently proposed.

72

JOHN DUFFY AND EMMANUEL BOURBOUHAKIS

toË plo¤ou §p‹ tØn jhrån ép°blepe prÚw tØn parãlion karadok«n ka‹ Ífor≈menow §n Ùfyalmo›w e‰nai tÚ zhtoÊmenon, ka‹ diå toËto égvni«n e‡pvw dunhye¤h yeãsasyai tÚ toË paidÚw le¤canon. ka‹ …w prose›xen §pimel«w e‰de tÚn doËlon §rxÒmenon épÚ t∞w yalãsshw metå toË d¤skou ka‹ ¶frije. ka‹ krãjaw megãl˙ tª fvnª §j∞lyon ëpantew épÚ toË plo¤ou. ka‹ …w e‰don tÚn doËlon kat°xonta tÚn d¤skon §j°sthsan ëpantew dojãzontew ka‹ eÈlogoËntew tÚn yeÒn. Punyanom°nvn d¢ toÊtvn maye›n tÚn trÒpon t∞w svthr¤aw aÈtoË, diesãfhsen ı doËlow l°gvn ˜ti, “ëma t“ §naporrif∞na¤ me tª yalãss˙, énØr eÈeidØw mey’ •t°rvn dÊo kratÆsant°w me, Àdeusan sÁn §mo‹ xy¢w ka‹ sÆmeron m°xri t«n œde.”

III ÉAllå ka‹ gunÆ tiw éperxom°nh efiw tÚn ëgion ka‹ biasye›sa parã tinow efiw afisxrån m¤jin tÚn ëgion efiw boÆyeian afithsam°nh, oÈ pare›den aÈtÆn, éllå tÚn biastØn paradeigmat¤saw éblab∞ taÊthn diefÊlaje. DÆsaw går tÚn ·ppon ı énØr efiw tÚn dejiÚn aÈtoË pÒda ±sxole›to prÚw tØn guna›ka. ı d¢ ·ppow égrivye‹w katå toË fid¤ou despÒtou oÈ mÒnon efiw perikopØn t∞w afisxrçw m¤jevw §gegÒnei, éllå ka‹ toËton ßlkvn katå g∞w êxriw ín tÚn toË èg¤ou naÚn kat°laben oÈk ¶sth. aÈt¤ka går megãla ka‹ puknå §pixremet¤saw, flkanoÁw §jÆgage prÚw yevr¤an: •ort∞w går égom°nhw, pl∞yow laoË §ke›se sun°trexen. ÑO d¢ toËto peponyΔw fidΔn tØn toË laoË sun°leusin, tÚn ·ppon te §p‹ ple›on égrioÊmenon ka‹ •autÚn ÍpÚ mhdenÚw bohyoÊmenon, ptohye‹w mÆpote Ùleyri≈terÒn ti Íposta¤h ÍpÚ toË fid¤ou ·ppou, éneruyriãstvw §n≈pion pãntvn §sthl¤teuse tÚ •autoË énÒmhma. ka‹ eÈy°vw ı ·ppow pausãmenow ¶sth §n ≤merÒthti. ka‹ luye‹w ı §pibãthw efis∞lye prÚw tÚn ëgion, ka‹ prospesΔn §d°eto toË èg¤ou mØ peirasy∞nai ¶ti.

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS

73

dry land, he looked off toward the shore with hope and trepidation to see the thing he had asked for, and for this reason agonized whether he might somehow catch sight of the boy’s corpse. And as he looked carefully he saw the servant coming from the sea with the plate and he was filled with dread. And crying out with a loud voice, everyone came from the ship. And when they saw the servant with the plate in his hands they all were amazed and gave praise and glory to God. And when they asked him to find out how he was saved, the servant explained, saying, “As soon as I fell into the sea a handsome man together with two others took hold of me and they journeyed with me yesterday and today until we arrived here.”

III But a certain woman as well, while she was on her way to the saint, was forcibly seized by a man who wanted shameful intercourse with her. She asked the saint for help and he did not ignore her, but making an example of the rapist he kept her unharmed. For the man had tied his horse to his right foot while he was busy with the woman. But the horse grew enraged at his own master and thus not only interrupted the disgraceful act, but dragged the man along the ground and did not stop until he reached the shrine of the saint. And straightaway he began to whinny loudly and without interruption, drawing a crowd of onlookers, for since it happened to be a feastday, there were many people on hand. And the man, having gone through this ordeal and seeing the crowd of people who had gathered, while the horse grew wilder and no one was coming to his aid, fearing that his horse might do him greater harm, he denounced without a blush before all his unlawful deed. And the horse immediately stopped and stood calm. Once untied, the rider approached the saint and, prostrating himself, he pleaded with him not to be subjected to further tribulation.

74

JOHN DUFFY AND EMMANUEL BOURBOUHAKIS

IV Ka‹ xvloË pote ka‹ •t°raw gunaikÚw élãlou paramenÒntvn §n t“ na“ toË èg¤ou meyÉ •t°rvn poll«n prÚw tÚ yerapeuy∞nai, m°shw nuktÚw pãntvn §n t“ Ïpnƒ ésxoloum°nvn, §fãnh ı ëgiow ka¤ fhsi t“ xvl“, “êpelye ¶ti ±rem¤aw oÎshw krãthson tÚ pall¤on t∞w élãlou ka‹ yerapeuyÆs˙.” toË d¢ épelyÒntow ka‹ kratÆsantow aÈtÒ, §ke¤nh spasye›sa én°kraje kategkaloËsa d∞yen toË xvloË, ka‹ fiãyh luye¤shw t∞w gl≈tthw: ı d¢ xvlÚw afidesye¤w, eÈy°vw én°sth fugª m°llvn xrÆsasyai. ka‹ §pignÒntew émfÒteroi tØn §k toË èg¤ou efiw aÈtoÁw genom°nhn yaumatopoi˝an, §dÒjasan tÚn yeÒn.

V ÑEbra›ow d° tiw ¶xvn XristianÚn prosfil∞, épodhm«n efiw x≈ran makrån pollãkiw, katel¤mpanen aÈt“ xrus¤on flkanÒn. toÊtƒ pot¢ paray°menow balãntion pentakos¤vn nomismãtvn, §mel°ta §n tª kard¤& aÈtoË érnÆsasyai tØn parakatayÆkhn. ˘ ka‹ pepo¤hken. ÉElyΔn går ı ÑEbra›ow ka‹ zhtÆsaw katå tÚ efivyÒw, oÈk §d¤dou aÈt“ l°gvn “mhd¢n paray°menÒw moi tª forò taÊt˙ ì §pizhte›w.” ı d¢ ÑEbra›ow éprosdokÆtvw toËto ékoÊsaw êllow §j êllou g°gonen. efiw •autÚn §lyΔn fhs‹ prÚw tÚn XristianÚn “•t°rou mØ bl°pontow, ˜rkow dialÊsei tÚ zhtoÊmenon.” ka‹ §zÆtei diå toË èg¤ou §legxy∞nai tÚn mØ élhyeÊonta.

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS

75

IV Once a crippled man and a mute woman were staying in the shrine of the saint with many others waiting to be cured. 15 In the middle of the night, while all were busy sleeping, the saint appeared to the cripple and said, “Go while it is still quiet and take hold of the mute woman’s cloak and you will be cured.” And having gone over and taken hold of it, she, bereft of her covering, cried out blaming to all appearances the cripple. And the woman was cured when her tongue became untied; while the crippled man, feeling ashamed, immediately got up with the intention of fleeing. And when they both realized the miracle which had been brought about for them by the saint, they gave glory to God.

V There was once a Jew who was close friends with a Christian and, as he travelled often to distant lands, he would leave behind considerable amounts of gold with him. On one occasion he entrusted to him a money-bag containing five hundred nomismata, and the Christian plotted in his heart to deny that it had been left in his care, which he in fact did. For when the Jew came and asked (for the money) in the usual manner, the Christian did not hand it over, saying “You did not leave with me this time what you are asking for.” The Jew, not expecting to hear this, was beside himself. When he regained his composure he said to the Christian, “An oath will resolve the issue, without any witnesses.”16 And he asked that the one who was lying be refuted by the saint. 17 15 This is the classic type of incubation in which the invalid pilgrim spends the night inside the shrine, hoping to encounter the saint in a dream and to obtain a cure. 16 The somewhat obscure “without any witnesses” may be the result of too much abridgement. In other versions, Greek, Coptic and Ethiopian, some reference is made to the prohibition against Jews entering Christian churches, which the Jew in the story accepts without question, thus further demonstrating his good faith. But the forced narrative elision, here as in other places, sometimes leaves behind traces of the fuller account which then become irrelevant once removed from their narrative stream. Thus, below, the servant’s abrupt reference to his master’s order (kayΔw pros°tajaw)is the result of another such elision; in the longer version the saint plays the role of a messenger who relays the Christian’s instructions to his wife. None of these obscurities, on the other hand, are likely to have interfered with the edifying or cautionary message of the tale. In “Le Juif et le Chrétien: un miracle de Saint Ménas”, Devos (1960) 275-308 has published both the Coptic and Ethiopian versions of the story together with a French translation. He includes also a Greek version based on two manuscripts of the eleventh century, Florence Laur. gr. XI, 9 and Athos Lavra D 50. 17 The protection of oaths was a feature of the cult of St. Menas; see Delehaye (1910) 131.

76

JOHN DUFFY AND EMMANUEL BOURBOUHAKIS

ÉAf¤konto oÔn …w §k sunyÆmatow efiw tÚn naÚn toË èg¤ou Mhnç. ka‹ pareuyÁ ı XristianÚw mhd¢n melÆsaw diÉ ˜rkou tØn ofike¤an ¶nstasin §beba¤vsen. …w d¢ toË ˜rkou épartisy°ntow §jelyÒntew toË naoË ka‹ émfÒteroi t«n ofike¤vn ·ppvn §pibãntew, ı toË XristianoË ·ppow katå toË fid¤ou aÈy°ntou étakt«n ∑n, ka‹ tÚn xalinÚn §ndak≈n, pikrÚn ±pe¤lei t“ §pibãt˙ tÚn yãnaton. ka‹ t°vw m¢n ¶rrice katå g∞w, diethrÆyh d¢ ésinÆw, mÒnou toË §gxeir¤ou aÈtoË épolesy°ntow sÁn kleid¤ƒ ka‹ boullvthr¤ƒ xrus°ƒ •n¤. E‰yÉ oÏtvw ka‹ aÔyiw §pibåw §poreÊeto sunÒntow aÈt“ ka‹ toË ÑEbra¤ou stugnãzontow ka‹ §k bãyouw st°nontow ka‹ tØn zhm¤an mØ f°rontow. §pistrafe‹w d¢ l°gei prÚw aÈtÒn, “§pe‹ ka‹ ı tÒpow §pitÆdeiÒw §stin, Œ f¤ltate, épobãntew t«n ·ppvn épolãbvmen trof∞w.” ka‹ érjam°nvn aÈt«n §sy¤ein, metå mikrÚn éten¤saw ı XristianÒw, e‰de tÚn •autoË doËlon •st«ta kat°xonta §n m¢n tª xeir‹ tª miò tÚ toË ÑEbra¤ou balãntion, §n d¢ tª •t°r& tØn épolesye›san kle›da sÁn t“ §gxeir¤ƒ. ka‹ fidΔn §jeplãgh, ka‹ “t¤ toËto;” prÚw tÚn doËlon fhs¤n. ı d°, “foberÒw tiw ¶fippow,” épekr¤nato, “§lyΔn efiw tØn kur¤an mou ka‹ §pidoÁw aÈtª tÚ kleid¤on metå toË §gxeir¤ou sou prÚw aÈtØn e‡rhken, ‘§n spoudª pollª épÒsteilon tÚ toË ÑEbra¤ou balãntion, ·na mØ ı énÆr sou k i n d u n e Ê s ˙ .’ ka‹ fidoÁ labΔn toËto ∑lyon prÚw s¢ kayΔw pros°tajaw.” ÑO ÑEbra›ow perixarØw genÒmenow Íp°strece metå toË XristianoË prÚw tÚn ëgion. ka‹ otow m¢n ±ntibÒlei baptisy∞nai …w toioÊtou yaÊmatow aÈtÒpthw genÒmenow, ı d¢ sugx≈rhsin ≥tei labe›n Íp¢r o tÚ ye›on par≈rgisen. émfÒteroi oÔn labÒntew kayΔw ±tÆsanto, ı m¢n tÚ ëgion bãptisma, ı d¢ tØn sumpãyeian, Íp°strecan ka‹ émfÒteroi efiw tå ‡dia xa¤rontew.

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS

77

And so they arrived, by agreement, at the shrine of St. Menas. And without giving it any thought the Christian immediately confirmed his original claim. And when he had sworn his oath, the two men exited from the shrine and each mounted his own horse. But the horse of the Christian became unruly against its master, and biting the reins it threatened its rider with a bitter death. And though the horse threw him to the ground, he remained unharmed, losing only his kerchief together with a key and a gold sealing device. 18 Then, getting right back on his horse, he set off accompanied by the Jew, who was quite joyless and groaned deeply since he could not bear the wrong done to him. And turning towards him, the Christian says, “Since this location is suitable, my good friend, let us dismount from our horses and have some food.” A little while after they had started to eat, the Christian looked up and saw his servant standing there holding the money-bag of the Jew in one hand, and the lost key together with the kerchief in the other. And seeing this he was stunned and said to the servant, “What is this?”And the servant answered, “A formidable looking man on horseback came to my mistress and, giving her the key together with your kerchief, he said to her ‘Send the bag of the Jew with all haste, lest your husband meet with danger.’ And so taking it I came to you according to your instructions.” The Jew, overjoyed, returned with the Christian to the saint. And the Jew prayed to be baptized, since he had witnessed such a great miracle, while the Christian asked forgiveness for having provoked God. So both obtained their requests, the one holy baptism, the other compassion, and they went off rejoicing each to his own home.

18 The “sealing device” is a bit of an anomaly. Unlike the key it does not figure again in our story. In the longer Greek version the money-bag, upon being handed over to the Christian’s care, is sealed (balãntion beboulvm°non); he in turn locks it in his “safe” (skeÊrion) and takes the key with him. In the Coptic version (Devos [1960] 276-7) the object lost by the Christian is not a key, but a gold ring that he wears on his finger. This leads us to suggest that the gold boullvtÆrion here, despite the fact that it is not worn on the man’s finger and is not attested in this exact sense, is nothing other than a signet ring. We thank John Nesbitt whom we profitably consulted on this point. The “elided” element will have been its use by the messenger/saint to convince the woman that the instructions were truly coming from her husband.

78

JOHN DUFFY AND EMMANUEL BOURBOUHAKIS

Per‹ toË kuloË ka‹ t∞w bvb∞w âHn tiw kulÚw §k paidÒyen ka‹ oÈk ±dÊnato oÎte to›w pos‹ peripat∞sai oÎte ta›w xers‹ kamãtou §pixeir∞sai mÆte ÍpÚ fiatroË μ épÚ ofloudÆpote ényr≈pou ¶xvn boÆyeian. ékoÊsaw d¢ ka‹ aÈtÚw parå pantÚw ényr≈pou tåw yaumatourg¤aw toË èg¤ou Mhnç, parekãlesen ka‹ épÆgagon aÈtÚn §ke›se. ÉIdÒntew aÈtÚn ı ˆxlow §yaÊmasan. eren d¢ §ke› ka‹ guna›ka bvbØn mØ lalÆsasãn pote. par°menon d¢ émfÒteroi §ke› afitoËntew tØn ‡asin. xron¤saw d¢ ı ênyrvpow ka‹ mØ fiaye¤w, ±ganãkthsen katå toË èg¤ou l°gvn, “…w yevr«, ëgie toË yeoË, pãnta ì ≥kousa per¤ sou ceud∞ efisi ka‹ oÈk élhy∞.” tª nukt‹ d¢ §ke¤n˙ parefãn˙ t“ kul“ ı ëgiow ka‹ l°gei aÈt“, “diå t¤ ±ganãkthsaw katÉ §moË, Œ ênyrvpe; t¤ se kakÚn §po¤hsa; éll’ §pe¤per …w l°geiw édunat« se fiãsasyai, efi mØ poiÆs˙w ˘ l°gv soi, oÈ mØ fiayªw efiw tÚn afi«na.” < . . . >. l°gei aÈt“ ı ëgiow, “efi y°l˙w ÍgiØw gen°syai, êpelye mØ nooËntÒw tinow ka‹ fyãson tÚ str«ma t∞w gunaikÚw t∞w bvb∞w ka‹ koimoË met’ aÈt∞w, ka‹ lambãneiw tØn ‡asin.” Diupnisye‹w d¢ ı kulÚw §yaÊmasen, dokÆsaw ˜ti §mpa¤zei μ peirãzei aÈtÚn ı ëgiow. ka‹ e‰pen §n •aut“, “t¤ poiÆsv oÈk o‰da: ∑lyon zht«n tØn ‡asin toË s≈matÒw mou ka¤, …w fa¤netai, efiw porne¤an me §laÊnei ı ëgiow, mãlista efiw tÚn naÚn aÈtoË. ka‹ §ån toËto , foboËmai mØ xe›rÒn ti g°nhta¤ moi.” ÉEk deut°rou d¢ fane‹w aÈt“ ı ëgiow, e‰pen aÈt“, “˘ l°gv soi toËto po¤hson.” éganaktÆsaw d¢ ı kulÚw e‰pen prÚw tÚn ëgion, “ëgie toË yeoË, mØ dunãmenÒw me fiãsasyai, efiw porne¤an me §pitr°peiw •autÚn §mbale›n: toiaËta¤ efisin afl t«n èg¤vn didaxa¤; μ §mpa¤zeiw moi;” Pãlin d¢ kay’ Ïpnouw §mfanisye‹w e‰pen aÈt“ ı ëgiow, “˜per e‰pÒn soi po¤hson, ka‹ tÒte lambãneiw tØn ‡asin.” ı d¢ diupnisye‹w

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS

79

[Longer version of no. IV] 19 THE MIRACLE OF THE CRIPPLED MAN AND THE MUTE WOMAN There was once a man, crippled from childhood, who could neither walk on his feet nor undertake any task with his hands; and there was no help to be had from doctors or anyone else. And he, too, hearing from everyone about the miracles of St. Menas, asked (some people) and they brought him there. And seeing him, the crowd marvelled. And there he also found a mute woman who had never uttered a sound. And both of them stayed there seeking a cure. And after having spent some time there and receiving no cure, the man lost his patience with the saint and said, “As I see, holy man of God, everything I heard about you is a lie and untrue.” So that night the saint appeared to the cripple and said to him, “Why are you upset with me, man? What harm have I done you? But since, according to you, I am unable to cure you, if you do not do what I tell you, you will remain uncured forever.” 20 The saint said to him, “If you wish to be whole, when no one is watching go to the mute woman’s bed and sleep with her and you will have your cure.” When he woke up the cripple was amazed, for he had the impression the saint was having fun with him or tempting him. And he said to himself, “I do not know what I should do; I came looking for a cure for my body and, as it appears, the saint is forcing me into fornication, and that in his very shrine! And if I should 21 this, I fear something worse may happen to me.” So appearing a second time, the saint said to him, “Do what I tell you.” And taking it badly, the cripple said to him, “Holy man of God, because you are not able to cure me you encourage me to cast myself into sexual depravity. Are these the teachings of the saints, or are you toying with me?” Appearing once again to the man in his sleep the saint said, “Do what I have told you and then you will have your cure.” And waking,

19 Pomjalovskij (1900) 73-5. As Delehaye (1910) 132 pointed out, a version of the cripple and the mute story is found also in the miracle collection of Saints Cosmas and Damian. It is no. 24 (pp. 162-4) in the edition of L. Deubner (1907). 20 The man’s response has fallen out, as already indicated by Pomjalovskij on the basis of the Slavic version that he cites (Pomjalovskij [1900] 74). The Greek text from the Vaticanus gr. 866 published by Miedema (1918) 221 supplies the missing part: l°gei aÈt“ ı kulÒw, “kÊrie, ka‹ t¤ poiÆsv;” 21 The Slavic version, as reported by Pomjalovskij (1900) 74, suggests that the required verb is poiÆsv.

80

JOHN DUFFY AND EMMANUEL BOURBOUHAKIS

e‰pen, “ëgie toË yeoË, ˜per §pitr°peiw poi∞sai ¶xv, ka‹ …w keleÊei ı yeÚw ka‹ ≤ boÆyeiã sou.” e‰ta bigleÊsaw ˜pou ¶keito ≤ bvbÆ, én°meinen ßvw o Ïpnvsan pãntew ofl §n t“ na“ ˆxloi, ka‹ énaståw surÒmenow §p’ ˆcesin ¶fyasen tÚ str«ma t∞w bvb∞w. ka‹ piãsaw tÚ pãlion ¶suren ka‹ §gÊmnasen aÈtÆn. diupn¤syh ka‹ épÚ toË fÒbou tarassom°nh ≤ bvbØ §lãlhsen, “Ã b¤a, énØr ∑lyen §pãnv mou.” ÉEke›now épÚ toË fÒbou ka‹ t∞w §ntrop∞w y°lvn kremn∞sai •autÚn épÚ toË str≈matow ka‹ fuge›n, én°sth §n tª Àr& §ke¤n˙ …w pãlij droma›ow. yaumãsantew d¢ ofl pãntew tÚ gegonÒw, ˜ti ka‹ ı kulÚw én°sth dihgoÊmenow aÈto›w ëper e‰den §n Ùne¤rƒ, §dÒjasan tÚn yeÚn ëpantew tÚn par°xonta diå t«n èg¤vn aÈtoË tØn ‡asin to›w pçsin. ka‹ oÏtvw ép∞lyon émfÒteroi afinoËntew ka‹ dojãzontew tÚn yeÚn ka‹ tÚn ëgion Mhnçn.

FIVE MIRACLES OF ST. MENAS

81

the man said, “Holy man of God, I will do what you instruct me to do, as God and your beneficence bid.” And observing where the mute woman was lying, he waited until all those in the church had fallen asleep, then got up and dragged himself (ep’opsesin?) 22 until he reached the mute woman’s bed. And taking hold of her covering he pulled it off and stripped her. The mute awoke and, shaken by fear, cried out “Rape! A man has come on top of me!” He, meanwhile, out of fear and shame wishing to throw23 himself off the bed and to flee, got up at that moment like a sprightly youth. And everyone there marvelled at this event, since the cripple stood up and told them what he saw in his dream, and they glorified God who provides cures for all through his saints. And they both left praising and glorifying God and St. Menas.

22 We cannot make sense here of the phrase §pÉ ˆcesin.We could expect the text to describe the manner in which the cripple physically made his way along the ground. Paul Magdalino, therefore, may be right when he suggests to us that the meaning might be “on the face”, i.e., face down or prostrate. 23 I.e. kremn¤sai (from earlier krhmn¤sai).

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER SIX

This page intentionally left blank

ELIAS OF HELIOPOLIS THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT Stamatina McGrath INTRODUCTION The vita of Elias of Heliopolis is a unique Life among those we find in hagiographical collections and synaxaria. It is unique not because of the various elements comprising the Life itself—the themes of apostasis, persecution by the Arab/Muslim authorities and martyrdom are common enough in the hagiography of eighth to eleventh century Syria-Palestine. What is striking is the author’s choice of language, saint and setting to communicate his moral lesson. The author chose to write in Greek—even substituting terms for Arab officials with anachronistic Byzantine terms—at a time when that language was increasingly displaced by Arabic among the communities of the region. In the story Elias suffered martyrdom defending his Christian faith, not out of fervent desire to witness his religion, as in the case of a number of accounts from this period1, but because of professional jealousy and soured relations with his former employer. Elias’ cult seems to have remained localized in Damascus and the surrounding areas as there is scant evidence of this saint in martyrologies of the region and no entry for him in the Synaxarion of Constantinople. The reader of this vita is left to ponder the choice and motivations of the author in regards to his selection of saint. It seems likely that the general audience for this didactic story would be a lay community, most certainly in Syria-Palestine at a time when Christianity was challenged by the Islamic faith and an increasingly dominating Arab culture. The author may have chosen to write Elias’ story in Greek, hoping to prove that this language was still an integral part of his community’s history and culture (although this does not explain how he intended his audience to understand it unless he relied on the active mediation of a knowledgeable priest or reader). If indeed the vita is an eleventh-century composition the use of Greek may coincide with the resurgence of the Byzantine presence in the general region.

1 See S. Griffith, “The Arabic account of ‘Abd al-Mas¬Ω an-Na™r®n¬ al-Ghass®n¬”, Le Muséon 98 fasc. 3-4 (1985) 334; Hoyland (1997) 384.

86

STAMATINA MCGRATH

The version of Christianity that Elias may have subscribed to is also a problematic issue. Born in a small Syrian community it is possible that he was a monophysite. Evidence to this fact would be his inclusion in the thirteenth-century Martyrologion of Rabban Sliba, identified by scholars as a monophysite document.2 However, this evidence is not solid since the lines between orthodox and monophysite were frequently blurred and one could occasionally see crossovers between the two.3 The collection of texts within which Elias’ Life was preserved is orthodox, a fact that reveals little about Elias’ specific religious preference. There is no internal evidence within the Life of Elias to support either his identification as an orthodox or monophysite Christian. It is most likely that Elias’ vita appears in both traditions because it was particularly pertinent to the experiences of the Christian community in the region, rather than because it championed the monophysite or orthodox cause. The Life is a valuable source of social history for eighth-century Syria. Elias, born in Heliopolis/Baalbek to a pious Christian family of very modest means, was trained in carpentry from an early age, a profession that was well suited for the forested area in which he lived.4 There is no mention of his father in the vita, only his mother and two brothers with whom ten-year-old Elias traveled from Baalbek to Damascus in search of a better life. The decision-making authority in Elias’ family seems to have been shared between his mother and older brother, although, the mother remains a shadowy background figure with no direct voice of her own. In Damascus the saint was employed in the service of a Syrian5 carpenter, who with the aid of his Arab patron, apostatized from Christianity and became a Muslim. The vita paints the picture of a vital community in which professional mobility was possible between geographic, cultural and religious boundaries and relations 2 Elias’ feast day, commemorated on February 4 and February 1 respectively, appears in a tenth-century Palestino-Georgian ecclesiastical calendar as February 4 and the thirteenth century martyrology of Rabban Sliba as February 1. See G. Garitte, Le Calendrier PalestinoGéorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe Siècle), Subsidia Hagiographica 30 (Brussels: 1958) 151; and P. Peeters (1908) 174. 3 Peeters (1908) 134. 4 The vita states that he was trained in the use of “medium-sized pieces of wood”, not in large-scale wood construction. Later it is specified that he made packsaddles for camels in Damascus and that he repaired the wooden tools of the farmers in Baalbek. His training appears to have begun before the age of ten, when he first moved to Damascus. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, SullogØ palaist¤nhw ka‹ suriak∞w ègiolog¤aw, I, Pravoslavnyj Palestinskij Sbornik XIX. 3 (=57), (Petersberg 1907) 45. 5 What the anonymous author means by “Syrian” here is probably a member of the native population of Syria-Palestine who spoke Aramaic and was apt to adopt Arabic after the seventh century conquest. S. Griffith, “Stephen of Ramlah and the Christian Kerygma in Arabic in Ninth-century Palestine,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36.1 (1985) 23.

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

87

between employer and employee were casual, similar to those among the members of an extended family group. Elias’ carpentry tasks must not have included service at a feast, but the youth’s services were called upon by his employer. This appears to have been an extension of Elias’ duties as an apprentice/assistant, suggesting a very close relationship between employer and employee that extended to the social realm.6 While serving at the birthday celebration Elias came in contact with Muslims who sought to convince him to join their religion. Although he refused, the boy was tricked into removing his belt or zunn®r7 during a dance. As Christians were required by law to wear their belts in a distinctive manner the removal of Elias’ zunn®r was taken as a sign of apostasis and conversion to Islam and the youth was later accused by the partygoers of having recanted his newly acquired Islamic faith—a capital crime under Islamic law.8 Elias’ Syrian employer initially offered protection, but when Elias’ family attempted to remove the boy from his service out of fear of the Muslim community and redeem his pending wages the Syrian refused payment and threatened to report the youth’s ‘conversion’ to the Islamic authorities. By family decision, Elias returned to Baalbek where he stayed for eight years. After that time it was deemed safe for him to return to Damascus and open his own business, but his old employer recognized him and asked him to join his workshop. When Elias declined, the Syrian with the aid of his Arab patron’s son brought charges against him. Regardless of enticements, torture and imprisonment, Elias remained before the authorities steadfast in his Christian faith. After refusing numerous opportunities to recant Elias was executed. Miracles immediately followed the death of the saint. A bright star shone at the place where his dead body was crucified, and there were reports of visions of the saint in and around Damascus. Fearing that these reports would inflame the faith of the Christians who might attempt to venerate Elias as a saint, the Islamic ruler ordered the incineration of Elias’ remains. As further evidence of Elias’ sanctity, his body remained unharmed by the fire. Still, the corpse was dismembered and thrown into 6 One can see this family-like intimacy in the behavior of the Syrian the day after the birthday party, who offered Elias protection from the pressures of his Arab friends on the understanding that Elias continued to work efficiently. The accusation by Elias’ family that the youth had not received wages for a whole year further exemplifies the lax relations and presumed trust between the Syrian employer and Elias. When Elias attempted to open his own shop eight years later, his former Syrian master tried to restore the relationship and employ Elias once more and it was only when he was rejected that he brought charges against the saint. 7 See, Translation, footnotes 42 and 43. 8 J. Kraemer, “Apostates, Rebels and Brigands”, Israel Oriental Studies 10 (1980) 36-48 and M. Ayoub, “Religious Freedom and the Law of Apostasy in Islam”, Islamochristiana [Journal of the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Christians] 20 (1994) 75-91.

88

STAMATINA MCGRATH

the river Barad®. Parts of his corpse were recovered by pious Christians and venerated in secret, while the saint continued his miracles through healings and intercessions on behalf of the faithful. The chronology of the saint can be reasonably determined based on the internal evidence of the vita. The anonymous author states that the saint was martyred in the year 6287.9 This would coincide with the year 779 of the Byzantine era or the year 795 of the Alexandrian era.10 The scholarly opinion on the matter is divided with valid arguments presented on both sides.11 The evidence in favor of the year 779 is in my opinion more convincing but not entirely secure. The Arab caliph identified in the vita is al-MaΩd¬ (775-85), and the years of his rule fit well with the year of Elias’ execution. However, the text mentions al-MaΩd¬ only to identify the emir of Damascus, MuΩammad, not to state that the events in the saint’s life took place during his caliphate. Most likely MuΩammad, the emir of Damascus, was MuΩammad ibn-Ibr®Ω¬m (739/740-801), a relative of al-MaΩd¬, whose emirate covers both possible martyrdom dates.12 Another figure identified in the vita is al-LaytΩ (Leithi), who appears in the role of eparch and judge.13 He may be identified with al-LaytΩ ibn ‘Abd al-RaΩm®n al-FaΩm¬, a renowned Islamic jurist who journeyed to Damascus in the years 777/78 and may have stayed for a year or so in the city. In this case, al-LaytΩ could have been the judge of Elias’ case, but the title of eparch does not fit based on our knowledge of the jurist’s career. Strictly speaking, as eparch, al-LaytΩ would have been not only the supreme authority on judicial matters, but also commander of the police force and prisons, and regulator of the city’s commercial and industrial activities.14 These duties would be beyond the scope of the responsibilities of a visiting legal authority in eighth-century Damascus. Papadopoulos-Kerameus (1907) 55. V. Grumel, La Chronologie (Paris: 1958) 249-250. 11 Among others Ch. Loparev, “Vizantijskie zitija svjatych VIII-IX vekov”, Vizantinskij vremennik 19 (1912) 36-40; I. Sevcenko, “Constantinople Viewed from the Eastern Provinces in the Middle Byzantine Period, Harvard Ukranian Studies 3/4, pt. 2 (1979/80) 712-747 argue for the year 795 and Hoyland (1997) 365; V. Grumel, “Elia il Giovane, santo, martire a Damasco”, Bibliotheca Sanctorum, vol.4 (Rome: 1964) 1046; Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Database Project (DOHP), Introduction, edd. A. Kazhdan and A.-M. Talbot, “Elias of Heliopolis” (Washington, DC: 1998) 68-69 for the year 779. 12 Ibn- ‘As®kir, Mukhtasar T®r¬kh Dimashq, ed. Sak¬na al-SΩiΩ®b¬ (Damascus: 1990) 21: 340-42. I wish to acknowledge Prof. Irfan Shahid who provided the references for MuΩammad and al-LaytΩ for the DOHP in 1998. 13 According to the history of Ibn- ‘As®kir (Ibn- ‘As®kir (1990) 21: 246-55) al-LaytΩ visited Damascus in the year 777/78; see also EI 2, art. “Al-LaytΩ ibn ‘Abd al-RaΩm®n al-FaΩm¬, Abu’l H®ritΩ”, 5:711-12 A. Merad. 14 On the title of eparch and for bibliography, see ODB 705. 9

10

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

89

The date of composition of the vita is more difficult to discern than the precise chronology of the martyrdom. The author does not seem to be writing close to the date of Elias’ execution, and he does not provide statements indicating he was an eyewitness or had spoken personally to eyewitnesses regarding the saint and his life. There are no individuals identified by name in the vita beyond Elias, the two Arab officials and the caliph. The vita itself survives in a tenth/eleventh-century manuscript containing a collection of saints’ lives from Egypt, Palestine and Syria as well as some ascetic writings.15 Several references in the text suggest that this vita was not an original composition of the author but was rewritten, perhaps from a shorter narrative, and expanded to include a number of episodes emphasizing demonstrations of Elias’ faith before his Muslim captors and the saint’s posthumous miracles.16 If the original shorter version of the Life was written in Syriac or Arabic, the author took pains to remove any such evidence from his text, leaving a nicely flowing Greek narrative. There are no rhetorical figures or classical allusions in this vita. The overall evidence suggests a date of composition between the beginning of the eighth and the end of the eleventh-century AD.17 The author of the vita of Elias is anonymous. There are no indications as to his ethnicity or origin, but based on the limited geographic circulation of information regarding the Life of St. Elias, it is likely the author was a native of Syria-Palestine. By his own admission he has written two other saints’ lives. Based on the author’s remarks in the introduction of Elias’ Life, it is probable that these other narratives also dealt with martyrdoms of Christian saints. The author’s concern over spiritual issues regarding the faithful in general implies that his responsibilities may have centered on a secular community rather than a monastic establishment. The Christian communities in Syria-Palestine no doubt felt the pressures of adjusting to a well-established and powerful Islamic rule that expanded its authority by the growing use of the Arabic language in the administration and the increasing appeal of Islamic religion and culture.18 Christian converts to Islam were released from the obligation to pay poll tax according to ‘Abd al-Malik’s tax reform of 685.19 In the seventh cen-

15 For the Vita of Elias of Heliopolis, see Devreesse (1945) 303 (10th c.) ff. 238-249, with partial edition by F. Combefis, Christi martyrum lecta trias (Paris: 1666) 155-206, and complete edition by Papadopoulos-Kerameus (1907) 42-59. 16 See Translation, notes 30, 37 and 52. 17 See also Devreesse (1945) 286-88 and DOHP Introduction (1998) 69. 18 Schick (1995) 159-178. 19 D. Dennett, Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam (Cambridge, MA: 1950) 45-8.

90

STAMATINA MCGRATH

tury apocalyptic text of Pseudo-Methodius there was great concern with voluntary Christian conversions to Islam.20 The same sentiment is echoed in other contemporary sources.21 Without a doubt the combination of economic and social pressures made apostasy from Christianity an attractive alternative for many members of the community. The vita of Elias belongs to the literature produced in the region for the purpose of shoring up the faith of the Christian community and instructing its members of the dangers of close association with Christian apostates and Muslims. Elias’ story offers a unique glimpse of the social pressures experienced by Christians and their efforts to maintain their culture and religion under Islamic rule.

20 G.J. Reinink, “Pseudo-Methodius und die Legende vom römischen Endkaiser”, in W.Verbeke, D. Verhelst, and A. Welkenhuysen, edd., The Use and Abuse of Eschatology in the Middle Ages (Leuven: 1988), 104; also G.J. Reinink, “Ps.-Methodius: A Concept of History in Response to the Rise of Islam”, in Av. Cameron and L.Conrad, edd., The Byzantine and Islamic Near East I. Problems in the Literary Source Material (Princeton, NJ: 1992), 159, 178, 186-7. 21 Hoyland (1997) 343.

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

91

TRANSLATION February 1.22 Memorial regarding the account of the martyrdom of the holy great martyr Elias the Younger23, who came from Helioupolis24 and suffered martyrdom in Damascus25. 1. We have already refuted the arguments or disbelief of the many regarding the holy great martyrs, having cleansed the faithful from impiety in our two previous accounts26. Now, in this one as well, the third one after the others, we start by announcing to all those who have even a small hope of salvation as comfort and encouragement the forgiveness that is always bestowed upon sinners. 2. For it is written in the gospel of Luke27 that “A Pharisee invited” our Lord Jesus Christ “to dine with him, and he entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at table. Now, there was a sinful woman in the city who learned that he was at table in the house of the Pharisee. Bringing an alabaster container of ointment, she stood behind him at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment. When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner’. Jesus said to

22 Concerning the saint’s feast date, see the bibliography listed in the Introduction, footnote 2. See also BHG 578-9. 23 For the manuscript and editions of Elias’ vita, see the Introduction, footnote 15. I wish to thank A.-M. Talbot and P. Magdalino for making valuable comments on the present translation. 24 Heliopolis/Baalbek, a city in Syria between the mountains of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, was captured by the Arabs in 637. ODB 909-10. 25 Damascus, a city in southern Syria and metropolitan bishopric of Phoenicia Libanensis, was held by the Persians between 612 and 628 and then fell to the Arabs in 635. ODB 580. 26 Beyond what is stated here nothing is known of these two previous accounts mentioned by the anonymous author. 27 The long quotation that follows is from Luke 7: 36-50. The selection of this text in the context of the anonymous author’s didactic scope of forgiveness of sins and salvation is not by chance and follows a long tradition in Syriac theological writings beginning with the works of Ephaim the Syrian (4th century). For complete analysis of this theme in the works of Ephraim see, S. Brock, “The Sinful Woman and Satan: Two Syriac Dialogue Poems”, Oriens Christianus 72 (1988) 21-62; B.P. Robinson, “The Anointing by Mary of Bethany”, Downside Review (April 1997) 99-111; and H. Hunt, “The Tears of the Sinful Woman: a Theology of Redemption in the Homilies of St. Ephraim and His Followers”, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies [http://syrcom.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye] vol.1, no.2 (1998) par. 1-38.

92

STAMATINA MCGRATH

him in reply, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ ‘Tell me, teacher,’ he said. ‘Two people were in debt to a certain creditor; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other owed fifty. Since they were unable to repay the debt, he forgave it for both. Which of them will love him more?’ Simon said in reply, ‘The one, I suppose, whose larger debt was forgiven.’ He said to him, ‘You have judged rightly.’ Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment. So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.’ He said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ The others at table said to themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’ But he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’” For even though the woman was a sinner, as you heard, if the benevolent Jesus forgave her her many sins because of those tears and the anointing with ointment do you not believe that the sins great or small of these neomartyrs28 would be forgiven because of their many afflictions and the sacrifice of their own blood? You judge, those of you who calculate like Pharisees, if neomartyrs will be forgiven their sins. We know according to the other evangelists, and most clearly in [the gospel] by Matthew29, it is not fitting to create troubles for our soul that is now like that woman, for they know that she performed a good deed. 3. And indeed this great neomartyr before us30, did not act like we do to the poor among the saints, sharing in their sufferings through good deeds, but he himself rose up on his own when he anointed his very own blood like ointment on His body, for the burial of our great God 28 By emphasizing the term “neomartyr” in place of “martyr” the author seems to focus on the praise of those who have suffered for their faith at more recent times rather than the martyrs of the early Christian era. This focus is consistent with the author’s didactic message regarding apostasy and forgiveness of sins stated in the opening paragraphs of the Life. 29 Cf. Matthew 26: 10. 30 ı proke¤menow ≤m›n m°gaw neomãrtuw..., a term usually reserved for readings delivered on the feast day of a saint [see the Life of Paul of Latros in T. Wiegand, Milet 3. 1. Der Latmos [Berlin: 1913) 105 and the Life of Loukas the Younger of Stiris in D. Sophianos, ÜOsiow Loukçw . ÑO b¤ow toË ıs¤ou Loukç toË Steiri≈tou [Athens: 1989] 159). It is not clear from the introduction to this Life that it was written on the occasion of the saint’s feast, but the inclusion of this term may suggest this is a trace from another text containing Elias’ vita copied by the anonymous author of the present text.

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

93

and Savior Jesus Christ31. For this reason Christ will say now, as he did then, “Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the entire world, what he has done, just like her, will be said in his witness”32. But let us in no way be reproached like that Pharisee when we invite Christ, or rather when Christ invites us [to His feast] to eat bread in His Church, His all holy and life giving body, and says [to us] as if speaking to him [Pharisee], “And you did not give a drink, ‘a cup of cold water’33 as it is written, to him who stood upon the road of martyrdom in the name of my disciple. While these, the neomartyrs, wiped down together with the feet the entire flesh with tears and streams of blood. You did not give me the kiss of love of one another, while they even laid down their souls on behalf of their faith. You did not anoint my head with the oil of benevolence and charity for those who are of the same descent, while their heads were cut off with swords for me34. For this reason it is said, ‘Their sins are forgiven, although they are a great many, for they have loved much, rather than yours who in vain boast to love through words only’”35. 4. That which he did in his witness will be proclaimed to the entire world. I will write down at once what he did, calling upon his [Elias’] grace and drawing inspiration from the most Holy Spirit as I open my mouth.36 I intend to narrate his story, for many desire to hear it in its fullness37 with eager attention, without preference for intricate inferences and eulogistic re-workings, but rather the events as they happened in simple phrases38, so that through its persuasiveness and hopefulness the present story may cause every pious and god-loving soul to rejoice and to delight with the gladness with which it ought be glad, for this one, the son of our homeland, was not dead and came to life again, but was living and died for the hope laid up in store in the heavens. For this reason, having made the distinction, I will start from the

Cf. Matthew 26: 12. Cf. Matthew 26: 13. 33 Matthew 10: 42. 34 Cf. the section from “And you did not give...” to “... their heads were cut off with swords for me” and Luke 7: 44-6. 35 Cf. Luke 7: 47. 36 Cf. Ephesians 6: 19. 37 §ntel°steron, a further suggestion that a shorter Life of the saint may have been available prior to the composition of the present text. 38 The intent to write a hagiographical account in simple language for the benefit of a wider audience is a theme attested in other Lives of saints as well, see the Life of Blasios of Amorion in AASS , Nov. IV, 658, and the Life of Theodore of Studios in PG 99: 236. 31 32

94

STAMATINA MCGRATH

beginning and from thence I will narrate all his shifts of fortune with all truthfulness. 5. This holy neomartyr and contender of Christ, Elias, descended from the most pious native born citizens of Helioupolis of Second Phoenicia39 near mount Lebanon40, from Christian upbringing and lowly means, and pursued a craft which they call carpentry, working with medium-sized pieces of wood. He, along with his poor mother and two brothers, leaving Helioupolis, his homeland, migrated to Damascus that was a great metropolis, in which he hoped to live an easier life. When he arrived there he hired himself out to a certain man, who was Syrian in descent, but a client and attached to one of the Arabs. Thereupon he continued in his service two years, making his living in the same craft. By the influence of the devil and the consent of the Arab, the client Syrian renounced the faith of Christ, but persevered making his livelihood in his craft.41 Being a child, Elias, the one who is now a great martyr, ignoring the designs of the Devil, remained hired out in his trade to the apostate. 6. A short time later the Arab, the patron of the apostate, died after engaging his son in marriage. Thereafter his son had a male child and with the exhortation of his fellows he celebrated the birthday of his son, preparing a feast. While the feast was taking place and the apostate was feasting, they called upon Elias, the great martyr, for service. Elias was about twelve years old. He served them, joking and rejoicing with them at the feast, inasmuch as he was an innocent child. The dinner guests, along with the patron of the apostate, turned to the martyr and said, “Where are you from child? For we see you to be clever and willing to share our joy.” The apostate responded taking on the reply, “He is hired out to me in my craft, and as you can see he is good.” Laying hold of him separately they said to the saint, “If you want child, you too can renounce your Christian faith and can become just like us, continuing with your master no longer as a hired servant, but as a son.” Immediately the saint replied, “You have gathered here

39 Probably Phoenicia Libanensis, administrative district from the time of Diocletian to the Arab conquest. After the Arab it was incorporated into the much larger province of Damascus. 40 Mountain range between western Syria and the Mediterranean coast. 41 The client-patron relationship appears as a particularly dangerous one for Christians who aligned themselves with Muslim masters [Hoyland (1997) 339]. Conversion to Islam among the Christian population was an increasingly greater problem in Christian communities after the Arab conquest, especially in the second part of the eighth century [Hoyland (1997) 342-7].

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

95

to feast, not to offer public speeches. Stop saying these things to me.” They responded, “Meanwhile, come eat with us.” Approaching with guilelessness and eating the saint continued to serve them, when some stood up from the dinner and began dancing, and taking hold of the saint they persuaded him to dance with them. What is more, banding together they loosened the saint’s belt42 and threw it to the side at that time so that it would not prevent the body from easily being drawn to dance. Then the dinner of evil preparation came to an end. 7. After the night passed, the holy great martyr Elias got up in the morning. Since all the dinner guests had slept together at the house, he girded his own belt according to the custom of the Christian community43, and after washing his face he departed the house and was on his way to pray to God. One of those still under the influence of the evening’s intoxication, called out and said, “Elias, where are you going?” The saint responded, “I am going to pray.” Taking up the conversation another one said to the saint, “And did you not deny your faith late last night?” The saint disdained these words, and without even turning around to the speaker went to prayer; and then returning from there he arrived at the workshop and there found the apostate. And the apostate said to him, “Indeed, Elias, if I had not prevented our companions, they would have caused you grief today because they say you denied Christ last night. But work and be without fear.” The saint was amazed to hear these things, and kept quiet for a short while, then during the time of the mid-day meal, leaving the workshop he went to his brothers, and narrated to them what had happened to him. By decision of his older brother along with his mother they went to the apostate and said to him, “Man, behold our brother has been working for you for a year and has not received any portion of his wages from you. Give us our fair portion and our brother will depart from 42 Removing one’s belt appears as a symbol of apostasy in a story about a deacon from Edessa who renounced Christianity by proclaiming his faith in MuΩammad and removing his zunn®r in public. This account appears in the Chronicle of pseudo-Dionysios of Tell MaΩr∂ (also known as the Chronicon Zuqn¬n): see Hoyland (1997) 337-8. For another example of removal of the zunn®r as an indication of change of faith see Tritton (1970) 118-9. 43 The custom of wearing the zunn®r in a distinct Christian fashion is recorded in the socalled “Covenant of ‘Umar I” attributed to caliph ‘Umar ibn al-KΩattab (634-44). An expansion of ‘Umar’s covenant in the Kit®b ul Umm specified “You shall wear the zunn®r above all your clothes, cloaks and others, so that it is not hidden”: Tritton (1970) 12-4. See also Hoyland (1997) 364 and C.E. Bosworth, “The ‘Protected Peoples’ (Christians and Jews) in Medieval Egypt and Syria”, in Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 62.1 (1979) 16 (rp. Variorum Reprints in C. E. Bosworth, The Arabs, Byzantium and Iran [Brookfield: 1996]).

96

STAMATINA MCGRATH

your service, for we have decided to send him back to Helioupolis, our homeland.” The apostate said in response, “You are not due outstanding wages from hiring out the child. But neither will I release the child to leave my service, as he has apostatized from your Christian faith, and I have witnesses against him.” 8. Thereupon, a disputation took place between the two, with the saint narrating those things that were said during the evil dinner on the one hand, and the apostate asserting obstinately that he would lead away the saint to the ruler, on the other. At that time, the saint’s brothers gave up his wages they had been demanding, and having apparently appeased the apostate, and taking the saint with them his brothers said, “Brother, we agree that you should return to Helioupolis, our homeland, and live there working to make a living as best as you can for some time, until this conversation is forgotten. For we are fearful lest seeing you here the apostate might again be stirred up and cause trouble. He has turned to such behavior since he desires to have you as his slave.” Having pacified [the apostate], the saint then returned to Helioupolis, and made a living working in his own homeland for eight years. After considering these years [to be sufficient time] he journeyed down to Damascus. When his brothers being in agreement with each other on the matter said to the saint, “By this time a period of eight years has passed and has caused the apostate to forget the thoughts he had about you. For since you left his service we have encountered and met him by chance many times and he has said nothing to us about you. Now, we are in agreement that you should not be separated from us, especially since this causes our mother sorrow. But though you are young in age, for you have just completed your twentieth year and you have only begun growing a beard, rely on your craft like a man. Open a workshop and live in Damascus with us.” 9. The saint was persuaded, and the thought becoming deed, he devoted himself in his workshop to producing and selling packsaddles for camels. When the apostate leaned this and harboring envy against the saint, for he lived nearby the workshop, he came to the saint and said to him, “Friend, where have you been these years? Why do you censure me when I have come to you today? But come now and work with me again becoming my partner.” The saint replied smiling, “You have wronged me [in the past], having deprived me of my wages, do you wish to wrong me again?” The apostate was vexed by these words and said to the saint, “Indeed, I have wronged you allowing you to remain in your faith after you renounced it.” Addressing the son of the

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

97

deceased Arab, his patron, whose evil banquet has already been described, he [apostate] said to him, “Do you not witness that this Elias apostatized, denying Christ that evening?” He replied, “Yes.” The apostate then said to the saint “Let us take him before the eparch.”44 10. Dragging the saint by the hand he brought him before a certain Leithi45 by name, with the young man [son of the deceased Arab patron] supporting his testimony that events had occurred thus. The eparch questioned the saint if those things said about him were true. He replied, “In no way, may it never be that I would renounce the faith in which I was born. But I confess Christ and venerate him as being the God of heaven and earth and sea.” The eparch said, “Let it be conceded that you had never renounced [your faith], but because you were presented [before the court], we encourage you to apostatize and come to the religion of the Arabs, and you will enjoy every honor from us.” The saint responded, “May it never be that I would do such a thing. For I am a Christian, descended from Christian ancestors, and I am ready to die for my faith.” The eparch said, “As the witnesses have brought charges against you, I accept the testimony against you and insist that you renounce [Christianity] because it is not at all possible to permit those who once and for all have accepted our religion [to return to their former faith].”46 The saint replied, “You are the judge and may accept however you like my accusers, but I tell you more fervently that I am a Christian and I will deliver my body to you (if it is necessary), so as to show that my faith is not forced but voluntary.” 11. The judge commanded that the saint be stripped and flogged, until (he said) through force he should admit the denial of which he was accused. Stripping the holy great martyr and stretching him out with ropes they beat him with thin rawhide whips, until his blood streamed down. He [saint] implored the judge to stop those who were beating him, letting out a small cry of entreaty, submissively begging for the 44 The Byzantine term “eparch” is inappropriate for a Muslim official, but suggests someone who had supreme judicial and perhaps administrative duties in the city of Damascus. 45 Possibly al-LaytΩ ibn-Sa’d ibn- ‘Abd al-RaΩm®n (712/713-791/792), celebrated Egyptian jurist. For references see the Introduction, notes nos. 12 and 13. According to the history of Ibn- ‘As®kir, al-LaytΩ visited Damascus in the year 777/78. It is possible that he was still in Damascus in 779 and may have been the highest judicial authority examining the case of Elias. 46 Apostasy from Islam could be punishable by death. For bibliography on Muslim views of this matter see the Introduction, footnote no. 8.

98

STAMATINA MCGRATH

mercy of the judge. The judge replied, “What is it, young man? If you wish, deny Christ and walk away.” The saint responded, “I did not call upon your benevolence for this, so that I may renounce [my faith], but so that you may take pity upon my tender youth and human nature and release me allowing me to remain steadfast in my faith, that I have practiced and inherited from my ancestors.” The judge said, “Do not think you will be released from this trial if first you do not deny the Christ in whom you believe.” The saint said, “It remains then for you to command the beating and for me to be beaten.” These were the great martyr’s very own words to the judge, “From you the giving [of the beatings], for me the enduring [of the lashes]. Behold, I am presenting myself to you having become as hard as a diamond.” 12. Then the judge being enraged with the saint’s response, added many more floggings to his [sentence], and placing him in irons he ordered that he [Elias] be dragged by his feet to prison. Then the holy martyr was dragged, and as the ground beneath him met the wounds he had acquired from the flogging extending from head to waist, it tore the flesh that was soft, because of his youth, at the same time. Shut in [prison] he lay in pain because of his wounds. The report announcing the events about the contender spread out quickly throughout the entire city, and the saint’s brothers went to him weeping and exhorting him to submit to the sufferings for Christ’s sake. The great martyr of Christ, Elias, looking up to the heavens said consoling his brothers, “Have faith, my brothers, that I will not shame you, nor shall Christ’s faith be insulted through me. But I shall endure whatever else I must suffer. I also confess to you about one statement that I uttered to the judge calling upon his benevolence that I shall never again appeal to him, but to no other than my Lord Jesus Christ, our true God. I will call upon him and he will be my aid. I will narrate to you now that which I saw in a vision during the preceding night. I saw myself sitting in a bridal chamber, in a place of honor, while another chamber was prepared for me interwoven with different flowers and wreaths were hanging for me. Turning around I saw a black Ethiopian47 standing near me showing me a cross and threaten-

47 The association of black Ethiopians with demonic visions is commonplace in Byzantine hagiography. See ODB 733. For some specific examples see, the Life of Theophano, in E. Kurtz, Zwei griechische Texte über die hl. Theophano, die Gemahlin Kaisers Leo VI (St. Petersburg: 1898) 11; the Life of Elias Spelaiotes in AASS, Sept. III, 865; the Life of Constantine the Jew in AASS, Nov. IV, 641; the two versions of the Life of Athanasios of Athos in J. Noret, Vitae duae antiquae sancti Athanasii Athonitae (Turnhout: 1982) 59 and 169.

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

99

ing me with death, while swords and fire and many other terrors were roaring against me. I laughed at him. I was rejoicing (as it seemed to me) sitting and delighting in the flowers of the wreaths. Now I say to you, my brothers, that whether they crucify me, or burn me with fire, or if I had to suffer everything at the same time, nevertheless, I proclaim to you that I prefer to suffer everything on behalf of that hope, which I have in Christ, and see myself in great joy and fervent faith, and [for this reason] I am pained little and suffer [little] from these lashings. And now do not weep for my sake, but having done a good deed go in peace.” The prison guard approached them rebuking the brothers of the saint and he cast everyone out of the prison saying, “I have been commanded not to let anyone visit the saint, neither is he allowed to have any sort of care, but only if he renounces [his faith] he will be released, or will continue to suffer torture if he remains steadfast.” 13. After a few days they brought forth saint Elias bound in irons to the judge Leithi. Looking upon the saint he said, “Young man, since you are being questioned, for the sake of peace, you should renounce Christ and walk away. What will be your profit, if you die and descend into Hades?” The saint responded with confidence and said, “I am a Christian and I have told you: From you [come] the beatings, and from me [comes the endurance] to be beaten.” Then he [Leithi] commanded again that he [Elias] be beaten by strong men with rawhide whips. And as soon as the beatings commenced, because the flesh was rotten, it was filled with secretions and poured forth a great deal of pus, and also worms fell out and a foul smell spread around. The judge, unable to bear the sight of the rotting flesh, commanded that the saint be thrown upon the ground on his face, and to be beaten with rods from his lower back to his feet on both sides, hoping either to prevail over the brave contender or to kill him. The saint was beaten for a long time, and he did not let out a single sound to the judge, but rather he strengthened himself calling upon our Lord Jesus Christ. He [Elias] amazed the judge, for he [Leithi] said that, “Previously when he was tortured a little he called upon our mercy, now, [while being tortured] in a greater degree he did not even turn our way.” Indeed, there is nothing more steadfast than he who is prepared to suffer everything. 14. Therefore, he ruled against him that he [Elias] should be dragged again to prison. Then, while the saint was being dragged, the crowd of people from the market gathered and some trampled on him while

100

STAMATINA MCGRATH

others spat at him, and others still threw at him the garbage they found discarded in the marketplace. While confined [in prison] that night, he was suffering all over his body. Then he witnessed around him what appeared as a flood of light, and (as the prison guard related to some individuals) voices of chanters resounded from the light. For no one conversed with him [Elias] at any time after he was imprisoned for the second time. Only during his presentation at the tribunal and at times when he was being taken [out of prison] one of the neighbors who happened to be there might speak to the martyr, and yet when presented [at the tribunal] saint Elias confessed having seen Christ anointing him and strengthening him for the contest. 15. Then Leithi went to Mouchamad, who was tetrarch and ruler48 being the nephew of Maadi (the king of the Arabs),49 and expounded in its entirety the sudden change of the saint’s fortune and those things that he [Leithi] showed him [Elias] in his desire to prevail over him. In amazement the ruler commanded the saint to be presented and this was done. Then the ruler said, “Young man, Leithi recounted to me your story and I reproached him, for subjecting you to so much. But I will speak on your behalf, and take off my clothes and dress you in them, honoring you for the dishonor you have suffered. I will provide you with a horse and chariot and gold and a beautiful maiden for your wife. Only be persuaded by me today and become a co-religionist with us.” The saint responded, “You have both agreed to contrive to my destruction. For one offers torture and threats, while the other offers flattery and distinctions. Therefore, ruler, listen now: I am a Christian and I do not accept the honors which you put forth, that I might receive only once I have been deceived and have denied Christ”. The ruler said, “Do you perchance think that after the beatings you will be released, and for this reason you remain steadfast? Know then that a command has come down from Maadi that all accused of this crime, namely those who convert to the faith of the Arabs and then immediately convert back again to Christianity, must be imprisoned, and if then, in spite of exhortations, they do not apos-

The use of the term “tetrarch” in place of the Arabic term “caliph” is anachronistic. This is most likely MuΩammad ibn-Ibr®Ω¬m (739/740-801), a relative of al-MaΩd¬ by virtue of his descent from the Hashimite House from which the Abbasid rulers also claimed descent. MuΩammad was emir of Damascus under both al-MaΩd¬ and H®r‚n al-RasΩ¬d and also called imam (religious leader). Cf. the Introduction, note no. 12. Concerning al-MaΩd¬ (775-85), ‘Abbasid caliph and father of H®r‚n al-RasΩ¬d, see H. Kennedy, The Early Abbasid Caliphate (London: 1981) 95-110. 48

49

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

101

tatize from the faith of Christ, they should be put to death.50 Now, as you have already been charged, if on the one hand we convince you, that is well; but if we do not, know that we will put you to death with many tortures.” The holy Elias said in response, “I saw all these things of which you speak in a night vision.Truly, I was decapitated and crucified and burned, and I have prepared myself to suffer all this willingly so that I might sit in the bridal chamber and the chambers may be interwoven with flowers and that I may be crowned with unsullied wreaths. Therefore, do what you command and begin whence you wish.” 16. Then, while the saint was standing there, two of the ruler’s sons entered at that place, and being informed of the reason for the confining irons and the lashings and turning around to the saint with sympathy and mercy, by way of flattery they spoke to the saint swearing terrible oaths, which those who take a solemn oath in the religion of Moameth [MuΩammad] exchange among themselves. If only he would deny the name of Christ, they promised to receive him as their own brother and to hold him in very high honor and campaign together with him, and to also register his name in their kingly books. He [Elias] stood without trembling, sneering at them. Then, the ruler commanded Leithi, the eparch, to take the saint and return him to the same tortures, until he either was released having apostatized or was put to death if he remained unchanged. It was the season of winter, and the month of January. Thrusting him away from the ruler’s presence, he [Leithi] took him to a place called Prasina51, and he commanded him to stand naked before the tribunal until, he said, he thought further about him. 17. Then, since his [Elias’] constitution was not able to withstand the icy cold suffering, and as already after the violence of nakedness he was led away to prison again in the same manner as before, and there having no comfort or warmth, there the saint suffered in turn and a great affliction overcame him as part of his martyrdom. His belly was chilled by the cold and became ill with dysentery and the great

See note no. 46. Prasinã was most likely the Umayyad palace known as al-KΩadr®’ (“the Green One”) built in the seventh century by Mu ‘awiya (661-680) and used as a prison by the Abbasids. See R. Hillenbrand, “La Dolce Vita in Early Islamic Syria: The Evidence of Later Umayyad Palaces” in Early Islamic Art and Architecture, ed. Jonathan M. Bloom [The Formation of the Classical Islamic World, vol. 23] (Burlington: 2002) 335; EI 2 art. “Dimashk”: 2:280 N. Elisseéf. 50 51

102

STAMATINA MCGRATH

endurance of the saint was seen in all things. For his constitution acted against him and he was outwardly swollen. Those around him took no heed, and the duration [of his anguish] was neither quick nor short, but was stretched out to forty days. Carrying him as if he were dead they tossed him upon any beast of burden they could per chance get hold of, took him to the courthouse and threw him down as though he were a loathsome unburied corpse, and none of the faithful dared approach him. And then the very same prison guards, returning the saint back to prison again, abandoned him to be submerged into the very same misery. 18. A claim is made about him [Elias], that on the first of February, that is one day before the feast of the Presentation of the Lord, that having died upon that day he went to the Lord. But putting off [the narration of] the day of his death, we will fill in the remaining [events of his life].52 19. While the saint was still in prison and exhausted with terrible sufferings, certain individuals were sent by the ruler to prison to the martyr, intending to deceive him. The emissaries were from the ranks of the most persuasive Arabs, who induced the great martyr with rhetoric and flattery. They demonstrated nothing else other than to prove the martyr even braver in his suffering. By an incredible miracle the contender rose up, and in a sudden turn of events by the almighty God, he girded his own belt and washing his face he sat in prison as though having suffered nothing, being entirely fresh in the face and rejoicing in his soul. While he was in this state, the prison guards arrived and brought the saint, walking in irons, to the tribunal. A man seeing the saint with a fresh face said to Leithi, “This one has received food and for this reason he did not take notice of the tortures.” Then Leithi commanded that after the saint was stripped twelve swords be presented in the hands of soldiers to surround the contender and the soldiers to swing them around, as if to terrify the martyr, and seeming to want to strike him and cut him down. At this point arrived a certain great old logothete53 sent by the ruler, honored by the entire nation of the Arabs for his facility in debate. Approaching the saint he encour-

52 It seems that there is a natural end to the events of Elias’ Life, possibly the end of a shorter version of the Life upon which the anonymous author expanded to include a more extensive trial and posthumous miracles of the saint. 53 It is unclear which exact Arab official title is inferred here for the Byzantine office of “logothete”, but it seems it must have been some type of senior adviser.

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

103

aged him, exhorting him to say only one word and then to be released to go wherever he pleased. Bringing forth a moneybag filled with much gold he showed it to the holy martyr saying, “We will provide you with this as compensation for the maltreatment and tortures which you suffered. Take it and go.” He [Elias] bent his head forward and striking [it] with his hand and greatly reviling and blaming the foolish old man he sent him away. 20. Leithi then said to the saint, “Wretch, behold I have placed around you clubs and swords surround you. I will not cease beating you with the clubs and striking you with the swords, until I see you breathing your last breath, and then cutting your head off I will hang you upon a cross, and finally, after burning you with fire I will throw [your corpse] into the river’s current so that there will be no remembrance of you upon the earth.”54 Leaning toward the ear of one of the soldiers he commanded him to strike with his sword and to slice at the shoulder of the saint, so that (he said) becoming fearful he [Elias] would be cleared [of the charges] by renouncing his faith. The soldier attacked him with demonic boldness, and said, raising up his sword, “Wretch, we have been commanded to cut you down. Say the word and save yourself.” The saint said nothing, but only through a hand gesture he assented to be cut to pieces. Bringing down the sword, the soldier made contact with the saint’s shoulder striking him hard. Then the saint turned to the East, as if gazing at Christ his judge and bending his knees and resting both hands upon the earth, he stretched out his neck. The eparch, angered by the willingness of the saint commanded that he be beheaded. Then the sensible ones among the soldiers withdrew their swords, unwilling to behead the saint because of his faith, and when the eparch called upon them to strike him [Elias] down, they arranged payment [among themselves] twenty silver coins for him who would cut down the saint. One of the Persian [soldiers] taking this sword with both hands struck at the saint on the neck and cut him through with the third strike. 21. As the saint lay slaughtered like a lamb, one of the notables came by who had not yet been informed about the holy neomartyr Elias, and inquired about the execution. Learning that he was killed for his faith,

54 Later, in paragraph 25, the reason given for burning Elias’ body is the fear that stories of his miraculous appearances would spread through the city. Here, however, the anonymous author includes the burning of the saint’s body as part of the original punishment.

104

STAMATINA MCGRATH

he was amazed, and wanting to see what appearance he might have had, he bent down and taking hold of the saint’s hair he raised the saint’s face and turned it toward himself. Behold, he saw the saint’s face as though he were still alive and it was very radiant. Sighing he said, “It is a great thing to die for your faith. This one did not die, but lives.” Then the judge commanded that the body be dragged and hung outside the gates in the garden. He ordered that the gate of the garden be closed so that the saint’s body would be guarded securely, so that none of the Christians would be able to approach and take from it some kind of blessing. At the same time the executioners washed the place where he was beheaded and gathering up the soil they threw it in the great current of the nearby Chrysorrhoes river55. Nevertheless, the holy neomartyr Elias continued to hang from the cross from the first of February of the year six thousand two hundred and eighty seven56 for fourteen days. 22. Nor did the Lord abandon his contender un-rewarded, but glorified him with many manifestations proclaiming his death honorable. And many narrated afterward the things they witnessed. While he was still hanging from the cross, some said they saw a radiant lamp shining brightly over his head, while others [said they saw] a most brilliant star, greatest in relation to the circle of the moon, which had never before appeared, except since the time when the holy body of the young neomartyr was hung at that place. As some others relate, even until now this same star appears at that place during the same time of the year, at the very place of the holy burial of the saint57, demonstrating and reminding us that “the death of his saints is honorable before the Lord”58. 23. And another native of Helioupolis, known to the holy great martyr, who had not yet learned of the fate that befell the saint, went down to Damascus for business purposes. While on the road near or little more than fifteen markers from the metropolis he saw the holy great

55 Chrysorrhoas/Barad®, a perennial river flowing from the eastern slopes of Anti-Lebanon through the northern section of Damascus. EI 2 art., “Barad®”: 1:1029-1030 N. Elisseéf. 56 The year 6287 corresponds with the year 779 of the Byzantine era and the year 795 of the Alexandrian era. See our comments in the Introduction. 57 The statement that a star appeared annually at the place of Elias’ “burial” is problematic, as there was no official resting place for the saint—after being subjected to fire his remains were thrown into the river Barad® and recovered only in part by some faithful Christians. 58 Psalm. 115: 6.

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

105

martyr Elias coming before him, alone, dressed in white clothing and illuminated by radiant glory and riding on a white horse. The saint said to his fellow countryman, “Greetings, dear friend.” Turning, the countryman said, “Master Elias?” The saint responded, “It is I.” The countryman said, “Indeed, had you not addressed me first, I would not have recognized you. For I see you are in a different station and position from the one I knew in the past. Will you then come to us at the village as was your habit to make our ploughs in accordance with your profession as a carpenter?” Then the saint said, “Enter Damascus and there you will be told about my affairs.” And immediately the saint disappeared. Astounded the countryman went away amazed at how he saw the saint, and how he had immediately disappeared. At any rate, reaching the gate outside Damascus, he turned toward the cross of the saint and recognized him hanging. He asked some locals whom he encountered there leaving the city, and said. “Brothers, is this not Elias from Helioupolis, the carpenter?” They responded, “Yes, it is he, and after having suffered many things for Christ for days he was executed and hung as you see.” Then the countryman shouted out with amazement, “By God, who sanctified him [Elias], today, two hours ago, I encountered him face to face sitting on a horse draped in white clothing and he said these words to me.” 24. While the conversation was still taking place he saw some of the faithful passing by and bowing down their heads before the saint’s cross, and sealing their faces with the sign of the cross. One of them arriving there and learning about the countryman’s experience, narrated that, “I, too, will tell you what God has revealed yesterday, glorifying his young holy great martyr. I am a neighbor of a certain Arab, and during the night I heard my neighbor calling upon his household and saying in the language of the Arabs, ‘Get up and see what these Christians are doing to the executed and crucified one.’ And raising up his household made inquiries to learn what had happened. And he said, ‘I had been looking out of the window for some time and I saw that the Christians had hung a great lighted chandelier above the head of the crucified one, and after gathering up their priests and monks they have assembled choirs around his cross and they were chanting singing hymns of his trials. But I also saw Elias himself chanting with the choirs of children and addressing them. And the executed one chanted along with the choirs as if he were living. This is not a trick of the Christians, but [was accomplished by] the power of God, who is showing us that this executed one has achieved great glory having been killed for his faith.’ Then while the Arab was narrating these

106

STAMATINA MCGRATH

things to his household, he leaned out to see and could no longer see anything. Coming to his senses he said, ‘Verily, it is not possible these were deceits of men, since the surrounding guards prevent any man from approaching day or night.’” 25. Then the Arab went to Leithi, the eparch of the city, and narrated [the events] secretly. He, upon hearing the story commanded, that before the story of these visions spread, the saint’s body should be taken down from the cross and burned with fire, so, he said, that Christians may not take it and build churches and perform feasts celebrating his memory. Then the guards took down the body of the saint and splitting the wood of his cross and laying it underneath, then placing the body upon it, and placing above it other flammable wood they set it on fire. And the flame rose up to a great height in the sky, but the most sacred body remained unburned, I think because of the saying written by David, “The just shouted out and the Lord listened to them”59, and “The Lord guards all their bones, not one of them will be shattered.”60 But the shameless ones, sinning badly, placed another heap of firewood, greater than the first, and the flame on the one hand rising up to the sky was enveloped in the conflagration, while on the other hand the body was preserved as were the bodies of the three holy children in the furnace (for neither did this one venerate an outdoor phantom), as they did not bend their knee to the Persian images.61 Again for the third time the guards threw more than thirty loads of vine branches in the conflagration, but accomplished nothing new by doing these things but burning the body only slightly. Later, growing weary and cutting the body in pieces they threw it in the great current of the nearby river, so that in this too the martyr could join in chanting, as David says, “We have been through fire and rain, and you have taken us out to recover.”62 Then the guards were in amazement.63 Psalm. 33: 18. Psalm. 33: 21. 61 cf. Dan. 3: 1-23. 62 Psalm. 65: 12. 63 There are some parallels between the martyrdom of Elias and those of Abo of Tiflis, ‘Abd-al Mas¬Ω, Anthony RuwaΩ and Romanos the neomartyr that would be worth exploring further, especially in determining the hagiographical tradition to which all these stories belong. The Vita of Abo of Tiflis is found in I. Abuladze, ed., Monuments de la Littérature Hagiographique Géorgienne Ancienne I et II , vol. 1 (Tbilisi: 1963-67) 46-81. For the vita of ‘Abd-al Mas¬Ω, see the Introduction, note 1. Concerning Anthony RuwaΩ, see P. Peeters, “S. Antoine le néomartyr”, Analecta Bollandiana 31 (1912) 410-450 and for the life of Romanos see P. Peeters, “S. Romain le néomartyr (+ 1 mai 780) d’apres un document géorgien”, Analecta Bollandiana 30 (1911) 393-427. I wish to thank Beate Zielke for the references to Abo of Tiflis and Anthony RuwaΩ. 59 60

THE LIFE OF AN EIGHT-CENTURY SYRIAN SAINT

107

26. After this the holy and great martyr appeared to many of the Christ loving brethren in Damascus revealing to them where some of his scattered holy limbs, that Christ had preserved, were carried by the current. Looking carefully for them, they took them and keep them not openly, but anointing them with perfumed ointment they honor them in secrecy, so that the saint’s relics may not be consigned again to obliteration by being recognized. And thereafter the saint exhibited the great strength of his spiritual energy, having the grace of the Holy Spirit embedded in his relics and providing cures, and appearing to those who appeal to this saint. For he fixes his gaze [Elias?] upon his master and the angel and has the keenest ministering spirit in heaven sent out for service64. And the lord rejoiced with his service through visions and appearances. And accordingly, [Elias] “by faith offered” himself to God as “a greater sacrifice”65 like Abel over Cain, through tortures and death and fire and water, through which it was witnessed that he is just, with God himself also witnessing in His gifts that having died in faith he [Elias] still speaks. Like each of the saints enumerated in chapters in the bible faithfully, we too calling upon him with faith, will find him an aid in every sorrow, speaking and disseminating grace, and interceding constantly on the behalf of his Christian co-religionists and fellow servants, in Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom [is due] glory and power along with the eternal Father and the most Holy Spirit unto eternity. Amen.

64 There appears to be a corruption in the transmission of the text at this point based on the content and structure of this sentence. 65 cf. Hebr. 11: 4.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER SEVEN

This page intentionally left blank

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS OF CONSTANTINE VII Eric McGeer “Un empereur doit faire la guerre, comme Basile Ier, ou écrire sur la guerre, comme Léon VI” — so wrote Paul Lemerle in his essay on the military encyclopedias produced during the reign of Constantine VII. True to the example of his father, Constantine saw it as his duty to promote the revival of military science by collecting and copying treatises on warfare in its various aspects, yet he also aspired to lead his armies on campaign in person, in the pattern of his grandfather and founder of his dynasty. Although Constantine was never to realise his ambition to accompany his soldiers in the field, his place in the history of Byzantine military literature is assured, and his reign as sole emperor (945-59) stands out as the pivotal stage in the wars against the Arabs during the tenth century. After ousting his Lekapenid co-rulers with the support of military aristocrats whose fortunes were intertwined with his own, principally the members of the Phokas family, Constantine rewarded his allies by elevating them to the high command and placing the resources of the empire at their disposal. The regulation of the soldiers’ properties, the changes in the military administration, the improvements in training, tactics and equipment, and the increased recruitment of foreign mercenaries combine with the renewed interest in military theory to demonstrate the intensification of the Byzantine military effort during the reign of Constantine VII. At the time of the emperor’s death in November 959, the Byzantines stood poised to achieve a series of landmark victories — the recovery of Crete, the conquest of Cilicia, and the capture of Antioch — which would establish them as the dominant power in the eastern Mediterranean for the next century. Byzantine supremacy along the eastern frontiers did not come about easily or automatically, however. In fact, through much of Constantine’s reign the Byzantines lurched from one defeat to another, none more glaring than the failure of the expedition sent to take Crete in 949.1 The sting of this disaster, painful to an emperor who had staked the prestige and divine sanction of his dynasty on the success of this venture, was compounded by the humiliations visited upon the Byzantines by a new adversary whose rise to power coincided almost exactly with Constantine’s 1 The lists recording the mobilisation and rates of pay for this expedition have now been edited by Haldon (2000) 201-352.

112

ERIC MCGEER

assumption of sole authority. This was Sayf al-Dawla, Hamdanid emir of Aleppo from 944 until his death in 967, reviled in the Greek chronicles as the ‘foul’ or ‘impious Hamdan,’ who in the spirit of the djihad led yearly raids into Byzantine territory, seizing booty and prisoners and scoring some notable successes against the foremost Byzantine commanders of the time.2 Much more significant than the material gains and losses resulting from these campaigns were the reputation and propaganda value which the Muslim emir acquired from his exploits against the infidel, and the corresponding damage to Constantine’s image as the divinely appointed defender of the Christian realm.3 The Byzantine response to the challenge posed by Sayf al-Dawla was therefore not confined to the battlefield; it also involved staging triumphs and ceremonies to promote the aura of imperial victory,4 and bolstering the morale of the ‘host beloved by Christ’ sent forth to fight against a foe singled out as the archenemy of the Christian faith. Two harangues attributed to Constantine VII record the appeals and the incentives, spiritual and worldly, by which the emperor sought to rouse the martial ardour of his men. Both were composed as circulars to be read out to the soldiers of the eastern armies, and both refer directly to Sayf al-Dawla as the enemy they must confront. The first, published by Hélène Ahrweiler, comes from the early stages of the ByzantineHamdanid conflict when Sayf’s reputation was on the rise.5 The second, published by Rudolf Vári, was composed at the moment when the tide had turned decisively in favour of the Byzantines.6 What follows is a translation and discussion of the two harangues which will set them in their historical context and explore them as sources for the study of military policy and ideology during the reign of Constantine VII. The two speeches are preserved in a single codex, the Ambrosianus B 119 sup., one of the major collections of military works assembled during the tenth and early eleventh centuries.7 The Ambrosianus has been studied in detail by C.M. Mazzucchi whose analysis clarified a number of points relating to the origin of the manuscript and the chronology of Constantine’s speeches.8 From the dedication extolling the military 2 The course of these wars is traced by Canard (1951) 715-863; Vasiliev (1935-1968) II.1 311-80. The élan and skill of Sayf’s leadership were at their best in the 956 campaign: HowardJohnston (1983). 3 The poems of Mutanabbi memorably convey the drama and spirit of Sayf’s campaigns: see Canard (1973). 4 McCormick (1986) 159-78. 5 Ahrweiler (1967) 393-404 (Greek text on pp. 397-9). 6 Vári (1908) 75-85 (Greek text on pp. 78-84). 7 Dain (1967). 8 Mazzucchi (1978) 276-92, 310-16.

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

113

achievements of Basil the parakoimomenos and from the presence of several works on naval warfare, Mazzucchi concluded that the manuscript was commissioned by the eunuch and courtier Basil Lekapenos sometime between his return from his successful eastern campaign in the autumn of 958 and June of 960, when the large force under Nikephoros Phokas set sail for Crete, an expedition which the ambitious Basil had apparently hoped to lead.9 An inventory of the manuscript’s contents shows that the parakoimomenos had reserved a section for works of military oratory. The first is a sixth-century manual known as the Rhetorica militaris10, which is followed by a collection of military speeches (Conciones militares) drawn from the ancients (Xenophon, Flavius Josephus, Herodian), and the two harangues of Constantine VII.11 The attachment of the imperial harangues to this small anthology of military rhetoric has some bearing on the study of the two speeches, particularly the second. It is evident that they were included as contemporary models of the protreptikoi logoi, or exhortations, outlined in the Rhetorica militaris, and therefore underwent slight revisions to give them the faceless character proper to literary exemplars. In three places in the second speech, the copyist replaced the name of a Byzantine commander with the elliptic ı de›na (‘so and so’) or a generic plural,12 putting us at one remove (at least) from the oration as composed by Constantine or drafted for him by an official.13 The art of inciting men to battle is as old as the Iliad, and the power of oratory to inspire soldiers could be used to great effect by ancient commanders, as shown by an Alexander or a Caesar.14 The ability to rouse the courage of their soldiers with the spoken word ranked high among the desirable attributes of Byzantine generals, who could pad their repertoires with the pithy sayings and beaux gestes of illustrious 9 Mazzucchi (1978) 292-5, 302-3; Basil’s interest in the documents pertaining to the 949 expedition is noted by Haldon (2000) 236-8. On Basil’s life and career, see Brokkaar (1972); Bouras (1989). 10 Ed. Köchly (1856); see also Dain (1967) 343-4, and Hunger (1978) II 327-8. Only a portion of the text is preserved in the Ambrosianus; the full text is found in the Laurentianus LV, 4, the great military manuscript copied during the reign of Constantine VII. Once thought to be anonymous, the Rhetorica militaris in fact forms part of a larger work attributed to Syrianus Magister: see Zuckerman (1990) 209-24 (in which a forthcoming edition of Syrianus’s text is announced). 11 Dain (1967) 364. 12 Cf. Mazzucchi (1978) 303-4, esp. note 110. 13 It is possible that Theodore Daphnopates had a hand in the composition of the second speech, as the parallels between this work and the final portion of Theophanes continuatus, which Daphnopates is thought to have written, suggest; see below, note 79. 14 Alexander the Great’s use of oratory, with its dramatic effects of timing, variation of tone and emotion, and performance, is discussed by Keegan (1987) 54-9.

114

ERIC MCGEER

commanders recorded in the military handbooks.15 On a more formal level, as with other branches of rhetoric, the technique of composing and delivering military orations was well established, following the design and examples laid out in the aforementioned Rhetorica militaris. The formulaic nature of these set pieces, however, should not obscure the valuable function ascribed to them by Byzantine tacticians. The Strategikon of Maurice (ca. 600) records brief instructions on the ‘useful role’ of the cantatores, heralds ‘who before the clash of arms should say a few words of encouragement [tina ... protreptika] reminding the soldiers of previous victories.’16 The author of the De velitatione (ca. 970) instructs the commander to deliver a speech ‘sweet as honey’ to his men to stir their courage before they close with the enemy,17 and in his second harangue Constantine himself praises a commander who made effective use of ‘inspiring speeches’ (logois protreptikois) as he led his forces on a successful raid into the regions of Tarsos.18 In a broader sense, the orations read out to the army also formed, along with acclamations, official salutations, and daily religious rituals, an integral part of the imperial propaganda which affirmed the army’s special status, its loyalty to the emperor, and the ideals for which it fought.19 A reading of Constantine’s speeches reveals the influence of the Rhetorica militaris, a work he certainly knew,20 and of his father Leo VI’s Taktika (extensively reworked during Constantine’s reign), in which the contents suitable to an address to soldiers are summarised as follows: XII. 70. We think that the role of the so-called cantatores is appropriate at the time of battle. These are the men who incite the army with speeches, offering advice, repeating their message, and summoning it to battle. Such a task should be performed, if possible, by men from among the soldiers themselves or their officers. The officers select those men who are eloquent and capable of addressing the army, for E.g. Leonis Tactica II.12; Sylloge tacticorum, sections 76-102. Strategikon II.19, VII A.4. 17 Dagron, Mihaescu (1986), chapter XXIII.20-31, with comments on 284-6. 18 The speeches put in the mouths of emperors or commanders lend dramatic effect to the narratives of campaigns and battles: see Theophanes (Mango and Scott) 436, 439 (recycled in Theophanes continuatus 478.7-18), 441, 442-3, 448; De Creta capta I.59-70, 73-100, II.140-166, IV.45-52, 5456 ; Leo the Deacon 12.5-13.10, 21.12-23, 72.23-74.12, 130.19-131.12. Speeches of Arab leaders to their men, as recorded in Byzantine sources, make an interesting contrast: Karapli (1993). 19 Koutrakou (1993) 350-86. The salutation recited by the emperor to his soldiers, recorded in the third of the three campaign treatises prepared by Constantine, should be taken in connection with our two harangues: Haldon (1990) Text C.466-473, and commentary 284-6. 20 Constantine recommends that the text of Syrianus Magister, to which the Rhetorica militaris belonged, be included in the imperial campaign baggage: Haldon (1990) Text C.196-204, and commentary 210-12. 15

16

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

115

the sharing of hardship and the toils of war make the listeners more receptive to fellow soldiers who accompany them. XII.71 The cantatores should say such words of encouragement as these to the army facing battle: first, they should remind them of the reward of faith in God, of the emperor’s benefactions, and of previous successes; that the battle is for the sake of God and for the love of Him and for the whole nation; moreover, that it is for their brethren of the same faith and, as it may be, for their wives and children and their fatherland; that the memory of those who earn distinction in wars for the freedom of their brethren remains eternal; that this struggle is against the enemies of God, and that we have God as our ally, Who holds the power to decide the outcome, whereas the enemy, as unbelievers, have Him set against them; and thinking of anything else in a similar vein, [the cantatores] should stimulate morale. This sort of address, delivered at the right moment, can rouse spirits mightily, more than any amount of money can. These themes all appear, in greater or lesser measure, in both of Constantine’s circulars, shaped to the circumstances of the moment. He was also the heir to the distinction his father had drawn half a century earlier between the Christian empire and the realm of Islam, now manifest in the struggle between the heroic defenders of Christian Byzantium and the forces of Sayf al-Dawla along the eastern frontiers.21 Yet despite the derivative character of the two harangues, they are more than mere rhetorical exercises or a pastiche of clichés. They refer to contemporary events, they bear witness to the changes in Byzantine military policy during the 950s, and they shed light on the question of morale and motivation in the armies of the time. Most importantly, they display the image which Constantine VII — an emperor ever mindful of the precariousness of imperial power and succession — sought to promote among his soldiers, and how he hoped to translate military success into confirmation of the divinely sanctioned legitimacy of his dynasty. We come now to the translations of the texts themselves.22 The first harangue can be divided into five main sections:

21 On these and other passages of the Taktika, and Leo VI’s reaction to the Arabs, see Dagron (1983), esp. 224-32; Dagron, Mihaescu (1986) 161-2, 284-6. 22 I have taken into account the (minor) corrections made to Ahrweiler’s Greek text by Mazzucchi (1978) 296 note 83, and by Sevcenko (1992) 187 note 49 (who also lists corrections to Vári’s edition of the second harangue). I wish to thank Alice-Mary Talbot and Paul Magdalino for reviewing the translations and suggesting a number of improvements.

116

ERIC MCGEER

1) introduction praising the army’s recent victories which have won fame throughout the empire; 2) exhortation to the soldiers, emboldened by their victories and by their faith in Christ, to fight even more eagerly against the enemies of God; 3) dismissal of Sayf’s boasts and posturing as a bluff concealing his fear and weakness in the wake of his defeat; 4) expression of the emperor’s longing to be with his soldiers in person, among the truly virtuous and worthy; 5) administration of an oath to imperial officials to submit accurate reports of the army’s actions and to identify the soldiers and officers deserving of rewards. Ahrweiler proposed that the speech should be dated to the years 952-3, but Mazzucchi’s arguments for an earlier dating must be accepted.23 The recent (pr≈hn) triumphs over the Hamdanids which the emperor lauds in section 1 are without question those achieved by Leo Phokas, strategos of Cappadocia, during the spring and summer of that year. The first was his assault on the small fortress of Buqa when he succeeded in taking Nasir al-Dawla prisoner and inflicting heavy losses on the enemy; the second, and more spectacular feat of arms, came in October 950 when Phokas’s forces ambushed Sayf al-Dawla’s army as it returned laden with plunder from a raid into Byzantine territory.24 These achievements were all the more praiseworthy since they offset the failure of the expedition to Crete the year before, but for our purposes it is significant to note that the Byzantines initially chose to exploit their success not with military action but with the prompt offer of a truce and exchange of prisoners. This offer, however, was defiantly refused by Sayf, who vowed instead to avenge his defeat by resuming his raids into the realm of the infidel with even greater zeal.25 This truculent rejection of terms, raising the prospect of further defensive campaigns against Sayf, lies behind Constantine’s lengthy disparagement of the Hamdanid emir’s bluster and theatrics in section 3 (roughly a quarter of the speech), which follows the appeals to his soldiers in section 2 to return to the struggle against the enemy with the confidence derived from their victory and their hope in Christ. The correspondence between this sequence of events and the contents of the speech places its composition and delivery late in the year 950. Mazzucchi (1978) 296-8. Canard (1951) 763-70; Vasiliev (1935-68) II.1 341-6; Dagron, Mihaescu (1986) 301-6. 25 Mutanabbi’s poems recounting the 950 disaster are replete with Sayf’s promises of revenge: Vasiliev (1935-68) II.2 308-14. 26 Theophanes continuatus 271.1-2, Skylitzes 137.55-6 (Basil I); Leo the Deacon 53.19-54.4. 23 24

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

117

Commanders returning from campaign held reviews before disbanding their armies to take stock of their manpower and equipment, to apportion plunder, and to confer promotion and rewards for valour. Basil I had conducted such ceremonies, and the historian Leo the Deacon records that at the end of the 964 campaign, Nikephoros Phokas brought his army back to Cappadocia and dismissed the soldiers with gifts and rewards, bidding them return in the spring with their weapons and horses in good condition.26 We may assume that Constantine’s speech was read out in a similar scene, as the soldiers disbanded for the winter and received instructions on their mobilisation for the campaign the following spring. [MILITARY ORATION OF THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE]27 1. As I receive word of the surpassing renown of your exploits, men, I do not know what words of praise from the emperor’s tongue I shall now fashion for you. What great things I have heard about you, and what great tidings have been brought back to me through the reports of my faithful servants, for they have given me accurate information, they have given me a true account of your valour, the amount of courage, the amount of zeal, the amount of spirit you have displayed against the enemy, and how you were embroiled in combat not as if against men but as if triumphing over feeble women, succeeding not as in battle or in war, but rather dealing with them as though it were child’s play, even though they were mounted on horses whose speed made them impossible to overtake,28 even though they were protected by equipment unmatched in strength, equipment unmatched in craftsmanship, and lacked nothing at all of those things which bring security and cause astonishment. But since they were without the one paramount advantage, by which I mean hope in Christ, all of their advantages were reduced to nothing and were in vain. And so, saith the Lord, their carcasses were for an example on the face of the field, like grass after the mower, and there was none to gather them29. With confidence in this hope, and after entrusting your souls to it, you have set up such trophies as these against the enemy, you have striven for such victories as these, which have reached every corner of the world, and have made you famous not only in your native lands but also in

27 The title and first letter are missing in the manuscript, for reasons explained by Mazzucchi (1978) 303-4. 28 The great speed of the horses ridden by the Bedouin was frequently remarked upon by Byzantine observers: cf. McGeer (1995) 238-42. 29 Jeremiah 9: 22

118

ERIC MCGEER

every city. Now your wondrous deeds are on every tongue, and every ear is roused to hear of them. 2. I still want you men, my peculiar people30, my strength and my indomitable might, emboldened by this faith, to fight against the enemy more eagerly than before. I know without a doubt that you will fight more eagerly, for the very nature of affairs teaches me. The man who has engaged his adversary and won does not afterwards regard him as he did before but, once having dispelled all the fear31 which troubled him before the trial, he goes to the attack with great boldness against an opponent now clearly perceived for what he is. All the more so with regard to the enemy — we know that they will not come back with the same zeal now that they have sampled your bravery, but will hold back and look warily, and they will guard against suffering the same fate as before. What now inspires courage in you assuredly drives fear into them. Therefore have no fear, my men, have no fear, fill your souls with zeal and show the enemy who rely on the help of Beliar or Muhammad what those who put their faith in Christ can accomplish. Be the avengers and champions not only of Christians but of Christ Himself, Whom they wickedly deny. What then? Do men know that those who fight on their behalf are rewarded, and will Christ not stretch forth His hand to those girded for battle against His foes? He is our ally, men, Who alone is strong and mighty in battle32, Whose sword is sharpened like lightning33, Whose weapons are drunk with the blood34 of those set against Him, Who breaks bows35 and makes strong cities a heap36, Who brings low the eyes of the overweening37 and teaches the hands of those who hope in Him to war38, makes their arms as a brazen bow, and gives to them the shield of His salvation39. And so let us put all our hope in Him, and instead of our whole panoply let us arm ourselves with His cross, equipped with which you have lately made the fierce soldiers of the Hamdanid the victims of your swords, and the others whom, like the Egyptians long ago, you consigned to the waters40. Exodus 19: 5 Reading ëpan tÚ d°ow ˜ prÚ t∞w pe¤raw. 32 Psalm 23: 8 (LXX) 33 Deuteronomy 32: 41 34 Deuteronomy 32: 42 35 Psalm 75: 3 (LXX) 36 Isaiah 25: 2 37 Isaiah 5: 15 38 Psalm 17: 30, 34 (LXX) 39 Psalm 17: 34-35 (LXX) 40 The accounts of the 950 campaign record that the last phase of the battle took place along the shores of Lake al-Hadat. 30 31

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

119

3. We have heard that the men whom the foul Hamdanid had, the ones in whom he invested his hopes, were his whole arm and might. You who have so easily routed those so brave, how will you appear to the ones left behind who are unfit for war, who are utterly terrified and intimidated? The words of the holy Isaiah are not inappropriate to them, they that are left shall be as a fleeing fawn, and as a stray sheep, he says41. In truth, the Hamdanid has no power. Do not believe in his skills and wiles — he is afraid42, he is devious, and without a reliable force, in mortal fear of your onslaught and driven back headlong by it, he is trying to put fear in your minds with ruses and deceptions. One moment he proclaims that another force is on its way to him and that allies have been despatched from elsewhere, or that from another quarter a vast sum of money has been sent to him, while at other times he has exaggerated rumours spread about for the consternation of his listeners. All of this is the product of a deeply frightened mind, not of a confident one, for if he were truly confident he would not resort to these tricks and ruses. Now that he is at a loss for real strength, he is falling back on artful devices. Do you not see how the king of beasts, the lion, on account of his innate superiority, knows no ruses nor devises tricks? Laying aside such worthless trifles, and confident in his natural strength, he goes straight for his adversary. The fox, by contrast, and cowardly creatures like him who lack true strength, seeks refuge in cunning, hunts with craft, and with craft tries to escape being hunted. Were it possible to look into the mind of the Hamdanid, then you would see how much cowardice, how much fear oppresses it, and how as he hears of your power and regards your onslaught with apprehension, he knows not what will become of him and where to turn, even though he is putting up a bold and confident front. And so do not let these actions trouble you43, my people, pay no heed to his theatrics, but with confidence in Christ rise up against the foe. You know how virtuous it is to fight on behalf of Christians, and how much glory the man who does so achieves for himself. This is more profitable than all wealth44, more praiseworthy that all other honour. 4. What great yearning possesses me, what great desire inflames my soul, I am now consumed by the matter, I dream of those days, I would much prefer to don my breastplate and put my helmet on my head, to brandish my spear in my right hand and to hear the trumpet

41 42 43 44

Isaiah 13: 11. Reading deilÒw for deinÒw. Reading mØ taËta oÔn Ímçw. Reading pantÚw ploÊtou kerdale≈teron.

120

ERIC MCGEER

calling us to battle, than to put on the crown and the purple, to wield the sceptre, and to hear the imperial acclamations. For the latter are given by God in the ways that He knows, and often to those who are not worthy, whereas the former are for those only who love virtue, for those only who esteem glory before pleasure. It is not for no reason that I have sent out my officials to these places, but because I wanted to use them as my eyes. I shall now bind them with an oath and turn my address to them. 5. I therefore administer this oath to you in the name of God and upon our person and life, that you will esteem nothing before our love, or to say it better, before goodness and truth, but that you will inform Our Majesty about all events, just as each of you has the virtue and will to do. Better yet, you will keep written records, so that when you come here you may tell us, in order that we will look with favour upon the men and deem them worthy of our praises and rewards. The strategoi who command the smaller themes will be transferred to larger ones45, while the strategoi of larger themes will be honoured with gifts and other recompense, whereas the commanders of the tagmata and other units who fight courageously will be rewarded in proportion to their deeds, some to become tourmarchs, others kleisourarchs or topoteretai. Not only these men, but also the rest, members of the common soldiery who display the traits of valour, will receive their due reward46. But we who now receive information through you about each soldier will soon not have you or any other witness to these men, but our eyes alone, and when we are present in person and beholding for ourselves the valour of each man, we will ourselves present awards to the combatants47. The victory which prompted Constantine’s harangue had restored much needed prestige to his régime, and it appears to have been exploited for

45 In other words, the commanders of the small frontier zones, known as the “Armenian themes” (first attested during Constantine’s reign), will be promoted to command of the larger, long established themes lying to the interior. On this new distinction between “large” and “small” themes, see Oikonomides (1972) 345-6; Haldon (1990) 251. 46 The novel of Nikephoros Phokas dealing with the Armenian themes refers to abandoned military lands being given as rewards to soldiers who had distinguished themselves in battle: McGeer (2000) 86-9. Other rewards will have included cash donatives, promotions, gifts, and the division of spoils: Haldon (1984) 307-18, 328-37, and note 1016. 47 The gifts bestowed by the emperor and the protocol of such an occasion can be inferred from a passage in the third of Constantine’s three campaign treatises: Haldon (1990) Text C.502-511.

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

121

its propaganda value far out of proportion to its actual gains.48 It also kindled the emperor’s desire to take part in a military expedition, as he declares in the concluding portion of his address, and thus to emulate his grandfather Basil I who had led his armies to victory against the Paulicians and Arabs in the campaigns recounted in the Vita Basilii. Commentators have tended to take Constantine’s declaration as more wishful than realistic; but one purpose of this paper will be to demonstrate that he fully intended to go on a campaign when the right opportunity presented itself.49 Subsequent events were to conspire against the emperor’s reprise of dynastic glory, however, for the promise of Leo Phokas’s victory soon evaporated as Sayf al-Dawla made good his threats and went on to enjoy his greatest period of success between 951 and 956.50 Yet Constantine did not renounce his ambition to accompany his army on campaign. As we shall see, he would revive this project in his second harangue. Ironically enough, the nearly unbroken string of triumphs won by Sayf during the early 950s proved to be his undoing. A recent paper by Jonathan Shepard has shown how the aims and methods of Byzantine policy along the eastern frontiers shifted during the reign of Constantine VII.51 The emperor initially pursued a policy that was defensive in purpose, directed primarily towards the regions of the Caucasus and the Armenian principalities controlling strategic areas along the upper Euphrates, and designed to deny passage to Arab raiders seeking to break into central Anatolia. Only when the raids of Sayf al-Dawla proved too much for local Byzantine defensive forces to handle, and when his intransigence ruled out a diplomatic rapprochement, did Constantine decide to turn the full might of his armies against the Hamdanids and their bases along the southeastern frontiers. The transition which Shepard traces, from a policy of containment to one of outright conquest, is reflected in our two speeches. Where the first was addressed to a local theme commander and his men in recognition of a successful defensive action, the second is to an army rigorously selected and trained for offensive operations, reinforced by units transferred from the western provinces of the empire and by contingents of foreign mercenaries, and

48 Cf. the triumphant note struck in the poem composed for Romanos II in 950, in light of Leo Phokas’s recent victories: Odorico (1987) 68-9, 76-80, 91-2, and the comments of Sevcenko (1992) 170 note 8. 49 It was at about this time that Constantine began to assemble the materials for his second treatise on imperial expeditions to the east: Haldon (1990) 52-3. 50 Canard (1951) 770-93. 51 Shepard (2001); see also idem (2002).

122

ERIC MCGEER

succoured from on high through the prayers of holy men and the miracleworking power of the most sacred relics. It displays the full deployment of the empire’s military strength for a war in which the aims were no less than the subjugation and annexation of the Muslim territories in Cilicia and northern Syria. The following summary will help to establish the background of the second harangue and its points of interest: 1) introduction expressing the emperor’s desire to address and inspire his soldiers, his children with whom he is united in body and soul; 2) his appointment of loyal, competent commanders to select and train the most courageous soldiers for the coming expedition; 3) the emperor’s joy that the army is now ready for battle, and his solicitation of prayers from monks and holy men for the soldiers’ welfare; 4) earlier successes owed more to chance than to courage, but this select body of men is urged to display its valour to the imperial officials accompanying the army; 5) the emperor’s readiness to bring his son on a future campaign should inspire the soldiers, as should a series of recent successes against the Hamdanids and their allies; 6) the soldiers are urged to show their courage and martial prowess to the foreign contingents present in the ranks; 7) the emperor encourages a spirit of comradeship between the soldiers of the eastern and western armies brought together for this campaign; 8) the emperor’s love for his soldiers, his despatch of holy water sanctified by contact with the True Cross and relics of the Passion, and his prayers for the army’s safe conduct and return. The events leading up to the occasion for which the speech was composed can be retraced from a number of allusions in sections 2, 4, and 5. The remarks on the undeserved successes of earlier years and the purge of the army’s ranks noted in section 4 hearken back to Constantine’s dismissal of Bardas Phokas after the rout of the Byzantine army at the battle of Hadat in October 954 and his promotion of Nikephoros Phokas to supreme command in 955. The Greek chronicles all record the swift revitalisation of the army under Nikephoros’s direction, which brought a series of impressive victories during the late 950s, in contrast to its dismal performance under the incompetent Bardas.52 The painstaking 52 Theophanes continuatus 459.13-460.12; Skylitzes 241.4-18; Zonaras III 492.15-493.13; see also Dagron, Mihaescu (1986) 275-80.

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

123

process of selection and training of the soldiers to which Constantine refers throughout sections 2 to 4 is fully in keeping with the methods employed by Nikephoros to develop battleworthy armies, as is the increasingly conspicuous presence of foreign soldiers in the the army’s ranks, a feature noted by contemporary Greek and Arab observers alike.53 References in sections 5 and 7 to recent military activities can be collated with contemporary sources to bring the background of the harangue into sharper focus.54 Two of the campaigns mentioned, a foray into the region of Tarsos led by Basil Hexamilites and an expedition to southern Italy led by Marianos Argyros, took place in the year 956;55 reference to a more recent campaign clarifies the date and occasion of the speech. At the end of section 5, Constantine extols ‘the host despatched a short while ago to Mesopotamia with the patrikios so-and-so’ which inflicted a crushing defeat on the Hamdanid force sent to oppose it. The commander in question was John Tzimiskes, who as patrikios and strategos of Mesopotamia took an army into the area of Amida in June of 958 and routed an enemy force commanded by Sayf al-Dawla’s lieutenant Naja al-Kasaki.56 Later that summer, a second Byzantine army under the command of the parakoimomenos Basil Lekapenos joined Tzimiskes’s forces for an assault on Samosata. This combined army took the town in less than a day, and went on to annihilate another Hamdanid force, led this time by Sayf himself, near the fortress of Raban in October or November of 958.57 As Mazzucchi noted, the emperor’s commendation of his ‘most worthy servants’ (yerãpontew, in section 2) is a generic plural masking the original reference to Basil Lekapenos. It was upon receiving word of Tzimiskes’s successful operations in June, and as Lekapenos’s forces prepared to embark on the second phase of the campaign in August or September, that Constantine sent his address to be read to the soldiers under the command of the parakoimomenos. The setting of the second harangue does much to account for its impassioned tone, for the sense that the decisive moment is now at hand pervades the speech and lends the emperor’s appeals an urgency and anticipation not found in the first harangue. The contrast begins with the structure of the piece which, with its introductory greeting, selection and elaboration of Scriptural passages, and concluding doxology, follows the pattern of a homily and presents the emperor in a more exalted relation to his soldiers. Where in the first harangue Constantine had addressed his 53 54 55 56 57

See below, note 81. The discussion follows Mazzucchi (1978) 299-303, esp. notes 102 and 110. See below, note 83. Vasiliev (1935-68) II.1 362-4; Canard (1951) 793-6. Theophanes continuatus 461.9-462.4.

124

ERIC MCGEER

men as ‘my peculiar people’ (Exodus 19: 5), an appellation likening the special status of the army with the covenant between God and the people of Israel,58 he forges closer bonds of unity and kinship between army and emperor in the second. Beginning with a citation from John 3: 16 (‘for God so loved the world...’) Constantine goes on to declare that out of love for his soldiers he gives to them his whole being, mixes his flesh and blood with theirs, and considers his body and soul one with theirs. His words recall a number of passages in the New Testament, such as Ephesians 5: 30 (‘for we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones’), Romans 12: 4-5 (‘for as we have many members in one body ... so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members of another’), and the lengthier passage in I Corinthians 12: 12-27 which portrays Christ as one body whose parts are all the Christians, and expresses the unity of the parts acting in harmony for the good of the whole. Speaking as Christ’s regent on earth, Constantine frames his address in terms emphasizing the parallel between Christ and Christians, emperor and army, and enjoining the army as an aggregate of different parts to strive as one body for the same goal. His appeal to the soldiers as his ‘beloved children’ echoes the words of Paul, who addressed the Corinthians in the same way, and reinforces the image of the soldiers being the emperor’s flesh and blood; but it also confers upon him the paternal authority to admonish them as his sons, to reassure them of his concern for their welfare, and to expect their obedience. In his role as sovereign and father, Constantine is at pains to assure his men that he has done all humanly possible to secure their success on the battlefield, and that his officials have faithfully carried out his instructions to prepare a select force made up of proven soldiers and officers. His efforts, however, have not been restricted to earthly measures, for his solicitude has also led him to invoke the aid of higher tutelary powers through the prayers of monks and holy men. Imperial requests for prayers are are found in official correspondence, such as the following letter attributed to Symeon the magistros and addressed to the monastic communities of Olympos, Kyminas, Latros, and Athos.59 The letter solicits the monks’ prayers for the armies gathering for battle against Sayf alDawla, and is worth presenting in full:

Koutrakou (1993) 416; see also Haldon (1990) Text C.453-454, and commentary 242-3. Darrouzès (1960) 146-7; although the editor puts this letter between 963 and 967, it must surely date from Constantine’s reign. By 963 the Byzantines were pounding at Sayf’s gates, not the other way around, as the situation is presented in Symeon’s letter. Another letter seeking prayers for a force on its way to Calabria (idem 148) may refer to Marianos Argyros’s expedition in 956: see below, note 83. 58

59

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

125

I know that I have become a provider of toils and troubles to you, my most honoured fathers, writing continually and enjoining you to offer prayers and entreaties to the Lord. But when this labour is for the safety of Christians, I am sure that it is not an unwelcome task but one you perform with pleasure. Since we have once again been informed that an expedition of the impious Hamdan is now at our gates and that our armies, with the help of God, are about to confront him in battle, we call upon your piety to raise your holy hands to God with greater earnest and to entreat His goodness not to turn His eyes away from His people nor on account of our sins to allow the impious to defile His holy name, but to remember his compassions, for they are from everlasting and to strengthen his chosen people, so that again He may be glorified upon the rash and hostile soul of Pharaoh and we may sing a hymn of victory and a song of thanksgiving to thy name glorified for eternity. We have at the same time written to the most holy and divinely beloved metropolitan of Kyzikos so that he too may direct you to offer your devout prayers and entreaties on behalf of Christians. The supplication of divine intercession through the prayers of monks and holy men is but one aspect of the spiritual comforts the emperor sought to provide for his army. In his first harangue Constantine had called upon his soldiers to place their hope in Christ and ‘to arm themselves with His cross’. The cross was, of course, the pre-eminent symbol of salvation and victory, the stavros nikopoios long cherished by Byzantine armies, and it had particular relevance for Constantine VII whose dynastic propaganda emphasized his association with Constantine the Great.60 But the power of the cross and the presence of Christ, abstract in the first speech, are now communicated physically to the soldiers by the emperor’s despatch of holy water sanctified by contact with the fragments of the True Cross and the relics of the Passion. The combination is significant, since the symbol of imperial victory was now accompanied by the symbols of the triumph over death and the redemption from sin. The soldiers were to be anointed with the holy water to ‘invest them with divine power from on high’ and to ‘furnish them with confidence and might and domination against the enemy’, in other words, to strengthen them in body and soul and to protect them in battle.61 Cheynet (1993); Luzzi (1991); Markopoulos (1994); Thierry (1981). On the translation and use of relics in this period, see Mergiali-Sahas (2001); Kalavrezou (1994), James (2001), Flusin (1999), and Barker (1993). See also McCormick (1986) 237-52, on the rituals of purification before battle. 60 61

126

ERIC MCGEER

The list of Passion relics which Constantine gives in his harangue is of particular interest. It comes nearly two centuries before the inventories of relics in pilgrim itineraries and other sources begin to appear,62 and it is the first list to identify a set of relics which at an unknown time, and in unknown circumstances, were grouped with the True Cross and the Lance, both known to have been transferred to Constantinople in the early seventh century. As to the location of the relics mentioned in the speech, we know from the De cerimoniis that by the mid-tenth century three fragments of the True Cross were kept in the palatine chapel of the Theotokos tou Pharou.63 Where the other relics were kept at this time is not stated, but as the Mandylion was deposited in the chapel of the Pharos upon its arrival in Constantinople in 944, it is most likely that the Passion relics were stored there. The gift of holy water is also offered in compensation for the emperor’s absence. As a final incentive to his men, however, Constantine announces that success in the coming expedition will prepare the way for him and his son to accompany the army on a future campaign ‘as fellow cavalrymen, fellow infantrymen, and comrades in arms.’ He thus reiterates the promise made in his first harangue, but I would argue that the favourable military situation and the accompaniment of his son, coemperor, and heir Romanos, now of an age to go on campaign, set the stage for the realisation of a grander purpose. The Vita Basilii records that Basil I took his eldest son and heir Constantine with him on the expedition to Syria in 878 so as to instruct the young man in the art of war and to inure him to the hardships of campaigning. The account of the campaign goes on to list the towns and fortresses brought under imperial control, and concludes with the triumph celebrated by Basil and Constantine upon their return to the City.64 This triumph is described at length in the third treatise on imperial expeditions, composed about the year 95865, and appears to have furnished the script which Constantine wished to follow upon returning with his son from a tour of the frontier in his grandfather’s footsteps. The first triumph held in Constantinople

62 Cf. the studies of the contemporary Limburg Staurothek by Sevcenko (1994), Bouras (1989), and Koder (1989). The most recent survey of the relics of the True Cross and of the Passion in Constantinople is in Durand, Lafitte (Paris: 2001) 20-36; see also Gould (1981) 336-41. 63 Haldon (1990) Text C.487, with comments on the protocol for display of the True Cross in military processions, 245-7 (with further references); on the Theotokou tou Pharou, see Jenkins, Mango (1956); Janin (1969) 232-6; Kalavrezou (1994) 55-7. 64 Theophanes continuatus 277.18-279.13; see also Lemerle (1973) 104-10. 65 Haldon (1990) Text C.724-807, with commentary 268-85; see ibid. 52-3 for the date of the treatise. The problem of legitimation was not unknown to Basil I: see McCormick (1986) 152-7.

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

127

during Constantine’s reign was staged largely to prop up the sagging reputation of his dynasty; another celebrated the combined achievements of Tzimiskes and Lekapenos in 958;66 but a triumphal entry of his own would have made manifest the divine sanction of his rule and, much more importantly, helped to secure the succession of Romanos. Constantine was old and infirm by 958, and as events were to prove, not long for this world. The spectre of assassination, regency, usurpation, and palace coups which hung over his dynasty could hardly have set his mind at ease as he contemplated the prospects for his own son’s uncontested accession to power. Now, on the brink of success against the Muslim archenemy, the opportunity beckoned to go to war at the head of his army and to embody the legitimating principle of imperial victory. That Constantine did in fact intend to go to Syria in 959, an intention which the victories won by Tzimiskes and Lekapenos could only have affirmed, is supported by evidence from three sources.67 But as the dirge composed for the emperor laments, ‘I set my foot upon strange ground ... and right away I must begin an even stranger journey’ — death intervened on 9 November 959, and his plans to lead his armies on campaign came to nothing. ADDRESS OF THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE VII TO THE STRATEGOI OF THE EAST 1. To speak to you often, even without a proper occasion, is my heart’s desire and dear to me, just as to be deprived of conversing with you is in my judgement distressing and painful. For I do not so love and cherish my soldiers and deem you worthy of every address and salutation as not to carry out this very act in writing to you, whom the sole eternal and immortal sovereign has in His boundless compassion granted to me as my legacy, a host assembled by God, and the most excellent share of the lordly inheritance; but to exhort your good will and obedience with my tongue is most pleasing of all to me and eagerly sought, while to teach and instruct you in the art of war through my words, and, as to courage, to make those so inclined more brave, and to inspire the more sluggish and to rouse them to boldness and hardiness is familiar to me and has become more pleasing than all enjoyment and all delight. The sacred words of the holy Gospel, wishing to express the greatness of God the Father’s love for mankind, say For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son68 unto 66 67 68

McCormick (1986) 159-67. Skylitzes 246.66-247.83; McGeer (2000) 82-5; Sevcenko (1969-70) 213, 214, 221. John 3: 16.

128

ERIC MCGEER

death, whereas I give not my only begotten son but my whole being, in body and soul, and I link and mix my flesh with your flesh and my bones with your bones, and I consider each one of my limbs united with and of common origin with you, and my very soul, one though it is, I distribute and divide among all of you, and I want my host assembled to be made animate and to be brought alive by me in the part that is mine. Children, whom I have begotten through the Gospel69 and implanted in the inheritance of God70, whom God has raised to maturity and brought to the full measure of youthful vigour, accept the present exhortation issued to you from the very depth of my soul and the hidden chambers of my heart. For my heart and my flesh, in the words of the psalmist David among the prophets, hath rejoiced exceedingly71 in you. How indeed could one not exult and rejoice and be gladdened when God has bestowed upon His inheritance such armies, such a courageous and valiant host, such champions and defenders of the Byzantines? Many times through written memoranda have we roused you to courage, very often have we given you our guidance, yet we have no surfeit of communication with you. Why is that? In our wish to present the zeal and ardour and warmth of our yearning for you, we do not take this moment lightly, as not to take up the wings of a dove and to come to rest72 among you, and to display our affection for you. 2. Now, as if unsatisfied with our previous endeavours and judging them meagre in comparison to the fiery heat of our love for you, we have despatched to you these men, whom we have come to regard as the more excellent of our servants, the most obedient, the most loyal, the most worthy, distinguished by wisdom and experience, and held by us in greater esteem than the others, so that you can see that after wrenching them away from the seat of our affections and our heart we have set them over you as your leaders and commanders.73 Their first task is to pick out the most courageous and valiant among you and to separate these men from the others so that your virtue will not remain unnoticed and unremarked because the cowardice of the latter has overshadowed and obscured your courage, and they will replace them with the men whom they choose. With this kind of preparation, selection, toil, and painstaking effort, let them bring our Christ-loving tag-

69 70 71 72 73

cf. I Corinthians 4: 14-15. cf. Exodus 15: 17. cf. Psalm 15: 9 (LXX) cf. Psalm 54: 6 (LXX) Generic plurals covering the original reference to Basil Lekapenos.

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

129

mata and themata to a stronger and better state, so that by their repute alone they will intimidate their adversary. 3. Since we have learned through despatches from the same most illustrious men and our most worthy attendants that in accordance with my command, or rather in accordance with the inclination and influence of God, they have already rejected all that is useless and unsuited to war, while the valiant and serviceable element that bears the brunt of battle they have selected and set aside for combat, that they have exercised all their diligence and care, and unceasing toil, with regard to your battle order and worthiness, and that these servants of Our Majesty are about to take you, now that you are equipped and prepared, to embark on campaign and to set out against the enemy in the areas where they have been assigned by Our Majesty, our joy has been increased a thousand-fold. Suffused with tears and delight at the same time, we have considered ourselves unworthy of offering prayers of supplication to God, and after appealing to the most venerable and saintly fathers who dwell in mountains, and in dens and in caves of the earth74 and enjoining them to offer prayers of supplication, we have appointed them to pray incessantly and unstintingly on your behalf; but we have also directed those in the churches of the City guarded by God and the pious monasteries to perform the same task, so that as the entreaty of all those holy men rises up to the ears of the Lord God of hosts and is blended and united with your fervour and trust in us, the route before you may be easy and smooth75. And so, since we take courage from the providence and help of our benevolent God, from the sacred prayers of the holy and hallowed fathers, and from your praiseworthy bravery and audacity, accept our exhortation as though from an affectionate father who has ardent affection for you and is occupied every day with his innumerable cares for your welfare. 4. Children faithful and beloved, army sacred and assembled by God, now, if ever, the time has come for your bravery to be displayed, for your audacity to be made known, for your praiseworthy courage to become clear to all. For even if many times in past years you fought bravely against the enemy and prevailed against them, some of these exploits were accomplished by accident and by unstable and capricious chance, others by design and skill decorated by the name of courage but recognised as cowardice in fact. The deeds of the brave were not clearly remarked, nor were those of the cowardly discerned, 74 75

Hebrews 11: 38. Reading p¤stei for p¤ptei, and éprÒskoptow for éprÒskopow.

130

ERIC MCGEER

but your actions were dimmed and hidden as though in a welter of confusion, a moonless night, or a battle in the dark. Since the process of selection which has now taken place through our most faithful servants and genuine attendants has made manifest the courage and valour of each one of you, while those men previously hidden and ignored because of envy (I cannot speak other than truthfully) can come forward into the light, and the courage, the audacity, and the endurance of each one of you have been acknowledged, and you have been picked out for selection like pure wheat, whereas the others, just as the tares grown with the wheat76, have been cast away and let loose, show your irresistible onslaught against the enemy and your hardihood. Advance against them, and advance without wavering, not skulking and withdrawing to the rear, but drawn up in the front ranks.77 You have as witnesses of your courage the representatives of Our Majesty who are taking my place. You have them to arouse your zeal with their words and deeds. Show them the most noble and steadfast determination innate in you. Let them see your sturdy arms fighting against the enemy, let them marvel, and let them glorify God for it. For wholly devoted to you, as one entering and dwelling in your hearts, so greatly have I been moved and stirred by love and yearning for you that, with God’s approval and sanction, I have prepared and readied myself to accompany you on campaign and to be convinced by my own eyes of what in times past I used to learn and hear by report. 5. If, then, there is any longing in you to see us and our son as your fellow cavalrymen, fellow infantrymen, and comrades in arms, confirm this longing now by your very deeds, strengthen the love in your hearts for us by your exploits, so that, invigorated and emboldened by your heroism, your victories and dominance against the enemy, and by your unconquerable monuments of triumph, I may become more eager to embrace the idea of taking part with you on campaign. For earlier, some rumour concerning the most impious Hamdanid and the Christ-hating Tarsiots was going around, to the effect that they are brave and have acquired a host invincible in war, wherefore out of terror and weakness you avoided engaging them in combat; but this is not now the case, for as you yourselves know, some time ago so-and-

Matthew 13: 29-30. Perhaps echoing Theophanes continuatus 459.13-460.12, especially where the chronicler relates that the reformed armies of Nikephoros Phokas ‘neither hid themselves, indulged in pleasures, nor turned in flight, as had been their habit beforehand...’. 76 77

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

131

so78 was sent out with the rest of the strategoi against the lands and fortresses of the accursed Tarsos and penetrated deep within their territory, and after arming his host with the utmost zeal and inspiring speeches, the kind of campaign he conducted and the number of officers79 and the huge host of Tarsiots he took prisoner has not escaped the notice of any of you. Moreover, the host despatched a short while ago to Mesopotamia with the patrikios so-and-so80 and the others, which descended on the valiant and unbeatable — as was thought — corps of the Hamdanid’s army and effortlessly subdued it, will no doubt convince your souls to become more bold and more confident in combat with the enemy. 6. The great and widespread report of your courage has reached foreign ears, to the effect that you have an irresistible onslaught, that you possess incomparable courage, that you display a proud spirit in battle. When several contingents of these foreign peoples recently joined you on campaign, they were amazed to see with their own eyes the courage and valour of the other soldiers who performed heroically in earlier expeditions; let them now be astonished at your audacity, let them marvel at your invincible and unsurpassable might against the barbarians.81 Be for me the wonder and amazement of the nations, and the might and strength of our people. Brace your souls, strengthen your arms, sharpen your teeth like wild boars, let no one attempt to turn his back to the enemy, as the man who takes this thought into his mind will soon give up his own life. Let your heroic deeds be spoken of in foreign lands, let the foreign contingents accompanying you be amazed at your discipline, let them be messengers to their compatri-

78 Constantine refers to the naval battle and raid conducted by Basil Hexamilites, patrikios and strategos of the Kibyrrhaiotai, in September/October 956, during which he defeated an Arab fleet and ravaged the environs of Tarsos, taking many prisoners: Theophanes continuatus 452.20-453.19; Vasiliev (1935-68) II.1 360; Mazzucchi (1978) 299-301. A ray of light after a series of demoralising defeats at the hands of Sayf, this otherwise minor success was celebrated with a triumph in Constantinople: McCormick (1986) 165-6. 79 ıpÒsouw ... ka˝taw: ka˝thw is an Arabic word, listed by E.A. Sophocles and Du Cange (ka˝tow), which also appears in the account of Hexamilites’s raid in Theophanes continuatus 17 (453. ): cf. the parallel passages noted by Mazzucchi (1978) 300 note 102. On the unresolved question of Theodore Daphnopates’s authorship of the last book of Theophanes continuatus, see Darrouzès, Westerink (1978) 6-10. 80 i.e. John Tzimiskes; see note 56 above. 81 The presence of foreign soldiers in Lekapenos’s army is confirmed by a poem of Abu Firas who records his encounter with a Khazar warrior during the battle at Raban; the commentary preceding the poem states that in preparation for the campaign Constantine sought soldiers from the Bulgars, Russians (Rhos), Turks (Hungarians), and Franks: Vasiliev (193568) II.2 368-70; see also McGeer (1995) 200-201.

132

ERIC MCGEER

ots of your triumphs and symbols which bring victory, so that they may see the deeds you have performed. 7. We say this both to the Christ-loving and divinely assembled armies of the East and to the forces from Macedonia and Thrace which have joined you on campaign. This we declare and make known: these men too have been your comrades in arms and companions, and they have demonstrated their valour in war on many occasions. When82 they were sent to Longobardia, they won victories against the enemy — take our word for it that they mastered and subdued those who opposed Our Majesty.83 And so, as servants and soldiers of one realm and emperor, eagerly undertake the present campaign with them, disposed towards them as brothers and tending like fathers to their safety. They have been sent to share your labours, and they have become your partners in dangers and heroic exploits. 8. In addressing this to you all, as to my vitals and my limbs, and speaking to you through the present letter, I have placed my trust in Christ the true God, the sole immortal king, and I am bolstered by the hope that you will not dishonour my expectation of you, that you will not extinguish my hopes, that you will not dull my consideration, that you will not debase your service; but because as true and most faithful servants and subjects of Our Majesty, as sturdy and invincible champions of the Byzantine people, you have now shown this kind and this degree of courage and all manner of audacity and valour, we will embrace you as victors appearing as triumphant conquerors against the enemy and receive you with joyful acclamations as you return. We will kiss your bodies wounded for the sake of Christ in veneration as the limbs of martyrs84, we will pride ourselves in the defilement of blood, we will be glorified in you and your valorous accomplishments and struggles. So that you may know how much I am on fire in my soul for you, that I am completely consumed, that I burn all over as I devote my exertions to your salvation and to pros-

Reading ≤n¤ka for ≤l¤ka. Referring to the expedition (which included contingents from Thrace and Macedonia) sent to southern Italy in 956 under the command of Marianos Argyros, anthypatos patrikios and strategos of Calabria and Longobardia. Argyros succeeded in regaining control of Naples and Salerno in 956 and campaigned against the Arabs until a truce was arranged in 958: Theophanes continuatus 453.20-454.21; Vasiliev (1935-68) II.1 371-8; von Falkenhausen (1978) 39, 83-4, 132. On Argyros’s career, see Vannier (1975) 30-2. 84 In kissing the wounds of his soldiers Constantine is perhaps recasting himself as Constantine the Great, who ‘kissed Paphnoutios and other confessors on their eyes that had been gouged out and their limbs that had been mutilated in the persecution, receiving a blessing from them’: Theophanes (Mango and Scott) 36. 82

83

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

133

pering you85, behold, that after drawing holy water from the immaculate and most sacred relics of the Passion of Christ our true God86 — from the precious wooden fragments [of the True Cross]87 and the undefiled Lance88, the precious Titulus89, the wonder-working Reed90, the life-giving blood which flowed from His precious rib91, the most sacred Tunic92, the holy swaddling clothes93, the God-bearing winding sheet94, and the other relics of His undefiled Passion95 — we have sent it to be sprinkled upon you, for you to be anointed by it and to garb yourselves with the divine power from on high. For I trust in my true God and Saviour Christ, that just as He restored and endowed the human race with life through the blood and water which flowed from His precious rib, so will He through the sprinkling of this holy water quicken and restore you and furnish you with confidence and might and domination against the enemy. Christ, the creator of the ages and upholder of all creation, our true God, Who is worshipped and glorified with His eternal Father and with the life-giving Spirit of the same nature, Who strengthens feebleness and invigorates the lowly, Who engulfed the army of Pharaoh in the depths of the sea and saved the lowly people96, Who alone is lofty and master, Who sits upon the cherubs97 and looks upon low things98, Who girds the sword99 for the Psalm 67: 19 (LXX) épomur¤santew: in other words, the condensation was rubbed from the relics (or the reliquaries) with a cloth; this extract was called myron, or holy oil. 87 t«n te tim¤vn jÊlvn: on the history of the True Cross in Constantinople, see Frolow (1961) 73-94, 238, and no. 143; Durand, Lafitte (2001) 20-4, 61-6. 88 t∞w éxrãntou lÒgxhw (cf. John 19: 34): known to have been in Constantinople since 614; see Sevcenko (1994) 290-1; Durand, Lafitte (2001) 24. 89 toË tim¤ou t¤tlou (cf. John 19: 19): a rare attestation of the Titulus, which is absent from the table of relics in Durand, Lafitte (2001) 32-3, and from the inventories in Gould (1981) 335-41. 90 toË yaumatourgoË kalãmou: the reed by which the sponge was held up to Christ on the cross (cf. Mark 15: 36); but note that kalamos is also the word used for the mock sceptre put in Christ’s hands by the Roman soldiers (cf. Matthew 27: 29), and the rod used by the Roman soldiers to beat Christ (Mark 15: 19). 91 John 19: 34; see Durand, Lafitte (2001) 67-8. 92 toË pans°ptou xit«now: Christ’s tunic for which the Roman soldiers cast lots; cf. John 19: 23-24. 93 t«n fler«n spargãnvn (cf. Luke 2: 7, 12): kept in the High Altar in Hagia Sophia according to the De cerimoniis; see Vogt (1935/40) vol. 1, part 1, 11; vol. 2, 61, and Durand, Lafitte (2001) 68. 94 t∞w yeofÒrou sindÒnow (cf. Matthew 27: 59, Luke 23: 53): not to be confused with the Mandylion. Cf. Durand, Lafitte (2001) 87. 95 Conspicuous by their absence from the list are the Crown of Thorns and the Sponge; on these relics, see Durand, Lafitte (2001) 55-60, 87. 96 cf. Psalm 17: 27 (LXX) 97 Psalm 79: 1; Psalm 98: 1 (LXX) 98 cf. Psalm 112: 6; Psalm 137: 6 (LXX) 99 Psalm 44: 3 (LXX) 85 86

134

ERIC MCGEER

mighty in war and provides help from on high to those who call upon Him, Who resists the proud100, Who brings sinners down to the ground101, Who instructs hands to war102, Who makes the arms of them who hope in Him as a brazen bow103, Who has given the shield of salvation104 to pursue the impious enemies until they are consumed105, Who girds strength for war106, Who beats down all that rose107 against those who fight for Him, beating them small as dust before the wind108, may He in His infinite and ineffable goodness and in His immeasurable and incomprehensible compassion watch over you with mercy and favour, may He look upon you from above with a kindly eye. May He prepare your route before you; He Himself will send His angel and He will guide your journey109, and may He help to surround you with hosts of angels and to keep you safe from harm at the hands of the enemy, so that through His power and might you may have upon your return to us in victory and triumph praise everlasting in memory of men, remaining indelible and spoken of from generation to generation, so that you may cause Our Majesty to be joyful and to rejoice in your achievements, and to be embellished by your heroic deeds through the intercession of the immaculate Mother of God, His mother, and all the incorporeal angelic powers, and the saints who have served Him from eternity and been martyred for His sake. Amen. It remains to offer some thoughts by way of conclusion. One is that Constantine’s two speeches are of greater historical interest than has usually been supposed. They are rare examples of formal imperial military rhetoric which, although based on long established models, nevertheless have an immediacy and intensity which set them apart from most Byzantine orations. They present the time-honoured images and themes of imperial propaganda, but these acquire an added significance when viewed against the insecurity of Constantine’s reign and the problem of dynastic legitimacy he had to contend with. They cast further light on a cf. Proverbs 3: 34. cf. Psalm 146: 6 (LXX) 102 Psalm 17: 34 (LXX) 103 Conflating Psalm 17: 30, 35 (LXX) 104 Psalm 17: 35 (LXX) 105 Psalm 17: 37 (LXX) 106 Psalm 17: 39 (LXX) 107 Psalm 17: 40 (LXX) 108 Psalm 17: 42 (LXX) 109 John Tzimiskes likewise called for ‘an angel to be given to him who would go ahead of the army and guides its way’ as he prepared to go to war against Svendoslav in 971: Leo the Deacon 129.6-7. 100 101

TWO MILITARY ORATIONS

135

little known project which Constantine ultimately did not achieve, but it would now appear that his efforts to compile military manuals and treatises on imperial expeditions were more than just didactic or antiquarian in purpose. The two harangues also present valuable evidence on the subject of religion and morale in the Byzantine wars against the Hamdanids. There can be no doubting the force of the emperor’s appeals to his soldiers to fight against the infidel with the conviction that they were fighting on behalf of Christ’s people; but we should take into account what the harangues do not say before we adduce them as evidence for the concept of holy war in tenth-century Byzantium.110 Nowhere does the emperor proclaim that these wars are fought at God’s command or at the behest of the Church, or that death in battle confers instant spiritual reward to the fallen soldier. The wars are fought in defence of the Christian realm, not to propagate the Christian faith, and there is no word in the speeches that the goal of the wars is the recovery of a sacred place or object. The need to match their Muslim foes on the level of ideology as well as in the physical contest of battle certainly escalated the religious motivation of Byzantine armies during the tenth century, but as Nicolas Oikonomides observed, “when religious differences were at stake, the arguments and the propaganda would change accordingly, but this would be a difference in intensity, not a basically different approach”.111

110 Kolia-Dermitzaki (1989), (1991); whether one agrees or disagrees with her conclusions, it must be acknowledged that her work has led Byzantinists to examine the question of war in Byzantium in greater depth and detail; cf. Laiou (1993), Kolbaba (1998), and Haldon (1999) 13-33. For an examination of popular attitudes to war, see the interesting study of Trombley (1998). 111 Oikonomides (1995) 86.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER EIGHT

This page intentionally left blank

ABYZANTINE INSTRUCTIONALMANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE: THE DE OBSIDIONE TOLERANDA1. INTRODUCTION, ENGLISH TRANSLATION2 AND ANNOTATIONS Denis F. Sullivan with a reprint of the Greek text edited by Hilda van den Berg DATE AND AUTHOR The Byzantine military treatise known under the Latin title De obsidione toleranda provides an instructional handbook, using a precept and historical precedent approach, for a general officer in command of a city under siege. It was first edited by Melchisédech Thévenot (with Ph. de La Hire) in 16933 from inferior manuscripts 4; his edition was translated into French by E. Caillemer5. The text was next fully edited only more than 250 years after Thévenot from the best manuscript witnesses by Hilda van den Berg 6. Her text is reproduced here with an annotated English translation. A terminus ante quem for the composition of the treatise, as van den Berg noted in her introduction, is provided by its inclusion in two manuscripts, Vaticanus graecus 1164 and Barberinianus 276, the former dated to the early 11th century or possibly late tenth, the latter to the early 11th century. Internal references in the treatise place the terminus post quem as the early 10th century. The anonymous author refers (64:8) 7 to the xeiros¤ fvnon, a device mentioned by Leo VI (886-912) as a recent Byzantine invention 8; he also employs the term la›sa (50:6, 57:3, 74:18) for a siege shed (testudo), a usage which Eric McGeer has shown to be 10th-century 9. Anonymous mentions (78:9-10) an Arab siege of

1 For many years the highlight of the summer in Washington, D.C. was the presence of Nikos Oikonomides at Dumbarton Oaks. It is with a profound sense of sadness that I find this piece published in a memorial volume to him and not in a birthday Festschrift. 2 I am most grateful to Professor Elizabeth Fisher who has read the Introduction and sections of the translation and offered a number of valuable suggestions. 3 Veterum Mathematicorum Athenaei, Bitonis, Apollodori, Heronis, Philonis et aliorum Opera (Paris: 1693) 317-30. 4 van den Berg 34: “e codicibus deterioribus”; Rochas d’Aiglun (1872) 200 comments: “Le texte tel que l’ont publié Thévenot et Lahire est extrêmement incorrect”. 5 Caillemer (1872) 199-253. 6 Anonymus de obsidione toleranda (Leiden: 1947). 7 References are to van den Berg’s page and line numbers. 8 Leo VI, Taktika XIX:57. 9 E. McGeer (1991) 129-40.

140

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

Thessalonike, almost certainly that of 904 and, given the author’s lack of any further comment on it, presumably still memorable and close to the date of composition. Following Martin 10, van den Berg also plausibly dates the reference to the capture of Kitros by the “most cruel Bulgarians” (52:8-11) during the period 913-924 when they frequently invaded Byzantine territory; the author’s characterization of the Bulgarians suggests recent and perhaps personal experience. Thus a date of composition in the first half of the tenth century is probable. The situation is, however, complicated by the fact that the anonymous 10th-century author is presumably drawing on a lost source, called by A. Dain the Antipoliorceticum11. Dain edited 12, in an article apparently unknown to van den Berg, a short untitled text found in Ambrosianus B119-Sup. (Gr. 139), which he called Mémorandum inédit sur la défense des places and whose compilation he dated to the second half of the tenth century. It consists of brief extracts which closely parallel in sequence and content the De obsidione toleranda, but with differences which led Dain to conclude that the two texts derive independently from a lost source. I provide an English translation of the Mémorandum as an appendix to this Introduction; items 11, 12, 13, 16, 23, and 26 contain the material not found in the De obsidione toleranda. Based on the two extant texts Dain suggested that this lost source consisted of two main sections, a discussion of various means of defending against a siege, and a series of historical accounts of famous sieges. He dated13 this Antipoliorceticum in a wide range between Theodosius II (408-450) or his immediate successors and Constantine VII (913-959). One might add that the De obsid ione toleranda contains a reference (50:16-21) to the Persian siege of Caesarea in 611. If this notice was in the Antipoliorceticum, which, given the date 611 and the unique information on the siege the notice provides (i.e. that the Persians entered the city through a tunnel under the walls), seems likely though not certain, it would bring the lower limit for that text to the early seventh century. This situation, then, leaves the date of many statements in the De obsidione toleranda uncertain. Dain commented that the 10th-century author did not simply paraphrase an older model, but inserted personal remarks;14 some of these are clear, as noted above; others may be less so. The traditional nature of such texts and the continuity of both offensive and defensive siege techniques further complicates identification of 10 11 12 13 14

Martin (1854) 327-28; van den Berg 3. Dain (1967) 349-50 and 366-67. Dain (1940)124-27. Dain (1967) 350. Dain (1967) 359.

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

141

specifically 10th-century practice and innovation. Thus in the absence of a verifiable tenth-century date for specific material, the reader should keep an open mind. We know virtually nothing of the 10th-century author or of the author of the Antipoliorceticum. The De obsidione toleranda refers (61:9-10) to another treatise which the author claims to have written “On Torch [Signals]” (Per‹ fan«n), but which author, if either, is responsible is not clear.15 CONDITION OF THE TEXT van den Berg edited the text from three manuscripts, Vaticanus graecus 1164 (V), Barberinianus 276 (P) and Escorialensis Y-III-11 (E). She noted in her introduction scholarly consensus on these three as the source of all other copies and considered V and P independent witnesses, but E as copied from V, and thus used E only in the final sections where V has lost folios (from 92:1). The manuscripts are plagued by numerous lacunae and van den Berg often suppleted the text from parallel sources or logically from the context. Her suppletions have been translated here in angle brackets with indication of the source. With two exceptions (noted with “DS”) all suppletions and emendations are taken from her apparatus or appendix. Through the kindness of Fr. George Dennis I have been able to examine mss. V and P in microfilm and I consider the printed edition carefully done. van den Berg also provided an extensive register of Byzantine and classical fontes and parallel passages; I have in general noted fontes only when not included in her exhaustive list. Where the text is virtually a verbatim quotation from an earlier source, the translation is italicized. I have benefited here from P. A. Brunt’s translation of Arrian16, H. St. J. Thackeray’s translation of Josephus 17, and W. R. Paton’s translation of Polybius 18, although I have generally attempted a more literal rendering as well as adjusting to differences in the text of the De obsid ione toleranda. ORGANIZATION The treatise is written to a “general” (strathgÒ w), who is directly addressed in the vocative (“o general”) on two occasions (45:14, 98:14); the Greek title has “How a general . . . must withstand the siege . . . .” Two other instances indicate specifically that “the general” must take

15 16 17 18

So Dain (1967) 350. Arrian, with an English translation (Cambridge, MA: 1976-1983). Josephus, The Jewish War with an English translation (Cambridge, MA: 1927-28). Polybius, Histories (Cambridge, MA: 1922-27).

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

142

certain actions (54:10, 55:6), a usage found in ten instances in the M é m o r a n d u m, indicating that this approach was in the Antipoliorceticum. The text is not focused on a single city, but considers various alternatives: the presence or absence of islands to provide food, specific needs of cities on the sea, the presence or absence of terrain useful for ambushing the enemy, cities with and without tunnels under the walls, etc. There are two references to the Bulgarians, their capture of Kitros mentioned above and one on enemy ambush techniques (“The Bulgarians customarily do this” 62:17) suggesting the 10th-century Anon.’s particular concern with the Balkans. Dain described the organization of the treatise as “malheureusement vague”19. This is perhaps overly pessimistic; while not tightly compartmentalized, there are some basic categories. The author begins with generic encouragement not to capitulate when a siege threatens, since the enemy is only human and susceptible to various problems. He then deals with the issue of providing immediate necessities, first if food supplies are abundant, then in cases of scarcity, and continuing with possible evacuation of noncombatants, organization of craftsmen, and the importance of inventiveness20, again citing conditions of abundance and recommending provision of various commodities and raw materials, and concern for the water supplies. He then considers fortification issues: repair and raising of walls, securing tunnels, adding loopholes to walls, digging ditches, securing them with palisades and filling them with water; securing the “brachiolion” (a kind of defensive jetty) if on the coast, constructing bridges over the ditches, and positioning chevaux de frise, caltrops and warning bells. He then examines “personnel” issues: oversight of the watch, capital punishment for deserters, training in weapons use, organization of army units and their leaders, training for enemy attacks by simulation. He then considers action in the face of the imminent arrival and subsequent presence of the enemy: securing flocks and herds or if necessary slaughtering them for the meat, destroying nonessential animals which would deplete supplies, reaping the fields and bringing in livestock and people, ambushing the enemy if they are proceeding in disarray, poisoning rivers, lakes and wine containers, coordinating ambushes with friendly forces inside as well as outside the city and carefully estimating the time of such an ambush, using clear signals to allow friendly forces back in while excluding the enemy, setting fire to enemy siege machines, waging pitched battles and attacking the enemy’s homeland, attacking enemy foragers, fighting in relays when the enemy does so, providing defenses against battering rams and siege 19

See Dain (1967) 359.

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

143

sheds, and using mats, new walls and ditches to defend breached portions of walls. Two final sections are dominated by use of lengthy historical examples. The first advocates the use of counter stratagems against overt enemy operations, with emphasis on inventiveness, as exemplified by Archimedes, to create them and adds encouraging comments on the weakness of contemporary enemies who could not do what Alexander did at Tyre and Gaza or Titus at Jerusalem. The second deals with covert enemy operations, citing Alexander’s capture of the rocks of Sogdiana and Chorienes, the text ending abruptly in the midst of that example. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES The precepts in the treatise are generally presented in the form “it is necessary” (de› or xrÆ) followed by an infinitive or simply by an infinitive with de› or xrÆ in ellipsis 21. In some instances this is accompanied by an explanation introduced by “in order that” (· na) or “for” (gãr ). Another major feature of the treatise is citation of historical examples to support the recommendations. In the first half these are usually brief and serve to reinforce a suggestion either positively or negatively. For example, the proposal (50:11-13) to raise the height of the walls even while under enemy fire is given credence by citing Josephus, who did the same at Jotapata. The proposal to secure any tunnels in the walls (50:14) is followed by three examples of the negative consequences of failing to so. In at least one case examples are used to show the weakness of a tentative recommendation. At 65:3, after suggesting an attack on the enemy’s home territory to force them to lift a siege, the text continues: “But then this has often ruined many.” The example of the failure of Hannibal’s attack on Rome in an attempt to lift the siege of Capua is cited with additional historical parallels. In two instances a rationale for the examples is specifically stated. At 84:10-17 the author notes as encouragement that no contemporary enemy forces could mount the kind of sieges brought by Alexander at Tyre and Gaza and Titus at Jerusalem, followed by lengthy citations of those sieges. At 98:4ff he indicates that he uses the examples to show that even the most clever enemies can be resisted by those under siege and that contemporary enemies are weaker than those of the past. Then, advocating the necessity of carefully guarding against

20 The treatise mentions “inventiveness” (§ p¤ noia) again at 48:1, 78:3, 84:11 and perhaps at 98:19. 21 As these are addressed, as noted above, to a general officer, one might speculate that the author is also one himself or a compiler writing with the support of a general or emperor.

144

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

covert enemy operations, he cites at length Alexander’s unexpected method of capturing the rocks of Sogdiana and Chorienes 22. RELATION TO OTHER MILITARY MANUALS The treatise is in the tradition of didactic military manuals stretching back to Aineias Tacticus’ (4th-century BC) How to Survive under Siege. While that treatise, despite its traditional title, covers considerably more than siege defense, it does provide specific advice on protecting walls and gates, dealing with incendiary devices, detecting and thwarting sappers, etc. and does so with frequent use of historical examples to corroborate its recommendations 23. The 3rd-century BC compendium (MhxanikØ sÊntajiw ) of Philo of Byzantium 24 includes a Poliorkhtikã with detailed instructions on constructing city defenses, and with recommendations on preparations for and defensive actions while under siege, including some similar to ones found in the De obsidione toleranda (e.g., lists of commodities, digging three defensive ditches, etc.). The late 6thcentury Strategikon of Maurice 25 (Book X:3) provides brief but detailed instructions for siege defense which are largely repeated with some additions in Leo VI’s (early 10th-century) Taktika26 XVI:46-66. Some of these find parallels in the De obsidione toleranda, e.g., concern for supplies for the estimated time of the siege, evacuation of those useless for siege defense in cases of scarcity, use of heavy mats hung over the battlements to defend against stones from enemy stone throwers, and mattresses and sacks filled with chaff or sand to defend against rams, etc. The contemporary 10th-century anonymous Sylloge tacticorum, Chapter 53 (“What the besieged general must do”), drawing in part on Leo’s Taktika, includes similar recommendations regarding provisions of supplies, evacuation of the noncombatants, dividing the army into units, fighting in relays, hanging heavy mats from the battlements, using sacks of chaff or sand against rams, using xeiros¤ fvna, digging counter excavations against sappers with subsequent use of fire and smoke in an

22 On the possible source of these siege descriptions, already present in the Antipoliorceticum, in an earlier compilation of historical extracts, see Dain (1967) 349, with an opposing view in van den Berg 21-22. 23 See Whitehead (1990). He estimates (38) that historical precedents constitute one-third of Aineias’ treatise. 24 For the text with French translation see Y. Garlan, Recherches de poliorcétique grecque (Paris: 1974) and for partial English translation, A. W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford: 1979) 89-99. 25 For the text see Maurice Strategikon; for English translation see Dennis (1984). 26 For the complete text see PG 107. A new edition and translation is in preparation by Fr. George Dennis.

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

145

earthen jar, etc. The De velitatione27 (ca. 975), Chapter 21 (“The siege of a fortified town”), instructs a general to provide food supplies for four months or more, insure that there is water in the cisterns, employ coordinated night attacks, destroy anything outside which might be useful to the enemy, and to use diversions to get supplies into the besieged city, while indicating that the topic has been covered in greater detail by previous writers on tactics and strategy. Yet at the same time each of these seven treatises contains seemingly unique items; in the De obsidione toleranda these include use of human excrement against siege sheds and use of sacks filled with beans to absorb ram blows, etc. The precise relationships of these common and unique elements awaits further scholarly inquiry. APPENDIX Mémorandum inédit sur la défense des places, ed. A. Dain (1940) 124-27. This brief text begins virtually each item with ˜ti , presumably the abbreviated version of ÉIst° on ˜ti (“Be aware that”) found frequently in the De administrando imperio 28 and the De cerimoniis 29, often used in marginal notes and as a formula of transition. The same formula is also found in the “table of contents” and a number of chapter headings in the Sylloge tacticorum and in the so-called Strathgikå paragg° lmata30. Angle brackets indicate Dain’s additions to the text, square brackets my own additions for clarity. 1. [Be aware] especially in this situation to call upon the invincible power of God. 2. [Be aware] that it is necessary to suspend [regular] commerce in wheat and other foodstuffs in time of siege, and that the general order those who have them to sell all at a moderate price, keeping for themselves only what they need for a specified time.

See Dennis (1984) 223-27. See J. B. Bury, “The treatise De administrando imperio”, BZ 15 (1906) 517-77, specifically 538-39. 29 See J.B. Bury, “The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetos”, English Historical Review, 209-27 and 417-439, specifically 223 with n. 41 and 428 and Haldon (1990) 42-43. 30 J.-A. Foucault, Strategmata (Paris: 1949) 110-120. 27

28

146

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

3. [Be aware] that it is necessary for the general in a timely manner to train the workmen who are useful to a besieged city, namely engineers, siege machine operators, builders, arms manufacturers, rope makers and the others to gather and support them with promises of payment and make them quite eager. 4. [Be aware] that it is necessary to prepare cheiromaggana31 and projecting beams to throw heavy stones from the battlements. 5. [Be aware] that it is necessary to provide many arrows and to cut notches in them and thus to shoot them at the enemy. 6. [Be aware] that when the enemy are present nothing prevents increasing the height of the wall during the night, and devising laisai32 (laÛ ssãw ) to intercept the missiles of the enemy. 7. [Be aware] that it is necessary to search out the tunnels and secure them; for through these many cities have been captured. 8. [Be aware] that it is necessary to put in place numerous bow-ballistas and to ward off the enemy with them. Likewise it is also necessary to dig ditches and make them deep. 9. [Be aware] that if the city is by the sea to bind together masts of large ships and large poles, and to attach these to the wall and by means of these to blockade ships approaching the wall. 10. [Be aware] that it is necessary to hang bells on the battlements so that should the guards be negligent [the bells will] give warning of the secret attack of the enemy. 11. [Be aware] that it is necessary at night for the watches to be closely arrayed and to rouse one another with trumpets. 12. [Be aware] that it is necessary to close the taverns lest through drunkenness the troops be enervated in time of battle.

31 32

On the term see footnote 34 of the text. On the term see footnote 48 of the text.

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

147

13. [Be aware] that it is necessary for the general to order that no one abandon his section of the wall in time of war, nor be fearful of sudden rumors coming from another part of the city which some cowards or traitors are spreading. 14. [Be aware] that it is necessary that a deserter in this situation be punished by the general. 15. [Be aware] that it is necessary for the general to train the archers and the javeliners and the other engineers so that when necessity calls they are ready to perform their duties. 16. [Be aware] that it is necessary for there to be officers on each part of the wall and for elite troops to be distributed everywhere, especially where an attack is expected. 17.[Be aware] that it is necessary for the general to tour the wall with valiant soldiers and to give aid to a section in difficulty. 18. [Be aware] that it is necessary to put large stone weights on the battlements and heavy poles, sharp at the end, so the soldiers can ward off machines being advanced. 19. [Be aware] that it is necessary to train the [troops] to control the fears that come at night, as if the enemy were present, in order that being trained in simulated attacks, they are not thrown into confusion during actual [assaults]. 20. [Be aware] that it is necessary to have bells and at their sound for the troops to arm themselves as if on [a verbal] signal. 21. [Be aware] that it is necessary for the general, dividing up his forces, to also make sudden sallies against the enemy. It is necessary, however, to guard against enemy ambushes and ruses. 22. [Be aware] that it is necessary for the gates to be securely guarded and to give a password to the soldiers, which they might use when returning and be recognized by those at the gates. For there is fear lest somehow the enemy escape notice entering together with our own troops who are being pursued.

148

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

23. [Be aware] that it is necessary for the gates to have a gate hidden above vertically, and this of iron, and to bring this down vertically, in order that when the enemy are attacking and it is suddenly let down they may be killed. 24. [Be aware] that it is necessary to order those going out on sorties that no one proceed to seize spoils before the complete defeat of the enemy. 25. [Be aware] that it is necessary for the general to prepare in advance against enemy machines many pine torches, pitch, tow, brushwood; and to divide up the troops, some for battle, some for burning the machines. 26. [Be aware] that it is necessary that water be prepared in advance in large containers over the whole wall, but especially where the machines of the enemy are expected; for there is fear lest by using fire the enemy may destroy the planks on the battlements. 27. [Be aware] that it is necessary to order the troops not to lose heart at the shouting of the enemy. 28. [Be aware] that it is necessary to order [the troops], crouching down in the face of a multitude of missiles, to cover themselves with their shields and withdraw until are empty, but to leap first against those putting up ladders to ward them off with their own instruments. 29. [Be aware] that it is necessary to lock the women in their homes and not allow their weeping to weaken the spirit of the fighting men. 30. [Be aware] that when the wall is being sapped by the enemy, if the general should be ignorant of the location of the tunnel, it is necessary for him to place on a continuous straight line bronze plates (let these be thin like pots and similar such things) over a long distance and to put his ear to these and listen. For they will echo the sound [of the digging] outside. And so it is necessary to dig directly opposite and stationing men with axes to fight those within when they meet there. It is necessary, however, also to dig a large tunnel where the sap is, in order that should the enemy burst in en masse they may be killed.

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

149

31. They say that Archimedes, when Syracuse was besieged, devised the following among other practices. After measuring inside the wall from the foundations to the height of a man he packed [this level] with holes a palm’s breadth in size on the outer facade. Stationing archers at these and shooting through them he rendered the attacks of the enemy useless. 32. [Be aware] that it is necessary for the general to be concerned not only with the position in great difficulty, but also to secure that position where he does not fear the enemy, perhaps due to the strength of the place. For many cities have been taken at unexpected positions because they were not continuously secured by the general, for example Sardis by Antiochus and the Sogdian rock by Alexander. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK

ENDNOTE: As the volume went to press the publisher concluded that the anticipated photographic reproduction of van den Berg’s text was not feasible, and the text was reset. In proofreading the reset version I was able to correct a few minor typographical errors in the original. E DITOR’S NOTE: Notice is hereby made that Brill alone is responsible for any and all typographical errors resulting from the reprinting of the van den Berg text.

150

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

TEXT

45 3

OPVS XRH TON THS POLIORKOUMENHS POLEVS STRATHGON PROS THN POLIORKIAN ANTITATTESYAI KAI OIOIS EPITHDEUMASI TAUTHN APOKROUESYAI

ÜOti oÈ de› épagoreÊein tÚn poliorkoÊmenon, kín xrÒnon polÁn épeil∞i ≤ poliork¤a: μ går oÈx ımonoÆsousin afl t«n §xyr«n dunãmeiw prÚw •autåw μ perispasmo¤ tinew perip°soien katå tØn t«n §xyr«n x≈ran ÍpÚ t«n ımÒrvn §xyr«n. *** gen°syai dÉín 2 9 ka‹ s¤tou spãnin ka‹ loimikåw diay°seiw §fÉ •n‹ tÒpvi ple¤v xrÒnon poll«n dunãmevn §pimenous«n, μ ka‹ tÚn érxhgÚn toË stratoË ênyrvpon ˆnta ka‹ dunãmenon ÍpÚ poll«n ka‹ t«n 12 tuxÒntvn afiti«n édunat∞sai kayÒlou paye›n ti. ˜yen to¤nun sÁn Ye«i de› prÒ ge t«n êllvn èpãntvn ëma 3 t«i éggely∞na¤ soi, Œ strathg°, tØn t«n §xyr«n épok¤nhsin, 15 e‡te diÉ aÈtomÒlvn e‡te diå kataskÒpvn, §n miçi ≤m°rai, efi dunatÒn, proeutrep¤sai m¢n tØn érkoËsan dapãnhn † t∞w parastã6

V P1

1 tÚn om. P1 3 §pithdeÊmasin P1 7 possis suspicari perip°soien sed cf. praef. p. 39 8 t«n §xyr«n] §xyr«n P1 || lac. indicavi; vox dÉ post gen°syai probat non solum „sperari potest” vel tale quid, sed plura ex12 kay˜lou V; sed p. 51, 22 et cidisse 9 spãnin Thev.: spãnhn V P1 § 218 kayÒlou V P1 16 v. append. 9–10 cf. Plb. II, 31, 10 loimik∞w diay°sevw §mpesoÊshw aÈto›w; Urb.Maur. XII, 8, 22, 7 (Vari ad Leonis Tact. XI, 31) de› énÒsouw ka‹ kayaroÁw §pil°gesyai tÒpouw efiw êplhkta ka‹ mØ xrÒnon polÁn §ndiatr¤bein §n •n‹ xvr¤vi . . . . . diå tÚ mØ loim≈ttein tÚn stratÒn.; Syll. Tact. 22, 2 mhd¢ §p‹ pollåw §n to›w aÈto›w tÒpoiw diatr¤bein ≤m°raw tØn stratiån xrÆ, diå tåw §k t∞w sÆcevw §pisumbainoÊsaw loim≈deiw nÒsouw 13–p. 46, 3 cf. Urb.-Maur. X, 3, 1 (Scheffer) = Leon Probl. X, 10 p«w de› ént°xein tÚn poliorke›syai prosdok«nta xron¤vw; (xron¤vw om. Probl.) xrØ t«n énagka¤vn efiw épotrofØn front¤sai, ˜son o‰de tÚn §xyrÚn §jarke›n (§jarxe›n Scheffer) xrÒnon §p‹ t∞i poliork¤ai: ka‹ efi m¢n eÈpore› tosaÊthw épotrof∞w, ¶peitã ge k.t.l. v. ad. p. 46, 20–47, 2, fere item Leo, Tact. XV, 47, Syll. Tact. 53, 1 poliorke›syai d¢ parå t«n polem¤vn ı strathgÚw Ífor≈menow trofåw prÚ pãntvn sugkomiz°tv prÚw xron¤an érkoÊsaw poliork¤an: trof«n d¢ mØ eÈpor«n k.t.l. v. ad. p. 46, 20–47, 2 16 dapãnh—alimenta, commeatus; cf. e. g. Leon Tact. XX, 63 ˜tan mØ to›w strateÊmasi tå §pitÆdeia ka‹ tåw énagka¤aw trofåw proeutrep¤shiw, tÒte ka‹ polem¤vn xvr‹w ≤tthyÆshi. ≤ går spãniw ka‹ ¶ndeia t∞w dapãnhw ka‹ toÁw strati≈taw ka‹ toÁw ·ppouw §kluy∞nai paraskeuãsei; ibidem

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

151

TRANSLATION How the general of a city under siege must withstand the siege and with what sort of methods to defend against it1. [Be aware] that 2 there is no need for the besieged [general] to capitulate, even if the siege threatens to be a lengthy one. For either the enemy forces will have disagreements with one another or some distractions may occur against the enemy’s land from their hostile neighbors. a scarcity of wheat and pestilential conditions may occur when large forces remain in one place for a long time, or even that the leader of the army may always suffer some mishap, as he is human and subject to incapacitation due to multiple accidental causes 4. For this reason then, with God, when the movement 5 of the enemy is announced to you, o general, either from deserters or spies, in one day, if possible, it is necessary above all else to prepare sufficient provisions for ~ the extent ~ [46] of the time of the siege, per-

1 For a brief summary in English see E. McGeer, “Byzantine Siege Warfare in Theory and Practice”, in I. Corfis and M. Wolfe (eds.), The Medieval City under Siege (Woodbridge, Eng.: 1995) 123-31, spec. 126-27; idem, ODB I:611. 2 On this formula, [ÉIst° on] ˜ti , see above in the appendix to the Introduction. 3 van den Berg’s (hereafter vdB) suggested addition; she notes that it is likely even more has been lost. 4 Cf. Polybius VI:24:7: édÆlou går ˆntow ka‹ toË poi∞sai ka‹ toË paye›n ti tÚn ≤gemÒna (“it being unclear what the commander may do or what may happen to him”). 5 épok¤ nhsiw. Literally “departure” (from their own territory).

152

46

4

5

6 7

8

V P1

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 3–8 ( THEV. p. 317, 14–30)

sevw † toË t∞w poliork¤aw xrÒnou, •jamÆnou tuxÚn μ ka‹ §niautoË, oÈ t«n strativt«n mÒnon, éllå ka‹ t∞w épomãxou ≤lik¤aw, efi ¶xoi éfyon¤an ı tÒpow ka‹ oÈd¢ ¶fyasan ofl §xyro‹ katå tÚn parelyÒnta §niautÒn, Àsper e‡yistai to›w poliorke›n §y°lousi, purpol∞sai tåw x≈raw. efi d¢ §ndeØw t«n énagka¤vn §st¤n, ka‹ oÈd¢ ≤ §ktÚw x≈ra eÈyhne› to›w karpo›w oÈd¢ n∞soi parãkeintai dunãmenai tØn ¶ndeian paramuye›syai, μ efis‹ m°n, ofl d¢ §xyro‹ yalassokrate›n §lp¤zontai ka‹ kvlÊein tØn parakomidÆn, xrØ tÚn s›ton ka‹ tØn kriyØn ka‹ pçn e‰dow Ùspr¤ou tÚn §n ta›w époyÆkaiw ımoË to›w §mpÒroiw ka‹ to›w plous¤oiw épometre›n ka‹ …r¤oiw épotiy°nai ka‹ paradidÒnai tØn toÊtvn dianomØn t«i t∞w pÒlevw §piskÒpvi ka¤ tisin •t°roiw t«n xrhs¤mvn, toË dioike›n ßkaston mhnia¤an dapãnhn katå tÚn §kteyhsÒmenon tÊpon, tÚn perileify°nta laÒn, {t«i t∞w ofik¤aw despÒthi,} kÆrugmã te poie›n Àste toÁw mØ ¶xontaw t«n §gxvr¤vn ple›on ≤mer«n triãkonta s›ton épogrãfesyai prÚw aÈtÒn: e‰ta parakal°santa tå d°onta prÚw tÚn kairÚn tÚ pl∞yow, …w ofl m¢n tØn metoik¤an •to¤mvw ßlointo, svtÆrion oÔsan émfot°roiw ka‹ lusitel∞, ofl d¢ tØn Íp¢r t∞w patr¤dow êmunan, thnikaËta toÁw épomãxouw, oÂon g°rontaw, ésyene›w, pa›daw, guna›kaw, prosaite›w, ka‹ {to›w} mhd¢n sunteloËntaw to›w ¶ndon diå 10 tÚn] t«n P1 fort. tÚ? an tå? 10–11 lege t«n §mpÒrvn ka‹ t«n plous¤vn 11 an §n …r¤oiw? 13–15 v. append. 15 ofike¤aw V corr. V1 21 prosaite›w] incertum utrum haec forma pro prosa¤taw Anonymo attribuenda sit an librario (Roos, Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift 36 (1916), col. 95); prosaite›w in Strat. paragg. f. 157r E quoque invenitur || {to›w} delevi; cf. p. 47, 5–6: toÁw Thev. Roos 10–11 cf. Philon. „V” p. 86, 37–39 (agitur de alimentis, quae obsidionis tolerandae causa conservanda sunt) sunãgein d¢ taËta de› parå t«n mage¤rvn ka‹ t«n fidivt«n chf¤smati peribãllontaw 12–13 cf. Leon. Tact. XV, 63 (§ 62 de aquae distributione agitur, v. ad. p. 49, 13–16) ımo¤vw ka‹ §p‹ t∞w êllhw dapãnhw summ°trvw ëpanta g¤nesyai, Syll. Tact. 53, 4 v. ad p. 49, 13–16 20–p. 47, 2 cf. Urb.-Maur. X, 3, 1 (Scheffer) = Leon. Probl. X, 10 (v. ad p. 45, 13–46, 3) ¶peitã ge tØn êxrhston ≤lik¤an §kbãlai §k toË Ùxur≈matow prÚ t∞w t«n §xyr«n parous¤aw, oÂon guna›kaw, g°rontaw, ésyene›w ka‹ paid¤a (pa›daw Scheffer), ·na to›w §n dunãmei oÔsin ≤ eÍriskom°nh dapãnh §jark°shi, fere item Leo, Tact. XV, 47, Syll. Tact. 53, 1 (v. ad p. 45, 13–46, 3) trof«n d¢ mØ eÈpor«n flkan«n toÁw m¢n ésyene›w ka‹ g°rontaw pa›dãw te ka‹ guna›kaw prÚ t∞w t«n polem¤vn §fÒdou §n Ùxuro›w ka‹ énepibouleÊtoiw proekpemp°tv xvr¤oiw. XVIII, 106 §xr«nto d¢ dapãnhi k°gxrvi. Hanc vocem, quae eo sensu saepe legitur apud scriptores tacticos, neque Du Cange neque Soph. memorat. Idem valet dapanÆmata

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

153

haps six months or a year, not for the soldiers alone, but also for those who are noncombants due to age, if the place should have an abundance and the enemy did not arrive at the end of the year6 to burn the fields7, as is customary for those wishing to conduct a siege. If there is a lack of essentials, and the land outside is not abounding in fruits and there are no islands nearby which can alleviate the deficiency, or there are [such islands] but the enemy is expected to control the sea and hinder transport, it is necessary to measure out together with the merchants and the wealthy wheat and barley and every type of legume from among the [items] in the warehouses 8 and to store [them] in granaries 9 and to entrust the distribution of these to the bishop of the city and to some other good citizens, in order that each of the people remaining may control provisions for a month 10 according to an edict to be made public and to make an announcement that those inhabitants who do not have more than thirty days of wheat should register with him; then to encourage the populace as to what is necessary in the crisis so that one group may readily choose relocation as a salvation and benefit for both groups, others defense of the fatherland; then to lead out of the city and to send to another location the noncombatants, namely old men, the ill, children, women, beggars11, and those who contribute nothing to those within on account of [47] their own needs, so those within may be secure and those [leavI.e. late August in the Byzantine calendar. Cf. below 59:1. The text here presents two difficulties. First vdB prints tÚn §n ta›w époyÆkaiw, but notes an alternate ms. reading for initial article, t«n, while suggesting as possible conjectures tÚ and tã. The phrase presumably refers in some sense to the preceding list of commodities and, accepting t«n , I so translate. Caillemer (1872) 202, however, rendered “le functionnaire préposé aux entrepôts,” but in the absence of a specific title this seems unlikely. Second vdB prints the dative to›w §mpÒroiw ka‹ to›w plous¤ oiw , but in the apparatus suggests reading a genitive (with époyÆkaiw ?). The preceding ı moË would seem to require a dative (cf. below 96:19) and presumably the owners (the merchants and the rich) are working personally with the general or his designate to record what has been taken for later reimbursement (cf. below 49:2-6). The distinction here between “warehouse” and “granary” is perhaps between private and public storage; see Teall (1977) 203-04 who paraphrases “cereals were to be taken from the apothecae of the merchants and the wealthy and placed in public granaries.” For a slightly different view see G. Millet, “Apothécarius”, BZ 30 (1930) 430-39, spec. 435. Dain’s (1940) Mémorandum inédit 124 no. 2 indicates that the general should stop regular commerce in foodstuffs during the siege and encourage those who possess such supplies to sell at a moderate price, retaining only what they need for themselves. On measurements in granaries see also Sullivan (2000) 267 n. 51. 9 Here tÚ …r¤ on(Latin horreum); for the various spellings see G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: 1961) at ˜rion . 10 I follow here vdB who translated (Appendix 103) “ut unusquisque eorum, qui in urbe relicti sunt, ipse victum unius mensis administret,” noting the reference below (49:15) to distribution of water (memetrhm° nvw ka‹ toËto t“ la“ xorhge›n, Àsper oÔn ka‹ tÚn s›ton). She deleted t“ t∞w ofik¤ aw despÒt˙ as a marginal gloss on dianomÆn in line 12 and suggested that tÚn perileify° nta laÒn might also be deleted. The text remains uncertain. 11 These “beggars” appear to be an addition to the lists in the parallel sources cited by vdB. 6

7

8

154

47

3

6

9

12

15

18

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 8–13 (THEV. p. 317, 30–318, 10)

t∞w ofike¤aw xre¤aw §jãgein t∞w pÒlevw ka‹ efiw êllhn x≈ran §kp°mpein prÚw tÚ ka‹ toÁw ¶ndon perifulaxy∞nai ka‹ aÈtoÁw mØ épol°syai, ·na mØ t«n §xyr«n §pikeim°nvn énagkasy∞iw toÊtouw to›w §xyro›w prodoËnai, Àsper ka‹ ÉAxaiÚw ı basileÊw: toÁw d° ge êllvw §ndee›w m¢n ˆntaw, dunam°nouw d¢ tÚ koinÚn | »fele›n diå t«n ofike¤vn pÒnvn, oÂon érmatopoioÊw, mhxanopoioÊw, magganar¤ouw, fiatroÊw, xalke›w, selopoioÊw, xalinopoioÊw, tzaggar¤ouw, =ãptaw, sxoinopoioÊw, skalobãtaw, kvpopoioÊw, ofikodÒmouw, naÊtaw, kalafãtaw, érxit°ktonaw, muloxarãktaw, éstronÒmouw prÚw diãgnvsin sunteloËntaw Ídãtvn ka‹ én°mvn forãn, ka‹ toÊtvn toÁw gennaiot°rouw, proslambãnesyai ka‹ sugkrote›n mçllon ka‹ periyãlpein, ·na ofl m¢n érmatopoio‹ diÉ ˜lhw nuktÚw ka‹ ≤m°raw pon«si per‹ tå ¶rga, oÂon ésp¤daw, sag¤taw, spay¤a, kass¤daw, ofl d¢ xalke›w per‹ jifãria sagit«n ka‹ t«n kontar¤vn ka‹ =iptar¤vn ka‹ xe›raw sidhrçw èrpãzein dunam°naw ti t«n §ktÒw: ımo¤vw ka‹ êlla ßtera ka‹ ı kairÚw épaite› ka‹ ı lÒgow proÛΔn dhl≈sei: poik¤lhw går oÎshw ka‹ polueidoËw t∞w t«n polem¤vn §pino¤aw (≤ går xron¤a tribØ o‰den §fÉ •kãsthw ≤m°raw ka‹ Àraw ‡dia §pithdeÊmata ka‹ mhxanåw F 4 cf. praef. p. 14

V P1

2 §kp°ptein P1 3 énagkasye‹w P1 5 lege êllouw || exspectaveris fort. épomãxouw vel tale quid pro §ndee›w, sed cf. Strat. paragg. (v. praef. p. 32 v. 10–13) toÁw d¢ épÒrouw ka‹ mhd¢n diå t∞w t°xnhw bohye›n dunam°nous épodi≈kein k.t.l. 6 érmatopoioÊw (fabros armorum) Meursius s.v. magganãriow: èrmatopoioÁw V értopoioÁw P1; item v. 12; cf. v. 12–14 et p. 49, 17 7 lege sellopoioÊw 8 skalobãtaw Meursius s.v.: skalvbãtaw V P1 11 malim forçw || paralambãnesyai P1; cf. p. 56, 14 12 èrmatopoio‹ V 14 sag¤taw] per unum t semper (v. 14; p. 49, 17; értopoio‹ P1; v. ad v. 6 p. 50, 2 et 4; p. 56, 2) V P1, ut nesciam an id ipsi Anonymo attribuendum sit 17 an 15 =iptar¤vn v. append. || sidhrçw Thev.: sidhråw P1 sidçw V épaitÆsei? cf. p. 48, 6, 8, et 10 17–p. 48 1 cf. Leon. Tact. Epilogum, 72 poik¤lhw oÎshw t∞w parå t«n §nant¤vn §gxeirÆsevw ka‹ diãforoi ofl trÒpoi t«n éntegxeirÆsevn Ùfe¤lousi g¤nesyai: 8 quid hic valeat skalobãthw, nescio; „funambulus” Du Cange s.v., quod non quadrat; „one who goes up a ladder, funambulus” L. and Sc. 9 kalafãthw — sartor navis vel picator; cf. verbum Batavum „kalefateren” 14 spay¤on = spãyh — gladius; in lingua, quae dicitur koinÆ, huius modi verba vim diminutivam saepe perdidisse monet Costas, p. 69; cf. Psaltes § 399 || jifãrion = lÒgxh — cuspis, spiculum

9 10 p. 318 Thev.

11 12 13

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

155

ing] not be harmed themselves, lest when the enemy presses you be compelled to surrender them to the enemy, as did Achaeus the king12. But as to those who are otherwise needy, but are able to provide common benefit through their own labors, namely arms manufacturers13, engineers14, siege machine operators 15, doctors, bronzesmiths, saddlemakers16, bridlemakers, shoemakers 17, tailors 18, ropemakers19, ladder climbers20, oarmakers21, builders, sailors, caulkers 22, architects23, mill stone cutters24, astronomers who contribute to discerning the movement25 of waters and winds 26, both take the more accomplished among them to help [you] and moreover organize and support them27, in order that the arms manufacturers may toil all day and night at their work, namely, shields, arrows, swords, helmets, but the bronzesmiths at points28 for arrows and spears and javelins 29, and grappling irons 30 which can seize things outside. Likewise the circumstances demand other things as well and the treatise will make them clear as it proceeds. For since the inventiveness of the enemy is varied and many faceted (for prolonged experience knows for each day and hour how to invent appropriate methods and machines), [48] there is a need 12 Achaeus of Sardis in Lydia, besieged by Antiochus III, 215-14 BC. See Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford: 1996) 6. The text appears to reflect a section of Polybius no longer extant; the siege is described by Polybius VII:15-18, but this aspect of it does not appear. The same siege is also mentioned briefly below at 98:22. 13 ı érmatopoiÒw. Here, in view of the list below, ‘arms manufacturers’generally; see LBG s.v., citing this passage. On such private approaches to arms manufacture see Haldon (1999) 131, 141 and 328 n. 8 and idem (2000) 291. 14 ı mhxanopoiÒw. Translation of the term is difficult; Prokopios (De aed. I:1:50) and Agathias (V:8) use it of Anthemios of Tralles the “chief expert” connected with the building of St. Sophia, whom Agathias (V:6:3) includes among those who “apply geometrical speculation to material objects and make models or imitations of the natural world” (see ODB 1:109). Just below (48:2-5; see the related note) the mhxanopoio‹ are associated with various types of artillery and cranes, but the corrupt text makes the nature of the relation uncertain; presumably fabrication rather than operation. The term appears in three instances below (87:3, 89:18, 94:24) in the citations from Arrian of the “engineers” who accompanied Alexander; on the latter see Bosworth (1980) 241. 15 ı magganãriow . Given the preceding mhxanopoio‹ and their role described just below (48:2-5), I take the magganarioi here to be operators rather than fabricators of the siege machines; cf. the term in the De cer. 310:19 and 312:11 of the operators of the starting gates in the Hippodrome. In other instances, however, the term appears to be also used of “engineers,” e.g. Leo VI, Taktika XV:35: diÉ § pino¤ aw t«n sunÒntvn soi magganar¤ vn ka‹ § pithde¤ vn éndr«n . . . . 16 ı sel( l)opoiÒw. An apparent hapax, not on the TLG(E). 17 ı tzaggãriow . Cf. De cer. 494:10: . . . · na •n‹ •kãstƒ bãntƒ ¶ xvsi tÚn komodrÒmon aÈt«n, ı mo¤ vw ka‹ tzaggãrionand see ODB 3:1889-90 at “Shoemaker” and 3:2135 at “Tzangion”. 18 ı =ãpthw . On tailors see ODB 3:2007. 19 ı sxoinopoiÒw. An apparent hapax, not on the TLG(E). Dain’s (1940) Mémorandum inédit 124 no. 3 has sxoinoplÒkow which is attested elsewhere. 20 ı skalobãthw . Literally “ladder climber.” Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. gives

156

48 14

15 16

17 18

19

V P1

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 13–19 ( THEV. p. 318, 10–24)

§pinoe›n) poikilvt°raw de›tai ka‹ nhptikvt°raw éntikatastãsevw: ofl d¢ mhxanopoio‹ per‹ † tåw mhxanåw kinoËn tå ¶rga †, oÂon tetrar°aw, magganikå ka‹ tåw legom°naw ±lakãtaw ka‹ xeiromãggana, ¶ti d¢ ka‹ kera¤aw dunam°naw l¤youw bare›w prÚ toË te¤xouw épÚ t«n §pãljevn =¤ptein: ka‹ =ãptai per‹ §pil≈rika ka‹ kamalaÊkia pax°a, efi deÆsei, ént‹ kass¤dvn, ka‹ kvphlãtai per‹ tØn pleustikØn ka‹ naumax¤an, ka‹ ofikodÒmoi: toÊtvn går ka‹ mçllon ≤ t°xnh xrei≈dhw: §piskeuãsousi går tå kataponoÊmena m°rh t«n teix«n ÍpÚ toË t«n kri«n diaseismoË μ ka‹ ßtera ényÉ •t°rvn kataskeuãsousin: efi d¢ xre¤a toÊtvn e‡h, ka‹ èli°vn. efi d¢ ≤ pÒliw e‡te ka‹ ≤ §ktÚw x≈ra éfyon¤an ¶xei karp«n, ka‹ dunatÒn §stin prokatalabe›n tØn t«n §xyr«n ¶fodon ka‹ tå prÚw xre¤an efisagage›n, mØ §noxle›n tå ¶ndon mhd¢ t∞w pÒlevw tinåw metoik¤zein, ·na mØ dusxrhstÆsousin ofl f¤loi: éllÉ efi m¢n e‡h xrÆmata toË dhmos¤ou, lambãnein §j aÈt«n ka‹ §jvne›syai mØ mÒnon s›ton ka‹ kriyØn ka‹ o‰non ka‹ ˆspria ka‹ turÚn ka‹ kr°aw ka‹ ¶laion ka‹ k°gxron, éllå ka‹ s¤dhron ka‹ xãlkvma ka‹ êrmata ka‹ p¤ssan Ígrån ka‹ jhrån ka‹ ye›on êpuron ka‹

2 v. append. 3 tetrar°aw magganikå V, w exp. V1, tetrar°aw. magganikå P1, non liquet utrum punctum expungendi an interpungendi causa positum sit; v. append. || ±lakãtaw Meursius: efilakãtaw V P 1 per iotacismum; cf. Du Cange „±lakãth machina bellica versatilis: sic dicta forte, quod ±lakãthw seu coli speciem referret”, ubi nostrum locum affert, et L. and Sc. et Pape s.v. 5 =ipte›n V 6 kamalaÊkia] cf. Du dd Cange s.v. kamelaÊkion et locum infra allatum || kass¤dvn scripsi: kassi V kass¤daw P1 8 §piskeuãzousi P1; cf. v. 6 et 10 11 èli°vn v. append. 14 tå ¶ndon] toÁw ¶ndon mavult Roos || an t∞w pÒlevw? 19 êrmata scripsi: ërmata V P1; item p. 49, 17; v. ad p. 47, 6 4–5 cf. Philon. „V” p. 91, 34–35 épÚ kerai«n l¤youw meg¤stouw éfi°ntaw 17– p. 49, 1 praeter alia etiam o‰non, ¶laion, ˜pla, s¤dhron, xalkÒn, p¤ssan, ye›on, stupp¤on, dçidaw ad obsidionem tolerandam parata habere iubet Philo, „V” p. 89, 46 sqq.

1 nhptikÒw videtur hoc loco significare prudentem; cf. L and Sc. et Pape s.v. nÆfv et Leon. Tact. XV, 18 Ùl¤gon xrÒnon énapaÊou ka‹ sÊntomon, ·na nÆfhiw prÚw tå èrmÒzontã soi diatãgmata || éntikatãstasiw cf. Leon. Tact. XV, 11 xaun≈teroi . . . prÚw éntikatãstasin ka‹ kindÊnouw—ad resistendum periculaque obeunda omissiores (Migne) 5 §pil≈rikon—tunica loricae superiniecta 6 kamalaÊkion—capitis tegumentum; Hypoth. 14, 16 legitur p›lon ÉArkadikÚn §piy°menow, unde Parecbol. 12 (f 145 v E) factum est kamalaÊkion érkadikÚn periballÒmenow.

3

6

9

12

15

18

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

157

of a more varied and more prudent defensive response. And the engineers ~ their work33 ~, namely tetrareai, magganika, and the so-called elakatai and cheiromaggana34, and still more the projecting beams 35 which can cast heavy stones from the battlements in front of the wall. And the tailors [should toil at] making surcoats 36 and thick felt caps 37, if there is need, instead of helmets, and the oarsmen at seaworthiness and battles at sea. And the builders: for their skills are needed even more; for they will repair the parts of the wall destroyed by the shaking of the rams or even will build one thing to replace another. But if there is need of them, also fishermen. But if the city or even the land outside it has an abundance of fruits, and it is possible to anticipate the enemy’s incursion and to bring in what is needed, do not disturb internal arrangements or relocate anyone out of the city, in order that your friends not be troubled. But if there are state funds 38, take them and purchase not only wheat and barley and wine and legumes and cheese and meats and oil and millet, but also iron and bronze and arms and wet and dry pitch and native sulphur39 and [49] tow and flax and hemp, pine-wood torches, “Funambulus,” i.e. a “tight-rope walker,” and cf. Sopater, Scholia ad Hermogenis status, ed. C. Walz, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 5 (1835; rp. Osnabrück: 1968) 22:25: oÂon ÙrxhstikÆ, skalobatikÆ: atai d° efisi ceudotexn¤ ai, ˜ti t° low oÈd¢n § pãgousin (? acrobatics). Teall (1977) 204, however, plausibly suggests that here these must be the equivalent of the modern “steeplejack”; perhaps also “roofers.” 21 ı kvpopoiÒw. An apparent hapax, not on the TLG(E). 22 ı kalafãthw . Teall (1977) 205 notes that the term for “ship’s caulker” is post classical and apparently an Arabic derivative. See also V. Christides. “Two Parallel Naval Guides of the Tenth Century,” Graeco-Arabica 1 (1982) 94: “kalafat¤ zv, kalafãthw (to caulk a ship, caulker) are loanwords from the Arabic qalafa” and ODB 2:1091. 23 ı érxit° ktvn. On the distinction between “architect” and “engineer” see Sullivan (2000) 154 n. 9 with further bibliography. 24 ı muloxarãkthw . See Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. “Lapidum molarium caesores.” While the mill stones are presumably to be used for grinding grain, it is worth noting that Leo VI, Taktika XV:54 mentions mÊloi l¤ yinoi among objects to be hung from the walls to smash ladders put up by the besiegers. 25 Accepting forçw for forãn . 26 On weather prediction as an aspect of warfare in the tenth century see Haldon (1990) 211 n. (C)199 with reference to this passage and the so-called “Heron of Byzantium”, Geodesia 11:90ff (in Sullivan [2000]). 27 See Teall (1977) 205-06 who notes the remarkable range of specializations given here and suggests a possible connection to the formation of guilds. 28 tÚ jifãrion . For the term see McGeer (1995) 206 and Kolias (1988) 195. 29 tÚ =iptãrion . Also below (as tÚ =iktãrion ) 50:1 and 56:5 = tÚ ékÒntion. Cf. Leo VI, Taktika VI:7 and see Haldon (1975) 32 and Kolias (1988) 186-87. 30 ≤ xe›r sidhrç. Cf. Thucydides 4:25:4, 7:62:3, 7:65:1 and below 69:8, 82:14 and 18, and 83:19. 31 vdB’s tentative addition. 32 Supplying pon«si as above 47:13; so vdB (Appendix 104). 33 I seclude tåw mhxanåw kinoËn as a gloss, retaining per‹ tå ¶ rgaon the parallel of 47:13

158

49

3

6

9

12

15

18

V P1

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 19–26 ( THEV. p. 318, 24–38)

stupe›on ka‹ linãrion ka‹ kanãbion, dçidaw, mallÒn, bambãkion, l¤na, xÒrton, êxuron: efi d¢ épe¤h m¢n toË dhmos¤ou xrÆmata, e‰en d° tinew §n eÈpor¤ai xrhmãtvn, éfaire›syai §j aÈt«n ka‹ poie›n tØn §j≈nhsin, ka‹ t«n brvs¤mvn pipraskom°nvn, ˜sa mØ efiw épotrofØn strativt«n dapançtai, épÚ t∞w toÊtvn sunagom°nhw tim∞w §kplhroËn tÚn éfairoÊmenon xrusÒn: t«n går strativt«n ı dhmÒsiow frontie› t∞w épotrof∞w ka‹ t∞w tim∞w ka‹ t∞w toÊtvn dapãnhw: …saÊtvw ka‹ toË sidÆrou ka‹ t«n êllvn efid«n. paragg°llein d¢ ka‹ pçsi toË efisãgein frÊgana, jÊlon tÚ érkoËn efiw m∞naw ©j e‡te ka‹ efiw §niautÒn. ka‹ §ggrãfouw ésfale¤aw toÊtvn ßneken ßkaston épaite›n, toË efiw kefalØn timvre›syai tÚn §ntÚw t∞w …rism°nhw proyesm¤aw §ndeç toÊtvn eÍriskÒmenon. …saÊtvw ka‹ front¤zein ka‹ t∞w toË Ïdatow éfyon¤aw ka‹ §mpiplçn toÁw Ùmbrod°ktaw ka‹ tå égge›a pãnta ka‹ memetrhm°nvw ka‹ toËto t«i la«i xorhge›n, Àsper oÔn ka‹ tÚn s›ton, efi span¤zei toËto. efisãgein d¢ ka‹ tå prÚw kataskeuØn érmãtvn, oÂon skoutar¤vn, menaul¤vn, sagit«n, san¤daw ka‹ neãkia ka‹ † kriãnh †, efi efis¤, ka‹ tosaËta, ˜sa dÊnatai §jar-

1 lege kannãbion; per unum n hab. V P1 etiam in Apollodori Poliorceticis (cf. praef. p. 13), p. 159, 5, ubi recte Paris. Suppl. gr. 607 || mallÚn V: primum l expunxit Vx malÚn P1 || linå V P1; malim l¤non; an gravius corruptum? linãrion enim iam memoratum est; sed fort. inter voces stupe›on et kanãbion linum (linãrion), post mallÚn et bambãkion linteum (l¤na) significatur 6 går om. P1 9 toË cf. § 110. 10–13 §ggrãfouw—eÍriskÒmenon cf. p. 55, 6–8 17 érmãtvn scripsi: èrmãtvn V P1 v. ad p. 48, 19 || menaul¤vn v. append. || sagit«n v. ad p. 47, 14 18 kriãnh] nusquam alibi inveni; Du Cange s.v.: „vide in neãkion”, ubi nostrum locum affert, de significatione autem tacet 13–16 cf. Urb.-Maur. X, 3 (p«w de› ént°xein tÚn poliorke›syai prosdok«nta xron¤vw) Scheffer . . . . . efi d¢ ka‹ épÚ kinst°rnaw §pid¤dotai tÚ pÒsimon Ïdvr μ épÚ pleyroË, m°trvi tin‹ ka‹ dioikÆsei g¤nesyai (ex Leon. Tact.supplevi), fere item Leo, Tact. XV, 62; Syll. Tact. 53, 4 . . . tam¤ai d¢ toË s¤tou ka‹ t«n énå tØn pÒlin brvs¤mvn pãntvn ka‹ aÈtoË dØ toË Ïdatow ¶stvsan, ín êra katå tØn pÒlin Ídãtvn μ ka‹ freãtvn mØ e‡h dac¤leia, doxe¤oiw d° tisi ka‹ kinst°rnaiw tÚ pÒton perikle¤oito: t∞w går poliork¤aw §p‹ ple›ston parataye¤shw §pimetre›syai de› tÚ Ïdvr 18 vneãkia Du Cange s.v. praeter locum nostrum affert Parecbol. (Strathg. paragg.) f 157 E, praef. p. 32, v. 17–18, et ibid. jÊla efiw magganik«n kataskeuØn ka‹ neãkia ple›sta proapot¤yesyai , de significatione tacet; Soph. non memorat; legitur etiam Paragg°lmata poliorkhtikã (Pseudo-Heron de machinis bellicis) p. 206, 7, ubi R. Schneider, Abhandl. d. Göttinger Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. N. F. XI (1908–9), reddit verbo „Äste”, Martin in calce p. 326 „troncs de jeunes arbres”

20

21 22 23 24

25

26

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

159

wool, cotton40, linen41, fodder, chaff. If monies are not available from state funds, but there are some individuals who are financially well off, requisition from them and make the expenditure; when the foodstuffs which are not expended for the support of the soldiers are sold, from the price collected for these reimburse the money requisitioned. For state funds will take care of the support of the soldiers and the price and their provisions. Likewise also the iron and the other categories. Also order everyone to bring in firewood, fuel sufficient for six months or even for a year; and demand written assurances concerning these [items] regarding each person so that the one found lacking them within the defined time period will suffer the death penalty. Likewise also have concern for abundant supply of water and fill the cisterns 42 and all the containers and by specified measure supply it as well to the people, likewise also wheat, if this is scarce. Bring in also what is needed for fabrication of arms (namely shields, menavlia43, arrows), boards and saplings 44 and ~ cornel trees45 ~, if above. vdB (Appendix 104), however, suggests: “Fortasse tåw mhxanåw kinoËnta ¶ rga,” while noting Roos’suggestion of secluding kinoËn tå ¶ rga. 34 On these obscure terms for specific types of artillery, see Haldon (2000) tetrareai 273-74 (“The weapon appears to be a traction-powered counterweight device, or trebuchet”), mag ganika 275 (“it remains unclear as to whether the term magganika refers simply to ‘other machines’, or to something more specific”), elakatai 276-77 (“most probably . . . a framemounted tension weapon which could discharge both arrows and stones”) and cheiromaggana 275 (a “bow-ballista”) and 277; idem (1999) 136-37. See also below 56:8-9 and n. 84. 35 ≤ kera¤ a. Cf. below 74:9-10 and 82:3, 6. The latter passage (Archimedes’ defense of Syracuse, cited from Polybius VIII:5) is the locus classicus for such devices. On the crane see E. W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises (Oxford: 1971) 51 and Haldon (2000) 276. 36 tÚ § pil≈rikon. On this padded coat see Haldon (1975) 34, Kolias (1988) 58-61, and McGeer (1995) 70. 37 tÚ kamalaÊkion , or kamelaÊkion . On this protective felt cap which covered the back of the neck and ears see Haldon (1975) 38, Kolias (1988) 85-87 with notes 68-69, McGeer (1995) 62, and for illustrations Sullivan (2000) figs. 3, 5, 12, 13, 17, 22, etc. 38 tÚ dhmÒsion. On the term as state treasury, fisc, see ODB 1:610. 39 tÚ ye›on êpuron. The same phrase for native or elemental sulphur is used by John Malalas (Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. I. Thurn [Berlin: 2000] 331:43ff) of the incendiary employed in 518 by Marinos against Vitalianos. 40 tÚ bambãkion . Teall (1977) 204 notes that during the tenth century cotton “was put to military use in the fabrication of a pullover or “duffel” worn by both footsoldiers and cataphracts.” For additional references see his note 11 and add McGeer (1995) 61-62 and Kolias (1988) 56-57. 41 On linen production in Byzantium see ODB 2:1231 and Kolias (1988) 57. 42 ≤ Ùmbrod° kthw. DuCange, Glossarium, s.v. gives “Aquae pluviae receptaculum” and cites Meursius for “cisterna”. An apparent hapax, not on the TLG(E). 43 On the menavlion, a heavy thrusting spear, see McGeer (1995) 210. 44 tÚ neãkion . See on the term McGeer (1995) 64 and Sullivan (2000) 173 n. 9. 45 For kriãnh reading krãneiai (DS). On its use for spears cf. the Praecepta militaria I:119-21 (in McGeer [1995]): tå d¢ m° naula . . . épÚ neak¤ vn dru«n μ kranei«n and Kolias (1988) 193.

160

50

27 28

29 30 31

32 33 34

35 36 37

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 26–37 (THEV. p. 318, 38–319, 3)

k°sein Àste ¶xein ßkaston ékontistØn §fÉ •kãsthw ≤m°raw =iktãria d°ka ka‹ toÁw tojÒtaw énå pentÆkonta sagit«n toÁw d¢ kontarãtouw toÁw §k xeir«n maxom°nouw énå kontar¤vn p°nte: §gxarãttein te tåw sag¤taw …w ín mØ kataxr«ntai kayÉ ≤m«n taÊtaiw ofl pol°mioi. éyro¤zein d¢ ka‹ klhmat¤daw ka‹ b°rgaw fite˝naw μ murrin¤aw prÚw po¤hsin lais«n t«n Ùfeilous«n sk°pein toÁw §n ta›w mhxana›w §fest«taw. e‰ta §piskeuãzein tå te¤xh ka‹ §fistçn tåw mhxanãw, efi ka‹ mØ ÍchlÚn e‡h, ÍcoËn aÈtÒ. pollãkiw går ka‹ t«n polem¤vn poliorkoÊntvn oÈk éporÆseiw §poikodome›n ka‹ ÍcoËn tÚ te›xow, Àsper ÉI≈shpow §po¤hsen. toË går OÈespasianoË kukl≈santow tå ÉIvtãpata otow g°rra propetãsaw efiw Ïcow polÁ par°teine tÚ te›xow. ka‹ toÁw ÍponÒmouw d¢ énereunçn ka‹ ésfal¤zesyai: diÉ aÈt«n går ple›stai pÒleiw §pibouleuye›sai ÍpÚ tØn §jous¤an g°gone t«n §xyr«n. l°getai går tØn megãlhn Kaisãreian diå t«n ÍponÒmvn lhfy∞nai. t«n går Pers«n xron¤ai poliork¤ai per‹ aÈtØn §ktrib°ntvn ka‹ ≥dh énazeugnÊntvn kunãrion diå t«n ÍponÒmvn épÚ t∞w pÒlevw prÚw toÁw P°rsaw efis°frhsen, tin«n d¢ §pidivjãntvn aÈtÚ aÔyiw Àrmhse prÚw ∂n §jvrmÆkei ıdÚn prÒjenon épvle¤aw t∞i pÒlei g°gonen: katÒpin | går aÈtoË §piporeuy°ntew ofl P°rsai e‡sv t∞w pÒlevw §n°peson. éllå ka‹ Neãpoliw ≤ §n ÉItal¤ai diå t«n ÍponÒmvn lhfy∞nai l°getai. tåw d¢ SurakoÊsaw diå t«n ÍponÒmvn §ggÁw §lye›n toË prodoy∞na¤ fasi, F 10–13 §poikodome›n—te›xow cf. Ios. III, 171–174 (III, 7, 10): T, Wesch. p. 339, 4–14, ubi narrantur, quae Anon. hic contracta et mutata suis verbis memorat 16–22 cf. praef. p. 17–18 22–23 Neãpoliw – l°getai cf. praef. p. 18 23–p. 51, 2 tåw d¢ SurakoÊsaw—ÑRvma¤oiw cf. praef. p. 15

V P1

1 =iktãria v. append. ad p. 47, 15 2 sagit«n v. ad p. 47, 14 4 sag¤taw v. ad p. 47, 14 6 murrin¤aw scripsi: murrinn¤aw Thev. murrix¤aw V murix¤aw P1 || lais«n scripsi: laist«n V P1; cf. p. 57, 3 et § 175; la›sa e.g. etiam Paragg. poliork. (cf. in calce p. 49 ad neãkia) p. 199, 14; 207, 17 etc. 8 efl ka‹] lege ka‹ efi 9 malim P1 12 propetãsaw scripsi: Íchlå . . . aÈtã 10 éporrÆseiw P1 || §poikodomoËn x propetãseiw V P1; textum mutavit etiam E , sed incertum quid voluerit 15 lege gegÒnasi, quod fort. etiam voluit Ex 18 kunãrion scripsi: kunãr∂ i V kunãriow P1 nunãrion (sic) Thev. 20 Àrmhse Ex, ut vid., Thev.: Àrmise V P1 E, ut vid. || supplevi; an ırm∞san pro Àrmhse? ka‹ suppl. E x 21 épole¤aw P1 24 §gÁw P1 2 énå cum gen. vim distributivam habet; multa exempla apud Soph. s.v. 5 b°rgai— virgae. 6 la›sa—vinea, „Schirme aus Flechtwerk”, „Rollwände” (Schneider 1.1.) „espèce de tortue de guerre” (Martin 1.1.)

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

161

there are any, and whatever else can suffice [50] so that each javeliner has 10 riktaria46 each day and the archers 50 arrows, but the spearmen who fight hand-to-hand 5 spears. And cut notches in the arrows 47 so that the enemy cannot use them against us. Gather also brushwood and willow branches or myrtle for making laisai48 which are useful for covering men standing at the siege-machines. Then repair the walls and place machines [on them], and if49 they should not be high, raise them. For oftentimes when the enemy are besieging you will not be at a loss to build up and raise the wall, as Josephus did. For when Vespasian encircled Jotapata Josephus by spreading out wicker barriers 50 extended the wall to a great height. Search out and secure the tunnels, for through them very many threatened cities have come 51 under the power of the enemy. For great Caesarea is said to have been captured through the tunnels 52. For when the Persians had become exhausted by a long siege around it and were already starting to decamp, a puppy came out of the city to the Persians through the tunnels, and some of them pursued it as it ran back to the passage by which it exited it became the agent of destruction54 for the city. Moreover Naples in Italy is said to have been taken through the tunnels55. And they say the Syracusans came close to betrayal through the tunnels, [51] the traitors communicating I.e. “javelins”, see above n. 29. Caillemer (1872) 205 comments that the arrows would shatter on striking and thus not be reusable. The same recommendation is found in Dain’s (1940) Mémorandum inédit 124 no. 5: De› sag¤ ttaw •toimãzesyai pollåw ka‹ taÊtaw xarãttein . On this and with other examples see Kolias (1988) 218 and n. 32. 48 On the 10th-century laisa (la›sa), a protective screen or shed and these woods see McGeer (1991) 135-38 and for illustrations Sullivan (2000) figs. 2 and 20. 49 Accepting ka‹ efifor efi ka¤. 50 The text here has g° rra (“wicker screens”) for Josephus’ drÊfaktoi “fences” which the latter describes as covered with raw oxhides. These were to protect the workers building the stone extension of the wall from enemy fire. 51 Accepting gegÒnasi for g° gone. 52 vdB (17-18) connects with the Persian siege of Caesarea in Cappadocia in 611 (cf. Theophanes, Chronographia 299:31ff; Vie de Théodore de Sykeon ed. A-J. Festugière [Brussels: 1970] cp. 153; and see W. Kaegi, “New evidence on the early reign of Heraclius”, BZ 66 [1973] 308-30, spec. 322-23). The description of the discovery of the entrance through the mines is not found in other sources and suggests use of a source no longer extant. It is also at variance with Sebeos (see R. W. Thomson et al., The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos [Liverpool: 1999] 64) who says the Christians left the city and it was then surrendered by the Jews. 53 vdB’s suggested addition. 54 Also below at 58:11. Cf. George the Monk, Chronicon (ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. [Leipzig: 1904; rp. Stuttgart: 1978, with corr. by P. Wirth]) I:456:17, et al. 55 Besieged by Belisarios in 536; Prokopios BG I:9-10. For other examples of such tunnels see Theophanes, Chronographia 374:20-23 where Justinian II is said to have gained entry into Constantinople diå toË égvgoË and Leo the Deacon, Historiae libri X, ed. C. B. Hase (Bonn: 1828) 45:23 where Leo Phokas is said to escape from Constantinople diå t«n ÍponÒmvn toË te¤ xouw. See also John Kinnamos, Epitome, ed. A. Meineke (Bonn: 1836) 275:9-10: ≤ d¢ diå t«n § j ¶ youw aÔyiw ÍponÒmvn § p‹ tØn pÒlin toËto pro˝hsin . 46

47

162

51

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 37–45 ( THEV. p. 319, 3–19)

t«n prodÒntvn tå t∞w pÒlevw diÉ aÈt«n ımiloÊntvn to›w ÑRvma¤oiw. éllå ka‹ tojÒtidaw puknåw kataskeuãzein, ·nÉ §j aÈt«n éorãtvw katatitr≈skvntai ofl Ípenant¤oi, ka‹ e‡pote ka‹ kl¤makaw §piye›nai peiraye›en, prÚ toË §panab∞nai t«n §pãljevn to›w justo›w katatrvy«si ka‹ épokrousy«si. diÉ œn ka‹ mçllon ı sof≈tatow ÉArximÆdhw perieg°neto t«n polem¤vn, tojÒtisi katapukn≈saw tÚ te›xow † ka‹ éfan«w diÉ aÈt«n traumat¤zvn m°xri t∞w stereçw g∞w toÁw poliorkoËntaw ÍpÚ t«n §n ta›w tojÒtisi kayhm°nvn. † prÚw §p‹ toÊtoiw ka‹ tåw tãfrouw ÍporÊssein ka‹ eÈrut°raw poie›n lÄ pÆxevn, efi ı tÒpow épaite›, efiw plãtow ka‹ efiw bãyow …saÊtvw: efi d¢ ka‹ dÊo μ ka‹ tre›w §gxvre› g°nvntai, §mpiplçn te aÈtåw Ïdatow strathgik≈teron: §p‹ d¢ to›w xe¤lesin •kãsthw xarak/vmata poie›n ka‹ teleuta›on prote¤xisma dunatÚn {prÚw tÚ mØ eÈxer«w plhsiãzein toÁw §xyroÁw t«i te¤xei} prÚw tÚ mØ eÈx°reian ¶xein toÁw §xyroÁw plhsiãzein t«i te¤xei: efi går §p‹ polÁ bãyow ≤ tãfrow Íporuge¤h, dusxer«w ín kataxvsyÆsetai parå t«n Ípenant¤vn: ka‹ mãlista ˜tan oÈk ¶sti prosdÒkimow summax¤a, pl∞yow d¢ mçllon §xyr«n §lp¤zetai, ka‹ oÈd¢ flppe›w ≤ pÒliw μ tÚ froÊrion dunam°nouw •pit¤yesyai metå t«n pez«n. efi d¢ yalãsshi diaz≈nnutai kayÒlou μ merik«w, † §pimele›syai de› toË braxiol¤ou, kín efiw bãyow §p‹ polÁ §pekte¤netai, eÍr¤skein F 6–9 diÉ œn—kayhm°nvn pertinere ad Plb. VIII, 5, 6 (7, 6 Hultsch, Schw.) (in Excerptis Ant., cod. T et apud Anonymum § 221 servatum) iam vidit Müller 2 p. LXII; cf. ibi katepÊknvse trÆmasi tÚ te›xow. Errat autem Anon. dicens hostes usque ad solum stabile repelli; agitur enim apud Plb. de oppugnatione e mari 10–15 tåw tãfrouw—dunatÚn cf. Plb. X, 31, 8 tãfroi går ∑san tritta¤, plãtow m¢n oÈk ¶latton ¶xousai triãkonta phx«n, bãyow d¢ penteka¤deka: §p‹ d¢ to›w xe¤lesin •kãsthw §p°keito xarak≈mata diplç ka‹ teleuta›on prote¤xisma dunatÒn.

V P1

1 an prodidÒntvn? || diÉ aÈt«n Roos dubitanter, quod fort. etiam voluit Ex: diå t«n V P1; cf. p. 50, 14 et § 101 3 tojÒtidaw scripsi: toj¤tidaw V P1; cf. v. 7 et ad v. 9 || 9 tojÒtisi Thev.: toj¤ti V P1 kataskeuãzhn V 4–5 §piy∞nai P1 8–9 v. append. 1 10 ÍporrÊssein P1 V primum r expunxit V || tãfrouw ÍporÊssein cf. v. 17 et § 176 12 g°nvntai] malim gen°syai, sed nescio an Anonymo attribuendum sit 12–13 supplevi 15–16 {prÚw—te¤xei} delevi; cf. § 359; prÚw—te¤xei v. 16–17 del. Ex 16 plhsiãzhn V 17 tãfrow Íporuge¤h v. ad v. 10 20 supplevi, quod ante ka‹ oÈd¢ suppl. Thev. i. m., ¶xh post froÊrion supplevisse vid. Ex 22–p. 52, 4 suspicor fort. post braxiol¤ou v. 23 excidisse ka‹ t∞w 23 braxiÒlion—propugnaculum

38

39

40 41 42

43 44

45

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

163

the city’s situation to the Romans through them 56. But also construct numerous loopholes 57 so that the enemy can be wounded invisibly from them and if they also attempt to put up ladders, before they mount the ramparts they can be wounded and driven back with spear-shafts58. The most wise 59 Archimedes thereby was even more successful against the enemy, having packed the wall thickly with loopholes ~ and invisibly wounded the besiegers right down to the solid ground through them with men positioned at the loopholes. ~ Moreover in addition to these actions also dig ditches and make them wider than 50 cubits, if the terrain demands it, the same in width and depth. Let there be two or three if possible, and fill them with water in military fashion. On the banks of each construct palisades and finally an outwork 62 able to prevent the enemy from having an easy opportunity to approach the wall. For if the ditch is dug to a great depth, it will be difficult for the enemy to fill it in. Do this especially whenever no allied aid is anticipated, but rather a multitude of enemy is expected, and the city or fortress no cavalry able to fight with the infantry. But if [the city] is completely or partially girded by the sea, ~ it is necessary to have concern for the brachiolion64 , even if the [sea] reaches a great depth, to find [52] beams and 56 Presumably the siege by M. Claudius Marcellus in the Second Punic War (so vdB Introduction 15), although the information given here is not preserved in the extant text of Polybius. 57 For illustrations of the development of the loophole in Byzantine fortifications see C. Foss and D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications: an Introduction (Praetoria: 1986) 243 Fig. 104. 58 tÚ justÒn. On the term see Kolias (1988) 191 and n. 3. 59 The same superlative is again used of Archimedes below at 78:16. 60 Translating one of vdB’s suggested additions (Appendix 105) ka‹ épokrouÒmenow, although as she notes one might then have expected diå t«n . . . kayhm° nvn. 61 vdB’s suggested addition. 62 tÚ prote¤ xisma. On the “outwork” see A. W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford: 1979) 276-79 and cf. John Kaminiates, De expugnatione Thessalonicae (ed. G. Böhlig [Berlin: 1973]) 8:2:3: . . . t“ ¶ jvy° n te proteix¤ smati tÚ ésfal¢w pãntoyen sunthroËn. 63 vdB’s suggested addition. 64 tÚ braxiÒlion or braxiãlion . Literally “bracelet,” presumably a short wall projecting into the sea to prevent access to beaches at the junction of land and sea walls; see M. and M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale 284-628 AD (Liverpool: 1989) 173 n. 464, C. Mango, Nikephoros I: Short History (Washington D.C.: 1990) 182 n. 22 and Theophanes (Mango and Scott) 494. For a similar wall defending the Thracian Chersonese - tÚn égk«na toË te¤ xouw tÚn m° xri toË bãyouw § ktetam° non in Agathias, Historiarum Libri Quinque, ed. R. Keydell (Berlin: 1967) 192:16-17 - see G. Greatrex, “Procopius and Agathias on the defenses of the Thracian Chersonese”, in Constantinople and Its Hinterland, ed. C. Mango and G. Dagron (Aldershot: 1995) 125-29. 65 vdB’s suggested addition.

164

52

46 47

48

49

50

51

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 45–51 ( THEV. p. 319, 19–34)

te dokoÁw μ katãrtia plo¤vn ka‹ desme›n taËta ta›w êkraiw ka‹ plãgia ke›syai poie›n épÚ toË braxiol¤ou …w §p‹ tÚ p°lagow §kteinÒmena, ·na e‡pote ka‹ éponÆjasyai boulhye›en metå t«n ·ppvn, proskroÊontew §n aÈto›w épopn¤gvntai. † ka‹ plo›a katãfrakta kataskeuãzein. ka‹ §p‹ toË prÚw tØn yãlassan m°rouw toË te¤xouw tojÒtaw suxnoÁw §fistçn ka‹ ékontiståw ka‹ sfendoniståw nuktÚw ka‹ ≤m°raw, …w ín e‡rgvsi tåw t«n polem¤vn §fÒdouw, † §peidØ ka‹ tÚ K¤trow §nteËyen •ãlv: •nÚw går t«n §gxvr¤vn §ktÚw t∞w pÒlevw §kkleisy°ntow kéke›yen efiselhluyÒtow ofl »mÒtatoi BoÊlgaroi oÈ xalep«w §ke›yen épopnijãmenoi efis°dusan §ntÚw † ka‹ pãntaw êrdhn éne›lon. kataskeuãzein d¢ ka‹ gefÊraw §n ta›w tãfroiw §k jÊlvn dru˝nvn fisxur«n ka‹ pax°vn sumblhtåw prÚw tÚ ént°xein t«i bãrei t«n flpp°vn, plãtow §xoÊsaw sÊmmetron, ·nÉ ıpÒtan §n nukt‹ e‡te ka‹ ≤m°rai katå t«n polem¤vn §jorm«si, mØ suntr¤bvntai ka‹ kindÊnou para¤tioi to›w strati≈taiw g¤nointo, ˜per toÁw ofikÆtoraw t∞w Do *pÒlevw paye›n sumb°bhke: t∞w går gefÊraw suntribe¤shw sumpesÒntew ofl f¤lioi ***, ofl êlloi d¢ memenhkÒtew t∞w tãfrou §ktÚw Ípoxe¤rioi to›w §xyro›w §g°nonto ka‹ dusyum¤an to›w perilo¤poiw t«n polit«n efirgãsanto épogn«na¤ te t∞w svthr¤aw §nteËyen. efi går ka‹ ÉAn¤baw poliorkoÊmenow ÍpÚ ÑRvma¤vn ka‹

F 8–11 §peidØ—éne›lon cf. praef. p. 18 21–p. 53, 2 ÉAn¤baw—dÊnamin cf. Plb. I, 19, 12–13 ÉAnn¤baw . . . . Àrmhse per‹ m°saw nÊktaw §k t∞w pÒlevw, ¶xvn tåw jenikåw dunãmeiw. x≈saw d¢ formo›w éxÊrvn sesagm°noiw tåw tãfrouw ¶laye toÁw polem¤ouw épagagΔn ésfal«w tØn dÊnamin .

V P1 prÚw toÊtvi yalãsshw vel tale quid, et pro éponÆjasyai v. 3 legendum esse épÚ nÆjasyai; pro ta›w êkraiw v. 1 malim tåw êkraw (accus. partis) 2 plãgia ke›syai] plake›syai P1 8–11 épopnijãmenoi v. 10 absurdum est; fort. éfikÒmenoi? Sed veri simile non est id in épopnijãmenoi mutatum esse; an éponhjãmenoi? Id etiam coni. Roos et hab. Ex (nh in ras.). Praeterea §ke›yen v. 9 et 10 satis definitum non vid., si pertinet ad mare, quo fit ut ante §peidØ v. 8 aliquid excidisse suspicer 9 §kkle¤syentow Thev. §gkleisy°ntow VP 1 11 êrdein P1 12 kataskeuãzhn V 16 g°nointo P1 17 d pÒlevw, spatio 6 fere litt. vacuo µ cf. Claudii Ptolemaei relicto, signo corruptelae addito i. m. V P 1; fort. DomitiopÒlevw? Geographiam (rec. C. Müller 1883–1901), V, 7, 5 cum annotatione Mülleri. An DoÊlvn pÒlevw vel DoulopÒlevw? cf. Pape s.v. || suntribÆshw P1 18 sunpesÒntew P1 || lac. indicavi; ofl ≥dh §n aÈt∞i ˆntew épepn¤ghsan m°n vel tale quid excidisse vid. 20–p. 53, 3 v. append. 21 efi går ka‹ cf. p. 58, 10 et § 118; v. append. || ênebaw V; semper per unum n hab. V P1 (p. 60, 5; § 119, 135), ut fort. ipsi Anonymo attribuendum sit

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

165

masts of ships and to bind these at the ends and to cause them to lie horizontally stretching from the brachiolion to the open ocean, in order that if the [enemy] might intend to swim from on their horses, bumping against these they will drown. ~ . . . and prepare decked ships67. And on the portion of the wall toward the sea station numerous archers and javeliners and slingers night and day, so that they may ward off the enemy attacks. ~ . . . when Kitros 68 was taken in that way; for when one of the inhabitants was shut out of the city and entered from there, the most savage Bulgarians, swimming69 without difficulty from there, slipped in ~ and totally slaughtered everyone. Construct as well bridges over the ditches, made of strong and thick oak, capable of withstanding the weight of the cavalry, the width appropriate to the length, so that whenever by night or even day the soldiers sally forth against the enemy, the [bridges] may not be crushed and become another cause of danger to the men; this is what the inhabitants of Do< . . . >polis 70 suffered; for when a bridge was crushed some of their friends falling , others avoiding the ditch came into enemy hands and brought despair upon the rest of the citizens who as a result lost hope of their salvation. For72 if Hannibal when besieged by the Romans and [53] being

vdB’s suggested addition. tÚ plo›on katãfrakton . Tå plo›a katãfrakta occur at Thucydides I:10:4; L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton: 1973) 88 explains these as “completely fenced in,” i.e. by a raised deck above and, at the sides, by a leather screen which went around the ship. He further notes (116 n. 63) that Polybius uses the term for all warships larger than a trireme. For a contemporary reference to katãfraktai n∞ew (“decked ships”) see Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio, ed. G. Moravcsik, trans. R. Jenkins, rev. ed. (Washington, DC: 1967) 21:53. Below at 90:9 the text has Arrian’s phrase naËw katafrãjantew where the reference is almost certainly specifically to the protective screen. The apparent lacuna here leaves the purpose of the ships unclear, but, given the decks, presumably to station troops or siege machines on. 68 Byzantine Kitros was on the site of ancient Pydna (see ODB 2:1131-32 and add the reference in Kekaumenos [ed. G. G. Litavrin, Sovety i Rasskazy Kekavmena (Moscow: 1972)] 260:10). Martin (1854) 327-28, followed by vdB (Introduction 3), plausibly suggests that the otherwise unknown siege was recent (i.e. in the reign of Constantine VII (912-59), given the sentiment expressed in “most savage” (»mÒtatoi). vdB (Introduction 16, 18) takes a similar view, noting particularly the frequent Bulgarian incursions 913-924. 69 Accepting éponhjãmenoi for épopnijãmenoi . 70 The name of the city cannot be restored with any certainty. 71 vdB’s suggested addition. 72 vdB notes (Appendix 105) that while the following ought to pertain to the necessity of building bridges, it does not and perhaps something has dropped out. Her suggestions include inserting here after “§ nteËyen,” Efi d¢ mØ ¶ sti jÊla, •t° roiw tis‹ kexr∞syai de›, “But if there is no wood, it is necessary to use something else.” She suggests as one alternative inserting går at 53:3 before dunatÒn. 66

67

166

53

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 51–55 ( THEV. p. 319, 34–41)

m°llvn t∞w KarxhdÒnow Ípanaxvre›n, formo›w éxÊrvn sesagm°noiw tåw tãfrouw x≈saw ¶layen ésfal«w épagagΔn tØn dÊnamin, 3 ka‹ dunatÚn ka‹ toÊtoiw ént‹ gefÊraw kexr∞syai: éllÉ oÔn diå tÚ mØ épollÊein tÚ êxuron èrmÒzei front¤da y°syai t«n gefur«n. prÚw §p‹ toÊtoiw §piskeuãzein ka‹ † tzipãta † §ktÚw t«n tãfrvn 6 ka‹ d∞la m¢n poie›n to›w ≤met°roiw, êgnvsta d¢ to›w §xyro›w. §pirr¤ptein d¢ ka‹ tribÒlouw kuklÒyen sxoin¤oiw §jhrthm°naw, ·nÉ 9 ıpÒtan §jormçn m°llvsin ofl §ntÚw katå t«n Ípenant¤vn, eÈxer«w éfairoËntai toÊtouw. kremnçn d¢ ka‹ k≈dvnaw §ktÚw t«n promax≈nvn, ·nÉ e‡pote

V P1

1 m°llon P1 || KarxhdÒnow] debet esse ÉAkrãgantow, sed incertum est utrum is error Anonymo attribuendus sit an librario; recte scriptum est p. 60, 6 et § 110, ubi eadem obsidio memoratur 3–4 diå tÚ] dia V 4 épolÊein P1 6 §piskeuãzein v. ad § 165 || tz¤pa (vel tzipãton, si recte parojutÒnvw scriptum est) nusquam alibi inveni; Du Cange s.v. nostrum locum affert et videre iubet s.v. tzÆpa, sed quod ibi legitur „membrana, vena, musculus, pellicula”, hoc loco non quadrat. Ante hanc vocem signum aliquod (corruptelae?) supra versum posuit Ex, cf. ad p. 56, 10 et § 98 7 poi∞n V 8 §pir¤ptein P1; scil. §p‹ to‹w tz¤pasi (vel tzipãtoiw)? =¤ptein tribÒlouw legitur e.g. Iul. Afric. I cap. 18 v. 52 sqq.; Leon. Probl. IV,7; Leon. Tact. XIV, 45 et 85; in recensione Constantiniana Leonis Tact. XI, 8 et 15; Syll. Tact. 22, 5 11 promaxÒnvn P1 8–10 cf. Urb.-Maur. XII, 8, 6 (Vari) tribÒlouw énadedem°naw lepto›w sfhk≈masi ka‹ §n ¥lvi sidhr«i épokratoum°naw diå tÚ •to¤mvw sunãgesyai aÈtãw:, item Leo, Probl. XII, 8 et Leo, Tact. VI, 27 (ubi . . . diå lept«n sfhkvmãtvn), Syll. Tact. 38, 12 tribÒliã te sidhrç diå t«n legom°nvn sfhkvmãtvn épodedhm°na ¥loiw sidhro›w prÚw tÚ =aid¤vw aÈtå =¤ptesyai ka‹ aÔyiw sunãgesyai; Leon. Tact. XIV, 45 §ãn tiw tribÒlouw sidhrçw ésumfan«w =¤chi prÚw Àran §n sfhk≈masin épodedem°naw efiw tÚ •to¤mvw sust°llesyai metå tØn xre¤an, fere item Leo, Probl. IV, 7 ex Urb.Maur. IV, 3, 2; Urb.-Maur. XII, 8, 22, 1 (Vari) ¶jvyen tãfron poie›n. . . . ¶jvyen d¢ taÊthw tribÒlouw, item Leo, Probl. XII, 41 et Leo, Tact. XI, 15; tr¤boloi apud scriptores tacticos saepe memorantur; eas describit Procopius, De bello Gothico III, 24 11–p. 54, 4 cf. Syll. Tact. 22, 6 k≈dvnaw sxoin¤oiw éphvrhm°nouw, …w ín t«n §p‹ kataskop∞i toË stratop°dou pemfy°ntvn polem¤vn diå t«n efirhm°nvn tribÒlvn μ Ùrugmãtvn dielye›n fisxusãntvn ékrib∞ tØn toÊtvn gn«sin ofl k≈dvnew to›w toË stratop°dou par°jvntai fÊlajin; Incert. script. II (p. 10, 3 sqq.) =ãbdouw mikråw §n t∞i g∞i phgnÊtvsan: ka‹ k≈dvnaw efiw sxoin¤a dedem°nouw t«n =ãbdvn épaivre¤tvsan kÊklvi pantÚw toË xãrakow, ˜pvw ofl lanyãnontew pol°mioi μ katãskopoi tåw b¤glaw peritugxãnontew to›w toioÊtoiw eÈkÒlvw §pigin≈skvntai. 3–4 diå tÚ cum inf. = ·na cum coniunct. vel opt.; multa exempla apud Soph. s.v.

52

53 54

55

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

167

about to retire from Carthage 73, by filling the ditches with baskets packed with chaff safely led away his forces undetected, it is also possible to use these instead of a bridge. And so it is fitting to give thought to the bridges in order not to waste the chaff. Moreover in addition prepare also barbed chevaux de frise 74 outside the ditches and make them known to our men, but conceal them from the enemy. Throw all around also caltrops 75 tied on ropes, in order that whenever those within are going to sortie out against the enemy, they easily remove these. Also hang bells 76 on the outside of the battlements, so that if [54]

73 As vdB notes, apparently an error for Acragas; the same siege is mentioned below at 60:6 and 63:15. 74 tÚ tz¤ paor tÚ tzipãton . On the term see McGeer (1995) 166 and Haldon (2000) 228-29 with n. 90. 75 ı tr¤ bolow. For this spiked implement for maiming horses and men see the description in Prokopios, BG III:24:16-18. 76 ı k≈dvn. vdB cites parallels for this use of bells in the Sylloge tacticorum and Incert. script. II. Dain’s (1940) Mémorandum inédit 124 no.10 makes the same recommendation. For similar use to protect a military camp see the De velitatione, in George Dennis, Three Byzantine Military Treatises (Washington, DC: 1985) 262:27. Generally on bells see ODB 1:279.

168

54

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 55–58 (THEV. p. 319, 41–320, 2)

ka‹ layra¤vw §piy°syai meletÆsvsi ka‹ mØ yeaye›en parå t«n frour«n, émeloÊntvn ‡svw μ ka‹ prodidÒntvn μ ka‹ ÍpÚ toË skÒtouw mØ kayorçn sugxvroum°nou, diå toË parÉ aÍt«n époteloum°nou ktÊpou a‡syhsin poi«si t∞w t«n polem¤vn §piy°sevw. 56 oÈd°pote går ëma pãntew ımonoÆsousi prÚw prodos¤an ofl fÊlakew, oÈd¢ pãlin §n •n‹ ka‹ t«i aÈt«i kair«i prÚw bayÁn Ïpnon katenexy«si, ka‹ mãlista §ån k°rketa ka‹ parak°rketa §pinohy∞i, êlla m¢n per‹ pr≈thn fulakØn t∞w nuktÒw, êlla d¢ per‹ deÊteran, ka‹ ßtera per‹ tr¤thn. 57 ka‹ aÈtÚw d¢ diÉ aÍtoË ı strathgÚw §n ta›w •orta›w §forçn de› tåw b¤glaw, efi dunatÒn, ka‹ kayÉ •kãsthn nÊkta, mÆ ti éme58 loÊmenon parÉ aÈt«n lãyoi. tåw går SurakoÊsaw mhd°pote lhfy∞nai dunam°naw diå tØn toË ÉArximÆdouw eÈmÆxanon sof¤an, §pithrÆsantew ofl ÑRvma›oi kairÒn, ˜te •ortØn ∑gon ofl SurakoÊsioi, aÈtomÒlou toËto aÈto›w dia|safÆsantow ˜ti yus¤an êgousi pandhm‹ ofl katå tØn pÒlin §fÉ ≤m°raw tre›w ka‹ to›w m¢n sit¤oiw Ùl¤gon F 12–p. 55, 5 tåw går SurakoÊsaw—épokte¤nantew cf. Plb. VIII, 37, 2–10, in solo cod. T,Wesch. p. 326, 13–328, 3, servata, ex quibus sumpta sunt, quae hic multis omissis et mutatis narrantur 15–p. 55, 1 aÈtomÒlou—dacile›; Plb. VIII, 37, 2, Wesch. p. 326, 13–16, metå d° tinaw ≤m°raw aÈtomÒlou diasafÆsantow k. t. l.: Suda s.v. Lito›w, mayΔn dÉ §j aÈtomÒlou diasafÆsantow—dacile›, §poliÒrkei V P1 [T] 1 layr°vw P1 3 kayorçn scripsi: kayor«n V P1 || aÍt«n scripsi: aÈt«n V P1 [Suda] 10–11 aÈtÚw—de› cf. p. 60, 15–17; nominativus ergo ipsi Anonymo deberi videtur; aÈtÚn . . . tÚn strathgÚn Ex (aÈtÚw . . . ı strathgÚw E) 10 aÍtoË scripsi: aÈtoË quod propter longiV P1 || §fodçn P1 11 nÊktan P1 12–p. 55, 2 anacolouthon, 1 om. P 1 14 SurakoÊsioi tudinem sententiae non offendit 13 toË] tØn V corr. V 1 Thev.: surãkou V P1 15 diasafÆsantew T corr. T || yusiai T •ortØn Suda, cf. v. 14 15–16 pandhm‹] pãndhmon T B.-W. Suda 16 ofl katå—tre›w om. Suda || tre›w] ≥dh tre›w ÉArt°midi T B.-W. || m¢n om. Suda || s¤toiw T || Ùl¤gvn V lito›w T B.-W. Suda; fort. Ùl¤goiw? cf. dacile› p. 55, 1 10–11 cf. Syll. Tact. 53, 1 mãlista d¢ §n ta›w . . . . . •ortas¤moiw nuj‹n ésfalestãtaw ˜ti mãlista poie¤syv tåw fulakãw: 1 meletçn—conari, moliri; item § 93; cf. e. g. Leon. Probl. VII, 1 (ex Urb.-Maur. VII, I, 1) prÒ ge èpãntvn xrØ tåw parå t«n §xyr«n meletvm°naw §n°draw §reunçn; Urb.-Maur. X, 3 (Scheffer) §k toÊtou går oÈd¢ eÈkairoËntew stãsin melet«sin, fere item Leo, Tact. XV, 56; Urb.-Maur. ibid. ˜tan ka‹ prosrÊesya¤ tinew to›w §xyro›w melet«si, fere item Leo, Tact. XV, 60; Cecaum. rizÄ efi §mel°thsen §ke›now yanat«sa¤ se; non invenitur apud Du Cange et Soph. 7 k°rketa—„circitationes, circae, excubiae, vigiliae” (Du Cange) „patrol” (Soph.); parak°rketa—„excubiae post priores” (Du Cange) 11 b¤gla—vigilia

3

6

9

12

15

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

169

ever the [enemy] attempt to attack secretly and are not seen by the guards, who are perchance careless or even traitors or also on account of darkness cannot see, [the bells] due to the noise they cause make one aware of the enemy’s attack. For never yet have all guards agreed on treason nor again at one and the same time have they fallen into a deep sleep, and especially if patrols and counterpatrols 77 are planned, some at the first watch of night, others at the second, still others at the third. And the general himself must personally oversee the watches during festivals, if possible, and each night, lest any negligence on the part of the guards go undetected. For the Syracusans were never able to be taken due to the ingenious wisdom of Archimedes; the Romans watched for an opportunity and when the Syracusans were celebrating a festival a deserter informed them that the entire population of the city was celebrating a sacrificial festival for three days and were eat ing little food [55] because it was scarce, but they were drinking wine

77 tÚ k° rketon. On this term for a system of mobile surveillance see Dagron (1986) 215 n. 1 and McGeer (1995) 78. The compound (tÚ parak° rketon) I do not find on the TLG(E).

170

55

3

6

9

12

15

18

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 58–63 ( THEV. p. 320, 2–15)

xr«ntai diå tØn spãnin, t«i dÉ o‡nvi xr«ntai dacile›, taxÁ d¢ klimãkvn dÊo sunteyeis«n, §g°nonto kÊrioi t«n pÊrgvn. efiw går toÁw pÊrgouw ±yroism°noi diå tØn yus¤an ofl m¢n ékmØn ¶pinon, ofl dÉ §koim«nto pãlai meyuskÒmenoi. diÚ ka‹ ¶layon aÈtoÁw épokte¤nantew. ka‹ ésfãleian d¢ épaite›n tÚn strathgÚn ëpantaw, ·na e‡ tiw lipe›n peiraye¤h tØn tãjin plhg«n êneuyen μ êllhw eÈlÒgou afit¤aw, efiw kefalØn timvre›tai katå toÁw per‹ lipotaj¤ou nÒmouw parå t«n palai«n §kteyeim°nouw, o„ tÚn lipotãkthn t∞i §piyanat¤vi kated¤kazon cÆfvi ka‹ diå toËto pçsan tØn ofikoum°nhn Ípoxe¤rion pepoiÆkasin. efi går t«i toioÊtvi §pitim¤vi peridee›w e‰en ofl strati«tai, oÈk ín ßlointÒ pote ékleç yãnaton épen°gkasyai dunam°nouw eÎkleian to›w •aut«n pais‹ ka‹ épogÒnoiw katalipe›n μ ka‹ •auto›w tÚ z∞n peripoiÆsasyai diå t∞w §p‹ toË met≈pou épokatastãsevw. ı m¢n går tå n«ta de¤jaw t«i §xyr«i dusxer«w ín diafÊgoi tÚn yãnaton, ı d¢ genna¤vw éntikataståw ka‹ §autÚn ¶svsen ka‹ gennaiÒthtow ka‹ éndre¤aw §karp≈sato dÒjan. metå d¢ tÚ per‹ toÊtvn pãntvn kal«w front¤sai xrØ gumnãzein ëpantaw efiw •kãstou ¶rgou §pithdeiÒthta, efiw tÚ tojeÊein sunF 1–2 taxÁ—sunteyeis«n: Plb. VIII, 37, 3, Wesch. p. 327, 4 2–4 efiw går— meyuskÒmenoi; Plb. VIII, 37, 9, Wesch. p. 327, 22–328, 1 4–5 diÚ—épokte¤nantew cf. Plb. VIII, 37, 10, Wesch. p. 328, 1–3, diÚ ka‹ . . . . ¶layon toÁw ple¤stouw aÈt«n épokte¤nantew 20–p. 56, 3 efiw tÚ—xrÆsimon: Urb.-Maur. I, 1 (Vari, Scheffer), quod caput inscribitur p«w de› gumnãzein tÚn kayÉ ßna êndra §n ta›w mel°taiw (Scheffer), 1, fere item Leo, Tact. VII, 4, sed Anonymum haec ex ipso Urb.-Mauricio sumpsisse vel ex eo intellegitur, quod Leo non hab. verba e‡te =vmaÛst‹ e‡te persist¤ et hab. to›w §p‹ ·ppvn Ùxoum°noiw pro to›w §f¤ppoiw

P1 [T] [Suda] [Urb.Maur.]

1 tØn om. Suda || d¢ ofin«i T Suda || xr«ntai om. T B.-W. Suda 2 duo›n T due›n B.-W. 2–3 efiw går ] ofl går §w T ofl går efiw B.-W. 3 ±yroism°noi V P1 Ts: ≤yroism°noi B.-W. || m¢n] §w m¢n T 4 d¢ T 6–8 cf. p. 49, 10–13 6 d¢] malim de› vel d¢ de› , quia post narrationem denuo incipiunt praecepta et etiam subiectum accusativi cum inf. denuo memoratur; cf. § 80; 100–102; 140–141; 175; 196 et ad 110; d¢ de› etiam invenitur § 83; cf. autem § 88; 113 7 le¤pe›n V 12 ékleç scripsi: ékle∞ Ex Thev., sed cf. §ndeç p. 49, 12; ékleoË V P1 13 exspectaveris dunãmenoi, quod hab E x, sed Anon. vid. scripsisse dunam°nouw contagione verbi épen°gkasyai; cf. autem praef. p. 11–13 14 katalip∞n V || •auto›w] aÈto›w P1 17 ¶svyen P1 20 •kãstou Thev.: ßkaston V P1 E •kãsthn Ex || efiw tÚ ] e‡te V P1 || tojeÊein] tojeÊein pez∞i Urb.-Maur. 6–10 cf. Plb. I, 17, 11; Urb.-Maur. I, 8, 2 (Vari) §ån strati≈thw §n kair«i paratãjevw ka‹ pol°mou tØn tãjin μ tÚ bãndon aÈtoË §ãshi ka‹ μ fÊghi . . . . . keleÊomen timvre›syai aÈtÚn kefalik«w, item Leo, Tact. VIII, 20

59

60

61

62

63

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

171

in large quantities. The [Romans] quickly assembled two ladders and took control of the towers. For some of those gathered in the towers for the sacrificial festival were still drinking, others were sleeping long since being drunk, and so the [Romans] killed them without being detected. And the general must demand assurance regarding everyone, in order that if anyone tries to leave the ranks who is not wounded or has no other reasonable cause, he will suffer capital punishment according to the laws regarding desertion established by the ancients 78, who condemned the deserter to a sentence of death and for this reason conquered the whole world. For if the soldiers should be very fearful of such a penalty, they would never choose to win an inglorious death when they could leave glory to their children and descendants nor even [choose] to secure their own life through turning tail at the front line. For the one who has shown his back to the enemy might escape death with difficulty, yet the one nobly standing firm has both saved himself and harvested the glory of nobility and courage. After giving careful thought to all these it is necessary to train everyone for fitness at each task - shooting the bow rapidly [56] in the

78 On the death penalty for desertion in the face of the enemy see Digesta Iustiniani Augusti, ed. T. Mommsen (Berlin: 1870; rp. 1963) vol. 2, no. 49:16:3-4 and generally J. B. Campbell, The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BC-AD 235 (Oxford: 1984) 303-05.

172

56 64 65 66

67

68

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 63–68 ( THEV. p. 320, 15–28)

tÒmvw =vmaÛst‹ μ persist¤: ≤ går taxutØw §ktinãssesyai paraskeuãzei tØn sag¤tan ka‹ fisxur«w bãllesyai, ˜per énagka›Òn §stin ka‹ to›w §f¤ppoiw xrÆsimon: ka‹ efiw tÚ bãllein eÈstÒxvw katå toË skopoË: oÈ mØn éllå ka‹ efiw tÚ ékont¤zein tå legÒmena =iktãria ka‹ efiw tÚ bãllein §k xeirÚw l¤youw katå t«n polem¤vn xr∞sya¤ te ka‹ ta›w sfendÒnaiw eÈfu«w ka‹ ta›w tojobol¤straiw ka‹ sk°pesyai ÍpÚ t∞w ésp¤dow μ ka‹ ßteron ka‹ •autÚn eÈlab∞ perifulãttein, p°mpein d¢ ka‹ diå t«n tetrar¤vn ka‹ t«n magganik«n ka‹ t«n lekat«n. ka‹ † érxhgoÁw ßkasta tãgmata † kayistçn katå tÚn tÊpon t«n xiliãrxvn, e‡per mØ e‡hsan efiw fulakØn toË kãstrou xiliarx¤ai, ka‹ éfor¤zein •kãstvi tãgmati tÚ ‡dion m°row katå tÚ §n aÈt«i ¶rgon, éllå ka‹ §k t«n gennaiot°rvn strativt«n §pil°ktouw proslambãnesyai de› tÚn érxhgÚn toË stratoË prÚw énalog¤an toË plÆyouw toË kÊklvi t∞w pÒlevw, ·na dfi aÈt«n bohy∞i t«i kataponoum°nvi, ˜pouper ín kraugØ g°nhtai. éyro¤zein d¢ ka‹ proapot¤yesyai §n to›w promax«si l¤youw m°lanaw, ka‹ mikroÁw ka‹ bare›w, ka‹ dokoÁw ka‹ sthmonãria F 3 bãllein eÈstÒxvw cf. Urb.-Maur. I, 1 (Scheffer) efi dÒjei ≤ sag¤tta eÈstÒxvw bãllesyai

V P1 1 =vmaÛst‹ μ persist¤] e‡te =vmaÛst‹ e‡te persist¤ Urb.-Maur. (Scheffer: haec [Urb.-Maur.] verba praetermittit Vari, cum apud Leonem non inveniantur) || taxutØw Ex: paxutØw V P1 || om. V P1 2 paraskeuãzei Ex: paraskeuãzein V P1 E || sag¤ttan Urb.-Maur., sed cf. ad p. 47, 14 || énagka›on] t«n énagka¤vn Urb.-Maur. 3 §st‹ Urb.-Maur. 5 =iktãria v. append. ad p. 47, 15 7 μ ka‹]μ P1 || §autÚn om. P 1 || lege eÈlab«w 8 petrar¤vn P1; lectionem codicis melioris recepi; cf. p. 48, 3 cum appendice 9 non plane liquet utrum V habeat lekat«n an lekast«n, sed vid. habere lekat«n, quod E quoque hab.; lekan«n P1; cf. Du Cange: „lekãth, colus, ±lakãth. Glossae Graecobarb. katå prÒsvpa toË ÍfantikoË jÊlou toË gunaikis¤mou, ‡saw t∞w lekãthw, μ t∞w =Òkkaw” et ad p. 48, 3 10 fort. érxhgÚn •kãstou tãgmatow? ante ßkasta fere idem signum atque p. 53, 6 supra versum posuit Ex 15 bohye› P1 12–16 cf. Urb.-Maur. X, 3, quod caput inscribitur p«w de› ént°xein tÚn poliorke›syai prosdok«nta xron¤vw, (Scheffer) . . . . . . katamer¤sai d¢ tØn boÆyeian diÉ ˜lou toË te¤xouw, ka‹ ¶xein êllhn dÊnamin §k perittoË xrÆsimon, ·na t«i deom°nvi m°rei, efi xre¤a g°nhtai, bohy∞i (bohy∞i ex Leonis Tact. supplevi), fere item Leo, Tact. XV, 55; Urb.-Maur. VIII, 2 (Scheffer) §x°tv m¢n ée‹ per‹ aÈtÚn êndraw §pil°ktouw ı strathgÒw, meyÉ œn §pikoure›n to›w kãmnousi t∞w stratiçw dunÆsetai m°resi 18 m°lanaw cf. Ios. V, 271–273 (V, VI, 3) 18 sthmonãrion; stÆmvn—temo „beam, pole” (Soph.); cf. quae annotavi ad spay¤on p. 47, 14

3

6

9

12

15

18

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

173

Roman or Persian manner 79 (for speed causes the arrow to be released and discharged forcefully, which is essential and suitable for cavalry)80; and shooting with good aim at the target; and especially hurling the so-called riktaria81; and throwing stones by hand against the enemy; and using both slings and bow-ballistas 82 skilfully; and covering themselves with the shield or prudently83 guarding themselves and someone else; firing with tetrariai and magganika and lekatai84. And appoint ~ leaders for each tagma85 ~ on the model of the chiliarchoi,86 if there should be no chiliarchiai for guarding the citadel, and assign to each tagma its own portion of the work therein, but the leader of the army must take picked men from the braver soldiers proportional to the numbers around the city, in order that with them he may aid any [position] under attack, whenever a cry is heard. Gather and preposition on the battlements black 87 stones, both small and heavy ones, and beams and many thick poles88 [57] of oak,

79 The Roman method was to use thumb and forefinger, the Persian the lower three fingers; see Dennis (1984) 11 n. 2 and A. Bivar, “Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier”, DOP 26 (1972) 285. 80 Maurice, Strategikon I:1:5-8. 81 tÚ =iktãrion . I.e. “javelins”, see above n. 29. 82 ≤ tojobol¤ stra. The term ball¤ straappears in Maurice, Strategikon XIIB: 6:9 and 21:13. The earliest use of tojobol¤ straappears to be Theophanes, Chronographia 384:11 (for the year 713/714). Leo VI, Taktika VI:27 indicates that the device with arrows could be carried in a wagon. See Kolias (1988) 244-45, Haldon (1999) 135, 137, Haldon (2000) 225 line 117, 227 (line 134), 271-72, and Sullivan (2000) 189-90 n. 20. 83 Accepting eÈlab«w for eÈlab∞. 84 ≤ lekãth (literally “distaff, pole”), apparently a reference to the same artillery device mentioned earlier (48:3) as ±lakãth . On this and the preceding terms here see above n. 34 and Dennis (1998) 100-102. 85 On the tãgma see ODB 3:2007. Cf. Sylloge tacticorum 54:2: TØn d¢ stratiån efiw éllãgia katamer¤ sai •kãstƒ te tãgmati tØn ofike¤ an épotãjai xre¤ an . . . . 86 ı xiliãrxhw . On the term, apparently used as the equivalent of drouggarios or taxiarch es, see Haldon (1999) 115 and McGeer (1995) 203. See also ODB 3:2018 at “Taxiarchos”. 87 vdB cites here Josephus BJ 5:6:3 where the Romans are said to blacken the stones fired by their catapults to make them harder for the enemy to see and avoid. 88 tÚ sthmonãrion . The diminutive is not in LSJ or Sophocles, Lexicon; it is found once on the TLG(E).

174

57

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

V P1

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 68–73 ( THEV. p. 320, 28–44)

pax°a ka‹ pollå drÊÛna katå tåw êkraw Ùj°a, ·nÉ ıpÒtan katarrify∞nai deÆseien, fÒnon §rgãzvntai ple›ston, diarrhgnÊvsin d¢ oÈ mÒnon tåw ésp¤daw, éllå ka‹ tåw la¤saw. † §y¤zein d¢ aÈtoÁw ka‹ fÒboiw nukterino›w, oÂa tÚ doke›n polem¤vn §pibainÒntvn §p‹ t«n §pãljevn, † ·nÉ Œsin §ggegumnasm°noi §n ta›w kayÉ ÍpÒkrisin §piy°sesin ka‹ §n ta›w élhyina›w xre¤aiw mØ diatarãttvntai. katalox¤zein d¢ ka‹ suntãttein tÆn te pezikØn stratiån ka‹ toÁw flpp°aw, §jÒdouw te sunexe›w t«n pez«n ka‹ *** tå §fÉ •kãsthi metabol∞i ¶rga sunyÆmata ka‹ tÚ épÚ sunyhmãtvn Ùj°vw ıpl¤zesyai ka‹ pãlin •to¤mvw diå toË énaklhtikoË Ípostr°fein. t«n dÉ §xyr«n ≥dh plhsiãzein §lpizom°nvn, efi m¢n ÙxuroÁw ka‹ dusbãtouw ¶xoi tÚ kãstron tÒpouw, §ke›se pãnta tå yr°mmata ka‹ tå ktÆnh efisãgein metå dunãmevw époxr≈shw, ka‹ d°ndra kÒptein ka‹ plãgia tiy°nai efiw k≈lusin t∞w t«n §xyr«n efisÒdou, plØn e‡per mØ dÊnamin éjiÒxreon ofl §xyro‹ ¶xoien pezikØn μ flppikØn: tÒte går oÈ xrØ pisteÊein to›w Ùxur≈masin, éllÉ efl m¢n n∞soi parãkeintai t∞i x≈rai ka‹ oÈd°n ti pol°mion §ke›se prosdokçtai, §n aÈta›w taËta §mbibãzein, efi dÉ oÔn, efiw •t°raw x≈raw §japost°llein ≥, t«n §xyr«n katepeigÒntvn ka‹ taxunÒntvn efiw tØn pÒlin katalabe›n, §pitr°pein to›w ofike¤oiw despÒtaiw katasfãttein tå yr°mmata ka‹ tarixeÊein ka‹ piprãskein to›w toÊtvn §nde°sin. 1–2 katarrify∞nai Thev.: katarify∞nai V P1 2 diarrhgnÊvsi Thev diarrugnÊvsin V diarrignÊousin P1 3 la¤saw scripsi: l°saw VP 1; cf. ad p. 50, 6 4–5 v. append. 7 diatarãttontai P1 9 lac. indicavi; potest e.g. excidisse t«n flpp°vn poie›syai didãskein te aÈtoÁw || supplevi 13 §ke›sai P1 16 §xyro‹ lege ¶ndon; an mØ deleatur? 18 §ke›sai P1 19 efi dÉ oÔn v. append. 4–7 cf. Polyaen. III, 9, 32, fere item Hypoth. III, 2; Leon. Tact. XX, 195 épÚ t«n peplasm°nvw ginom°nvn katÉ aÈt«n prosbol«n ofl strati«tai §yizÒmenoi ékatãplhktoi g¤nontai prÚw tå élhy∞, oÂon ceudobohye¤aw m°rouw tinÚw §pelyoÊshw katå §t°rou, pãlin ceudoprodos¤aw, μ ceudoegkrÊmmata, μ ceudoktÊpvn ka‹ ≥xvn, μ ceudoautomÒlvn, μ ceudoefÒdvn: oÏtvw går §yisyÆsontai, ka‹ oÈk §kplagÆsontai §ja¤fnhw toÊtvn ka‹ élhy«w ginom°nvn 10–11 cf. Arr. Tact. 27, 1, fere item Urb. Tact. 8 12–14 cf. Urb.-Maur. X, 2, quod caput inscribitur p«w de› èrmÒzesyai, polem¤vn, …w efikÒw, §n t∞i ≤met°rai x≈rai efisballÒntvn, (Scheffer) xrØ tå énagkaiÒtera pãnta §n to›w Ùxurvt°roiw frour¤oiw sull°gein, fugadeÊein d¢ ka‹ tå êloga t∞w x≈raw, item Müller Kriegswesen p. 128, 26–27, fere item Leo, Tact. XVII, 84 21 katalabe›n efiw—pervenire ad

69

70

71

72

73

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

175

sharp at the ends, in order that whenever it is necessary to throw them, they will wreak the greatest slaughter and break not only shields, but also laisai 89. ~ Accustom them also to the causes of fear that come at night such as an apparent mounting of the battlements by the enemy, ~ in order that they may be trained by simulated attacks90 and not thrown into confusion in real need. Divide into lochoi91 and draw up the infantry and cavalry, [make] continuous sallies of infantry regarding the actions the signals for each maneuver 93 and [regarding] rapidly arming on signal and again readily turning back at the [signal for] retreat. When the enemy are expected to arrive imminently, if the citadel has a strong position which is hard to approach, bring all the flocks and herds there together with adequate forces, and cut down trees and place them horizontally to hinder the enemy’s approach 94, unless the enemy has no significant infantry or cavalry force; for then there is no need to trust to strongholds. But if there are islands near the place and no enemy action is expected there, ship them to these95. If not 96, dispatch them elsewhere or, if the enemy is pressing and hurrying to the city to capture it, permit their owners to slaughter the flocks and salt and sell [the meat] to those who need it.

89 Cf. J. Skylitzes, Synopsis historiarum, ed. H. Thurn (Berlin-New York: 1973) 463:83-87 and 92-97 who records that during a Turkish siege of Manzikert about 1050 the Byzantine defenders dropped long sharpened beams as well as hand-held stones ( dokoÁw meg¤ staw katå tØn bãsin Ùje›w, l¤ youw xeiroplhye›w) onto enemy plaited siege sheds (l° saw, i.e. la¤ saw) which pierced the roofs of the sheds and overturned them, exposing those within. On the passage see McGeer (1991) 137-38. 90 On such training see McGeer (1995) 218-19. 91 Katalox¤ zein, “to distribute into lÒxoi”, “armed bands” or “companies”; cf. Sylloge tacticorum 35:7: lÒxow går tÚ t«n deka¢j éndr«n sÊsthma l° getai kur¤ vw, kataxrhstik«w d¢ ka‹ tÚ m° xri t«n triãkonta dÊo lÒxow kale›tai . See also below 58:7. 92 vdB’s suggested addition. 93 ≤ metabolÆ. Technically an “about-face”; cf. Asclepiodotos, Tactica X:1:6, etc., Aelian, Tactica 25:2 and Sylloge tacticorum 41:4. Given “each” here it appears to be used more generally. 94 On the use of such barricades by the Bulgarians against the Byzantines see McGeer (1995) 342 and n. 15. 95 Cf. Thucydides II:14:1. 96 For the Greek here, efi dÉ oÔn = efi d¢ mØ see Sophocles, Lexicon at efi no. 9 (cited by vdB [Appendix 106] with additional examples).

176

58 74

75

76

77

78 (Plb. IX, 9, 11) 79

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 74–79 (THEV. p. 320, 44–321, 6)

ÍpozÊgia d¢ ka‹ ·ppouw ka‹ ≤miÒnouw ka‹ ˜sa mØ énagka›a t«i strateÊmati diafye¤rein, §ån xrÒniow ≤ poliork¤a ka‹ sunexØw prosdokçtai ka‹ tå kÊklvi toË kãstrou xãraki ka‹ tãfrvi ofl §xyro‹ §jasfal¤sasyai, † prÚw tÚ mÆte §k t«n ¶jvyen dÊnamin pareispese›n ka‹ dfi aÈt∞w katatrop≈sasyai toÁw Ípenant¤ouw μ tÚ §nde¢w énas≈sasyai mÆtÉ §ktÚw t∞w ¶jvyen §pixvriãsanta tå énagka›a porie›n †, pollãkiw te puknoÁw lÒxouw prÚ t«n pul«n §fist«ntew, nuktÚw ka‹ ≤m°raw suxnÒteron toÁw prokekmhkÒtaw éme¤bontai, kvlÊousi tåw §piy°seiw, μ ka‹ pÊrgouw ofikodomoËntew. efi går ka‹ summaxika‹ dunãmeiw poliorkoum°naiw pÒlesin épvle¤aw ge|gÒnasi prÒjenoi, katanal≈sasai tå dapanÆmata poll«i pl°on, ÍpozÊgia ka‹ peritto‹ ·ppoi ka‹ ênyrvpoi. t«n går ÑRvma¤vn poliorkoÊntvn Tãranta Borm¤klaw ı t«n Karxhdon¤vn naÊarxow *** efiw tÚ summaxÆsein metå dunãmevw ple¤sthw ka‹ mhd¢n dunhye‹w §pikour∞sai to›w ¶ndon diå tÚ toÁw ÑRvma¤ouw ésfal«w y°syai tå per‹ tØn stratopede¤an, ¶layen énal≈saw tØn xre¤an, ka‹ metå paraklÆsevw prÒteron §fik°syai §kbiasye‹w ka‹ Íposx°sevn megãlvn, Ïsteron meyÉ flkethr¤aw t«n ¶ndon épopleËsai éphnagkãsyh. F 13–19 t«n går—éphnagkãsyh: Plb. IX, 9, 11 apud solum Anon. tradita. Sed Anon. haec quoque non ad verbum ex Plb. descripsisse videtur; cf. B.-W. ad locum et F. ad § 58–59; 97–99; 106–109; 110–112; 119– 123; 136–139; 147–168. Schw. Tom. V, p. 36, etiam probat Anon. haec memoriter ex Plb. exscripsisse et duas res tempore disiunctas inter se composuisse coll. Livio, XXVI, 20, 7–11 cum Plb. X, 1, 10 et Livio XXVII, 15, 4–7. Cf. praef. p. 16

V P1

4 lege §jasfal¤zontai; cf. kvlÊousi v. 9; §jasfal¤svntai Ex, ut vid. (litterae nt perspicuae sunt, sed de v dubito; in ras. scriptae sunt) 5 lege aÍt∞w 6 μ tÚ §nde¢w fort. ka‹ tå ¶ndon? || §ktÚw t∞w] §ktÚw to›w V; fort, §k t∞w? an §k t«n? cf. v. 4 7 fort. por¤zein vel por¤sai? 9 lege émeibÒmenoi 10 efi går ka‹ v. ad p. 52, 21 12 lacuna post pl°on? ,,quam usui erant”? an ,,quam ipsi incolae”? 13 Bom¤lkaw Schw. B.-W.; incertum utrum error Anonymo an librario attribuendus sit 14 naÊarxow Thev. B.-W.: naÊmarxow V P1 || éfikÒmenow, poreuye‹w, metapemfye‹w vel aliud simile ante efiw add. aut ple¤sthw in pleÊsaw mutare vult. Schw., Tom. V, p. 36; efiw Lammert, Jahrb. für class. Philol. 1888 p. 622 || summax¤sein P1 15 mhd¢n Schw. B.-W.: mhd¢ V mØ d¢ P1 17 xre¤an] xorhg¤an Schw. B.-W.; cf. p. 59, 2 et ad p. 60,7 || lege éfik°syai cum Schw. B.-W. 19 ±nagkãsyh Schw. Hultsch 7–9 cf. Leon Tact, XV, 4 (in praeceptis de urbe obsidenda) kre›tton d¢ poiÆseiw, §ån ka‹ parå tåw pÒrtaw μ efiw tå parapÒrtia t∞w pÒlevw . . . . parakay¤seiw tinåw strati≈taw, o·tinew tåw afifnid¤ouw katadromåw t«n polem¤vn épokvlËsai dÊnantai, ka‹ mãlista §n ta›w nuj‹ xrÆ se tØn toiaÊthn ¶xein ésfãleian:

3

6

9 p. 321 Thev. 12

15

18

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

177

[58] Destroy beasts of burden and horses and mules and whatever is not essential for the army, if a long and continuous siege is expected and the enemy secures97 the area around the citadel with a palisade and ditch ~ to prevent any force from outside stealing in and by itself 98 putting the enemy to flight or rescuing those in need, or furnishing from outside the common essentials; ~ by quite often stationing numerous lochoi99 before the gates, day and night quite continuously relieving100 those who are tired, they hinder attacks, or even by building towers. For if [there are] also allied forces - beasts of burden and superfluous horses and men - they have become agents of destruction101 for besieged cities, using up the provisions far more . When the Romans were besieging Tarentum Bomilcar103, the Carthaginian admiral, with a very large force to provide assistance, and being unable to render any aid to those inside, since the Romans had secured their camp, he consumed his supplies before he realized it. He had been constrained to come105 in the first place by an appeal and great promises, later he was compelled to sail away at the supplication of those inside 106.

Accepting § jasfal¤ zontaifor § jasfal¤ sasyai. Accepting aÍt∞w for aÈt∞w. 99 The context and the use of § n° dra elsewhere in the treatise for “ambush” suggest that lÒxoi here are “armed bands”, “companies.” See also above n. 91. 100 Accepting émeibÒmenoi for éme¤ bontai. 101 See above n. 54. 102 Translating one of vdB’s suggested additions, “quam ipsi incolae.” 103 Accepting Bom¤ lkawfor Borm¤ klaw, although the error may be due to the Anon. or his source. 104 Supplying éfikÒmenow . 105 Accepting éfik° syai for § fik° syai. 106 This fragment is placed at Polybius IX:9:11. As vdB notes the De obsidione toleranda is the sole source preserving it, but does not follow Polybius verbatim. See also Büttner-Wobst III:13 who comments: “sed est locus initio tam depravatus, ut Polybii verba enucleari vix possint.” Walbank (1967) 9 dates the event to 211 BC and 133 notes that the Anon. has misunderstood the situation, i.e. how would Bomilcar’s shortage of supplies affect the besieged inhabitants, unless they had to make up any deficiencies? Livy XXVI:xx:7ff records that the Roman garrison was in the citadel of Tarentum and the Carthaginian had been called in to cut off their supplies; but the Romans had adequate supplies inside and the crews of the Carthaginian fleet competed with the Tarentines for food. Livy concludes: “Tandem maiore gratia quam venerat classis dimissa est.” 97

98

178

59

3

6

9

12

15

18

V P1

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 80–84 ( THEV. p. 321, 7–20)

yer¤zein d¢ de› ka‹ tåw x≈raw, kín mÆpv prÚw yerismÚn ¶fyasan, ka‹ proafan¤zein pçsan xre¤an prÚ dÊo μ tri«n ≤mer«n diastÆmatow, oÈ mÒnon élÒgvn, éllå ka‹ ényr≈pvn, ·na ka‹ §n toÊtvi dusyumÆsvsin ofl §xyro‹ pÒnon per‹ tØn dapãnhn Ípom°nontew. manyãnvn d¢ diå t«n kataskÒpvn tØn t«n polem¤vn diagvgØn efi m¢n gn«i aÈtoÁw t«i plÆyei yarroËntaw étãktvw poreuom°nouw, §n°draw poie›n ka‹ traumat¤zein aÈtoÊw. ka‹ tå potãmia μ tåw l¤mnaw μ tå toË tÒpou fr°ata farmakeÊein ka¤ tina t«n ofinhr«n skeu«n diå toË legom°nou *mou, ·nÉ ˜tan ka‹ mØ paraxr∞ma yãnoien, ÍpÚ toË xrÒnou tin¢w nÒsoiw katamalakisy«si ka‹ dusyanatÆsousi. farmakeÊein d¢ de› toÁw m¢n potamoÁw ênvyen t«n fvssãtvn §n ér¤stou Àrai, ·na toË kaÊmatow §kka¤ontow tå t«n polem¤vn s≈mata †eÍr¤skon §klelum°na t«i kÒpvi t°leon §jafan¤shi tÚ Ïdvr pinÒmenon.† §ån d¢ ka‹ tÒpouw §pithde¤ouw sx∞i ≤ x≈ra dunam°nouw pezikØn dÊnamin ka‹ flppikØn perifulãttein, blãptein dunam°nhn toÁw Ípenant¤ouw ka‹ mØ d¢ sugxvroËsan aÈto›w xr∞syai éde«w t∞i poliork¤ai, ka‹ mãlista e‡ge summax¤a poy¢n §lp¤zetai, front¤da 10 legom°nou mou spatio 5(4 P1) fere litt. vacuo, i. m. add. signo corruptelae V P1 13 malim fossãtvn 14 eÍr¤skonta? an eÍriskÒntvn? 14–15 supplevi 15 kÒpvi Thev.: kÒpv Ex skop« V P1 E; cf. p. 63,6 17 sx∞i lege ¶xhi 18 ka‹ om. P1 19 mØ d¢ lege mhd¢n; cf. ad p. 58,15 20 post poliork¤ai fort. §n°dran §ntaËya poie›syai vel tale quid excidit ? || summax¤a Ex Thev. i. m.: summax¤an V P1 E 1–5 cf. Urb.-Maur. X, 2, quod caput inscribitur p«w de› èrmÒzesyai polem¤vn, …w efikÒw, §n t∞i ≤met°rai x≈rai efisballÒntvn, 1 (Scheffer) xrØ . . . éfan¤zein dapãnaw prokeim°naw aÈt«i, item Müller Kriegswesen p. 128, 4–5, Leo, Probl. X, 7, fere item Leo, Tact. XVII, 76; Urb.-Maur. ibid. 2 xrØ poliorkoËntow §xyroË Ùxur≈mata, …w efikÒw, spoudãzein perikÒptein tåw ¶jvyen dapãnaw, ka‹ toÁw §p‹ sullog∞i (sullogØn Scheffer) dapanhmãtvn pempom°nouw §nedreÊein, ka‹ §nteËyen stenoxvre›n toÁw §xyroÊw., item Müller Kriegswesen p. 128, 27–30, Leo, Probl. X,9 9–16 cf. Philon. ,,V” p. 103, 30–33 tÚn d¢ s›ton diãfyeiron to›w yanas¤moiw farmãkoiw, …saÊtvw d¢ ka‹ tå Ïdata, ˜tan §gg¤svsin ofl pol°mioi.; Iul. Afric. 1,2, v. 17 farmakeÊousi tå fr°ata pollo¤.; Urb.-Maur. IX,3, quod caput inscribitur p«w de› t∞i t«n polem¤vn x≈rai efisbale›n, ka‹ p«w ıdoipore›n ésfal«w §pÉ aÈt∞i, ka‹ praideÊein, 7 (Scheffer) xrØ tÚn eÍriskÒmenon êrton μ o‰non (ita Leo, Probl. o‰non μ êrton Scheffer) mØ tr≈gein μ p¤nein proxe¤rvw, efi mØ prÒteron diå t«n afixmal≈tvn ≤ dokimas¤a g°nhtai, mhd¢ tÚ §n to›w fr°asin Ïdvr: pollãkiw går farmãkoiw ±fan¤syhsan, item Leo, Probl. IX, 24, fere item Leo, Tact. XVII, 68 13 fossçton—castra

80

81

82

83

84

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

179

[59] It is also necessary to reap the fields, even if they are not ready for reaping, and to remove everything useful two or three days in advance, not only livestock, but also people, in order that thereby the enemy may become discouraged as they will have difficulty procuring provisions. On learning through scouts of the disposition of the enemy, if one knows they are marching in disarray confident in their numbers, set ambushes and wound them. And it is necessary to poison the rivers or lakes or local wells and any of the wine containers with the so-called < . . . >107, in order that whenever the [enemy] do not die immediately, some may grow weak with disease over time and die miserably. It is necessary to poison the rivers upstream from the camps108 at the lunch hour, in order that when the heat is burning the bodies of the enemy, worn out with toil, ~ when they find the water when drunk will totally destroy them ~. If the region should have 110 suitable places capable of offering security to infantry and cavalry forces who can harm the enemy and not111 allow them to prosecute the siege with impunity, and especially if allies are expected from some place, make this [60] your greatest concern. For when our forces are hover-

107 The mss. do not preserve the full name of the poison, only the last three letters -mou. No specific poison is mentioned in the parallel passages. In addition to the references to poisoning given by vdB, add Thucydides (II:48:2) and the comments of S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, Volume I: Books I-III (Oxford: 1991) 319-20. See also Whitehead (1990) 115 for additional references to poison. 108 tÚ fvssçton or fossçton. On the term (Latin fossatum) see Haldon (1990) 175 and McGeer (1995) 76. 109 vdB’s addition. 110 Accepting ¶ x˙ for sxª. 111 Accepting mhd¢n for mØ d°. 112 vdB’s suggested addition.

180

60 85

86 87

88

89

90

91

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 84–91 ( THEV. p. 321, 20–34)

toÊtou t¤yesyai ple¤sthn. dunãmevn går ¶jvyen ≤met°rvn énastrefom°nvn oÎte trofåw épÒnvw kom¤sousi xvr‹w éjiolÒgou dunãmevw: §ån d¢ * * * ka‹ mçllon dunhye›en μ ·ppouw μ ényr≈pouw 3 afixmalvt¤zein: oÎte katå tÚ dokoËn aÍto›w t∞i poliork¤ai xrÆsontai, Àsper ÉAn¤baw katå ÑRvma¤vn §po¤hsen. poliorkoÊntvn går aÈt«n tØn ÉAkrãganta otow summax¤aw parå t«n §n Kar- 6 xhdÒni dejãmenow * * * ka‹ tåw énagka¤aw xre¤aw t«n ÑRvma¤vn stratop°doiw. ka‹ sun°baine toÁw poliorkoÊntaw poliorke›syai. † éfor¤zein d¢ tÚn érxhgÚn toË stratoË nÊkta ka‹ ≤m°ran ka‹ 9 poie›n gn≈rimon taÊthn t«i érxhg«i t«n §ktÚw §n to›w ˆresin énastrefom°nvn dunãmevn ka‹ katÉ aÈt«n §pit¤yesyai to›w polem¤oiw. † sxhmat¤zesyai d¢ tÚn prÚw tØn §p¤yesin §piÒnta …w 12 êllhw ßneken xre¤aw éllaxoË metaba¤nein dianoe›tai, ka‹ tåw ıdoÁw prokatalambãnein dfi ékribestãthw fulak∞w, …w ín mÆtiw katamhnÊshi to›w §xyro›w tå bebouleum°na. katalambãnvn d¢ tÚ 15 stratÒpedon ka‹ kukl«n aÈtÚ de› tÒpon efiw fugØn eÎkairon katalimpãnein to›w Ípenant¤oiw, ·na mÆ, pãntoyen kuklvy°ntew, épognÒntew t∞w svthr¤aw m°xri yanãtou éntikatast«sin. xrhsi- 18 meÊei d¢ prÚw taËta ¥ te t«n ékontist«n ka‹ t«n tojot«n ka‹ sfendonit«n xre¤a. F 5–8 Àsper ÉAn¤baw—poliorke›syai cf. Plb. I, 18, 9–10 Hanno ad Hannibali Agrigenti a Romanis obsesso auxiliandum copiis e Carthagine missis kat°sxe tØn t«n ÑErbhs°vn pÒlin ka‹ pare¤leto tåw égoråw ka‹ tØn t«n énagka¤vn xorhg¤an to›w t«n Ípenant¤vn stratop°doiw. §j o sun°bh toÁw ÑRvma¤ouw §pÉ ‡sou poliorke›n ka‹ poliorke›syai to›w prãgmasin.

V P1

2 komÆsousi P1 3 lacunam indicavi; fort. metå dunãmevw peirãsvntai, ofl ≤m°teroi vel tale quid excidit? || dunhye›en cf. p. 45, 7 4 aÈto›w V P1 5 ÉAn¤baw v. ad p. 52, 21 || §po¤hsen kata =vma¤vn V transp. Vx 6–7 karxhdÒnh P1 7 lacunam indicavi; cf. Plb.; ka‹ ante tåw del. et ±fãniz (sic) post stratop°doiw ins. Ex || tåw énagka¤aw xre¤aw] tØn t«n énagka¤vn xorhg¤an Plb.; cf. ad1 p. 58, 17 7–8 t«n =vma¤vn stratop°doiw V P1: =vma¤oiw 1 P1 i.m. item V , ut vid., ut varia lectio archetypi fort. fuerti to›w =vma¤oiw stratop°doiw; malim to›w t«n ÑRvma¤vn stratop°doiw; cf. Plb. 9 d¢ malim d¢ de›; v. ad p. 55, 6 || fort. nÊkta ka‹ ≤m°ran ? || ≤m°ran Thev. Ex : ≤m°ra V P1 E 11 aÈt«n fort. aÈtØn? id hab. Ex 15–17 katalambãnvn — katalimpãnein cf. p. 54, 10–11 19 ka‹ t«n tojot«n] ¥ te t«n tojot«n P1 20 sfendonist«n P1; v. app. 15–18 cf. Polyaen. III, 9, 14, fere item Hypoth. 14, 10; Polyaen. III, 9, 3, fere item Hypoth. 32, 5; Polyaen. II, I, 4, fere item Hypoth. 45, 2 Syll. Tact. 98.2 (23, 2 Melber); Polyaen. III, 9, 2 fere item Hypoth. 45, 3, Syll. Tact. 98, 3 (23, 3 Melber); Urb.-Maur. VIII, 2 (Scheffer) . . . . kuklvye›si to›w polem¤oiw toË kÊklou m°rouw (malim m°row) éno¤jantew pãrodon efiw fugØn didÒnai to›w polem¤oiw kalÒn, ·na tÚ feÊgein toË m°nein te ka‹ kinduneÊein

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

181

ing outside the [enemy] will not easily bring in food without significant force. But if may be more able to capture horses or men. Nor will they prosecute the siege as they think best, as Hannibal did against the Romans. For when the [Romans] were besieging Acragas, after receiving allies from Carthage he < . . . 114> and the essential supplies in the camp of the Romans. And it turned out that the besiegers were besieged. ~ The leader of the army must determine a night and a day and make this known to the leader of those forces hovering outside in the mountains and at that116 [time] attack the enemy.~ Pretend that the one attacking intends to go elsewhere on another mission, and occupy the roads in advance with the most careful guards, so that no one can inform the enemy of the plans. But after reaching the camp and encircling it, it is necessary to leave the enemy a place though which escape is easy, lest, completely surrounded and despairing of safety, they resist to the death. Deploying javeliners and archers and slingers is useful for these [situations].

vdB’s suggested addition. The precise loss here is uncertain; perhaps, following Polybius, pare¤ leto tåw égorãw , “he removed the provisions”. 115 vdB’s suggested addition. 116 Accepting aÈtØn for aÈt«n. 113

114

182

61

3

6

9

12

15

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 92–97 (THEV. p. 321, 34–46)

plØn katå tåw t«n polem¤vn §piy°seiw de› katastoxãzesyai toË kairoË ka‹ t∞w Àraw ka‹ foËlka proejãgein toË kãstrou, mÆpote proaisyÒmenoi toËto ofl pol°mioi ÍpÚ g∞n ÙrÊjvsi bÒyrouw ka‹ §p‹ toÊtoiw laÚn katakrÊcantew §nedreÊsvsi ka‹ traumat¤sousi toÁw ≤met°rouw. pollãkiw går μ grammathfÒrou krathy°ntow μ kataskÒpou d≈roiw deleasy°ntow ≥ tinow aÈtomolÆsantow §jefaul¤syh tÚ bebouleum°non ka‹ kayÉ ≤m«n tÚ melethy¢n metetrãph. ka‹ diå toËto xrØ diå t«n fan«n prÚw toÁw ¶jv dhloËn tÚ ˆnoma toË éggeliafÒrou kayΔw §n t«i per‹ fan«n §dhl≈samen lÒgvi. ka‹ oÏtvw §kba¤nein efiw ¶rgon sÁn Ye«i tØn prçjin, e‡te §n ér¤stou Àrai e‡te ka‹ metå tÚ êriston e‡te ka‹ deipnopoioum°nvn t«n §xyr«n e‡te kayeudhsãntvn, ≤ nÁj ˜te és°lhnÒw §stin. diå toËto går ¶famen katastoxãzesyai toË kairoË, …w mØ m°llontew §nedreÊein §nedreuy«men ÍsterÆsantew toË kairoË, ka‹ t∞w Àraw, §peidØ §nteËyen polla‹ parapÒlluntai dunãmeiw, afl m¢n ÍsterÆsasai μ prolaboËsai tÚn …rism°non t∞w ≤m°raw kairÚn μ t∞w nuktÒw, Àsper ka‹ ÉAmbraki«tai. toË går Nikãndrou F 17—p. 62, 9 toË går—§pibol∞w : Plb. XXI, 27, 7–9 (XXII, 10, 7–9) Schw.) apud solum Anon. tradita. Sed Anon. hic quoque nonnulla omississe vidit H. Nissen, coll. Liv. XXXVIII, 5, 6–10; cf. ad p. 58, 13–19 § 136– 139; praef. p. 16

V P1

1 polem¤vn Thev.: pol°mvn V P1 4–5 traumat¤sousi E: traumat¤svsi Ex, ut vid. 5 to›w ≤met°roiw P1 || grammatifÒrou P1 7 §jefaul¤syh v. append. 11 prçjin lege tãjin || tÚ Ex Thev.: tÚn V P1E 14 ÍsterÆsantew Thev.: ÍsterÆsantow V P1 15 parapÒlluntai scr. Schw., Tom. IV p. 199 N 4, 1 tacite: 1parapÒllontai V P1 16 μ] afl d¢ malit Schw. 1.1. || …rism°non V i. m. P 1 i. m.: …rismÚn P1 »rismÚn V kr¤nvsin aflret≈teron.; Byz. Anon. Kriegsw. XXXIV, 4 feukt°on d¢ tåw diÉ ˜lou kukl≈seiw, ·na mØ tÒpon fug∞w mØ ¶xontew ofl pol°mioi fisxurÒteroi •aut«n kayÉ ≤m«n g°nointo.; ibid. XXXIX, 12 . . . . . ·nÉ ¶xoien ofl §xyro‹ tÒpon fug∞w, éllå mØ §j énãgkhw éndreiot°rouw •aut«n kay¤stasyai époroum°nouw tØn ¶jodon; Leon. Tact. XX, 28 ˜tan YeoË didÒntow pÒliw parå soË t«n polem¤vn èl¤sketai, éno¤gesyai sugx≈rei tåw pÊlaw Àste feÊgein toÁw polloÁw ka‹ mØ xvre›n efiw épÒgnvsin. tÚ aÈtÚ d¢ ka‹ fossãtou èliskom°nou t«n §xyr«n parå soË poiÆseiw: 13–17 cf. Onas. XXXIX, a; Leon. Tact. XV, 42 . . . . ·na §n kair«i Íposx°sevw Àraw μ parå prodÒtou proteinom°nhw, μ parå soË aÈtoË §pinooum°nhw, μ §n poliork¤ai, μ §n ıdoipor¤ai ésfalØw per‹ tÚ sÊnyhma toË kairoË μ tÚn ırismÚn Ípãrxhiw. tÚ går taxÊteron μ bradÊteron pollãkiw fyãnein t∞w suntag∞w μ toË ırismoË êprakton §po¤hse tÚ proke¤menon ¶rgon. 2 foËlkon—proprie ,,cuneus militum”, sed significatione cunei etiam caret e.g. Incert. script, XXII foËlka efiw fulakØn t«n te efiw sullogØn xÒrtou §jerxom°nvn ka‹ t«n toÁw ·ppouw nemÒntvn stell°syvsan.; Niceph. Phoc. Vel. p. 204, 2–4 . . . . foËlkon, tÚ efiw fulakØn t«n diaskorpizom°nvn prÚw le¤an polem¤vn Ípãrxon

92

93

94 95

96

97 (Plb. XXI, 27, 7)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

183

[61] In addition regarding [such] attacks upon the enemy it is necessary to estimate the time and the hour and to lead special escort forces117 out of the citadel in advance, lest the enemy on becoming aware of this [attack] dig foxholes 118 in the ground and by hiding troops in them be the first to ambush and wound our men. For often when either a letter carrier is overpowered or a scout enticed by bribes or someone turns traitor the plan is brought to naught and our objective is frustrated. And therefore it is necessary to make clear with torch [signals] to those outside the name of the messenger as we have set forth in the treatise On Torch [Signals]119. And so with God set the operation120 in action, whether at the lunch hour or even after lunch or even while the enemy are having dinner or sleeping, on a moonless night. For on this account we said to estimate the time lest when about to ambush we be ambushed, arriving too late for the time and hour, since many forces are thus destroyed, because they arrive too late or too early for the agreed upon time of day or night, like the Ambraciots. For when Nicander, [62] who was hovering outside and

117 tÚ foËlkon. In tenth-century usage the term refers to special units of infantry or cavalry designated to protect foraging or raiding parties; see Dagron (1986) 224 n. 18 and McGeer (1995) 71-72. 118 See the same tactic below at 62:15 where it is said to be a regular practice of the Bulgarians. 119 Martin (1854) 328 suggested this may be a reference to chapter 76 of the Kestoi of Julius Africanus (Per‹ purs«n), thus wrongly attributed to Africanus. Dain (1967) 350 plausibly comments that such references in compilers should be referred to their sources rather than to the compiler himself. One might add that Polybius (X:43-47) describes a system for signaling with torches, portions of which he indicates were his own invention. See also the comments of Whitehead (1990) 111-113 on Aineias the Tactician’s statements on fire-signaling. 120 Retaining prçjin.

184

62

(Plb. 98 XXI, 27, 8) (9) 99

100 101 102

103

104

105 106

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 97–106 ( THEV. p. 321, 46–322, 14)

§ktÚw énastrefom°nou ka‹ p°mcantow pentakos¤ouw flppe›w efiw tØn pÒlin, o„ ka‹ parabiasãmenoi tÚn metajÁ xãraka t«n polem¤vn efis°frhsan efiw tØn pÒlin, * * * paragge¤law, kayÉ ∂n §tãjanto ≤m°ran, aÈtoÁw m¢n §jelyÒntaw * * * poiÆsasyai, sunepilab°syai d¢ aÈtÚn toÊtoiw toË kindÊnou. ka‹ aÈt«n m¢n eÈcÊxvw t∞w pÒlevw §jormhsãntvn ka‹ genna¤vw égvnisam°non, toË d¢ Nikãndrou kayusterÆsantow, e‡te kataplag°ntow tÚn k¤ndunon e‡te ka‹ énagka›a | nom¤santow tå §n oÂw di°triben prãgmata, ≤ttÆyhsan t∞w §pibol∞w. toË d¢ laoË katå t«n §xyr«n §jorm«ntow, e‡te diå t«n paraport¤vn e‡te diå t«n ÍponÒmvn, §ån efis‹n §n t∞i pÒlei, Àsper ka‹ ÉIouda›oi §po¤oun: diÉ aÈt«n går §jap¤nhw §n m°soiw to›w ÑRvma¤oiw §fa¤nonto ka‹ ±mÊnonto toÊtouw énuponoÆtvw: xrØ m¢n énereunçn, mÆpote ofl §xyro‹ ¶n tisin épokrÊfoiw tÒpoiw §n°draw pareskeÊasan ka‹ bÒyrouw ÙrÊjantew §n aÈto›w laÚn kat°krucan ka‹ épat∞sai boulÒmenoi tÚ m°row §ke›no katalelo¤pasi polem¤vn xvr¤w, ˜per ¶yow §st‹n poie›n to›w Boulgãroiw. éllÉ oÈd¢ tå te¤xh periorçn de›, oÈd¢ yarre›n de› mÒnaiw ta›w profulaka›w, éllå kéke›se fÊlakaw ékribe›w ka‹ égrÊpnouw katalimpãnein ka‹ §n ta›w pÒrtaiw tojÒtaw ka‹ sfendon¤taw §fistçn ka‹ ékontiståw ka‹ kontarãtouw ka‹ sÊnyhma pçsi didÒnai, ·na ‡svw t«n ≤met°rvn sÁn divgm«i ÍpostrefÒntvn gin≈skousi m¢n toÁw fil¤ouw diå toË sunyÆmatow, toÁw d¢ §xyroÁw émÊnontai ka‹ mØ §ãsvsi to›w fil¤oiw suneiselye›n toÁw §xyroÊw. polla‹ går pÒleiw diå t∞w toiaÊthw afit¤aw Ípoxe¤rioi to›w §xyro›w , Àsper ka‹ Y∞bai. toË går ÉAlejãndrou taÊtaw poliorF 12–13 cf. Ios. I, 350 (I, XVIII, 2) diå d¢ t«n ÍponÒmvn §n m°soiw aÈto›w (scil. to›w ÑRvma¤oiw) §jap¤nhw §fa¤nonto 26—p. 63, 10 toË går—tØn n¤khn cf. Arr. I, 8, 1–5, ubi habes, quae hic valde mutata et contracta narrat Anon.

V P1

3 lac. ind. Schw. B.-W. 4 lac. ind. Schw. B.-W.; §p¤yesin to›w polem¤oiw vel tale quid excidisse vid.; idem signum atque ad p. 53, 6 supra syai posuit Ex 5 aÈt«n Schw. B.-W.: aÈto›w V P1 E aÈto‹ Ex 6 §jormisãntvn V E ı in h, ut vid., et vn in ew mutavit Ex || égvnizom°nvn P1 égvnisam°noi Ex (oi in ras.) 7 kataplag°ntow Ex Thev. B.-W.: kataplag°nta V P1 8 nom¤santow Schw. B.-W. Ex (ow in ras.): nom¤santew V P1 || prãgmata Schw., quod fort. etiam voluit Ex: pragmãtvn V P1 prãgmasin Dindorf B.-W. 9 §piboul∞w P1 11 fort. efis‹n in Œs‹n mutavit Ex; sed cf. praef. p. 37–38 18 oÈd¢ yarre›n] oÈ yarre›n P1 20 sfendon¤taw v. app. ad p. 60, 20 22 gin≈skousi in gin≈skvsi mutasse vid. Ex; sed cf. praef. p. 36–37 23 émÊnontai in émÊnvntai mutasse vid. Ex 25–26 supplevi: gegÒnasi Ex i. m., ut vid. 26 ka‹] afl P1

3

6 p. 322 Thev. 9

12

15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

185

sent five hundred cavalrymen to the city they entered the city by breaking through the intervening palisade of the enemy. < . . . > He indicated for them on a day agreed upon to proceed out and make , and that he himself would share the danger with them. But although they made a spirited sally out of the city and fought bravely, they failed in the attempt because Nicander arrived late, either because he was afraid of the danger, or because he con sidered essential the tasks on which he was engaged122. When the troops venture out against the enemy, either through the posterns or through the tunnels 123, if there are [such things] in the city, as the Jews also used to do - for through these they appeared sud denly in the midst of the Romans and due to the surprise warded them off - it is necessary to investigate lest the enemy prepare ambushes in secret places and digging foxholes hide troops in them and seeking to trick [us, seemingly] leave that sector without enemy forces, something the Bulgarians customarily do. But it is necessary not ignore the walls nor to place confidence in advanced guards alone, but to leave even there careful and vigilant guards and to station at the gates archers and slingers and javeliners and spearmen 124 and to give everyone a signal, so that if our men are perchance returning under pursuit the [guards] recognize their friends by means of the signal, but ward off the enemy and do not allow the enemy to enter along with their friends. For many cities for just this reason into enemy hands, as also did Thebes. For when Alexander was besieging it [63] and the Thebans were streaming out in force and courageously

vdB’s suggested addition. The De obsidione toleranda describes the siege of Ambracia (summer 189 BC) here and below 73:17-74:17 and 75:6-77:16. The text is in part sole witness (with additions and compressions) and in part overlaps with that in the “Excerpta de strategematis” in Parisinus, B.N., suppl. gr. 607 as witness for the source, Polybius; see Walbank (1979) 6 and 123-25. On the “Excerpta” see J. Moore, The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius (Cambridge: 1965) 134-36. They are published in C. Wescher, Poliorcétique des Grecs (Paris: 1867) 283-346 as Strathg¤ ai ka‹ poliork¤ ai diafÒrvn pÒlevn . 123 ı ÍpÒnomow. See above 50:14ff. 124 ofl kontarçtoi. On the term see Kolias (1988) 191 n. 36. 125 vdB’s addition. 121

122

186

63

3

6

9

12

15

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 106–111 (THEV. p. 322, 14–25)

koËntow ka‹ t«n Yhba¤vn §kxuy°ntvn bia¤vw ka‹ metå yrãsouw katå t«n MakedÒnvn §piyem°nvn ka‹ trecam°nvn toÁw per‹ Perd¤kan ka‹ KËnon ka‹ sfodr«w t∞i di≈jei §pikeim°nvn ka‹ tåw tãjeiw lusãntvn, §pifane‹w ÉAl°jandrow suntetagm°nvw t∞i dunãmei oÈ xalep«w §tr°cato toÊtouw kekmhkÒtaw ≥dh ka‹ §klelum°nouw ÍpÚ toË kÒpou. ka‹ sÁn to›w feÊgousi t«n Yhba¤vn katÒpin §phkolouyhkÒtew ofl MakedÒnew e‡sv toË te¤xouw §g°nonto ka‹ tØn pÒlin kat°sxon: yarroËntew går ta›w t«n parafulak«n ésfale¤aiw oÈ pollo‹ t«i te¤xei prosÆdreuon, kénteËyen ¶layon Ùje›an dÒntew to›w §nant¤oiw tØn n¤khn. paragg°llein d¢ to›w efiw tØn §p¤yesin §jioËsi t«n polem¤vn strati≈taiw, ka‹ §pit¤mion §kt¤yesyai, toË mhd°na prÚw diarpagØn skÊlvn xvre›n prÚ t∞w tele¤aw t«n §xyr«n ¥ttaw, ·na mØ lãyvsi to›w §xyro›w paradÒntew tØn n¤khn, Àsper ka‹ KarxhdÒnioi §n ÉAkrãganti. poliorkoÊmenoi går ÍpÚ ÑRvma¤vn §pe‹ §yeãsanto toÁw ÑRvma¤ouw prÚw tÚ sitologe›n tetramm°nouw, F 3–5 t∞i di≈jei—dunãmei cf. Arr. I, 8, 5 ÉAl°jandrow . . . . katid≈n, toÁw Yhba¤ouw d¢ lelukÒtaw §n t∞i di≈jei tØn tãjin, §mbãllei §w aÈtoÁw suntetagm°nhi t∞i fãlaggi 6–7 sÁn to›w—te¤xouw cf. Arr. I, 8, 5 sunesp¤ptousi går aÈto›w e‡sv toË te¤xouw 14—p. 64, 6 Àsper ka‹ KarxhdÒ nioi—par°skeuasan cf. Plb. I, 17, 9–18, 1, ubi habes, quae hic multis omissis et mutatis narrat Anon. 16 prÚw—tetramm°nouw cf. Plb. I, 17, 9 Àrmhsan . . . . prÚw tÚ sitologe›n

V P1

1 ka‹ metå] metå P1 3 debet esse Perd¤kkan; incertum utrum error Anonymo an librario attribuendus sit || kËnon V P1: Ën exp. et o› superscr. 1 P1 ut Ko›non voluisse videatur, quod fort. habuit Anon. (a librario quodam per iotacismum in KËnon mutatum), quamquam Ko›now in hac narratione apud Arr. non memoratur 4 lege suntetagm°nhi; cf. Arr. 5 dunãmei] di≈jei P 1 || kekmhkÒtaw Thev. Ex, ut vid.: kekmhkÒtew V P1 7 §pikolouyhkÒtew P1 || makedÒnaiw P1 8–9 lege profulak«n; cf. p. 62, 19 et Arr. I, 8, 5 t«n teix«n diå tåw profulakåw tåw pollåw §rÆmvn ˆntvn 11 d¢] de› P1, ut fort. scribendum sit d¢ de›; cf. ad p. 55,x 6 12 §pit¤mivn V || toË cf. p. 49, 9 13 telele¤aw V || ¥tthw Thev. E (hw in ras.), quod fort. legendum est 16 §yeãsato P1 || tetragm°nouw P1 11–14 cf. Urb.-Maur. VII, I, 14 (Vari) skuleÊein d¢ nekroÁw . . . prÚ tele¤aw §kbãsevw toË pol°mou prçgma Ùl°yrion ka‹ §pik¤ndunÒn §sti. diÚ xrØ eÈka¤rvw proparagg°llein toÁw strati≈taw, …w ka‹ §n to›w §pitim¤oiw (scil. Urb.-Maur. I, 8, 2, Leon. Tact. VIII, 20) dhloËtai, toÊtvn panto¤vw ép°xesyai. pollãkiw går ofl nikÆsantew diå toioÊtvn trÒpvn oÈ mÒnon ≤ttÆyhsan, éllå ka‹ ép≈lonto, skorp¤santew •autoÁw ka‹ ÍpÚ t«n §xyr«n aÈt«n afifnidiasy°ntew, fere item Leo, Tact. XIII, 15; Urb.-Maur. VII, II, 17, 14 (Vari) xrØ §n kair«i mãxhw prÚ §kbãsevw toË pol°mou §xyrÚn mØ skuleÊein strati≈thn ka‹ toËto pollãkiw proparagg°llein., fere item Leo, Tact. XII, 124; talia praecepta etiam inveniuntur Leon. Tact. XX, 82 et 104

107 108 109

110

111

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

187

attacking the Macedonians and routing those with Perdiccas 126 and C o e n u s127 and vigorously pursuing and breaking their ranks, Alexander appeared with his forces in good order 128 and routed them without difficulty as they were already tired and worn out with the exertion. And the Macedonians followed along behind with the fleeing Thebans, got inside the wall and captured the city. For confident in the security of their advanced guards129 few [Thebans] were keeping watch on the wall and as a result they inadvertently gave a quick victory to the enemy. Give orders to the soldiers who are going out to attack the enemy and establish a penalty in order that no one proceeds to pillaging for spoils until the enemy is completely defeated 130, lest they inadvertently surrender victory to the enemy, as the Carthaginians did at Acragas. For when they were under siege by the Romans, upon seeing the Romans engaged in foraging for grain, [64] after going out and

Accepting Perd¤ kkanfor Perd¤ kan. Accepting Ko›non for KËnon, although as vdB notes, he is not mentioned in Arrian’s text at this point; he also appears below at 93:13. 128 Accepting suntetagm° n˙ for suntetagm° nvw. 129 Accepting profulak«n for parafulak«n . 130 In addition to the parallels provided by vdB, cf. for similar concerns the Praecepta mili taria II:71-79 and IV:162-66 (in McGeer [1995]); for discussion see idem (1995) 321f. 126

127

188

64 112

113

114

115

116

117 118

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 111–118 (THEV. p. 322, 25–41)

§jelyÒntew ka‹ trecãmenoi toÊtouw eÈxer«w, §p‹ tØn diarpagØn t«n §n t«i xãraxi kexvrhkÒtew, t«n §ke›se kataleleimm°nvn fisxur«w égvnisam°nvn dietrãphsan ka‹ polloÁw t«n ofike¤vn épobalÒntew éyumÒteroi per‹ tåw §piy°seiw efiw to •j∞w §gegÒneisan, toÁw d¢ ÑRvma¤ouw fulaktik≈teron xr∞syai ta›w pronoma›w pareskeÊasan. efi d¢ ka‹ mhxanåw ofl §xyro‹ kateskeÊasan, proeutrep¤zein dçidaw ka‹ stupe›on ka‹ p¤ssan ka‹ xeiros¤fvna, ka‹ diaire›n tÚn laÚn efiw ple¤ona m°rh ka‹ êllouw m¢n tãjai per‹ tØn toË pol°mou ésxol¤an, •t°rouw d¢ per‹ tÚ §mpiprçn tåw mhxanãw. ka‹ toÊtou ginom°nou summax¤ai YeoË yrausyÆsetai m¢n tå fronÆmata t«n Ípenant¤vn ka‹ épogn≈sontai toË •le›n tØn pÒlin, énayarrÆsousin d¢ ofl §ntÚw ka‹ yarsale≈teroi genÆsontai. t«n d¢ §xyr«n §pikeim°nvn ka‹ mhdam«w luÒntvn tØn poliork¤an, efi m¢n éjiÒlogow dÊnamiw ≤met°ra §pisunaxy∞nai, dedÊnhtai, xvre›n katÉ aÈt«n ka‹ dhmÒsion pÒlemon sugkrote›n, plØn mhd¢ t∞w polem¤aw x≈raw ép°xesyai. émfÒtera går lusitele› poie›n, ka‹ tÚ tØn x≈ran t«n Ípenant¤vn fye¤rein ka‹ dfi aÈt∞w pollãkiw lÊein tØn poliork¤an, ka‹ tÚ mØ §çn aÈtoÊw, …w boÊlontai, xr∞syai t∞i poliork¤ai. μ går front¤zontew t∞w ofike¤aw panstrat‹ énazeÊjousin μ dielÒntew tØn dÊnamin §jadunatÆsousi per‹ tå ˜la. efi går ka‹ énagka›a strathgÆmata taËta, ka‹ pollØn F 1–2 §jelyÒntew—kexvrhkÒtew cf. Plb. I, 17, 10 §jelyÒntew §p°yento to›w sitologoËsin. trecãmenoi d¢ toÊtouw =aid¤vw ofl m¢n §p‹ tØn toË xãrakow èrpagØn Àrmhsan 3–4 polloÁw—épobalÒntew cf. Plb. I, 17, 12 polloÁw m¢n t«n fid¤vn ép°balon (scil. ofl ÑRvma›oi) 4–6 éyumÒteroi—pareskeÊasan cf. Plb. I, 18, 1 metå d¢ taËta sun°bh toÁw m¢n Karhdon¤ouw eÈlab°steron diake›syai prÚw tåw §piy°seiw, toÁw d¢ ÑRvma¤ouw fulaktik≈teron xr∞syai ta›w pronoma›w.

V P1

2–4 mentio cladis et fugae Carthaginiensium (cf. Plb.) desideratur, ut aliquid excidisse videatur; an §trãphsan pro dietrãphsan? 4 épobãllontew P1 4–5 §gegÒnhsan P1 7 proeutrep¤zhn V 11 malim toÊtvn ginom°nvn, ut pertineat haec sententia ad omnia praecepta, quae antecedunt 13 énayarrsÆsousin V; cf. praef. p. 35–36 16 ka‹ dhmÒsion] mØ dhmÒsion P1 17 poi∞n V 18 aÈt∞w an aÈtoË? 20 ofik¤aw P1 22 efi går ka‹ v. ad p. 52, 21 || énagka› P1 14–20 cf. Urb.-Maur. X, 2, quod caput inscribitur p«w de› èrmÒzesyai polem¤vn, …w efikÒw, §n t∞i ≤met°rai x≈rai efisballÒntvn, (Scheffer) . . . . xrØ §ån ı tÒpow ka‹ ≤ y°siw t∞w t«n §nant¤vn x≈raw §pithde¤a §st¤, diÉ •t°rou tÒpou mçllon §pithdeÊein p°mpein stratÚn §n aÈt∞i, ·na §k toÊtou perispãshi toÁw §xyroÊw, item Müller Kriegswesen, p. 128, 19–22, fere item Leo, Tact, XVII, 81.

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

189

easily routing them, they proceeded to pillage the contents of their camp, but when the [Romans] who were left there strongly opposed them, they were defeated, lost many of their own men, and became less courageous about future attacks, while they caused the Romans to become more guarded in their foraging. If the enemy construct machines, prepare in advance pine torches and tow and pitch and cheirosiphona131 and divide the troops into more sections and assign some to the task of fighting and others to burning the machines. And if this is done with God’s help the spirits of the enemy will be broken and they will despair of taking the city, but those within will take heart and become more courageous. When the enemy are pressing and in no way lifting the siege, if we can collect a significant force, proceed against them and wage a pitched battle132, but do not leave the enemy’s territory untouched. For it is beneficial to do both, destroying the territory of the enemy and thereby oftentimes lifting the siege, and not allowing them to prosecute the siege as they wish. For they will either become anxious for their [own] land and break camp with their whole army or will divide their force and be ineffective in all respects. For if these stratagems are effective, they will cause great [65] despair both to the enemy and

131 tÚ xeiros¤ fvnon. On the recent development of this device, cf. Leo VI, Taktika XIX:57: xeiros¤ fvna l° getai, parå t∞w ≤m«n basile¤ aw êrti kateskeuasm° na . It was most probably a handheld version of the stationary tube and pump for projecting liquid fire, but perhaps a hand-hurled firepot; see Haldon (2000) 278-80. For an illustration in ms. Vat. Gr. 1605 folio 36 and the related description in that text as metå strept«n § gxeirid¤ vn purobÒlvnsee the so-called “Heron of Byzantium”, Parangelmata poliorcetica 49:20 (in Sullivan [2000]) with fig. 22. 132 ı dhmÒsiow pÒlemow (a “pitched battle”). Cf. below 67:19 and Maurice, Strategikon XI:1:16 and 20, etc. with the translation of Dennis (1984) 115 and Theophanes, Chronographia 452:7.

190

65

3

6

9

12

p .3 2 3T h e v. 15

18

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 118–124 (THEV. p. 322, 41–323, 4)

éyum¤an to›w Ípenant¤oiw §kpoioËntai ka‹ mãlista to›w katå tØn x≈ran nom¤zousin §jhtthy∞nai tåw §n t∞i polem¤ai dunãmeiw. éllÉ oÔn polloÁw pollãkiw ¶sfhlen, Àsper ka‹ ÉAn¤ban tÚn t«n Karxhdon¤vn strathgÒn, tØn x≈ran t«n ÑRvma¤vn dhi≈santa ka‹ tØn poliork¤an lËsai mØ dunhy°nta, éllå ka‹ tØn pÒlin parapol°santa. t«n går ÑRvma¤vn poliorkoÊntvn tØn ÍpÒforon oÔsan aÈt«n pÒlin KapÊhn ka‹ xãraki ka‹ tãfrvi tØn stratopede¤an Ùxurvsam°nvn ka‹ tå kÊklvi t∞w pÒlevw, Àste mØ peripese›n §ntÚw dÊnamin, prosbalΔn otow t«i t«n polem¤vn xãraki §p‹ dÊo ka‹ tris‹n ≤m°raiw ka‹ épokrouaye¤w, tå purå kaiÒmena katalipΔn ka‹ to›w ¶ndon shmãnaw tå bebouleum°na, …w ín mØ épognÒntew d≈sousi tØn pÒlin, nuktÚw §p‹ tØn ÑR≈mhn an°zeuje. katadramΔn d¢ tØn x≈ran ka‹ afixmalvt¤saw aÈtÆn, §pe‹ katå tÊxhn katÉ §ke›non tÚn kairÚn tåw éyroisye¤saw dunãmeiw sun°bainen efiw tØn ÑR≈mhn éf›xyai, ±stÒ | xhsen t∞w §piÖ ixeto prÚw tØn fid¤an. t«n d¢ bol∞w, tØn d¢ le¤an énalabΔn v ÑRvma¤vn §pimeinãntvn t∞i poliork¤ai ka‹ t«n KapÊvn épegnvkÒtvn to›w prãgmasin, …w pãshw bohye¤aw §rhmvy°ntvn, •ãlv ≤ KapÊh ka‹ toÊtoiw Ípoxe¤riow g°gone. éllå ka‹ ÉEpamin≈ndaw ı Yhba›ow paragenÒmenow efiw T°gean F 13–19 Àsper ka‹ ÉAn¤ban—g°gone cf. Plb. IX, 3, 1–4; 4, 6–7, 10, in Excerptis Antiquis servata, ubi habes, quae hic valde mutata et contracta narrat Anon. 4 tØn x≈ran—dhi≈santa cf. Plb. IX, 6, 8 tØn d¢ x≈ran §dÆioun 5 tØn poliork¤an—dunhy°nta cf. Plb. IX, 4, 6 sullogizÒmenow ÉAnn¤baw édÊnaton Ípãrxon tÚ . . . . lËsai tØn poliork¤an 10–11 tå purå—katalipΔn cf. Plb. IX, 5, 7 katalipΔn tå purå kaiÒmena 14–15 katÉ §ke›non—éf›xyai cf. Plb. IX, 6, 7 sun°bh pl∞yow éndr«n aÈtomãtvw èyroisy∞nai prÚw tÚn d°onta kairÚn efiw tØn ÑR≈mhn 15–16 ±stÒxhsen t∞w §pibol∞w cf. Plb. IX, 6, 8 t∞w . . . §pibol∞w ép°sthsan 17 §pimeinãntvn t∞i poliork¤ai cf. Plb. IX, 7, 7 m°nein §p‹ t∞w poliork¤aw 19 ≤ KapÊh— g°gone cf. Plb. IX, 26, 2, in Exc. Valesianis servatum, gen°syai tØn KapÊhn to›w ÑRvma¤oiw Ípoxe¤rion 20—p. 67, 6 ÉEpamin≈ndaw—ÉEpamin≈ndan: Plb. IX, 8, 2–13, in Excerptis Antiquis servata, kayãper går ÉEpamin≈ndan tÚn Yhba›on yaumãzousi pãntew, diÒti paragenÒmenow efiw Teg°an k. t. l.

3 ¶sfhlen scripsi: ¶sfhllen V P1 || ÉAn¤ban v. ad p. 52, 21 4 KarxhV P1 d [Polybii don¤vn Thev.: karxh V karxhdÒnvn P1 6 parapol°sonta V 7 aÈt«n Excerpta malim aÍto›w 8 Ùxurvsam°nvn Thev.: »xurvsam°nvn V P1; cf. ad p. 67, Antiqua] 10–11 9 peripese›n exspectaveris parapese›n, quod hab. Plb. IX, 3, 4, sed cf. p. 66, 11 12 épogn«ntew P1 17 debet esse Kapuan«n, sed incertum utrum error librario attribuendus sit an Anonymo 18 malim t«n pragmãtvn; cf. p. 52, 20 || §rhmvy°ntvn Thev. Ex (tvn in ras.): §rhmvy°ntew V P1 20 t°gean V P1: Teg°an B.-W., sed veri simile est Anon. scripsisse T°gean, quae forma saepius in codd. invenitur (cf. Pape s.v.); T°gean h. l. etiam scribunt Hultsch, tacite, et Schw. ,,cum msstis”

119

120

121

122

123

124 (Plb. IX, 8, 2)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

191

especially to those in their homeland who think their forces in hostile territory have been defeated. But then this has often ruined many, as for example Hannibal the Carthaginian general who ravaged the territory of the Romans and was not able to break the siege, but even destroyed the city. For when the Romans were besieging the city of Capua, their tributary state, and had fortified their camp and the area around the city with a palisade and a ditch, so that no force could steal in, [Hannibal] attacked the palisade of the enemy, fought for two or three days and was beaten back; leaving his fires burning and signaling his plans 133 to those inside lest they would surrender the city in despair, by night he decamped for Rome. Although he ravaged and subjected the land, he failed in his attempt, since by chance at that time the forces [recently] gathered happened to arrive at Rome,134 and taking his booty Hannibal returned to his own territory. As the Romans persisted in the siege and the Capuans despaired at the situation, since they were bereft of assistance, Capua was taken and came under [Roman] control. Moreover Epaminondas of Thebes when he reached Tegea [66]

133 134

Through a letter carrier (grammatofÒrow); Polybius IX:5.1. A new legion had just been enrolled and a second was in process; Polybius IX:6:7.

192

66

(Plb. 125 IX, 8, 3) (4) 126 (5) 127

(6) 128

(7) 129 (8) 130 (9) 131

(10) 132 (11) 133 (12) 134

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 124–134 ( THEV. p. 323, 4–22)

metå t«n summãxvn ka‹ yevrÆsaw toÁw Lakedaimon¤ouw pandhme‹ paragegonÒtaw efiw Mant¤neian metå t«n summãxvn, …w paratajam°nouw to›w Yhba¤oiw, deipnopoiÆsasyai to›w aÍtoË kayÉ Àran paragge¤law §j∞ge tØn dÊnamin êrti t∞w nuktÚw §piginom°nhw, …w t∞w paratãjevw xãrin speÊdvn eÈka¤rouw tinåw prokatalab°syai tÒpouw, toiaÊthn d¢ to›w pollo›w dÒjan §rgasãmenow pros∞ge, poioÊmenow tØn pore¤an §pÉ aÈtØn tØn Lakeda¤mona, prosm¤jaw per‹ tr¤thn Àran t∞i pÒlei paradÒjvw ka‹ katalabΔn tØn Spãrthn ¶rhmon t«n bohyhsÒntvn, m°xri m¢n égorçw §biãsato ka‹ kat°sxe t∞w pÒlevw toÁw §p‹ tÚn potamÚn §stramm°nouw tÒpouw. aÈtomÒlou d° tinow tØn nÊkta peripesÒntow efiw tØn Mant¤neian ka‹ diasafÆsantow tÚ sumba›non ÉAghsilãvi t«i basile›, ka‹ t«n bohyoÊntvn paragenom°nvn efiw tÚn t∞w katalÆcevw kairÒn, taÊthw m¢n t∞w §pibol∞w ép°sth, éristopoihsãmenow d¢ ka‹ prosanalabΔn tØn dÊnamin §k t∞w kakopaye¤aw, Àrma pãlin §j Ípostrof∞w tØn aÈtØn ıdÒn, sullogizÒmenow ˜ti sumbÆsetai ¶rhmon pãlin katale¤pesyai tØn Mant¤neian: ˘ ka‹ sun°bh gen°syai. diÚ parakal°saw toÁw Yhba¤ouw ka‹ xrhsãmenow §nerg«i t∞i nuktopor¤ai par∞n ka‹ pros°misge t∞i Mantine¤ai per‹ m°son ≤m°raw, §rÆmvi tele¤vw ÍparxoÊshi t«n bohyhsÒntvn. ofl dÉ ÉAyhna›oi katå tÚn aÈtÚn kairÚn spoudãzontew metasxe›n toË prÚw toÁw Yhba¤ouw ég«now to›w Lakedaimon¤oiw katå tØn summax¤an par∞san. ≥dh d¢ t∞w Yhba¤vn prvtopor¤aw sunaptoÊshw Àsper §p¤thdew sunekÊrhsen ëma ka‹ toÁw ÉAyhna¤ouw §pifa¤nesyai katå tÚn Mantine¤aw Íperke¤menon lÒfon: efiw oÓw

1 Lakedaimon¤ouw] Lakedaimon¤ouw aÈtoÊw te Plb. 2 metå t«n summãV P1 Polybii xvn] ka‹ toÁw summãxouw efiw taÊthn ≤yroikÒtaw tØn pÒlin Plb. 2–3 paExcerpta ratajam°nouw Plb. FS: paratajam°noiw V P1 E, ut vid., paratajom°nouw UrAntiqua sinus B.-W. Ex 3 aÈtoË V P1 Schw., tacite 6 §nergasãmenow Plb. e || pros∞ge V P1 Plb. FS: pro∞ge Reiske B.-W. 7 lak V lakedaimon¤an P1 8 om. V P1 11 aÈtomÒlou d° tinow] genom°nhw d¢ peripete¤aw, ka¤ tinow aÈtomÒlou Plb. || nÊktan P1 || peripesÒntow] diapesÒntow Plb., sed cf. p. 65, 9 12 ka‹ V P1 Plb. D i.m. B.-W.: oË Plb. F oÈ Plb. S 12–13 tÚ— basile›] ÉAghsilãvi t«i basile› tÚ sumba›non Plb. 14 §pibol∞w ép°sth] §lp¤dow épesfãlh Plb. 14–15 éristopoihsãmenow d¢] metå d¢ taËta per‹ tÚn EÈr≈tan éristopoihsãmenow Plb. 15 §k t∞w] §ktÚw V P1 17 post sumbÆsetai hab. t«n Lakedaimon¤vn ka‹ t«n summãxvn parabebohyhkÒtvn efiw tØn Spãrthn Plb. 18 diÚ] diÚ ka‹ P1 || parekal°saw V || xrhsam°nou V P1 19 nuktopore¤ai Plb.; cf. v. 23 20 tel°vw Plb. 21 oÂa pro ofl dÉ é P1 || autÚn kairÚn] kairÚn toËton Plb. 23 prvtopor¤aw V P1 s Plb. F: prvtopore¤aw Plb. S B.-W. 24 post sunaptoÊshw hab. prÚw tÚ toË Poseid«now flerÒn, ˘ ke›tai prÚ t∞w pÒlevw §n •ptå stad¤oiw Plb. || sunekÆrusen V P1 25 Mantine¤aw] t∞w Mantine¤aw Plb.

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

193

with his allies and saw that the Lacedaemonians and their allies had reached Mantinea in full strength intending to engage the Thebans in battle, ordered his men to take their supper at that hour and just as night was falling he led his force out as if he were eager to occupy in advance favorable terrain for the battle. Having created this expecta tion for most [observers], he advanced marching on Sparta itself, and arriving unexpectedly at the city about the third hour and finding it without defenders forced his way as far as the market place and took control of those parts of the city facing the river. But a deserter slipped away during the night to Mantinea and informed king Agesilaus of what happened and when the [Spartans] arrived to help just as [the city] was being taken, [Epaminondas] abandoned this attempt. After allowing his forces to take breakfast and recover from their strenuous efforts, he hastened back in the opposite direction again by the same road, concluding that Mantinea would in turn be left without defenders, which was indeed the situation. Exhorting the Thebans, therefore, and marching energetically all night, about mid day he reached Mantinea, which was completely without defenders. But at the same time the Athenians, who were eager to take part in the battle against the Thebans, arrived to help the Lacedaimonians in accordance with their alliance. So just as the initial column of the Thebans arrived, the Athenians happened as if it were planned to appear simultaneously on the hill above Mantinea. [67] When the

194

67

3

6

9

12

15

18

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 134–140 (THEV. p. 323, 22–34)

§mbl°cantew ofl kataleleimm°noi t«n Mantin°vn mÒliw §yãrshsan §pib∞nai toË te¤xouw ka‹ kvlËsai tØn t«n Yhba¤vn ¶fodon. {ka‹} t«i m¢n ≤gemÒni peprçxyai pçn ˜son égay«i strathg«i, ka‹ t«n m¢n Ípenant¤vn kre¤ttv, t∞w d¢ tÊxhw gegon°nai tÚn ÉEpamin≈ndan Àsper oÔn ka‹ ÉAn¤ban. éllå ka‹ PÒpliow ı t«n ÑRvma¤vn strathgÚw ka‹ Dvr¤maxow ı t«n Afitvl«n, toË Fil¤ppou poliorkoËntow tØn t«n ÉExinai«n pÒlin, ka‹ tå prÚw tÚ te›xow kal«w ésfalisam°nou ka‹ tå prÚw tØn §ktÚw §pifãneian toË stratop°dou tãfrvi ka‹ te¤xei Ùxurvsam°nou, paragenÒmenoi aÈto¤, ı m¢n PÒpliow stÒlvi, ı d¢ Dvr¤maxow pezik∞i ka‹ flppik∞i dunãmei, ka‹ prosbalÒntew t«i xãraki ka‹ épokrousy°ntew, toË Fil¤ppou mçllon fisxur«w égvnisam°nou, épelp¤santew ofl ÉExinae›w par°dosan •autoÁw t«i Fil¤ppvi. oÈ går oÂo¤ te ∑san ofl per‹ tÚn Dvr¤maxon t∞i t«n dapanhmãtvn §nde¤ai énagkãzein tÚn F¤lippon, §k yalãsshw taËta porizÒmenon. efi d¢ ka‹ toÊtvn ginom°nvn m°nousin ofl §xyro‹ §xÒmenoi t∞w poliork¤aw, ka‹ oÈd¢ dhmÒsion pÒlemon dunatÚn sugkrote›syai katÉ aÈt«n, éllÉ oÈd¢ nuktÚw §piy°syai, tuxÚn kal«w •autoÁw F 6 ÉEpamin≈ndan des. Plb. 7–17 PÒpliow—porizÒmenon: Plb. IX, 42, 1–4 apud solum Anon. tradita. Sed haec quoque Anon. contraxisse et mutasse videtur; cf. Hultsch et B.-W. ad locum et ad p. 58, 13–19; moneo Anon. in iis exemplis, quae suis verbis narravit, et in initio narrationum, quas descripsit, saepe genitivis absolutis usum esse; cf. p. 50, 11–12 et 17–20; p. 51, 1–2; p. 52, 8–9; p. 58, 13; p. 60, 5–6; p. 61, 17–62, 8; p. 62, 26–63, 4; p. 71, 2–5; § 200–201; § 245

1 §yãrrhsan Plb. 3–4 om. V P1 4 {ka‹} delevi; V P1 [Polybii non hab. Plb. 5 t∞w] t«n V P1 E ¥ttv Ex 6 om. V P1 || tÚn Excerpta ÉEpamin≈ndan V Ursinus B.-W.: tÚn §pamin≈nda P1 tÚn §pamein≈ndan Antiqua] Plb. D i . m . t«n §pamin≈ndvn Plb.F t«n §pamein≈ndou Plb.S || ÉAn¤ban v. ad p. 52, 21 8 ÉExinai«n Dindorf B.-W.: §xina¤vn V P1; nomen terminatur syllaba -eÊw; cf. v. 14 10–11 Ùxurvsam°nou Casaub. B.-W.: »xurvsam°nou V P1 11 aÈto¤ ,,possis aÈtoË vel aÈt«i suspicari” (Schw., Tom. VI, p. 569), sed aÈto¤ repetit subiectum ante ı m¢n . . . ı d¢ 12 prosballÒntew P1 13–14 lac. ante toË Fil¤ppou ind. Schw.; possis etiam lac. indicare post égvnisam°nou, sed veri simile videtur Anon. post toË—égvnisam°nou structuram verborum neglegenter mutasse; anacolouthon hab. etiam p. 54, 12–55, 2 14 ÉExinae›w] éxinee›w Thev., unde ÉExinaie›w Schw. B.-W., sed §xinae›w hab. etiam Plb. FD IX, 41, 11 o 16 énagkãzein Casaubonus B.-W.: énagkãsein V P1 19 dhmÒsion scripsi: d∞m V d∞mow P1; cf. p. 64, 16

135 (13)

136 (Plb. IX, 42, 1)

137 (2)

138 (3) 139 (4)

140

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

195

Mantineans who had remained saw them, they barely summoned the courage to mount the wall and ward off the assault of the Thebans. the commander did all that a good gener al ought, and Epaminondas here bested his enemies but was by fortune 135, as likewise was Hannibal. But also Publius, the Roman general, and Dorimachus, the general of the Aetolians, arrived in person, when Philip was besieging the city of the Echinaeans and had both well secured his position opposite the [city’s] wall and fortified his camp on the outer side with a ditch and wall, Publius with a fleet and Dorimachus with infantry and cavalry forces. When they attacked the entrenched camp and were driven off, as Philip fought more vigorously, the Echinaeans despaired and surrendered themselves to Philip. For Dorimachus’ men were unable to pressure Philip [to depart] from lack of provisions 136, as he obtained these by sea137. But if, the situation being such, the enemy continues to maintain the siege, and it is not possible to wage a pitched battle against them, but neither to attack by night, as perchance they have secured their position well, [68] then it is necessary not to ignore those [of the

135 The battle of Mantinea, 362 BC; on the comparison of Hannibal and Epaminondas (the march on Rome and return south vs. the march on Sparta and quick return to Mantinea) see Walbank (1967) 127-30. 136 Walbank (1967) 185 notes that the Greek here, tå dapanÆmata, in classical usage should mean “costs” and that the term as “supplies” may be due to the Anon. rather than to Polybius. See also the use of dapãnh above at 45:16 and vdB’s note. 137 vdB notes that the paragraph, assigned as Polybius IX:42, is only preserved in the De obsidione toleranda, but with compression and changes from the original text of Polybius. Walbank (1967) 14 comments “the fragment from the Anonymous is much deformed by the epitamator of P[olybius].”

196

68 141

142

143

144 145

146

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 140–146 ( THEV. p. 323, 34–48)

ésfalizom°nvn, t°vw oÈ xrØ t«n per‹ tåw dapãnaw ésxoloum°nvn émele›n, éllå * * * ka‹ diå t«n sunex«n §piy°sevn efiw émhxan¤an §mbãllein, ˘ ka‹ mãlista t«n énagkaiotãtvn §st¤n. efi d¢ summax¤aw t∞w ¶jvyen épor¤a pãntoyen e‡h, ka‹ ofl §xyro‹ §mmel«w xr«ntai ta›w mhxana›w §k diadox∞w épaÊstvw maxÒmenoi ka‹ oÈd¢ dunatÒn §stin §pit¤yesyai katÉ aÈt«n katå tåw ≤m°raw μ ka‹ tåw nÊktaw, μ diÉ ésy°neian t«n ¶ndon μ diÉ ésfãleian t«n §xyr«n, …w énvt°rv ¶famen, tÒte dØ efi m¢n dunatÚn e‡h ka‹ t«i t«n ¶ndon proest«ti, §k diadox∞w énapaÊein maxom°nouw pãntaw, ·nÉ §rrvmen°steron éntilambãnvtai toË pol°mou, efi d¢ mØ pãntaw, éllÉ oÔn toÁw ple¤v maxesam°nouw, † …w ín near≈teroi ta›w cuxa›w ka‹ to›w s≈masi ginÒmenoi toÁw prokekmhkÒtaw t«n •ta¤rvn proyumot°rouw §rgãzvntai. † pollãkiw går katå tØn t«n strathgik«n §pistÆmhn, §j •nÚw m¢n m°rouw * * * stÆsantew ofl pol°mioi, §k toË •t°rou d¢ kl¤makaw y°menoi, pleiÒnvw moxy∞sai toÁw §fest«taw §pÉ §ke›no tÚ m°row, §n œi tåw kl¤makaw §t¤yesan, kathnãgkasan ka‹ xrØ éme¤bein tØn tãjin. efi m¢n oÔn, ˜per épeÊxomai, sumb∞i kataxvsy∞nai tåw tãfrouw, ka‹ krioÁw prosãgoien katÉ §ke›no tÚ m°row, ßterou m¢n te›xow §piskeuãzein: oÈd¢ går ¶sti ti tÚ ént°xon prÚw tØn toË F 20 krioÁw prosãgoien cf. Ios. III, 213 prosãgein . . . tÚn kriÒn; 220 et 235 pros∞gon . . . . tÚn kriÚn 21—p. 69, 1 cf. Ios. III, 217, ubi post krioË descriptionem pergit ka‹ oÈde‹w oÏtvw karterÚw pÊrgow μ per¤bolow platÊw, ˘w kín tåw pr≈taw plhgåw §n°gkhi kat¤sxusen t∞w §pimon∞w.

V P1

2 lac. indicavi; §jÒdouw katÉ aÈt«n poie›syai vel tale quid excidisse videtur 8 énvt°rv cf. p. 58, 3–10; p. 67, 20–68, 1 9 énapaÊein Thev.: énapaÊei addito signo corruptelae i.m. V P1 10 §rrvmen°steron Thev.: §rroumen ßteron V §roËmen ßteron P1 12 fort. genÒmenoi toÁw vel tale quid? 13 •ta¤rvn] •t°rvn P1 || proyumvt°rouw P1 15 lac. indicavi 19 tåw] toÁw P1 21 §piskeuãzein v. ad p. 73, 6 1–3 cf. Urb-Maur. X, 2, 2, Müller Kriegswesen p. 128, 27–30, Leon. Probl. X, 9 (ad p. 59, 1–5) 5–6 cf. Philon. ,,V” p. 98, 45–47 in praeceptis de urbe obsidenda ka‹ poioË tØn prosbolØn §k diadox∞w t«n strativt«n mhy°na paralip≈n 9–10 cf. Aen. Tact. XXXVIII, 1; Syll Tact. 53, quod caput inscribitur t¤ xrØ poi∞sai poliorkoÊmenon tÚn strathgÒn, 2 diÉ éllag¤vn toÊw te nÊktvr ka‹ meyÉ ≤m°ran polemoËntaw dianapaÊein

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

197

enemy] busy foraging for provisions, but and through continuous attacks to render them helpless, which is really most essential. If there is no allied aid from anywhere outside, and the enemy are effectively employing machines fighting continuously in relays and it is not possible to attack them day or night, either because of the weakness of those within or the security of the enemy, as we said above, then indeed if it should be possible the leader of those within should also give all his fighters rest breaks in relays, in order that they may take a more vigorous part in the battle, but if not all of them, then at least those bearing the brunt of fighting, ~ so that becoming more refreshed in spirit and body render their comrades who are tired more eager.~ For often according to the science of generalship, the enemy set up < . . . 140> in one sector, but put up ladders in another sector, [and] they compel those positioned at that sector in which they put up the ladders to endure the greater burden and it is necessary to have the troops exchange place. And if it happens - and I pray it does not - that the ditches are filled in and they bring up the rams at that point, build an additional wall; for there is nothing which can stand against the [69] momentum

vdB’s suggested addition. vdB’s suggested addition. 140 The missing object may have been mhxanãw (“siege machines”) and the stratagem referred to that found at Leo VI, Taktika XV:19, where ladders are used where the defenders leave some sections unguarded to respond to the attack of other engines. Cf. also Onasander XLII:4 (in Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander , with an English translation by members of the Illinois Greek Club [New York: 1923] 342–526). 138

139

198

69

3 324 Thev. 6

9

12

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 146–151 (THEV. p. 323, 48–324, 5)

krioË forãn, sof¤zesyai d¢ prÚw tØn b¤an toË mhxanÆmatow oÈ mÒnon ˜per ÉI≈shpow §petÆdeusen, éllå ka‹ ßteroi t«n palai«n: sãkkouw går éxÊrou gem¤santaw, plØn bebregm°nou diå tÚ mØ Ípanãptesyai eÈxer«w, §k°leusen xalçn, kayÉ ˘ ferÒmenon ée‹ tÚn kriÚn •≈rvn, † …w plançsyai te tØn | §mbolØn dexom°nhn tåw plhgåw t∞i èpalÒthti, † …w mhd¢n katå éntitup¤an blãptesyai † ka‹ fãbata bebregm°nouw sãkkouw ßteroi ka‹ † xe›raw sidhrçw, êlloi d¢ sxoin¤a, xalãsantew éne¤lkusan tØn dokÒn: éllå ka‹ l¤youw bare›w §pafi°nai katå toË krioË. efi d¢ ka‹ drepãnia sof¤sainto ka‹ kontoÁw prÚw tÚ épot°mnein toÁw sãkkouw, xrØ tÒte pur‹ §nerg«i prÚw êmunan toË mhxanÆmatow kexr∞syai, œitini ka‹ ofl per‹ tÚn ÉI≈shpon §xrÆsanto, ka¤per F 1 p. 73, 16 sof¤zesyai—§pej°yeon cf. Ios. III, 222–287 (III, VII, 20– 30), e quibus multis omissis et mutatis sumpta sunt, quae hic de Iudaeis narrantur 1 sof¤zesyai—mhxanÆmatow cf. Ios. III, 222 ı ÉI≈shpow . . . . . sof¤zetai katÉ Ùl¤gon tØn b¤an toË mhxanÆmatow (katå mikrÚn L prÚw Ùl¤gon MVRC) 3–6 sãkkouw—èpalÒthti cf. Ios. III, 223 sãkkouw éxÊrvn plhr≈santaw §k°leusen kayimçn kayÉ ˘ ferÒmenon ée‹ tÚn kriÚn ır«ien, …w plãzoitÒ te ≤ §mbolÆ, ka‹ dexÒmenoi tåw plhgåw §kkeno›en t∞i xaunÒthti (dexom°nh PAVRC, unde dexom°nhi Destinon ,,ut eo modo scilicet ictus erraret aut etiam excepta vulnera laxata frustraretur” Lat. ,,ut laxo saccorum sinu elusa plaga omnis arietis emolliretur” Heg.) 6–7 …w—: Ios. III, 224 in fine 9–11 efi—sãkkouw cf. Ios. III, 225 ßvw éntepinoÆsantew kontoÁw ofl ÑRvma›oi makroÁw ka‹ dr°pana dÆsantew §pÉ êkrvn toÁw sãkouw ép°temnon. (sãkkouw AMLVRC) 11–p. 70, 2 xrØ— mhxanãw cf. Ios. III, 226–227 §nergoËw d¢ oÏtv t∞w •lepÒlevw genom°nhw . . . . . §p‹ tØn §k purÚw êmunan ofl per‹ ÉI≈shpon Àrmhsan. (227) ècãmenoi d¢ ˜son aÎhw eÂxon Ïlhw trixÒyen §peky°ousin, ka‹ tã te mhxanÆmata ka‹ tå g°rra ka‹ tå x≈mata t«n ÑRvma¤vn Ípep¤mprasan. (§nergoÁs PA §nergoË LVRC.)

V P1 2 ållå deleatur, ut oÈ mÒnon pertineat ad éllå ka‹ v. 9? 3 éxÊrou] [Ios.] éxÊrvn Ios.; Anon. hab. êxuron etiam p. 49, 2; p. 53, 4. éxÊrvn p. 53, 1 ex Plb. descripsit 5–6 perspicua non sunt et rationem sanandi non video; suspicor codicem, quo usus est Anon., habuisse dexom°nh ut Ios. PAVRC, ut Anon. ipse locum non intellegeret 6 katÉ Ios. || éntitÊpeian P1 7 om. V P1 || cf. Du Cange s.v. fãba ,,fãbata bebregm°na apud Anonymum ms. de tuenda urbe obsessa”, et vero participium cum voce fãbata coniungendum videtur, ut fortasse scribendum sit ka‹ fabãtvn bebregm°nvn sãkkouw ßteroi: ka‹ xe›raw; an vox ßteroi coniungenda cum iis, quae sequuntur? 12 §xrÆsanto Thev. i.m.: t xrÆsan V P1 3–9 cf. Aen Tact. XXXII, 3–5 p. 48, 4–5)

9 cf. Philon. ,,V” p. 91, 34–35 (ad

147 148

149 150. 151

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

199

of the ram. Deal cleverly with the force of the machine as not only Josephus managed to do, but also others of the ancients. He ordered that sacks filled with chaff - but wet 141 chaff so it cannot be easily set on fire from below - be lowered at the place where they saw the ram being constantly thrust ~ so as to deflect the attack with the soft [material] absorbing 142 the blows ~ so that was undamaged due to the resistance. ~ And others sacks with wet beans and ~ [some] lower grappling irons 144, others ropes to draw up the [ram-]beam. But also drop heavy stones on the ram. But if they also devise pruning knives on poles to cut the sacks, then it is necessary to employ effective145 fire to ward off the machine, as Josephus’men did,

141 The comment is not in Josephus. Cf. Athenaeus Mechanicus, Per‹ mhxanhmãtvn 18:17 (ed. C. Wescher, Poliorcétique des Grecs [Paris: 1867] 3–40) who recommends chaff soaked with vinegar for the same purpose; see also the comments of the so-called “Heron of Byzantium” Parangelmata poliorcetica 39:31-34 (in Sullivan [2000]) who repeats Athenaeus Mechanicus’s recommendation. 142 Accepting dexom° n˙ for dexom° nhn, although the passage is perhaps beyond repair. 143 vdB’s suggested addition. 144 See above n. 30. 145 The meaning of § nergÒw here is difficult, and complicated by its repetition just below where vdB’s suggestion of ÍgrÒw seems necessary. As the contrast appears to be between standard types of fire as opposed to new 10th-century methods, the sense is perhaps “actual”, “real”.

200

70

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 151–155 ( THEV. p. 324, 6–15)

époroËntew sif≈nvn ka‹ purÚw §nergoË: Ípeky°ontew går diå tri«n §nep¤prasan tåw mhxanãw . l°getai d¢ ka‹ ÉEleãzaron Ípermeg°yh p°tran érãmenon §pafe›nai katå toË krioË ka‹ éporrãjai tØn toË mhxanÆmatow kefalØn ka‹ phdÆsanta §k m°svn t«n polem¤vn labe›n aÈtØn ka‹ §t‹ toË te¤xouw éry∞nai ka‹ p°nte 153 b°lesi peripar∞nai. ka¤toi t«n ÑRvma¤vn rjÄ Ùrgãnoiw katapeltiko›w tuptÒntvn toÁw §p‹ t«n §pãljevn ka‹ suxno›w b°lesin, ¥ te t«n Ùjubel«n b¤a polloÁw diÆlaune, ka‹ t«n ÍpÚ t∞w mhxan∞w éfiem°nvn petr«n ı =o›zow §pãljeiw te ép°sure ka‹ 154 gvn¤aw ép°yrupte pÊrgvn. ka‹ tosoËton ***, ˜ti plhge¤w tiw katÉ §ke¤nhn tØn nÊkta éparãssetai tØn kefalØn ÍpÚ t∞w 155 p°traw, ka‹ tÚ kran¤on épÚ tri«n §sfendon¤syh stad¤vn: gunaikÒw te meyÉ ≤m°ran plhge¤shw tØn gast°ran proÛoÊshw §k 152

F 2–6 ÉEleãzaron—peripar∞nai cf. Ios. III, 230 Ípermeg°yh d¢ p°tran érãmenow (scil. ÉEleãzarow) éf¤hsin épÚ toË te¤xouw §p‹ tØn •l°polin metå tosaÊthw b¤aw, Àste éporr∞jai tØn kefalØn toË mhxanÆmatow, ∂n ka‹ kataphdÆsaw §k m°svn a‡retai t«n polem¤vn ka‹ metå poll∞w éde¤aw §p‹ tÚ te›xow ¶feren. et 231 in fine p°nte m¢n diape¤retai b°lesin 6–7 Ùrgãnoiw katapeltiko›w cf. Ios. III, 240 ÍpÚ t«n katapeltik«n 8–10 ¥ te—pÊrgvn: Ios. III, 243 ¥ te oÔn t«n Ùjubel«n ka‹ katapelt«n b¤a polloÁw ëma diÆlaunen, k.t.l. 10 tosoËton cf. Ios. III, 246 in fine, Suda s.v. petrÒbolon, tosaÊth ∑n ≤ toË liyobÒlou b¤a ( l¤you pro liyobÒlou Suda) 10—p. 71, 1 plhge¤w—≤mistãdion: Ios. III, 245–246 mãyoi dÉ ên tiw tØn toË mhxanÆmatow élkØn §k t«n §p‹ t∞sde t∞w nuktÚw genom°nvn: plhge‹w gãr tiw épÉ aÈtoË t«n per‹ tÚn ÉI≈shpon •st≈tvn énå tÚ te›xow éparãssetai k.t.l.: Suda ibid. ≤ toË mhxanÆmatow élkØ toË petrobÒlou . . . . toiãde tiw ∑n: plhge‹w gãr tiw ÍpÉ aÈtoË t«n per‹ tÚn ÉI≈shpon t«n énå tÚ te›xow, éparãssetai k.t.l. V P1 1 purÚw §nergoË corruptum vid.; fort. legendum purÚw ÍgroË; cf. append. [Ios.] || Ípeky°ontew cf. Ípeky°ousi(-sin Ios. A) Ios. AML §peky°ousin Ios. PVRC [Suda] Niese 2 tri«n] tri«n pul«n? || §nep¤prasan] Ípep¤mprasan(-pip-C) Ios. 3 §paf∞nai P1 || krioË P1x: kairoË VP1 || éporrãjai VP1 Ios. LVRC: éparrãjai Ios.M éporr∞jai Ios. PA Niese 4 an kataphdÆsanta? cf. Ios., kata facile excidisse potest post ka‹, quocum saepe confunditur; cf. Schw., indicem s.v. ka‹ et s.v. katå || m°svn (m°sou Ios. PA) Ios.: m°son V P1 5 éry∞nai an êrasyai? cf. Ios. 8 diÆlane P1 diÆlaunen Ios. 9 §p°sure P1 ép°suren Ios. 10 lac. indicavi; §dÊnato ı liyobÒlow vel tale quid excidisse videtur; an tosaÊth ?. cf. Ios.; ˜ti cum indicativo idem valet ac Àste cum infinitivo; v. Jannaris § 1756 et 1758b 11 nÊktan P1 || éperãssetai V P1 12 §sfendon¤syh V P1 Ios. MC Suda GV: §sfendonÆ13 post ≤m°ran syh Ios. PA §sfendonÆyh Ios. A ex corr. LVR Niese Suda hab. §gkÊmonow Ios. Suda, quod autem i.m. suppl. Ios. C || plhgÆshw P1 || gast°ran acc. tertiae decl. in -an hoc solo loco in utroque codice invenitur; cf. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik I (1939), p. 563, 1 et praesertim 586, b; in solo cod. P1 invenitur v. 11; p. 54, 11; p. 76,3; § 228; fort. h.l. quoque scribendum gast°ra, quod hab. Ios. Suda || proÛoÊshw] proÛoÊshw n°on Ios. PAM proÆiei d¢ n°on Ios. LVRC P i.m. A i.m. M i.m. Niese Suda || §j Ios. Suda

3

6

9

12

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

201

since [70] they did not have siphons 146 and liquid 147 fire. For secretly going out through three they set the machines on fire. And it is said also that Eleazar lifted a massive stone and dropped it on the ram and broke the head of the machine and leaping down took it from the midst of the enemy and brought it up onto the wall and was struck by five arrows. And indeed as the Romans were striking those on the battlements with 160 catapults 149 and a hail of arrows, the force of the oxybeleis150 tore through many and the rush of the stones thrown by the machine tore away the battlements and crushed the corners of towers. And so great that one man struck during that night had his head taken off by the stone and the skull was hurled as if by a sling three stades; at daybreak a woman was struck in the belly while leaving [71] her house and

146 147 148 149 150 151

On the “siphon” and liquid fire see ODB 2:873 at “Greek Fire” and above n. 131. Accepting vdB’s ÍgroË for § nergoË. vdB’s suggested addition; the text of Josephus has simply trixÒyen. This number is found earlier in the text of Josephus (BJ III:166). Arrow-shooting catapults, literally “quick firers.” vdB’s suggested addition.

202

71

3

6

9

12

15

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 155–159 ( THEV. p. 324, 15–25)

t∞w ofik¤aw §j°seise tÚ br°fow §fÉ ≤mistãdion. ˜mvw ka‹ oÏtvw toË te¤xouw kataseisy°ntow ka‹ §ndÒntow ta›w mhxana›w frajãmenoi •autoÁw to›w ıpl¤taiw tÚ katarify¢n éntvxÊrvsan. ka‹ toËOÈespasianoË toÁw gennaiotãtouw t«n flpp°vn épobibãsantow ka‹ *** perispãsein toÊtouw §pinooum°nou, …w ín =aid¤a ≤ ênodow t«n §pemba¤nein taxy°ntvn g°nhtai, proteinÒntvn t«n éndr«n toÁw kontoÊw, t«n d¢ tojot«n ballÒntvn ka‹ t«n êllvn mhxanhmãtvn, ÉI≈shpow ka‹ §n toÊtvi éntestratÆgei, ka‹ toÁw m¢n gennaiotãtouw ·sthsi parå tå diaseisy°nta t«n teix«n, meyÉ œn ka‹ aÈtÚw proekindÊneue, toÁw d¢ ghraiot°rouw ka‹ toÁw ≥dh kekmhkÒtaw §p‹ to›w m°nousi. pros°taje d¢ to›w strati≈taiw prÚw m¢n tÚn élalagmÚn t«n tagmãtvn épofrãjai tåw ékoãw, …w mØ kataplage›en, prÚw d¢ tÚ pl∞yow t«n bel«n sunoklãsantaw kalÊptesyai kayÊperyen to›w yureo›w Ípoxvr∞sa¤ te prÚw Ùl¤gon, ßvw tåw far°traw ken≈svsin ofl tojÒtai, ballÒntvn d¢ F 2 toË te¤xouw—mhxana›w cf. Ios. III, 251 §nd¤dvsi to›w mhxanÆmasi tÚ te›xow 2–3 frajãmenoi—éntvxÊrvsan: Ios. III, 252 4–5 toË OÈespasianoË—§pinooum°nou cf. Ios. III, 254 boulÒmenow (scil. OÈespasianÚw) dÉ épÚ t«n katarrify°ntvn perispãsai toÁw e‡rgontaw toÁw m¢n gennaiotãtouw t«n flpp°vn épobÆsaw {t«n ·ppvn} trix∞i di°tajen katå tå peptvkÒta toË te¤xouw (katarify°ntvn VRC || t«n ·ppvn épobÆsaw tr. P, quare t«n ·ppvn seclusit Destinon) 6–7 proteinÒntvn—kontoÊw cf. Ios. III, 254 toÁw kontoÁw pro˝sxontaw 7–8 t«n d¢ tojot«n—mhxanhmãtvn cf. Ios. III, 256 peri°sthsen toÁw tojÒtaw . . . . . ka‹ sfendonÆtaw ka‹ toÁw §p‹ t«n mhxanhmãtvn 8–11 ka‹ toÁw—m°nousi cf. Ios. III, 258 ÉI≈shpow d¢ sunie‹w tØn §p¤noian §p‹ m¢n toË m°nontow te¤xouw sÁn to›w kekmhkÒsin ·sthsi toÁw ghraioÁw …w mhd¢n taÊthi blabhsom°nouw, efiw d¢ tå parerrvgÒta toË te¤xouw toÁw dunatvtãtouw ka‹ prÚ pãntvn énå ©j êndraw, meyÉ œn ka‹ aÈtÚw efiw tÚ prokinduneÊein §klhr≈sato 11—p. 72, 2 pros°taje—émÊnesyai: Ios. III, 259–260 §k°leus°n te prÚw m¢n tÚn—fid¤vn Ùrgãnvn épantçn to›w polem¤oiw, égvn¤zesyai te ßkaston . . . . émunÒmenon

V P1 1 t∞w non hab. Ios. Suda || §j°seise—≤mistãdion] §j°seisen §fÉ ≤mistãdion [Ios.] tÚ br°fow Ios. Suda 3 •autoÁw to›w ıpl¤taiw] tå s≈mata to›w ˜ploiw [Suda] Hudson ex codd. Ios. Rostgaardiano et Bodleiano to›w s≈masi ka‹ to›w ıpl¤taiw Ios. VR to›w s≈masi ka‹ to›w ˜ploiw Ios. PAML Niese to›w svmatiko›w ka‹ to›w ˜ploiw Ios. C; cf. praef. p. 26 || katarify¢n V P1 Ios. VRC: katarrify¢n (prius r. i. r. Ios. L ) Ios. PAML Niese 4 épobibãsantow cf. Ios. épobÆsaw; cf. ad p. 73,8 5 lac. indicavi; cf. append. || an perispãsai ? cf. Ios. 12 épofrãjai V P1 Ios. V Niese: §pifrãjai Ios. RC katafrãjai Ios. PAML || …w V P1 Ios. VRC: …w ín Ios. PAML Niese 13 kataplage›en V P1 Ios. LVRC Niese: kataplago›en Ios. PAM 14 kalÊptesyai V P1 Ios. LVRC: kalÊcasyai Ios. PAM Niese || kayÊperye P1 || prÚw] prÚ V 15 ken≈svsin V P1 Ios. VR Niese: ken≈sousin Ios. C Ípoken≈svsin Ios. PAML || bãllontew V P1

156 157

158

159

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

203

expelled her fetus half a stade away. But when the wall was shaken and gave way to the machines, the [defenders] protecting themselves with weapons152 blocked the breach. And Vespasian had his best cav alry dismount and < . . . 153> intended to draw away these [defenders], so that the ascent might be easy for those ordered to climb. As the men were couching their lances and the archers and the other machines firing, Josephus even here served as the opposing general, and stationed his best men at the breached sections of the walls and himself shared the danger with the first of them, but stationed the older and those already exhausted at the sections still standing. He ordered the soldiers to block their ears to the war-cry of the legions, so as not to be frightened, and crouching down at the multitude of arrows to hide themselves under their shields, and to give way a little, until the archers emptied their quivers; but when [the Romans] were throwing up [72] the gangways154, to spring onto them first and ward them off

Accepting ˜ploiw for ı pl¤ taiw. In the Appendix (108) vdB suggests as the simplest solution for the lacuna éntitãjan tow to›w § p‹ t«n katarrify° ntvn § fest«si“drawing up against those standing in the breach”. 154 The text here has kl¤ makewfor Josephus’ § pibatÆriai mhxana¤. On the former term as a “gangway” or “landing ramp” cf. Leo the Deacon, Historiae libri X, ed. C. B. Hase (Bonn: 1828) 7:20-21 and see V. Christides, “Naval History and Technology in Medieval Times. The Need for Interdisciplinary Studies”, Byzantion 58 (1988) 309-32, spec. 320 and J. Pryor, “Transportation of Horses by Sea during the Era of the Crusades: Eighth Century to 1285 A. D. Part I: To c 1225”, The Mariner’s Mirror 68 (1982) 9-27, spec. 10. 152

153

204

72 160

161

162

163

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 159–163 ( THEV. p. 324, 25–36)

tåw kl¤makaw aÈtoÁw prophdçn ka‹ diå t«n fid¤vn Ùrgãnvn émÊnesyai. tå d¢ gÊnaia, …w mØ yhlÊnoien o‡ktvi tåw ırmåw t«n sfet°rvn, katakle¤ei ta›w ofik¤aiw, §peidØ ≈w §yeãsanto tripl∞i 3 m¢n fãlaggi tØn pÒlin §zvsm°nhn, prÚw d¢ to›w katapesoËsi te¤xesi toÁw polem¤ouw jifÆreiw tØn kayÊperyen ÙreinØn lampom°nhn ˜ploiw, tã te b°lh toÁw tojÒtaw §pan°xontaw t«n 6 ÉArãbvn, ÏstatÒn tina kvkutÚn èl≈sevw sunÆxhsan. toË d¢ sunyÆmatow doy°ntow ımoË o· te salpigkta‹ t«n tagmãtvn èpãntvn sunÆxhsan ka‹ deinÚn §phlãlajen ≤ stratiã, ka‹ pãntoyen 9 éfiem°nvn t«n bel«n tÚ f«w Ípet°mneto. frajãmeno¤ te tå Œta prÚw tØn boØn ka‹ tå s≈mata prÚw tåw t«n bel«n éf°seiw sumplekÒmeno¤ ge mØn to›w énioËsi panto›a ka‹ xeir«n ¶rga ka‹ cux∞w §napede¤knunto. ofl d¢ ÑRvma›oi parakeleusãmenoi éllÆloiw ka‹ pleurån m¢n •n≈santew, to›w d¢ yureo›w 15 kayÊperye frajãmenoi ka‹ tØn legom°nhn xel≈nhn épotel°santew te›xow êrrhkton §g°nonto ka‹ kayãper •n‹ s≈mati pãshi fãlaggi F 2–3 tå d¢ gÊnaia—ofik¤aiw: Ios. III, 263 ı d¢ ÉI≈shpow tåw m¢n guna›kaw, …w mØ k. t. l. 3–7 …w §yeãsanto—sunÆxhsan: Ios. III, 262 tÚ dÉ érgÚn épÚ t∞w pÒlevw pl∞yow, gÊnaia ka‹ pa›dew, …w §yeãsanto k. t. l. 7–10 toË d¢—Ípet°mneto: Ios. III, 265 ımoË dÉ o· te salpikta‹ k. t. l. 10–14 frajãmenoi—§napede¤knunto: Ios. III, 266–268 memnhm°noi ge mØn t«n toË ÉIvsÆpou prostagmãtvn ofl sÁn aÈt«i tãw te ékoåw prÚw tØn k. t. l. 14—p. 73, 1 parakeleusãmenoi—§p°bainon: Ios. III, 270 parakeleusãmeno¤ te éllÆloiw k. t. l.

V P1 1 kl¤makaw] §pibathr¤ouw mhxanåw Ios. 2 émÊnesyai malim émÊnesyai [Ios.] toÁw polem¤ouw; cf. Ios. || tå . . gÊnaia V P1 Ios. VR: tåw . . . guna›kaw Ios. PAML Niese om. Ios. C 3 ofik¤aiw V P1 Ios. PAMLC Niese: ofike¤aiw Ios. VR || §yeãsato P1 4 post §zvsm°nhn hab. oÈd¢n går e‹w tØn mãxhn metakek¤nhto t«n pãlai fulak«n Ios. || katapesoËsi] beblhm°noiw Ios. 5 te¤xesin Ios. 6 toÁw tojÒtaw VP1 Ios.VRC: to›w tojÒtaiw Ios. PAML || om. VP1 Niese || §pan°xontaw VP1 Ios. V: §pan°xonta Ios. PAMLRC Niese 8 salpigNiese kta‹ (pig ex corr. Ios M) V P1 Ios. PA1 MLR: salpikta‹ Ios. VC 9 sunÆxhsan V P1 Ios. PML ex corr. RC Niese: sun8–9 èpãntvn om. P1 10 éfiem°nvn] éfieÆxyhsan Ios. ALV || §pilãlajen P1 §pilãlazen Ios. V m°nvn épÚ sunyÆmatow Ios. | frajãmenoi Thev.: frujãmenoi V P1 11 t«n bel«n non hab. Ios. | éf°seiw] éf°seiw §frãjanto ka‹ Ios. 12–13 om. VP1 13 balÒntaw VR diabãllontaw Ios. C diabalÒntaw Ios. || ge mØn V P1 Ios. LVRC: te Ios. PAM Niese || énioËsin Ios. 14 §napede¤knuto V §nepede¤knuto P1 14–15 parakeleusãmenoi (—leuÒmenoi Ios.L) V P1 Ios. MLVRC: parakeleusãmeno¤ te Ios. PA Niese 16 kayÊperye V Ios V: kayÊperyen P1 Ios. PAMLRC Niese || ka‹—épotel°santew non hab. Ios. 17 te›xow V P1 Ios. MVRC: st›fow Ios. PAL Niese || péshi] pãshi t∞i Ios.

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

205

with their own instruments. He locks the women in their houses, lest with their wailing they unman the spirit of his men, since, when they saw the city encircled by a triple formation and the enemy armed with swords at the ruined walls the mountainside above gleaming with arms and the Arab archers raising their arrows, they gave a kind of final shriek at their capture. When the signal was given, simulta neously the trumpeters of all the legions blew their horns and the army raised a terrible cry and with arrows being shot everywhere the light was cut off. The [Jews] screened their ears against the shout and their bodies against the discharges of arrows . As they engaged with their ascending [enemy], they displayed various acts of strength and spirit. And the Romans encouraged one another and, uniting side by side protected by the shields above them, forming the so-called testudo, 155 they became an unbreakable wall and as it were in one body with their

155 This phrase is not in the text of Josephus, and apparently has been inserted by the Anon. or his source; the testudo is referred to again below at 74:21-22. On this formation see the description in Cassius Dio, Roman History 49:30.

206

73

3

6

9

12

15

18

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 163–169 ( THEV. p. 324, 36–49)

toÁw ÉIouda¤ouw énvyoËntew ≥dh toË te¤xouw §p°bainon. ı d¢ ÉI≈shpow z°on ¶laion §kkenvy∞nai prostãjaw katå t«n sunhspikÒtvn diesk°dase tØn tãjin ka‹ metå dein«n élghdÒnvn épokulinde›syai toÁw ÑRvma¤ouw toË te¤xouw kathnãgkasen, Àste énagkasy°nta tÚn OÈespasianÚn tre›w pÊrgouw pentÆkonta pod«n tÚ Ïcow §piskeuãsai sidÆrvi pãntoyen kekalumm°nouw, …w ín •dra›o¤ te e‰en ka‹ dusãlvtoi pur¤. ka‹ toÊtouw §p°sthse t«n xvmãtvn ka‹ §pibibãsaw aÈto›w ékontistãw te ka‹ tojÒtaw t«n éfethr¤vn Ùrgãnvn tå koufÒtera, prÚw d¢ ka‹ toÁw =vmalevtãtouw sfendon¤taw: o„ mØ kayor≈menoi diå tÚ Ïcow ka‹ tå yvrãkia t«n pÊrgvn efiw kayorvm°nouw toÁw §p‹ toË te¤xouw ¶ballon. ofl d¢ mÆte katå kÒrshw ferom°nvn t«n bel«n §kkl¤nein =aid¤vw dunãmenoi mÆte toÁw éfane›w émÊnesyai, ka‹ tÚ m¢n Ïcow t«n pÊrgvn dus°fikton ır«ntew §k xeirÚw b°lei, pur‹ d¢ tÚn per‹ aÈto›w s¤dhron dusanãlvton, ¶feugon épÚ toË te¤xouw ka‹ prosbãllein peirvm°noiw §pej°yeon. éllå ka‹ Afitvlo‹ ÍpÚ toË t«n ÑRvma¤vn Ípãtou Mãrkou poliorkoÊmenoi t∞i prosbol∞i t«n mhxanhmãtvn ka‹ t«n kri«n

F 1–3 ı d¢—sunhspikÒtvn cf. Ios. III,271 ı d¢ ÉI≈shpow . . . . z°on ¶laion §k°leusen katax°ein t«n sunhspikÒtvn 3–4 diesk°dase—kathnãgkasen cf. Ios. III, 273 toËto kaiom°nvn t«n ÑRvma¤vn diesk°dasen tØn tãjin, ka‹ metå dein«n élghdÒnvn épekulindoËnto toË te¤xouw 5–16 tre›w—§pej°yeon: Ios. III. 284–287 pÊrgouw d¢ tre›w pentÆkonta pod«n tÚ Ïcow ßkaston kataskeuãsai keleÊsaw pãntoyen sidÆrvi kekalumm°nouw, …w •dra›o¤ te e‰en ÍpÚ br¤youw ka‹ dusãlvtoi pur¤, (285) t«n xvmãtvn §p°sthsen, sunepibÆsaw aÈto›w ékontistãw k. t. l. (ßkaston tÚ Ïcow transp. VRC) 17 p. 74, 1 Afitvlo‹—éntiparetãjanto: Plb. XXI, 27,1 (XXII, 10, 1 Schw.) apud solum Anonymum servatum; haec verba videntur autem non Polybio attribuenda esse, sed Anonymo, qui saepe verbo går (cf. p. 74, 1 otow går) transeat ad fragmentum, quod verbatim describit vel suis verbis reddit; cf. p. 50, 11 et 17; p. 52, 21; p. 54, 12; p. 58, 13; p. 60, 6; p. 61, 17; p. 62, 26; p. 63, 15; p. 65, 6; p. 69, 3; p. 75, 6; p. 78, 17; v. append.; cf. praef. p. 16 V P1 2–3 ±spikÒtvn V P1 3 diesk°dasen Ios. 6 §piskeuãsai] kataskeuãsai [Ios.] Ios., sed cf. p. 53, 6; p. 68, 21; p. 75, 3; v. append. || sidÆra V s¤dhra P1 || …w ín] …w Ios. 8 §pibibãsaw cf. §pibÆsaw Ios. LVRC sunepibÆsaw Ios. PAM Niese; cf. ad p. 71, 4 || om. V P1 9 éfethr¤vn] éfetere› V P1 || d¢ ka‹] d¢ Ios. 9–10 =vmalevtãtouw V P1 Ios. MV Niese: =vmalaivtãtouw Ios. PA =vmalaiotãtouw Ios. RC =vmalevt°rouw Ios. L 10 sfendon¤taw V Ios. A: sfendon¤staw P1 sfendonÆtaw Ios. PML ex corr. VC Niese sfendonhtåw Ios.LR ; v. append. ad p. 60, 20 || mØ] m¢n P1 || toË Ïcouw V P1 14 ır«ntew] ır«n t∞w V P1 15 aÈto›w V P1 Ios. AMVRC Niese: aÈtoÁw Ios. PL || dusanãlvton V P1 Ios. V1RC: dusãlvton Ios. V énãlvton Ios. PAML. Niese 16 peirvm°noiw V P1 Ios. LR Niese: peirvm°nouw Ios. PAMVC || §pej°yeton P1

164

165

166

167 (286) 168 (287)

169 (Plb. XXI, 27,1)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

207

whole formation [73] pushing back the Jews were already mounting the wall. Josephus ordered that boiling oil be emptied out over the locked shields and dispersed the formation and compelled the Romans to roll off the wall in terrible agony, so that Vespasian was driven to prepare three towers of fifty feet in height covered completely with iron, so they would be stable and fireproof. He placed these on the earth-works and mounted upon them javeliners and archers the lighter artillery, and also the strongest slingers. They were invisi ble due to the height and breastworks of the towers and were shoot ing at men who were visible on the wall. [The defenders] were not easily able to avoid the arrows directed at their heads nor to beat back the invisible [enemy] and seeing the high towers inaccessible to projectiles thrown by hand, and the fireproof iron around them, they were fleeing from the wall and sallying forth against those who attempted to attack. But the Aetolians too when besieged by Marcus the consul of the Romans156 responded nobly to the assault of the machines and the

156 On the relation of this paragraph to the text of Polybius see above n. 122. vdB attributes these opening words and the concluding phrase of the paragraph to the Anon. (who may have adapted the final phrase from Polybius XXVIII:18); see also Walbank (1979) 123 and 125 and Büttner-Wobst IV:55-56.

208

74 (Plb. 170 XXI, 27, 2)

(3) 171 (4) 172

(5) 173 (6) 174

175

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 169–175 (THEV. p. 324, 49–325, 12)

genna¤vw éntiparetãjanto. otow går ésfalisãmenow tå katå tåw stratopede¤aw tr¤a m¢n ¶rga katå tÚ PÊrraion pros∞gen diå t«n §pip°dvn tÒpvn, diest«ta m¢n épÉ éllÆlvn, parãllhla d°, t°tarton d¢ katå tÚ ÉAsklhpiÒn, p°mpton d¢ katå tØn ékrÒ | polin. ginom°nhw d¢ t∞w prosagvg∞w §nerg∞w katå pãntaw ëma toÁw tÒpouw, §kplhktikØn sun°baine g¤nesyai to›w ¶ndon tØn toË m°llontow prosdok¤an. t«n d¢ kri«n tuptÒntvn §nerg«w tå te¤xh, ka‹ t«n dorudrepãnvn éposurÒntvn tåw §pãljeiw, §peir«nto m¢n ofl katå tØn pÒlin éntimhxançsyai prÚw taËta, to›w m¢n krio›w diå kerai«n §ni°ntew shk≈mata molubdç ka‹ l¤youw ka‹ stÊph drÊina: to›w d¢ drepãnoiw sidhrçw peritiy°ntew égkÊraw ka‹ katasxÒntew taËta ¶sv toË te¤xouw, Àste §p‹ tØn ¶paljin suntrib°ntow toË dÒratow §gkrate›w g¤nesyai t«n drepãnvn. tÚ d¢ ple›on §pejiÒntew eÈcÊxvw §mãxonto, pot¢ m¢n §pitiy°menoi nÊktvr to›w §pikoitoËsin §p‹ t«n ¶rgvn, pot¢ d¢ to›w §fhmereÊousi meyÉ ≤m°ran profan«w , ka‹ tribØn §nepo¤oun t∞i poliork¤ai. efi d¢ ka‹ la¤saw xvstr¤daw ofl §xyro‹ §pinoÆsainto, Àsper ka‹ pollo‹ t«n palai«n, xrØ kÒpron ényrvpe¤an §kx°ein katÉ aÈt«n ka‹ épokroÊesyai toÊtouw, ¥tiw xrhsimeÊsei prÚw pçsan mhxanØn §kxunom°nh, ka‹ prÚw aÈtØn tØn §k t«n ésp¤dvn ginom°nhn sÊgkleisin *** F 1–17 otow går—poliork¤ai: Plb. XXI, 27, 2–6 (XXII, 10, 2–6 Schw.) apud Anon. et in cod. T, Wesch. p. 328, 7–329, 11, servata 16–17 ka‹ tribØn—poliork¤ai non hab. T; cf. autem Plb. XXI, 28, 18, in solo cod. T, Wesch. p. 332, 7, servata, toiaÊthn d¢ lambanoÊshw tribØn t∞w poliork¤aw; ergo haec verba hoc loco fort. non Polybio sed Anonymo attribuenda sunt

V P1 [T]

1 éntiparetãjanto Casaub. B.-W.: énteparetãjanto V P1 || otow går] ı d¢ Mãrkow T 2 stratoped¤aw T || post stratopede¤aw hab. sun¤stato megalomer«w tØn poliork¤an ka‹ T B.-W. || PÊrraion V P1 T: PÊrreion Schw., coll. Liv. XXXVIII, 5, 2, B.-W. || pros∞gen] prospie cum signo corruptelae T prosepo¤ei Müller1 Wesch. 3 tÒpvn om. T B.-W. coll. Plb. II, 65, 10; 69, 6; III, 50, 2; 68, 3 cet. 4 ÉAsklhpiÒn lege ÉAsklhpie›on cum T Schw. B.-W. 5 genom°nhw P1 || §nerg∞w V P1: §nergoË T B.-W.; incertum utrum error Anonymo attribuendus sit an librario || pãntvw V P1 corr. V1 6 §kplhktikh T || g¤gnesyai V 7 §narg«w V P1 10 shk≈mata molubdç Wesch.: shk≈mata mÒlubda E shkvmatvnolubda T shk≈mata mÒlibda Vs P1s shk≈mata molibdç Hultsch B.-W.; cf. p. 82, 4–5 10–11 ka‹ stÊph drÊina om. T. 11 peritey°ntew P1 12 katasxÒntew V P1: katasxvntew T énasp«ntew Casaub. katasp«ntew Schw. B.-W. || taËta V P1T: taËtÉ Benseler B.-W. || Àste V P1 T: ÀstÉ Benseler B.-W. 14 eÈcÊxvw §mãxonto] §mãxonto genna¤vw T B.-W. || §pitiyem°nouw V P1 15 ¶rgvn] erivn T 15–16 §f≤meroËsi P1 16 om. V P1 21 §kxuom°nh P1 22 post sÊgkleisin lac. 4½ versuum V paene 4 versuum P 1

3 p. 325 Thev. 6

9

12

15

18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

209

rams. [74] For [Marcus], after securing his camp, brought up three machines through the level terrain near the Pyrrhaion at some dis tance from one other, but parallel, a fourth at the temple of Asklepios157 and a fifth at the acropolis. As the assault was vigorously conducted simultaneously in all these places, those within were terri fied at the prospect of what was coming. While the rams were vigor ously battering the walls and scythe-like hooks on poles were pulling down the battlements, those in the city tried to counter them, dropping lead weights, stones, and stumps of oak trees on the rams by means of projecting beams 158 and, after catching the hooks with iron anchors, dragging them inside the wall, so that when the pole was smashed against the battlement, they had possession of the hooks. They also sallied out frequently and fought courageously, sometimes attacking by night those who slept at the machines, and sometimes openly in daylight those keeping guard by day, and so they were delaying the siege. But if the enemy should devise laisai for filling ditches, as also did many of the ancients 159, it is necessary to pour human excrement on them and to drive them back; pouring excrement is useful against every machine, even against the locking of shields itself160 < . . . 161>. [75]

Accepting ÉAsklhpie›on for ÉAsklhpiÒn. See above n. 35 on ≤ kera¤ a. 159 The text here has the 10th-century term laisa (la›sa), on which see above n. 48, generically for “tortoise.” On the classical “filler-tortoise” (xvstr¤ w) and use of laisai for the function see Sullivan (2000) 159 n. 2 with additional bibliography. 160 § k t«n ésp¤ dvn . . . sÊgkleisin . For “locking” (sÊgkleisiw ) of shields cf. Arrian, Tactica 11:6 and see above n. 155. 161 vdB notes a loss here of 4-4.5 lines. 157

158

210

75

3

6

9

12

15

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 176–182 ( THEV. p. 325, 13–23)

efi d¢ ka‹ ÍpÚ t∞w t«n kri«n b¤aw diaseisye¤h ka‹ katap°soi tå te¤xh, oÈ xrØ eÈy°vw épogin≈skein, éllå kil¤kia m¢n kremçn prÚw tÚ d°xesyai tå pempÒmena b°lh, êllo d¢ te›xow §piskeuãzein ka‹ tãfron ÍporÊttein. polla‹ går pÒleiw ka‹ metå tØn t«n teix«n katastrofØn perieg°nonto t«n §nant¤vn, Àsper ka‹ ÉAmbrak¤a. t«n går ÑRvma¤vn sunex«w biazom°nvn to›w krio›w tÚ te›xow ée¤ ti *** oÈ mØn efiw tØn pÒlin §dÊnanto parelye›n diå t«n ptvmãtvn diå tÚ toÁw ¶ndon éntoikodome›n ka‹ mãxesyai genna¤vw §p‹ toË p¤ptontow m°rouw toÁw AfitvloÊw. ˜yen ka‹ épelp¤santew toË diå t∞w b¤aw •le›n tØn pÒlin prÚw tÚ ÍporÊttein Àrmhsan. éllå ka‹ taÊthw t∞w mhxan∞w épekroÊsyhsan, strathgik≈teron t«n ¶ndon éntiparatajam°nvn, …w proÛΔn ı lÒgow dhl≈sei, ka‹ afisyom°nvn tÚ ponÆreuma. ésfalisãmenoi tÚ m°son ¶rgon t«n tri«n t«n pro#parxÒntvn ofl ÑRvma›oi ka‹ skepãsantew §pimel«w to›w F 6–14 t«n går—ponÆreuma] cf. Plb. XXI, 28, 1–3, in solo cod. T, Wesch. p. 329, 12–330, 1, servata, ofl d¢ ÑRvma›oi sunex«w §nergoËntew to›w krio›w ée¤ ti par°luon t«n teix«n: (2) oÈ mØn e‡w ge tØn pÒlin §dÊnanto biãsasyai diå t«n ptvmãtvn, t«i ka‹ tØn éntoikodom¤an ÍpÚ t«n ¶ndon §nergÚn e‰nai ka‹ mãxesyai genna¤vw §p‹ toË p¤ptontow m°rouw toÁw AfitvloÊw. (3) diÒper époroÊmenoi katÆnthsan §p‹ tÚ metalleÊein ka‹ xr∞syai to›w ÙrÊgmasin ÍpÚ g∞w. (§ 2 §nergÚn Müller1: ergon T § 3 katÆnthsan Müller1: kathsan cum signo corruptelae inter h et s T || ka‹ xr∞syai 14—p. 77, 16 ésfalisãmenoi—tÚn kapnÒn: Plb. Müller1: kexrhsyai T) XXI, 28, 4–17 (XXII, 11, 6–21 Schw.) apud Anon. et in cod. T, Wesch. p. 300, 1–332, 7, servata

V P1 2 kil¤akia V 3 §piskiãzein P1; v. ad p. 73, 6 4 tãfron ÍporÊttein v. [T] ad p. 51, 10 6 sunex«n V P1 corr. P1X 7 post ée¤ ti lac. ca. 4 litt. V P1; ¶pese, kat°pese aut simile verbum suppl. Schw.; fort. supplendum parelÊeto aÈtoË vel parelÊeto vel par°luon aÈtoË? cf. T 12–13 t«n ¶ndon éntiparatajam°nvn corr. Schw. ex tå ¶ndon paratajãmenoi, quod hab. Thev.: tå ¶ndon éntiparatajãmenoi V P1 14 tÚ ponÆreuma] tÚ toÊtvn eÏrhma Schw., quod legendum vid. || om. V P1 går Schw. 15 ofl ÑRvma›oi om. T B.-W. || §pimel«w] §pimel«w tØn sÊrigga T 2–3 cf. Urb.-Maur. X, 3, 2 (Scheffer) proeutrep¤shi mãggana émuntikå prÚw épotropØn petrobÒlvn. ént¤keintai d¢ ta›w toiaÊtaiw bola›w kil¤kia kremãmena (ita Leo, Tact. et Probl. kremÒmena Scheffer) ¶jvyen toË te¤xouw katå toÁw promax«naw, fere item Leo, Probl. X, 11, Leo, Tact. XV, 48, Syll. Tact. 53, 5 3–4 cf. Aen. Tact. XXXII, 12; Byz. Anon. Kriegsw. XIII, 13 efi d¢ ka¤ ti m°row toË te¤xouw §rrãgh, . . . épostãntew §fÉ •kãtera toË payÒntow te¤xouw poiÆsomen diå tãxouw ofikodomÆn tina ¶ndoyen, érxom°nhn m¢n épÚ toË ≤mirragoËw te¤xouw yét°rou m°rouw, lÆgousan d¢ §p‹ tÚ ßteron

176

177 178 179 180 181

182 (Plb. XXI, 28, 4)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

211

But if the walls should also be badly shaken by the force of the rams and collapse, one must not immediately despair, but hang heavy mats to intercept the missiles being fired and construct another wall and dig a ditch. For many cities even after the collapse of the walls have survived the enemy, as for example Ambracia. For since the Romans were continuously attacking the wall with rams, they were always some portion . They were not, however, able to pass into the city through the breaches because the Aetolians within built a counterwall and fought nobly at the fallen section. Thus losing hope of taking the city by force they proceeded to mining. But they were beaten back also from this device, since those within responded with greater military acumen, as the treatise will make clear as it proceeds, and were aware of their contrivance 163. The Romans secured the middle of the three machines already there and covered it carefully with [76] wicker

162 Accepting vdB’s suggested addition par° luon aÈtoË. On the relation of this and the following description of the siege of Ambracia to the text of Polybius see above n. 122. 163 Accepting toÊtvn eÏrhma for ponÆreuma.

212

76 (Plb.XXI, 183 28, 5) (6) 184 (7) 185

(8) 186

(9) 187

(10) 188

(11) 189 (12) 190

V P1 [T]

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 182–190 ( THEV. p. 325, 23–40)

g°rroiw, proebãlonto stoån parãllhlon t«i te¤xei sxedÚn §p‹ dÊo pl°yra. ka‹ labÒntew érxØn §k taÊthw v Ö rutton édiapaÊstvw ka‹ tØn nÊkta ka‹ tØn ≤m°ran §k diadox∞w. §fÉ flkanåw oÔn ≤m°raw §lãnyanon toÁw ¶ndon f°rontew ¶jv tÚn xoËn diå t∞w sÊriggow. …w d¢ m°gaw ı svrÚw §g°neto t∞w §kferom°nhw g∞w ka‹ sÊnoptow to›w §k t∞w pÒlevw, ofl proest«tew t«n poliorkoum°nvn v Ö rutton tãfron ¶svyen §nerg«w parãllhlon t«i te¤xei ka‹ t∞i stoçi t∞i prÚ t«n pÊrgvn. §peidØ d¢ bãyow ¶sxen flkanÒn, •j∞w ¶yhkan parå tÚn ßna to›xon t∞w tãfrou §ggÁw t«i te¤xei xalk≈mata sunex∞, leptÒtata ta›w kataskeua›w, oÂon lekãnaw ka‹ ßtera ˜moia toÊtoiw, ka‹ parå taËta diå t∞w tãfrou pariÒntew ±kro«nto toË cÒfou t«n ÙruttÒntvn ¶svyen. §pe‹ dÉ §shmei≈santo tÚn tÒpon, kayÉ ˘n §dÆlou tinå t«n xalkvmãtvn diå t∞w sumpaye¤aw: éntÆxoun går prÚw tÚn §ktÚw cÒfon: v Ö rutton ¶svyen §pikars¤an prÚw t∞i ÍparxoÊshi êllhn katå g∞w tãfron ÍpÚ tÚ te›xow, stoxazÒmenoi toË sumpese›n §nant¤oi to›w polem¤oiw. taxÁ d¢ toÊtou genom°nou, diå tÚ toÁw ÑRvma¤ouw mØ mÒnon éf›xyai prÚw tÚ te›xow ÍpÚ g∞w, éllå ka‹ diestulvk°nai tÒpon flkanÚn toË te¤xouw §fÉ •kãteron tÚ m°row toË ÙrÊgmatow, sun°peson éllÆloiw. ka‹ tÚ m¢n pr«ton §mãxonto ta›w sar¤saiw ÍpÚ g∞n: §pe‹ dÉ oÈd¢n §dÊnanto m°ga poie›n diå tÚ probãllesyai yureoÁw ka‹ g°rra prÚw aÍt«n émfÒteroi, tÚ thnikãde Íp°yetÒ tiw to›w poliorkoum°noiw p¤yon proyem°nouw èrmostÚn katå tÚ plãtow t«i metãllvi trup∞sai tÚn puym°na ka‹ lei≈santaw aÈl¤skon sidhroËn ‡son t«i teÊxei pl∞sai tÚn 1 g°roiw V P1 || proebãllonto P1 prosebãlonto T || parallhlvn T §kf. om. T 2 diapaustvw T 3 nÊktan P1 || om. V P11 5 t∞w ante 1 Örutton V P1: ˆrutton P1 Éo i.m. V 8 ka‹ t∞i] ka‹ 6 sÊpµ tP1 eÈopµ tP1X 7 v st∞ V || stoçi t∞i] stãsei T || ad 8 sqq. i.m. per‹ toË p«w de› diagin≈skein toÁw polem¤ouw ÙrÊssontaw tÚ te›xow ka‹ katapoleme›n V P1 9 ßna] en T || to¤xon P1 tÊxon V || om. V P1 10–11 oÂon—toÊtoiw om. T B.-W.; taÊtaiw pro toÊtoiw scribendum vel lac. post lekãnaw indicandam esse mihi videtur; cf. Hultsch: ,,Polybius aut ita scripsit, ut in T est, aut uberiorem instrumenti descriptionem interposuit” 12 ¶svyen lege ¶jvyen cum T B.-W. 13 d¢ T 14 éntÆxoun—cÒfon om. T B.-W. || cÒfon Thev.: cÒdon V P1 15 t∞i ÍparxoÊshi V P1 T: tØn Ípãrxousan Benseler B.-W. 17 ginom°nou T 18 afeixyai T 19 te¤xouw] te¤xouw ÍpÚ g∞w T 20 ÙrÊgmatow] metãllou T B.-W.; item p. 77, 3–4 et 15; cf. v. 24; p. 77, 16 21 ta›sarisa›w T || d¢ T || ±dÊnanto T B.-W. 22 yuraiouw T || g°ra P1 || prÚw lege prÚ cum T B.-W. || aÍt«n Bekker B.-W.: aÈt«n V P1 TS || tÚ] d¢ tÚ P1 23 thnikãde V P1 T: thnikãdÉ Benseler B.-W. 25 lei≈santaw V P1: livsantew T di≈santaw Hertlein, Beitr. z. Krit. d. Polyän., Progr. Wertheim. 1854, 19, Dindorf B.-W. di°ntew Polyaen. VI, 17; v. append.

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

213

screens, and they constructed in front of it a covered gallery parallel to the wall for about two plethra. Beginning from this [gallery] they dug continuously day and night in relays. And so for many days they carried out the earth through the mine shaft without being observed by those within, but when the mound of earth carried out became large and visible to those in the city, the leaders of the besieged began to vigorously dig a ditch inside parallel to the wall itself and to the gallery in front of the towers. When it was sufficiently deep, they next placed along the one side of the ditch next to the wall very thinly fab ricated bronze plates in a continuous line164, like pots 165 and similar such things166, and proceeding along the ditch next to these, listened for the sound of those digging outside 167. When they had noted the place indicated by the reverberation of some of the bronze plates - for these echoed the sound outside - they began to dig another ditch under the wall from within at right angles to the existing one, aiming to encounter and confront the enemy. This soon occurred, as the Romans had not only reached the wall underground, but had propped up a considerable part of the wall on both sides of their excavation. They met one another and first fought underground with their pikes. But when they could not accomplish much with this, as both sides held shields and wicker screens in front of themselves, someone proposed to the besieged, after placing in front of them a large ceramic pot just wide enough to fit into the mine, to bore a hole in the bottom, and pushing168 in an iron tube as long as the vessel, to fill [77] the pot with

Following for the phrasing here Walbank (1979) 127. ≤ lekãnh . The simile is not in the parallel text of Polybius preserved in the “Excerpta de strategematis” (see above n. 122), but is in Dain’s (1940) Mémorandum inédit 126 no. 30 and hence presumably in the Anon.’s source. Whether original to Polybius or added later is not certain; see Walbank (1979) 126-27, who also notes that bronze “vessels” would be “clumsy and less effective” than bronze plates. 166 Accepting vdB’s suggestion taÊtaiw for toÊtoiw , although as she notes there may be a lacuna here. 167 Accepting ¶ jvyen for ¶ svyen. 168 Accepting di≈santaw for lei≈santaw. 164

165

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

214

77

3

6

9

12

15 p. 326 Thev. 18

§ 190–196 (THEV. p. 325, 40–326, 2)

p¤yon t«i pt¤lvi lept«i ka‹ purÚw mikrÚn §mbale›n ÍpÉ aÈtÚ toË p¤you peristÒmion: kêpeita sidhroËn p«ma trhmãtvn pl∞rew t«i stÒmati periy°ntaw ésfal«w efisãgein diå toË ÙrÊgmatow, neÊonta t«i stÒmati prÚw toÁw Ípenant¤ouw: ıpÒte d¢ §gg¤saien to›w polem¤oiw, perisãjantaw tå xe¤lh toË p¤you pantaxÒyen trÆmata dÊo katalipe›n §j §kat°rou toË m°rouw, diÉ œn divyoËntew tåw sar¤saw oÈk §ãsousi prosi°nai t«i p¤yvi toÁw Ípenant¤ouw: metå d¢ taËta labÒntaw xalkÒn, oÂw ofl xalke›w xr«ntai, ka‹ prosarmÒsantaw prÚw tÚn aÈlÚn tÚn sidhroËn fusçn §nerg«w t«i prÚw t«i stÒmati pur‹ §n to›w pt¤loiw §gke¤menon, katåtosoËton §pagom°nouw ée‹ tÚn aÈlÚn §ktÒw, kayÉ ˜son§kkãhtai tå pt¤la. genom°nvn d¢ pãntvn kayãper proe›pon, tÒ te pl∞yow toË kapnoË sun°baine polÁ g¤nesyai ka‹ t∞i drimÊthti diaf°ron diå tØn fÊsin t«n pt¤lvn, f°resya¤ te pçn efiw tÚ t«n polem¤vn ˆrugma. Àste ka‹ l¤an kakopaye›n toÁw ÑRvma¤ouw, oÎte kvlÊein oÎyÉ Ípom°nein dunam°nouw §n to›w ÙrÊgmasi tÚn kapnÒn. ka‹ to›w toioÊtoiw oÔn | éntistrathgÆmasi kexr∞syai de› ka‹ émÊnesyai toÁw Ípenant¤ouw ka‹ ékatãplhkton m°nein §n to›w deino›w ka‹ mÆte épogin≈skein, kín tå te¤xh diaseisy∞i μ ka‹ F 16 kapnÒn des. Plb.

V P1 [T]

1 t«i pt¤lvi lept«i V P1: t«i pÆlvi lept«i T pt¤lvi lept«i Dindorf Hultsch ˜lon pt¤lvn lept«n B.-W. pt¤lvn lept«n Polyaen. VI, 17 || mikrÚn] pantel«w mikrÚn T B.-W. 2 om. V P1 || peristÒmion] stÒmion P1 || tvma T || trimãtvn P1 3–4 ÙrÊgmatow] metãllou T B.W.; t v. ad p. 76, 20 4 neÊonta Müller1: neÊon V P1 neËon T neÊonti Thev. B.-W. || ıpÒte] pote T || d¢ V P1 T: dÉ Benseler B.-W. 5 §gg¤saien] e¤ tiw ín §n T 7 tåw sar¤ssaw V P1 tasarisaw T corr. Dindorf; cf. p. 76, 21 || §asvsi T 8 labÒntew T || xalkÚn V P1 T: éskÚn superscr. m. recentissima in P1 Gronovius, coll. Polyaen. VI, 17, B.-W. || oÂw ofl] œi ofl T o·vi ofl Müller1 o·vi Hultsch œiper ofl B.-W.; suspicor Anon. scripsisse œi ofl vel o·vi ofl 10 t«i prÚw t«i stÒmati pur‹ V P1 T: tÚ prÚw t«i stÒmati pËr Schw. B.-W. || §gkeim°nvi T; v. append. 11 §kkãhtai] ín §kkãhtai T. B.-W.; cf. praef. p. 38 12 pt¤la] plãgia T || kayãper] kayÉ ì T || proe›pon] proe¤rhtai T B.-W. 13 gen°syai P 1 T || drimÊthta P1 || diaf°rein T 15 ˆrugma] m°tallon T B.-W.; v. ad p. 76, 20 || kakopaye›n] kako paye›nka‹ dusxrhste›syai T B.-W. 16 oÎyÉ] oÎte T 18 émÊnasyai P1 18—p. 78, 2 cf. Urb.-Maur. VIII, 2 . . . . mØ d¢ ta›w eÈprag¤aiw §pairÒmenow, mØ d¢ katap¤ptvn §n ta›w dusprag¤aiw, fere item Leo, Tact. XX, 92; Leon. Tact. XX, 10 ‡syi ˜ti tÚ mÆtÉ §pa¤resyai §n ta›w eÈtux¤aiw mÆte pãlin katap¤ptein §n ta›w dustux¤aiw, §rrvm°nou §st‹ logismoË ka‹ cux∞w éndre¤aw

191 (13) 192 (14)

193 (15)

194 (16)

195 (17) 196

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

215

fine feathers and insert just a little fire right at mouth of the pot. Then placing onto the mouth [of the pot] an iron lid full of holes they should introduce it carefully into the mine, tilting the mouth toward the enemy. When they drew near the enemy they should com pletely stop up [the space around] the rim of the pot, leaving two holes, one on each side, through which they could push their pikes and keep the enemy from approaching the pot. Then they should take a bellows 169, such as bronze workers use, and fitting it into the iron tube which lay there170 among the feathers to blow hard on the fire at the mouth, continuously withdrawing the tube as the feathers caught fire. When everything I have just described was done, the result was a great quantity of smoke, especially caustic due to the nature of the feathers, and it was all carried into the enemy’s mine, so that the Romans suffered severely, since they could not prevent or withstand the smoke in their excavation 171. And so it is necessary to employ such counter stratagems and drive back the enemy and remain imperturbable in difficult straits and not despair, even if the walls might be badly shaken or even [78] fall,

Accepting éskÚn for xalkÒn. In the Appendix (109) vdB suggests that tÚ . . . pËr was the correct reading in Polybius’ text, corrupted by a scribe who allowed § gke¤ menonto remain and that this corrupt text was the one available to the Anon. 171 The so-called “Heron of Byzantium”, Parangelmata poliorcetica 11:27-29 (in Sullivan [2000]) mentions use of countermines and smoke; Anna Comnena, Alexiad XIII:3 describes the use of a counter-trench, but without bronze plates, to detect the sound of enemy mining and subsequent use of fire blown through reed tubes to drive off the enemy. 169

170

216

78

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 196–200 ( THEV. p. 326, 2–16)

katap°soi, mÆte mØn katepa¤resyai, §ån ©n μ dÊo μ ka‹ diãfora t«n §xyr«n strathgÆmata katagvn¤shi: oÈ går éporÆsousin §pino¤aw: polla‹ går ka‹ énar¤ymhtoi, êllai m¢n §ktÚw profan«w 3 teloÊmenai, êllai d¢ lelhyÒtvw, Àsper afl §j §piboul∞w μ =ayum¤aw t«n ofike¤vn, ìw ka‹ mçllon de› profulãttesyai katå tÚn =hyhsÒmenon trÒpon, tå nËn d¢ per‹ t«n profan«n d°on efipe›n. 6 efi to¤nun ≤ pÒliw §k toË •nÚw m°rouw μ ka‹ toË ple¤onow ya198 lãsshi diaz≈nnutai, ka‹ ofl §xyro‹ §n to›w plo¤oiw mhxanåw §pistÆsein ka‹ kl¤makaw prosdok«ntai: ka‹ går ka‹ tØn Yessalon¤khn 9 ÍpÚ t«n ÉAgarhn«n §nteËyen sun°bh lhfy∞nai ka‹ êllaw mur¤aw: xrØ éntimhxançsyai prÚw taËta zhl≈santa tØn ÉArximÆdouw 199 sof¤an. efi går m°row ti t«n §ke¤nvi peponhm°nvn katoryvye¤h, 12 pantãpasi diakene›w ofl §xyro‹ énagkasyÆsontai énazeËjai, polloÁw t«n ofike¤vn épobalÒntew, diÒti katå tosoËton afl t«n polem¤vn dunãmeiw ±latt≈yhsan, kayÉ ˜son épod°ousin ofl nËn, 15 §pistÆmonew e‡ ge ka‹ e‰°n tinew, toË sofvtãtouÉArximÆdouw. 200 t«n går ÑRvma¤vn poliorkoÊntvn tØn Surãkousan: ÖAppiow dÉ ∑n ≤gem≈n: ka‹ t∞i m¢n pez∞i dunãmei katå tØn SkutikØn stoån prosagoreuom°nhn, kayÉ ∂n §pÉ aÈt∞w ke›tai t∞w krhp›dow 197

F 9–10 Yessalon¤khn—lhfy∞nai cf. praef. p. 18 17–18 ÖAppiow dÉ ∑n ≤gem≈n cf. Plb. VIII, 3 (5 Hultsch), 1 in solo codice T, Wesch. p. 321, 1–7, servatum 18—p. 84, 7 ka‹ t∞i m¢n—§pibal°syai: Plb. VIII, 3 (5 Hultsch Schw.), 2 otoi m¢n dØ tØn stratopede¤an §bãlonto mikrÚn éposxÒntew t∞w pÒlevw, tåw d¢ prosbolåw ¶krinan poie›syai t∞i m¢n pez∞i dunãmei k.t.l.— 7 (9 Hultsch Schw.), 9; cap. 3, 2–6, 4 yalãsshw §g¤neto et cap. 7, 6 t«n m¢n êllvn—§yãrrhsan in cod. T, Wesch. p. 321, 7–326, 9 et 326, 11–13, quoque servata sunt, cap. 4, 1–7, 9 in Excerptis Antiquis

V P1 [T]

1 kap°soi V 2 épor¤sousin P1 3 an §pinoi«n? 4 teloÊmenai] oÈ teloÊmenai P1 oËw teloÊmenai (oËw per ligaturam sine spiritu) V sunteloÊ12 pepoihm°nvn P1; cf. ad p. 85, 9 menai Thev. 9 yesalon¤khn P1 13 diakene›w incertum utrum error ex iotacismo ortus sit an Anon. adverbium diaken∞w pro adiectivo habuerit 14 époballÒntew P1 15 épod°ousi P1 17 ÖAppiow] êpiow P1; debet esse Mãrkow; in T quoque Marcus Claudius Marcellus consul et Appius Claudius Pulcher propraetor inter se mutantur; cf. praef. p. 23 18–19 e T suppl. Müller 2; cf. praef. p. 23–24 19 t∞w ÉAxradin∞w scripsi: katasaxradinhw T katå t∞w ÉAxrad¤nhw Wesch. t∞w ÉAxrad¤nhw Hultsch B.-W.; probabilius vid. Anonymum scripsisse ÉAxradin∞w; cf. ad p. 79, 19; Diodor. (ed. Vogel-Fischer) XI, 67, 8; 73, 1; XIV, 63, 1; Plutarch. Timol. (ed. Ziegler) 18, 4; 21, 3 20 prosagoreuomenh T || transpone prosagoreuom°nhn stoãn cum T B.-W.

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

217

nor indeed to be arrogant, even if you should foil one or two or even various enemy stratagems. For they will not be without inventiveness172. For [inventions] are many and innumerable, some employed openly [and] overtly, others secretly, such as those due to treason or the laziness of our own men, which are especially necessary to anticipate and guard against according to the method which will be described173 [below], but now it is necessary to speak about the overt ones. If therefore a city is girded in one part or even more by the sea and the enemy are expected to station machines and ladders on ships - and indeed it has happened that Thessalonike174 and myriad other [cities] have been captured thus by the Agarenes - it is necessary to take counter measures against these emulating the wisdom of Archimedes. For if a portion of the things devised by that man should be successfully employed, the enemy will be compelled to decamp totally empty handed, with the loss of many of their own men, since just as the forces of the enemy were inferior to the most wise Archimedes, so to a like degree do those of today fall short of him, even if some are indeed knowledgeable. For when the Romans were besieging Syracuse Appius was the commander 175; and with an infantry force at the socalled Stoa Scytice , where the wall is situated right on the quay by the sea, [79] they surrounded 176 [the city] and readied

Cf. above 47:17ff. See below 98:18ff. 174 I.e. the sack of 904 by the Arabs (i.e. “Agarenes”) under Leo of Tripoli; see ODB 2:1216. 175 As vdB notes (Introduction 23) the text is in error in giving the overall command to Appius Claudius Pulcher, it rested with Marcus Claudius Marcellus; see also Walbank (1967) 70. 176 The participle is not in the parallel text of Polybius preserved in the “Excerpta de strategematis” on which see above n. 122. 172

173

218

79

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 200–206 ( THEV. p. 326, 16–32)

tÚ te›xow parå yãlassan, peristoixisãntvn, •toimasam°nvn te g°rra ka‹ b°lh ka‹ tîlla tå prÚw tØn poliork¤an, §n ≤m°raiw p°nte diå tØn poluxeir¤an ≥lpisan katataxÆsein §n t∞i paraskeu∞i toÁw Ípenant¤ouw, oÈ logisãmenoi tØn ÉArximÆdouw dÊnamin, oÈd¢ proÛdÒmenoi diÒti m¤a cuxØ t∞w èpãshw §st‹ poluxeir¤aw §n §n¤oiw kairo›w énustikvt°ra. plØn tÒte diÉ aÈt«n ¶gnvsan t«n ¶rgvn tÚ legÒmenon. oÎshw går Ùxurçw t∞w pÒlevw diå tÚ ke›syai kÊklvi tÚ te›xow §p‹ tÒpvn Íperdej¤vn ka‹ prokeim°nhw ÙfrÊow, prÚw ∂n ka‹ mhdenÚw kvlÊontow oÈk ín eÈmar«w tiw dÊnaito pelãsai plØn katã tinaw tÒpouw …rism°nouw, toiaÊthn ≤to¤mase paraskeuØn ı proeirhm°now énØr §ntÚw t∞w pÒlevw, ımo¤vw d¢ ka‹ prÚw toÁw katå yãlattan §piporeuom°nouw, Àste mhd¢n §k toË kairoË de›n ésxole›syai toÁw émunom°nouw, prÚw pçn d¢ tÚ ginÒmenon ÍpÚ t«n §nant¤vn §j §to¤mou poie›syai tØn épãnthsin. plØn ı m¢n ÖAppiow ¶xvn g°rra ka‹ kl¤makaw §nexe¤rei prosf°rein taËta t«i sunãptonti te¤xei to›w ÑEjapÊloiw épÚ t«n énatol«n. ı d¢ Mãrkow •jÆkonta skãfesi penthriko›w §poie›to tÚn §p¤ploun §p‹ tØn ÉAxradinÆn, œn ßkaston pl∞rew ∑n éndr«n §xÒntvn tÒja ka‹ sfendÒnaw ka‹ grÒsfouw, diÉ œn ¶mellon toÁw épÚ t«n §pãljevn maxom°nouw énast°llein. ëma d¢ toÊtoiw ÙktΔ pentÆresi, paralelum°naiw toÁw tarsoÊw, ta›w m¢n toÁw dejioÊw, ta›w d¢ toÁw eÈvnÊmouw, ka‹ sunezeugm°naiw prÚw éllÆlaw sÊnduo katå toÁw §cilvm°nouw to¤xouw, pros∞gon prÚw tÚ te›xow diå t∞w t«n §ktÚw F 2–11 §n ≤m°raiw—pÒlevw pro his hab. T, Wesch. p. 321, 13–322, 2, oÈ proÛdÒmenoi tØn ÉArximÆdouw dÊnamin, §n ≤m°raiw p°nte diå tØn poluxeir¤an katataxÆsein ≥lpisan t∞i paraskeu∞i toÁw Ípenant¤ouw. plØn ı proeirhm°now énØr katã tinaw tÒpouw …rism°nouw toiaÊthn §p‹ toË te¤xouw ≤to¤mase paraskeuÆn 4–5 oÈ—dÊnamin: Suda s.v. §rgolãbow, ofl d¢ ÑRvma›oi poliorkoËntew toÁw Surakous¤ouw ¶rgou e‡xonto, oÈ logisãmenoi k. t. l. 5–6 m¤a—énustikvt°ra: Suda s.v. énustikvt°ra 18 ı d¢ Mãrkow inc. Excerpta Antiqua

V P1 [T] [Polybii Excerpta Antiqua] [Suda]

1 yãlassan V P1 T: yãlattan Hultsch B.-W. || peristoix¤santew V P1 non hab. T B.-W.; cf. p. 78, 17 et •toimasam°nvn || •toimasãmenoi T B.-W. || te] d¢ T B.-W. 2 tå êlla T 3 §n del. Schw. om. T B.-W. 5 §st‹ om. Suda 8 diå tÚ ke›syai] diake›syai P1 || tÒpon P1 10 dÊneto P1 corr. P1X 12 §piponhreuom°nouw P1 13 de›n om. T 15 ÖAppiow] Mãrkow T || kl¤makaw] kãmakaw T 18 Mãrkow] ÖAppiow T || ejhkontasfasin T || §pie›to P1 19 éxradinÆn V P1 Plb. FD: éxrandinØn Plb. S éxradeinhn T ÉAxrad¤nhn Wesch. B.-W. || eekaston signo corruptelae addito T 21 toÊtvn V P1 || pent∞rsi T 22 paralelum°naiw V P1T B.-W.: paralemm°naiw Plb.FS 23 sunezeugm°naw V P1 24 §cilom°nouw T

201 (Plb. VIII, 3, 3)

202 (4)

203 (5)

204 (6)

205 (4, 1)

206 (2)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

219

wicker-work screens and missiles, and other material for the siege, expecting, due to their large numbers, to outstrip the enemy in their p reparations within five days, not counting on the ability of Archimedes, nor foreseeing that in some circumstances the spirit of one man is more effective than any large numbers. However, they then learned the truth of this saying through actual events. For, as the strength of the city lies in the fact that the wall stretches in a circle along highground with overhanging crags, which are, except in some specific places, by no means easily accessible even with no one opposing, the aforementioned man now readied such extensive prepa rations within the city including those to guard against attackers from the sea177, that there was no need for the defenders to act on the spur of the moment, but they could readily reply to every move of the enemy. Appius, however, with his wicker screens and ladders under took to bring these against a portion of the wall adjoining the Hexapyla to the east. Marcus was attacking Achradina from the sea with sixty quin queremes, each of which was full of men with bows, slings, and javelins, with which they intended to repel those fighting from the bat tlements. He also had eight quinqueremes from which the banks of oars had been removed, the right banks from some and the left ones from others. These were joined to one another in pairs on their bare sides, and by using the oars on their outer sides they brought up to the

177

I.e., as well as those attacking by land; see Walbank (1967) 71.

220 (Plb. VIII, 4, 3) 207 (4) 208

(5) 209 (6) 210

(7) 211

(8) 212

(9) 213

80

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 206–213 ( THEV. p. 326, 32–46)

to¤xvn efires¤aw tåw legom°naw sambÊkaw. tÚ d¢ skeËow t∞w kataskeu∞w t«n efirhm°nvn Ùrgãnvn §st‹ toioËton. kl¤maka t«i plãtei tetrãpedon •toimãsantew, v Ü stÉ §j épobãsevw efiw Ïch g¤nesyai 3 t«i te¤xei, taÊthw •kat°ran tØn pleurån drufakt≈santew ka‹ skepãsantew Íperpet°si yvrak¤oiw, ¶yhkan plag¤an §p‹ toÁw sumcaÊontaw to¤xouw t«n sunezeugm°nvn nh«n, polÁ prop¤ptou- 6 san t«n sumbÒlvn. prÚw d¢ to›w flsto›w §k t«n ênv mer«n troxil¤ai prosÆrthnto sÁn kãloiw. loipÚn ˜tan §gg¤svsi t∞w xre¤aw, §ndedem°nvn t«n kãlvn efiw tØn korufØn t∞w kl¤makow, ßlkousi 9 diå t«n troxil¤vn toÊtouw •st«tew §n ta›w prÊmnaiw: ßteroi paraplhs¤vw §n ta›w pr≈raiw §jere¤dontew ta›w ént¤rhsin ésfal¤zontai tØn êrsin toË mhxanÆmatow. kêpeita diå t∞w efires¤aw 12 t∞w éfÉ •kat°rou t«n §ktÚw tars«n §gg¤santew t∞i g∞i tåw naËw, peirãzousi prosere¤dein t«i te¤xei tÚ proeirhm°non ˆrganon. §p‹ d¢ t∞w kl¤makow êkraw Ípãrxei p°teuron ≤sfalism°non g°rroiw 15 tåw tre›w §pifane¤aw, §fÉ o t°ssarew êndrew §pibebhkÒtew égvn¤zontai, diamaxÒmenoi prÚw toÁw e‡rgontaw épÚ t«n §pãljevn tØn prÒyesin t∞w sambÊkhw. §pån d¢ prosere¤santew dejio‹ Íp¢r 18 ênv g°nvntai toË te¤xouw, otoi m¢n tå plãgia t«n gerr«n

V P1 [T] 1 eirhsiaw T || sambÊkaw Schw. (Tom. VI, p. 443–4), coll., v. 18; [Polybii p. 81, 2, 6 et 24; p. 82, 5, B.-W.: sambÊklaw V P1 sambukaw T sãmbukaw Excerpta Plb. FS || d¢ V P1 T B.-W.: om. Plb. FS || skeËow lege g°now cum T Plb. Antiqua] 1–2 t∞w . . . . Ùrgãnvn] t«n toioÊtvn Ùrgãnvn T 2 esto T || toioËton V P1 Plb. SS: toioËto T Plb. F B.-W. 3 Àste T || efiw Ïch VP1: efiw Ïcei Plb. S efiw Îcei Plb. F eisouch T fiso#c∞ Scaliger B.-W.; codex, quo usus est Anonymus, vid. habuisse efiw Ïcei et Anon., non intellegens, id mutasse in efiw Ïch || gen°syai T Plb. 4 drufaktosantew T 5 skepantew T || Íperpet°sia P1 a exp. P1X Íp¢r pet°sia V 6 ne«n T Plb. 7 lege §mbÒlvn cum P1X (sumbÒlvn P1) T Plb. 7–8 trouÛliai T 8 prosÆrthntai T || t∞i xre¤ai T 9 ßlkousi om. T 10 troxil¤vn V P1 Plb. FS: troxili«n TS B.-W. 11 om. V P1 || pr≈raiw V Ts Plb. S: prÒraiw P1 prÒrraiw Plb. F pr≈rraiw Hultsch B.-W.; cf. ad p. 82, 13, 15, 16, 17 et 21 || ejeridontew T || ént¤rhsin V P1: éntÛrÆsin Plb. F éntir¤sin Plb. S anthrhsein T énthr¤sin Casaubonus B.-W. 12 ésfal¤zontai V P1 T B.-W.: ésfal¤zousi Plb. FS || êrsin V P1 B.-W.: arshn T êrisin Plb. FS || kaipeita T || ≤res¤aw Plb. F 13 éfÉ] §f P1 || t«n] t∞w V P1 14 tÚ proeirhm°non ˆrganon V P1 (tÚ om. P1) T B.-W.: t« proeirhm°nvn ˆrganon Plb. F t«n proeirhm°nvn Ùrgãnvn Plb. S 15 §p‹—p°teuron om. T || p°teuroin 1 16 t°ttarew T Plb. || êndrew om. Plb. S || §phbebhkÒtew P1 i exp. P1 V §pibebikÒtew P1 17 e‡rgontaw] eisreontaw T 18 lege prÒsyesin cum T Plb. 18–19 dejio‹ Íp¢r ênv lege Íperd°jioi cum T Plb.; cf. Schw. (Tom. VI, p. 448–449) „Íperãnv ex interpretatione est, imperite autem vocabulum Íperd°jioi capite truncatum” 19 g°nontai Plb. F || gerr«n V P1 Plb. DG („vulgo” Schw.): g°rr«n Plb. F g°rrvn T S B.-W.; cf. v. 15; p. 79, 2 et ad p. 83, 17

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

221

wall [80] the so-called sambucae178. The nature 179 of the construction of the aforementioned engines is as follows. They prepared a ladder four feet wide so as to be in height equal to180 the wall when erected at an [appropriate] distance, fencing in each side and covering it with a high protective breastwork. They then laid it flat upon those sides of the joined ships that were touching, projecting a considerable dis tance beyond the prows181. At the top of the masts pulleys with ropes were fastened, and when they are about to use it, with the ropes attached to the top of the ladder men standing in the sterns pull them by means of the pulleys, while others similarly [stand] in the prows, and supporting [it] with props, assure that the engine is safely raised. And then using the oars on both the outer oar-banks of the ships they bring them close to land, and they now attempt to set the engine I have described up against the wall. At the top of the ladder there is a plat form protected on three sides by wicker screens, on which four men mount and confront the enemy, fighting those who from the battle ments try to prevent the sambuca from being set up 182. When they have set it up and are above the level of the wall183, these men detach the the wicker screens [81] on each side and mount the battlements or

178 The sambuca is also mentioned in the tenth century by the so-called “Heron of Byzantium,” Parangelmata poliorcetica 53:1-54:12 with figs. 23 and 24 (in Sullivan [2000]), citing Athenaeus Mechanicus. 179 Accepting g° now for skeËow. 180 Accepting fiso#c∞ for efiw Ïch, although as vdB notes the Anon. apparently wrote efiw Ïch, incorrectly emending an apparent error in his own manuscript. 181 Accepting § mbÒlvn for sumbÒlvn. 182 Accepting prÒsyesin for prÒyesin. 183 Accepting Íperd° jioifor dejio‹ Íp¢r ênv.

222

81

3

6

p. 327 Thev.

9

12

15

18

21

24

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 213–223 (THEV. p. 326, 46–327, 12)

paralÊsantew §j •kat°rou toË m°rouw §piba¤nousin §p‹ tåw §pãljeiw μ toÁw pÊrgouw. ofl d¢ loipo‹ diå t∞w sambÊkhw ßpontai toÊtoiw, ésfal«w to›w kãloiw bebhku¤aw t∞w kl¤makow efiw émfot°raw tåw naËw. efikÒtvw d¢ tÚ kataskeÊasma t∞w proshgor¤aw t°teuxe taÊthw: §peidån går §jary∞i, g¤netai tÚ sx∞ma t∞w neΔw taÊthw ka‹ t∞w kl¤makow •nopoihy¢n paraplÆsion sabÊkhi. plØn otoi m¢n tÚn trÒpon toËton dihrmosm°noi prosãgein dienooËnto to›w pÊrgoiw: ı d¢ proeirhm°now énÆr, pareskeua|sm°now ˆrgana prÚw ëpan §mbel¢w diãsthma, pÒrrvyen m¢n §pipl°ontaw to›w eÈtonvt°roiw ka‹ me¤zosi liyobÒloiw ka‹ b°lesi titr≈skvn efiw épor¤an §n°balen, ˜te d¢ taËyÉ Íperpet∞ g¤noito, to›w §lãttosi katå lÒgon ée‹ prÚw tÚ parÚn épÒsthma xr≈menow efiw toiaÊthn ≥gage diatropØn Àste kayÒlou kvlÊein aÈt«n tØn ırmØn ka‹ tÚn §p¤ploun, ßvw ı Mãrkow dusyetoÊmenow ±nagkãsyh lãyra nuktÚw §pipoiÆsasyai tØn paragvgÆn. genom°nvn dÉ aÈt«n §ntÚw b°louw prÚw t∞i g∞i, pãlin •t°ran ≤toimãkei paraskeuØn prÚw toÁw épomaxom°nouw §k t«n plo¤vn. …w éndromÆkouw Ïcouw katepÊknvse trÆmasi tÚ te›xow …w palaistia¤oiw tÚ m°geyow katå tØn §ktÚw §pifãneian: oÂw tojÒtaw ka‹ skorp¤dia parastÆsaw §ntÚw toË te¤xouw, ka‹ bãllvn diå toÊtvn, éxrÆstouw §po¤ei toÁw §pibãtaw. §j o ka‹ makrån éfest«taw ka‹ sÊnegguw ˆntaw toÁw polem¤ouw oÈ mÒnon éprãktouw pareskeÊaze prÚw tåw fid¤aw §pibolãw, éllå ka‹ di°fyeire toÁw ple¤stouw aÈt«n. ˜te d¢ tåw sambÊkaw §gxeir¤saien §ja¤rein, ˆrgana parÉ ˜lon tÚ te›xow F 4–6 efikÒtvw—sambÊkhi om. T 9–12 ˆrgana—§lãttosi: Suda s.v. §mbel°w, ı d¢ ÉArximÆdhw pareskeuãsato ˆrgana prÚw k.t.l. 16–21 pãlin— §pibãtaw: Suda s.v. skorp¤dia, d d¢ ÉArximÆdhw pãlin •t°ran k.t.l.

V P1 [T] Polybii Excerpta Antiqua [Suda]

1 toË om. T || §piba¤nousi P1 3 kvloiw T 4 tÚ V P1 B.-W.: om. Plb. FS 5 §jarye› Plb. F || toÊthw P1V1, addito signo (corruptelae?) i.m. V 7 plØn otoi m¢n] otoi m¢n oÔn T || dieirmosm°noi Plb. F 7–8 prosãgein— pÊrgoiw] t«i te¤xei pros°ballon T 8 t«n pÊrgvn V P1 8–9 pareskeuasm°nvw Plb. F pareseuasmenow T 9 §mbel¢w Suda B.-W.: §mb°lhw V P1 §mmel¢w Plb. FS §mbãllei T || pÒrrvye Plb. F 10 §ntonvt°roiw V || me¤zosin Suda 10–11 liyobÒloiw—§n°balen om. Suda 11 §n°balen] §n°bale ka‹ dusxrhst¤an (dusxristian T ) T Plb. || taËta T || g°noito P1 g¤gnoito Suda 12 §lãttousi P1 §lãttosin Suda || katalÒgvn Plb. F katelatton T 14 §p¤plou P1 || dusyetoÊmenow om. T 15 lãyra V P1 TS Schw., tacite: lãyrai Hultsch, tacite, B.-W. || §pipoiÆsasyai P1 Plb. FS: §poipoiÆsasyai V poiÆsasyai T ¶ti poiÆsasyai Scaliger B.-W. || d¢ T 17 …w V P1 T Plb. FS Suda: ßvw Schw. B.-W. || Ïcow T 18 palaistia›on V P1 20 ka‹ bãllvn om. Suda 21 éfest«taw] épÒntaw T 24 sambÊkaw V P1 B.-W.: sumbukaw T sãmbukaw Plb. FS; cf. ad p. 80, 1 || §gxeir¤saien V P1 Plb.SS („vulgo omnes” Schw.): §gxeirÆsaien T Plb. F B.-W. || §ja¤rein ˆrgana V P1 T B.-W.: ˆrgana §ja¤rein Plb. FS

214 (10) 215 (11)

216 (5, 1) 217 (2)

218 (3)

219 (4) 220 (5) 221 (6)

222 (7) 223 (8)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

223

towers, and the rest follow them through the sambuca, the ladder standing securely on the two ships due to the ropes. The construction appropriately received this name, for when raised the shape of the ship and ladder joined together is just like the “sambuca.” 184. Now after making such arrangement the [Romans] intended to approach the towers. But the aforementioned man, who had prepared engines constructed to cover any distance within missile range, so damaged the advancing ships at long range with his larger and more powerful stone-throwers and catapults 185 as to throw them into much difficulty; and as soon as these engines fired too high he employed proportionally smaller ones to match the range at the moment186, and, finally, brought about so much confusion that he completely ended their advance by sea, until Marcus was so vexed that he was com pelled to bring up his ships secretly at night. But when they were close to land within the dead angle 187 [Archimedes] readied another con trivance for attacking the men who were fighting from the ships. He packed the wall thickly with openings188 of the height of a man and of about a palm’s width on the outer face. Stationing archers and small arrow-firing catapults at these inside the wall and firing through them, he rendered the marines useless. Thus he not only made the enemy ineffective whether they were at a distance or close by, but killed the greater number of them. And when they undertook to raise

184 I.e., the musical instrument so named; see Walbank (1967) 72-73 and J. G. Landels, “Ship Shape and Sambuca Fashion”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 86 (1966) 69ff. 185 For this interpretation of b° low see Walbank (1967) 74. 186 For the phrasing see Walbank (1967) 74. 187 For this interpretation of § ntÚw b° louwsee Walbank (1967) 74. 188 Cf. above 51:7-8.

224

82

(Plb. 224 VIII 5,9) (10) 225 (11) 226 (6, 1) 227

(2) 228

(3) 229

(4) 230

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 223–230 (THEV. p. 327, 12–27)

≤toimãkei, tÚn m¢n loipÚn xrÒnon éfan∞, katå d¢ tÚn t∞w xre¤aw kairÚn §k t«n ¶sv mer«n Íp¢r toË te¤xouw énistãmena ka‹ prop¤ptonta poll«i t∞w §pãljevw ta›w kera¤aiw: œn tinå m¢n §bãstaze l¤youw oÈk §lãttouw d°ka talãntvn, tinå d¢ shk≈mata molÊbdina. loipÚn ˜te sunegg¤zoien afl sambÊkai pot°, periagÒmenai karxhs¤vi prÚw tÚ d°on afl kera›ai diã tinow sxasthr¤aw éf¤esan efiw tÚ kataskeÊasma tÚn l¤yon: §j o sun°baine mØ mÒnon tÚ sunyraÊesyai toÎrganon, éllå ka‹ tØn naËn ka‹ toÁw §n aÈt∞i kinduneÊein ılosxer«w. tinã te t«n mhxanhmãtvn pãlin §p‹ toÁw §form«ntaw ka‹ probeblhm°nouw g°rra ka‹ diå toÊtvn ±sfalism°nouw prÚw tÚ mhd¢n pãsxein ÍpÚ t«n diå toË te¤xouw ferom°nvn bel«n, ±f¤ei m¢n ka‹ l¤youw summ°trouw prÚw tÚ feÊgein §k t∞w pr≈raw toÁw égvnizom°nouw, ëma d¢ ka‹ kay¤ei xe›ra sidhrçn §j èlÊsevw dedem°nhn, ∏i drajãmenow ı tØn kera¤an ofiak¤zvn ˜yen §pilãboi t∞w pr≈raw, katãge tØn pt°rnan t∞w mhxan∞w §ntÚw toË te¤xouw. ˜te dÉ §koÊfizon tØn pr≈ran ÙryÚn poiÆseien tÚ skãfow §p‹ tØn prÊmnan, tåw m¢n pr≈raw t«n Ùrgãnvn efiw ék¤nhton kaye›ptai, t∞n d¢ xe›ra ka‹ tØn ëlusin §k t∞w mhxan∞w §j°renai diã tinow xasthr¤aw. o ginom°nou tinå m¢n t«n plo¤vn plãgia kat°pipte, tinå d¢ ka‹ katestr°feto, tå d¢ ple›sta t∞w pr≈raw éfÉ Ïcouw =ifye¤shw baptizÒmena

2 Íp¢r] §p‹ T 3 prop¤ptonta V P1 T B.-W.: prosp¤ptonta Plb.FS V P1 T || poll«i voluisse Anon. vidit Hultsch: pollo‹ V P1 polÁ T Plb. 4 okvPolybii Excerpta nata cum signo corruptelae inter o et k T 5 mol¤bdina T Plb. || samAntiqua bÊkai V P1 Ts Plb. FS: sambËkai Bekker B.-W. || pot¢ V P1 Plb.FS: tÒte T Schw. B.-W. 6 karxhs¤vi om. T || sxasthr¤aw V P1 T B.-W.: xasthr¤aw Plb.FD xaristhr¤aw Plb.S; cf. ad v. 19 7 éf¤esan V P1 Plb.FS: ±f¤esan T B.-W.; cf. v. 12 8 tÚ] lege aÈtÚ cum T Plb. || yraÊesyai T || tÚ ˆrganon T || ka‹ toÁw] katå toÁw V P1; cf. ad. p. 70, 4 10 §form«ntaw V P1 T B.-W.: §formoËntaw Plb.FS 11 pãsxhn V || ÍpÚ] épÚ T || diå] §k T 13 pr≈raw V P1 Plb. Ss: x≈raw T pr≈rraw Plb.F B.-W.; cf. ad p. 80,11 14 xe›ran P1 xera T || ∏i] μ V P1 ∂ Plb.F 15 lege §pilãboito cum T Plb. || pr≈raw V P1 T Plb.Ss: pr≈rraw Plb.F B.-W.; cf. ad p. 80,11 || katãge V P1 Plb.FS: kat∞ge T B.-W. 16 ˜te dÉ §koÊfizon V P1 Plb.FS: ˜te d¢ kouf¤zvn Plb.G B.-W. ode kouf¤zvn T || pr≈ran V P1 Plb.Ss: pr«rran Plb.F B.-W.; cf. ad p. 80,11 17 poiÆseie Plb. poiousa T || tØn non hab. T Plb. || pr≈raw V P1 T Plb.Ss: pr≈rraw Plb.F pt°rnaw Valesius B.-W. || t«n bis P1 18 kaye›ptai V P1: kaye¤ptai Plb.F kay∞ptai Plb.S kayhpta T kay∞pte Schw. B.-W. 19 §j°renai Plb.F §jerenai V: §jer°nai P1 §j°raine Plb.S §j°rraine T B.-W. || xasthr¤aw V P1 Plb.FD: xaristhr¤aw Plb.S sxasthr¤aw T B.-W.; cf. ad v. 6 || genom°nou Plb.S 20 kat°pipten Plb.F katepipton T || éntestr°feto P1 21 pr≈raw V P1 T Plb. Ss: pr≈rraw Plb.F B.-W.; cf. ad p. 80,11 || =ifye¤shw V P1 T B.-W.: =hye¤shw Plb.FS

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

225

the sambucae he had engines ready all along the wall, [82] which while otherwise invisible, rose up as needed over the wall from the inside, their beams projecting far beyond the battlements; some of them carried stones weighing no less than ten talents and others large lead weights. Then whenever the sambucae approached, the beams were swung around on a universal joint 189 as needed and by means of a release mechanism dropped the stone on the devices. As a result not only was the engine itself 190 smashed, but the ship and those on it were in the greatest danger. There were some machines again which were directed against men advancing while covering themselves with wick er-work screens and thus protected from harm by missiles fired through the wall. These machines, on the one hand, discharged stones large enough to cause the assailants to flee from the prow, and simul taneously lowered a grappling iron attached to a chain with which the man directing the beam would grasp [at the ship] so as to get a hold191 on the prow; he would [then] lower the butt-end of the machine which was inside the wall. And when he was thus lifting up the ship’s prow he would make the hull stand upright on the stern and fastened the butt-ends192 of the devices so they could not move, but by means of a release mechanism let the grappling iron and chain suddenly drop from the machine. When this took place some of the vessels fell on their sides, some were overturned, and most of them, when their

189 tÚ karxÆsion. On the device see Walbank (1967) 75-76; it is also mentioned in the tenth century by the so-called “Heron of Byzantium,” Parangelmata poliorcetica 54:5 (in Sullivan [2000]), citing Athenaeus Mechanicus; see also Haldon (2000) 281 with n. 150. 190 Accepting aÈtÚ for tÒ. 191 Accepting § pilãboito for § pilãboi . 192 Accepting pt° rnaw for pr≈raw.

226

83

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 230–238 (THEV. p. 327, 27–43)

plÆrh yalãsshw §g¤neto ka‹ tarax∞w. Mãrkow d¢ dusxrhstoÊmenow §p‹ to›w épantvm°noiw ÍpÉ ÉArximÆdouw, ka‹ yevr«n metå blãbhw ka‹ xleuasmoË toÁw ¶ndon épotribom°nouw aÍtoË tåw §pibolãw, dusxer«w m¢n ¶feren tÚ sumba›non, ˜mvw dÉ §piskop«n tåw aÍtoË prãjeiw ¶fh ta›w m¢n naus‹n aÈtoË kuay¤zein §k yalãtthw ÉArximÆdh, tåw d¢ sambÊkaw =apizom°naw Àsper §kspÒndouw metÉ afisxÊnhw §kpeptvk°nai. ka‹ t∞w m¢n katå yãlattan poliork¤aw toioËton ép°bh tÚ t°low. ofl d¢ per‹ tÚn ÖAppion efiw paraplhs¤ouw §mpesÒntew dusxere¤aw ép°sthsan t∞w §pibol∞w. ¶ti m¢n går ˆntew §n épostÆmati to›w te petrobÒloiw ka‹ katap°ltaiw tuptÒmenoi diefye¤ronto, diå tÚ yaumãsion e‰nai tØn t«n bel«n kataskeuØn ka‹ katå tÚ pl∞yow , …w ín ÑI°rvnow m¢n xorhgoË gegonÒtow, érxit°ktonow d¢ ka‹ dhmiourgoË t«n §pinohmãtvn ÉArximÆdouw. sunegg¤zont°w ge mØn prÚw tØn pÒlin ofl m¢n ta›w diå toË te¤xouw tojÒtisin, …w §pãnv proe›pon, kakoÊmenoi sunex«w e‡rgonto t∞w prosÒdou: ofl d¢ metå t«n gerr«n biazÒmenoi ta›w t«n katakoruf«n l¤yvn ka‹ dok«n §mbola›w diefye¤ronto. oÈk Ùl¤ga d¢ ka‹ ta›w xers‹ ta›w §k t«n mhxan«n §kakopo¤oun, …w ka‹ prÒteron e‰pa: sÁn aÈto›w går to›w toÁw êndraw §jairoËntew §rr¤ptoun. tÚ d¢ p°raw, énaxvrÆsantew efiw tØn parembolØn ka‹ sunedreÊsantew metå t«n xiliãrxvn ofl per‹ tÚn ÖAppion, ımoyumadÚn §bouleÊsanto pãshw §lp¤dow pe›ran lambãnein plØn toË diå poliork¤aw •le›n tåw SurakoÊsaw, …w ka‹ F 1 yalãsshw §g¤neto des. T 1–7 Mãrkow—§kpeptvk°nai: Athenaeus XIV, 634b PolÊbiow dÉ §n t∞i ÙgdÒhi t«n ÑIstori«n “MãrkellÒw” fhsi dusxrhstoÊmenow §n t∞i Surakous«n poliork¤ai ÍpÚ t«n ÉArximÆdouw kataskeuasmãtvn ¶legen ta›w m¢n naus‹n k.t.l. 23—p. 84,3 §bouleÊsanto—§yãrrhsan: T, Wesch. p. 326,10–13, ofl d¢ t«n ÑRvma¤vn strathgo¤, to›w ˜loiw époroËntew tÚ mhk°ti pot¢ ín §lp¤sai diå poliork¤aw tåw SurakoÊsaw •le›n, t«n m¢n êllvn strathghmãtvn k.t.l.

V P1 [T] Polybii Excerpta Antiqua [Athenaeus]

1 yalãtthw Plb. alatthw T || mãrkellow P1x (mãrkow P1) Athenaeus || dusxrhstoum°noiw P 1 2 épantama¤oiw V ëpanta ma¤soi P 1 3 aÈtoË V P1 Schw., tacite 4 ¶fere Plb. || §pisk≈ptvn Plb. || aÈtoË V P1 Schw., tacite 5 aÈtoË] aÈtÚw V P1 aÍtoË Athenaeus || yalãsshw Athenaeus 6 érximÆdhw E érxhmÆdhw Vs P1s ÉArximÆdhn Athenaeus || =apizom°nouw V P1 || §kspÒndouw] §k pÒtou Athenaeus 8 toioËto Plb.F 13 om. V P1 || xorhgoË] érxhgoË (xorhgoË Plb.D i.m. ) Plb. S 17 gerr«n V P1 Plb.FS: g°rrvn B.-W.; cf. ad p. 80,19 18 katå korufØn Plb.; incertum utrum compositum Anonymo an librario attribuendum sit || l¤yon Plb.F 20 om. V P1 21 §jairoËntaw V P1 || §rr¤ptoun tÚ V P1 B.-W.: §rriptoËto Plb.FS 24 surakoÊssaw Plb.F

231 (5)

232 (6)

233 (7) 234 (7, 1) 235 (2)

236 (3)

237 (4)

238 (5)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

227

prows were thus dropped from a height, were submerged [83] and filled with sea water and chaos. Marcus was distressed at what he encountered at the hands of Archimedes, and seeing that those within thus foiled his attacks, both causing damage and offering derision, was vexed at the result, but still reflecting on his own operations, he said: “Archimedes uses my ships to ladle sea water like wine, but my sambucae are hurled down and driven out in disgrace like intruders.” Such was the siege from the sea. And Appius also fell into similar difficulties and abandoned his attempt. For his men while still at a distance perished when struck by the stone-throwers and catapults, the supply of the artillery being awesome both as regards quantity , as indeed was to be expected since Hiero was providing the funds and Archimedes was the designer and creator of the devices. And when indeed they got near the city they were unremittingly savaged from the loopholes in the wall which I mentioned earlier and their advance was checked; but if they pressed forward under cover of the wicker screens, they were destroyed by the stones and beams dropped on their heads. The [besieged] also caused no little damage with the above-mentioned grappling irons [hanging] from the machines, for they lifted up men and all, and then hurled them down. Finally Appius with drew to his camp and called a council of his tribunes, at which it was unanimously decided to try every hopeful option except to take Syracuse by assault. And [84] this they did consistently; for while

228

84 (Plb. VIII, 239 7, 6) (8) 240

(9) 241 242 243

244

245

246 (Arr. II, 18, 3)

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 238–246 (THEV. p. 327, 44–328, 8)

t°low §po¤hsan: ÙktΔ går m∞naw t∞i pÒlei proskayezÒmenoi t«n m¢n êllvn strathghmãtvn μ tolmhmãtvn oÈdenÚw ép°sthsan, toË d¢ poliorke›n oÈd°pote pe›ran ¶ti labe›n §yãrrhsan. §ke›noi goËn thlikaÊtaw dunãmeiw ¶xontew ka‹ katå g∞n ka‹ katå yãlattan, efi m¢n éf°loi tiw presbÊthn ßna Surakous¤vn, paraxr∞ma t∞w pÒlevw kurieÊsein ≥lpizon, toÊtou d¢ sumparÒntow oÈk §yãrroun oÈdÉ §pibal°syai. efi goËn ka‹ so‹ t«i t«n ¶ndon proest«ti Ùl¤ga ~ t«n §n mhxanÆmati ~, kayãper énvt°rv proe›pa, kal«w §jaskhye¤h, =aid¤vw katagvn¤shi toÁw Ípenant¤ouw. oÈ går ˜moioi to›w yumo›w t«n palai«n oÈd¢ ta›w §pino¤aiw ofl t«n §yn«n êrti katãrxontew, éllÉ oÈd¢ ta›w dunãmesi paraplÆsioi, | éllå katå polÁ toÊtvn épod°ousin. ì går ÉAl°jandrow, ı t«n MakedÒnvn basileÊw, §p‹ t∞w TÊrou ka‹ Gãzhw poliork¤ai §penÒhse, ka‹ T¤tow §p‹ kayair°sei t∞w ÑIerousalÆm, ka‹ êlloi §pÉ êllaiw pÒlesin, …w §piÒntew épode¤jomen, t¤w ín t«n nËn §pithdeËsai dunÆsetai μ tosoËton énad°jasyai pÒnon; t∞w går TÊrou nÆsou sxedÚn oÎshw ka‹ te¤xesin Íchlo›w pãnthi »xurvm°nhw, ka‹ t«n Pers«n tÒte, ÍfÉ œn ≤ pÒliw §t°takto, yalassokratoÊntvn ka‹ aÈt«n t«n Tur¤vn n∞aw §xÒntvn pollãw, ˜mvw x«ma ¶gnv xvnnÊnai §k t∞w ±pe¤rou …w §p‹ tØn pÒlin. {ka‹ ≥peiron tØn nÆsou épeirgãsato} ¶stin d¢ {fhsi} porymÚw tenag≈dhw tÚ xvr¤on ka‹ tå m¢n prÚw t∞i ±pe¤rvi t∞w yalãsshw F 3 post §yãrrhsan hab. Plb. oÏtvw eÂw énØr ka‹ m¤a cuxØ deÒntvw ≤rmosm°nh prÚw ¶nia t«n pragmãtvn m°ga ti xr∞ma fa¤netai g¤nesyai ka‹ yaumãsion (cuxØ Schw. tÊxh codd.) 7 §pibal°syai des. Plb. 18–20 t∞w går—pollãw cf. Arr. II, 18,2 n∞sÒw te går aÈto›w ≤ pÒliw ∑n ka‹ te¤xesin Íchlo›w pãnthi »xÊrvto: ka‹ tå épÚ yalãsshw prÚw t«n Tur¤vn mçllÒn ti §n t«i tÒte §fa¤neto, t«n te Pers«n ¶ti yalassokratoÊntvn ka‹ aÈto›w to›w Tur¤oiw ne«n ¶ti poll«n perious«n 21—p. 94, 8 ˜mvw—•ta¤roiw: Arr. II, 18, 3 …w d¢ taËta ˜mvw §krãthse, x«ma ¶gnv xvnnÊnai k.t.l.—23,6 22—p. 93, 24 ¶stin—te¤xei: T, Wesch. p. 309, 3—316, 6

V P1 [Polybii 3 oÈd°pote] oÈd¢ T 5 tiw presbtu V to›w presbut°roiw P1 || surakous¤vn V Plb.FS: surakoÊsion P1 et coni. Schw. Surakos¤vn B.-W. 8 t«n §n] Excerpta Antiqua [T] tÚn §n P1 9 énvt°rv v. p. 78, 12 sqq. 10 §nant¤ouw P1 19 Ùxurvm°nhw P1 21 ±pe¤rou] ±pe¤rasiw V P1 22 {ka‹—épeirgãsato} delevi; non hab. Arr.; [Arr.] haec verba videntur explicandi causa i.m. scripta esse, pertinentia ad verba ¶stin—xvr¤on v. 22–23, et inde in textum irrepsisse || ka‹] …w §p‹ tØn P1 || tØn nÆsou] tØn nÆson P1, ut legendum videatur t∞w nÆsou || épeirgãsanto P1 || ¶sti Arr. om. T || {fhsi} delevi; non. hab. Arr. T || pormow T 23 teganvdhw T

3

6

9

12 p. 328 Thev. 15

18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

229

investing the city for eight months and leaving no other stratagems or acts of daring untried, they never once ventured again to attempt an assault. The [Romans] at least, although powerful both by sea and by land, were expecting to take control of the city immediately if some one were to remove one old man from Syracuse, but while he was present they did not venture to attack. If then a few ~ machines ~, as I said above193, are well equipped by you as leader of the forces inside, you will easily overcome the enemy. For the leaders of the foreign peoples in our time bear no resemblance to those of old in spirit or inventiveness, nor are they comparable in their forces, but fall far short of them. For what Alexander king of Macedon devised for the siege of Tyre and of Gaza, and Titus for seizing Jerusalem, and others for other cities, as we will make clear as we proceed, who today would be able to devise or undertake such effort? For Tyre was almost an island and fortified everywhere with high walls, and at that time the Persians, by whom the city was ruled, were masters of the sea and Tyrians themselves possessed many ships. Nevertheless [Alexander] decided to construct a mole from the main land to the city. The area is a shallow strait; and the sea towards the mainland consists of shoals [85] and mud; but near the city itself at

193

See above 78:14ff.

230

85

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 246–254 ( THEV. p. 328, 8–25)

brax°a ka‹ phl≈dh aÈtoË, tå d¢ prÚw aÈt∞i t∞i pÒlei, ˜pou tÚ bayÊtaton toË diãplou, tri«n mãlista Ùrgui«n tÚ bãyow. éllå l¤yvn te poll«n éfyon¤a ∑n ka‹ Ïlhw, ¥ntina to›w l¤yoiw ênvyen §pefÒroun, xãrak°w te oÈ xalep«w katepÆgnunto §n t«i phl«i ka‹ aÈtÚw ı phlÚw sÊndesmow efiw tÚ §pim°nein to›w l¤yoiw §g¤neto. ka‹ proyum¤a t«n te MakedÒnvn efiw tÚ ¶rgon ka‹ ÉAlejãndrou pollØ ∑n parÒntow te ka‹ aÈtoË §jhgoum°nou ka‹ tå m¢n lÒgvi §pa¤rontow, tå d¢ ka‹ xrÆmasi toÊw ti §kprep°steron katÉ éretØn ponoum°nouw §pikouf¤zontow. éllÉ ßvw m¢n tÚ prÚw t∞i ±pe¤rvi §x≈nnuto, oÈ xalep«w proÈx≈rei tÚ ¶rgon, §p‹ bãyow te Ùl¤gon xvnnÊmenon ka‹ oÈdenÚw §je¤rgontow. …w d¢ t«i te bayut°rvi ≥dh §p°lazon ka‹ ëma t∞i pÒlei aÈt∞i §ggÁw §g¤gnonto, épÒ te t«n teix«n Íchl«n ˆntvn ballÒmenoi , ka‹ ta›w triÆresin êllhi ka‹ êllhi toË x≈matow §pipl°ontew ofl TÊrioi, ëte dØ yalassokratoËntew ¶ti, êpeiron pollax∞i tØn prÒsxvsin to›w MakedÒsin §po¤oun. ka‹ ofl MakedÒnew pÊrgouw §pÉ êkrou toË x≈matow, ˜ ti per prokexvrÆkei aÈto›w t∞w yalãsshw, §p°sthsan dÊo ka‹ mhxanåw §p‹ to›w pÊrgoiw. prokalÊmmata d¢ d°rreiw ka‹ dify°rai aÈta›w ∑san, …w mÆte purfÒroiw b°lesin épÚ toË te¤xouw bãllesyai, to›w te §rgazom°noiw probolØn §n t«i aÈt«i e‰nai prÚw tå tojeÊmata: ëma te ˜soi prospl°ontew t«n Tur¤vn ¶blapton toÁw xvnnÊntaw, épÚ t«n pÊrgvn ballÒmenoi oÈ xalep«w énastalÆsesyai ¶mellon. ofl d¢ TÊrioi prÚw taËta éntimhxan«ntai toiÒnde. naËn flppagvgÚn klhmãtvn te jhr«n ka‹ êllhw Ïlhw eÈfl°ktou §mplÆsantew F 6–9 ka‹ proyum¤a—§pikouf¤zontow om. T

V P1 1 phl≈dh] tenagvdh T || ˜pou] ·na Arr. T 2 mãlista] §s malista T Arr. || Ùrgui«n P1 Arr.: Ùrgu«n V T 3 pollØ T || éfyon¤an V P1 4 §pi[T] fÒroun V P1 || xãlakew V P1; cf. ad § 384 5 jÊndesmow Arr. 5–6 efiw tÚ §pim°nein to›w l¤yoiw] to›w l¤yoiw §w tÚ (estv T) §pim°nein Arr. T 6 §g¤gneto Arr. T || §w Arr. 7 §jhgoum°nou] ßkasta §jhgoum°nou Arr. 8 §ja¤rontow P1 9 poioum°nouw P1 || éllå T || ßvw] ß P1 ¶ste Arr. estai T 10 tÚ prÚw] t∞i prÚw P1 tå prÚw T 11 §p‹—§je¤rgontow om. T 12 t«i] tÚ P1 13–15 om. V P1 14 mçllÒn ti] ti mallon T || efiw scripsi: §w Arr. T 16 dØ om. T || lege êporon cum Arr. T 17 pollaxou T || prosxvrhsin T 18 §pÉ êkrou V P1 T Roos: §pãnv Arr.A || prouxvrhkei T 19 om. V P1 || dÊo om. T 20 prokãlumma T || aÈta›w V P1 Arr.A T: aÈto›w vulg. Roos 22 t«i aÈt«i] tautv T 24 épÚ—ballÒmenoi om. T 25 mellon T 27 klhmatidvn T; cf. p. 50, 5 et Thucydidem, VII, 53, 4 ılkãda palaiån klhmat¤dvn ka‹ daidÚw gem¤santew

247

248 (4)

249 250 (5)

251 (6)

252

253

254 (19, 1)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

231

the deepest part of the crossing the depth is about three fathoms. But there was an abundance of stones and wood which they piled on top of the stones and stakes were fixed in the mud without difficulty, and the mud itself constituted a binding for holding the stones. The Macedonians were quite eager for the work, as was Alexander too, who was himself present, explaining and encouraging the workers verbally, besides inspiring with rewards those who did any particu larly good work. As long as the building of the mole was near the mainland, the work proceeded without difficulty since the depth being filled was not great, and no one hindered. But when they got into deeper water and nearer the city itself, under fire from the high walls . And the Tyrians sailing up in their triremes on this side of the mole and on that, as indeed they were still masters of the sea, in many places made the mounding up of the mole difficult194 for the Macedonians. And the Macedonians placed two towers on top of the mole, which had now proceeded into the sea, and engines on the towers. They were covered with hides and skins, so that they could not be struck with fire arrows from the wall, and that the builders might thus also have a screen against arrows; at the same time, any Tyrians who rowed up and tried to harm the builders of the mole were likely to be repulsed without difficulty, being under fire from the towers. The Tyrians, however, took counter measures as follows; they filled a cavalry transport with dry branches and other combustible

194

Accepting êporon for êpeiron.

232

86

255 (Arr. II, 256 19, 2)

(3) 257 258

(4) 259 260 (5) 261

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 254–261 ( THEV. p. 328, 25–42)

dÊo flstoÁw §p‹ t∞i pr≈rai kataphgnÊousi ka‹ §n kÊklvi perifrãssousin §w ˜son makrÒtaton, …w forutÒn te taÊthi ka‹ dçidaw ˜saw ple¤staw d°jasyai: prÚw d¢ p¤ssan te ka‹ ye›on ka‹ ˜sa êlla efiw tÚ parakal°sai megãlhn flÒga §p‹ taÊthi §pefÒrhsan. par°teinan d¢ ka‹ kera¤an diplØn §p‹ to›w flsto›w émfot°roiw, ka‹ épÚ taÊthw §jÆrthsan {˜sa} §n l°besin ˜sa §pixuy°nta μ §piblhy°nta §p‹ m°ga tØn flÒga §jãcein ¶mellen, ßrmatã te efiw tØn prÊmnan §n°yesan, toË §jçrai efiw Ïcow tØn pr≈ran piezom°nhw katå prÊmnan t∞w ne≈w. ¶peitÉ ênemon thrÆsantew …w §p‹ tÚ x«ma §pif°ronta §jãcantew triÆresi tØn naËn katÉ oÔron eÂlkon. …w d¢ §p°lazen ≥dh t«i te x≈mati ka‹ to›w pÊrgoiw, pËr §mbalÒntew efiw tØn Ïlhn ka‹ …w biaiÒtata ëma ta›w triÆresin §panelkÊsantew tØn naËn §nse¤ousin êkrvi t«i x≈mati: aÈto‹ d¢ ofl §n t∞i nh˛ kaiom°nhi ≥dh §jenÆjanto oÈ xalep«w. ka‹ §n toÊtvi ¥ te flÚj pollØ §n°pipten to›w pÊrgoiw ka‹ afl kera›ai periklasye›sai §j°xean efiw tÚ pËr ˜sa efiw ¶jacin t∞w flogÚw pareskeuasm°na ∑n. ofl dÉ épÚ t«n triÆrvn plhs¤on toË x≈matow énakvxeÊontew §tÒjeuon efiw toÁw pÊrgouw, …w mØ ésfal«w e‰nai pelãsai ˜soiw sbestÆriÒn ti t∞i flog‹ §p°feron. ka‹ §n toÊtvi katexom°nvn ≥dh §k toË purÚw t«n pÊrgvn §kdramÒntew §k t∞w pÒlevw pollo‹ ka‹ efiw kelÆtia §mbãntew êllhi ka‹ êllhi §poke¤lantew toË x≈matow tÒn te xãraka oÈ xalep«w di°spasan tÚn prÚ aÈtoË probeblhm°non ka‹ tåw mhxanåw sumpãsaw F 7–9 ßrmata—ne≈w: Suda s.v. ßrma

V P1 1 kataphgnÊousin T 1–2 ka‹—perifrãssousin om. T || perifrãsArr. T sousi P1 2 forhtÒn P1 4 §w Arr. T || taËta T || §piforhsan T [Suda] 5 diplØn V P1 T: dipl∞n Arr. 6 {˜sa} delevi; non hab. Arr. T || l°besin lege l°bhsin cum Arr. T 7 ßrma Suda || te §w Arr. tÉew T 8–9 §n°yesan—prÊmnan om. P 1 8 eyesan T §ny°ntew Suda || §w Arr. Suda || pr≈ran V Suda: pr«ran Arr. sine accentu T; cf. p. 82, 16 8–9 piezom°nhw V T Suda Roos: piezoum°nhw Arr.A 9 nhÒw Suda om. T || ¶peita ênemon Arr. epi ta ammon T 10 §pif°rontew T || naË P1 || katÉ oÔron Arr.A Wesch.: kat oÈrÚn V P1 kata touron T katÉ oÈrån Krüger e gl. codicis Arr.B Roos 11 §p°lazon Arr. T || te om. T 12 emballontew T || §w Arr. T || biai≈tata P1 13 efelkusantew T || ensiousin T 14 kaiom°nhw T || §jenijanto T 15 te om. T || §n°pipte Arr. T 16 §j°xeon T || efiw tÚ] §w tÚ Arr. T || ˜sa efiw] ˜sa §w Arr. ˜saw T 17 pareskeuasm°na ∑n] pareskeÊasto T || d¢ T 18 §w Arr. T || lege ésfal¢w cum Arr. T 19 lege ˜soi cum Arr. T 20 katexom°nvn—pÊrgvn om. T || §kdram«ntew P1 21 pollo‹ §k t∞w pÒlevw transp. T || §w Arr. T || kelhtiaw T || esbantew T 22–23 di°spasan tÚn] diaspasantew T 23 prosbeblhm°non T || sumpãsaw scripsi: sump¤saw V P1 jumpãsaw Arr. T

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

233

material, [86] fixed two masts in the bow, and built fences around, extending as far as possible, so as to contain in it as many shavings and torches as possible; and in addition they piled on this pitch, sul phur, and anything else to incite a great blaze. Then they deployed a double yard-arm onto both masts, and from this hung in cauldrons195 anything which when poured or thrown on would greatly kindle the flame, and they ballasted the stern to lift the bow up high as the ship was pressed down at the stern. Then they waited for a wind blowing towards the mole, and fastening the ship with ropes they towed it from the rear196 by means of the triremes. When it was already approaching the mole and the towers, they ignited the material and as forcefully as possible hauled with the triremes and smashed the ship onto the edge of the mole. The men on the ship, which was already burning, swam away without difficulty. Meanwhile a great fire fell on the towers, and as the yard-arms broke, they poured into the fire what had been pre pared to kindle the flame. The men in the triremes rode at anchor near the mole and were firing arrows at the towers, so that it was not safe197 for anyone 198 bringing materials to extinguish the fire to get near. At this point, the towers being already engulfed, the [Tyrians] sallied en masse from the city, and embarking on small boats landed at different parts of the mole and without difficulty tore down the palisade set up in front of it; they burned all the engines [87] which had not been

195 196 197 198

Accepting l° bhsin for l° besin. Accepting oÈrån for oÔron and following for the phrasing Bosworth (1980) 241. Accepting ésfal¢w for ésfal«w . Accepting ˜soi for ˜soiw .

234

87

3

6

9

12

p. 329 15 Thev. 18

21

24

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 261–267 (THEV. p. 328, 42–329, 6)

kat°flejan, ˜saw mØ tÚ épÚ t∞w neΔw pËr §p°sxen, ÉAl°jandrow d¢ tÒ te x«ma épÚ t∞w ±pe¤rou érjam°nouw platÊteron xvnnÊnai, …w pl°onaw d°jasyai pÊrgouw, ka‹ toÁw mhxanopoioÁw mhxanåw êllaw kataskeuãzein §k°leusen. …w d¢ taËta pareskeuãzeto,aÈtoÁw toÊw te Ípaspiståw énalabΔn ka‹ toÁw ÉAgriãnaw §p‹ Sid«now §stãlh, …w éyro¤svn §ke› ˜sai ≥dh ∑san aÈt«i triÆreiw, ˜ti épor≈tera tå t∞w poliork¤aw §fa¤neto yalassokratoÊntvn Tur¤vn. §n toÊtvi d¢ GhrÒstratÒw te ı ÉArãdou basileÁw ka‹ ÖEnulow ı BÊblou …w ¶maye tåw pÒleiw sf«n ÍpÚ ÉAlejãndrou §xom°naw, épolipÒnte AÈtofradãthn te ka‹ tåw sÁn aÈt«i n°aw parÉ ÉAl°jandron sÁn t«i nautik«i t«i sfet°rvi éf¤konto ka‹ afl t«n Sidvn¤vn triÆreiw sÁn aÈto›w, Àste Foin¤kvn m¢n n∞ew §w ÙgdoÆkonta aÈt«i pareg°nonto. ∏kon d¢ §n ta›w aÈta›w ≤m°raiw ka‹ triÆreiw | ¥ te per¤polow kaloum°nh ka‹ sÁn taÊthi êllai yÄ, §k SÒlvn ka‹ MalloË tre›w ka‹ LÊkiai d°ka, §k Makedon¤aw d¢ penthkÒnterow, §fÉ ∏w Prvt°aw ı ÉAndron¤kou §p°plei. oÈ poll«i d¢ Ïsteron ka‹ ofl t∞w KÊprou basile›w efiw tØn Sid«na kat°sxon naus‹n •katÚn mãlista ka‹ e‡kosi, §peidØ tÆn te ∏ttan tØn katÉ ÉIssÚn Dare¤ou §pÊyonto ka‹ ≤ Foin¤kh pçsa §xom°nh ≥dh ÍpÚ ÉAlejãndrou §fÒbei aÈtoÊw. ka‹ toÊtoiw pçsin ¶dvken ÉAl°jandrow êdeian t«n prÒsyen, ˜ti ÍpÉ énãgkhw mçllÒn ti μ katå gn≈mhn tØn sf«n §dÒkoun suntaxy∞nai to›w P°rsaiw efiw tÚ nautikÒn. F 4–8 …w d¢—Tur¤vn pro his hab. T, Wesch. p. 312, 3–5, aÈtÚw d¢ stÒlon ˜ti ple›ston éyro¤zein dienoe›to: ≥dh går aÈt«i yalassokratoÊntvn Tur¤vn épor≈tera tå t∞w poliork¤aw §fa¤neto 9—p. 89, 19 §n toÊtvi—∑san om. T

V P1 1 kat°flejen V P1 || ˜saw—§p°sxen om. T || tÚ] te V P1 2 érjaArr. [T] m°nouw platÊteron xvnnÊnai] érjãmenow ¶gnv xvnnunai platuteron T 3 pl°onaw V P1 Arr.A: ple¤onaw T Roos 4 aÈtoÁw lege aÈtÚw cum Arr.; cf. T 5 énalabΔn] mçllon V P1 || égriãnaw V P1 Arr.A: ÉAgriçnaw Roos; item p. 88, 4 7 §g¤neto V corr. V1 i.m. 8 Tur¤vn] t«n Tur¤vn Arr.; cf. T 9 ghrÚw stratÒw V P1 10 ı BÊblou] ˜umblou V oÎmblou P1 || lege ¶mayon cum Arr. || ÍpÉ Arr. 11 épolip≈nte V P1 lege épolipÒntew cum Arr. || sÁn aÈt«i n°aw scripsi: jÁn aÈt«i n°aw Arr. sunanti≈saw V P1 12 jÁn Arr. 13–14 §w ÙgdoÆkonta] ÙgdoÆkonta mãlista Arr. §w ÙgdoÆkonta mãlista coni. Roos in app. crit. 14 aÈt«i] aÈt«n P1 || aÈta›w] aÈt«n P1 15 om. V spatio vacuo relicto P1 nullo spatio relicto || jÁn Arr. 16 om. V P1 || ka‹ LÊkiai Krüger Roos: kalukia V P1 ka‹ luk¤aw Arr.A 17 penthkÒntorow Arr. 18 §w Arr. 19 e‡kosin Arr. 20 ∏ssan Arr. || fonikØ P1 fronikØ V 23 sunaxy∞nai P1 juntaxy∞nai Arr. 24 §w Arr. || tÚ] tÚn V; cf. ad p. 88, 10

262 (6)

263

264 (20, 1)

265 (2)

266 (3)

267

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

235

engulfed by fire from the ship. Alexander, however, ordered his men to build the mole wider starting from the mainland, so as to hold more towers, and he ordered the engineers to construct additional engines. While these were being made ready, he himself199 with the hypaspists and the Agrianians proceeded to Sidon, to collect all his triremes already there, since the siege seemed more difficult as long as the Tyrians were masters of the sea. Meanwhile Gerostratus king of Aradus and Enylus of Byblus, when they learned 200 that Alexander held their cities, left 201 Autophradates and his ships and came to Alexander with their own fleet, and with them came the Sidonian triremes, so that about eighty Phoenician ships joined him. There arrived also at the same time triremes , nine, in addition to their state guardship, three from Soli and Mallus and ten from Lycia, and a fiftyoared ship from Macedon, its captain Proteus son of Andronicus. Not much later also the kings of Cyprus landed at Sidon with about 120 ships, after they learned of Darius’ defeat at Issus and were terrified by the fact that Alexander now controlled all Phoenicia. To all these Alexander granted immunity for their former actions, because they appeared to have aligned themselves with the Persian fleet more from necessity than choice.

199 200 201

Accepting aÈtÚw for aÈtoÊw . Accepting ¶mayon for ¶ maye. Accepting épolipÒntew for épolipÒnte.

236

88 (Arr. 268 II, 20, 4)

(5) 269

(6) 270

271 (7) 272

(8) 273

274

V P1 Arr.

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 268–274 (THEV. p. 329, 6–23)

§n œi d¢ a· te mhxana‹ aÈt«i sunepÆgnunto ka‹ afl n∞ew …w §p¤ploun ka‹ naumax¤aw épÒpeiran §jhrtÊonto, §n toÊtvi d¢ énalabΔn t«n te flpp°vn ¶stin ìw ka‹ toÁw Ípaspiståw ka‹ toÁw ÉAgriãnaw ka‹ toÁw tojÒtaw §pÉ ÉArab¤aw st°lletai efiw tÚn ÉAntil¤banon kaloÊmenon tÚ ˆrow: ka‹ tå m¢n b¤ai t«n taÊthi §jel≈n, tå d¢ ımolog¤ai parasthsãmenow §n d°ka ≤m°raiw §pan∞gen efiw tØn Sid«na, ka‹ katalambãnei ÉAl°jandron tÚn Polemokrãtouw §k PeloponÆsou ¥konta ka‹ sÁn aÈt«i misyofÒrouw ÜEllhnaw efiw tetrakisxil¤ouw. …w d¢ sunet°takto aÈt«i tÚ nautikÒn, §pibibãsaw to›w katastr≈masi t«n Ípaspist«n ˜soi flkano‹ §dÒkoun efiw tÚ ¶rgon, efi mØ di°kploiw mçllÒn ti μ xers‹n naumax¤a g¤gnoito, êraw §k t∞w Sid«now §p°plei t∞i TÊrvi suntetagm°naiw ta›w naus¤n, aÈtÚw m¢n katå tÚ dejiÚn k°raw, ˘ dØ §w tÚ p°lagow aÈt«i éne›xe, ka‹ sÁn aÈt«i o· te Kupr¤vn basile›w ka‹ ˜soi Foin¤kvn, plØn Pnutãgrou. otow d¢ ka‹ KraterÚw tÚ eÈ≈numon k°raw e‰xon t∞w pãshw tãjevw. to›w d¢ Tur¤oiw prÒteron m¢n naumaxe›n §gnvsm°non ∑n, katå yãlassan efi §pipl°oi sf¤sin ÉAl°jandrow, tÒtedØ pl∞yow ne«n polÁ éprosdokÆtvw katidÒntew (oÈ gãr pv pepusm°noi ∑san tãw te Kupr¤vn naËw ka‹ tåw Foin¤kvn sumpãsaw ÉAl°jandron ¶xonta) ka‹ ëma suntetagm°nvw toË §p¤plou gignom°nou (Ùl¤gon går pr‹n prosxe›n t∞i pÒlei ének≈xeusan ¶ti pelãgiai afl sÁn ÉAlejãndrvi n∞ew, e‡ pvw êra efiw naumax¤an toÁw Tur¤ouw prokal°sainto, ¶peita oÏtvw suntajãmenai, …w oÈk éntanÆgonto, polla‹ t«i =oye¤vi §p°pleon)— ır«ntew

1 junepÆgnunto Arr. || nÆaiw P1 2 om. V P1 || §p¤ploun] §p¤ploun te Arr. 3 om. V P1 || ¶stin ìw] ¶stinaw V P1 4 égriãnaw V P1 Arr.A: ÉAgriçnaw Roos item p. 87, 5 || ka‹ toÁw tojÒtaw] te ka‹ toÁw tojÒtaw Arr. 6 §n d°ka] ¶ndeka P1 7 §w Arr. || sind«na P1 || él°jandron V P1 Arr.A: Kl°andron Freinshemius ad Curtium, IV, 3, 11, coll. Arr. I, 24, 2; Curtio, III, 1, 1, Roos 8 PeloponnÆsou Arr.; cf. PaulyWissowa s.v. || jÁn Arr. 9 §w Arr. 10 tÚ nautikÒn] tÚn aÈtikÚn V 11 §w Arr. 12 dfi°kploiw P1 diÉ ¶kploiw V || μ] μ §n Arr. || xers‹ P1 || om. V P1 || naumax¤an V 13 suntetagm°naiw V P1: juntetagm°naiw Roos juntetagm°now Arr.A 15 jÁn Arr. || basile›w] sile›w in initio lineae V || foin¤ktvn V P1 || plØn] tØn V P1 16 PnutagÒrou Arr.; item p. 91, 20 17 naumax∞n V P1 18 katå yãlassan efi] efi katå yãlassan Arr. || dØ lege d¢ cum Arr. 19–20 pepnusm°noi P1 20 jumpãsaw Arr. 21 juntetagm°nvw Arr. 22 ének≈xeusan om. V 23 jÁn Arr. 23–24 e‡— prokal°sainto V P1 Roos: om. Arr.A; in textu Arriani primus suppl. Sintenis, monente F. K. Hertlein, Progr. d. Wertheimer Lyceums 1861 24 juntajãmenoi Arr. 25 éntanÆgonto] énteg¤nonto P1 || lege poll«i cum Arr. || lege =oyfivi cum Arr. || om. V P1

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

237

[88] While his engines were being assembled, and his ships were being equipped the attack and for undertaking a naval battle, Alexander meanwhile with some of the cavalry , the hypaspists202, the Agrianians, and the archers, proceeded toward Arabia to the mountain called Antilibanus. He took some places here by force, some he brought to terms of surrender, and in ten days he returned to Sidon, and found that Cleandros203 son of Polemocrates had arrived from the Peloponnese and with him about four thousand Greek mercenaries. When his fleet was in orderly formation, he put on the decks as many of his hypaspists as he thought adequate for the action - unless naval operation should be a matter of breaking through204 rather than of hand-to-hand fighting - and weighing anchor sailed from Sidon to Tyre with his ships in orderly formation; he was on the right wing, which indeed afforded him the open sea, and with him the Cyprian kings and all the Phoenicians, except Pnytagoras 205; he with Craterus commanded the left wing of the whole formation. The Tyrians had at first decided to fight at sea, should Alexander attack them by sea. But 206 then sighting a multitude of ships far beyond their expectation - for they had not yet learned that the Cyprian and all the Phoenician ships were with Alexander - and since at the same time the attack was coming in orderly formation - for just before reaching the city Alexander’s ships while still in the open sea had dropped anchor, to see if they might draw out the Tyrians to fight at sea and then, as the [Tyrians] did not put out, they sailed in with a great207 dash of oars 208 in orderly formation - the Tyrians observing [89] declined battle; but with as many triremes as the mouths of their

On the term see below, n. 221. Accepting Kl° andron for ÉAl° jandron. 204 ≤ di° kplouw. On the maneuver see Bosworth (1980) 244-45. 205 Reading PnutagÒrou here and below at 91:20, although the Anon. or his ms. may have had the incorrect spelling. 206 Accepting d¢ for dÆ. 207 Accepting poll“ for polla¤. 208 Accepting =oy¤ ƒfor =oye¤ ƒ. For the translation see Bosworth (1980) 246. 202

203

238

89

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 274–283 ( THEV. p. 329, 23–41)

ofl TÊrioi naumaxe›n m¢n ép°gnvsan, triÆresi d¢ ˜saw t«n lim°nvn tå stÒmata §d°xonto bÊzhn tÚn e‡sploun frajãmenoi §fÊlasson, …w mØ t«n lim°nvn tinå §gkayormisy∞nai t«n polem¤vn tÚn stÒlon. ÉAl°jandrow d°, …w oÈk éntanÆgonto ofl TÊrioi, §p°plei t∞i pÒlei: ka‹ efiw m¢n tÚn lim°na tÚn prÚ Sid«now biãzesyai ép°gnv diå stenÒthta stÒmatow ka‹ ëma éntipr≈roiw triÆresi polla›w ır«n pefragm°non tÚn e‡sploun, tre›w d¢ tåw §jvtãtv §formoÊsaw t«i stÒmati triÆreiw prospesÒntew ofl Fo¤nikew ka‹ éntipr≈roiw §mbalÒntew katadÊousin: ofl d¢ §n ta›w naus‹n oÈ xalep«w épenÆjanto. tÒte m¢n dØ oÈ pÒrrv toË poihtoË x≈matow katå tÚn afigialÒn, ˜pou sk°ph t«n én°mvn §fa¤neto, ofl sÁn ÉAlejãndrvi …rm¤santo: t∞i d¢ Ístera¤ai toÁw m¢n Kupr¤ouw sÁn ta›w sfet°raiw naus‹ ka‹ ÉAndromãxvi t«i nauãrxvi katå tÚn lim°na tÚn §k Sid«now f°ronta §k°leusen §forme›n t∞i pÒlei, toÁw d¢ Fo¤nikaw katå tÚn §p°keina toË x≈matow tÚn prÚw A‡gupton én°xonta, ˜pou ka‹ aÈt«i ≤ skhnØ ∑n. ≥dh d¢ ka‹ mhxanopoi«n aÈt«i poll«n ¶k te KÊprou ka‹ Foin¤khw èpãshw sullelegm°nvn mhxana‹ polla‹ sumpephgm°nai ∑san. …w d¢ pareskeÊasto ≥dh sÊmpanta, pros∞gon tåw mhxanåw katã te tÚ poihtÚn x«ma ka‹ épÚ t«n ne«n êllhi êllhi toË te¤xouw prosormizom°nvn te ka‹ épopeirvm°nvn toË te¤xouw. ofl d¢ TÊrioi §p¤ te t«n §pãljevn t«n katå tÚ x«ma pÊrgouw jul¤nouw §p°sthsan, …w épomãxesyai épÉ aÈt«n, ka‹ e‡ phi êllhi afl mhxana‹ prosÆgonto, b°les¤ te ±mÊnonto ka‹ purfÒroiw ofisto›w ¶ballon aÈtåw tåw naËw, Àste fÒbon par°xein to›w MakedÒsi pelãjein t«i te¤xei. ∑n d¢ aÈto›w ka‹ tå te¤xh tå katå tÚ F 20 …w d¢ denuo inc. T, Wesch, p. 312, 6

V P1 2 tÚ stÒma VP1 || bÊzein V P1 || tÚn] t«n V || ¶sploun Arr. Arr. 3 om. V P1 §w Arr. 6 §w Arr. || prÚ lege prÚw cum Arr. [T] 7 om. V P1 8 ¶sploun Arr. 10 éntipr≈roiw V P1 Arr.A: ént¤prvroi Bloomfield ad Thucydidem, IV, 8, 5, Roos 11 post épenÆjanto hab. §w tØn g∞n fil¤an oÔsan Arr. 12 ˜pou] ·na Arr. 13 …rm¤santo] ırmÆsantew V P1 14 jÁn Arr. 15 posid«now V P1, sed cf. v. 6; p. 91, 1; p. 92, 22 17 ˜pou] ·na Arr. 19 sulelegm°nvn V P1 || post ∑san hab. afl m¢n §p‹ toË x≈matow, afl d¢ §p‹ t«n flppagvg«n ne«n, ìw §k Sid«now ëma o‰ §kÒmisen, afl d¢ §p‹ t«n triÆrvn ˜sai aÈt«n oÈ taxunautoËsai ∏san Arr. 20 jÊmpanta Arr. T || proshgen T sec. Roos, pros∞ge sec. Wesch. 21 ne«n] nhsvn T || om. V P1 23 §p¤] §pe¤ P1 24 phi] th V ti P1 25 afl om T || prosÆxonto V P1 || b°lesin T sec. Roos, b°les¤ Wesch. in textu, tacite 26–27 Àste—te¤xei om. T 27 tå katå V P1 Roos: katå Arr.A T

275 (9) 276 277

278 (10) 279

280 (21, 1) 281 (2)

282 (3)

283 (4)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

239

harbors would hold they tightly blocked access and guarded them, so that the enemy’s fleet could not anchor any of the harbors. Alexander, however, when the Tyrians did not put out, sailed towards the city; he declined to force his way into the harbor facing209 Sidon because of the narrowness of mouth and also seeing that the entrance was blocked with many triremes, bows on; but the Phoenicians charged the three triremes which were moored farthest out in the mouth, and rammed them bow on and sank them; the men on the ships swam away without difficulty; then indeed Alexander’s fleet anchored not far from the newly constructed mole along the shore, where there appeared to be protection from the winds. Next day Alexander ordered the Cyprians, with their ships and Andromachus the admiral, to blockade the city at the harbor that faced Sidon, and the Phoenicians to do the same at the harbor on the other side of the mole, facing toward Egypt, where his tent was. By now many engineers had been gathered from Cyprus and all of Phoenicia, and a large number of engines had been assembled. When everything was now prepared, they brought forward the engines along the newly constructed mole as well as from the ships which anchored along side the wall here and there and which now began to attack the wall. The Tyrians set up wooden towers on the battlements opposite the mole, so as to fight from them; and if the engines were being brought forward at any other point, they defended themselves with missiles and assaulted the ships themselves with fire arrows, so that the Macedonians were afraid to come near the wall. Their walls oppo site the mole [90] were about 150 feet high and of proportional width,

209

Accepting prÚw for prÒ.

240

90

284

(Arr. 285 II, 21, 5) 286

(6) 287

288 (7) 289

290 (8) 291

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 283–291 (THEV. p. 329, 41–330, 6)

x«ma tÒ te Ïcow efiw pentÆkonta ka‹ •katÚn mãlista pÒdaw ka‹ efiw plãtow sÊmmetron l¤yoiw megãloiw §n gÊcvi keim°noiw sumpephgÒta. to›w d¢ Ípagvgo›w te ka‹ ta›w triÆresi t«n MakedÒnvn, ˜sai tåw mhxanåw pros∞gon t«i te¤xei, ka‹ taÊthi oÈk eÎporon §g¤gneto pelãzein t∞i pÒlei, ˜ti l¤yoi pollo‹ efiw tÚ p°lagow probeblhm°noi §je›rgon aÈt«n tØn prosbolÆn. ka‹ toÊtouw ÉAl°jandrow ¶gnv §jelkÊsai §k t∞w yalãsshw: ±nÊeto d¢ xalep«w toËto tÚ ¶rgon, oÂa dØ épÚ ne«n ka‹ oÈk épÚ g∞w beba¤ou ginÒmenon: êllvw te ka‹ ofl TÊrioi naËw katafrãjantew parå tåw égkÊraw §p∞gon t«n triÆrvn ka‹ Ípot°mnontew tåw sxo¤nikaw t«n égkur«n êporon tØn prosÒrmisin ta›w polem¤aiw naus‹n §po¤oun. ÉAl°jandrow d¢ triakontÒrouw pollåw §w tÚn aÈtÚn tÒpon frãjaw §p°sthsen §gkars¤aw prÚ t«n égkur«n, …w épÉ aÈt«n énast°llesyai tÚn §p¤ploun t«n ne«n. ka‹ …w Ïfaloi kolumbhta‹ tåw sxo¤nouw aÈto›w Íp°temnon, | ofl d¢ èlÊsesin ént‹ sxo¤nvn efiw tåw égkÊraw xr≈menoi, ofl MakedÒnew, kay¤esan, Àste mhd¢n ¶ti pl°on to›w kolumbhta›w g¤gnesyai. §jãptontew oÔn brÒxouw t«n l¤yvn épÚ toË x≈matow én°spvn aÈtoÁw ¶jv t∞w yalãsshw, ¶peita mhxana›w metevr¤santew katå bãyouw éf¤esan, ˜pou oÈk°ti probeblhm°noi blãcein ¶mellon. ˜pou d¢ kayarÚn §pepo¤hto t«n probÒlvn tÚ te›xow, oÈ xalep«w ≥dh taÊthi afl n∞ew prose›xon. ofl d¢ TÊrioi pãnthi êporoi gignÒmenoi ¶gnvsan §p¤ploun poiÆsasyai ta›w Kupr¤aiw naus¤n, a„ katå tÚn lim°na §f≈rmoun F 12–15 ÉAl°jandrow—Íp°temnon om. T om. T

20–21 ˜pou d¢—prose›xon

V P1 1 §w T 2 §w Arr. T || jÊmmetron Arr. T || keimenaiw T 2–3 jumArr. [T] pephgÒta Arr. jumpephgotew T 3 to›w] ta›w Arr. om T „ex confusione syllabarum taiw et tew” (Wesch.); Anon. fort. intellexit plo¤oiw; cf. autem praef. p. 11–13 || lege flppagvgo›w cum Arr. T || te om. T || triÆresin P1 4 ka‹ om. T || oÈk eÎporon] époron T 5 §geineto T || t∞i pÒlei] tv te¤xei T || §w Arr. T 6 §j∞rgon V P1 || prosbolÆn] §ggÁw prosbolÆn Arr. T 7 ≥nusto T 8 toËto] ka‹ toËto T || dØ] h T || épÚ] ek T || nh«n T 9 gignÒmenon Arr. 10 épotemnÒntew P1 || xo¤nikaw V sxo¤nouw Arr. T; hab. Anon. fort. sxoin›daw? 11 égkur«n] trihrvn T || tØn om T || prosÒrmhsin V T 11–13 §po¤oun nausin transp. T 12 lege trÒpon cum Arr. 14 énast°lesyai P1 || ka‹ …w lege ka‹ Õw cum Arr. 16 §w T || xr≈menoi—kay¤esan] §xr«nto T || Àste] …w T 17 pl°on ¶ti transp. T || g¤nesyai T 19 metevrÆsantew P1 T || katå bãyouw éf¤esan] eriptoun efiw to bayÊtaton T || ˜pou] ·na Arr. T 20 pepo¤hto Arr. 22 ginÒmenoi T || gnvsan T 23 Kupr¤aiw] t«n makedonvn T || eformoun T

3

6

9

12

15 p. 330 Thev. 18

21

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

241

constructed of massive stones set in cement. Even here it was not easy for the Macedonian cavalry transports210 and triremes, which were bringing up the engines against the wall, to approach the city, since numerous stones which had been cast into the sea hindered their approach. Alexander decided to drag these stones out of the sea; but this operation went on with difficulty, since it was indeed taking place from ships, not from terra firma; moreover, the Tyrians protected their ships with side screens211 and came against the anchors of the triremes and cut the anchor cables 212, making it impossible for the enemy’s ships to anchor nearby. But Alexander added side screens to a num ber of thirty-oar ships in the same way213, and stationed them cross wise in front of the anchors to thereby repulse the attack of the [Tyrian] ships. Even so 214, divers going under water were cutting the cables. So the Macedonians used chains for the anchor cables, and lowered them, so that the divers could accomplish nothing further. Then they cast nooses around the stones and drew them from the mound215 out of the sea, and then raising them with their engines hurled them into deep water, where they would no longer project and cause harm. Thus when they had cleared the obstacles to the wall, the ships now came alongside there without difficulty. The Tyrians, totally at a loss, decided to attack the Cyprian ships which were blockading the harbor [91] that faced Sidon. For a

Accepting fl ppagvgo›wfor Ípagvgo›w. I follow here Bosworth (1980) 248 who suggests that naËw katafrãjantew refers to devices similar to the pararrÊmata mentioned by Xenophon (Hellenica I:6:19), hide coverings to protect decks and gunwales from the rain of missiles from above. 212 Accepting sxoin›daw for sxo¤ nikaw. 213 Accepting trÒpon for tÒpon. 214 Accepting the addition of éllã . 215 On this uncertain phrase I follow Bosworth (1980) 248. 210

211

242

91

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 291–298 (THEV. p. 330, 6–23)

tÚn §w Sid«na tetramm°non: §k polloË dØ katapetãsantew tÚ stÒma toË lim°now flst¤oiw, toË mØ katafan∞ gen°syai t«n triÆrvn tØn plÆrvsin, émf‹ m°son ≤m°raw, ıpÒte ofl naËtai §p‹ tå énagka›a §skedasm°noi ∑san ka‹ ÉAl°jandrow §n toÊtvi mãlista épÚ toË §p‹ yãtera t∞w pÒlevw nautikoË §p‹ tØn skhnØn épex≈rei, plhr≈santew pentÆreiw m¢n tre›w ka‹ tetrÆreiw ‡saw, triÆreiw d¢ •ptå …w ékribestãtoiw te to›w plhr≈masi ka‹ to›w épÚ t«n katastrvmãtvn mãxesyai m°llousin eÈoplotãtoiw ka‹ ëma eÈyarsestãtoiw efiw toÁw nautikoÁw ég«naw, tå m¢n pr«ta étr°ma t∞i efires¤ai §p‹ miçw neΔw §j°pleon êneu keleust«n tåw k≈paw paraf°rontew: …w d¢ §p°strefon ≥dh §p‹ toÁw Kupr¤ouw ka‹ §ggÁw toË kayorçsyai ∑san, tÒte dØ sÁn bo∞i te poll∞i ka‹ §gkeleusm«i efiw éllÆlouw ka‹ ëma t∞i efires¤ai suntÒmvw §pef°ronto. sun°bh d¢ §ke¤nhi t∞i ≤m°rai ÉAl°jandron époxvr∞sai m¢n §p‹ tØn skhnÆn, oÈ diatr¤canta d¢ katå tÚ efivyÚw dfi Ùl¤gou §p‹ tåw naËw §panelye›n. ofl d¢ TÊrioi prospesÒntew éprosdokÆtvw ta›w naus‹n ırmoÊsaiw ka‹ ta›w m¢n pãnthi kena›w §pituxÒntew, t«n dÉ ÍpÉ aÈtØn boØn ka‹ tÚn §p¤ploun xalep«w §k t«n parÒntvn plhroum°nvn, tÆn te Pnutãgrou toË basil°vw pentÆrh eÈyÁw ÍpÚ t∞i pr≈thi §mbol∞i kat°dusan ka‹ tØn ÉAndrokl°ouw toË ÉAmayos¤ou ka‹ tØn Pasikrãtouw toË Youri°vw, tåw d¢ êllaw efiw tÚn afigialÚn §jvyoËntew ¶kopton. ÉAl°jandrow d¢ …w ≥isyeto tÚn ¶kploun t«n Tur¤vn triÆrvn, F 3–6 émf‹—épex≈rei om. T prospesÒntew inser. T

15–17 sun°bh—TÊrioi om. et ka‹ ante

V P1 1 §w] §n P1 T || tetram°non V P1; item p. 92, 22, sed cf. p. 93, 16 Arr. [T] || §k polloË dØ om. et oÔn ante tÚ stÒma add. T || katapesantew T 3 ofl] o· te Arr. 7 ékribestaton: ka‹ ton plhrvmasin T, qui hab. signum corruptelae post ‡saw v. 6 8 m°llousi T 8–9 eÈoplotãtoiw—ég«naw om. T 9 §w Arr. 10 étremaia T || §p‹] épo T 10–11 êneu—paraf°rontew om. T 10 keleustÚn P1 12 ka‹—dØ om. T || jÁn bo∞i Arr. jumbolÆ T l del. T1 13 §nkeleusmv T || §w Arr. T || efirhsia T || lege suntÒnvw; juntonvw T juntÒnvi Arr. 15 jun°bh Arr. || §ke¤nhi et époxvr∞sai m¢n V P1 Roos: §ke¤nhi m¢n et époxvr∞sai Arr.A 17 §pelye›n P1 18 ırmoÊsaiw om. T 19 t«n] t« V P1 || d¢ T || om. V P1 19–20 §k t«n parÒntvn om. T 20–22 tÆn te—Youri°vw pro his hab. tåw m¢n ÍpÚ tØ pr≈th kat°dusan prosbol∞ T 20 PnutagÒrou Arr.; cf. p. 88, 16 22 ÉAmayous¤ou Arr. || toË] t∞w V P1 || youri°vw V P1 Arr.A: Kouri°vw C. H. Dörner Roos coll. Arr. Ind. 18, 8; Plut. Alex. 29 23 êllaw om. T || §w Arr. T 24 triÆrvn] nevn T

292

293 (9)

294

295 (22, 1) 296 (2)

297

298 (3)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

243

long time they covered the harbor mouth with the sails, in order that the manning of the triremes might not be visible, and about midday, when the [Greek] sailors were scattered on necessary business and Alexander had meanwhile just withdrawn from the fleet on the other side of the city to his tent, they manned three quinquiremes and an equal number of quadriremes, and seven triremes, with their most skilled crews and, to fight from the decks, the best-armed and likewise their bravest marines. At first they put out in single file, rowing gen tly and sliding their oars without the command of the boatswains216; but when they were now turning toward the Cyprians and were about to be seen, then, with loud shouting and encouraging one another and rowing quickly217 they came forward. On that day it happened that Alexander had withdrawn to his tent, but not resting there, as he usually did, he soon returned to the ships. The Tyrians, after falling unexpectedly on the anchored ships, found some totally empty and others being manned with difficulty by any who chanced to be there in response to noise itself and the attack; at their first charge they sank the quinquireme of King Pnytagoras, together with those of Androcles of Amathus and Pasicrates of Thurion218; the rest they drove ashore and broke up. Alexander, however, learning of the sally of the Tyrian triremes,

On the uncertain maneuver and the translation see Bosworth (1980) 249-50. Accepting suntÒnvw for suntÒmvw. 218 The Anon. apparently had the incorrect Youri° vw in his source as do all traditions of Arrian. In the Cypriot context Dörner’s conjecture Kouri° vw (“of Curium”) is necessary; see Bosworth (1980) 250. 216

217

244

92

299

(Arr. II, 300 22, 4)

301 (5) 302

303

(6) 304 305

(7) 306 307

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 293–307 (THEV. p. 330, 23–361, 16)

tåw m¢n pollåw t«n sÁn aÈt«i ne«n, ˜pvw •kãsth plhrvye¤h, §p‹ t«i stÒmati toË lim°now | énakvxeÊein ¶tajen, …w mØ ka‹ êllai §kpleÊseian t«n Tur¤vn n∞ew: aÈtÚw d¢ pentÆreiw te tåw sÁn aÈt«i énalabΔn ka‹ t«n triÆrvn §w p°nte mãlista, ˜sai ¶fyhsan aÈt«i katå tãxow plhrvye›sai, peri°plei tØn pÒlin …w §p‹ toÁw §kpepleukÒtaw t«n Tur¤vn. ofl d¢ épÚ toË te¤xouw, tÒn te §p¤ploun t«n polem¤vn katidÒntew ka‹ ÉAl°jandron aÈtÚn §p‹ t«n ne«n, ka‹ …w §jakoustÚn ∑n ÍpÚ yorÊbou sunexom°nvn t«i ¶rgvi, shme¤oiw ka‹ êlloiw §pekãloun efiw tØn énax≈rhsin. ofl d¢ Ùc° pote afisyÒmenoi tÚn §p¤ploun t«n émf‹ ÉAl°jandron Ípostr°cantew efiw tÚn lim°na ¶fugon. ka‹ Ùl¤gai m¢n t«n ne«n fyãnousin ÍpekfugoËsai, ta›w d¢ ple¤osin §mbaloËsai afl sÁn ÉAlejãndrvi tåw m¢n aÈt«n êplouw §po¤hsan, pentÆrhw d° tiw ka‹ tetrÆrhw aÈt«n §pÉ aÈt«i t«i stÒmati toË lim°now §lÆfyhsan. fÒnow d¢ t«n §pibat«n oÈ polÁw §g°neto. …w går ≥isyonto §xom°naw tåw naËw, épenÆjanto oÈ xalep«w efiw tÚn lim°na. …w oÈdem¤a ¶ti to›w Tur¤oiw §k t«n ne«n »f°leia ∑n, §p∞gon ≥dh ofl MakedÒnew tåw mhxanåw t«i te¤xei aÈt«n. katå m¢n dØ tÚ x«ma prosagÒmenai diå fisxÁn toË te¤xouw oÈd¢n ≥nuon ˜ ti ka‹ lÒgou êjion, ofl d¢ katå tÚ prÚw Sid«na tetramm°non t∞w pÒlevw t«n ne«n tinaw t«n mhxanofÒrvn pros∞gon. …w d¢ oÈd¢ taÊthi ≥nuen, efiw tÚ prÚw nÒton aÔ ênemon ka‹ prÚw A‡gupton én°xon te›xow metÆiei pãnthi épopeir≈menow toË ¶rgou. ka‹ F 1–18 tåw m¢n—lim°na pro his hab. T, Wesch. p. 315, 1–5, tåw sÁn aÍt«i labΔn §p‹ toÁw §kpepleukÒtaw t«n Tur¤vn énÆgeto. afisyÒmenoi d¢ ofl TÊrioi tÚn ÉAlejãndrou §p¤ploun, Ípostr°cantew efiw tÚn lim°na, ¶feugon, ka‹ tåw ple¤onaw aÈt«n jÁn ÉAlejãndrvi n∞ew kat°dusan (aÍt«i Wesch.: autv T || inser. Wesch.) 2 in voce lim°now desinit V, quam ob rem inde ab hoc loco codex E adhibitus est: cf. praef. p. 6–9

[V] P 1 [E] 1 jÁn Arr. 3 §kpleÊseien P1 E 4 jÁn Arr. || ˜sa E 8–9 om. P1 E 9 om. P1 E 10 junexom°nvn Arr. || t«i] §n t«i Arr. || ka‹ êlloiw] êlloiw ka‹ êlloiw Arr. || §w Arr. 11 émfÉ Arr. 12 §w Arr. || ¶feugon Arr. 14 jÁn Arr. 15 pentÆreiw P1 E, sed cf. tiw || tetrÆreiw P1 E 16 fÒnow] fyÒnow P1 E 18 §w Arr. 19 om. P1 E || ¶ti] ¶sti E §st‹ P1 || nh«n T 21 dØ] deei T 22 ˜ ti—êjion om. T || tÚ om. T || tetram°non P1 E; cf. ad p. 91, 1 23 t«n ne«n—mhxanofÒrvn om. et tåw mhxanaw post pros∞gon add. T 24 tauthn T || ≥nuon T ∑men P1 E || §w Arr. T || tÚ] tÚn T || n«ton P1 || aÔ om. T || prÚw] porÚ, ut vid., E 25 metÆesan et épopeir≈menoi T; cf. v. 24

p. 361 Thev. 3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

245

[92] ordered most of his ships to anchor at the mouth of the harbor when each was manned, so that no other Tyrian ships might sail out; then he personally took his quinqueremes and some five triremes, which had been first to quickly man, and sailed around the city against the Tyrians who had sailed out. Those on the wall, seeing the enemy sailing in and Alexander himself on board, , and as these were heard due to the clamor of those involved in the action, they used other signals to call for their retreat. The [Tyrians at sea], observing too late the attack of Alexander’s ships, turned about, and fled back to the harbor. A few of the Tyrian ships managed to escape in time, but Alexander’s ships charged the majority of them and ren dered some useless, while a quinquereme and a quadrireme were cap tured at the very mouth of the harbor. There was no great slaughter of the marines, for they, as soon as they saw that their ships were taken, swam off without difficulty into the harbor. When the Tyrians could no longer look for help from their ships, the Macedonians now began to bring up their engines against their wall. When indeed brought along the mole, they did nothing worthy of note, given the strength of the wall; but, on the side of the city facing toward Sidon, they brought up some of their ships which carried engines. But as they did not succeed here, Alexander turned instead to the south and the wall facing towards Egypt, testing its construction from all sides. [93] There first the wall was badly shaken and a part was broken and collapsed, and thereupon Alexander made a probative

246

93

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 307–316 (THEV. p. 361, 16–35)

§ntaËya pr«ton katese¤syh tÒ te te›xow §p‹ m°ga ka¤ ti ka‹ kathr¤fyh aÈtoË pararrag°n. tÒte m¢n dØ ˜son §pibalΔn gefÊraw ∏i §r°ripto toË te¤xouw, épepeirãyh §w Ùl¤gon t∞w prosbol∞w: ka‹ ofl TÊrioi oÈ xalep«w épekroÊsanto toÁw MakedÒnaw. tr¤thi d¢ épÚ taÊthw ≤m°rai nhnem¤an te fulãjaw ka‹ parakal°saw toÁw ≤gemÒnaw t«n tãjevn efiw ¶rgon §p∞ge t∞i pÒlei §p‹ t«n ne«n tåw mhxanãw. ka‹ pr«ta m¢n kat°seise toË te¤xouw §p‹ m°ga, …w d¢ époxr«n efiw plãtow §fãnh tÚ parerrhgm°non, tåw m¢n mhxanofÒrouw naËw §panãgein §k°leusen: ı d¢ dÊo êllaw §p∞gen, a„ tåw gefÊraw aÈt«i ¶feron, ìw dØ §pibale›n §penÒei t«i katerrhgm°nvi toË te¤xouw. ka‹ tØn m¢n m¤an t«n ne«n ofl Ípaspista‹ ¶labon, ∏i §pet°takto ÖAdmhtow, tØn •t°ran d¢ ≤ Ko¤nou tãjiw ofl ésy°teroi kaloÊmenoi, ka‹ aÈtÚw sÁn to›w Ípaspista›w §pibÆsesyai toË te¤xouw ∏i pare¤koi ¶melle. tåw triÆreiw d¢ tåw m¢n §piple›n katå toÁw lim°naw émfot°rouw §k°leusen, e‡ pvw prÚw sfçw tetramm°nvn t«n Tur¤vn biãsainto tÚn e‡sploun: ˜sai d¢ aÈt«n b°lh épÚ mhxan«n ballÒmena e‰xon μ ˜sai tojÒtaw §p‹ t«n katastrvmãtvn ¶feron, taÊtaw d¢ §k°leusen §n kÊklvi peripleoÊsaw tÚ te›xow §pok°llein te ˜phi pare¤koi ka‹ énakvxeÊein §ntÚw b°louw, ¶ste tÚ §poke›lai êporÒn ti g¤gnoito, …w pantaxÒyen ballom°nouw toÁw Tur¤ouw §n t«i dein«i émfibÒlouw g¤gnesyai. …w d¢ a· te n∞ew afl sÁn ÉAlejãndrvi pros°sxon t∞i pÒlei ka‹ afl g°furai §peblÆyhsan t«i te¤xei épÉ aÈt«n, §ntaËya eÈr≈stvw ofl Ípaspista‹ katå taÊtaw én°bainon §p‹ tÚ te›xow. ˜ te går ÖAdmhtow énØr égayÚw §n t«i tÒte §g°neto ka‹ ëma ÉAl°jandrow e·peto aÈto›w, toË te ¶rgou aÈtoË karter«w §xÒmenow ka‹ yeatØw F 2–14 pararrag°n . . . . . . ¶melle om. T 14–15 denuo inc. T verbis ÉAl°jandrow d¢ t«n triÆrvn tåw m¢n §piple›n k.t.l. 19–22 tÚ te›xow— g¤gnesyai pro his hab. T bãllein §w toÁw §p‹ t«n §pãljevn flstam°nouw 25 te¤xei des. T

P1 E 1 §ntaËya] taÊth T || tÒ te te›xow §p‹ m°ga] te tÚ te›xow §p‹ m°ga Arr. [T] Arr. te §p‹ m°ga tÚ te›xow T 2 kater¤fyh T || tÒte] tÒ P1 tÚ E 3 §r°ripto P1 E Arr.A: §rÆripto Ellendt Roos coll. I, 19, 2; 21, 6; 22, 1; 22, 3; II, 27, 5 6 §w Arr. 10 §p∞gon E || §pibãllein Arr. 13 ésy°teroi P1 E (ès-, ut vid., E) Arr.A: pez°tairoi Blancard Roos || jÁn Arr. 14 ¶mellen Arr. 16–17 e‡ pvw—e‡sploun] eipΔn prow sfet°rouw ekeleusen eipΔn prow sfaw tetrammenvn t«n tur¤vn t«n turivn biasainto to esploun T 17 ¶sploun Arr. T 19 parapleousaw T 20 énakoxeÊein P1 E || ¶ste] ¶stai E 21 ti non hab. Arr. 23 a· te n∞ew afl] éten¤sai T || jÁn T 24–25 eÈr≈stvw ofl Ípaspista‹] ofl Ípaspista‹ eÈr≈stvw Arr. 27 §xÒmenow] èptÒmenow Arr.

308

309 (23, 1) 310 311 (2) 312

313 (3)

314

315 (4) 316

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

247

attack so far as dropping gangways over the broken part of the wall: the Tyrians, however, repulsed the Macedonians without difficulty. On the third day after this, having waited for a calm and urging his division 219 commanders to action, [Alexander] brought up the engines on the ships against the city. First he battered down a signif icant stretch of the wall. But when the breach appeared wide enough, he ordered the engine-carrying ships to withdraw; he sent in two oth ers, carrying his gangways, which he intended to drop where the wall was demolished. One of the ships the hypaspists took, Admetus being its captain; Coenus’division, called the “astheteroi”220, took the other. He intended himself with his hypaspists221 to mount the wall wherever possible. He ordered some of his triremes to sail along both harbors, to see if perhaps (the Tyrians being engaged with his troops) they might force an entrance. Others which carried the missiles being fired from the engines or had archers on decks, he ordered to sail around the wall, and land wherever possible, and anchor within range, so long as it should be impossible to land; so that the Tyrians should be under fire from all sides and become indecisive amid their danger. When Alexander’s ships neared the city and the gangways were dropped onto the wall from them, then the hypaspists stoutly mounted the wall upon these; for Admetus showed his bravery then, and Alexander likewise followed them, taking a vigorous role in the action

219 For this translation of tãjiw I follow A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: 1988) 259. 220 On this uncertain term, apparently a special designation for the “Upper Macedonian Infantry,” see Bosworth (1980) 251-53 with further bibliography, who suggests a translation “closely related companions” (reading -etairoi for -eteroi). 221 Arrian uses hypaspist, literally “shield-bearer,” here and elsewhere of both the troops of the phalanx (Admetus’ unit just above) and the special shield-bearers (bodyguards) of Alexander himself; see Bosworth (1980) 66-67, 103 and 251.

248

94 (Arr. 317 II, 23, 5)

318 (6) 319 320 321 (Arr. 322 II, 25, 4)

(26, 1) 323 324

(2) 325 326

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 316–326 (THEV. p. 361, 35–362, 9)

t«n êllvn ˜tvi ti lamprÚn §n t«i kindÊnvi §tolmçto. ka‹ taÊthi pr«ton ∏i §pet°takto ÉAl°jandrow §lÆfyh tÚ te›xow, oÈ xalep«w épokrousy°ntvn épÉ aÈtoË t«n Tur¤vn, §peidØ pr«ton beba¤vi te ka‹ ëma oÈ pãnthi épotÒmvi t∞i prosbãsei §xrÆsanto ofl MakedÒnew. ka‹ ÖAdmhtow m¢n pr«tow §pibåw toË te¤xouw ka‹ to›w émfÉ aÍtÚn §gkeleuÒmenow §piba¤nein blhye‹w lÒgxhi époynÆskei aÈtoË: §p‹ d¢ aÈt«i ÉAl°jandrow ¶sxe tÚ te›xow sÁn to›w •ta¤roiw. éllå ka‹ toË te¤xouw lhfy°ntow ofl TÊrioi oÈk §ned¤dosan, éllÉ e‡xonto toË ¶rgou. éllÉ oÈd¢ §p‹ t∞i èl≈sei t∞w t«n Gaza¤vn pÒlevw ¥ttona pÒnon Íp°meinen. eÈnoËxow gãr tiw, œi ˆnoma ∑n Bãthw, t∞w toiaÊthw krat«n pÒlevw, oÈ prose›xen ÉAlejãndrvi, éllÉ ÖArabãw te misyvtoÁw §pagagÒmenow ka‹ s›ton | §k polloË pareskeuakΔw diark∞ efiw xrÒnion poliork¤an ka‹ t«i xvr¤vi pisteÊvn mÆpote ín b¤ai èl«nai, ¶gnv mØ d°xesyai t∞i pÒlei ÉAl°jandron. ép°xei d¢ ≤ Gãza t∞w m¢n yalãsshw e‡kosi mãlista stad¤ouw, ka‹ ¶sti camm≈dhw ka‹ baye›a efiw aÈtØn ≤ ênodow ka‹ ≤ yãlassa ≤ katå tØn pÒlin tenag≈dhw pçsa. megãlh d¢ pÒliw ≤ Gãza ∑n ka‹ §p‹ x≈matow ÍchloË vÖikisto ka‹ te›xow perieb°blhto aÈt∞i ÙxurÒn. §sxãth d¢ »ike›to …w §pÉ AfigÊptou §k Foin¤khw fiÒnti §p‹ t∞i érx∞i t∞w §rÆmou. ÉAl°jandrow d¢ …w éf¤keto prÚw tØn pÒlin, t∞i m¢n pr≈thi katestratop°deusen ∏i mãlista §p¤maxon aÈt«i §fa¤neto tÚ te›xow, ka‹ mhxanåw sumphgnÊnai §k°leusen. ofl d¢ mhxanopoio‹ gn≈mhn §pede¤knunto êporon e‰nai b¤ai •le›n tÚ te›xow diå Ïcow toË F 8 •ta¤roiw] des. Arr. 11—p. 96, 23 eÈnoËxow—§mãxonto: Arr. II, 25, 4–27, 7: T, Wesch. p. 317, 3–320, 12

1 lamprÚn] lamprÚn katÉ éretØn Arr. 4 pãnthi] pãno sth E 6 aÈtÚn P1 E [Arr.] [T] P1 autÚn sine spiritu E 7 aÈtoË] aÈt« P1 E || jÁn Arr. 11 gãr] d° Arr. T || ∑n om. T || Bãtiw Arr. T 11–12 t∞w toiaÊthw krat«n pÒlevw malim taÊthw t∞w krat«n pÒlevw; krat«n t∞w Gaza¤vn (gazevn T) pÒlevw Arr. T 12–13 éllÉ ÖArabãw te scripsi: éllå ÖArabãw te Arr. T éllÉ êra Àste P1 E 13 §pagagÒmenow P1 E Roos: §pagÒmenow Arr.A T || s›ton] siΔn tÚn P1 E 14 §w Arr. T || mÆpote] mÆte P1 E lacuna duarum litt. inter mÆ et te E 15 gnv cum signo corruptelae T 16 yãlatthw T || e‡kosi] §w e‡kosi T 17 §stin T sec. Roos, ¶sti Wesch. in textu, tacite || §w Arr. || ênodow] odow T 19 x≈ parvulo spatio vacuo relicto P1 nullo spatio relicto E || perib°blhto T 20 ÙxurÒn] panth §xuron T || §pÉ afigÊptou P1 E Arr.A: prow aigupton T §pÉ A‡gupton Krüger Roos || onti cum signo corruptelae T 21 t∞w arxhw T 22 t∞ polei T 23 §fa¤neto aÈt«i transp. T 24 ofl d¢] o· ge mØn T 25 épede¤knunto Arr. épede¤knuto T sec. Roos, épede¤knunto Wesch. in textu, tacite || tÚ te›xow] tØn pÒlin T

3

6

9

12 p. 362 Thev. 15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

249

itself and watching [94] the others for any conspicuous act of daring amid the danger. And the part of the wall captured first was where Alexander had stationed himself; the Tyrians were repelled from it without difficulty, since for the first time the Macedonians had avail able an access 222 which was firm and not totally sheer. And Ademtus, first to mount the wall and urging his men to mount, was struck by a spear and died there; after him Alexander seized the wall with his Companions. But even after the wall was taken the Tyrians did not yield, but held to their effort. But in the capture of the city of the Gazans he endured no less toil. For a eunuch named Batis 223, who was in control of this city, did not join Alexander, but brought in Arab mercenaries, and having for some time procured grain adequate for a lengthy siege and trusting that the place could never be captured by force, decided not to admit Alexander into the city. Gaza is about 20 stades from the sea, and the approach to it is over sand and wide and the sea over against the city consists wholly of shoals. The city of Gaza was large, and built on a lofty mound, with a strong wall thrown around it. It was the last inhabited site at the beginning of the desert as one goes from from Phoenicia to Egypt. When Alexander arrived at the city, he camped on the first day where the wall seemed most easy for him to assault, and he ordered siege engines to be assembled. The engineers, however, expressed the opinion that it was difficult to take the wall by force because of the

See Bosworth (1980) 253. Reading Bãtiw , with the text of Arrian; on the dispute about the precise form of the name see Bosworth (1980) 257-58. 222

223

250

95

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 326–337 (THEV. p. 362, 9–29)

x≈matow. éllå ÉAlejãndrvi aflret°on §dÒkei e‰nai ˜svi épor≈teron: §kplÆjein går toÁw polem¤ouw tÚ ¶rgon t«i paralÒgvi §p‹ m°ga, ka‹ tÚ mØ •le›n afisxrÚn e‰na¤ ofl legÒmenon efiw toÁw ÜEllhnaw ka‹ efiw Dare›on. §dÒkei dØ x«ma §n kÊklvi t∞w pÒlevw xvnnÊnai, …w §j ‡sou épÚ toË xvsy°ntow §pãgesyai tåw mhxanåw to›w te¤xesi, ka‹ §x≈nnuto katå tÚ nÒtion mãlista t∞w pÒlevw te›xow, ˜pou §pimax≈tera §fa¤neto. …w d¢ §dÒkei §j∞ryai summ°trvw tÚ x«ma, mhxanåw §pistÆsantew ofl MakedÒnew §p∞gon …w §p‹ tÚ te›xow t«n Gaza¤vn. ka‹ §n toÊtvi yÊonti ÉAlejãndrvi ka‹ §stefanvm°nvi te ka‹ katãrxesyai m°llonti toË pr≈tou flere¤ou katå nÒmon t«n tiw sarkofãgvn Ùrn¤yvn ÍperpetÒmenow Íp¢r toË bvmoË l¤yon §mbãllei efiw tØn kefalÆn, ˜ntina to›n podo›n ¶fere. ka‹ ÉAl°jandrow ≥reto ÉAr¤standron tÚn mãntin, ˜ ti noo› ı ofivnÒw. ı d¢ épokr¤netai ˜ti: Œ basileË, tØn m¢n pÒlin aflrÆseiw, aÈt«i d° soi fulakt°a §st‹n §p‹ t∞ide t∞i ≤m°rai. taËta ékoÊsaw ÉAl°jandrow t°vw m¢n prÚw ta›w mhxana›w ¶jv b°louw aÍtÚn e‰xen: …w d¢ §kdromÆ te §k t∞w pÒlevw karterå §g¤gneto ka‹ pËr te §p°feron ta›w mhxana›w ofl ÖArabew ka‹ toÁw MakedÒnaw émunom°nouw kãtvyen aÈto‹ §j Íperdej¤ou toË xvr¤ou ¶ballÒn te ka‹ v Ö youn katå toË poihtoË x≈matow, §ntaËya μ •kΔn épeiye› ÉAl°jandrow t«i mãntei μ §kplage‹w §n t«i ¶rgvi oÈk §mnhmÒneuse t∞w mante¤aw, éllÉ énalabΔn toÁw Ípaspiståw pareboÆyei, ˜pou mãlista §pi°zonto ofl MakedÒnew. ka‹ toÊtouw m¢n ¶sxe tÚ mØ oÈk afisxrçi fug∞i »sy∞nai katå toË x≈matow, aÈtÚw d¢ bãlletai katap°lthi diå t∞w ésp¤dow diampåj ka‹ toË y≈rakow efiw tÚn Œmon. …w dÉ ¶gnv tå émf‹ tÚ traËma élhyeÊsanta ÉAr¤standron, §xãrh, ˜ti ka‹ tØn pÒlin dØ aflrÆsein §dÒkei ÉAristãndrou e·neka. ka‹ aÈtÚw m¢n tÚ traËma §yerapeÊeto xalep«w: éfiknoËntai F 9–17 ka‹ §n—e‰xen om. T 20–22 §ntaËya—Ípaspiståw pro his hab. T paralabΔn toÁw Ípaspiståw ı ÉAl°jandrow 26–28 …w—e·neka om. T

P1 E 1 x≈matow] te¤xouw T || airetvteron T || ˜svi] Ïsv E Îsv P1 [T] 2 ekplhjin T || tÚ ¶rgon om. T 3 §sxrÚn P1 || ofl om. T || ¶w Arr. T || toÁw] te toÁw Arr. T 4 §w Arr. T || darion T 7 ˜pou] ·na Arr. T 9 gaz°vn P1 E T, sed cf. p. 94, 10 11 tiw] ti P1 om. E 12 §w Arr. || to›n n podo›n spatio unius litt. inter po et do›n vacuo relicto E 15 aÈt«i] aÈtÚw P1 E 17 aÍtÚn vel aÈtÚn, non liquet, E aÈtØn P1 || eisdromØ T || te om. T || §k om. E 18 §g°neto T munomenouw T 23 ˜pou] ·na Arr. T || epiejonto T 24 ¶sxe tÚ mØ oÈk] ¶sxen …w mØ T 26 §w Arr. T || d¢ Arr. 27 érÊtidron P1 E, sed cf. v. 13 et 28 28 ßneka Arr. 29 éfikoËntai E

327 (3)

328 329 330 (4) 331

332

333 (27, 1)

334

335 (2)

336

337 (3)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

251

height of the [95] mound. But Alexander thought that the more diffi cult it was, the more it must be taken; for the achievement by its unex pectedness would greatly frighten the enemy, while not to take it would be shameful for him when reported to the Greeks and Darius. He decided to raise a mound around the city, and so bring the engines to bear on the walls on the same level from the [new] mound. They built this mound mainly against the city’s southern wall, where it was more easy to assault. And when the Macedonians thought they had built the mound to the proportional height, they placed engines upon it and brought them up to the wall of the Gazans. Meanwhile as Alexander was sacrificing, crowned with garlands, and just about to consecrate the first victim in accordance with ritual, a carnivorous bird flying over the altar dropped on his head a stone which it was carrying with both feet. Alexander asked Aristander the seer what the omen meant, and he answered:, “O King, you will take the city; but this day you must take care for yourself.” After hearing this Alexander kept himself out of range for a time by the engines; but when there was a strong sally from the city and the Arabs were attempting to set fire to the engines, and firing from their superior position on the Macedonians, who were defending them selves from below, and even pushing them down the [newly] con structed mound, then Alexander either deliberately disobeyed the seer or carried away in the action forgot the prophecy, but bringing on his hypaspists came to the aid of the Macedonians where they were most sorely pressed. He did keep them from being driven down the mound in shameful flight, but he was himself struck by a catapult right through his shield and breastplate, into his shoulder. But realizing that Aristander had been correct about the wound, he was pleased, as it seemed he would indeed take the city according to Aristander’s [prophecy]. His wound was difficulty to treat; but there arrived, [96] sent for

252

96 338 (Arr. 339 Il, 27, 4)

340 (5) 341

(6) 342 343 (7) 344

345 346

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 337–346 ( THEV. p. 362, 29–46)

dÉ aÈt«i metãpemptoi épÚ yalãsshw afl mhxana¤, aÂw TÊron eÂle. ka‹ x«ma xvnnÊnai §n kÊklvi pãntoyen t∞w pÒlevw §k°leusen, eÔrow m¢n efiw dÊo stad¤ouw, Ïcow d¢ efiw pÒdaw pentÆkonta ka‹ diakos¤ouw. …w d¢ a· te mhxana‹ aÈt«i §pepoiÆyhsan ka‹ §paxye›sai katå tÚ x«ma katese¤syhsan toË te¤xouw §p‹ polÊ, ÍponÒmvn te êllhi ka‹ êllhi Ùrussom°nvn ka‹ toË xoË éfan«w §kferom°nou tÚ te›xow pollax∞i ±re¤peto Ífizãnon katå tÚ kenoÊmenon, to›w te b°lesin §p‹ polÁ kate›xon ofl MakedÒnew énast°llontew toÁw promaxom°nouw t«n pÊrgvn, efiw m¢n tre›w prosbolåw ofl §k t∞w pÒlevw époynhskÒntvn te aÈto›w poll«n ka‹ titrvskom°nvn ˜mvw énte›xon. t∞i tetãrthi d¢ t«n MakedÒnvn tØn fãlagga pãntoyen prosagagΔn ÉAl°jandrow t∞i m¢n ÍporussÒmenon tÚ te›xow katabãllei, t∞i d¢ paiÒmenon ta›w mhxana›w katase¤ei §p‹ polÊ, …w mØ xalepØn ta›w kl¤maji tØn prosbolØn katå tå §rhreism°na §ndoËnai. a· te oÔn kl¤makew prosÆgonto t«i te¤xei ka‹ ¶riw pollØ ∑n t«n MakedÒnvn ˜soi ti éret∞w metepoioËnto ˜stiw pr«tow aflrÆsei tÚ te›xow: ka‹ aflre› pr«tow NeoptÒlemow t«n •ta¤rvn toË Afiakid«n g°nouw: §p‹ d¢ aÈt«i êllai ka‹ êllai tãjeiw ımoË to›w ≤gemÒsin én°bainon. …w d¢ ëpaj par∞lyÒn tinew §ntÚw toË te¤xouw t«n MakedÒnvn, katasx¤santew êllaw ka‹ êllaw pÊlaw, ˜sai §petÊgxanon, d°xontai e‡sv tØn stratiån pçsan. ofl d¢ Gaza›oi ka‹ t∞w pÒle≈w sfisin ≥dh §xom°nhw sunesthkÒtew ˜mvw §mãxonto. ka‹ T¤tow d¢ ı Ka›sar oÈk eÈmar¢w e‰nai dÒjaw tÚ kukl≈sasyai t∞i stratiçi tØn pÒlin dusxvr¤an ka‹ m°geyow F 17–19 ka‹—én°bainon om. T 23 §mãxonto des. Arr. 24–25 oÈk eÈmar¢w—m°geyow cf. Ios. V, 496 kukl≈sasya¤ te går t∞i stratiçi tØn pÒlin diå m°geyow ka‹ dusxvr¤an oÈk eÈmar¢w e‰nai

1 d¢ T || épÚ yalãsshw om. T || afl] afl duo T 2 eÂlen T || §n P1 E [Arr.] || §w Arr. || Ïcow] om. T 3 eÔrow m¢n] eÏromen P1 Ïcow m¢n T [T] eÔrow T || §w Arr. T 4 lege §poiÆyhsan cum Arr. T 5 §paxy∞sai P1 §paxye‹w T || lege kat°seisan cum Arr. katesisan T 6 ÍpÚ nÒmon P1 v superscr. P1X || xoË] te¤xouw T 7 §kforoumenou T 9 t«n P1 E T Roos coll. Arr. I, 20,8; 21,6: §k t«n Arr.A || §w Arr. T 10 probolåw T 12 prosãgvn T 13 katabãllei] ka‹ ballei T || peÒmenon P1 14 katasiei T || xalepe›n P1 || kl¤majin Arr. T sec. Roos, kl¤maji Wesch. in textu, tacite 15 §rhreism°na lege §rhrimm°na cum Arr. T || a· om. T || pros∞gon P1 E 16 ereiw T || pollØ ∑n] pollhn T 17 aflre›] §re› P1 E || pr«tow P1 E Roos: pr«ton Arr.A 18 neopÒlemow E || §p‹] §pe‹ P1 20 toË P1 E Roos coll. Arr. VI, 9,4; 9,5: om. Arr.A T 21 ˜sai lege ˜saiw ßkastoi cum Arr. T 22 strateian T 23 junesthkÒtew Arr. T 24–25 kukl≈sasyai P1 E Ios. LVRC Niese: kukl≈sesyai Ios. PAM1 25 om. P1 E; cf. Ios.

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

253

by sea, the engines with which he took Tyre. He ordered a mound to be erected all around the city, two stades wide, two hundred and fifty feet high. Then as soon as his engines had been constructed224 and being brought up to the mound had battered225 a large part of the wall, mines were dug here and there and the soil secretly withdrawn until the wall gave way in many places, collapsing into the void, while the Macedonians controlled a large area with their missiles and drove back the front line defenders from the towers; the city’s inhabitants, nevertheless, though with many dead and wounded, held out against three assaults. But in the fourth Alexander brought up his phalanx of Macedonians on all sides, at one place threw down the wall being undermined and in another battered down a large part where his engines were striking, so that it was not hard to make the assault with ladders on the fallen portions226. So the ladders were set up against the wall, and then there was much competition among the Macedonians, such as laid claim to valor, as to who would be the first to take the wall; the first to take it was Neoptolemus, one of the Companions of the family of the Aeacidae. After him, division after division climbed up with their officers. As soon as some of the Macedonians had entered inside the wall, they broke open gate after gate, as each 227 came to them, and so admitted the entire army. The Gazans, though their city was already taken by the enemy, neverthe less held together [and] kept fighting. The emperor Titus after concluding that it was not easy to encir cle the city 228 with his army the difficult terrain and [the city’s] great size, [97] decided to encircle everything by circumvalla-

224 225 226 227 228

Accepting § poiÆyhsan for § pepoiÆyhsan. Accepting kat° seisan for katese¤ syhsan. Accepting § rhrimm° nafor § rhreism° na. Accepting ˜saiw ß kastoi for ˜sai . Jerusalem (70 AD).

254

97

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 346–355 (THEV. p. 362, 46–363, 9)

¶gnv peribÒlvi ka‹ te¤xei kukl≈sasyai pçsan. érjãmenow d¢ épÚ t∞w ÉAssur¤vn parembol∞w, kayÉ ∂n aÈtÚw §stratopedeÊsato, §p‹ tØn katvt°rv KainÒpolin ∑gen tÚ te›xow, ¶nyen diå toË Kedr«now §p‹ tÚ ÉElai«n ˆrow: e‰ta énakãmptvn katå meshmbr¤an perilambãnei tÚ ˆrow êxri t∞w Peristere«now kaloum°nhw p°traw tÒn te •j∞w lÒfon, ˘w §p¤keitai t∞i katå Silvåm fãraggi, kéke›yen §kkl¤naw prÚw dÊsin efiw tØn t∞w phg∞w katÆiei fãragga. meyÉ ∂n énaba¤nvn katå tÚ ÉAnãnou toË érxier°vw mnhme›on ka‹ dialabΔn tÚ ˆrow, ¶nya PompÆiow §strato | pedeÊsato, prÚw KlhmakÒreion §p°strefe, ka‹ proselyΔn m°xri k≈mhw tinÒw, ÉEreb¤nyvn o‰kow kale›tai, ka‹ metÉ §ke¤nhn tÚ ÑHr≈dou mnhme›on perisxΔn katÉ énatolØn t«i fid¤vi stratop°dvi sun∞pten, ˜yen ≥rjato. tÚ m¢n oÔn te›xow •nÚw d°ontow tessarãkonta stad¤vn ∑n, ¶jvyen d¢ aÈt«i prosvikodomÆyh triska¤deka froÊria, ka‹ toÊtvn ofl kÊkloi d°ka sunhriymoËnto stad¤vn. tris‹ d¢ »ikodomÆyh tÚ pçn ≤m°raiw. perikle¤saw d¢ t«i tãxei tØn pÒlin ka‹ dÊnamin to›w frour¤oiw §gkatastÆsaw tØn m¢n pr≈thn fulakØn t∞w nuktÚw periiΔn aÈtÚw épesk°pteto, tØn deut°ran d¢ §p°trecen ÉAlejãndrvi, tØn tr¤thn d¢ ¶laxon ofl t«n tagmãtvn ≤gemÒnew. éllå ka‹ oÏtvw épokle¤santew to›w ÉIouda¤oiw tåw prÚw svthr¤an §lp¤daw, pãlin ≥rxonto xvmãtvn ka¤toi xalep«w aÈt«i t∞w Ïlhw porizom°nhw: ≤ m¢n går per‹ tØn pÒlin pçsan to›w prot°roiw ¶groiw F 1–19 érjãmenow ≤gemÒnew Ios. V, 504–510 (V, XII, 2) 20 épokle¤santew—§lp¤daw cf. Ios. V, 512 ÉIouda¤oiw . . . épekÒph pçsa svthr¤aw §lp¤w 21–p. 98, 3 pãlin—x≈mata: Ios. V, 522–523 (V, XII, 4)

3 ∑ge Ios. 4 e‰ta P1 E Ios. LVRC: e‰tÉ Ios. PA Niese (sententiam om. Ios M) P1 E 5 peristenre«n, ut vid., P1 6 te P1 E Ios. MLVRC Niese: tÉ Ios. PA || t∞i katå] [Ios.] t∞i katå tØn Ios. MLVRC Niese om. Ios. PA 9–10 klhmakÒreion P1: klhmakÒrion E kl¤ma kÒreion Ios. R kl¤ma bÒreion Ios. PAMLV R e x c o r r . C Niese; incertum utrum codex, quo usus est Anon., klimakÒreion habuerit (cf Ios. R), an klhmakÒreion, ut P1, sed, utcumque res se habet, Anon. id pro nomine proprio habuit 10 proselyΔn P1 E Ios. VRC: proelyΔn Ios. PAML Niese 12 katÉ P1 E Ios. LVRC: katå Ios. PAM Niese || sun∞pen P1 E 13 tessarãkonto P1 E Ios. PAMLV ex corr. C Niese: tesserãkonta Ios. VR; cf. p. 98, 2 14 d¢ P1 E Ios. VRC: dÉ Ios. PAML Niese 15 d¢ P1 E Ios. VR: dÉ Ios. PAMLC Niese 16 post ≤m°raiw hab. …w tÚ m¢n ¶rgon mhn«n e‰nai êjion, tÚ tãxow dÉ ≤ttçsyai p¤stevw Ios. || tãxei P1 E Ios. VR: te¤xei Ios. PAMLC Niese 17–18 m¢n pr≈thn—épesk°pteto tØn om. E 18 épesk°pteto P1 Ios. R: §pesk°pteto Ios. PAMLVC Niese || d¢ §p°trecen P1 E Ios. VRC: dÉ §p°trecen Ios. PAML Niese 19 d¢ ¶laxon P1 E Ios. VRC: dÉ ¶laxon Ios. PAML Niese 21 ≥rxeto Ios. (scil. T¤tow) || ka¤toi non hab. Ios. || cave ne mutes aÈt«i, quod ex Ios. descripsit Anon., in aÈto›w 22 pçsa Ios.

347 (Ios. V, 504) 348 (505)

349 (506) p. 363 Thev. 350 (507) 351 (508) 352 (509) 353 (510)

354

355 (523)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

255

tion and with a wall. Starting from the camp of the Assyrians, where he was himself encamped, he brought the wall to the the lower [part] of the New Town [and] from there across the Kedron to the Mount of Olives; then, bending around to the south, he enclosed the mount as far as the rock called “Dovecote” together with the adjacent hill, which is situated above the Siloam valley; thence, turning to the west, he brought it down into the valley of the Fountain, after which he brought it up over against the monument of Ananus the high priest and, cutting across the mountain where Pompey encamped, turned toward Klemakoreion229 and proceeded to a village - it is called the “House of Chick-Peas” - and after that, having encompassed Herod’s monument, he joined it to the east side of his own camp from which he had started. And so the wall was thirty-nine stades in length and had built into its outer side thirteen forts, whose combined circumferences amounted to ten stades. The whole was built in three days 230. After enclosing the city speedily231 and posting troops in the forts, [Titus] went around personally during the first watch of the night and con ducted an inspection; the second watch he entrusted to Alexander; for the third the commanders of the legions drew lots. But after thus blockading the Jews from hope of safety, they again began earth works, though lumber was now obtained for him with difficulty. For the [trees] around the entire city had been cut down for the earlier

229 The text of Josephus has kl¤ ma bÒreion, “north.” The Anon. or his source text apparently incorrectly understood here a proper name. 230 For maps of the path of the wall see Cornfeld (1982) 371 and B. Jones, The Emperor Titus (London: 1984) 49; for comments on the place names see Cornfeld (1982) 394. 231 Josephus here has tÚ tãxow dÉ ≤ttçsyai p¤ stevw. perikle¤ saw d¢ t“ te¤ xei tØn pÒlin. . . . The Anon. may be conflating the two, or perhaps one should read te¤ xeifor tãxei .

256

98 356 357

358

359 360

361

362 (Arr. 363 IV, 18, 4)

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 355–363 ( THEV. p. 363, 9–28)

§k°kopto, sunefÒroun d¢ êllhn épÉ §nenÆkonta stad¤vn ofl strati«tai. ka‹ prÚw mÒnhw Ïcoun t∞w ÉAntvn¤aw katå m°rh t°ssara polÁ me¤zona t«n prot°rvn x≈mata. ka‹ taËta m¢n toiaËtaˆnta ka‹ thlikaËta di∞lyon de›jai y°lvn …w §k sugkr¤sevw t«n tÒte polem¤vn tåw tÒlmaw ka‹ tØn §pÉ éret∞i dÒjan, ka‹ ˜pvw pantÚw kindun≈douw ka‹ §paxyoËw ¶rgou diÉ §pimele¤aw perieg°nonto, éllÉ ˜mvw énte›xon ofl prÚw toÊtoiw poliorkoÊmenoi. §peidØ d°, …w ¶fhmen, katå polÁ tå kayÉ ≤m«n ıplizÒmena ¶ynh ±lãttvtai, † ka‹ oÎte tosoËton polem¤vn pl∞yow katå t«n ≤met°rvn pÒlevn §kstrateÊei, Àste ka‹ prÚw ¶rga ple›sta ka‹ mhxanåw paraskeuãzesyai, •katÚn tuxÚn prÚw tå •jÆkonta magganikå μ ka‹ krioÁw e‡kosi, † éllå prÚw magganikå m¢n tÚ ple›ston d°ka, krioÁw d¢ dÊo μ ka‹ tuxÚn ßna, eÈx°reiã soi ¶stin, Œ strathg°, * * * ka‹ tØn êmaxon dÊnamin toË YeoË §pikaloum°nvi, katagvn¤zesyai toÊtouw, t«n §ntaËya énagegramm°nvn mØ émeloËnti. ˜tan går éporÆsvsin •le›n tØn pÒlin diå t«n profan«n ¶rgvn, tÒte pãntvw xre¤a xvrÆsein aÈtoÁw §p‹ t«n éfan«n ka‹ layra¤vn, ì poll∞w de›tai t∞w fulak∞w, ple¤sthw d¢ t∞w égrupn¤aw ka‹ † t∞w prÚw toÁw xe›ra eÈno¤aw. † oÈ går mÒnon diå t«n =aid¤vw §pibouleuom°nvn peirãsontai ofl §xyro¤, éllå ka‹ diå t«n éxeir≈tvn mçllon, §j œn eÍr¤skomen ka‹ tåw Sãrdeiw •alvku¤aw ÍpÚ toË basil°vw ÉAntiÒxou ka‹ tØn §n Sougdian∞i legom°nhn p°tran ÍpÚ ÉAlejãndrou xeirvye›san. ÉAl°jandrow går katastrateusãmenow Dare›on ka‹ ÉOjuãrthn tÚn t«n Baktr¤vn basil°a, ëma t«i ∑ri Ípofa¤nonti proÈx≈rei …w §p‹ tØn efirhm°nhn p°tran, efiw ∂n polloÁw m¢n t«n Sougdian«n F 22 tåw Sãrdeiw—ÉAntiÒxou cf. Plb. VII, 15–18, ubi narrantur, quae hic memorat Anon. 25–p. 100, 15 ëma—§g°nonto: Arr. IV, 18, 4–19, 4

1 d¢ P1 E Ios. PAMVR Niese: dÉ Ios. LC 7 toÊtoiw lege toÊtvn P1 E [Ios.] 8 …w ¶fhmen cf. p. 78, 14–16 9 tÚsoÊton E, acutus fort. ex circumflexo [Arr.] mutatus est, tosoÊtvn P1 9–12 ka‹ oÎte—e‡kosi corruptum vid.; possis e. g. legere §kstrateÊei , Àste ka‹ k.t.l. 14 lac. indicavi; „operam navanti” vel tale quid desideratur 18 malim tå éfan∞ ka‹ layra›a 19 t∞w prÚw toÁw xe›ra eÈno¤aw corruptum; rationem voces toÁw xe›ra sanandi non video; fort. §pino¤aw pro eÈno¤aw? 25 ëma] ëma d¢ Arr. 26 efirhm°nhn] §n t∞i Sogdian∞i Arr. || §w Arr. || Sogdian«n Arr. 11–22 cf. Ios. III, 166 OÈespasianÚw d¢ §n kÊklvi tåw éfethr¤ouw mhxanåw §pistÆsaw, tå pãnta dÉ ∑n •katÚn •jÆkonta ˆrgana

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

257

works, [98] and the soldiers had to collect additional [lumber] from a distance of ninety stades. They raised new mounds only opposite Antonia, in four sections and much larger than the earlier ones. And these [examples], which are of such a nature and so significant, I have described in detail wishing to show, as it were by comparison, the daring and glorious courage of the enemies of that time, and how they excelled through diligence in every dangerous and burdensome action, but nevertheless those besieged by them 232 held out. But since, as we have said 233, the foreign peoples armed against us are much inferior, ~ and enemies do not campaign against our cities in such great numbers that and also to ready machines against very great operations, say 100 against 60 magganika236 or even 20 rams, ~ but against at most 10 magganika and two or perhaps just one ram, it is easy for you, o general, and also calling upon the invincible power of God, to defeat them, while not neglecting what is recorded here. For whenever they are at a loss to capture a city through overt operations238, then there is every necessity for them to resort to the covert and secret ones, which require great watchfulness and the greatest vigilance and ~ inventiveness239 ~ For the enemy will make attempts not only through places against which they can easily devise plans, but even more so through the ones which are hard to capture, among which we find Sardis taken by king Antiochus241 and the socalled rock in Sougdiana 242 which was conquered by Alexander. For Alexander, when campaigning against Darius and Oxyartes the king of the Bactrians, proceeded at the very beginning of spring towards the aforementioned rock to which, it was said, many of the

232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242

Accepting toÊtvn for toÊtoiw . See above 78:14ff and 84:8ff. vdB’s suggested addition. vdB’s suggested addition. See above n. 34. vdB’s suggested addition. See above 78:3 and 6. Accepting § pino¤ awfor eÈno¤ aw. For prÚw toÁw xe›ra perhaps read prÚw tåw xre¤ aw(“in response to necessity”) (DS). See above n. 12. The text of Arrian gives the correct spelling Sogdiana.

258

99

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 363–375 ( THEV. p. 363, 28–49)

sumpefeug°nai §l°geto: ka‹ ≤ ÉOjuãrtou d¢ gunØ toË Baktr¤ou ka‹ afl pa›dew afl ÉOjuãrtou ÉOjuãrtou aÈtåw …w efiw énãlvton d∞yen tÚ xvr¤on §ke›no Ípekyem°nou, ˜ti ka‹ aÈtÚw éfeistÆkei épÉ ÉAlejãndrou. taÊthw går §jaireye¤shw oÈk°ti oÈd¢n ÍpoleifyÆsesyai §dÒkei t«n Sougdian«n to›w nevter¤zein §y°lousin. …w dÉ §p°lasan t∞i p°trai, katalambãnei pãnthi épÒtomon §w tØn prosbolØn sit¤a te sugkekomism°nouw toÁw barbãrouw …w §w xrÒnion poliork¤an. ka‹ xiΔn pollØ ¶ti §poËsa tÆn te prÒsbasin éporvt°ran §po¤ei to›w MakedÒsi ka‹ ëma §n éfyon¤ai Ïdatow toÁw barbãrouw di∞gen. éllå ka‹ Õw prosbãllein §dÒkei t«i xvr¤vi. ka‹ gãr ti ka‹ Íp°rogkon ÍpÚ t«n barbãrvn lexy¢n §w filotim¤an sÁn Ùrg∞i §mbeblÆkei ÉAl°jandron. proklhy°ntew går efiw sÊmbasin ka‹ proteinom°nou sf¤sin, ˜ti s≈oiw Ípãrjei §p‹ tå sf°tera épallag∞nai paradoËsi tÚ xvr¤on, ofl d¢ sÁn g°lvti barbar¤zontew pthnoÁw §k°leuon strati≈taw zhte›n ÉAlejandron, o·tinew aÈtÚ §jairÆsousi tÚ ˆrow, …w t«n ge êllvn ényr≈pvn oÈdem¤an vÖran sf¤sin oÔsan. ¶nya dØ §kÆrujen ÉAl°jandrow t«i m¢n pr≈tvi énabãnti d≈deka tãlanta e‰nai tÚ g°raw, deut°rvi d¢ §p‹ toÊtvi tå deÊtera ka‹ tr¤tvi tå §fej∞w, …w teleuta›on e‰nai t«i teleuta¤vi énelyÒnti triakos¤ouw DareikoÁw tÚ g°raw. ka‹ toËto tÚ kÆrugma par≈junen ¶ti mçllon ka‹ êllvw toÁw MakedÒnaw …rmhm°nouw. suntajãmenoi dØ ˜soi petrobate›n §n ta›w poliork¤aiw aÈt«i memeletÆkeisan, efiw triakos¤ouw tÚn ériymÒn, ka‹ passãlouw mikroÁw sidhroËw, oÂw afl skhna‹ katapepÆgesan aÈto›w, paraskeuãsantew, toË kataphgnÊnai aÈtoÁw ¶w te tØn xiÒna, ˜pou pephgu›a fane¤h ka‹ e‡ poÊ ti t∞w x≈raw ¶rhmon xiÒnow Ípofa¤noito, ka‹ toÊtouw kalvd¤oiw §k l¤nou fisxuro›w §kdÆsantew t∞w nuktÚw proÈx≈roun katå tÚ épotom≈tatÒn te t∞w p°traw ka‹ taÊthi éfulaktÒtaton{te}. ka‹ toÊtouw toÁw passãlouw kataphgnÊntew toÁw m¢n efiw tØn g∞n, ˜pou diefa¤neto, toÁw d¢ ka‹ t∞w xiÒnow

P1 E 1 sumpefeugm°nai E jumpefeug°nai Arr. || §l°geto] aÈt«i §jhgg°lleto Arr. Arr. || baktar¤ou P1 E, sed cf. p. 98, 25 2–3 om. P1 E 2 efiw scripsi: §w Arr. 2–3 sumpefeug°nai scripsi: jumpefeug°nai Arr. 5 ÍpolhfyÆsesyai P 1 6 Sogdian«n Arr. 3 §w Arr. 4 éfe¤sth P 1 E || d¢ Arr. 8 jugkekomism°nouw Arr. 9 ¶ti ßpoËsa P1 §pipesoËsa Arr. 14 §w Arr. || jÊmbasin Arr. 16 stra13 jÁn Arr. || él°jandrow P1 E ti≈taw zhte›n] zhte›n strati≈taw Arr. 17 lege aÈt«i cum Arr. 20 g°rraw 24 juntajãmenoi Arr. 25 memeletÆkeisan P1 E Arr. A: P1 E; item v. 22 memeletÆkesan Ellendt Roos || §w Arr. 27 ¶w te] ¶stai P1 E 30 épotomÒtatÒn P1 E 31 {te} delevi; non hab. Arr. || toÊtouw toÁw] toÊtouw E 32 §w Arr.

364

365 366 (5)

367 368 369 (6) 370

371 (7)

372 373 (19, 1) 374

375 (2)

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

259

Sougdianians [99] had fled. The wife of Oxyartes the Bactrian and his daughters , Oxyartes, since he had himself revolted from Alexander, having put them for safety sake in that place on the mistaken assumption that it was impreg nable243. For if it were taken, it seemed likely that the Sougdianians who were ready to revolt would be left defenseless. But when they approached the rock, Alexander realized that it was sheer on all sides against attack, and that the barbarians had stored provisions there for a long siege. A heavy snow which was still on the ground made the approach more difficult for the Macedonians, and at the same time kept the barbarians abundantly supplied with water. Yet even so [Alexander] decided to assault the place. For an insolent statement by the barbarians had added to Alexander’s passionate ambition. When invited to agree to terms, which he offered on the basis that they would be permitted to go safely to their homes if they surrendered the place, they told Alexander sarcastically using their native language 244 to look for soldiers with wings to capture the mountain for him 245, since they had no concern about any other kind of men. Then Alexander announced that the first to scale the height should have a reward of ten talents, for the second after him a second [reward], and for the third and so forth, the last to climb up to have 300 Darics as a reward. This announcement further spurred on the already eager Macedonians. So then when all had gathered who had experience with rockclimbing in their sieges with him, numbering about 300, and had got ready small iron stakes, with which their tents had been staked down, in order to fix them into the snow where it appeared to be frozen solid and also in any place bare of snow which might show through, and had tied the stakes to strong linen ropes, they set out at night to the part of the rock which was most sheer and thus least guarded. They fixed some of these stakes into the ground where it was visible, others in the snow [100] where it seemed likely to give way, and

243 244 245

Following Bosworth (1980) 128. Following Bosworth (1980) 128. Accepting aÈt“ for aÈtÒ.

260

100 376 (Arr. 377 IV, 19, 3) 378 379

(4) 380 381 382 (Arr. 383 IV, 21, 2) 384

(3) 385 386

P1 E [Arr.]

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

§ 375–386 (THEV. p. 363, 49–364, 16)

efiw tå mãlista yrufyhsÒmena, éne›lkon sfçw aÈtoÁw êlloi êllhi t∞w p°traw. ka‹ toÊtvn efiw triãkonta m¢n §n t∞i énabãsei diefyãrhsan, Àste oÈd¢ tå s≈mata aÈt«n efiw tafØn eÍr°yh §mpesÒnta êllhi ka‹ êllhi t∞w | xiÒnow. ofl d¢ loipo‹ énabãntew ÍpÚ tØn ßv ka‹ tÚ êkron toË ˆrouw katalabÒntew sindÒnaw kat°seion …w §p‹ tÚ stratÒpedon t«n MakedÒnvn, oÏtvw aÈto›w §j ÉAlejãndrou parghggelm°non. p°mcaw dØ kÆruka §mbo∞sai §k°leusen to›w profulãssousi t«n barbãrvn mØ diatr¤bein ¶ti, éllå paradidÒnai sfçw: §jeur∞syai går toÁw pthnoÁw ényr≈pouw ka‹ ¶xesyai ÍpÚ aÈt«n toË ˆrouw tå êkra: ka‹ ëma §de¤knuon toÁw Íp¢r t∞w koruf∞w strati≈taw. ofl d¢ bãrbaroi §kplag°ntew t«i paralÒgvi t∞w ˆcevw ka‹ ple¤onãw te e‰nai ÍpotopÆsantew toÁw kat°xontaw tå êkra ka‹ ékrib«w …plism°nouw §n°dosan sfçw aÈtoÊw: oÏtv prÚw tØn ˆcin t«n Ùl¤gvn §ke¤nvn MakedÒnvn fobero‹ §g°nonto. * * * ‡doiw ín §p‹ t∞i XoriÆnou legom°nhi p°trai t∞i pãnthi Ùxurvtãthi. aÏth d¢ épÒtomow pãntoyen, ênodow d¢ efiw aÈtØn m¤a ka‹ aÈtØ stenÆ te ka‹ oÈk eÎporow, oÂa dØ parå tØn fÊsin toË xvr¤ou pepoihm°nh, …w xalepØ e‰nai ka‹ mhdenÚw e‡rgontow ka‹ kayÉ ßna énelye›n, fãragj tÉ §n kÊklvi perie¤rgei tØn p°tran baye›a, Àste ˜stiw prostãjein stratiån t∞i p°trai ≥melle, polÁ prÒsyen aÈt«i tØn fãragga e‰nai xvst°on, …w §j ımaloË ırmçsyai prosãgonta efiw prosbolØn tÚn stratÒn. éllå ka‹ Õw ÉAl°jandrow ¥pteto toË ¶rgou: oÏtvw pãnta vÖieto xr∞nai batã te aÍt«i ka‹ §jairet°a e‰nai, efiw tosoËton d¢ tÒlmhw te ka‹ eÈtux¤aw prokexvrÆkei. t°mnvn dØ tåw §lãtaw (polla‹ går ka‹ ÍperÊchloi §lãtai efis‹n §n kÊklvi toË ˆrouw) kl¤makaw F 15 §g°nonto des. Arr. 17 aÏth d¢ ad finem: Arr. IV, 21, 2–6 24–25 pãnta—e‰nai cf. Suda s.v. batã, pãnta d¢ t«i ÉAlejãndrvi batã te ka‹ §jairet°a e‰nai §dÒkei 1 §w Arr. || om. P1 E || yorufyhsÒmena E 2 §w Arr. 4 ka‹ êllhi om. E 7 dØ P1 E Roos: d¢ 3 diefyãreisan P1 || §w Arr. 9 §jeure›syai P1 E || går] Arr. A 7–8 §k°leuse Arr. 8 étr¤bein P1 E 11 toÁw] går dØ Arr. 10 §de¤knuon P1 E Arr. A: §de¤knuen Krüger Roos taw E 13 e‰nai ÍpotopÆsantew] ÍpotopÆsantew e‰nai Arr. 14 oÏta E 16 lac. indicavi; „et aliud exemplum”, „et inceptum non minus audax” vel tale quid desideratur 17 »xurvtãth E »xurotãth P1 || aÏth] aÈtØ Arr. || §w Arr. 20 fãraj E || tɧn] te Arr. || perie¤rgei P1 E Arr. A: perie›rge Krüger Roos 21 prosãjein Arr. || strati«n P1 E || ¶melle 23 prosãgontow P1 E || §w Arr. Arr. 22 fãlagga P1 E; cf. ad p. 85, 4 25 aÈt« P1 E || §w Arr. || tosoËton d¢] tosÒnde Arr. 27 ∑san Arr.

3 p. 364 Thev 6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

261

each in a different place dragged themselves up the rock. About thir ty of them died in the climb, such that their bodies were not found for burial, since they had fallen here and there in the snow. The rest, how ever, climbed up about dawn, seized the summit of the mountain, and waved linen flags to the camp of the Macedonians, as instructed by Alexander. Then he sent a herald and told him to shout to the front line of the barbarians, to delay no longer, but to surrender, for he had indeed found the men with wings, and the summit of the mountain was in their possession; he pointed246 at the same time to the soldiers on the peak. The barbarians were astounded at the unexpected sight, and assuming that those holding the heights were more numerous and fully armed, they surrendered; so terrified were they at seeing those few Macedonians. You may see in the so-called rock of Chorienes, an exceedingly strong position. It was sheer on all sides; the way up to it was single and, what is more narrow and barely pass able248, since it had been constructed with no concern for the nature of the terrain, so that it was difficult, even with no one opposing, to ascend even in single file. A deep ravine also completely surrounded the rock, so that anyone who was going to bring an army up to the rock would be required before so doing to fill up much of the ravine, so as to start from level ground when bringing up his army to the assault. But even so Alexander seized on the task, for he thought that every place should be accessible to him and open to capture, to such a degree of daring and success had he come. So he cut down the pines (for there were many very tall pines around the mountain) and made

246 247 248

Accepting § de¤ knuenfor § de¤ knuon. vdB’s suggested addition. Following Bosworth (1980) 135.

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

262

101

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

§ 386–395 ( THEV. p. 364, 17–32)

§k toÊtvn §po¤ei, …w kãyodon e‰nai efiw tØn fãragga t∞i stratiçi: oÈ går ∑n êllvw katelye›n efiw aÈtÆn. ka‹ tåw m¢n ≤m°raw aÈtÚw ÉAl°jandrow §feistÆkei t«i ¶rgvi tÚ ¥misu toË stratoË ¶xvn §rgazÒmemon, tåw d¢ nÊktaw §n m°rei ofl svmatofÊlakew aÈt«i pareirgãzonto, Perd¤kkaw te ka‹ Leonnãtow ka‹ Ptolema›ow ı Lag≈w, t«i loip«i m°rei t∞w stratiçw trix∞i dianeimam°nvi, ˜per aÈt«i efiw tØn nÊkta ép°keito. ≥nuon d¢ t∞w ≤m°raw oÈ pl°on ≥per e‡kosi pÆxeiw ka‹ t∞w nuktÚw Ùl¤gon épod°on, ka¤toi sumpãshw t∞w stratiçw §rgazom°nhw: oÏtv tÒ te xvr¤on êporon ∑n ka‹ tÚ ¶rgon §n aÈt«i xalepÒn. katidÒntew dÉ efiw tØn fãragga passãlouw katepÆgnuon efiw tÚ ÙjÊtaton t∞w fãraggow, di°xontaw éllÆlvn ˜son sÊmmetron prÚw fisxÊn te ka‹ sunoxØn t«n §piballom°nvn. §p°ballon d¢ pl°gmata §k lÊgvn efiw gefÊraw mãlista fid°an, ka‹ taËta sundoËntew xoËn ênvyen §pefÒroun, …w §j ımaloË g¤nesyai t∞i stratiçi tØn prÒsodon tØn prÚw tØn p°tran. ofl d¢ bãrbaroi tå m¢n pr«ta katefrÒnoun …w épÒrou pãnthi toË §gxeirÆmatow: …w d¢ tojeÊmata ≥dh efiw tØn p°tran §jikne›to ka‹ aÈto‹ édÊnatoi ∑san ênvyen §je¤rgein toÁw MakedÒnaw (§pepo¤hto går aÈto›w prokalÊmmata prÚw tå b°lh, …w ÍpÉ aÈto›w éblab«w §rgãzesyai), §kplage‹w ı XoriÆnhw prÚw tå ginÒmena kÆrukap°mpei prÚwÉAl°jandron, deÒmenow ÉOjuãrthnofl énap°mcai.

F 22 énap°mcai des. P1 E P1 E 1 §w Arr. 2 §w Arr. 4 somatofÊlakew E 5 lege efirgãzonto cum Arr. Arr 6 lege Lãgou cum Arr. || lege dianenemhm°nvi cum Arr. 7 §w Arr. || ép°keito] §pet°takto Arr. A épet°takto Roos || ≥nuton Arr. 8 e‡per P1 9 jumpãshw Arr. 10 lege katiÒntew cum Arr. || §w Arr. 11 §w Arr. 12 jÊmmetron Arr. || junoxØn Arr. 14 sundoËntew scripsi: jundoËntew 15 g¤gnesyai Arr. 18 §w Arr. 20 proskalÊmArr. sundroËntew P1 E mata P1 21 gignÒmena Arr. 22 ÉOjuãrtou P1 E

387.388 (4) 389

390

391 (5)

392

393 (6) 394

395

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

263

ladders [101] with them, so that the army could descend into the ravine; for it was not otherwise possible to get down into it. By day Alexander himself oversaw the task, keeping half his army at work. By night his bodyguards worked 249 in their turn, Perdiccas, Leonnatus and Ptolemy son of Lagus 250, with the rest of the army, divided251 into three sections and reserved by him for the night work. By daytime they could not complete more than 20 cubits, at night a little less, even though all the army was at work; for the terrain was so difficult, and the work there so hard. Descending252 into the ravine they fixed piles253 into the most rapidly flowing section of the ravine 254, just so far apart from one another that they could be strong enough to sustain what was piled upon them. They would then fix upon the piles plaited con structions of twigs 255, very much in the form of a bridge and bind these together and pile earth upon them from above, so that the approach for the army to the rock might be level. At first the barbarians were scornful of the undertaking as whol ly impossible; but when already arrows began to reach the rock, while they were themselves unable from above to interfere with the Macedonians (for they had made screens against the missiles, so as to work unharmed under them) Chorienes, astounded at the events, sent a herald to Alexander begging him to send Oxyartes to him.

249 250 251 252 253 254 255

Accepting efirgãzonto for pareirgãzonto . Accepting Lãgou for Lag≈w. Accepting dianenemhm° nƒ for dianeimam° nƒ. Accepting katiÒntew for katidÒntew. Following Bosworth (1980) 137. Following Bosworth (1980) 137. Following Bosworth (1980) 137.

264

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM ET ABBREVIATIONUM V: Vaticanus Gr. 1164; cf. p. 4–5 P1: Barberinianus 276 (olim II 97); cf. p. 5 E: Escorialensis Y-III-11; cf. p. 5–6 T: Parisinus Supplem. gr. 607; cf. p. 19 sqq. Arr.: Arriani Alexandri Anabasis. Ed. A. G. Roos, Lipsiae 1907 Arr.A: Vindobonensis histor. Gr. 4 1) Roos: indicat lectionem a Roos in textum receptam 2) Plb.: Polybii Historiae. Ed. Th. Büttner-Wobst, Lipsiae 1889–1905 (Vol. I ed. altera) 3) Plb.F: Urbinas 102, quo continentur Polybii Excerpta Antiqua quae dicuntur 1) Plb.S: codices recentes Excerptorum Antiquorum vel omnes vel complures Ex his singuli afferuntur Plb.D: Monacensis 388 Plb.G: Mediceus B.-W.: indicat lectionem a Büttner-Wobst in textum receptam 2) Ios.: Flavii Iosephi De bello Iudaico libri VII. Ed. I. a Destinon et B. Niese, Berolini 1894 Ios.P: Parisinus Gr. 1425 1) Ios.A: Ambrosianus D 50 super. Ios.M: Marcianus Gr. 383 Ios.L: Laurentianus pl. 69, 19 Ios.V: Vaticanus Gr. 148 Ios.R: Palatinus Gr. 284 Ios.C: Urbinas Gr. 84 Lat.: interpres Latinus Iosephi Heg.: Hegesippus, alter interpres Latinus Iosephi Niese: indicat lectionem a Niese et Destinon in textum receptam 2) Arr. Tact.: Arriani Tactica. Ed. A. G. Roos in volumine altero editionis Arriani, Lipsiae 1928 Byz. Anon. Kriegsw.: Des Byzantiner Anonymus’Kriegswissenschaft. Ed. H. Köchly et W. Rüstow, Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller II, 2, Leipzig 1855 Cecaum.: Cecaumeni Strategicon. Ed. B. Wassiliewsky et V. Jernstedt, Petropoli 1896 Const. Porph. Adm.: Constantini Porphygorgeniti De administrando Imperio. Ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae 1840 1) De codicibus Arriani, Polybii, Iosephi conferantur prolegomena editionum laudatarum. Ut spatio parcerem, lectiones codicum Arriani, Polybii, Iosephi silentio virorum doctorum Roos, Hultsch, B.W., Niese tantum indicatas, quas affere, praesertim ad fragmenta ex Iosepho sumpta, saepe necessarium erat ad indicandum cum quibus codicibus conveniat Anonymus (cf. p. 35), non signavi litteras, nisi lectiones codicum recentium Polybii, quos non satis accurate excussos esse monet B.-W., Vol. II, p. LVIII, adn. 1. 2) Cf. p. 35. 3) Cum magna pars eius editionis apparatu critico careat, editione ab Hultsch curata quoque usa sum; „Plb.” autem indicat textum, qualem constituit B.-W.

INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ON SIEGE DEFENSE

265

Const. Porph. Cer.: eiusdem De Cerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae. Ed. J. J. Reiske, Bonnae 1830 Costas: P. S. Costas, An outline of the history of the Greek language with particular emphasis on the koine and the subsequent stages, Chicago 1936 Du Cange: Glossarium ad Scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis, Auctore Carolo du Fresne, Domino Du Cange, Lugduni 1688 Hultsch: Polybii Historiae. Ed. Fr. Hultsch, Berolini 1870–92 (Vol. I et II ed. altera) Hypoth.: ÑUpoy°seiw v. p. 30 adn. 3 Incert. Script.: Incerti Scriptoris Byzantini Saeculi X Liber de Re militari. Ed. R. Vari, Lipsiae 1901 Jannaris: A. N. Jannaris. An historical Greek Grammar, London 1897 Iul. Afric.: Jules Africain, Fragments des Cestes. Ed. J. R. Vieillefond, Paris 1932 Kühner-Gerth: Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache v. R. Kühner. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, dritte Auflage besorgt v. B. Gerth, Hannover und Leipzig 1898–1904 L. and Sc.: A Greek-English Lexicon by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott. A new Edition by H. S. Jones and R. Mc Kenzie, Oxford 1925–1940 Leon. Probl.: Leonis VI Sapientis Problemata. Ed. A. Dain, Paris 1935 Leon. Tact.: Leonis Imperatoris Tactica. Ed. R. Vari. Tom. I et Tom. II, fasc. prior. Budapestini 1917–1922. Continent Constitutiones I–XIII et Constitutionis XIV paragr. 1–38. Locos constitutionum a Vari non editarum citavi ex editione a J. P. Migne curata, Parisiis 1863, locos recensionis Constantinianae ex editione a Vari curata, ubi in calce pag. inveniuntur Martin: Th. H. Martin. Recherches sur la vie et les ouvrages d’Héron d’Alexandrie et sur tous les ouvrages mathématiques grecs, qui ont été attribués à un auteur nommé Héron. Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de l’institut impérial de France. I re Série, tome IV, Paris 1854 Meursius: Ioannis Meursi Glossarium Graeco-Barbarum. Editio altera, Lugduni Batavorum 1614 Müller 1: C. Müller in Flavii Iosephi editione a L. Dindorf curata (Parisiis 1847) vol. II, append. p. 16 sqq., ubi obsidionem Ambraciae ex apographo Minae (cod. Paris. supplem. gr. 485) codicis T edidit Müller 2: C. Müller in Fragm. Hist. Gr. V (Parisiis 1883), p. LX–LXIV, ubi obsidionem Syracusarum e cod. T. Anonymo, Excerptis Antiquis edidit. Müller Kriegswesen: Ein griechisches Fragment über Kriegswesen. Ed. K. K. Müller, Festschrift für L. Urlichs (Würzburg 1880), p. 106–138. Müller Seekrieg: Eine griechische Schrift über Seekrieg. Ed. K. K. Müller, Würzburg 1882 Niceph. Praec.: Nicephori Praecepta militaria. Ed. J. Kulakovskij, Mémoires de l’académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIIe Série, Classe hist.-philol. Tome VIII, n 0. 9, 1908 Niceph. Phoc. Vel.: Nicephori Phocae Liber de Velitatione bellica. Ed. C. B. Hasius (Haase) in editione Leonis Diaconi, Bonnae 1828

266

DENIS F. SULLIVAN

Onas.: Onasandri Strategicus. Ed. E. Korzensky et R. Vari, Budapestini 1935. Qua ex editione etiam nonnullos locos paraphraseos citavi. Pape: W. Pape, Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch, dritte Aufl. bearb. v. W. Sengebusch, Braunschweig 1880; Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, dritte Aufl. bearb. v. G. E. Benseler, Braunschweig 1862 Parecbol.: v. p. 30–32 Philon, „V”: „Exzerpte aus Philons Mechanik, Buch VII, Paraskeuastikå, und Buch VIII, Poliorkhtikå. Vulgo Buch V”. Ed. H. Diels und E. Schramm, Abhandl. der Preuss. Akademie der Wissensch., Jahrgang 1919, Philos.-Hist. Klasse Psaltes: S. B. Psaltes, Grammatik der Byzantinischen Chroniken, Göttingen 1913 Roos, Prolegomena: A. G. Roos, Prolegomena ad Arriani Anabaseos et Indicae editionem criticam, specimen literarium inaugurale, Groningae 1904 Schw.: Polybii Historiarum quidquid superest. Ed. J. Schweighaeuser, Lipsiae 1789–1795 Soph.: E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods, New-York 1893 Strat. paragg.: v. p. 31 cum adn. 3 Suda: Suidae Lexicon. Ed. A. Adler, Lipsiae 1928–38 Syll. Tact.: Sylloge Tacticorum, quae olim „inedita Leonis Tactica” dicebatur. Ed. A. Dain, Paris 1938. Cap. 76–102 etiam invenies in editione Polyaeni ab J. Melber curata (Lipsiae 1887), p. 507–540, instructa numeris 1–27 Thev.: indicat lectionem editionis Thevenotianae, non coniecturam viri docti Thev. cf. p. 34 Urb.-Maur.: Mauricii Artis militaris Libri duodecim. Ed. una cum Arriani Tactica J. Scheffer, Upsaliae 1664. Multos locos in editione Leon. Tact. edidit Vari, scriptorem appellans Urbicium cum Medic.-Laurent. LV, 4. Urbicium-Mauricium eum appellavit Dain (Leon. Probl. p. 7) „ut et veritati et traditioni satisfaciam” Urb. Tact.: Urbicii TaktikÒn. Ed. R. Förster, Hermes 12 (1877) Wesch.: Poliorcétique des Grecs. Ed. C. Wescher, Paris 1867 V1 (etc.): indicat correctionem eiusdem manus, qua scriptus est codex 1) < > inclusa praeter codicum fidem sunt addita { } inclusa deleta sunt ( ) inclusa in parenthesi sunt dicta † † inclusa corrupta videntur *** indicat lacunam 1) Moneo in apparatu critico editionis Iosephi Belli Iudaici a Niese curatae, ubicumque correcturae exstent, siglo V1 (etc.) indicari quae manus prima primitus scripserit, non cor-recturam a primamanufactam(cf.Praef.p.LXXIete.g.app.crit.adp. 297, 7 et 312, 21), quo factum est, ut iis locis sigla a Niese usurpata ad rationem meam, quam e libello, qui inscribitur: Emploi des signes critiques (Bruxelles, Paris 1938), sumpsi, accomodare cogerer

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AASS. Acta Sanctorum. Ahrweiler H. (1967). “Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète”, TM 2 (1967) 393-404. Alexiad. See under “Komnena Anna”. Ambrose. De obitu Theodosii, ed. O. Faller (Vienna: 1955; CSEL 73). Amidon Ph. (1997). The Church History of Rufinus of Aquilea, books 10 and 11 (Oxford: 1997). Antonopoulou T. (1997). The Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI (Leiden: 1997). Apokaukos Ioannes. “Unedierte Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des Joannes Apokaukos”, BNJ 21 (1971-74) 55-247 (pages numbered separately as an appendix). Aratos. Phaenomena, ed. J. Martin (Paris: 1998). Barker J. (1993). “Byzantium and the display of war trophies: Between antiquity and the Venetians”, in TO ELLHNIKON. Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr., 2 vols. (New Rochelle, New York: 1993). Berg H. van den. Anonymus de obsidione toleranda (Leiden: 1947). BHG. Bibliotheca Hagiographica graeca, 3rd ed., 3 vols. in 1, F. Halkin, ed. (Brussels: 1957). Bihain. (1973). “L’épître de Cyrille de Jérusalem à Constance sur la vision de la croix (BHG 413)”, Byzantion 43 (1973) 264-96. BNJ. Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher. Bond W. H. and Faye C. U. (1962). Supplement to the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada (New York: 1962). Borgehammar St. (1991). How the Holy Cross Was Found (Stockholm: 1991). Bosworth A. B. (1980). A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, I (Oxford: 1980). Bouché-Leclercq A. (1899). L’astrologie grecque (Paris: 1899). Bouras L. (1989). “ ÑO Bas¤leiow LekaphnÒw, paraggeliodÒthw ¶rgvn t°xnhw,” in ÑO Kvnstant›now ZÄ ı Porfurog°nnhtow ka‹ ≤ §poxÆ tou (Athens: 1989) 387-434. Brokkaar W.G. (1972). “Basil Lecapenus. Byzantium in the Tenth Century”, in Studia byzantina et neohellenica neelandica (Leiden: 1972) 199-234.

268

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Browning R. (1976). “Il codice Marciano Gr. XI.31 e la schedografia bizantina”, in Miscellanea Marciana di studi Bessarionei (Padua: 1976), 21-34. ——. (1963). “The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century”, Byzantion 33 (1963) 11-40. Büttner-Wobst T. Polybii Historiae, 4 vols. (Stuttgart: 1889-1905; rp. 1962). BZ. Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Caillemer. (1872). “Compilation anonyme sur la défense des places fortes”, in A. de Rochas d’Aiglun, Traité de fortification d’attaque et de défense des places (Paris: 1872) 199-253. Cameron Av. and Hall St. (1999). Eusebius. Life of Constantine (Oxford: 1999). Canard M. (1973). “Mutanabbi et la guerre byzantino-arabe, interêt historique de ses poésies”, in Byzance et les musulmanes du Proche Orient (Variorum Reprints, London: 1973), no. VI. ——. (1951). Histoire de la dynasties des H’amdanides de Jazîra et de Syrie (Algiers: 1951). Canivet P. and Oikonomidès N. (1982-3). “La comédie de Katablattas”, DIPTUXA 3 (1982-3) 5-97. Cheynet J.-C. (1993). “Quelque remarques sur le culte de la Croix en Asie Mineure au Xe siècle”, in Histoire et culture chrétienne. Hommage à Moneigneur Yves Marchasson par les enseignants de la Faculté des Letters (Paris: 1993) 67-78. Choniates Niketas. Orationes et epistulae, ed. J.-L. van Dieten, 2 vols. (Berlin and New York: 1972). Ciggaar K.N. (1976). “Une description de Constantinople traduite par un pèlerin anglais”, REB 34 (1976) 211-67. Cornfeld G., trans. (1980). Josephus: The Jewish War (Grand Rapids, MI: 1982). CPG. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, ed. E. L. von Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin, 2 vols. (Göttingen: 1839-51); repr. Hildesheim: 1958. Criscuolo U. (1975). “Chiesa ed insegnamento a Bisanzio nel XII secolo: sul problema della cosidetta Accademia patriarchale”, Siculorum Gymnasium 28 (1975) 373-90. Dagron G. (1983). “Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle. A propos des Constitutions Tactiques de l’empereur Léon VI”, Académies des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Comptes rendus (Paris: 1983) 219-43. Dagron G., Mihaescu H. (1986). Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l’empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963-969) (Paris: 1986). Dain A. “Les stratégistes byzantins”, TM 2 (1967) 317-92. ——. (1940). “Mémorandum inédit sur la défense des places”, Revue des études grecques 53 (1940) 123-36.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

269

Darrouzès J. (1960). Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle (Paris: 1960). Darrouzès J., Westerink L.G. (1978). Théodore Daphnopatès. Correspondance (Paris: 1978). De cer. De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J. J. Reiske, 2 vols. (Bonn: 1829–30). De Creta capta. Theodosii diaconi De Creta capta, ed. H. Criscuolo (Leipzig: 1979). De Thematibus. Costantino Porfirogenito, De Thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi. Studi e Testi 160 (Vatican City: 1952). Delehaye H. (1910). “L’invention des reliques de Saint Ménas à Constantinople”, Analecta Bollandiana 29 (1910) 117-50. Dennis G. T. (1998). “Byzantine Heavy Artillery: The Helepolis”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 39 (1988) 99-115. ——, trans. (1984). Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy (Philadelphia: 1984). Deubner L. (1907). Kosmas und Damian: Texte und Einleitung (LeipzigBerlin: 1907). Devos P. “Le Juif et le Chrétien: un miracle de Saint Ménas”, Analecta Bollandiana 78 (1960) 275-308. Devreesse R. (1945). Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs II. Le Fonds Coislin, par Robert Devreese (Paris: 1945). Diekamp Fr. (1899). Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das fünfte allgemeine Concil (Münster: 1899). DOP. Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Drijvers H. J. W. and Drijvers J. W. (1997). The Finding of the True Cross. The Judas Kyriakos Legend in Syriac. Introduction, Text and Translation (Louvain: 1997); CSCO, Subsidia 93). Drijvers J. W. (1992). Helena Augusta (Leiden: 1992). Du Cange C. D. F. Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis (Lyons: 1688; repr. Graz: 1958). Duffy J. (Forthcoming). Revelations and Notes on a Byzantine Manuscript at Harvard. Durand J., Lafitte M.-P. (eds.) (2001) Le trésor de la Sainte Chapelle (Paris: 2001). Egeria. Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land, trans. John Wilkinson (JerusalemWarminster: 1981). EI2. The Encyclopedia of Islam, second edition. Esbroeck M. van (1979). “L’opuscule ‘sur la croix’ d’Alexandre de Chypre et sa version géorgienne”, in Bedi Kartlisa. Revue de kartvéologue 37 (1979) 99-134. Eusebius. De vita Constantini.Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, ed. Fr. Winckelmann (Berlin: 1975). For a translation and commentary, see Cameron and Hall (1999).

270

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eustathii Thess. Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, ed. M. van der Valk, 4 vols. (Leiden: 1971-87). Falkenhausen V. von. (1978). La dominazione bizantina nell’Italia meridionale dal IX all’ XI secolo (Bari: 1978). Feiertag J.-L. (2000). “À propos du rôle des Juifs dans les traditions sousjacentes aux récits de l’invention de la croix”, Analecta Bolandiana 118 (2000) 241-64. Flusin B. (1999). “Le panégyrique de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète pour la translation des reliques de Grégoire le Théologien (BHG 728)”, REB 57 (1999) 5-97. Fraser P. M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1 (Oxford: 1972). Frolow A. (1961). La relique de la Vraie Croix (Paris: 1961). Gallavotti C. (1983). “Nota sulla schedografia di Moscopulo e suoi precedenti fino a Teodoro Prodromo”, Bollettino dei Classici 3.4 (1983) 3-35. Garzya A. (1974). “Literarische und rhetorische Polemiken der Komnenenzeit”, 1-14 in Storia e interpretazione di testi bizantini, section VII, Variorum Reprints (London: 1974). Gautier P. (1986). “Quelques lettres de Psellos inédit ou déjà éditées”, REB 44 (1986) 111-197. ——. (1980-2). “Eloge inédit du lecteur Jean Kroustalas par Michel Psellos”, RSBN (n. s) 17-9 (1980-2) 119-47. Gould K. (1981). “The sequences De sanctis reliquiis as Sainte-Chapelle inventories”, Mediaeval Studies 43 (1981) 315-41. Gr. PG 87.3, cols. 4016-76. Guilland R. (1965). “Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire Byzantin: L’orphanotrophe”, REB 23 (1965) 205-21. Haldon J.F. (2000) “Theory and practice in tenth-century military administration. Chapters II, 44 and 45 of the Book of Ceremonies”, TM 13 (2000) 201-352. ——. (1999). Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204 (London: 1999). ——. (1990). Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions (Vienna: 1990). ——. (1984). Byzantine Praetorians (Bonn: 1984). ——. (1975). “Byzantine Military Technology from the Sixth to the Tenth Centuries”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1 (1975) 11-47. Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis: series episcoporum ecclesiarum christianarum orientalium, ed. G. Fedalto, 2 vols. (Padua: 1988). Hill B. (1999) Imperial Women in Byzantium, 1025-1204. Power, Patronage and Ideology (London, 1999).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

271

Hill B., James L., Smythe D. (1994). “Zoe: the rhythm method of imperial renewal” in P. Magdalino, ed., New Constantines: the Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries (Aldershot: 1994) 215-29. Howard-Johnston J.D. (1983). “Byzantine Anzitene”, in: Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, BAR International Series 156 (Oxford: 1983) 239-90. Hoyland R. (1997). Seeing Islam as Others Saw it. A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, (Princeton, NJ: 1997) Hübner W. (1983) Zodiacus Christianus. Jüdisch-christliche Adaptionen des Tierkreises von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Beiträge sur klassischen Philologie 144 (Königstein: 1983). Hunger H. (1978). Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols. (Vienna: 1978). Hunt E. D. (1982). Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312-460 (Oxford: 1982). Jacoby D. (1991-2). “Silk in Western Byzantium”, BZ 84-5 (1991-2) 452-500. James L. (2001). “Bearing gifts from the east: imperial relic hunters abroad,” in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium. Papers from the Thirty-third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999, ed. A. Eastmond (Aldershot: 2001) 119-31. Janin R. (1975). Grands centres. Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzantins (Paris: 1975). ——. (1969). La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin. Première partie: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecuménique. Tome III: Les églises et les monastères (Paris: 1969). ——. (1964). Constantinople byzantin, 2nd. ed. (Paris: 1964). Jenkins R.J.H., Mango C. (1956). “The date and significance of the Tenth Homily of Photius”, DOP 9/10 (1956) 123-40. JÖB. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik. K-D. See under “Kurtz E. and Drexl F. (1941)”. Kalavrezou I. (1994). “Helping hands for the empire: Imperial ceremonies and the cult of relics at the Byzantine court”, in Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. H. Maguire (Washington, DC: 1994) 53-79. Kaldellis A. (1999). The Argument of Psellos’ Chronographia (Leiden: 1999). Kaplan M. (1998). “Du cocon au vêtement de soie: concurrence et concentration dans l’artisanat de la soie à Constantinople aux Xe-XIe siècles”, in EUCUXIA. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, Byzantina Sorbonensia 16 (Paris: 1998).

272

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Karapli K. (1993). “Speeches of Arab leaders to their warriors according to Byzantine texts”, Graeco- Arabica 5 (1993) 233-42. Karathanasis D. (1936). Spricwörter und sprichwörtliche Redensarten in den rhetorischen Schriften des Michael Psellos, des Eustathius und des Michael Choniates, sowie in anderen rhetorischen Quellen des XII. Jahrhunderts (Munich: 1936). Karpozilos A. (1980). “DÊo én°kdotew §pistol¢w toË MixaØl CelloË”, Dodone 9 (1980) 299-310. Kaufmann C. M. (1910). Die Menasstadt und das Nationalheiligtum der altchristlichen Ägypter in der westalexandrinischen Wüste: Ausgrabungen der Frankfurter Expedition am Karm Abu Mina, 19051907 (Leipzig: 1910). Kazhdan A. (1987). “‘Constantin imaginaire’. Byzantine Legends of the Ninth Century about Constantine the Great”, Byzantion 57 (1987) 196-250. Keegan J. (1987). The Mask of Command (London: 1987). Koder J. (1991). Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen. See under “Leo VI”. ——. (1989). “ ÑO Kvnstant›now Porfurog°nnhtow ka‹ ≤ stauroyÆkh toË L¤mpourk”, in ÑO Kvnstant›now ZÄ ı Porfurog°nnhtow ka‹ ≤ §poxÆ tou (Athens: 1989) 165-94. Köchly A. (1856). Anonymi byzantini rhetorica militaris (Leipzig: 1856). Kolbaba T.M. (1998). “Fighting for Christianity. Holy War in the Byzantine empire”, Byzantion 68 (1998) 194-221. Kolia-Dermitzaki A. (1991). ÑO buzantinÚw flerÚw pÒlemow. ÑH ¶nnoia ka‹ ≤ probolØ toË yrhkeutikoË pol°mou stÚ Buzãntio (Athens: 1991). ——. (1989). “ÑH fid°a toË fleroË pol°mou stÚ Buzãntio katå tÚn 10o afi≈na. ÑH martur¤a t«n taktik«n ka‹ t«n dhmhgori«n”, in ÑO Kvnstant›now ZÄ ı Porfurog°nnhtow ka‹ ≤ §poxÆ tou (Athens: 1989) 39-55. Kolias T. G. (1988). Byzantinische Waffen (Vienna: 1988). Komnena Anna. Alexiad. Annae Comnenae Alexias, ed. D. Reinsch and A. Kambylis (Berlin and New York: 2001). Prior edition in three volumes by B. Leib, Anna Komnena, Alexiade (Paris: 1937-45). Koukoules Ph. (1955). Buzantin«n b¤ow ka‹ politismÒw VI (Athens: 1955) 161 Koutrakou N.-C. (1993). La propagande impériale byzantine. Persuasion et réaction (VIIIe-Xe siècles) (Athens: 1993). Kurtz E., ed. (1903). Die Gedichte des Christophoros Mitylenaios (Leipzig: 1903).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

Kurtz E. and Drexl F. (1941). Michaelis Pselli Scripta minora, II Epistulae (Milan: 1941). Laiou A.E., ed. (2002). The Economic History of Byzantium, 3 vols. (Washington, DC: 2002). ——. (1986). “The Festival of ‘Agathe’: Comments on the Life of Constantinopolitan Women,” in Byzantium: Tribute to Andreas N. Stratos I (Athens: 1986) 111-22; repr. in eadem, Gender, Society and Economic Life in Byzantium (Aldershot: 1992). Laudatio Barnabae apostoli, ed. Peter van Deun in Hagiographica Cypria. Sancti Barnabae Laudatio auctore Alexandro monacho et Sanctorum Bartholomaei et Barnabae Vita et Menologio Imperiali deprompta (Leuven: 1992). Laurent V. (1972). Corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin, V/3 (Paris: 1972). ——. (1962). “La chronologie des gouverneurs d”Antioche sous la seconde domination byzantine (969- 1084)”, Mélanges de l’Université SaintJoseph 38 (1962) 222-54. LBG. Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität, ed. E. Trapp et al. (Vienna: 1994- ). Lemerle P. (1973) “L’histoire des Pauliciens d’Asie Mineure d’après les sources grecques”, TM 5 (1973) 1- 144. Leo the Deacon. Leonis diaconi caloensis historiae libri decem, ed. C.B. Hase (Bonn: 1828). Leo VI, Liber Praefecti, ed. J. Koder (1991). Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen (Vienna: 1991). ——, Taktika. Taktika of Leo VI in PG 107, cols. 671-1094 (the only full edition). A new edition and English translation is currently in preparation by Fr. George Dennis. Leroy-Molinghen A. (1969). “Styliane”, Byzantion 39 (1969) 155-63. Ljubarski J. (1978). Michail Psell. Lichnost i Tvorchestvo (Moscow: 1978). LSJ. A Greek-English Lexicon. Luzzi A. (1991). “L’ideologia constantiniana nella liturgia dell’ età di Costantino VII Porfirogenito”, RSBN (n.s.) 28 (1991) 113-24. Manasses Constantine. “Eine unedierte Rede des Konstantin Manasses”, ed. K. Horna in Wiener Studien 28 (1906) 171-204. Marcos F. N. (1975). Los Thaumata de Sofronio (Madrid: 1975). Markopoulos A. (1994). “Constantine the Great in Macedonian historiography: models and approaches”, in New Constantines. The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries (London: 1994) 159-70.

274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin T. H. (1854). Recherches sur la vie et les ouvrages d’Héron d’ Alexandrie, disciple de Ctésibius, et sur tous les ouvrages mathématiques grecs, conservés ou perdus, publiés ou inédits, qui ont été attribués à un auteur nommé Héron . . . (Paris: 1854). Maurice, Strategikon. Das Strategikon des Maurikios, ed. G. Dennis, trans. E. Gamillscheg (Vienna: 1981). Mazzucchi C.M. (1978). “Dagli anni di Basilio parakimomeno (Cod. Ambr. B 119 sup.)”, Aevum 52 (1978) 267-318. McCauley L and Stephenson A. (1970). The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 2 (Washington, DC: 1970). McCormick M. (1986). Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: 1986). McGeer E. (2000). The Land Legislation of the Macedonian Emperors (Toronto: 2000). ——. (1995). Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth. Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century (Washington, D.C.: 1995). ——. (1991). “Tradition and Reality in the Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos”, DOP 45 (1991) Mergiali-Sahas S. (2001). “Byzantine emperors and holy relics”, JÖB 51 (2001) 41-60. Miedema R. (1918). “De Wonderverhalen van den Heiligen Menas”, Nederlandsch Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis N. S. 14 (1918) 210-45. Milazzzo A. (1983). “In cerchio, con lievito il cerchio zodiacale, a sua cugina” in Cristoforo di Mitilene. Canzoniere, Introduction R. Anastasi, Translations and Commentary C. Crimi et al. (Catania: 1983) 85-7. Miller T. (1994). “The Orphanotropheion of Constantinople” in Through the Eye of the Needle: Judeo-Christian Roots of Social Welfare, ed. E.A. Hanawalt and C. Lindberg (Missouri: 1994) 83-104. Nestle E. (1895). “Die Kreuzauffindungslegende nach einer Handschrift vom Sinai”, BZ 4 (1895). ODB. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan et al., 3 vols. (New York and Oxford: 1991). Odorico P. (1987). “Il calamo d’argento. Un carme inedito in onore di Romano II,” JÖB 37 (1987) 65-93. Oikonomides N. (1995). “The concept of ‘Holy War’ and two tenth-century Byzantine ivories”, in Peace and War in Byzantium. Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J., ed. T.S. Miller, J.W. Nesbitt Washington, DC: 1995) 62-86. ——. (1990). “Life and Society in Eleventh Century Constantinople”, Südost-Forschungen 49 (1990) 1-14. ——. (1972). Les listes de préséance byzantines (Paris: 1972).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

275

Opitz H. G. (1934). “Die Vita Constantini des codex Angelicus 22,” Byzantion 9 (1934) 535-93. Ousterhout R. (2001). “Art, Architecture and Komnenian Ideology at The Pantokrator Monastery” in N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments,Topography and Everyday Life (Leiden: 2001) 133-50. Papaioannou E. (1998). “Das Briefcorpus des Michael Psellos Vorbereiten zu einer kritischen Neuedition”, JÖB 48 (1998) 67-117. Peeters P., ed. (1908). “Le Martyrologe (Syrien) de Rabban Sliba”, Analecta Bollandiana, 27 (1908) 129- 200. PG. Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca. Polemis I. D. (1991). “Filologik¢w parathrÆseiw s¢ ke¤mena toË MixaØl CelloË”, Parnassos 33 (1991) 306-14. ——. (1969). The Doukai. A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography (London: 1968). Pomjalovskij I. (1900). Zhitie prepodobnago Paisija Velikago i Timofeja patriarkha Alexandrijskago povestvovanie o chudesakh Sv. velikomuchenika Miny (St. Petersburg: 1900). Price R. M. (1991). Lives of the Monks of Palestine by Cyril of Scythopolis (Kalamazoo, MI: 1991). Prodromos Theodore. “Monodie de Théodore Prodrome sur Étienne Skylitzès, métropolitain de Trébizonde”, ed. R. P. L. Petit, Bulletin de l’Institut archéologique russe à Constantinople 8 (1903) 1-14. Prodromos Theodore. “Eisiterios” in PG 133, cols. 1268-74. Psell.Chron. Michael Psellus. Chronographia, ed. E. Renauld, 2 vols. (Paris: 1926); ed. S. Impellizzeri, Imperatori di Bisanzio (Cronografia), 2 vols. (Milan: 1984). Psell.Or.min. Michael Psellus. Orationes minora, ed. A. Littlewood (Leipzig: 1985). Rallis G. A. and Potlis M., ed. (1852). SÊntagma t«n ye¤vn fler«n kanÒnvn, II (Athens: 1852). REB. Revue des Études Byzantines. Rochas d’Aiglun A. de. (1872). Traité de fortification d’attaque et de défense des places (Paris: 1872). RSBN. Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici RSBS. Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi. Rufinus. Historia ecclesiastica, ed. T. Mommsen (Leipzig: 1908; GCS 9.2 = Eusebius Werke 2.2). Sathas K. (1876). MesaivnikØ BiblioyÆkh, V (Venice-Paris: 1876). Schick R. (1995). The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule. A Historical and Archaeological Study (Princeton, NJ: 1995).

276

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schirò G. (1949). “La schedografia a Bisanzio nei Sec. XI-XII e la scuola dei SS. XL Martiri”, Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata (n.s.) 3 (1949) 11-29. Sevcenko I. (1990). “Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus,” in Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990 (Aldershot: 1992) 167-197. ——. (1969/70). “Poems on the deaths of Leo VI and Constantine VII in the Madrid manuscript of Scylitzes”, DOP 23/24 (1969/70) 187-228. Sevcenko N.P. (1994). “The Limburg Staurothek and its relics,” in Yum¤ama sth mnÆmh t∞w Laskar¤na MpoÊra, 2 vols. (Athens: 1994) I 289-94. Shepard J. (2002). “Emperors and expansionism: From Rome to Middle Byzantium,” in Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices, ed. D. Abulafia, N. Berend (Cambridge: 2002) 55-82. ——. (2001). “Constantine VII, Caucasian openings and the road to Aleppo,” in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium. Papers from the Thirty-third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999, ed. A. Eastmond (Aldershot: 2001) 19-40. Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. Hansen (Berlin: 1995; GCS 1). Sophocles E. A., Lexicon. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (New York: 1900; rp. 1957). Sozomenus. Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez and G. Hansen (Berlin: 1995; GCS 4). Steph.Byz. Stephani Byzantinii Ethnika, ed. A. Meineke (Berlin: 1849). Suda. Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, 5 vols. (Leipzig: 1938). Sullivan D. (2000). = Siegecraft: Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by “Heron of Byzantium” (Washington, DC: 2000). Sylloge tacticorum. Sylloge tacticorum quae olim Inedita Leonis Tactica dicebatur , ed. A. Dain (Paris: 1938). Teall J. (1977). “Byzantine Urbanism in the Military Handbooks”, in H. Miskimin et al. (eds.), The Medieval City (New Haven: 1977) 201-06. Theodoret. Kirchengeschichte, ed. L. Parmentier (Berlin: 1998; GCS 5). Theophanes. Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. (Leipzig: 1883-85; rp. Hildesheim: 1963). Theophanes (Mango and Scott). The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, ed. C. Mango, R. Scott (Oxford: 1997). Thierry N. (1981). “Le culte de la Croix dans l’empire byzantin du VIIe siè-

cle au Xe dans ses rapports avec la guerre contre l’infidèle. Nouveaux témoignages archéologiques”, RSBS 1 (1981) 205-28. Tihon A. (1993). “L’astronomie à Byzance à l’époque iconoclaste” in P.L. Butzer and D. Lohrmann, edd., Science in Western and Eastern Civilization in Carolingian Times (Basel: 1993) 194-200.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

Tinnefeld F. (1973). “Freundschaft in den Briefen des Michael Psellos. Theorie und Wirklichkeit”, JÖB 22 (1973) 151-68. TLG(E). Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. CD–ROM produced by the Department of Classics, University of California at Irvine. TM. Travaux et mémoires. Tritton A. S. (1970). The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim subjects; A Critical Study of the Covenant of ‘Umar (Oxford: 1930; rp. London: 1970). Trombley F. (1998). “War, society and popular religion in Byzantine Anatolia (6th-13th centuries)”, in Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-12th cent.), Institute for Byzantine Research, International Symposium 6 (Athens: 1998) 97-139. Tzetzes John. Epistulae, ed. P. A. M. Leone (Leipzig: 1972). Vannier J.-F. (1975). Familles byzantines. Les Argyroi (IXe-XIIe siècles) (Paris: 1975). Vári R. (1908). “Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos”, BZ 17 (1908) 75- 85. Vasiliev A.A. (1935-68). Byzance et les Arabes, French edition prepared by H. Grégoire and M. Canard, 3 vols. (Brussels: 1935-68). Vassis I. (1993-94). “Graeca sunt, non leguntur. Zu den schedographischen Spielereien des Theodoros Prodromos”, BZ 86-87 (1993-94) 1-19. vdB. See under Berg van den. Vie de St. Cyrille le Philéote, Moine Byzantin. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, ed. E. Sargologos, Subsidia Hagiographica 39 (Brussels: 1964). Walbank F. W. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols. (Oxford: 19571979). Westerink L. G. (1951). “Some Unpublished Letters of Blemmydes”, Byzantinoslavica 12 (1951) 43-55. Whitehead D. (1990). Aineias the Tactician: How to Survive under Siege (Oxford: 1990). Wright D. (1985). “The Date of the Vatican Illuminated Handy Tables and of its early Additions”, BZ 78 (1985) 355-62. Zuckerman C. (1990). “The military compendium of Syrianus magister”, JÖB 40 (1990) 209-24.

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX Achilles, 56 Achradina, 219 Acragas, 181, 187 Admetus, 247-49 Aeolus, 50 Aetolians, 195, 207-09 Agarenes, 217 Agathe, festival, 5 Aglaophon, 2 Ajax, 57 Alexander the Great, 143, 185-87, 229-51 Alexander, son of Priam, 53 Ambracia, 211 Annikeris of Aegina, 49 Antipater, 32 Apeliotes, 2 Apokaukos John, 18 Appius, 217-19, 227-29 Aquarius, 1 Arabia, 237 Arabs, 111, 121 Archelaus, 32 Archimedes, 143, 149, 163, 169, 217, 219, 227 architects, 155 Aries, 1, 3 Aristenos Alexios, 19 Aristobolus II, 32 Aristotle, 51 arms manufacturers, 155 astronomers, 155 Athenians, 193 Athos, monastery, 124 Balsamon Theodore, 3, 11

Barad®, river, 88 barley cakes, 54 Barnabas, apostle, 29 Basil I, 111, 121, 126 Batis, eunuch, 249 Belissariotes John, 19 bells, 146-47, 167-69 Bethlehem, 28, 32, 35, 38 bishop, role in siege, 153 blood, Passion relic, 133 Bomilcar, 177 bread, decorated, 3 bridlemakers, 155 bronzesmiths, 155 builders, 157 Bulgarians, 165, 185 Byridoi, village, 59 Caesarea, 161 Cancer, 1, 3 Capricorn, 1, 3 Capua, 191 carpentry, profession, 86, 94 Carthaginians, 187 caulkers, 155 Charybdis, 49 Christopher of Mitylene, 1, 4, 6, 18 Cleondras, son of Polemocrates, 237 Cleopatra, 32 Coele-Syria, 50 Coenus, 187, 247 Chorienes, rock of, 261-63 Constantine I, 28, 33-39 Constantine VII, 111-12, 115, 121, 123; military speeches, 112-20,

280

INDEX

122-35 Constantine, nephew of patriarch Michael Keroularios, 46, 57-58 conversion, 87, 95, 100 courtesans, 55 Craterus, 237 cross, search for, 28, 33-35, 37-38; salvific and victory-bringer, 28, 118, 122, 125, 133 Cyril, letter, 24, 31 Daidalos, 2 Damascus, 86, 96, 104, 107 Darius, Persian king, 235, 257 Democritus, 48 deserters, 151 doctors, 155 Dorimachus, 195 Doukas John, caesar, 46 East, armies, 132 Echinaeans, 195 Eleazer, 201 Elevation of the Cross, 31, 35 Elias, of Heliopolis, 85-107; date, 88, 102, 104; Life, date of composition, 89; miracles, 87, 104-07; trial, 97103 Elias, monk and friend of Psellos, 44, 47-62 engineers, 155, 157 Enylus, of Byblus, 235 Epaminondas, of Thebes, 191-95 Erinys, 50 felt caps, 157 flute music, Dorian and Phrygian, 50, 58 foxholes, 185 Gaza, 143, 249-53

Gemini, 1 Gerostratus, king of Aradus, 235 Golgotha, 28, 34-35, 37-38 Graces, 57 Hadat, battle, 122 Hamdanid(s), 112, 116, 118-19, 122-23, 125, 130 hand writing, 58 Handy Tables, 3 Hannibal, 165-67, 181, 191, 195 Helena, mother of Constantine I, 28, 31, 33-38 Helicon, Mt., 57 Heliopolis/Baalbek, 86, 94, 104 Herakleia, 59 Herod the Great, 32 Hexamilites Basil, 123 Hiero, 227 Holy Sepulchre, church, 33, 36 holy water, 122, 133 Hyrcanus II, 32 Italy, 123 Jerusalem, 33, 143, 253-57 jetty, defensive, 142, 163-65 Jew, 75-77 Jezabel, 50, 53 Josephus, 161, 199, 207 Jotapa, 161 Judas Cyriacus, 37 judge, of the Lower Themes, 49 judge, of Opsikion, 46, 55, 56 judge, of Thrakesion, 47, 48 al-Kasaki Naja, 123 key, 77 Kitros, 165 Komnena Anna, 10-11 Kroustalas (Krystalas) Elias, 44, 57 Kroustalas John, 44

INDEX

Kyminas, monastery, 124 Kyzikos, metropolitan, 124 Lacedaemonians, 193 ladder climbers, 155 lance, Passion relic, 133 Langobardia, 132 Latros, monastery, 124 al-LaytΩ (Leithi), eparch and judge, 88, 97-100, 102-03, 106 Lekapenos Basil, 113, 123, 127 Leo, 1 Leo of Rhodes, 10-11, 18-19 Leonnatus, bodygurad of Alexander, 263 Libra, 1, 3 Lower or Southern Themes, 45, 49 Macedonia, armies, 132 al-MaΩd¬, 88, 100 Makarios, bishop of Jerusalem, 2829, 33-35, 37-38 Mammon, 56 Manasses Constantine, 20 Mantinea, 193-95 Marcus, consul, 207-09, 219-29 Menas St., cult, 65; as horseman, 69 Mesopotamia, 123, 131 mill stone cutters, 155 Mithaikos, 57 Mount of Olives, 28, 35, 38, 255 Muhammed, emir of Damscus, 88, 100 murder, 69 Muses, 57 nails, of the cross, 28-29, 34-36 Naples, 161 Nazareth, 32 neomartyrs, 92 Neoptolemus, 253

281

Nicander, 183-85 Nikephoros, sebastophoros, 45, 52 Notos, 2 oarmakers, 155 oarsmen. 157 Odysseus, 49 Olympos, monastery, 124 Opsikion, theme, 46, 55 Origen, 30 Orion, 1, 3 Orphanotropheion, 9-10, 17-19 orphanotrophos, 19 Oxyartes, king of the Bactrians, 257-61 Pantocrator, monastery, 3 Parrasios, 2 Pataikos, 57 patrols, 169 Paulicians, 121 Pediates Basil, 10 Peloponnesos and Hellas, themes, 45 Perdiccas, 187 Perdiccas, bodyguard of Alexander, 263 Persian, soldier, 103 Persians, 161 Pheidias, 2 Philoktetes, 56 Phokas Bardas, 122 Phokas Leo, strategos, 116 Phokas Nikephoros, 117, 122 Pisces, 1 Plato, 49 Pleiades, 1, 3 Pnytagoras, 237 poisoning, wells and rivers, 142, 179 Polygnotos, 2 Polykleitos, 2

282

INDEX

Pompey the Great, 32 prayers, victory, 125, 129 Prodromos Theodore, 10-11, 18-19 Proteus the Pharian, 48, 51, 57 Protonike, 37 provisions, withstanding a siege, 153, 157-61, 177-79 Psellos Michael, 5, 10 Ptolemy, son of Lagus, 263 Publius, 195 reed, Passion relic, 133 relics of the Passion, 122, 126, 133 requisitions, 142, 144, 157-59 Rhaidestos, 59 Romans, 169-71, 177, 181, 187, 191, 201-07, 211-15, 217-29, 251-57 ropemakers, 155 saddlemakers, 155 Sagittarius, 1 Samosata, 123 Sarambos, tavern keeper, 57 Sardis, 149 Satan, 56 Sayf al-Dawla, emir of Aleppo, 112, 115-16, 121, 123-24 schede, 10-11, 17 schedos competition, 18, 20 Schott Andreas, 23 Scorpio, 1-2 sealing device, gold, 77 Sergios, judge of Thrakesion, 4748 shoemakers, 155 shrine, St. Menas, 69, 75, 77 Sicily, 49 sieges, equipment, 140, 142, 14445, 148, 173-75, 211 sieges, withstanding, 145-49, 151263

silver plate, 71 Skylitzes Stephen, 10, 18-19 Sougdiana, rock in, 149, 257-61 Sparta, 193 Sphinx, 48 spies, 151 Stilbes Constantine, 10 strategoi, 120 Styliane, 5 swaddling clothes, Passion relic, 133 Syke, oarsmen, 55 Symeon, magistros, 124 Syracusans, 161, 169 Syracuse, 217-19, 227 table utensils, 60 tailors, 155 Tarentum, 177 Tarsos (Tarsiots), 114, 123, 130-31 Taurus, 1 textiles, 2 Thebans, 193-95 Thebes, 5, 185-87 Theotokos tou Pharou, palatine chapel, 126 Thessalonike, 217 Thrace, armies, 132 Thrakesion, theme, 45, 53 Timothy, flutist, 48 titulus, 34-35, 133 Titus, 143, 253-57 Trigeleia, 55 Typhon, giant, 48 tunic, Passion relic, 133 tunnels, 146, 161-63, 185 Tyre, 229 Tyrians, 231-35, 237-49 Tzetzes John, 11 Tzimiskes John, 123, 127 Venus, statue, 34

INDEX

Vespasion, 161, 207 Virgo, 1 winding sheet, Passion relic, 133 wines, Phalerian and Chian, 60 women, skills, 2, 5 Xenocrates, 57 Xeros, judge, 45 Zephyr, 2 Zeus, 57 Zeuxis, 2 Zodiac, 1-4 Zoma, judge, 46 Zotikos St., 17

283

This page intentionally left blank