Volume 103, Issue 2

This paper concentrates on the literary sources of the battle of Delion (424 BCE) and reopens the debate on the relevance of Euripides’ Supplices for the narrative of this event. Thucydides is read with a particular focus on the speech of Pagondas (4.92), which can be understood through the current reconstruction of the history of Boiotia in the latter half of the fifth century BCE. Finally, Diodorus (12.69–70) is considered as a useful source for a few pieces of information on the aftermath of the battle that have previously been disregarded.

Zusammenfassung Die Rhetorica ad Alexandrum gilt allgemein als ausnehmend praxisorientierte rhetorische Schrift. Im Unterschied zur bisherigen Forschung sucht der Beitrag zu zeigen, dass ihr Praxisbezug nicht vorrangig am zeitgenössischen Athen orientiert ist, sondern eher am Typus einer gemäßigt demokratisch verfassten Polis. Entsprechend vermag die Schrift uns wichtige Hinweise auf die rhetorische Praxis gerade auch außerhalb Athens zu geben.

This essay is divided into three parts. The first examines the documents about Antiphon in the “Lives of the Ten Orators” (Plut. X orat. 833d–834b), which have been attributed to the collection of Craterus, and shows that they must be forgeries because the information contained in them is inconsistent with reliable sources about Athenian laws and legal procedure and with the language and formulas of the preserved decrees of the fifth century and contains other serious mistakes. The second section examines the fragments of the work of Craterus and shows that all are Athenian decrees, most of which relate to imperial administration or to famous personalities and are dated to the period between roughly 480 and 410. None of the fragments of this work can be dated earlier or later than this period. The third section reviews the documents inserted into the texts of the speeches of Andocides, Aeschines and Demosthenes and shows that in the majority of cases the editors who inserted these documents into the text could not have used the work of Craterus either for the texts of the genuine documents or for the information contained in the forged documents. In the other cases there is no evidence indicating that these editors consulted his work, and it appears that those who composed these documents used other sources .

The author is of the opinion that as a result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Syria (late 333–332 BC), which had been a single administrative entity under the Achaemenids, it was divided into two satrapies – the northern and the southern one. He believes that Menon, son of Cerdimmas, was appointed as the first head of the northern satrapy (winter 333/332), to be replaced by Arimmas (early spring 331), who, in his turn, was succeeded by Asclepiodorus, son of Eunicus (late summer 331). Besides, it seems that Andromachus became the first head of the southern satrapy (shortly before winter 332/331), and after he was killed, Menon, transferred from the north to the south, took his place (early spring 331). Already in Alexander’s lifetime, probably in 329/328, Syria was once again merged into one satrapy. It is unclear who was installed as satrap of the unified region. At any rate, it could not have been Menes, son of Dionysius: the hypothesis that in winter 331/330 he was made satrap of the new province including Syria and Cilicia does not stand scrutiny. In the author’s view, the main task Alexander assigned to Menes was to take control and then to keep open and organized the sea communications with the coast of Syria, Phoenicia and Cilicia, and in the matters concerning these activities Menes was fully independent of the local satraps.

Resumen Este artículo estudia la relación de Alejandro Magno con los elefantes, tanto desde el punto de vista militar como simbólico. Opera con el concepto de zoología de la realeza, analizando el status y jerarquía de caballos, águilas, leones, elefantes y dromedarios en la nueva ideología del conquistador macedonio.

Zusammenfassung Die vorliegende Studie widmet sich seleukidischen Amtsträgern, die in den Quellen als Leiter der Regierungsgeschäfte dargestellt werden. Eine kritische Analyse der epigraphischen Zeugnisse und der Berichte antiker Autoren (1 und 2 Makkabäer, Flavius Josephus, Polybios) soll zeigen, dass zwei unterschiedliche Phänomene voneinander zu trennen sind: (1) ein situativ oder permanent ernannter Stellvertreter eines Königs für ein bestimmtes Territorium ( epi ton pragmaton ) und (2) ein Vormund für einen regierungsunfähigen König ( epitropos / prostates ). Die moderne Forschung neigt dazu, den ersten Terminus zu verallgemeinern und als Amt eines ‚Kanzlers‘ (vel sim.) zu verstehen, der die Regierungsgeschäfte auf Wunsch des Königs leitete. Auf Basis der Quellen und bei strenger Beachtung der Chronologie ist diese geläufige Vorstellung jedoch nicht haltbar. Der Untersuchungszeitraum erstreckt von der ausgehenden Regierungszeit des Seleukos III. bis zu jener des Demetrios II. (ca. 223 bis Mitte 2. Jhd. v. Chr.).

Resumen El objetivo del presente trabajo es analizar los testimonios materiales en contexto etrusco de una deidad femenina tocada con la piel de cabra e identificada con la Juno Sospita latina. Ante todo, se examinarán las escenas narrativas o con un carácter más complejo para tratar de desentrañar el contexto mítico en el que se inserta esta divinidad. Su iconografía destaca por una relación estrecha con Heracles/Hercle en representaciones en las que prima el enfrentamiento con el héroe. A través del análisis comparativo de los distintos testimonios disponibles, es posible vislumbrar la existencia de un relato o leyenda que vincula a estos personajes, pero cuya intención es subrayar la reconciliación entre ambos. Esta finalidad cuenta con paralelos en otras imágenes protagonizadas por la diosa Uni/Juno y el héroe en ambiente etrusco, como es el caso de las escenas de amamantamiento.

Riassunto I Germanikeia sono tra le più importanti feste efebiche ateniesi; tuttavia, l’anno della loro fondazione rimane incerto. Paul Graindor ipotizzò che la festa fosse stata istituita nel 18 d.C., in onore di Germanico, e officiata per lui fino alla metà del III secolo d.C. Questa ipotesi, sebbene universalmente accettata, non è basata su elementi probanti e deve essere pertanto rivalutata. Su questi presupposti, la ricerca prende in considerazione la documentazione, le caratteristiche dei Germanikeia ed i legami tra la celebrazione e gli esponenti della famiglia imperiale.

New scientific work on the ancient landscapes of Germany and Britain makes it very likely that the Roman decision to abandon attempts to conquer Germany as far as the Elbe, most clearly expressed by Tiberius in 16 AD, was strongly influenced by perceptions of the heavily wooded landscape of that region. There were other reasons too: the concern of emperors to hinder potential rivals; the sheer difficulty of advancing to the Elbe; and the increasing concern of the emperor and his advisers for the fiscal effects of this and other potential conquests. But what is new is that the evidence of arboreal and non-arboreal pollen shows that Germany was a less attractive target than agrarian England.

During the Hellenistic and Imperial periods, Greek populations coexisted with several other cultures, which were very often more multitudinous. Those ‘Hellenes’, however, came together in big Panhellenic and smaller, local festivals to honour their gods and celebrate their common Hellenic culture. As a result, numerous new festivals and contests were founded (and older ones grew bigger or were even re-founded) after the third century BC, gradually forming a large festival network. Even though this festival network has repeatedly been at the centre of scholarly attention – and still is – the rhetoric of athletic inscriptions, i.e. how athletic Panhellenism is demonstrated and what it is prompted by still remains largely unexplored. The main contribution of this paper is to demonstrate how the accumulation of citizenships by athletes contributes to Panhellenic self-representation, by showing another way that this association with Hellenic culture was communicated and negotiated in the public discourse. The portrayal of citizenships by an array of ethnic names along with the name of the honoree, presented the athlete as a larger-than-city figure and an essential part of that Hellenic community. One of the other aims of this paper is to suggest two factors in the development of these conventions of athletic representation, whose significance has not been understood in full: the athletic synod and the formation of Panhellenion . It is a central tenet of this paper that the study of citizenship in athletic inscriptions cannot only help us reveal more ways that Hellenicity was projected, but also better understand how all these different textual images helped shape views about what Hellas was.