The Classical Reviewhttp://journals.cambridge.org/CAR

Additional services for The Classical Review:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Nicolaus of Damascus (E.) Parmentier, (F.P.) Barone (edd., trans.) Nicolasde Damas: Histoires, Recueil de Coutumes, Vie d'Auguste,Autobiographie. (Fragments 12.) Pp. lxii + 374, map. Paris: Les BellesLettres, 2011. Paper, €45. ISBN: 978-2-251-74211-3.

Hugh Lindsay

The Classical Review / Volume 62 / Issue 02 / October 2012, pp 440 - 442DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X12000492, Published online: 12 September 2012

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X12000492

How to cite this article:Hugh Lindsay (2012). The Classical Review, 62, pp 440-442 doi:10.1017/S0009840X12000492

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 129.187.254.47 on 01 Jul 2014

440 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

The Classical Review vol. 62 no. 2 © The Classical Association 2012; all rights reserved

for forming their own judgements. As for Herodas’ critics, all plucking aside, their target has emerged triumphant and largely intact.

University of California, Los Angeles MARIO TELÒmtelo@humnet.ucla.edu

NICOLAUS OF DAMASCUS

PA R M E N T I E R (E.), BA R O N E (F.P.) (edd., trans.) Nicolas de Damas: Histoires, Recueil de Coutumes, Vie d’Auguste, Autobiographie. (Fragments 12.) Pp. lxii + 374, map. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2011. Paper, €45. ISBN: 978-2-251-74211-3.doi:10.1017/S0009840X12000492

Nearly all the works of Nicolaus are usefully collected in this single volume. The emphasis is on his historical works. A Greek and French bilingual text is presented in a single accessible volume, preceded by an introduction, and annotated through-out. There is comprehensive bibliography, a genealogy of Herod and a serviceable map to illustrate the ethnographic work. Nicolaus of Damascus was an exact contemporary of the emperor Augustus. We know from his autobiography that he was sixty at the time of Herod’s death in 4 B.C., but despite the survival of a considerable quantity of his work, details of his life and background remain obscure; the main sources are his autobiography and the works of Josephus. The extant testimonia are usefully collected in the present volume. He was from the ruling class in Damascus, and seems to have been Greek or Syrian; certainly he had a Hellenised education in Greek philosophy. Like many of his contemporaries with this type of background, he wrote on a vast array of topics. He is recorded as a Peripatetic philosopher, and, apart from his association with Herod, he was tutor to the twin children of Antony and Cleopatra, Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene, born in 40 B.C. Whether this was before or after Actium is disputed, but he might have been at Alexandria until the death of Cleopatra in 30 B.C.; after the fall of Alexandria these children were transferred to the care of Octavia in Rome. Alternatively, if he was never at Alexandria, his well-attested and close acquaintance with Augustus can be explained if he was already at the court during the 20s. He was in the entourage of the emperor in 20 B.C. when Augustus received an Indian embassy at Antioch (Strabo 15.1.72–3 = C719–720; Dio 54.9.9–10). It is suggested that he only entered service with Herod close to 14 B.C. at about the age of 50. At this stage he became a companion to Herod and accompanied him to Asia Minor to see Agrippa. Some interpretations suggest that the relationship with Herod must date back much further, and place Nicolaus’ involvement with him as early as 40 B.C. His presence at Antioch in 20 B.C. can be accounted for by his return to the east to join the secretariat of Herod. From 14 B.C. his services to Herod can be charted. Herod already knew Agrippa, perhaps since his fi rst visit to Rome in 40 B.C., but certainly since 23 B.C. In 14 B.C., in the company of Herod, Nicolaus pleaded the cause of the people of Ilium, who had been subjected to a fi ne after Julia suffered a close shave, nearly drowning in the Scamander. The people of Ilium were blamed for not rendering adequate assistance, and as a result of Nicolaus’ advocacy the fi ne was waived. He also successfully defended Jewish rights and privileges before Agrippa. Nicolaus returned to Judaea with Herod, and in 12 B.C. accompanied him to Rome when

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 441

Herod was pursuing his Hasmonaean sons on a charge of treason. A temporary reconciliation was effected by the emperor, while Nicolaus acted as intermediary between the parties. Territorial rivalry between Judaea and Nabataea had been an issue since Herod’s accession. When Obodas succeeded Malichos as Nabataean king in about 30 B.C., the successor, depicted as incompetent by Josephus, entrusted much administration to Syllaeus. The ambitious Syllaeus petitioned for marriage to Herod’s sister Salome, and, when unsuccessful, became Herod’s sworn enemy. After a frontier incursion, Syllaeus headed for Rome, where he managed initially to represent his case favourably before the emperor. Meantime, in 9 B.C., Herod had retaliated with a raid on Nabataea, much to the imperial displeasure, but an embassy conducted by Nicolaus eventually convinced the emperor of the duplicity of Syllaeus. Herod returned to favour, and Syllaeus was subsequently accused of assassinating Obodas, and was condemned in 8 B.C. Nicolaus proved his worth as a diplomat and advocate, but Herod had further family troubles over his Hassmonaean sons Alexander and Aristobulus, and their confl icts with their half-brother Antipater. Nicolaus still had the role of peacemaker, but it was a poisoned chalice. In 7 B.C., despite his ministrations, the younger sons were executed, and soon afterwards Herod uncovered the plotting of Antipater, who was now his intended heir. Nicolaus was put in charge of the case against him in 5 B.C., but, ever cautious on Herod’s behalf, he advocated sending Antipater to Augustus. The emperor capitulated and allowed the execution of Antipater, but Herod did not survive him long. Nicolaus’ next job was as ambassador to Augustus to sort out the succession, which involved defending Archelaus against the claims of his brothers. The rest of Nicolaus’ life is unknown, but he may have stayed on at Rome. This career has to be matched with his publications. Despite his status as a Peripatetic, his philosophical works are little known, because his Aristotelian works have survived largely in Syriac. They are not included in this volume. The bulk of the extant fragments derive from his histori-cal work of uncertain title, often called his Universal History, and its shape is discussed here. Athenaeus talks of 144 books (6.54). The scope is clearer. Many fragments deal with the empires of Assyria and Media, and there was some treat-ment of mythical Greece to the time of the Trojan War. Thematic emphases can be detected, but there are many lacunae before fragments on the late Republic, with some coverage of the period from the Mithridatic wars to the time of Caesar. The emphasis is on the east. An obvious gap is the Classical period, which must have been treated in the missing Books 8–102. Herod’s reign was included and, although the last surviving fragment dates from 14 B.C. and is from Books 123–4, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the remaining books covered the fi nal years of his reign. He likes moral and political emphases, but we are warned that their prominence could refl ect the interests of his excerptors. The ethnographic work has come to us mediated by Stobaeus (5th cent. A.D.). Its geographic coverage can be established, and the map provided is helpful in designating the main eastern emphases. The life of Augustus is incompletely preserved; the surviving elements treat his adolescence, and provide much detail about preparations for and execution of the plot to murder Caesar. The latest elements deal with his confl icts with Antony up to November 44 B.C. Augustus is presented as a paragon living in conformity with Peripatetic ideals. The unity of the work has been questioned as well as its date, which remains a controversial issue. Jacoby’s estimate of 25–20 B.C. has been adopted by many scholars because of the likely infl uence of Augustus’ autobiography, written before

442 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

The Classical Review vol. 62 no. 2 © The Classical Association 2012; all rights reserved

20 B.C. A late date, when Nicolaus was in retirement in Rome after the death of Herod in 4 B.C., has more recently been repeatedly defended by M. Toher. Nothing decisive is provided here, and there seems in the discussion to be some confu-sion between the autobiography and the Res Gestae. The autobiography attributed to Nicolaus is incomplete and of uncertain authorship. However, it provides an account of his context and background at Damascus, a little on his career as a diplomat in the service of Herod, and an account of what he understood by a life in conformity with Peripatetic principles. Its importance as the fi rst surviving Greek autobiography, narrated in the third person, is here briefl y assessed.

University of Newcastle (NSW) HUGH LINDSAYhugh.lindsay@newcastle.edu.au

THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS

BR O D E R S E N (K.), EL S N E R (J.) (edd.) Images and Texts on the “Artemidorus Papyrus”. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St. John’s College Oxford, 2008). (Historia Einzelschriften 214.) Pp. 171, ills. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2009. Cased, €50. ISBN: 978-3-515-09426-9.CA N F O R A (L.) (ed.) Il papiro di Artemidoro. Convegno Internazionale di Studio Rovereto, 29–30 aprile 2009. (Atti della Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati, ser. 8, vol. 9, A, fasc. 2.2.) Pp. 219, colour fi gs, b/w & colour ills. Rovereto: Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati, 2009. Paper. No ISBN.CA N F O R A (L.) Artemidorus Ephesius. P.Artemid. sive Artemidorus personatus. Edidit brevique commentario instruxit Societas emunctae naris. (Ekdosis 7.) Pp. iv + 55. Bari: Edizioni di Pagina, 2009. Paper, €12. ISBN: 978-88-7470-089-9.doi:10.1017/S0009840X12000509

The consilia of classical scholarship have been presented with a monstrum from Egypt: purchased for 2.75 million euros, its lavish edition costing 480 euros, the so-called ‘Artemidorus papyrus’ is over 2.2 metres of a papyrus roll bearing an exotic mix of geographical texts, a map and sketches of human heads, feet and hands, all on its front, and on its back a menagerie of over forty animals, real and imaginary. Its fi rst public outing in 2006 and the editio princeps of 2008 (C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, S. Settis [edd.], Il Papiro di Artemidoro), accompanied by Canfora’s explosive claim that it is a late nineteenth-century forgery by Constantine Simonides, have set off an avalanche of publications, mostly on the question of its authenticity.1 How best to review just three of these publications: two volumes of conference papers and a re-edition of the geographical texts? I shall outline the main points of the debate, and note under each the specifi c contributions of each volume, citing papers from the conference volumes as ‘author [Oxford]’ and ‘author [Rovereto]’, and Canfora’s re-edition as Art.pers. Ieranò [Rovereto], to

1The trail of academic havoc can be tracked at: http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/index.htm, s.v. ‘Artemidorus (< Ephesus)’ (no. 168.02).