Scholia Reviews ns 4 (1995) 6.

Ian Worthington (ed.), Ventures into Greek History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Pp. xxvi + 401. ISBN 0-19-814928-X. UKú45.00.

John Atkinson
University of Cape Town

Nicholas Hammond is, as they say, a legend in his time, and this Festschrift is richly deserved. It is a little bizarre that the title has not been extended to make it explicit that this is a Festschrift: presumably OUP has its reasons. The star-studded list of contributors is testimony to the range of his influence. The focus of the contributions has been concentrated on Graeco-Macedonian history and archaeology of the fourth century B.C., to reflect the field in which Hammond is most renowned.

J.R. Ellis (pp. 3-14) argues that the references to Athens' Long Walls in Thuc. 1.105-8 are given special meaning by being cleverly positioned in the text. Ellis builds on an idea of Hammond (1952) that Thucydides used 'ring composition'.(1) But unhappily, while a Horace ode, or an early Christian hymn may lend itself to structural analysis, continuous prose is less tractable. The geometric symmetry of Ellis' diagrams is eye-catching, and he spares the reader statistical formulae and word counts but confidence ebbs when one considers the text: does 105.5-6 really balance 107.4-108.3, or 105.3-4 balance 108.4 (Diagram 3)? Why does the reference to the walls in 107.4 not pick up 107.1? 108.4 appears to balance 105.3 in Diagram 3, though walls are missing from 105.3.

A.B. Bosworth (pp. 15-27), as ever brilliantly imaginative, carefully elucidates Heracleides of Pontus F 58 (Wehrli = Ath. 12.536f-537c) and argues that it supports the theory that in 499 the naval force engaged in the siege of Naxos split up and a squadron went to attack Eretria. This means that Bosworth takes seriously the advice which Aristagoras is supposed to have given in secret to Artaphernes (Hdt. 5.31.3), though others would see this as a tale fabricated to discredit Aristagoras. It is not clear why the Eretrians should have been singled out for attack, though Bosworth suggests that Hdt. 5.99.1 may provide a clue. It seems improbable that, if ships employed by the Persians were operational in the Euboean Gulf in 499, this should have otherwise passed unnoticed in extant Greek literature.

Under the heading 'Supernatural paraphernalia in Polybius' Histories' (pp. 28-42), F.W. Walbank analyses Polybius' use of the concept of Tyche as a determinant in the emergence of Rome as a world power. He explains the bias in favour of Egypt as the product of a xenia relationship established between Polybius' family and the Ptolemies during or before Lycortas' mission to Alexandria in 187/6 B.C. (Polyb. 22.3.6 and 9.2).

In 1937 Hammond published a paper on the sources of Diodorus Siculus 16, to which M.M. Markle (pp. 43-69) returns in a study of Diodorus' sources for the Sacred War.(2) He argues that where Diodorus takes a favourable line towards Philomelus (16.23-29 and 56 and 58-60), his source was Demophilus, and that his source for the sections where the bias is more hostile (30-9 and 61-4) was Duris, who had in turn drawn heavily on Theopompus.

R.D. Milns (pp. 70-88) has new ideas for reconstructing Didymus' Commentary on Demosthenes 5.52-63 and 11.11-14. On the Hermias passage his proposals are the more radical but in my opinion he glosses over the difficulty with the aorist tense of E)PH/RCEN (59-60).

A.M. Devine (pp. 89-102) elaborates again his view that Arrian's accounts of the major battles in Anabasis I-III depend upon Callisthenes rather than Ptolemy. Devine appears to have completed this paper before the publication of Hammond's article on the battle of Issus, about which he would no doubt have much to say.(3)

W.S. Greenwalt (pp. 105-34) produces important evidence from the scientific analysis of Macedonian coins for the period from Archelaus to Perdiccas III. This makes a useful contribution to the economic and political history of Macedonia. In dealing with the iconography of the coins, Greenwalt recognises the ambivalent position of the Hero, between mortal and god, but suggests that 'religious role-playing' was an Argead tradition long before Alexander the Great.

G.L. Cawkwell (pp. 293-306) takes up the theme of ruler cult in a study of Alexander's supposed demand in 324 that the Greeks should treat him as a god. Cawkwell argues that there was no such decree. Hypereides Epit. 20 ff. only demonstrates that other cities were honouring Alexander as a god, and that was in the context of the Lamian War. As for Athens, it had not gone beyond acceding to an oracular instruction to heroize Hephaestion.

E.A. Fredericksmeyer (pp. 135-58) revives the debate on the origins of the kausia and shows from an analysis of the literary testimonia that it is more probable that it was a traditional Macedonian cap than that it was a Macedonian adaptation of the chitrali, which the Macedonians first met in north-western India in 327/6. His refutation of B.M. Kingsley's case is convincing, and is reinforced by the article of C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, which reviews the archaeological evidence and adduces the evidence of the word kausia on a vase from Berezen datable to about 500 B.C.(4)

M.B. Hatzopoulos (pp. 159-88) reviews all the evidence and theories relating to Apollonia Hellenis and concludes that there was only one Apollonia in Macedonia. His own investigation in 1991 led him to the conclusion that it was near Lake Bolbe, some 4 km SSW of Nea Apollonia. As an addendum H. offers an interpretation of Xen. Hell. 5.3.1-2 by Hammond which facilitates this identification.

J. Vokotopoulou (pp. 189-201) discusses the kalyx krater from Sevaste in Pieria, which was first announced in 1987, and examines its significance in the history of the development of the kalyx krater.

P.M. Green (pp. 215-27) argues that Xenophon's exile belongs, like the trials of Socrates and Andocides, to 399 B.C.

T.T.B. Ryder offers a lengthy study of 'The diplomatic skills of Philip II' (pp. 228-57). Diplomacy is here in part a euphemism for bribery. Ryder thinks of bribery as intended to buy a friendly voice, but it could also be used to secure the harmless ritualization of the rhetoric of resistance.(5) Ryder concentrates on Philip's relations with the Greek states: his study could be usefully extended to include Philip's links with eminent Persians (e.g. Curtius 5.9.1; 6.4.25 and 5.2; D.S. 16.42 ff.), which would introduce a third dimension into the story.

My guess is that E. Badian's article on Agis III will be the most often cited piece in the volume (pp. 258-292). Its signficance goes beyond what is suggested by its modest title. Thus he deals first with Macedon's manpower resources, and argues that Bosworth (1975 and 1986) has underestimated the numbers and the regeneration rate.(6) Alexander drew 3,000 infantry reinforcements from Macedonia in 333 and 6,000 in 331, which Badian takes as an indicator of the annual levy set for the war in Asia - viz 3,000 per annum, rather than of the upper limit of the manpower available. The carrying capacity of Macedonia justifies the assumption that Alexander did not drain Macedonia of manpower. In this Badian usefully develops points made by Hans Droysen in 1885.(7) In the short term Macedonia probably was not badly affected by the numbers drawn off for the war: 21,000 are firmly recorded as going to Asia in the period 334 to 331, and, as Badian notes, between 331 and 323 at least 21,000 men would have become available for service in the infantry. But in the longer term the permanent removal of so many young men must have had a negative effect on population growth. The rate of reconstitution is a highly controversial subject.

Nevertheless the point of immediate relevance is that Antipater had 'an almost unlimited reservoir of manpower to draw upon' when Agis led the revolt of the Greeks.

Badian then reviews the debate since Cawkwell's article of 1969 on the chronology of Agis' War.(8) He sets out the issues with great clarity, and concludes that the war ended with the death of Agis early in the campaigning season of 330. Thus he revises his case presented in 1967.(9) Badian draws on an astronomical diary from Babylon to fix the dates of Gaugamela and Alexander's entry into Babylonia, and so to relate events in the occupation of Persepolis to Agis' war.(10) This leads to the final conclusion that when Alexander destroyed Persepolis he was unaware that Agis had been defeated, and the destruction of Persepolis marked a revival of the 'Hellenic Crusade'. I think that Alexander may have been delayed in Babylon while the slower units caught up with him, but that does not materially affect the case for thinking that Alexander sacked Persepolis while waiting for news of the war in Greece.

I. Worthington (pp. 307-30) takes issue with N.G. Ashton's case that the Athenians were preparing for war with Macedon even before Harpalus' appeared on the scene in 324, and defends what he labels the orthodox view.(11)

E.J. Baynham offers a worthwhile study of Antipater's record, especially from 334 (pp. 331-56), though she appears to accept some questionable ideas about the chronology relating to when the Antigonus and others took the royal titles and to Perdiccas' invasion of Egypt (pp. 346 and 353).

Finally, E.D. Carney (pp. 357-80) provides a fascinating analysis of the demise of the Argead dynasty by anlysing the political involvement of Olympias and Adea Eurydice.

The volume includes a consolidated bibliography at the end, a brief general index, and a list of Hammond's major publications (books and periodical articles, but not reviews and contributions to encyclopaedias and the CAH). The book has been well edited by Ian Worthington and carefully produced, except that the quality of the plates is disappointing. The maps (figures 9,7 and 8) are particularly poor, and in this age of GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and means of enhancing hazy images it should be possible for a press to produce maps that are clear and legible.

This is a splendid collection of meaty articles on important topics, with a good measure of new ideas. All in all a fitting tribute to Nicholas Hammond.


(1) N.G.L. Hammond, 'The Arrangement of the Thought in the Proem and in other Parts of Thuc. 1', CQ 46 (1952) 127-141.

(2) N.G.L.Hammond, 'The Sources of Diodorus XVI', CQ 31 (1937) 79-91.

(3) N.G.L. Hammond, 'Alexander's Charge at the Battle of Issus in 333 B.C.', Historia 41 (1992) 395-406.

(4) C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, 'Aspects of Ancient Macedonian Costume', JHS 113 (1993) 122-47.

(5) Cf. J.E. Atkinson, 'Macedon and Athenian Politics in the Period 338 to 323 B.C.', Acta Classica 24 (1981) 37-48.

(6) A.B. Bosworth, 'The Mission of Amphoterus', Phoenix 29 (1975) 27-43; A.B. Bosworth, 'Alexander the Great and the Decline of Macedon', JHS 106 (1986) 1-12.

(7) H. Droysen, Untersuchungen ueber Alexanders des Grossen Heerenwesen (Freiburg 1885).

(8) G.L. Cawkwell, 'The Crowning of Demosthenes', CQ 19 (1969) 163-80.

(9) E.A. Badian, 'Agis III', Hermes 95 (1967) 170-92.

(10) A.J. Sachs and H.Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylon. Vol. 1: Diaries from 652 to 262 B.C. (Vienna 1988).

(11) N.G. Ashton, 'The Lamian War. A False Start', Antichthon 17 (1983) 47-63.