SOURCE: “The Lost Histories,” in Arrian of Nicomedia, University of North Carolina Press, 1980, pp. 133-63.

[In the essay below, Stadter surveys several of Arrian's no-longer-extant historical works, maintaining that these compositions demonstrate his wide range of interests and reveal him as a writer virtually unrivalled among his contemporaries.]

The Anabasis of Alexander and the Indike reveal the clarity and competence of Arrian as a writer and historian, his straightforward narrative, and his judicious selection of sources. But for a true evaluation of the breadth of his interests, the variety of his works, and his preeminence among the writers of his generation we must examine also those works no longer preserved, but which were equally well known in antiquity and the Middle Ages, and whose quantity and excellence established his reputation. The Bithyniaca in eight books, the Parthica in seventeen books, the Events after Alexander in ten books, the Alanike, Dion, Timoleon, Tillorobus—an impressive mass of history on the most disparate subjects, treated with an extraordinary virtuosity according to a variety of historical genres. Three works are longer than the Anabasis and reveal a perspective quite different from that apparent in an Alexander history. The Parthica in seventeen books considers the relations between Rome and Parthia, a question of vital interest to the empire in Arrian's time, giving special consideration to the most recent Roman expedition under Trajan. Here there is no glorification of the Greek past, but a historical exploration of significant contemporary events. The Bithyniaca falls at the other extreme. Its eight books were devoted to the glorification of Arrian's native land, with emphasis on its mythical and legendary past. Somewhere between excursuses on myth and contemporary wars we may place the ten books of the Events after Alexander, a dense account of the first years after Alexander's death, when Perdiccas strove for control of the empire against the other generals. Such variety defies classification. Felix Jacoby's decision in his Fragmente der griechischen Historiker to place Arrian's fragments among the historians of the period of the Successors in II B is justifiable, but arbitrary, since they could as well be grouped with the writers of Bithyniaca or Parthica in III C. The scope of Arrian's interests requires that each work be considered separately before a synthetic view can be attempted.

These three major histories, the Parthica, the Events after Alexander, and the Bithyniaca, although now lost, survived well into the Byzantine period, and enough is preserved in summaries, quotations, and paraphrases by Byzantine scholars (some 180 fragments) to allow us a glimpse of their individual qualities.¹ The ninth-century scholar Photius, later patriarch of Constantinople, summarized each of these histories, along with the Anabasis, in his Library.² Later, as part of the vast collection of historical excerpts made under various headings for the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, selections were made from the Anabasis, the Parthica, and the Events after Alexander.³ Although most of this collection has also been lost, it was used in the great literary-historical encyclopedia, the Suda, which thus preserves numerous bits and pieces, usually frustratingly short and difficult to locate in the context of a work or even to ascribe with certainty to a given work.⁴ Later still, Eustathius, before being appointed bishop of Thessalonica in 1174/75, cited the Bithyniaca frequently and often at length in his commentaries on Homer and on the geographer Dionysius Periegetes.⁵ These three sources provide us the bulk of our information, though a few citations come from other writers.⁶

For both the Parthica and the Events after Alexander, Photius' summaries are our best guide. Nevertheless, they must be used with caution. Photius composed his summaries from notes, often made long before, and his memory; normally he did not have the works themselves before him. In summarizing, he occasionally adds his own comments or modifies the original order. He feels free to add material from marginal notes or scholia.⁷ The summary of the Anabasis provides a useful sample of his work: the coverage is uneven (e.g., Anab. 1-3.22 in fifteen lines, 6.29-7.30 in forty lines); there are many omissions (such as the campaigns in Europe, the sieges of Tyre and Gaza, the Egyptian campaign); the mutilation of Bessus is described out of order, immediately after his capture; he states that the Indus was bridged by boats, although Arrian expressly says he does not know how it was bridged; and he refers to the “seven wounds” of Alexander, although Arrian never gives the number of his wounds. Thus, although generally accurate in reporting facts, these summaries are not always so useful in preserving the author's presentation or interpretation.

In all cases, the particular interest of these Byzantine writers is responsible for the type of fragments which are preserved, and this fact must be considered when attempting to construct a picture of these works.

THE PARTHICA

The Parthica, as the longest work and one with strong personal relevance to Arrian, may be considered first. The Parthians had begun as one tribe among many in the vast empire of the Seleucids, who inherited what they could of Alexander's eastern conquests.⁸ Profiting from Seleucid weakness, the Parthians established their independence and gradually extended their sovereignty westward from their homeland in northeastern Iran and southern Turkmenistan. By the time of Sulla, when the Romans first encountered them, they ruled a vast territory extending from Mesopotamia to the frontiers of India. How much the triumvir Crassus knew of the Parthians when he set out in 54 b.c. to conquer them is not known, but the annihilation of his army at Carrhae (Harran) in the following year made an indelible impression on the Roman consciousness.⁹ From an obscure kingdom on the frontiers of the empire Parthia became for the Romans a menacing power, challenging Rome's rule of the world. From that date until the eventual collapse of the Parthian kingdom in the third century a.d., Parthia was Rome's leading opponent in the East, and a major thrust of Roman foreign policy was the establishment of suitable relations between the two countries, whether by war or negotiation. Major expeditions were launched by Mark Antony, Nero, and Trajan, the peaks in the continuous tension between Rome and Parthia.

When Arrian decided to write on Parthia, therefore, various possibilities were open to him.¹⁰ He could write a historical ethnography of Parthia and the Parthians, designed to acquaint Romans more exactly with their opponents. According to the canons of this well-established genre, he would describe the geography and climate of the country, give a general account of the people, their origins, traditions, customs, religion, and diet, and then narrate the most interesting facts concerning their kings and wars. The type is best represented by Herodotus' book on Egypt but was followed with variations by Herodotus in other digressions and by many famous writers, such as Ctesias in his Persica, Manetho in his Egyptiaca, and Berosus in his Babylonica (FGrHist 688, 609, 680). Arrian followed a compressed version of this scheme in the Indike, 1-17. Such apparently were the Parthica of Apollodorus of Artemita and Seleucus of Emesa (FGrHist 779 and 780).¹¹ Or he could have written a monograph on one of the Seleucid or Roman campaigns against Parthia, a detailed treatment of a single military venture, such as that of Crassus or Corbulo. The works of Julius Polyaenus and Q. Dellius on the campaigns of Ventidius and Mark Antony (FGrHist 196 and 197) seem to follow this pattern. Again there is a long tradition of such works (collected by Jacoby in FGrHist II B), including not only the historians of Alexander but writers on the Italian campaign of Pyrrhus of Epirus, the Hannibalic War, or, closer to Arrian, the swarm of writers on the Parthian war of Lucius Verus mocked by Lucian (FGrHist 203-10) and the rhetor Cornelius Fronto, who promised Verus a history of the war.¹² If, as I believe, Arrian took part in Trajan's expedition, he might have written memoirs of his own experiences, following the good Roman examples of Sulla, Lucullus, Caesar, and Cicero, although considering his youth, he may have been more inclined to write an encomiastic account of Trajan's triumphs.

Arrian's final decision combined certain elements of each of these types of history into a new framework. Photius tells us, and he is supported by our other fragments, that Arrian “in this work narrates the wars which the Romans and Parthians fought” (P1 = F30). Arrian attempted to put the Roman-Parthian conflict into some kind of historical perspective by tracing its course through the one hundred seventy years from Crassus to Trajan, from the disaster of Carrhae to the crowning by a Roman emperor of a Roman client-king in Ctesiphon.¹³ Arrian's initiative resembles to a degree the attempt of Appian to treat Roman history as a series of external and internal conflicts, named according to Rome's chief opponents, but differs in presenting an exhaustive treatment of a single enduring tension over a period of almost two centuries.¹⁴ Considering the disproportion between the history of the earlier campaigns and the ten books devoted to Trajan, the earlier history of the attempts to deal with the Parthians should probably be regarded as historical background meant to reveal the magnitude of Trajan's task in finally conquering Parthia.¹⁵

Arrian intended to combine detail with broad scope, and thus created his longest work, in seventeen books. The fragments tell us little about the organization of the material, other than confirming the natural hypothesis that the campaigns were taken in chronological order: Book II for Crassus' expedition of 54 b.c. (P2 = F33), Book IV for Antony's of 36 (P3 = F34), Book VI for Corbulo's in a.d. 53 (P4 = F35). Ten books, over half of the whole, were given over to the campaign of Trajan, 113-17, with which the work ended.¹⁶

The first book was reserved for an account of the Parthians before their first encounter with Rome in the time of Sulla.¹⁷ Here, if at all, would have been found the usual ethnographical material on religion, customs, and geography, but none of this is preserved. Arrian did trace their origin back to the distant past, when their Scythian ancestors were reported to have migrated from the north into the satrapy of Parthia in the northeast of the Persian empire at the time of the invasion of Asia by Sesostris of Egypt and the return attack of the Scythian king Iandyses. The derivation of the Parthians from a migrant Scythian tribe was common, and is probably correct,¹⁸ but Arrian also places it in the Hellenic framework of the great military campaigns which in legendary times were said to have swept from one continent to another.¹⁹

The emergence as an independent nation appears in Photius' summary as follows: “[The Parthians] had long before been enslaved by the Macedonians, at the time when the Persians were conquered, but they revolted for the following reason. Arsaces and Tiridates were two brothers, Arsacids, the descendants of Phriapitus the son of Arsaces. When Pherecles,²⁰ who was appointed satrap of their country by Antiochus Theos [261-246 b.c.], shamefully tried to violate one of the brothers, these Arsacids did not endure the insult but killed him. Then, joining with five other comrades they led their tribe in revolt from the Macedonians and ruled independently” (P1 = F30). The story, as given here by Photius and with minor variations by Syncellus (P1b = F31), is in the Herodotean tradition. Actions are seen as resulting not from the discontents of a people or a ruling class, nor from contrasts in ways of thinking or from interests of power, but from direct personal involvement. The origin of Parthian freedom, like that of Athens and innumerable other cities in Greece, began with the violent erotic impulses of a tyrant. Arrian accepts the Parthians' attempt to legitimize their rule by tracing the Arsacid to an Achaemenid, Arsaces, whose throne name was Artaxerxes II (king 404-358 b.c.).²¹ The association of five other men in the conspiracy is a striking parallel to the seven conspirators who put Darius the Great on the throne (Hdt. 3.71ff.). “Thus does Arsaces I conform to the ‘legend’ of the founder of a dynasty in Iran.”²² Syncellus continues Arrian's narrative of the brothers, telling us that the one brother, Arsaces, ruled for two years, then died and was succeeded by his brother Tiridates, who ruled for thirty-seven years. Although the story has been challenged and Tiridates dismissed as an invention, it may be true.²³

The fragments of Books II-VI are meager and tell us little. Arrian portrays Antony as “ruined by his love for Cleopatra” (P23) and not interested in negotiating (P28), but sees the victory of Ventidius in 38 b.c. as counterbalancing the defeat of Crassus fifteen years before (P24). Books VIII-XVII, Trajan's Parthian war, furnish the bulk of our fragments.²⁴ These are sufficient to preserve a dim outline of Arrian's presentation of this expedition, so important in terms of the number of men involved, the area overrun if not subdued, and the risk to the empire. They also raise questions as difficult to resolve as they are interesting. What was Arrian's attitude toward Trajan? What were his sources? When did he write? What is the relation of this work to the Anabasis of Alexander? Two points should be noted at once. Arrian devoted ten books to the Roman conqueror as against seven to the Macedonian, although Trajan's campaigns occupied little more than three years, and Alexander's almost twelve. Moreover, although basically favorable to Alexander, Arrian was ready to admit that he had weaknesses. He may have seen weaknesses in Trajan as well.

Despite the negative bias of some modern assessments of the war and its results, there is no doubt that Arrian conceived of it as a success. Photius ends his summary, “The emperor of the Romans, Trajan, humbled the Parthians by force and left them under treaty, having himself crowned a king for them” (P1 = F30). Arrian shared the vision of the expedition that had been heralded on Trajan's coins with the slogans “Parthia capta” and “Rex Parthis datus.”²⁵ He appears to have felt that Trajan's establishment of Parthamaspates as king represented a respectable achievement which was not rendered meaningless by any of the actions subsequently taken by Hadrian to stabilize the eastern frontier after Trajan's unexpected death. Although Arrian does consider the revolts of 116-17, which seriously undermined Trajan's conquests, Lepper has shown that he treated them only in Book XVII, in which were compressed both these revolts and Trajan's final retreat. The account of these difficulties was not allowed to overwhelm the narrative of Trajan's victories, as had previously been supposed.²⁶

The focus of these ten books was Trajan: his actions, decisions, and feelings. The extant fragments do not discuss the problem of the causes of the war, which Dio Cassius reduced to a desire for personal glory (doxēs epithymia, 68.17.1), and modern writers to a need to control the caravan route to the East or “regularize” the eastern frontier.²⁷ Arrian does tell us that the war was begun after an attempt at peace: “He decided not to leave the opportunity untried, if Osroes in some way would admit his mistake and submit to the just demands of the Romans and himself” (P33 = F126). He defends the assassination of the Armenian king Parthamasirus after his deposition, reporting Trajan's words that “as far as Parthamasirus is concerned, the decision was not Axidares' to take, but his own, since Parthamasirus was the first to break the agreement, and received his punishment” (P40 = F51). Someone, probably Trajan, is quoted giving the Roman position: “There seems to me to be no question that Axidares should rule Armenia” (P37 = F120).²⁸ We may ask, however, whether Arrian ever really felt it necessary to explore the deeper causes of the war. He carefully avoids doing so in the Anabasis, where he treats Alexander's desire to conquer Persia as a simple fact, not requiring explanation, and presents the expedition as a series of military campaigns without attempting to motivate them. Far from questioning the war, these books were laudatory. Trajan's operations were successful, and his motives honest. On a personal level as well Trajan was admirable. As a good general he was in close contact with his troops. “Trajan lightened the toil of the troops by sharing in the work” (P41), and showed sympathy with their distress: “Many of the Romans were killed, and Trajan was angry at what had been done” (P82).²⁹

Both to contemporaries and to posterity Trajan's expedition was comparable to Alexander's. The image of Alexander the great conqueror was always present in the Roman mind, prompting many to assert, as Livy did (9.17-19), that Alexander would have met his match in Rome, or to compare his achievements with those of Roman conquerors, notably Pompey and Caesar.³⁰ Thus Trajan as emperor and successful general could readily be compared with Alexander, as Dio Chrysostom does by implication in his second and fourth discourses on kingship. The resemblance was all the more apparent when Trajan mounted a war against the Parthians, the successors of the Persians. Every rhetor, every educated man would naturally think of Alexander. This being the case, it is remarkable how little actual testimony we have of Trajanic imitatio of Alexander.³¹ There seems to be no suggestion of Alexander on the coins, which rather emphasize the labors and virtue of Heracles.³² The extant fragments of Arrian's Parthica makes no direct reference to Alexander.

Dio Cassius' history, on the other hand, even in its lacerated form, suggests the parallel at several points. Describing the moment when Trajan arrived at the head of the Persian Gulf, Dio writes, “When he had seen a ship sailing to India, he said, ‘I should certainly have crossed over to India, too, if I were still young.’ For he began to think about the Indians' affairs, and counted Alexander a lucky man” (68.29.1-2). Dio goes on to say that nevertheless Trajan boasted that he had gone further than Alexander, although in fact “he could not hold the territories he had subdued.” He was honored with the highest honors but never reached Rome to enjoy them (68.29.2-4). Trajan visited Babylon, Dio adds, “because of Alexander, to whom he offered sacrifice in the room where he had died” (68.30.1). The comparison with Alexander in these passages is melancholy, not glorifying either emperor but rather commenting on their ultimate defeat by death.

Dio apparently depended heavily on Arrian's Parthica for his account of this war,³³ and this presentation of Trajan might be derived from Arrian. True, Dio, from the perspective of several generations and of other wars against the Parthians, might more easily evaluate Trajan's achievements objectively than Arrian. Yet there are close associations between Dio's account and the picture presented by Arrian of Alexander's visit to the Persian Gulf and his plans there (Anab. 7.1). Roos argues that P73 (= F131), “those who write not only the deeds but also the plans of Trajan,” belongs to the same scene on the Persian Gulf, when Arrian would have treated the plans of Trajan.³⁴ In the Anabasis, Arrian, like Dio in the case of Trajan, used the consideration of Alexander's plans to introduce his most extensive philosophical evaluation of the desire for conquest (Anab. 7.1-3). If, as seems likely, Dio derives from Arrian, then we may conclude that Arrian, the student of Epictetus, could not resist making some observations on the contrast between Trajan's urge to conquer and his defeat by sickness and death, the ultimate enemy. Such comments, as in the case of Alexander, would have heightened the heroic presentation of Trajan's achievements and been congenial to Hadrian, the intellectual and admirer of Epictetus. Death remains the final boundary of mortal achievement.³⁵

There are other possible grounds for comparison with Alexander which might have been exploited by Arrian. Dio, in describing Trajan's conquest of Adiabene, recalls that this district includes Gaugamela (68.26.4), where Alexander defeated Darius. In describing Trajan's character, Dio remarks that he drank heavily yet remained sober (68.7.4), perhaps a silent comparison with Alexander's drunken murder of Clitus. Arrian may therefore have made an implicit or explicit comparison with Alexander, and even raised questions about the value of an unlimited desire for conquests and the glory they bring. But as with Alexander, whatever his reservations, the final picture drawn by Arrian of Trajan and the Parthian expedition as we see it in the fragments is favorable. Trajan was the great leader who humbled the Parthians.

The contents of the Parthica, as far as we can tell, were political and military events, with little attention given to other matters which might make the history more novelistic or exploit the exotic aspects of a campaign far beyond the imperial boundaries. In military matters, as in the Anabasis, the coverage is careful. It includes the planning before an engagement: “[The Parthians] had decided that when the Moors should rush against them, the troops facing them would flee as if terrified, but those stationed on either side would attack on the flanks of the pursuers” (P53 = F140). There are numerous descriptions of the operations themselves: a march against a hostile country (P55), the flight of a king (P56 = F167), the bridging of the Tigris (P57 = F165), a defensive action against invaders (P21). Noteworthy in the Parthica is the vivid treatment of numerous embassies to Trajan. The reason for the large number of fragments of this sort lies in part with one of our intermediate sources, the Constantinian excerpts On Embassies, but also in the real situation in Parthia, which was not a strongly centralized state but a collection of petty kingdoms ruled by men who were vassals to the Parthian King of Kings.³⁶ The success of the campaign depended on whether Trajan could win some of these vassals to the Roman cause, and negotiations thus represented an important part of his total activity. Unlike the faceless embassies we find in the Anabasis, the kings and princes who came before Trajan are described as individuals: Arsaces (P19), Arbandes, “handsome and tall and in the bloom of youth” (P43), Sanatruces (P77), and others whose names are lost (P89 = F123, P99 = F157). Although the fragment is not explicitly ascribed to Arrian, the description of Sanatruces is worth quoting: “… the king of Armenia, who was moderate in stature, but extraordinary in judgment toward everything, not least toward military matters. He seemed to be a careful guardian of what was right and in his way of life as restrained as the best of the Greeks and Romans.” Here again we see Arrian the student of Epictetus, admiring the man, although a barbarian, for his self-control. On the other hand, the judgment of the unknown leader in P89 (= F123) brings out the weaknesses of a bad leader, “a man reckless because of his youth, foolish because of his inexperience of affairs, persuasive to the multitude because of his physical strength and rashness in battle. He wanted plans about even the most important matters to be deliberated in the whole crowd rather than among a few of those who especially showed forethought, and desired that those who opposed too long should be bound, and yet should follow in their bonds.”

When Arrian does describe Parthian ways, it is usually because they have a military relevance, as when he describes Parthian armor (P20; cf. the descriptions of foreign military dress in his Tactics), the native use of snowshoes made of willow withes to cross sixteen-foot snow (P85 = F153), and the native wild horses (P88 = F138). The description of Semiramis' tomb, which was seen by Trajan in Babylon (P74), was no doubt introduced as part of the continuing comparison of Trajan with great conquerors of the past.³⁷

The narrative of embassies and battles was relieved by a number of orations and letters. Some fourteen fragments appear to belong in this category, most of them not direct quotations but indirect reports of what someone wrote or spoke. Of those reported directly, several appear to be only a line of dialogue introduced into the narrative, rather than a fragment of a full oration. This technique, also found in the Anabasis, is well exemplified in P46: “Trajan said to Augarus' son [Arbandes], ‘You were wrong not to have come sooner to join my expedition and share my efforts, and for this reason I would gladly pull off one of these earrings of yours,’ and at the same time he grasped one of his ears. Both of Arbandes' ears were pierced, and gold earrings hung from both.”

In the preface to the Anabasis, Arrian writes that he intends to rely on Aristobulus and Ptolemy, because they seem more trustworthy in that both accompanied Alexander on the expedition, yet wrote only after his death, when there was neither need nor profit in writing other than as it occurred. Since the Parthian war only ended with the death of Trajan in 117, there is no doubt that Arrian also wrote after the death of his protagonist. Moreover, he had almost certainly been a participant in the Parthian war.³⁸ The frequent argument that P73 (= F131), “Those who write not only the deeds of Trajan but his plans as well,” proves that Arrian had no personal experience in the war but derived his knowledge from earlier authors³⁹ has little to recommend it. The use of written sources is not incompatible with autopsy. Lucian's comments on the writers of Verus' Parthian war show us, first of all, that many histories of such wars were produced almost at once, so that we may presume that as early as 125 there were a number of memoirs, reports, and monographs on the war which could have been used by Arrian, without prejudicing in the slightest his capacity to write on the basis of his own experience. On the other hand, there is the notice by Johannes Lydus (T14 Roos, P6 = F37), found after his discussion of the Caspian Gates (the Darial Pass): “Such is the account in the Roman writers concerning the Caspian Gates. Arrian in the Alanike Historia and especially in the eighth book of the Parthica describes them quite accurately, inasmuch as he himself was commander of the area, since he was in charge of that region under Trajan the Excellent.”

The reference to the History of the Alans and a command in the area might naturally lead one to think of Arrian's governorship of Cappadocia under Hadrian. Arrian is said to have settled affairs in Iberia after warding off the Alans in 135,⁴⁰ and could have seen the Darial Pass at that time. If the reference is in fact to Arrian's governorship, then the name Trajan in Johannes Lydus is a mistake for Hadrian. However, the second reference, to Parthica Book VIII, places us firmly in Trajan's reign, since Arrian also referred to Elegeia in that book (P5 = F36), no doubt to describe Trajan's stay there in 114. If Arrian described the Darial Pass in the same book, the more probable conclusion is to trust Lydus' date and understand him to refer to a command in the area of the Darial Pass held by Arrian at the time of Trajan's expedition, when Trajan was at Elegeia and wanted to protect his northern flank from a surprise attack by the Alans through the pass. Such a mission beyond the frontiers of the empire into the territory of client kings was not uncommon; especially relevant is the presence of Roman garrisons in Iberia in the vicinity of Tbilisi and Baku under the Flavian emperors. Iberia supported Trajan's war; an Iberian prince died fighting at Nisibis. An early assignment to guard the Darial Pass, perhaps as military tribune, would have given Arrian experience in the area, a factor which would influence Hadrian when he later made him governor of the province.⁴¹ There is no problem of age or rank; Arrian would have been in his late twenties, and depending on his career he could have served in various capacities with Trajan's army. In our fragments of the Parthica Arrian makes no statements of the sort “I have seen and know” found with reference to the Inn and Save (Ind. 4.15) or throughout the Periplus. Certain fragments, however, suggest autopsy without guaranteeing it: P46, the story of Trajan and the earring of Arbandes, quoted above; P77, the description of Sanatruces, also quoted above; and P85 (= F153), the description of native snowshoes. The weight of the evidence inclines towards Arrian's participation in the expedition.⁴²

The time of composition of the Parthica remains a puzzle. Given his success in recording his years with Epictetus, Arrian may have begun taking notes for the Trajanic section of his history even during the course of the expedition. Lucian describes how the authors writing histories of Lucius Verus' Parthian war were writing as the war took place—and even described Verus' triumph before the war was over! Although it is thus possible that the Parthica was one of Arrian's early works, Arrian's presentation of Trajan as a great conqueror bound to die suggests a certain perspective on events, and Parthia and the wars with Parthia were of immediate interest in the Roman world throughout Arrian's lifetime. If Trajan's war was not the immediate occasion of the Parthica, Arrian might have been encouraged to write by his experience on the frontier in Cappadocia in the 130s, or even by the war led by Lucius Verus in 160-164.⁴³

The Parthica, then, appears to have been an extensive review of Roman-Parthian relations, prefaced by a brief account of the rise of the Parthian nation and focusing especially on the recent campaign of Trajan. Trajan was portrayed as a successful general and emulator of Alexander, accomplishing his objective in humbling the Parthians despite the revolts of 116-17. Although Trajan's desire for conquest probably was viewed from a moralistic and philosophical standpoint, the overall presentation was laudatory. The general tone suits the policy of Hadrian, which was to honor the memory of Trajan and his operations against Parthia, while making no attempt to continue to hold Trajan's conquests.⁴⁴

THE EVENTS AFTER ALEXANDER

The second major work, known as Ta meta Alexandron or the Events after Alexander,⁴⁵ narrated the first struggles among the successors of Alexander. This title is probably not Arrian's, although it is used by Photius and an anonymous Byzantine work on syntax. Photius refers to the Anabasis as Ta kata Alexandron (The Events during Alexander's Lifetime) and the anonymous Byzantine scholar cites the same work as Ta peri Alexandrou (Concerning Alexander). The title which we receive from the Byzantines, then, need not reflect the purpose or conception of Arrian, but the long summary of the whole work given by Photius (S1 = F9, 11) provides a basis from which Koehler, Reitzenstein, Roos, and Jacoby have been able to reconstruct its contents.⁴⁶

When Alexander died in Babylon on 10 June 323, he left no clear successor to his empire; on his deathbed he is reported to have said that he was leaving his kingdom “to the strongest.” Although he gave Perdiccas his ring, he was not able to give him his authority. The generals who had been held in check by Alexander's charm, ruthlessness, ability, and ascendancy over the soldiers each began to assert themselves in the power vacuum left by Alexander's death. It would take two generations before a stable pattern of power could be established, but the first and most important decisions were made by 320 b.c., when at the settlement of Triparadisus any real hope for keeping the empire a unity was given up. In the period between June 323 and Triparadisus the major events involve this wrestling for power: the first division of offices in Babylon immediately after Alexander's death; the quelling of revolts by various peoples, including the uprising in Greece called the Lamian War; and the attempt of Perdiccas by marriages and force to convert his regency for the two young kings, Alexander IV and Philip Arrhidaeus, into absolute rule over Alexander's empire. Perdiccas was supported by the Greek Eumenes, but opposed by Antipater, Craterus, and Ptolemy, and after an unsuccessful battle with the latter in Egypt, he was killed by his own troops in May 320. His death opened the way for the new accord of Triparadisus.⁴⁷ …

Considering the short period covered, the length of the work is surprising; Diodorus, our fullest extant account, treats the same period in half of Book XVIII. The history falls easily into the genre of the monograph on a specific period. Even as such, however, it stands out for its length—the general rule is that contemporary histories are long, but later monographs short. Some sense of the detailed narrative which is implied by ten books on three and a half years is discoverable in two fragments which preserve Arrian's own words for more than the few phrases usual in the citations of the Suda. Two palimpsest folios copied in the tenth century preserve part of Book VII (S24-25). The first begins at the end of Ptolemy's successful attempt to bring Alexander's body to Egypt despite Perdiccas' opposition. Perdiccas reacts to this by a series of moves: he marches from Asia Minor through Cilicia toward Egypt, deposes on his way the satrap of Cilicia for being too friendly to Craterus, and sends Docimus to Babylon, with instructions to depose Archon the satrap of Babylon if possible. The narrative briefly follows Docimus as he confronts Archon and takes his place. Perdiccas meanwhile is engaged with dissident kings in Cyprus, against whom he gathers a fleet, marines, and cavalry under the combined command of Aristonous, once a bodyguard of Alexander. Here the first folio of the palimpsest ends. In these two pages Arrian describes with greater precision than any other author the feverish activity of Perdiccas as he is being challenged on all sides. The theft of Alexander's body is well known, but the removal of Philotas from Cilicia recurs only in a phrase of Justin (13.6.16: “Cilicia is taken from Philotas and given to Philoxenus”), and the events in Babylon and Cyprus are completely new to us. One notes also a delight in specifics: “He prepared many merchant ships, and had about 800 mercenaries and about 500 horses go on board. He appointed Sosigenes of Rhodes admiral, Medius the Thessalian commander of the mercenaries, and Amyntas commander of the cavalry, while Aristonous the bodyguard of Alexander was general of the whole force” (S24, lines 22-28).

The second folio of the palimpsest (S25) reveals Arrian's care in following the diplomatic maneuvering connected with Antigonus' crossing into Asia Minor, the ill-feeling of Menander, the satrap of Lydia, toward Eumenes, Cleopatra, and Perdiccas, and how Cleopatra's timely advice saved Eumenes from being ambushed by Menander. Again the narrative, insofar as it is legible, is particular and clear, explaining both the thoughts and the actions of the various actors.

A recently identified papyrus fragment from Oxyrhynchus (PSI XII, 1284)⁴⁸ preserves a passage from the battle of Eumenes against Neoptolemus. We know from Plutarch that Eumenes was defeated in the infantry battle, but routed Neoptolemus' cavalry and captured his baggage train. With this advantage, he was able to make the infantry surrender.⁴⁹ But this fragment reveals that Arrian knew much more. The papyrus preserves part of a unique account of Eumenes' parleying with the opposing Macedonian soldiers through a certain Xennias, a Greek who spoke the Macedonian dialect. Eumenes was able to persuade Neoptolemus' troops that although their phalanx could resist a frontal attack, his cavalry could harass them and keep them from food-gathering, so that it was best to surrender to him.

Such fragments are evidence of the generally high quality of Arrian's history, a quality due in no small degree here as in the Anabasis to a discriminating choice of sources. The general plan of the Events after Alexander is almost exactly that of the equivalent section of Diodorus;⁵⁰ the congruence with Diodorus suggests that they both used the same source, Hieronymus of Cardia.⁵¹ But some caution is necessary, since Hieronymus' history spanned the period 323 to 272 (if not further), some fifty-two years, and although the number of books is not known, it appears extremely unlikely that he, despite his general reliability as a historian, provided anywhere as much detail as Arrian. Few other candidates present themselves as authors whom Arrian might have used to supplement Hieronymus. Nymphis of Heraclea's twenty-four books On Alexander, the Successors, and Their Followers (FGrHist 432 F17) and an anonymous History (FGrHist 155) are the only known historians of the period who precede Arrian; his only successor, Dexippus of Athens, seems to have used Arrian's account. I suggest that Arrian used together with Hieronymus an author he found invaluable in writing the Anabasis: Ptolemy. We know nothing of the scope of Ptolemy's narrative. All the extant fragments refer to Alexander, but it is in fact very likely that Ptolemy would have chosen to present not merely his view of Alexander, but also of the struggles among the generals, especially the discreet and moderate role he had played.⁵² Arrian had used the narrative of Nearchus in the Anabasis and then presented it more fully in the Indike; there may be a similar use of Ptolemy in the Anabasis and the Events after Alexander. Errington, following Badian, has argued that Ptolemy published his book not late in life, as regularly supposed, but quite early, soon after 320.⁵³ He may therefore have taken as his stopping point the decisions at Triparadisus and the return of Antipater to Europe, and thus set the example for Arrian, who broke off his history at that point.

Alongside such reliable sources as Hieronymus and, if my hypothesis is accepted, Ptolemy, Arrian would have used less trustworthy accounts. In the preface to the Anabasis he justifies using such material, which he qualifies as hearsay (legomena), if it is sufficiently interesting. An example of his use of legomena in the Events after Alexander occurs in the fragment describing the battle of Eumenes and Craterus: “Eumenes is said to have found Craterus still alive. He jumped down from his horse and lamented over him, testifying to Craterus' courage, intelligence, excessive gentleness and unaffected response to friendship …” (S26 = F177). The source of this anecdote is unknown; Plutarch (Eumenes 7) reports the story with no allusion to where he found it. Arrian clearly liked the picture of a general praising his fallen opponent on the battlefield but did not wish to treat it as undoubtedly authentic, and so presented it as hearsay.

Arrian in this work, like Diodorus and Hieronymus, divides the action into campaign years, completing the account of one year before beginning the next. On only two occasions does the Photian summary suggest that this principle is violated: (1) after the deaths of Demosthenes and Hyperides in Book VI, Arrian follows the later history of those responsible, recalling Demades' execution in 319 and Archias' ultimate poverty and disgrace; and (2) before describing Thibron's attempt to gain control of Cyrene, Arrian, like Diodorus (18.19.1), finds it necessary to backtrack a bit to give the background of the story. The transition from Demosthenes and the anti-Macedonians to Thibron (Photius has one follow the other in his summary) may have been facilitated by the fact that both Demosthenes and Thibron were involved with Harpalus and the treasure stolen from Alexander. On the other hand, even these exceptions may be distortions by Photius of Arrian's narrative.⁵⁴

Concerning the partition of books we know from Photius only the divisions between Books V and VI and IX and X. Book X appears as a neat unit, covering events in Asia Minor from Eumenes' discovery of Perdiccs' death to Antipater's return to Europe. At the end of Book IX, Antipater had completed the reorganization of the empire at Triparadisus and had set out for home. Book X backtracks to treat Eumenes' activity while the others were at Triparadisus and then follows Antipater on his way through Asia Minor, noting his troubles with his troops, with Cleopatra, and with Cassander and Antigonus, who insisted on quarreling. The noteworthy fact about the division of Books V and VI, on the other hand, is the continuity of action. Book V ends with the battle of Crannon and its immediate aftermath, the Greek acceptance of Macedonian terms. In Book VI, Arrian turns to the specific problem of Athens and the city's reaction to this final proof that its days of liberty were gone forever. Apparently the author wished to get maximum value from a dramatic moment by treating it in two halves, first the battle, then the Athenian aftermath. A somewhat similar technique is used in the Anabasis, where Alexander arrives at Gordion and receives new troops at the end of Book I, but cuts the Gordian knot at the beginning of Book II.

There are a number of omissions in Photius' summary, most notably the revolt of the Greeks whom Alexander settled in Bactria (Diodorus 18.7) and the two phases of the Macedonian-Aetolian war (Diodorus 18.24-25, 38). At least the Aetolian war would be an integral part of the struggle between Perdiccas and Antipater, so we may credit the omission to Photius rather than to Arrian. The papyrus and palimpsest fragments remind us how much Photius necessarily left out, and we must be on our guard not to limit Arrian only to what Photius reports.

Arrian's chief interest in writing the history, one gathers from the extant fragments, was to describe the military encounters which were so frequent in this period, and the diplomatic maneuvering which preceded them. No period in history was richer in important battles or boasted more illustrious generals. The team of brilliant and ruthless men whom Alexander by charm and force of will had kept under control had broken up, and each now had his own army and his own ambition and was ready to fight against native rebellions and his own ex-comrades to win a position for himself in the world Alexander had left. Some died quickly—Leonnatus, Neoptolemus, Craterus, Perdiccas—and new men took their places. The fragments show, as we have seen, a keen interest in troop movements and dispositions, siege works, and the tactics which meant victory for one side or the other.⁵⁵ Any biographical interest which Arrian might have had in these figures was secondary to their military activity, as we find time and again in the biographical notices which the Suda preserves from his history. The description of the impetuosity of Leosthenes (S17 = F179) or of the sense of superiority of Perdiccas (S27 = F180)⁵⁶ is directly linked to other reasons for their deaths, and not pure character portrayal. Leonnatus' long connection with Alexander and his own high opinion of himself would be an integral part of the narrative of his attempt to assert himself, with the support of the Macedonian cavalry, in the first days after Alexander's death, the apparent context of the characterization in S12 (= F178).⁵⁷ Nor do the two passages on Craterus preserved in the Suda biography follow the Xenophontic manner of recording brief notices and evaluations of a general after his death. The first (S19 = F177a) elaborates the contrast in character between Antipater and Craterus which was to play an important part in determining the outcome of the Lamian war and in all their relationships; the second (S26 = F177b) considers Craterus' death in the light of the Macedonians' respect for his outstanding qualities and of Eumenes' honorable treatment of his body.⁵⁸

Diplomatic negotiations and secret intrigues were an important part of the struggle for power, and as such were described with care. Besides the account in the Vatican palimpsest of the activity of Antigonus, Menander, Eumenes, and Cleopatra (S25 = F10B), we may note Arrian's narrative of the various marriage alliances (S1 = F9, sect. 21-23, 26), the schemings of Eurydice (S1 = F9, sect. 31, 33) and Cleopatra (S1 = F9 and 11, sect. 21, 26, 40), and the quarrel and reconciliation of Cassander and Antipater (S1 = F11, sect. 42-43).

For a man with as abiding an interest in generalship as Arrian, the peculiar opportunities for military history in this period may be a sufficient explanation for his decision to write the Events after Alexander. We have no information either external or internal as to the time of composition of the work, so we cannot even say that it was composed as a continuation of the Anabasis. It is not an obvious or natural sequel, being different in scope and in the kind of material handled, as well as in size. Unlike the Indike, the Events is never mentioned or alluded to in the Anabasis, suggesting that Arrian had not even conceived it at the time of the Anabasis. It is possible, of course, for a historian to treat an earlier period after a later one, as we learn from the examples of Sallust and Tacitus. Nevertheless, it is more reasonable to assume that Arrian's interest in this period was first aroused by the figure of Alexander and that he turned to the Events sometime after he completed the Anabasis. It is natural to connect this work with Arrian's lifelong interest in Asia Minor. Asia Minor was the major theater of action in the period covered by the Events, and Eumenes, one of the leading figures of Hieronymus' account and apparently of Arrian's, remained there continuously. Finally, the subject of the history, the problem of succession to imperial power, was not without contemporary interest. Hadrian on his accession may not have approved, but certainly found useful, the action of those in Rome who ordered the immediate execution of four leading generals; if Perdiccas had been able to do the same, Alexander's empire might have remained intact. The decision to end the history with Antipater's return to Europe is not so arbitrary as some have argued. With the deaths of Neoptolemus, Craterus, and Perdiccas, Ptolemy's successful defense of Egypt as an independent unit, and Antipater's decision to return to Macedonia as his home province, any immediate hopes for a continuation of the empire of Alexander as a unit were crushed. The separatist tendency had won out, and the way was open for the establishment of the various Hellenistic kingdoms.⁵⁹ Thus Cappadocia and Armenia could be independent, and Bithynia become the sovereign state whose history Arrian recorded in the Bithyniaca.

THE BITHYNIACA

The eight books of Arrian's Bithyniaca⁶⁰ represent local history, a different genre from his other writings. The historical sense of the Greeks had been built especially by great works of “national” history—first and foremost the poems of Homer, which for the Greeks preserved a historical reality, though expressed in poetry; then the histories of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Ephorus, and Theopompus. In these works the world of Greece was conceived as a unit, and the author attempted to portray the events of the Greek world as a whole. Yet this world was composed of individual city-states, each with its own history, its own cults, and its own heroes, and by a natural reaction to the panhellenism of the monumental histories there arose the genre of local history, which celebrated the past of city-states or regions.⁶¹ These writings began at least as early as Herodotus and were regularly composed by native sons—witness the Chronicles of Lampsacus by Charon (FGrHist 262) and the Foundation of Chios by Ion (FGrHist 392). One of the main objects of these histories was to trace the beginnings of their respective cities back to the earliest events of prehistoric times, and to relate the tradition of the particular state to the larger Hellenic history recorded by Homer, Herodotus, and later writers. Genealogy, one of the formative elements of the Greek historical tradition, played an important part in this process of integrating the local history into the general Hellenic history.

In the second century a.d. there was a revival of interest in local history,⁶² part of the general renewed confidence and self-assertion of the Greek world. Arrian, who in his writings and career was a major representative of this Greek renaissance, shared as well the desire to celebrate his native land and try his pen at the ancient genre of local history. The notice of Photius (B1 = T4, F14) gives us an idea of the purpose and content of the work:

He wrote the Bithyniaca, presenting as a gift to his native land its heritage [tēi patridi dōron anapherōn ta patria]. For in this work he specifies that he was Nicomedian by family, that he was born, raised, and educated in Nicomedia, and was a priest there of Demeter and Persephone, to whom the city is dedicated. … From the time when he began to have some capacity for writing, he had wanted to undertake to compose this work, but the preparation needed to remedy his deficiencies stretched out the time. He himself gives this explanation for his slowness in the matter. It begins, as has been said, from mythical times, and goes down to the death of the last Nicomedes. …

Photius certainly derived the above material, with the exception of the last sentence, from Arrian's preface, where the author would have placed himself in the series of those who narrated the traditions of their native land. The fact that Nicomedia had been founded relatively recently in Greek terms (ca. 265 b.c.), and by the king of Bithynia, would have led him to write the history of that region, rather than of his own city, which had no independent history.⁶³ This same emphasis on the history of a free state, a fundamental feature of Greek historiography, dictated that the work must end with the end of Bithynian independence, in 75 or 74 b.c., when Nicomedes IV left his kingdom in his will to the Roman people.⁶⁴

Arrian's statement in his preface that his own deficiency delayed the work must refer not to literary weakness—the volume of his works suggests a facility with the pen from his youth—but lack of knowledge. The source problem for any local history, but especially for Bithyniaca, was potentially much more complicated than for Arrian's other histories. The Anabasis, once Arrian made the decision to follow chiefly Aristobulus and Ptolemy, presented itself as a relatively straight-forward problem in historical narration, and apparently treatment of the Events after Alexander and the Parthica were similar. But to write Bithyniaca, a conscientious author would wish to become familiar with at least some of the writers who had attempted to relate Bithynian place and tribal names, cults, and migrations to Hellenic history. Moreover, Bithynia was a neighbor of Troy, and its history had to be integrated with the information found in Homer and other poets of the epic cycle. Not only local historians but Homeric scholars had been fighting for centuries over passages such as the catalogue of Troy's allies (Iliad 2.816-77): Demetrius of Scepsis (a city in the Troad) found it necessary to write thirty books to elucidate these sixty-two lines!⁶⁵ Without pretending to suggest that Arrian tried to attain a scholar's knowledge of the problems,⁶⁶ it is clear that anyone who approached the task seriously would find he needed to do a lot of reading. Arrian's familiarity with Bithynia, its geography, cults, and customs, would no doubt have helped him, but the book in the nature of things is chiefly the product of reading and not original research and autopsy.

We do not know anything useful about earlier writers of Bithyniaca. Asclepiades of Myrleia (FGrHist 697), the earliest of whom any notice has been preserved, wrote in the first century b.c., apparently to satisfy the curiosity connected with Bithynia's change of status from kingdom to Roman province, composing perhaps ten books, of which we have six fragments. Parthenius borrowed from Asclepiades two love stories, of the kind which were common in the narration of the relations between Greek colonists and the indigenous population, for his Amatory Narratives (F1-2).⁶⁷ In the same period Alexander Polyhistor (FGrHist 273) devoted one of his many books to Bithynia and composed others on related subjects—the Black Sea, Paphlagonia, and Phrygia. Two centuries later a contemporary of Arrian, Nicander of Chalcedon, produced a book called The Changes of Fortune of the Bithynian Kings (FGrHist 700). Of four other authors who cannot be dated (FGrHist 698-99, 701-702) the most interesting is Demosthenes of Bithynia, who wrote an epic poem in ten books entitled Bithyniaca, which was used by Stephanus of Byzantium for information on place names.⁶⁸ These bits and pieces suggest a continuing interest in Bithynia but tell us little about how Arrian might have handled his material.

Nor do the extant fragments, of which only five record the book from which they are taken. Four of these are short geographical notices from Stephanus of Byzantium, giving no clue as to the contents of the respective books. The arrangement may have been topographical, chronological, or some combination. We would expect the history of the Bithynian kings to be treated chronologically, but the mythical and Homeric period could have been treated more freely. Only one fragment can be certainly fixed to a historical narrative,⁶⁹ and that is preserved not in Arrian's words but in the verse narrative of the Byzantine polymath Tzetzes:

The Nicomedes who founded Nicomedia … had a very large dog, a Molossian and very faithful to him. Once, the queen, the wife of Nicomedes, whose name was Ditizele, a Phrygian by birth, was playing with the king, and the dog, thinking she was an enemy, closed his jaws over her right shoulder and pulled it away, grinding her flesh and bones with his teeth. She died in the arms of the king, and was buried at Nicomedia with great honor, in a gilded stone tomb. … The story has it that the dog, having fallen out of the king's favor, died from love of the king and grief for his wife. Arrian writes the story in the Bithyniaca.

(B63 = F29)

The story is striking, and so was preserved. A love for unusual anecdotes such as this is a standard feature of Greek historiography, even in serious writers. Arrian may have been especially attracted to this story as a dog lover, for what it showed of this dog's faithfulness and affection. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that this is our sole fragment for the Hellenistic period. We could wish that we had some idea whether Arrian gave a serious account of the efforts of Nicomedes and his dynasty to maintain the independence of Bithynia among the conflicting pressures of the Hellenistic world.

Thanks to the twelfth-century Byzantine scholar Eustathius we are much better informed on Arrian's treatment of the earliest periods of Bithynian legendary history.⁷⁰ The Bithyniaca survived so long no doubt because since the foundation of Constantinople Bithynia had become one of the most flourishing and central parts of the empire, and Arrian's clarity of presentation and clear Attic style made it valuable for individual or school use. Eustathius quotes the Bithyniaca frequently in his commentaries on Homer and on the geographical work of Dionysius Periegetes, not only for historical information but even for grammatical points,⁷¹ so that his most recent editor suggests that Eustathius may have taught the Bithyniaca in his school in Constantinople.⁷² Eustathius' quotations are frequently verbatim⁷³ and thus provide a welcome occasion to evaluate, if only piecemeal, Arrian's work. Allowance must be made, of course, for Eustathius' own interests in considering the content and emphases of Arrian's history.

The material on the early period in the Bithyniaca was apparently usually introduced to explain names of places and tribes. This conclusion is undoubtedly influenced by Eustathius' selection, which was itself on this basis, but it fits into the general pattern of Hellenistic scholarship as well. Thus on the name Bosporus we find two explanations quoted by Eustathius (B36 = F20b):

Arrian states the following: “The crossing at Chalcedon and Byzantium was once called Mysian, because the Mysians once lived opposite Thrace, but was later called Bosporus [Cow-ford] on account of the misfortune of Io, who, the myths have it, was driven by a gadfly because of the anger of Hera and coming to these regions crossed at this point.” But the same man [Arrian] says that according to some the Bosporus got its name not from this cow, but from another, “which when the Phrygians were attacking jumped fearlessly into the sea and crossed without injury the Chalcedon-Byzantium Bosporus. In this way she became a guide for those men, according to a prophecy which ordered them to make a cow their guide for the route. This they did, and crossed safely. A bronze cow is set up as a memorial of this crossing, erected at some later time by the Chalcedonians. Perhaps because of this cow a certain place there is called Damalis [Heifer] to this day.”

In this story we find the standard aetiological explanation of the name Bosporus, referring to Io, cautiously ascribed to “the myths,” and beside it a rationalized explanation connected with early tribal migrations and confirmed by a monument and another place name. Finally, even before Io, the crossing had been named Mysian because of their onetime location near it, although in later times Mysia was further south. Other fragments indicate this same desire to historicize mythological events.⁷⁴ The tendency is apparent also in the Anabasis, e.g., 2.16.5-6 on Heracles and the cattle of Geryon.

Not only god-driven mortals, but the gods themselves appear, as in the following explanation of why Ares was called Enyalios (B14 = F103): “On coming into Thrace, where Enyalios had his home, Ares wished to be entertained. But Enyalios did not wish to receive him, saying that he would not entertain anyone who was not stronger in war than himself. And he, ‘It is time for you to entertain me, since I assert that I am stronger in war than you.’ When Enyalios denied this, they fought and after a long battle Enyalios was killed by Ares, struck by his weapon, the broad Thracian sword. Therefore since Ares accomplished this great deed as a young man, he was called because of it Enyalios.” Here, besides the unusual feature of calling Ares' opponent Enyalios rather than Enyos, we note the use of a brief direct quote to increase the vividness of the scene. Both this and the use of historical presents (erchetai, piptei) is typical of Arrian's narrative style in his other works. On another occasion—presumably while describing the laurel over the tomb of the Bebrycian king Amycus at Daphne near Byzantium—he mentions “the laurel [daphnē] which some say to have sprung from the ground because of Daphne, the daughter of Ladon, who while fleeing from her lover Apollo prayed that she might disappear under the earth, and received the answer to her prayer” (B40 = F87). This laurel is shown, Arrian tells us, at Daphne near Antioch, although we have no assurance that he actually saw it.

Two examples of Arrian's treatment of Homeric names will suffice for an idea of his technique in explaining them:

The Eneti, having been hard pressed in battle by the Assyrians, and having crossed into Europe, dwelt by the Po River and in the native language are called Veneti to this day instead of Eneti, and Venetia is the name of their land.

(B46 = F63)

Those whom Homer in the Catalogue of Ships calls “Halizones, whom Hodius and Epistrophus ruled,” were Bithynians. And Alybe, which he says was the “birthplace of silver” is [still] pointed out, and one can see an unfaded record [there], the works of the silver mines which are left. These men are called Halizones because they are closed in on all sides by the sea, on the north and east by the Black Sea, on the south by the bay of Astacus, the one by Nicomedia, and on the west by the Propontis and the Bosporus, so that the greater part of their territory is not far from being a peninsula, and it is quite fair to say that they are embraced by the sea [hali zōnnysthai].

(B22 = F97)

Both the Eneti and the Halizones in Homer's catalogue of Trojan allies were problematic, because neither name was known in historical times. The Eneti were early on associated with the Veneti at the head of the Adriatic Sea, as here. Arrian's Assyrians, here and in B51 (= F74), must be taken to be the White Syrians, whom Strabo places on the south coast of the Black Sea, in what was later called Pontus. The question of the Halizones and Alybe, also unknown, was never satisfactorily settled. An indication of the problems Arrian may have encountered in the composition of the Bithyniaca is given by Strabo, who devotes eight chapters (12.3.20-27) to the Halizones, reviewing the opinions of Ephorus, Apollodorus, and others. Since Strabo argued particularly from the absence of silver mines anywhere east of the territory of the Chalybes that Alybe was a corruption of Chalybe, Arrian's comment (from autopsy?) on traces of silver mining in a Bithynian Alybe is noteworthy. Strabo lists many alternate suggestions, including Ephorus' emendation of Alizones to Amazones. Arrian's identification was not new (it is reported also by Pliny the Elder, NH 5.143, and uses standard Greek etymological practices), but must be seen as part of a long tradition of scholarship and speculation.

This is one of Arrian's more reasonable etymologies. In general he is given to deriving geographical names—of cities, tribes, rivers—from an eponymous hero, invented by Arrian or his source for this purpose.⁷⁵ Occasionally the etymologies are more complicated, as in B3 (= F16), where Deucalion establishes an altar to Zeus Aphesios because he was saved (apheithē) from the flood, and the name Nemea is derived from the word for pasture (nemein), because the animals of Argos were pastured there, or in B36 (= F20), the passage on the Bosporus quoted above. On some occasions he permits a name to be taken over by another person, as in the case of Enyalios and Ares (B14 = F103; cf. also B15 = F102) or notes a change in name (B22 = F98).

Arrian, of course, as every local historian, gave special attention to narratives of the foundation of a city. One apparently verbatim account shows that these stories could be quite short (B55 = F71): “Phanagoria, which Phanagoras the Teian founded, fleeing from the arrogance of the Persians. And again Hermonassa, named after Hermonassa the wife of a certain Semandros of Mytilene. When he led some men from the Aeolian cities to found a colony, and then died while founding the city, his wife became ruler of the city and gave her own name to it.” Was there also a novelistic element in the story of the woman founder-queen? If so, the fragment does not suggest it. On the contrary, if Eustathius is quoting accurately, the fragment implies that Arrian gave a list of towns, with brief comments on each. The brevity may be explained by the distance from Bithynia of Phaenagoria and Hermonassa, which were on the straits of the Cimmerian Bosporus. Yet one gets the same impression from a notice on Zeleia in the Troad (B34 = F96): “Zeleia or Lycia: Apollo too [is called] Lycius because of this Lycia. For this reason also the father of Pandarus [is named] Lycaon, which name is not much different from that of this race.” Perhaps Arrian did not attempt a narrative treatment of this kind of material but presented it in catalogue form, somewhat as he does the cities and rivers described in parts of his Periplus.

A trace of the familiar romantic foundation narrative, such as those told by Asclepiades of Myrleia or reported in Parthenius, can be found in the story of Crocodice, paraphrased by Eustathius (B39 = F61c): “[Arrian says] that Crocodice, an expert on drugs, while she was distributing wine group by group to her father's army, threw roots into the mixing bowls, drugs producing sleep and forgetfulness; so that they lay half-dead from the potion. Thus they were killed by the enemy because of love for the youth Prieneus.” Crocodice presumably was the daughter of the native chieftain where Prieneus was attempting to found Priene. She fell in love with him, and weakened her father's troops so that the Greeks could found their city.⁷⁶

With so many heroes, genealogy is an essential element of history, especially useful to correct erroneous stories which do not sufficiently show the importance of Bithynia in the heroic world. The family of the nymph Electra and her son Dardanus were preeminent, as one might expect in northwestern Asia Minor (B31 = F64, B32 = F95, B33 = F107), but others were considered as well.⁷⁷ Arrian distinguishes two Sarpedons (B29 = F58), knows the Amazons by name (B48 = F85), and can provide a nymph mother for every hero.⁷⁸

A few fragments show that Arrian shared the local historian's interest in religion and customs, hardly surprising in one who also attempted more exclusively ethnographical works such as the Indike and the Alanike.⁷⁹

The treatment of the early history, then, reflects the standard methodology of local history: use of mythological information, though rationalized to make a more “historical” account, explanation by etymology and aetiology, and in general a desire to fit Bithynia into the larger world of Hellenic saga. The vivid treatment of the death of the wife of Nicomedes I (if not completely due to Tzetzes) suggests that Arrian did not entirely avoid occasions to enliven his history with novelistic touches. Although he concentrated on Bithynia,⁸⁰ in his treatment of movements and migrations of peoples he was able to enlarge his focus, to touch Crete (B57 = F65), the Nile (B61 = F57), Babylon (B53 = F90), Gades (B62 = F64bis), Salamis (B59 = F66), Delos (B60 = F69), Melos (B58 = F70), and especially the Black Sea area—the cities of Phanagoria and Hermonassa on the Cimmerian Bosporus (B55 = F71), the Chalybes in Pontus (B52 = F73), the Iris River (B47 = F75), the Cappadocians of Pontus Polemoniacus (B51 = F74), the Cimmerians (B19 = F60, B43-44 = F76), Thracians (B14 = F103, B15 = F102, B16 = F68bis), and the nomadic Scythians (B47 = F75, B54 = F72). Arrian's description of the Scythians in the last mentioned fragment perhaps gives us the best example of stylistic craftmanship found in this work, an account of how the Scythians, under pressure from their enemies, abandoned a settled life in Thrace and became wanderers: “Once they ate bread and farmed, lived in houses and had cities, but when they received this blow from the Thracians, they changed their former ways and swore great oaths never to build a house or to break the ground with a plow or to build cities or to possess a treasured possession, but to make wagons their homes, wild game their food, milk their drink, to possess only animals which they could drive as they moved from one land to another. And thus from being farmers, they became nomads.”

This larger view of the Bithynian past seems to confirm the observation of Rostovtzeff that in historical times Bithynia was deeply involved with the whole Black Sea area. Arrian related the early history of Bithynia to the movements of barbarian tribes like the Thracians and Scythians and to the progress of Greek colonization around the Black Sea. Bithynia was a crossroads in the migrations between Europe and Asia and between the Aegean and the Black Sea. All the peoples, Greek and barbarian, of the Black Sea littoral had their place in an account of the noble part that Bithynia had played in history before it had become a part of the Roman world-state.

DION, TIMOLEON, TILLOROBUS, AND THE ALANIKE

The three major works survived to Byzantine times, and thus some idea of their content has reached us. Of four other lesser works of a historical nature we know hardly more than the names. Photius tells us that Arrian wrote works on Timoleon and Dion which were mentioned in the preface to the Bithyniaca (B1 = T4): “[One work] narrates what was done by Timoleon of Corinth in Sicily; the other whatever deeds worth narrating were accomplished by Dion of Syracuse when he freed the Syracusans and all Sicily from Dionysius II, the son of Dionysius I, and from the barbarians, whom Dionysius had introduced so that he could more firmly rule as a tyrant.” Dion of Syracuse (408-354 b.c.), the brother-in-law of Dionysius I and friend of Plato, was exiled by Dionysius II. In 357 b.c. he returned and drove the tyrant from Syracuse, then in the following years lost and regained control of the city, and was finally murdered in 354 b.c. His biography by Plutarch is built around his double role of philosopher and general, and as such he is set parallel to Brutus, with whom he compared favorably as general. It was presumably this double-faceted life which appealed also to Arrian, himself a philosopher-general. Photius' reference to deeds worth narrating (axiaphēgēta erga) recalls Arrian's preface to the Anabasis, where he promises to select whatever is more believable and more worth narrating (axiaphēgētotera) whenever Ptolemy and Aristobulus disagree. If the words which describe Dion's deeds reflect Arrian's own comments and are not Photius' addition, the narrative would have been favorable to Dion as liberator of Sicily from tyranny.

Much the same could be said of Timoleon. Timoleon was a Corinthian sent to Sicily in 345 to help the Syracusans against Dionysius II, who had installed himself once more as tyrant. Timoleon, a bold general and clever diplomat, was able to liberate Syracuse and began a crusade against tyrants in other cities, and in 341 won a great victory against the Carthaginians in Sicily. Although he had setbacks as well as successes, he was able to make peace with Carthage, crush the tyrants, and open a new period of prosperity for Greek Sicily. Timoleon as a successful general would naturally have appealed to Arrian. Moreover, the Stoic teaching against tyranny could make the tyranthater Timoleon into something of a philosopher.

Thus in some respects the studies of Dion and Timoleon form a pair and may in fact represent one book rather than two. These were the sole works in which Arrian turned his pen away from eastern affairs. Perhaps the composition of these works—whether monographs or biographies—may be connected with a tour of duty in Sicily. It is likely that he was still a young man, perhaps a quaestor, since the overt interest in philosophy (in the case of Dion) and the geographical theater so far removed from his mature works, as well as the context of Photius' statement, suggest that they were early works.

Lucian preserves our only notice of a third work. In defense of his decision to write on the false prophet Alexander, a contemporary figure whom he considered a charlatan, Lucian cites the case of Arrian: “For Arrian, the disciple of Epictetus, one of the most prominent of the Romans and one who lived with literature all his life, would defend us, since he suffered something similar; he thought it was worthwhile to write a life of Tillorobus the bandit. But we are writing of a much more fierce robber, who robs not in woods and mountains, but in the cities, not ravaging Mysia alone or Mount Ida, or pillaging a few of the more desert parts of the province of Asia, but filling the whole of the Roman empire, so to speak, with his robbing” (Alex. 2 = T24 Roos, F52 Jacoby). Tillorobus the bandit is otherwise unknown, although the name is found on inscriptions from Termessus and Apollonia in Pisidia. Lucian's last sentence, however, appears to contrast Alexander and Tillorobus and implies that the latter harried Mysia and the province of Asia, working from a base in the hills. As such his life could have been interesting to Arrian for two reasons: militarily, as a contemporary example of the tactics employed by mountain-based guerillas and the countertactics suitable against them; and also for the local interest of an episode in the contemporary history of Mysia, an area not far from Nicomedia and which he treated in his Bithyniaca.⁸¹

For none of these three works do we know the size or method of presentation. Presumably they were all short—twenty to thirty pages—and more likely historical monographs than lives in the Plutarchean manner.

Our notices of a book on the Alans, the Alanike or Alanike historia, are equally unsatisfactory. Photius mentions it (P1 = T2) as one of Arrian's works (“He composed also the affairs of the Alans [ta kata Alanous], which he entitled Alanike”) but probably it did not survive to his time. Johannes Lydus mentions it (P6 = F13) and it was perhaps used by Procopius (p. 286 Roos = F109), although Jacoby assigns that fragment to the Bithyniaca. The name implies a geographical and ethnographical work like the Indike, describing to the Romans this tribe which continued to invade their territory. It possibly contained an account of Arrian's confrontation with the tribe when it attacked Cappadocia in 135, although Jacoby is mistaken in ascribing to it the Battle Formation against the Alans (F12), which as we have seen is written in a style unsuitable for a history, preserving the imperatives and infinitives of a genuine order of battle. The Alanike was undoubtedly composed as a result of the Alan attack.

Despite the fact that they are preserved only in fragments and short notices, the lost works of Arrian serve to fill out the picture of their author. The Anabasis, in the light of these other works, is not a fluke of literature, the happy inspiration of a retired general, nor the wistful backward look of a Greek afraid to face the Roman present, but one of a series of intelligently conceived and smoothly executed histories by a man who was a professional both as soldier and as writer.

Notes

1. The fragments of Arrian's lost histories were collected and printed almost simultaneously by two outstanding scholars, by Felix Jacoby as no. 156 in FGrHist II B (Berlin 1929), with a separate volume of commentary (Berlin 1930), and by A. G. Roos, Flavius Arrianus II (Leipzig 1928) 197-290. Roos attempted to gather all the fragments, including the many anonymous notices he recognized in the Suda and elsewhere, and arrange them in the order in which they might have occurred in Arrian. Jacoby restricts himself to named fragments of Arrian and includes references to other material in his commentary. Jacoby arranges all fragments not assigned to books according to the author by whom they are quoted. I here cite first the number from Roos, and then, if Arrian is named, the fragment (F) of Jacoby. Occasionally, reference is made to the material in Jacoby's commentary in FGrHist II B.

2. Photius, Bibl. cod. 58, 91, 92, 93. For the text see now the edition by R. Henry, I (Paris 1959) 51-52, and II (Paris 1960) 16-34.

3. On these excerpts, see Cohn, RE s.v. Constantinus 16, IV, 1 (1901), esp. 1037-39 and the earlier bibliography cited there; A. Dain, “L'Encyclopédisme de Constantin Porphyrogénète,” Lettres d'humanité 12 (1953) 64-81, esp. 71-75; Gyula Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica² (Berlin 1958) I, 359-61.

4. On the Suda see A. Adler, RE s.v. Suidas 1, IV A 1 (1931) 675-717, especially on the use of the Constantinian excerpts, cols. 700-705. See also A. G. Roos, Studia Arrianea (Leipzig 1912) 2-4.

5. For Eustathius see the discussion below of the Bithyniaca.

6. Stephanus of Byzantium uses Arrian's lost works twenty-eight times (Parthica nineteen, Bithyniaca nine) as sources for geographical names. He and an anonymous Byzantine grammarian (peri syntaxeos) who makes ten citations from the Events are especially valuable because they assign the quotations to the individual books within the works.

7. On Photius, see in general K. Ziegler, RE s.v. Photios 13, XX, 1 (1941) 667-737, esp. 684-727 on the Bibliotheca, and R. Henry's introduction to his edition. Antonio Nogara provides a recent and thorough study of the debated question of Photius' method, with copious bibliography: “Note sulle composizione e la struttura della Biblioteca de Fozio, Patriarca de Constantinopoli, I,” Aevum 49 (1975) 213-42. See also Thomas Hägg, Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur (“Acta Univ. Upsaliensis, Studia Graeca Upsaliensia,” 8; Uppsala 1975), and “Photius at Work: Evidence from the Text of the Bibliotheca,” GRBS 14 (1973) 213-22 (on his account of Philostratus' Vita Apollonii); Henri Tonnet, “Les notes marginales et leur transmission dans quelques manuscrits d'Arrien,” Revue d'histoire des textes 3 (1973) 39-55; and Friedrich Lenz, “La tradizione indiretta dei discorsi di Aristide nella ‘Bibliotheke’ di Fozio,” St Ital 14 (1937) 203-25, 261-79.

8. For modern accounts of Parthia, see Malcolm A. R. Colledge, The Parthians (New York and Washington 1967); Richard N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia (London 1962) 178-206; Roman Ghirshman, Iran, from the Earliest Times to the Islamic Conquest (Harmondsworth 1954) 243-88; and Nelson Carel Debevoise, A Political History of Parthia (Chicago 1938).

9. On the impression made by the disaster at Carrhae, see Dieter Timpe, “Die Bedeutung der Schlacht von Carrhae,” MusHelv 19 (1962) 104-29. Before this the Romans showed no particular fear, as is demonstrated by Josef Dobias, “Les premiers rapports des Romains avec les Parthes et l'occupation de la Syrie, “Archiv Orientalni 3 (1931) 215-56.

10. Writers of Parthica are collected by Jacoby in FGrHist III C, nos. 779-82. See the succinct and useful comments of Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (Cambridge 1975) 139-41. Arrian is by far the best preserved of any author of Parthica.

11. The Parthian Stations of Isidore of Charax is a bare list of names of cities, with occasional landmarks, on the caravan route from Zeugma on the Euphrates to Kandahar. The text is in Karl Müller, Geographi graeci minores (Paris 1855) 244-54, FGrHist 781 F2, and, with map and commentary, in W. H. Schoff, The Parthian Stations of Isidore of Charax (Philadelphia 1914). A story from Isidore's Periegesis of Parthia is preserved in Athenaeus (FGrHist 781 F1).

12. On Lucian see, besides Jacoby, FGrHist 203-10, G. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim/Glan 1956); and Lukian, Wie man Geschichte schreiben soll, ed. Helene Homeyer (Munich 1965). For Fronto, see Epistulae M. Cornelii Frontonis, ed. M. P. J. van den Hout (Leiden 1954) 125 (letter of Verus to Fronto) and 191-200 (Principia Historiae, a rhetorical comparison of the Parthian wars of Trajan and Verus); translation by C. R. Haines in the Loeb edition of Fronto (London 1920) II, 195-97, 199-219. Dio of Prusa, an older contemporary of Arrian from Bithynia, wrote a book on the Getai, Getica, later used by Jordanes, the sixth-century historian (FGrHist 707). Dio (Or. 36.1) speaks of wishing to visit the Getai while in exile at Olbia on the Black Sea (ca. 82-96). The fragments in Jordanes refer only to earlier times, but Dio may have brought his history down as far as the Dacian wars of Trajan. On the other hand, we know that the Getica of a certain Crito, who was on Trajan's Dacian campaign, described the war (FGrHist 200). This history would have furnished a recent model for Arrian's Parthica.

13. In this design he appears to have been imitated almost a century later by Asinius Quadratus in his nine books of Parthica (FGrHist 97).

14. The problem of genre is especially important in considering lost works, because our attempts at reconstruction are dependent in large part on our conception of the literary form of the work. It is misleading to call the Parthica “narrative ethnography,” as Jacoby did in his early classification in “Über die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie und den Plan einer neuen Sammlung der griechischen Historikerfragmente,” Klio 9 (1909) 80-123 at 107 = Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtschreibung (Leiden 1956) 16-64 at 47. In FGrHist II B, comm., 566, Jacoby places it somewhat more accurately with the “type of ethnography already beginning in the oldest Persica and Sicelica, in which pre-history and description of land and peoples forms only an introduction to political history, which here is mostly military history.” However, the fragments give no indication that Arrian attempted to write a political history of Parthia.

15. We may compare the account of the people of Britain and the Roman attempts to pacify the island in Tacitus Agricola 10-17, which serves as prelude to the narrative of Agricola's conquest of the island (Agr. 18-38). Cf. Sir Ian Richmond and R. M. Ogilvie, Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae (Oxford 1967) 15, and Ronald Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) I, 121-22.

16. See Jacoby, FGrHist II B, comm., 566-67; Roos, Studia, 1-64.

17. Roos, Studia, 4-10; Jacoby, FGrHist II B, comm., 567-71.

18. Cf. Frye, Persia, 180.

19. See the parallels cited by Roos to P1 (p. 226, lines 12ff.), and the traditions of intercontinental warfare recalled by Herodotus, 7.20.

20. Agathocles in Syncellus' parallel version.

21. On this claim see W. W. Tarn, “Queen Ptolemais and Apama,” CQ 23 (1929) 138-141 at 140.

22. Frye, Persia, 181.

23. Józef Wolski, “Arsace II,” Eos 41 (1946) 160, castigates the story as invention, but its potential veracity is defended by Frye, Persia, 181; Ghirshman, Iran, 243; Colledge, Parthians, 26; and Debevoise, Parthia, 9. Wolski makes a firm rejoinder in “Untersuchungen zur frühen parthischen Geschichte,” Klio 58 (1976) 439-57. It is doubtful whether other fragments are correctly ascribed to Book I by Roos (P18-21): see Jacoby FGrHist II B, comm., 567-68.

24. On this war see Debevoise, Parthia, 213-47; R. P. Longden, “Notes on the Parthian Campaigns of Trajan,” JRS 21 (1931) 1-35 and CAH XI (1936) 239-50; Julien Guey, Essai sur la guerre parthique de Trajan (114-117) (“Bibliothèque d'Istros,” 2; Bucharest 1937); F. A. Lepper, Trajan's Parthian War (London 1948); Marie Louise Chaumont, “L'Arménie entre Rome et l'Iran,” in ANRW, II, 9, 1 (1976) 71-194, esp. 130-43; and Maria Gabriella Angeli Bertinelli, “I Romani oltre l'Eufrate nel II secolo d.C.,” ibid., 3-45, esp. 5-23.

25. On these coins see Paul L. Strack, Untersuchungen zur römische Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart 1931) I, 224-25.

26. See Lepper, Parthian War, 128.

27. See especially Guey, Guerre parthique, 17-35, and Lepper, Parthian War, 156-204.

28. Compare the words here, “There seems to be no question,” with the identical phrase in Anab. 7.22.5, “There seems to be no question that Seleucus was the greatest king of those coming to power after Alexander.”

29. One is reminded of the virtues ascribed to Agricola by Tacitus (cf. Richmond and Ogilvie, Vita Agricolae, 20). The list of the virtues proper to a general was traditional.

30. See on this subject the works cited in chapter 5, n. 14. On the Livy passage see also Hans Rudolf Breitenbach, “Der Alexanderexkurs bei Livius,” MusHelv 26 (1969) 146-57. In the time of Trajan, it should be remembered, Dio Chrysostom wrote On the Virtues of Alexander in eight books, now lost, and Plutarch wrote the parallel lives of Caesar and Alexander as well as a pair of speeches, On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander.

31. Trajan's generosity to the oracle of Apollo at Didyma may have reflected an imitation of Alexander: see C. P. Jones, “An Oracle given to Trajan,” Chiron 5 (1975) 406. Tacitus may possibly have been thinking of Trajan in comparing Germanicus with Alexander: see Syme, Tacitus II, 770-71. Cf. also Gerhard Wirth, “Alexander und Rom,” in Alexandre le Grand: image et réalité (“Entretiens Hardt,” 22; Geneva 1975) 181-221 at 197-200.

32. A Heracles type appears in 100 a.d. and continues with variations throughout Trajan's reign: see Harold Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (London 1936) III, lxvii-lxviii; Strack, Untersuchungen, 95-104. The Heracles portrayed is usually Heracles Gaditanus, in whose temple at Gades there was a statue of Alexander—the very one which had brought Julius Caesar to tears in 68 b.c. See Suetonius Divus Julius 7 and Jean Gagé, “Hercule-Melqart, Alexandre et les Romains à Gadès,” REA 42 (1940) 425-38. In general on Trajan and Heracles see G. W. Bowersock, “Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century a.d.,” in Le Culte des souverains dans l'empire romain (“Entretiens Hardt,” 19; Geneva 1973) 179-212 at 193-94.

33. See Roos, Studia, 39; Karl Hartmann, “Über das Verhältnis des Cassius Dio zur Parthergeschichte des Flavius Arrianus,” Philologus 74 (1917) 73-91; Jacoby FGrHist II B, comm., 567; and Gerhard Wirth, “Arrian und Traian—Versuch einer Gegenwartsdeutung,” Studii Clasice 16 (1974) 169-209, esp. 202-7. Fergus Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964), does not consider the question.

34. Studia, 54.

35. Wirth, “Arrian,” 169-209, gives a rather different assessment of the Alexander-Trajan parallel in the Parthica.

36. For a survey of the vassal kingdoms in Parthia, see Frye, Persia, 187-90; and Geo Widengren, “Iran, der grosse Gegner Roms: Königswalt, Feudalismus, Militärwesen,” in ANRW II, 9, 1, 291-306, esp. 263ff.

37. Cf. the references to the tombs of Sardanapalus and Cyrus in Anab. 2.5.3 and 6.29.4.

38. Arrian's presence with the Roman army on the Parthian expedition has in the past been variously affirmed—Henri Doulcet, Quid Xenophonti debuerit Flavius Arrianus (Paris 1882) 9; Alfred von Domaszewski, “Die Phalangen Alexanders und Caesars Legionen,” SBHeid 16 (1925/26) Heft 1, p. 5 (as an equestrian officer); Gerhard Wirth, “Anmerkungen zur Arrianbiographie,” Historia 13 (1964) 228—and denied—Jacoby, FGrHist II B, comm., 567 and 575; Lepper, Parthian War, 2. Caution is in order, but there is no chronological difficulty, despite Syme's hesitancy: “Too old (it would appear) to serve as a laticlavius at that time, too young to command a legion” (Historia 14 [1965] 354 = Danubian Papers [Bucharest 1971] 236).

39. E.g., Schwartz, RE s.v. Arrianus, 1236, and Jacoby, FGrHist II B, comm., 567.

40. See the treatment of this question in connection with the Ectaxis in chapter 3.

41. Lepper, Parthian War, 7 and 128, notes this fragment but does not attempt to explain what exactly Trajan wanted to do at the Caucasian Gates. Wirth, “Arrian,” 189, also sees P6 as evidence that Arrian was given a command by Trajan in this area.

42. Wirth, “Arrian,” 189 n. 79, sees a number of other fragments from the Parthica as evidence of autopsy.

43. See also appendix 5.

44. Trajan was honored as a victor by Hadrian, who permitted him a post-humous triumph, regularly celebrated ludi Parthici, and continued to use Parthicus, the name the emperor had been voted in 116, in Trajan's official nomenclature: see Guey, Guerre Parthique, 144.

45. The modern use of Successors or History of the Successors is concise but misleading, since Arrian's work covers so little of the period of the Diadochi.

46. Ulrich Koehler, “Über die Diadochengeschichte Arrians,” SBBerl 1890, 557-88; Ricardus Reitzenstein, “Arriani ton met' Alexandron libri septimi fragmenta,” Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen 3, 3 (1888); Roos, Studia, 65-75; and the editions of Roos and Jacoby.

47. The extant sources for this period are Curt. 10.6-10 (restricted to the first division of power at Babylon), Diod. 18.1-39, Justin 13.1-8, and Plutarch Eumenes. For modern accounts, see W. W. Tarn, CAH VI (1927) 461-504; Julius Beloch, Griechische Geschichte² (Berlin and Leipzig 1927) IV, pt. 2, 623-39; M. J. Fontana, “Le Lotte per la successione di Alessandro Magno,” Atti della Accademia di scienze lettere e arti di Palermo, ser. 4, 18, 2 (1957-58); the review of Fontana by E. Badian, Gnomon 34 (1962) 381-87 = Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford 1964) 262-70; Edouard Will, Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av. J.-C.) Pt. I (“Annales d'Est,” memoire no. 30, 1966) 19-35; and R. M. Errington, “From Babylon to Triparadeisos: 323-320 b.c.,” JHS 90 (1970) 49-77. Unfortunately, Pierre Briant, Antigone le Borgne: les débuts de sa carrière et les problèmes de l'assemblée macédonienne (“Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besançon,” 152; Paris 1973), became available too late for me to use for this section. Perdiccas' death and Triparadisus can now be dated in 320, not 321: see Errington, 75-77, following Eugenio Manni, “Tre note di cronologia ellenistica,” Rendiconti dell'Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, ser. 8, 4 (1949) 53-61. I use these dates, but the traditional dating makes no significant change in the interpretation of Arrian's history.

48. Editio princeps by V. Bartoletti, “Frammenti di storia di Diadochi (Arriano?),” PSI XII, 2 (1951) 158-61, no. 1284, identified as Arrian by Kurt Latte, “Ein neues Arrianfragment,” NachGöttingen 1950, 23-27 = Kleine Schriften (Munich 1968) 595-99; see also Gerhard Wirth, “Zur grossen Schlacht des Eumenes 322 (PSI 1284),” Klio 46 (1965) 283-88, and A. B. Bosworth, “Eumenes, Neoptolemus, and PSI XII 1284,” GRBS 19 (1978) 227-37. The text is printed by Wirth in the second edition of Roos II, 323-24. Bartoletti argued that the fragment referred to the battle of Eumenes against Craterus, but Bosworth has demonstrated that the earlier battle with Neoptolemus must be meant.

49. Plutarch Eumenes 5.5. Simple notices of the battle are found in Diod. 18.29.5, Justin 13.8.4-5, and Photius' summary of Arrian, S1, 27.

50. See the comparative table in Jacoby, FGrHist II B, comm., 554-55.

51. On Diodorus' use of Hieronymus see E. Schwartz, RE s.v. Diodorus 38, V, 1 (1905) 685 = Griechische Geschichtschreiber (Leipzig 1959) 68; Jacoby, comm. to FGrHist 154, II B, pp. 544-45.

52. For a trenchant analysis of Ptolemy's purposes and bias in writing his narrative, see R. M. Errington, “Bias in Ptolemy's History of Alexander,” CQ, n.s. 19 (1969) 233-42. Errington notes that it was important for Ptolemy to establish the “correct” view of Alexander and his relation to Perdiccas in the years immediately after 323.

53. “Ptolemy's History,” 241. The prevailing view of the date of composition of Ptolemy's narrative was first attacked by E. Badian, in his review of Pearson's Lost Histories, Gnomon 33 (1961) 666 = Studies, 258. Cf. the discussion of Ptolemy's history in chapter 5.

54. Note that Photius in his summary of the Anabasis narrates the mutilation of Bessus and Alexander's capture of Pasargadai out of order (Bibl. cod. 93, 67b 36-37, 39).

55. See besides Photius' summary S14, S17 = F179, S21 = F124, S24-25 = F10, S26 = F177b, S31 = F117, and PSI XII, 1284.

56. The contrast with Alexander was present, but hardly explicit. Suda s.v. Alexandros, which Koehler, “Diadochengeschichte,” 585, relates to this because of the similarity of diction, is taken from Anab. 3.10.2, not Events.

57. See Roos, Studia, 71; Jacoby, comm. to 156 F178. Neither of the two passages united by the Suda seems to be related to Leonnatus' death in the Lamian War (cf. S1 = F1, 9).

58. I am very doubtful that the encomium of Demosthenes preserved by the Suda (S23) is from Arrian.

59. Ptolemy's history may also have stopped at the same point, and for much the same reason, as argued above.

60. Despite Roos II, xxix n. 1, the correct form of the title is probably Bithyniaca and not Bithynica. Eustathius, who used the work most frequently, regularly calls it Bithyniaca. Jacoby uses throughout Bithyniaca, Roos Bithynica.

61. For the place of local history in Greek historiography see Jacoby, “Entwicklung”; Lionel Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford 1939). See also the bibliography by W. Spoerri in Der kleine Pauly 3 (1969) s.v. Lokalchronik, Lokalgeschichte, 715-17. Histories of Greek cities are collected by Jacoby in FGrHist III B. Histories of Bithynia are found in III C, with histories of non-Greek lands and peoples, but because of the Greek settlements there, are more closely akin to the histories of Greek states than to the historical ethnography found in Persica or Aegyptiaca.

62. On the revival of local history see Walter Spoerri in Lexikon der alten Welt (Zürich and Stuttgart 1965) s.v. Geschichtsschreibung, griechische, cols. 1070-71. On Greek attitudes to their past, see E. L. Bowie, “Greeks and Their Past in the Second Sophistic,” Past and Present 46 (1970) 3-41. Bowie does not realize, however, in his treatment of local history (19-22) and his comment on Arrian's Bithyniaca (27), that the fact that local histories terminated with the advent of Roman rule is not evidence of a rejection of the Roman present but simply a characteristic of the genre: all local histories, and ethnographies as well, end with the subjection of the state to another power.

63. Contrast the several known histories of Heraclea, FGrHist 430-34, as well as others on Byzantium, Ilium (Troy), Cyzicus, and Lampsacus.

64. Greek historiography always presumed an independent state or states as the object of its interest. The history of a city or country ceased with its subjection to another power—one reason for our ignorance of Greece under Roman domination.

65. Strabo 13.1.45. On Demetrius see E. Schwartz in RE s.v. Demetrios 78, IV, 2 (1901) 2807-13 = Griechische Geschichtschreiber (Leipzig 1959) 106-14; Rudolf Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford 1968) 249-51.

66. Still less that it was Arrian's Lebenswerk, for which the Anabasis and other books were practice exercises, as argued by E. Schwartz, RE s.v. Arrianus, 1236. See the corrective remarks by Jacoby, FGrHist, comm. to 156, II B, p. 552. The date of composition of the Bithyniaca is not certain, since the only outside evidence, the notice in Photius, is variously interpreted. See appendix 5.

67. Other stories of this type taken from local histories may be found in Parthenius and in Plutarch's Brave Deeds of Women, nos. 7 and 18 (Mor. 246D-247A, 255A-E). See Philip A. Stadter, Plutarch's Historical Methods (Cambridge, Mass. 1965) 57-58, 97-101.

68. The fragments of Demosthenes are in FGrHist 699 and Iohannes U. Powell, ed., Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford 1925) 25-27.

69. The first part of B36 (= F20b) contains the statement “he marched to Chrysopolis, then during the night crossed the Bosporus,” which apparently forms part of a historical narrative, but the subject is not known. Arrian reported that Libyssa, the city in Bithynia where Hannibal died, was called ta Boutiou (B65 = F28), but this may have been in a gazetteer, not a historical narrative. The passage relating that Pharnabazus castrated Chalcedonian boys and sent them to Darius (B37 = F79) is more possibly from a historical narrative, though it may belong to an ethnographical section, reporting the custom among the Chalcedonians of treating the twenty-first of each month as unlucky.

70. Eustathius has no less than sixty-seven of the eighty-two citations of the Bithyniaca. Stephanus of Byzantium is next with nine, and the rest have one each.

71. Grammatical points: B20b = F77b, B23 = F22, B24 = F23, B31 note = F91, B41 = F101, B67 = F119b, B70 = F89a, B72 = F99.

72. Marchinus van der Valk, Eustathii Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes (Leiden 1971) I, L.

73. Verbatim citations: B9 = F82, B14 = F103, B20 = F77b, B21 = F83, B22 = F97, B28 = F173, B31 note = F91, B33 = F67, B34 = F96, B36 = F20, B38 = F81, B40 = F87, B43 = F76a, B46 = F63, B47 = F75?, B52 = F73, B54 = F72, B55 = F71, B57 = F65, B70 = F89a.

74. B29 = F58 (Europa carried off by Tauros, king of Crete), B31 = F64 (Cadmus and Harmonia), B33 = F107 (Iasion was an enthusiast of Demeter, not her lover), B35 = F92 (Briareus as a king ruling the sea, thalattokrator).

75. See B5 = F26, B7 = F17, B11 = F59, B12 = F110, B13 = F61a, B16 = F68bis, B18 = F27, B20 = F77, B21 = F83, B30 = F86, B32 = F95, B33² = F67, B35¹ = F92, B37¹ = F78, B38 = F81, B40 = F87, B47 = F75, B49 = F84, B51 = F74, B55 = F71, B56 = F68, B57 = F65, B58 = F70, B59 = F66. Note the criticism of those deriving the name of the Nile from Neilasios (B61 = F57). In B39¹ = F61c we may assume that Prieneus is the eponym of Priene. At B10 (= F106) the name of the dance sikinnis is derived from an otherwise unknown homonymous nymph.

76. Other foundation notices are listed in n. 75 above. Note that as often in local historians, the historical foundation is antedated by a mythological one: thus Astacus (later moved and refounded by Nicomedes I as Nicomedia) was founded according to Arrian by Astacus the son of Poseidon, long before its colonization by Megarians ca. 712 b.c. (B5 = F26). Cf. also the story of the foundation of Chalcedon (B37¹ = F78). The story of Crocodice is similar to others which have become more distinctly mythological, such as that of Nisus and Scylla, as told by Ovid Met. 8.1.151.

77. Cf. B20 = F77, B21 = F83, B31 = F64.

78. Cf. B11 = F59, B13¹ = F61a, B18 = F27, B21 = F83.

79. Religion: B3 = F16, B9 = F82, B10 = F106, B23 = F22, B24 = F23, B33¹ = F107, B37² = F79, B37³ = F80. Custom: B25 = F100, B27 = F108, B66 = F104.

80. Note the patriotic bias of B10 = F106, B22¹ = F97, B26 = F94, and B42 = F88.

81. Mount Olympus in Mysia was heavily wooded and furnished a haven for brigands: cf. Strabo 12.574. The proper form of the name is Tillorobus, not Tilliborus, as we learn from inscriptions from Termessus: see M. L. Radermacher, “Nochmals der Räuber Τιλλοροβοs,” Anzeiger Akademie Wien, Ph.-hist. Kl. 73 (1936) 8; and Louis Robert, Études Anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 98 n. 3. F. Zimmermann, “Ein Bruchstück aus Arrians Τιλλιβορον βιοs,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung 11 (1935) 165-75, attempted to assign POxy 416 to Arrian's Tillorobus, but the style seems quite different from Arrian's and the identification has not been accepted.

Abbreviations

Arrian's works and the abbreviations used for them are listed in Appendix 1. The extant works, except for those about Epictetus, are cited according to the edition of A. G. Roos, Flavii Arriani quae extant omnia: I, Alexandri Anabasis (Leipzig 1907) and II, Scripta Minora et Fragmenta (Leipzig 1928); reprinted with additions and corrections by G. Wirth (Leipzig 1968). The fragments of lost works are cited both by the number in Roos II and by the fragment in Felix Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker II B (Berlin 1929-1930), no. 156. The fragments in Roos are numbered separately by work: B = Bithyniaca, P = Parthica, S = Events after Alexander, C = On the Nature, Composition, and Appearances of Comets. The fragments in Jacoby are numbered consecutively and identified by an F preceding the number. Thus the citation P1 = F30 refers to Parthica fragment 1 in Roos, which is the same as Arrian fragment 30 in Jacoby. Testimonia to the life of Arrian are collected by both Roos (vol. II, pp. lviii-lxv) and Jacoby. They are cited by T followed by the number and, if necessary, the name of the editor. The Epictetian works are cited from the edition by Henricus Schenkl, Epicteti Dissertationes ab Arriani Digestae² (Leipzig 1916).

AAA: Athens Annals of Archaeology

ABSA: Annual of the British School at Athens

AE: L'Année Épigraphique

AJA: American Journal of Archaeology

AJP: American Journal of Philology

AnatSt: Anatolian Studies

ANRW: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. Hildegard Temporini (Berlin and New York 1972-)

AntCl: L'Antiquité classique

ArchDelt: Archaiologikon Deltion

AthMitt: Mitteilungen des deutschen archäoligischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung

BCH: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique

BEFAR: Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome

BibO: Bibliotheca Orientalis

CAH: Cambridge Ancient History

CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

ClMed: Classica et Mediaevalia

CP: Classical Philology

CQ: Classical Quarterly

CR: Classical Review

CW: Classical World

EHR: English Historical Review

FGrHist: Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. Felix Jacoby

GRBS: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

HSCP: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

IG: Inscriptiones Graecae

IGRR: Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes, ed. R. Cagnat

ILS: Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau

IRT: The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, ed. J. M. Reynolds and J. B. Ward Perkins

IstMitt: Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Istanbul

JHS: Journal of Hellenic Studies

JRS: Journal of Roman Studies

MusHelv: Museum Helveticum

NachGöttingen: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse

NJbb: Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik

PIR: Prosopographia Imperii Romani

ProcBritAc: Proceedings of the British Academy

PSI : Papiri greci e latini, pubblicazioni della società italiana per la ricerca dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto

RE: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll

RE s.v. Arrianus: Eduard Schwartz, RE s.v. Arrianus 9, II (1896), 1230-47, repr. in Schwartz, Griechische Geschichtschreiber (Leipzig 1959), 130-55.

REA: Revue des études anciennes

REG: Revue des études grecques

RhM: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie

SBBerl: Sitzungsberichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zur Berlin, Klasse für Philosophie, Geschichte, Staats-, Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften

SBHeid: Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse

SBWien: Sitzungsberichte der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse

SEG: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

SIG: Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. G. Dittenberger

StItal: Studi italiani de filologia classica

VDI: Vestnik Drevnej Istorii

YCS: Yale Classical Studies

ZPE: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik