UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

PUBLICATIONS IN HISTORY
VOLUME LXXV
NICOLAUS OF DAMASCUS
BY
BEN ZION WACHOLDER
UNI VERS I TY OF CALI FORNI A PRESS
BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES
1962
U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c a t i o n s i n H i s t o r y
A d v i s o r y E d i t o r s : R . N. B u r r , B r a i n e r d D y e r , W. T. J a c k s o n ,
D. S. L a n d e s , J. R . L e v e n s o n , J. W. O l m s t e a d
Volume 75
Submitted June 5, 1961
Issued November 8,1962
Price, $3.00
U n i v e r s i t y o f Ca l i f o r n i a P r e s s
B e r k e l e y a n d Lo s A n g e l e s
Ca l i f o r n i a
o
Ca m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s
L o n d o n , E n g l a n d
1962 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
PRINTED I N THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Dedicated to the memory of
Sarah Hendil, my sister, Pinhas Shelomoh, my father,
Feiga, my mother, Aharon, my brother, Shifra, my sister,
who, together with the entire J ewish
community of Ozarow, Poland, were carried away
to an extermination camp,
October, 1942.
PREFACE
A s e r v a n t of Herod, a favorite of Augustus, a tutor to the children of
Antony and Cleopatra, Nicolaus of Damascus was one of the most im
portant of the numerous court historians who flourished during the
Augustan age. Among the princes and client kings who ruled the
East by the grace of Rome, only the record of Herod, king of J udaea,
is known. For this we are indebted to Nicolaus, Herods scribe and aide,
who wrote a detailed account of his patrons reign. Parts of this account
are preserved in the writings of J osephus. Other quotations from Nico
laus works are found in the writings of various ancient and medieval
authors. These remnants fill more than one hundred printed pages in
Felix J acobys collection of Greek historical fragments.
Some fragments from Nicolaus biography of Augustus, his masters
master, remain. The bulk of the fragments, however, come from Nico
laus Histories, a history of the world, of which the account of Herod
was but part. The fragments of Nicolaus Autobiography afford a
glimpse into his personality. Remnants of Nicolaus semianthropological
and semihistorical Collection of Remarkable Customs are also extant
as are his commentaries on Aristotles works.
My own interest in Nicolaus arises from the significance of his writ
ings for the study of J ewish and Hellenistic cultures. I n this monograph
an attempt is made to place Nicolaus against the background of his age
and to evaluate his contribution to the preservation of ancient sources.
The sources which furnish the fragments are analyzed first because
they reveal the extent of his influence in the Greek historical tradition.
Sources not considered in the standard collections of Mueller and
J acoby are included. Chapter Two deals with Nicolaus life and works
as they reflect the cosmopolitan outlook among the scholars of his day.
Nicolaus Autobiography, the subject of Chapter Three, is of special
interest, for it is the first such work written in Greek. The next chapter
reconstructs Nicolaus treatment of J ewish history as it was available
to J osephus. A discussion of trends in first century B.C. Greek histori
ography concludes the study.
Although I am reluctant to go against his wishes, I feel obliged to
acknowledge my debt and express my gratitude to Professor Truesdell
S. Brown for his inspiration and guidance. I am indebted to Professors
J onas C. Greenfield, Elias Bickerman, and Herbert B. Hoffleit for mak
ing many valuable suggestions. The editorial assistance of Frederick
[ vi i ]
Preface viii
Clayton of the University of California Press is highly appreciated. To
the Hebrew Union College and especially to Dean Alfred Gottschalk
of the California School I am grateful for aid and encouragement.
The credit for making this study feasible belongs to my wife.
B. Z. W.
CONTENTS
I. The Tradition............................................................................. 1
II. Life and W orks.............................................................................. 14
I I I . Autobiography.............................................................................. 37
IV. J ewish H i story.............................................................................. 52
V. Myth and H i story......................................................................... 65
A ppendi x.............................................................................................81
N otes...................................................................................................... 89
Bibliography......................................................................................133
I ndex.................................................................................................... 145
Ch a p t e r I
THE TRADITION
A l t h o u g h he is a relatively minor historian, the tradition that sur
rounds Nicolaus of Damascus is rich and many-sided. Curiously, it is a
variety of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) that attests to the wide
spread influence of Nicolaus.1Both Plutarch, who cites the Damascene
only one other time, and Athenaeus, who quotes him frequently, tell
that Augustus, pleased by the beauty and taste of the dates that Nico
laus used to send him, named them nicolai.2Grown in J udaea generally,
but mostly on the plain of J ericho, these dates, popularized by Augus
tus, became a well-known delicacy and an important Palestinian export.8
Perhaps Nicolaus, who, it is said, had compiled a work called On Plants,
was aware of the exportable nature of the fruit and shrewdly called
Augustus attention to it.4Plutarch must have regarded the nicolai
date as a desirable delicacy, for he, with his wonted embellishments,
explains why this date was named after the Damascene: the shape and
color of the fruit reminded Augustus of Nicolaus sweet personality
and radiant pink cheeks.5I t is not often that tradition tells the shape of
a historians face.
More important is the fact that, in Damascus, Nicolaus memory was
cherished as late as the seventh century. Sophronius of Damascus, the
patriarch of J erusalem during the Moslem invasion of Palestine, traced
the ancestry of a certain seventh-century Damascene magistrate to
Nicolaus.Nicolaus, said Sophronius, was the ancestor of twelve genera
tions of famous Nicolauses... who gloried in philosophy.7Sophron
ius statement concerning Nicolaus descendants gains in significance
in the light of an extant Syriac manuscript containing fragments from
Nicolaus philosophical works that are in the University of Cambridge
Library.8Nicolaus philosophical writings were among the first to be
translated into Semitic tongues when Greek learning gained the ascend
ancy in the Orient.9The Syriac translations were made by Hunayn ibn
Ishak (809/10-876), and his son Ishak (died in 913) rendered Nicolaus
philosophical works into Arabic. I n 1952, A. J . Arberry discovered an
Arabic manuscript, dated J une 18, 1232, containing the commentary
by Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics, as well
as Nicolaus summaries of the Aristotelian work.10
The Syriac fragments, as indicated by the published table of con
tents, consists of Nicolaus summaries of Aristotles works, chiefly the
Physics. Intrinsically, they are of no great importance. They do, how
[ 1]
Nicolaus of Damascus 2
ever, provide further confirmation of Nicolaus contribution to the
philosophical tradition of the East. Averroes mentioned him several
times, and other Arabic authors cited him frequently.11
The De plantis by Nicolaus, now incorporated into Aristotles corpus,
is a good example of the unpredictable fate which awaited some ancient
treatises. The importance of this work is that in it the theory of the
bisexuality of plants was first propounded. Diogenes Laertius ascribed
the authorship of a work entitled On Plants, consisting of two books,
to Aristotle.12However, it was not available to the Aristotelian com
mentators of antiquity. For Alexander of Aphrodisias (third century
a .d .), a highly learned and industrious man, affirmed that he possessed
a copy of De ,plantis by Theophrastus, but none by Aristotle.18Neither
does the Greek tradition know of a work by Nicolaus of the same title,
though his other philosophical works are cited. Nevertheless, during
the Middle Ages Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew versions of De plantis
enjoyed great popularity. The Arabic translation was used by Alfred
of Sareshen to produce a Latin text, now available in 150 manuscripts,
that he dedicated to Roger Bacon (printed by Gregorius de Gregoriis,
in Geneva, 1496). I n the sixteenth century, one more translation from
Alfreds Latin text into the Greek created a sensation by the discovery
of Aristotles lost treatise, thus restoring the reputation of De plantis
sufficiently for modern editors to print it as part of the Stagirites works.
Until recently, however, the problem of the history of the translations
of De plantis, as well as of its authorship, remained unsolved. The
barbaric Greek text, with its incomprehensible and confusing prose,
belied Aristotelian authorship. On the basis of the testimony of Alfredus
Magnus, who wrote a commentary on it, E. H. F. Meyer published De
plantis in 1841, ascribing it exclusively to Nicolaus.14German scholars,
generally, accepted Meyers identification, but some denied it or re
garded the evidence as inconclusive.15
In 1923, P. M. Bouyges discovered in the Library of Yeni Djami, of
Istanbul, a copy of the Arabic version of De plantis that has helped
unravel the puzzle of its authorship. The title page of this Arabic ver
sion, also quoted by Hajji Khalifa, reads: The book of Plants by
Aristotle, the commentary by Nicolaus, translated by Ishak ibn Hunayn,
with the corrections of Thabit ibn Kurra (died circa 900).16The testi
mony of the manuscript is strengthened, as Lulofs has shown, by the
Syriac fragments of Nicolaus philosophical works, mentioned above,
which contain a leaf of De plantis. I t is now certain that the Hebrew,
Latin, and Greek translations are based on the Arabic, itself a rendition
from the Syriac. According to Lulofs, the Hebrew version, a translation
3 The Tradition
made by Kalonymos ben Kalonymos of Arles in 1314, available in manu
script form, is the most useful to restore lacunae in the Arabic text.17
The original Greek version, however, is still missing. But as has hitherto
been suspected, all available versions of De plantis, not only the Latin
and the Greek, contain meaningless and irrelevant interpolations. Thus
the villain who adulterated the text must have antedated the Arabic
translation. For the citations of Bar Hebraeus, in his Candelabrum
Sanctorum, written in Syriac, reveal the same inferiorities as the Arabic
text.18That the villain was a Syriac scribe can be further shown by the
Cambridge Syriac manuscript of Nicolaus works, which likewise con
tains incomprehensible interpolations. There is no longer reason to
doubt that De plantis, in its present form, must be credited to Nicolaus,
though both Aristotles and Theophrastus share in it remains a subject
for further study.
Nicolaus place in the Greek philosophical tradition is more difficult
to assess. Both Plutarch and Athenaeus, though they cite nothing but
his historical works, referred to him as a philosopher first and as a
historian second.19Porphyry and Simplicius did quote from his philo
sophical works and seem to have regarded him as an important inter
preter of Aristotle.30Stobaeus, likewise, gives a long extract from Nico
laus.a Yet these fragments, like those in Syriac, appear to be mere
summaries of Aristotle, and they do not reveal independent thought.
The Suda dubbed Nicolaus a Peripatetic or (and?) a Platonist.22The
Syriac fragments, incidentally, refer to him as a rhetorician, but the
Greek fragments do not.28Nor is Diogenes Laertius more helpful when
he cites Nicolaus as an opponent of Epicureanism.24Be that as it may,
Nicolaus contribution to the popularization of Aristotle and Theo
phrastus cannot be questioned.
The tradition of Nicolaus historical writings is more fully attested.
The first author known to have cited Nicolaus was his contemporary,
Strabo. In his Geography, Strabo said that Nicolaus, while in Antioch,
had met one of the Indian ambassadors dispatched to Augustus, a man
who later burned himself alive to preclude possible adversity.25Mueller,
Dindorf and J acoby place this citation among the remnants of Nicolaus
Histories. Mueller and J acoby do so with some hesitancy, for the nature
of the fragment is such that it could as well have come from Nicolaus
AutobiographyBut as the Autobiography was written late in Nico
laus life, there appears to be no reason to assume that Strabo made use
of that work.27This fragment does raise the question whether Strabo
excerpted Nicolaus without citing him. J osephus, in his account of
J ewish Hellenistic history, several times cited both Nicolaus and
Nicolaus of Damascus 4
Strabos historical works for the same quotations.28But the dates of
publication of Strabos Historica Hypomnemata and Nicolaus Histories
would seem to preclude the use of either by the other.29I t may be that
both quoted some other source, perhaps Timagenes, as J acoby suggests.80
Strabos praise, in his Geography, of the J udaean dates may indicate
that he was aware of the fact, mentioned above, that Nicolaus popular
ized these fruits by presenting them to Augustus.81Strabo may have
heard about the dates from Nicolaus writings, or from the man himself,
when both were guests of Augustus. Strabos brief but favorable account
of Herod may be cited as additional evidence that he made use of his
fellow Syrians Histories Strabo, too, made Herod a native J ew. But
Strabos account of Herod, like most of his information dealing with the
J ews, is so filled with error that one hesitates to assume that he received
his information from a primary source. According to Strabo, Herod
seized the office of high priest from Hyrcanus; Herod, and not Augustus,
divided the kingdom among the kings sons.88A somewhat better case
for Strabos use of Nicolaus, it has been suggested, could be made from
the parallel accounts given by both Strabo and J osephus (Nicolaus)
with respect to the Roman extermination of Zenodorus brigands, who
were pillaging Damascus.84But here, again, the evidence is not con
clusive. These reports, being common knowledge, do not necessarily
emanate from the same source.85
Plutarch, like Strabo, quoted Nicolaus only once. Plutarch corrected
Nicolaus statement, repeated by Valerius Maximus, to the effect that
Porcia killed herself by inhaling fire upon hearing of the death of
Brutus.86For literary history, this citation is of crucial importance.
Leo has pointed out that the biographical form immortalized by Plu
tarch had already been worked out by Nicolaus in his Life of Augustus.91
Recently, Steidle has credited Nicolaus with exerting a strong influence
on Suetonius.88A. Gercke attributed Plutarchs description of Mithri-
dates gluttony to Nicolaus.89We also have Plutarchs testimony on
Nicolaus reputation as a Peripatetic philosopher.40But evidence that
Plutarch borrowed from Nicolaus extensively, without citing him, is
lacking, although, as expected, Plutarchs description of Caesar some
times parallels that of the Damascene.41The best procedure, then, as
far as both Strabo and Plutarch are concerned, is to limit the discussion
to those fragments directly credited to Nicolaus.
With J osephus, the matter is very different. Here the tradition of
Nicolaus is both comprehensive and complex. J acobys collection con
tains fourteen fragments of Nicolaus work which are cited by J osephus,
as well as two long speeches, in the appendix, that J osephus attributed
5 The Tradition
to Nicolaus without citing a specific work.42Seven out of the fifteen
testimonies referring to the life and works of Nicolaus that were col
lected by J acoby also come from J osephus.43J osephus, moreover, is the
only ancient author to furnish us with a critique of Nicolaus history,
at least as far as the latter work dealt with the life of Herod.44
But aside from the direct citations from Nicolaus, there is no doubt
that J osephus quoted from Nicolaus without acknowledging his source.
Regardless of ones view of J osephus literary activities, it is difficult
to exaggerate his importance. J osephus works afford us the only con
nected history of the J ews from the Persian period to the beginning
of the Christian era. During the Renaissance, and as late as the eight
eenth century, J osephus was one of the most popular ancient authors
throughout Christendom, and one of the most widely translated. Whis-
tons rendition of J osephus had a respectable place on the Puritans
bookshelf, at the side of the Bible. I n the nineteenth century, however,
German scholars began to probe the reliability of the tradition pre
served by J osephus.46For the first half of the Antiquities, the historical
books of the Bible afforded a control. For most of the Bellum, he was an
eye witness. Despite the occasional novelistic additions, his account was
usually based on a single source, as may be seen from his paraphrase
of the Biblical and apocryphal books.4* For the Hellenistic and the
Herodian periods, the original sources were lost. That Nicolaus was
the unacknowledged author paraphrased by J osephus became the sub
ject of many learned essays.47A brief review of these findings is per
haps not wholly out of place in a discussion of J osephus indebtedness
to Nicolaus.
Destinon, who laid the groundwork for all subsequent analyses of
J osephus sources, was the first to recognize the importance of Nicolaus.48
Books fourteen to seventeen of the Antiquities, Destinon maintained,
were based directly on Nicolaus, and twelve to fourteen on an anony
mous author who had gathered his material from Strabo and Nicolaus.40
As for the sources of the first book of the Bellum, J osephus had utilized
the same authorities as he did later for the Antiquities. Discrepancies
between the two works of J osephus led Destinon to the absurd conclu
sion that when J osephus was writing his Antiquities he did not have
before him J osephus earlier work; at any rate, he did not consult it.60
Bloch, who had published his study just prior to Destinons, granted
that J osephus made use of Nicolaus for the account of Herod, but he
denied that the Damascene was the major source. Herods memoirs,
J ewish sources, and other authorities no longer extant were available
to J osephus.58Subsequent scholars, however, have ignored Blochs thesis.
Nicolaus of Damascus 6
Buechler, writing before the turn of the last century, credited Nicolaus
as J osephus source for the Hellenistic period.58And Schuerer, whose
work has retained its importance, accepted Nicolaus as J osephus source
for both the Hellenistic and the Herodian history.
In the twentieth century J osephus reputation has declined further,
while that of Nicolaus has risen. The outstanding principle of modern
German scholarship has been the distinction between J osephus sources
for the Bellum and those for the A n t i q u i t i e s Gustav Hoelscher main
tains that J osephus preserved Nicolaus history in the Bellum, but that
in the Antiquities he utilized a middle source which had falsified
Nicolaus account.56Walter Otto is the major proponent of the thesis
that J osephus did not use Nicolaus directly.67As has been pointed out
already, Destinon had assumed an anonymous source for books twelve
to fourteen of the Antiquities. Otto has extended this assumption
further by assuming two anonymous historians, one friendly to Herod,
whom J osephus paraphrased in his Bellum and the fourteenth book
of the Antiquities, and the other critical of, if not inimical to, Herod,
utilized in the fifteenth book of the Antiquities and onward. Both, Otto
maintains, had Nicolaus as their source.68Laqueur appears to be the
only critic to hold that J osephus had a mind of his own. Nicolaus was
the primary source for the Bellum, Laqueur says; but with the passage
of years J osephus became more nationalistic, and as a result took a
more critical view of the later Hasmonaeans and of Herod, whom he
held responsible for the loss of J ewish independence. J osephus there
fore deliberately altered the account of Nicolaus he had copied faith
fully in the Bellum
This somewhat sketchy review of the secondary literature should
make evident the complexity of the issue. J osephus raises as many
questions as he solves. Ralph Marcus, the translator of the later volumes
of J osephus for the Loeb Classical Library, was prevented by death
from carrying out the promise to treat the subject anew.00Abraham
Schalit, whose recent work on Herod is based on Ottos contributions,
also promises to review the evidence of J osephus sources once again.81
Although these scholars differ as to the details, they agree that the
tradition preserved in J osephus must be credited largely to Nicolaus.
In the present monograph, however, where Nicolaus is the main subject,
J osephus dependence on the Damascene becomes more intelligible in
the context of Nicolaus treatment of J ewish history in general, which is
discussed at length in chapter four.
Athenaeus of Naucratis, who lived in the second or third century,
was another writer who was impressed by Nicolaus historical and phil
7 The Tradition
osophical works.82The author of the Deipnosophistae cited Nicolaus
twelve times and is our authority that Nicolaus Histories had contained
one hundred and forty-four books.68Athenaeus constantly referred to
Nicolaus as the Peripatetic, a title also used by Plutarch.84The frag
ments from the Histories cited in Athenaeus, some of them direct quo
tations, are especially valuable because they come from books not
otherwise preserved.86But the quality of these excerpts is rather low,
for as usual in Athenaeus, the context is often missing, his quotations
from Nicolaus dealing primarily in the debaucheries which debased the
Eastern courts and the Roman aristocracy.68
Nicolaus historical works continued to be read from the fourth cen
tury onward, although he was chiefly known as a philosophical author.
Porphyry, and later Simplicius, as mentioned above, indicate that
Nicolaus was an important figure for the Neo-Platonists; as he was for
J ulian the Apostate.67J oannes Stobaeus, in the fifth century, gives a
long quotation from Nicolaus concerning his views on the soul.68More
important, however, are Stobaeus summaries of Nicolaus Collection
of Remarkable Customs.90No other fragment of this work has survived,
but it was perhaps used by Isigonus (a younger contemporary of Nico
laus?) and Aelian, the third century author of Varia Historia.TOPos
terity is indebted to Stobaeus for the twenty-two fragments of the
Collection, which fill seven pages in J acobys Fragmented1The popu
larity of this anthropological and historical lore during the Middle
Ages may be seen by Photius long critique of the Collection of Remark
able Customs.n
The early church historians, however, appear to have made little use
of Nicolaus. The single citation in Eusebius comes from J osephus, but
the fifth century ecclesiastical historian Socrates did cite Nicolaus
directly once.78Stephanus of Byzantium, the fifth or sixth century
lexicographer, also appears to have been an exception. From Stephanus
we have eighteen fragments, all apparently from the first five books of
the Histories, and of a geographical nature.74The length of Nicolaus
major work made it useful to lexicographers and etymologists such as
the authors of the Homeric and Strabonic scholia and of the Etymo-
logicum magnum.7BThe exact dates of these medieval works are hard
to determine, but they do indicate that men such as J ohannes Tzetzes,
who lived in the twelfth century, still found Nicolaus a useful source.76
But Nicolaus accounts of the J ews, being part of a general history,
could not compete with the accounts of J osephus, whose works became
standard among church historians.
From Photius, the ninth century anthologist, and from the tenth
Nicolaus of Damascus 8
century author or authors of the Suda, we infer that Nicolaus works
continued to be read.77But some misinformation crept in. The date palm
that Augustus had named nicolaus, Photius and the Suda claim instead
to be a cake.78More serious errors are Photius reference to the His
tories as , , and the statement in the Suda that the work
contained eighty books instead of the known one hundred and forty-
four.79This is often cited as evidence that Photius knew only the early
books of Nicolaus history.80For this there is no proof, for Photius ap
pears to speak of the mythological aspects of Nicolaus works.81Whether
the incorrect number of books given in the Suda is a scribal error or a
slip of memory, the authors knew Nicolaus works firsthand, as a frag
ment from the Histories and as two long quotations from his Autobiog
raphy show.82
Although these remnants indicate that Nicolaus works were still
known, the number of fragments they yield is pitifully small. Worse
still, these references are very brief and are often quoted out of context.
Fortunately, most of the remnants of Nicolaus works have come down
through the Excerpta Historica, written under the aegis of the Byzan
tine emperor, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (912-959).88Constan
tines remarkably wide literary activities extended to history. He
ordered the abridgment of classical and postclassical historians in fifty-
three volumes, four of which have survived. Herodotus, Thucydides,
and Polybius, among the major historians, and Diodorus, J osephus,
Appian, and Arrian, among the minor, were included. The Constantine
excerpts from Nicolaus fill eighty-eight pages in J acobys collection
and contain sixty-six fragments.84They summarize the first seven books
of the Histories, important parts of the Life of Augustus, and the
Autobiography 185
I t is also possible to evaluate the quality of these fragments, as we
know something of the method of the Constantine excerptors. They had
little interest in history; rather their concern was with moral lessons.
They divided the lessons into rubrics under which they filed excerpts
from the historians. The selections were made on the basis of the moral
edification evident to the excerptors, rather than on the context of the
subject matter. These fragments are particularly valuable because the
materials were copied with hardly any alteration of the text.88Never
theless, sometimes the context is missing, and there are frequent dele
tions, omitted because they did not suit the excerptors purposes, that
resulted in incomprehensible passages.87The extant fragments from
Nicolaus are divided almost equally between the Excerpta De virtutibus
9 The Tradition
et vitiis and Excerpta De insidiis, and parts of the same subject may
begin under the one and continue under the other.
I t has been argued that Constantine, like Photius, knew only the
first seven books of Nicolaus history.88This argument would gain in
force if more than a few volumes of the Excerpta Historica had sur
vived, for in Constantines abridgments there are constant references
to other quotations from Nicolaus, excerpts now lost.80Moreover, the
fact that the fragment in Constantines De thematibus comes from the
eighteenth book of the Histories, as attested by the manuscripts, finally
disposes of that claim.90There is no proof, as we have noted, that Photius
saw only the Assyriaca. The fact that Constantine still had before him
both Nicolaus Augustan Vita and the Autobiography seems to suggest
that at the end of the tenth century Nicolaus historical works were
still extant, perhaps in their entirety.91Moreover, the learned Byzantine
emperor in his own essays quoted from Nicolaus works.9Constantine,
it is claimed, modeled the life of his grandfather, Basil, after the
Damascenes encomium of Augustus.08Whatever one may think of the
Byzantine taste in historical literature, there is no reason to question
the popularity of Nicolaus writings in the tenth century.
Though the Greek writings in which Nicolaus is cited have been
known, and the fragments scientifically edited, a possible medieval
source has hitherto remained neglected. I t is the so-called Yosiphon,94
a Hebrew history of the Second Commonwealth that begins with the
table of nations and the Daniel legends, and ends with the destruction
of the Temple in a .d . 70, but also incorporates the Alexander romance
and legendary Roman history. The author of this work masqueraded
under the name of J oseph ben Gurion Ha-Kohen, a slight variation of
J oseph ben Matithiahu Ha-Kohen, commonly known as Flavius
J osephus.95Opinion is divided as to the date of the Yosiphon, but a
convincing case has been made that it was written in the middle of the
tenth century.00Soon thereafter, at any rate, this work was frequently
cited, and Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopian versions appeared.97Unfor
tunately, as often happens to popular works, many additions and alter
ations were made. The work has never been edited scientifically, and
until now no systematic analysis of the authors various sources has
been undertaken. I n addition to the works of J osephus and the anony
mous Hegesippus, a Christian fourth-century free version of the
Bellum, the author of Yosiphon obviously made use of many other
sources.98Trieber, writing at the end of the last century, attempted to
show, on the basis of the authors use of Greek terms, that Yosiphon
Nicolaus of Damascus 10
has preserved historical sources no longer available.00Wellhausens view,
however, that the work was based on Latin sources only is the accepted
view.100
In a discussion of the tradition of Nicolaus the Yosiphon is an im
portant source.101The author of this medieval work not only frequently
cites Nicolaus, he also often refers to him in flattering terms. And in
summarizing the contents of his work, the author of Yosiphon cites his
authorities: The account which I have related in the first books I have
followed as I have found it recorded in the writings of reliable authors,
such as Nicolaus, the reliable scribe from the region of Damascus, and
I saw it [him?],102and such as Strabo the Cappadocian and Titus
[Livy] the Latin author, Thugatet the J erusalemite [?], and Porphyry
the Roman, and many other writers; also as I have heard and learned
[through the oral tradition] of generation after generation of my
sacred ancestors, the high priests and scribes who have taught the
Torah.108 The authors apparent claim that he had met Nicolaus, like
his boast that he had lived in the times of J ulius Caesar as well as
Titus, offers the reader an inkling of the fabrications contained in
Yosiphon.10* Introducing his version of the Alexander romance he
writes: Thus says J oseph ben Gurion Ha-Kohen to his readers: King
Alexander having been awful and formidable above all the kings of
the earthhis might and power being knownI shall tell some stories
of the history of his birth. My account of him follows as I have found
it in the writings of Strabo the Cappadocian and Nicolaus the Dama
scene and Titus the Latin author and as I have found it recorded in
the History of Alexander, written by the Egyptian magicians and wise
men.105 The same authorities are cited at the conclusion of Yosiphons
version of the Alexander romance.106I f nothing else, these statements
indicate that in the eyes of one medieval Hebrew scribe Nicolaus was a
famous and reliable historian of antiquity.107None of the other ancient
authors cited are given such flattering epithets.
There is no doubt that Yosiphon made use of the medieval Alexander
romance, the so-called Pseudo-Callisthenes, a work which had its origin
in Ptolemaic Egypt. The author of the Yosiphon, like the other medieval
writers, cites the Egyptian magicians as his source.108Whether the
other authorities quoted in the Yosiphon contained elements of the
Alexander romance is another matter. Livy certainly alluded to it.100
Strabos account of Alexander has been lost, but there is no reason to
assume that he followed the legends subsequently incorporated into
Pseudo-Callisthenes; at least there is no reference to them in his Geog
raphy. Nicolaus certainly gave an account of Alexander, but there
11 The Tradition
is nothing to indicate the nature of his treatment. I t might be justified,
then, to consider the Yosiphon claim wholly as one more medieval
fabrication, written in the pseudohistoriographic tradition of the
Scriptores historiae Augustae, Pseudo-Plutarch, or Malalas.110
But before dismissing the claims altogether, it is advisable to analyze
the other citations from Nicolaus in Yosiphon. After relating that
Hyrcanus I removed three thousand talents of a hidden treasure of
King Davids, the author concludes: And J oseph ben Gurion said:
For this I have found evidence in other writers of reliable books. And
Nicolaus the Damascene has also attested to what I have said.1 Twice,
J osephus mentions the entrance of Hyrcanus I into the Davidic sep
ulcher, without giving his source.112But Nicolaus failure to record
Herods search for gold in the Davidic graves serves as J osephus open
ing wedge in his attack against the Damascenes pro-Herod account.113
Nicolaus, according to J osephus, did mention that Herod had built a
monument in front of the shrine, without telling that the reason for
the construction had been to appease the deity for his violation of that
sacred place.114Did Nicolaus, then, also mention, as Yosiphon claims,
Hyrcanus search for treasure in King Davids sepulcher? Or is Yosi-
phon9s reference to Nicolaus a mere fabrication based on J osephus
critique of the Damascene? I t is evident that J osephus attack on
Nicolaus will be strengthened if it can be assumed that the latter did
record Hyrcanus entrance into the Davidic shrine. For if Nicolaus
gave an account of Hyrcanus search for treasure, and failed to do the
same in regard to Herod, there would be clear evidence of pro-Herod
bias.
The treatment of Herod in Yosiphon is more favorable to the king
than the account in either the Bellum or the Antiquities. Certainly the
author of Yosiphon disputes J osephus estimate of Nicolaus: This
[the marriage of Antipater, Herods father, to Cyprus the Idumaean]
is the reason why the historians who preceded me maintained that
Antipater was an Idumaean. But Nicolaus, the reliable historian, said
that he was a J ew. And the truth is that he was one of the nobles of
J udah, one of these J ews who had returned from Babylonia to J erusa
lem in the days of Nehemiah ben Hacaliah and Ezra the priest, the
scribe.115Yosiphons reference to the historians who preceded me is
obviously a reply to J osephus refutation of Nicolaus claim that Herods
ancestry was J ewish rather than Idumaean.116I t is also proof that
Yosiphons laudatory treatment of Herod was a conscious correction
of J osephus.117Many of the favorable passages found in the Bellum
and the Antiquities are repeated by Yosiphon; those unfavorable to
Nicolaus of Damascus 12
Herod are either glossed over or rewritten in such a way as to be
flattering to Herod.118The Yosiphon reproduces Herods own version
of his condemnation of Hyrcanus II , as quoted in the Antiquities
Like Nicolaus, the Yosiphon claims that Mariamnes sons were actually
guilty of conspiring against their father.130Again, like Nicolaus, Yosi
phon then proceeds to charge their half-brother, Antipater, with having
plotted his brothers death, despite their innocence.1
As to the question of whether or not Yosiphon9s sources are primary,
we are confronted with three possibilities: (a) The author of Yosiphon
did not know Nicolaus work firsthand, but, like modern historians,
guessed that J osephus had made use of Nicolaus and therefore attrib
uted the favorable statements concerning Herod to him; (b) it was
mere guesswork without any basis; or (c) he had before him Nicolaus
history or a work essentially like it. Possibility a must be dismissed, for
it assumes not merely a fabrication of which the author of Yosiphon
was quite capable, but also a critical analysis of which he was incapable.
Possibility 6 is more likely, but cannot be accepted. For had he been
engaging in mere guesswork, the anonymous author would have
stumbled by quoting Nicolaus on topics not covered by him.128We must
accept possibility c, then, as the least objectionable.
The assumption that the writer was acquainted with Nicolaus his
tory, independently of J osephus, would explain his laudatory treat
ment of Herod in face of the unanimous anti-Herodian tradition among
both J ews and Christians.123Yosiphon even deviates strongly from
Hegesippus, a work it generally follows. Yosiphon cites non-J ewish
authors who attested that Herod was beloved by God but, it is implied,
maligned by J ewish historians.124There is no doubt that Yosiphon
refers here primarily to Nicolaus when citing non-J ewish historians.
We may perhaps also assume that Yosiphon9s citations of Nicolaus in
regard to the Alexander romance, cited above, were based on the Dama
scenes treatment of Alexander.125This does not necessarily mean that
Yosiphon9s Alexander romance was taken bodily from Nicolaus. But it
does mean that the author was acquainted with Nicolaus Histories as
a whole, not merely with his treatment of the reign of Herod.
I f the date of Yosiphon is, as generally assumed, the middle of the
tenth century, it would coincide with the time when the Constantine
excerptors wrote their summaries of Nicolaus works. Flusser points
out that Yosiphon was written in southern Italy, then under Byzantine
rule.128But Flusser continues to cling to the view that the author of
Yosiphon has no knowledge of Greek.127This assumption has compli
cated the analysis of the sources of Yosiphon, for it necessitated Latin
13 The Tradition
translations not only of J osephus but also of the apocryphal literature.8
Triebers argument that Yosiphon did know Greek has never been
answered in detail.128The fact that Greek was spoken among certain
groups in southern Italy makes it likely that the author of Yosiphon,
who was proficient in many European tongues, had also at least a
smattering of Greek.180I t is difficult to argue that the author of Yosi
phon cited from Nicolaus history, then available, without having access
to it.mAnd there is no need to assume that the Hebrew author made use
of a Latin version of Nicolaus, though this is not impossible.
Despite the linguistic problem, there is reason to believe that Yosi
phons fragments from Nicolaus may contain some authentic material.
This may be seen from the fact that a number of citations in this work
have, on the whole, a sound basis.1*2His quotations from J osephus and
Hegesippus conform with our texts of those authors.138We can also be
certain that he made use of Livy and Strabo, or rather, medieval ver
sions of those authors.184I t may be no coincidence, then, that after
Yosiphon9s account of Herods death, where Nicolaus ceased his work,
the unknown author follows Hegesippus closely. I f the Yosiphon de
scription of the Herodian rule were a mere rehash of J osephus, we
would expect him to continue with a paraphrase of J osephus works.185
I f we may rely on this, the significance of Yosiphon as a historical
source must be upgraded. The Hebrew author undoubtedly recaptures
the manner and spirit of Nicolaus treatment of Herod. But how much
specific new information this work furnishes is another matter. Yosi
phon did not generally follow his sources closely, so that it is difficult
to say how much of the new information found there was taken from
Nicolaus and how much was a product of his fertile imagination. Bits
of information not found elsewhere, such as the exact date of Pompeys
entrance into J erusalem, or the identification of Pollio with Hillel, may
or may not be based on Nicolaus.6The lack of a critical edition of Yosi
phon, as noted, complicates the matter further.
The fragments from Nicolaus Histories to be found in Yosiphon
make it likely that the Constantine excerptors also had available the
later parts of that work. The influence of Nicolaus seems to have been
much wider than is now generally assumed. J acobys statement that
Nicolaus history was not widely read needs modification.187I f one re
calls the popularity of Nicolaus philosophical works among the Syrians
and the Arabs, it is quite possible, though unverifiable, that his histori
cal works exercised a far stronger influence in the East than the re
corded tradition would have us believe.
Ch a p t e r I I
LIFE AND WORKS
Ou r knowledge of the life of Nicolaus is based upon remnants of his
Autobiography/ the account of Herod in J osephus,2and scattered
references in secondary sources.8Unfortunately, the period covered by
J osephus, from 14 to 4 B.C., is also the time dealt with in the surviving
fragments of the Autobiography. Thus, except for his ancestry and
education, as recorded in the Suda/ we are poorly informed about his
life until Nicolaus fiftieth birthday.5As J osephus on Nicolaus is de
rived from Nicolaus himself,8the information concerning his life is
based on primary evidence. But the reliability of this evidence is another
matter. Autobiography, in the first century B.C., had not as yet assumed
the false modesty of later days, and Nicolaus was not a modest man.7
He was not averse to tailoring facts to please his patrons, Herod and
Augustus, and because of this there is no reason to assume that he
would have been reluctant to do the same on his own behalf.8
Concerning his parents, we must rely upon Nicolaus own testimony.
Antipater, his father, and Stratonice, his mother, their son said, were
among the most prominent citizens of Damascus. Antipater was a man
of independent means who did not have to worry about increasing his
wealth. A skillful orator, he never made use of his forensic talents
except for just causes. Chosen often to arbitrate disputes among the
citizens of Damascus, his decisions were always just and were praised
by all. He was trusted to serve on foreign missions, and he was ap
pointed to perform various tasks within Damascus.Philanthropia,
benevolence, was Antipaters slogan. Antipater was equally fair to the
gods. Before his death, he ordered a burnt offering to Zeus, on behalf
of his two sons, Nicolaus and Ptolemy.10The account of the virtues of
Antipater is worth recording, not so much for what it tells us of the
nature of the father as for what it reveals of the values maintained by
the son.11
Antipater and Stratonice, Nicolaus parents, were pagans. But
whether they were Greeks or Syrians in origin is a debatable point.
Laqueur argues that only fullblooded Greeks could have occupied posi
tions of power in a Greek polish Laqueur weakens his arguments when
he uses this assumption to point out why their son became Herods aide:
according to Laqueur, Nicolaus, a proud Greek, was pleased to see
J udaea, the ancient enemy of Damascus, ruled by a foreigner.13On the
contrary, it must be remembered that Nicolaus claimed that Herod was
[ 14]
15 Life and Works
not an Idumaean, but a direct descendant of the aristocratic Babylonian
J ews.14In defense of Laqueur, it must be said that this is consistent
with his view that the statement attributed to Nicolaus was fabrication
by J osephus.15However, there is no reason to question that Nicolaus
did indeed want his readers to believe that Herod was a native J ew
and not an Idumaean.
The generalization that the high position of Nicolaus parents sug
gests Greek descent is also subject to doubt. As Tcherikover has pointed
out, it is not correct to assume that the poleis founded in the East neces
sarily consisted of Macedonian or Greek settlers. In many towns, as in
the Phoenician cities of Tyre, Sidon, Arados, and Byblos, the native
population was granted a constitution and given autonomy, becoming
Greek cities.16Some citizens of J erusalem, for example, clamored to
receive the benefits of a polis when they appealed to Antiochus IV for a
Greek charter.17Damascus was renamed by the Diadochi Demetrias, but
there is reason to believe that the native population remained in charge
of the city as they had been before Alexander. Nevertheless, the Hellen
istic culture made deep inroads in these Oriental towns. Greek learning
and customs became, like those of the French in medieval England,
symbols of wealth and power. I n the countryside, however, only the
native Syriac was spoken, and even in the cities we hear of some Greeks
who were bilingual. Meleager of Gadara, a contemporary Greek poet,
paraded his knowledge of Aramaic and Phoenician.
A passage in Nicolaus may echo the fact that the author considered
himself more a Syrian than a Greek: He never deemed it necessary to
consider himself a citizen of any city except his own, laughing at those
Sophists who acquired high honors by calling themselves Athenians or
Rhodians since they were ashamed of the obscurity of their native
places. Some of them denied the place of their birth, claiming instead
that they were born in cities bearing Hellenic names, showing thereby
clearly their distress with their own ancestry.19 This passage could
mean that Nicolaus was merely castigating those Greeks who thought
that birth in a Greek town added prestige to their names. A more
plausible reading of the text, though not certain, appears to disclose
that Nicolaus was criticizing two kinds of braggarts: those who as
sumed Rhodian or Athenian citizenship, and some who disowned their
barbarian ancestry. Instances of either group are known from antiquity.
Posidonius of Apamea, the renowned historian and philosopher (circa
135-51/50) ," and Theodoras of Gadara, a rhetorician and contemporary
of Nicolaus, became citizens of Rhodes.21Apion of Oasis, polymath of
the first century a .d ., was accused by J osephus of being ashamed of his
Nicolaus of Damascus 16
Egyptian descent because he falsely claimed to have been born in
Alexandria.28I t is perhaps implied that Nicolaus, however, was proud
of his Syrian ancestors, and that as far as he was concerned a Greek
pedigree was nothing to boast of. Even in history one may detect his
patriotic feelings when he describes the ancient rulers of Damascus.28
The evidence is not conclusive, but it tends to favor the argument that
the Antipater family was conscious of its Semitic origin, a fact that,
subsequently, may have influenced both Nicolaus and his brother
Ptolemys decision to enter into Herods service. I t is possible that the
family of Antipater was bilingual, speaking both Greek and the native
Syriac.
Antipaters rise to prominence in Damascus was due to his own en
deavors. Sophronius of Damascus says that Nicolaus was the first on his
family to achieve fame, but that the family continued to flourish, pro
ducing philosophers and prominent men.2*Nicolaus silence concerning
his ancestry earlier than his parents tends to confirm this view.25Despite
the sons lavish praise of his father, Antipaters exact position in
Damascus is not known. This is unfortunate. One would like to know
more precisely the nature of the services, both internal and external,
which Antipater performed. I t would be of interest to learn whether
he was among those Damascene magistrates who greeted Pompey upon
his arrival in Damascus in 63 B.C.28What is known is that another Antip
ater, Herods father, carried lavish gifts for Pompey as the head of the
J udaean faction supporting the Hasmonaean king Hyrcanus.27I t is
tempting to speculate that the Damascene Antipater, though unrelated,
gave a helping hand to the successful mission of his Idumaean name
sake.28Such a hypothesis would go far to explain why both of Antip
aters sons, Nicolaus and Ptolemy, subsequently entered Herods service.
The two Antipaters had one thing in common at least: by means of
their wealth and political talent they made their way into the ruling
circles of their respective countries.
Nicolaus was born in Damascus circa 64 B.C.,29a date that looms large
in the annals of the East. Pompeys conquest of the Seleucid Empire
in that year created a bridge between East and West. Nicolaus is a
symbol of this new generation under Roman power. I n common with
other men of letters of this period, such as Diodorus of Sicily, Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, J uba of Mauretania, and Strabo of Amasea, Nicolaus
intellectual horizon encompassed both the East and West. Specialized
scholarship practiced by the Alexandrian school was now being re
placed by synthetic learning. The broadening of the horizons did not
necessarily bring about superior scholarship. Although the division
17 Life and Works
between Greek and barbarian became blurred, in the ecumenical state,80
the price for this new unity was the loss of intellectual freedom.
The cosmopolitan ideal is expressed well, if tritely, by Nicolaus. He
compares education to a long journey. The road of life is long and the
goal distant. One must map the major as well as the minor stations,
the places to visit briefly, and where to settle for a while.81Such similes
woud not have fitted a man who was expected to spend the rest of his
days in his fathers cottage.
Nicolaus account of his own education is of interest, not only in that
it sheds light on his future development but also in that it represents
the educational ideal of the times.83Writing for publication meant not
so much the presentation of facts, but rather an expression of ideals.
Nevertheless, there is no reason to question Nicolaus statement that
Antipater, his wealthy father, gave him a good Greek education: gram
mar and the whole of the poetic art, taught by his father, followed
by rhetoric and music and mathematics.88Philosophy was the ulti
mate goal.84The education was essentially pragmatic. His father taught
him to speak persuasively; the theory of rhetoric was not neglected.
Nicolaus no doubt was aware of the advances in the science of rhetoric
made by Theodoras of Gadara, a fellow Syrian, who preferred to be
known as a Rhodian. I t has already been noted that the Syriac frag
ments, unlike the Greek, refer to Nicolaus as a rhetorician, instead
of a Peripatetic, perhaps the more apt description.85The study of
grammar, by which the ancients meant both philology and literature,
proved equally useful. Nicolaus tells that he composed tragedies and
comedies.86None of these dramatic works have survived, but they ap
pear to have influenced his historical writings.87
Historically, Nicolaus account of his education is of considerable
interest. I t is one of the most detailed accounts we possess of education
in the Hellenistic period. Varro is the first writer known to have de
scribed the liberal arts, mentioning nine, which became during the
medieval period the trivium and quadrivium.88But from Nicolaus we
learn of their actual practice during the Hellenistic period. Essentially,
the system had been inspired by the Sophists.88In contrast to the Pla
tonic concept of an educational system geared totally to philosophy, to
the J ewish concept of Torah, or to the subsequent Christian emphasis
upon theology, the education of Nicolaus was basically a preparation for
life in a world as it was, rather than as it should have been.
Philosophy, for Nicolaus, was the queen of the sciences. Nicolaus
studied the entire philosophy and described himself as a dedicated
Aristotelian.40These phrases are tautological, for Nicolaus was a Peri
Nicolaus of Damascus 18
patetic and first century b .c . Peripateticism meant a return to Aris
totelian and Theophrastan studies.41Some modern writers, such as
Misch and Laqueur, condemn Nicolaus for his lack of original thought.42
This outright condemnation is not justified. Although there were excep
tions among the Aristotelians,4* most members of the school in this
period imposed upon themselves the task of popularizing the Masters
teachings, rather than of undertaking new investigations. The redis
covery of Aristotle, during the first half of the century, produced a new
school, emanating from Rhodes, that took upon itself the defense of the
Stagirite against any attack.44Nicolaus belonged to that school, and
the repetition of Aristotelian phrases, as well as his paraphrasing of
Aristotles works, may not have sounded as hackneyed and pedestrian
to his contemporaries as it does to modern students of Aristotle.45
Nicolaus spent some years in Alexandria and Rome;46in Rhodes he
stayed long enough to express his admiration for an epitaph composed
by Pisander of Rhodes, a writer on Heracles.47Alexandria, Rome, and
Rhodes were the centers of learning to which scholars and philosophers
of all schools flocked. But his travels were by no means restricted to
these metropolitan centers; he also visited Antioch, Ionia, Chios, Byzan
tium, and Troy.48Nicolaus fondness for travel is especially evident from
his visit to Troy. While traveling in the company of Herod, he left the
kings party at Amisus to make a pilgrimage to Ilium.4There is no
record that Nicolaus ever visited Athens. But in 12 b .c . he must have
accompanied Herod when Herod went to preside over the Olympic
games.60Possibly then, or on some other occasion, Nicolaus had an op
portunity to go to Athens. And as Herods ambassador, Nicolaus prob
ably made other journeys not recorded.
These extensive travels gave Nicolaus an opportunity to meet fellow
writers and philosophers. As a favorite of Augustus, and as a renowned
Peripatetic author, he found that few doors were closed to him. He
condemned the Epicureans and the Sophists who attempted to climb
the social ladder by claiming Greek birth. I t is possible that these attacks
merely echoed views fashionable in Nicolaus time, but considering his
wide travels and prominent patrons, it is more likely that such views
indicate that he had a wide acquaintance with the learned men of his
day.53Except for Theodoras of Gadara, a fellow rhetorician and his
torian, as noted, it is impossible to identify those at whom Nicolaus was
pointing his accusing finger. Apparently, Strabo and Nicolaus were
personally acquainted. Citing Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo does not
identify him further, showing thereby, it would seem, that he was quot
ing a well-known personage.53Nicolaus contacts with his fellow Peri
19 Life and Works
patetics are difficult to document. He probably met Xenarchus and
Athenaeus, both of Seleucia and both Peripatetics who taught in Alex
andria and Rome.5*I t is unlikely that Nicolaus studied under Andro-
nicus, the Rhodian editor of Aristotles works, but he may have known
Andronicus chief pupil, Boethus, and the latters brother Diodorus of
Sidon.55
Scattered references from diverse sources would seem to indicate
that there was a feeling of class consciousness among scholars of this
period. Nicolaus statement that he shunned the company of the
wealthy, his constant reiteration of the value of study, seem to reflect
more than mere devotion to Aristotelian studies.58The company of kings
was alluring, but what really counted was intercourse with fellow
scholars. Strabo, it may be noted, in a way reflects the same attitude
when he frequently appends the names of men of letters to his geo
graphic descriptions.57And, incidentally, the existence of a scribal class
in J erusalem is well attested.58Kings and princes, by their generous
patronage, recognized the status of this scholarly class.
Nicolaus, then, was but part of an international class of scholars at
home anywhere. Wide travels broadened their outlook and gave them
experience in dealing with mundane affairs. Clearly, this was not an age
of cloistered scholarship. Greek being the literary tongue, it was an
age when language constituted no barrier, when scholars were not tied
to particular locations, when the distinction between the man of letters
and the man of affairs was blurred, and when one could still show con
siderable skill in such varied fields of endeavor as oratory and histori
ography, diplomacy and Aristotelian philosophy.
This is not to say that the age was a creative one for Greek letters.
Much as one admires the Geography of Strabo, it still sounds much
like a commentary on Homer and a defense of ancient geographers. The
freshness of thought evident in Livy and Vergil is absent. Nicolaus
undoubtedly reflects the feelings of the Peripatetics when he says that
there was nothing which was unknown to Aristotle, that only the limi
tations of time made it impossible for him to write down everything.58
Nicolaus own contribution, he says, was to append to his paraphrase
of Aristotle the material added by Theophrastus and other Peripatetics.60
As already noted, the fifteenth or sixteenth century Syriac manu
script offers a better concept of Nicolaus philosophical works than has
been hitherto known. In the Greek, the bare titles have survived: a
paraphrase of the Metaphysics (exact title unknown) ;61On the Godsf2
On the Ideals of Actionf* On the Soul;wOn the Philosophy of Aristotle;65
On the Heavens; On the First Philosophy.66In the Syriac, however,
Nicolaus of Damascus 20
excerpts of Nicolaus paraphrase of Aristotle have been preserved. The
extant Syriac manuscript is mutilated and incomplete,67but fragments
from thirteen books, listed consecutively, show that Nicolaus para
phrase incorporated a substantial part, if not all, of Aristotles works.
The first three books of Nicolaus dealt with Aristotles Physics and
Metaphysics. One book described the concept of matter, giving a com
mentary on Aristotles Physicsf6 the second book dealt with Aristotles
metaphysics, divided into three topics, contemplation, actual things,
and divine logos,69and the third book continued with metaphysical
problems, mathematics, and the elements.70The fourth book discussed
De caelo;71 the fifth book, De generatione et corruptionef2 a fragment
of the sixth book, De fallacia, gave the reason why the seas are salty;78
the seventh book paraphrased the fourth book of the De fallacia and
added a discussion of birth, death, and animals.74The contents of the
eighth book are missing. The ninth dealt with the forms of animals;75
the tenth, De animaf6books eleven and twelve described aspects of
Aristotles works, but their precise subjects are unclear;77book thirteen
gives an excerpt from Nicolaus On the Philosophy of Aristotle, men
tioned above.78We also have from Nicolaus summaries of Aristotles
third book of De sensu and of De motu animalium.70Finally, the Syriac
fragments preserve, as we have mentioned, remnants of the De plantis,
now found in the published Arabic translation of that work.80
The study of Nicolaus summaries of Aristotle is still in its prelim
inary stage. Nevertheless, as Lulofs has shown, some facts of the nature
and method of Nicolaus works emerge.81Nicolaus had summarized most
of Aristotle, not merely certain works, as has hitherto been thought.
Moreover, Nicolaus compendium of Aristotle incorporated the views
of Theophrastus and the Peripatetic school. There is no evidence that
Nicolaus was influenced by either the Stoic or the Neo-Platonic school.
The quality of Nicolaus compendium appears to have been rather low,
nevertheless; though Aristotles conclusions are given, the arguments
are not. Nicolaus cannot be blamed for the interpolations made by an
ignorant Syriac scribe, but he was responsible for intermingling vari
ous Aristotelian treatises. Thus, in the Syriac fragments, while he was
summarizing the first book of the Physics he injected irrelevant quota
tions from the fourth book of the Metaphysics. The admixture of
extraneous material, then, was not confined to De plantis. And it is
apparent that Nicolaus made enough changes in the Aristotelian mate
rial to make his compendium of Aristotle essentially an independent
work.82This analysis lends credence to J aegers belief that Nicolaus
merely parroted Aristotle without really understanding him.83Yet the
21 Life and Works
final verdict on Nicolaus philosophical writings must await the full
translation of the Syriac manuscript, and its study by Aristotelian
scholars.
Neither the sequence nor the time and place of composition of Nico
laus works is known. Laqueur argues that Nicolaus composed his
philosophical works in Rome, during his old age.84This seems unlikely.
To say that Nicolaus felt an interest in philosophy only during the
last period of his lifetime is to deny the entire thesis of his Autobi
ography. Referring to his youth, he claimed to have been an Aristote
lian zealot, perhaps an allusion to his composition of the compendium
of Aristotle.85There is no doubt that his literary activities began as a
Peripatetic. Laqueur bases his assumption on the questionable thesis
that Nicolaus composed the Augustan Vita after the Princeps death.
Nicolaus therefore must have lived at least 78 years, yet we do not have
any evidence that Nicolaus lived until a . d . 14. With the available evi
dence, it is likely that Nicolaus attached himself early in his life to
the Peripatetics and that the composition of most of the philosophical
works must be placed not later than 14 B.C. He must have made a name
for himself as a rhetorician in his early manhood, for the fact that
Cleopatra chose him as tutor for her children would indicate that he
had already, in the early thirties B.C., acquired some renown. Ambitious
and extremely productive, Nicolaus would not have waited until old
age to spread Aristotelian thought. Thus it is possible that Nicolaus
wrote some, if not all, of his philosophical works before he became a
full-time adviser to Herod.86
The renown that Nicolaus must have gained by his writings perhaps
explains an important but obscure chapter in his life. Sophronius of
Damascus is the authority for the statement that Nicolaus was the
tutor of the children of Antony and Cleopatra.87I f Cleopatra was as
astute in the selection of her childrens tutors as she was in choosing
her lovers, Nicolaus must already have been a famous personality. The
selection is not surprising, for Nicolaus had what might be described
as a schoolmasters personality, and he had the ability to transmit tra
ditional learning to others.88When and how Nicolaus was chosen for
that coveted position is not known. Perhaps he came to Alexandria in
the pursuit of his studies. What is more likely, as Laqueur suggests,80
is that Cleopatra met him in 36 B.C. in Damascus or Palestine while
she was on her way to meet Antony, then engaged in the Parthian
campaign.00Cleopatra had given birth to twins by Antony in 40 B.C.,
and a son in 36 B.C. Another son had been born to her earlier, in 47 B.C.,
and she had named him Ptolemy Caesar (Caesarion), allegedly the
Nicolaus of Damascus 22
offspring of J ulius Caesar. Nicolaus, then, must have begun the train
ing of the twins not earlier than about 35 B.C. He evidently possessed
enough learning, combined with conservative ideas, to capture the
patronage of the mighty of his day. In his Autobiography, it is true, he
boasts that neither kings nor princes could swerve him from the path
of justice and humility.91Autobiographies written in old age, however,
do not necessarily recapture the ambitions of youth.
More intriguing, but equally difficult to assess, is how Nicolaus was
affected by his sojourn in Alexandria. As tutor of Cleopatras twins,
Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene, Nicolaus associated with the
highest Alexandrian aristocracy. This must have been good training
for his future career in the court of Herod. The shifting fortunes of
Eastern rulers taught Nicolaus how to cope with court intrigue. His
prominent position in Alexandria also lends authority, if not veracity,
to his statements about Caesarion in the Augustus Vita and about
Cleopatra in his history. Nicolaus is the first among the ancients to
deny that Caesarian was the son of Caesar and Cleopatra. This he does
by claiming that Caesar himself, in his testament, first made the denial.951
As a close observer of Caesarion, perhaps as his tutor, he could have
hazarded a guess on his own. J osephus account of Cleopatras visit in
J ericho, upon her return from Syria, must also be based on Nicolaus.98
The story of the pregnant Cleopatras attempt to seduce Herod, either
because of her sensuality or because of her desire to trap the J udaean
king, and Herods plans to slay her in order to save Antony and Rome
from her clutches, has the air of anti-Cleopatra propaganda.04In any
case, such an account of Herods prescience, Nicolaus was well aware,
would not displease Augustus. I t is impossible to say, however, whether
Nicolaus really felt an aversion to the last heiress of the Pharaohs or
whether gratitude was simply not a consideration whenever it ran
counter to the policies of his new patrons.
Cleopatra died in 30 B.C. and it is possible, though we cannot be
certain, that Nicolaus remained in Alexandria during the twenties.
Nothing is known about Nicolaus activities between 30 and 20 B.C.
This is unfortunate. I t would be of great historical interest to learn
the exact time when Nicolaus entered into Herods service, for this
would facilitate an intelligent evaluation of J osephus account of the
Herodian era. In the absence of clear evidence, it is necessary to squeeze
out every hint from available information. In 20 B.C., Strabo says,
Nicolaus was in Antioch, where he witnessed the arrival of an Indian
delegation to pay tribute to the visiting Augustus. The detailed de
23 Life and Works
scription of the Indians, cited in Strabo, indicates that Nicolaus was a
member of the immediate entourage of the Princeps.96
But this raises the question, in whose service was he? Two answers
are possible. Either he was a member of Augustus staff, or he came as a
part of the delegation headed by Herod. The former possibility would
appear implausible. Except for Nicolaus Augustan Vita and his visit
to Antioch, all known links between the historian and the Princeps
point unmistakably to the probability that Nicolaus gained entrance
to Augustus only through his influence in Herods court.98There is no
evidence for the view that Nicolaus attached himself to Augustus, upon
the latters arrival in Alexandria. In fact, it might be argued that
because the evidence shows the connection between the Damascene and
the Princeps only through Herod, Nicolaus must have left Cleopatra
immediately after Actium, before Augustus came to Egypt. Nicolaus
does not seem to be one who would cling to a lost cause. I t is likely that
his journey to Antioch in 20 B.C. was in the service of Herod. The fact
that Herod was also then in Syria07offers additional support for the
hypothesis that in 20 B.C. Nicolaus was already an assistant to the
J udaean king.
Herods trip to Syria was indeed successful. Augustus handed Herod
parts of northern Transjordan, which until recently had belonged to
Zenodorus; and by doing so he extended the northern frontier of the
J udaean kingdom to Damascus.98The complaints of the Hellenistic
inhabitants of Gadara against Herod were dismissed. But beyond this,
Herod was made the chief client king among the Eastern princes. In
view of the known close relationship between Herod and Nicolaus, it
is not implausible to assume that the Damascene had considerable inter
est or influence in the granting of the Syrian tetrarchy to Herod.
Laqueur, indeed, goes even further. He argues that Nicolaus had
already joined Herod, in 40 B.C.,99basing the argument on the detailed
description of Herods flight from J udea to Rome, and at first it appears
attractive. Such a detailed account, historically worthless, Laqueur
says, could have emanated from an eyewitness only; Nicolaus must
have accompanied the fleeing Prince on his most crucial and dangerous
exploit.100In support of this thesis of an early friendship between the
young Herod and Nicolaus can be cited the fact that Herod, in the year
43 B.C., was tetrarch of Galilee, visited Damascus, and, according to
J osephus, was governor or procurator of Coele-Syria.101The possible
connection between the two Antipaters, the fathers of Herod and Nico
laus, mentioned above, seems to lend support to Laqueurs thesis.
Nicolaus of Damascus 24
On closer analysis, however, Laqueurs argument that Nicolaus had
joined Herod in his escape from J erusalem during the Parthian inva
sion seems unsubstantiated. The detailed description found in J osephus
offers no evidence that Nicolaus was an eyewitness. I t might just as
well be that Nicolaus received this account either from Herods Memoirs
or from oral reports.102Laqueurs statement that the report is histori
cally worthless fails to allow for the psychological and historiographic
currents of the times. Herods throne was built on a shaky foundation,
for he lacked either royal descent or the full approval of his subjects.
He would never have been made king, had it not been for the fact that
Palestine was in Parthian hands; and so the crown bestowed upon him
was, temporarily at least, an empty gesture. Obviously, the trip to
Rome under these trying circumstances, culminating in the great tri
umph, was one of the most important events of his life. To describe the
journey and enlarge upon it in the most heroic terms was the duty of
the scribe. Was not a man who turned adversity into triumph made of
kingly stuff? One further consideration, moreover, robs Laqueurs thesis
of its plausibility. Had Nicolaus shared with Herod the escape from
J udaea to Rome, the Damascenes subsequent service in the court of
Cleopatra, Herods archenemy, in itself would have disqualified him
from again becoming Herods intimate friend.108There is no proof,
therefore, that there existed any close ties between Herod and Nicolaus,
during the forties. However, this does not necessarily preclude casual
and slight acquaintance dating back to their respective fathers.
The assumption, however, that Nicolaus joined Herod after Actium
(31 B.C.) has much to commend it. The fact, described above, that both
Nicolaus and Herod visited Augustus in Antioch in 20 B.C. suggests
that Nicolaus had joined Herod at least by that date, for the king
would have been likely to bring along only friends of long standing.
Brought up in a home associated with the Damascene ruling classes,
and now accustomed to the amenities of Cleopatras court, Nicolaus
would very likely have had ambitions for the company of no less a
personage than Augustus.104The first step to such an aim would be to
enter the service of the J udaean king.
I t happened that Herod needed Nicolaus as much as Nicolaus needed
the king. Summoned to Rhodes to defend his past support of Antony,
Herod pointed out that he was a friend of the powerful, and faithful to
those who favored him. Now that Antony was in his grave, Herod
would be even more devoted to Octavian. Octavian appreciated plain
talk, and in any case he could not find anyone better than the brave
Idumaean to rule the J ews.105But Herod was not satisfied with a mere
25 Life and Works
affirmation of the status quo; he aspired to be the leading client king
of Rome in the East. Unconditional subservience to Rome, and even
lavish gifts, were not sufficient to accomplish such lofty aims; what
was needed was a personal friendship with the Princeps.106Herod pro
ceeded to strengthen the Hellenistic flavor of his court by inviting more
and more wandering scholars to J erusalem.107Generous subsidies to
Greek cities and temples soon earned him fame as a Hellenistic patron.
But perhaps what was more effective than all this in earning Augustus
friendship was Nicolaus biography extolling Augustus. I n all proba
bility it was written at Herods urging, for the purpose of defending
Augustus policies in the East.108
The statement that Nicolaus Vita of Augustus was written during
the twenties requires elaboration. As the oldest surviving biography of
Augustus, it has attracted more scholarly attention than any other of
Nicolaus works.109The date of its composition, unfortunately, has be
come a much contested issue. Asbach, first to express an opinion, felt
that the Vita was written only after Augustus death.110Gutschmid
pointed out that the reference to the Pannonian campaign dates the
Vita circa 12 B.C., the time Tiberius was engaged in Dacia.111As Nico
laus accompanied Herod to Rome in that year, the date 12 B.C. sounds
plausible. Gutschmid even suggested Apollonia as the place where the
work was written, a view accepted by many scholars.113J acoby, how
ever, has pointed out that Nicolaus references are to Augustus per
sonal prowess, rather than to that of his lieutenants. The cited cam
paigns on the Rhine and in Pannonia must refer to Octavians earlier
personal engagements. J acoby points out further that the Augustan
Biography ended with the year 27 B.C. and was a Greek version of
Augustus Autobiography, which ceased with the Cantabrian war in
Spain.113Laqueur and Steidle have revived Asbachs contention that
the Bios was written after Augustus death.114Laqueur bases his argu
ment upon the use of the imperfect and aorist tenses in Nicolaus
prooemium of the Vita when referring to Augustus.115He further con
tends that since Caesar had already reached the western bank, the
suppression of the tribes on the Rhine refers to those on the eastern
bank, accomplished in the Varus campaign of a .d . 9, and that of Ger-
manicus in a .d . 14.lieSteidle reinforces this argument by pointing out
that the Vita Caesaris presupposes an era of peace.117
J acobys view, dating the Augustus Vita in the twenties, seems the
most cogent. The use of the past tense as was, ruled, may be due
to the excerptors abbreviation. The pacification of unruly tribes on
the western bank of the Rhine was probably what Nicolaus had in
Nicolaus of Damascus 26
mind, rather than the disastrous crossings into Germania by Varus and
Germanicus. Steidles argument that the author assumes a period of
peace seems correct, but the reference may be to conditions within
rather than outside the borders. The basic weakness of this theory,
however, is its assumption that Nicolaus composed the Augustan Vita
at the age of seventy-eight. Not only is there no evidence that he reached
such an advanced age; this theory also fails to suggest an incentive for
the composition of this work.8Nicolaus contention in the Autobiog
raphy that he shunned the company of the Roman aristocracy, prefer
ring the companionship of the common people and devoting his days
and nights to the study of philosophy, indicates that he had retired
from the writing of propaganda pamphlets.119The encomiastic nature
of Augustus biography would only have been appropriate at a time
when pro-Antony propaganda was still fresh in peoples minds. The
statement, for instance, that Caesar himself, in his testament, denied
that he was the progenitor of Caesarion, as J acoby points out, could
have been concocted only at a time when his slaying was still a heated
issue. Gutschmids stand on the dating of the Augustus biography as
12 B.C.130 is equally untenable. The work displays a thorough knowledge
of Roman affairs which Nicolaus brief journey in 12 B.C. cannot ac
count for.121Nicolaus, in the company of Herod, saw Augustus in
Aquileia, not in Apollonia as Gutschmid claims.1" The Vita of Augustus
was calculated, it has been pointed out, to glorify the name of Augustus
in the East.128And it was during the twenties that Augustus needed
support for his Eastern policies, and Augustus naming a species of
date after himnicolaimay well indicate Augustus gratitude for
this accomplishment.124
I f this interpretation is correct, the Vita Caesaris was well exploited
not only by its author, Nicolaus, but (and this is historically more
important) also by his patron Herod. Perhaps Herod might even have
inspired Nicolaus to compose such a tract.125At noted, Nicolaus had an
important share in Herods boast: Second to Agrippa only, Herod
was Augustus best friend.126I f the suggested date for the Vita
Caesaris is correct, it follows that during the twenties Nicolaus spent
some time in Rome, where he acquainted himself with the local political
conditions, learned Latin,127and may have served as a propagandist for
the J udaean king. In the year 20 B.C., at any rate, both Herod and
Nicolaus are known to have been in Syria on a visit to the traveling
Augustus.128That Nicolaus returned to J erusalem might indicate that
he felt it preferable to be a lion among foxes, rather than a fox among
lions.
27 Life and Works
While the sources date Nicolaus permanent stay in J erusalem only
from 14 B.C. it may be assumed that Nicolaus continued to perform
important tasks from the year 20 B.C. on. The delicate mission entrusted
to him by Herod in 14 B.C., the defense of the rights of the Ionian J ews,
presupposes an old friendship.128I t is not known, however, whether, as
during the twenties B.C., Nicolaus continued to serve on a part-time
basis. In 14 B.C., Herod and his entourage paid a visit to Agrippa, who
had sailed to the Bosporus. Herod attached great importance to this
visit. Officially, the journey was intended to reciprocate Agrippas
visit to J erusalem of the previous year.130But more than this, Herod
exploited the trip to display his power and wealth to the Greeks.131The
J ewish Diaspora in Asia Minor, which looked to J erusalem for spiritual
guidance, was also of great importance.138Beset with difficulties in
gaining the hearts of his J udaean subjects, Herod set out to impress
those J ews in foreign lands who had no reason to complain either about
his impiety or his tyranny. One way of impressing himself upon the
Diaspora was to show how much he impressed the Greeks. Who knows?
Herod may have thought. Winning over the Diaspora J ews may even
create a more favorable climate of public opinion in J erusalem.
The triple task that Herod hoped to accomplish in his journey to
Asia Minorto cement his relations with Agrippa, to curry favor with
the Greeks, and to lend support to J ews of the Diasporarequired
considerable diplomatic finesse. I t is clear, therefore, why a man like
Nicolaus, with his wide learning, cosmopolitan outlook, and forensic
skills could have been of great help. Nicolaus, joining Herod on this
journey, became the instrument through whom Herod displayed his
benevolence, a task that Nicolaus was pleased to perform. Was not
philanthropia the main tenet of his philosophy? Philosophers have often
cherished the dream of converting tyrants into one of their own, with
results no more promising than those Nicolaus achieved with Herod.
Meanwhile, Nicolaus was not averse to enjoying the prestige and power
that a high position with Herod entailed. An incident during the
journey, described by Nicolaus at length, shows the manner in which
the J udaean king and the Damascene polymath helped each other.
While at Ilium, Nicolaus heard that Agrippa had imposed a fine of a
hundred thousand drachmae upon its citizens for failing to render
aid to Agrippas wife, J ulia, as she was crossing the Scamander River
during a storm. Nicolaus then led a delegation of Ilians to Herod, re
questing him to intercede with Agrippa on their behalf. Nicolaus
explained to Herod that it was unjust to punish men who were not
aware of J ulias crossing, and that after all Ilium was no ordinary
Nicolaus of Damascus 28
place. After persistent requests, Herod managed to persuade Agrippa
to rescind the fine. The descendants of the Trojans, Nicolaus writes
proudly, thereupon bestowed great honors upon him, and even greater
ones upon the king.188
Nicolaus task of helping Herod to gain popularity among the Greeks
was not difficult; Herod was soon confronted with the delicate problem
of taking sides in a conflict between J ews and Greeks. The clash be
tween Hellenism and J udaism was acute, not only in J erusalem, but
also in distant places such as Cyrene and Ionia.184To the Greeks, it
seemed strange for the J ews to claim the rights of citizenship, and at
the same time to look toward Zion as their capital. The refusal of the
J ews to serve in the army, the sending of gifts to the Temple in J eru
salem, and the seeming superstition of the Sabbath were especially
repellent.185The journey of Herod and Agrippa through Asia Minor
gave both sides an opportunity to present their grievances. There is a
conflict in the sources as to which side initiated the complaint.188Per
haps both the Greeks and the J ews had reason to hope for a favorable
decision. Herods generous contributions to the Greek Temples, and
his claim of phil-Hellenism, may have encouraged the Ionians to hope
that he would persuade the J ews to worship the gods of the country,
rather than to look toward J erusalem. The J ews, however, had no
doubts about where Herods primary loyalty lay.187
For Herod, this clash between J udaism and Hellenism involved a
difficult choice. The danger that much of the good will that he had
bought with costly gifts might be dissipated had to be faced. But if he
hesitated, the sources are silent. The king, accused at home of being a
Hellenizer, was now eager to prove his devotion to the J ewish cause.
Herod, however, could not risk pleading for J ews himself, even though
his Greek and his eloquence might have been impressive enough.188The
possibility of an unfavorable decision, although unlikely, could not be
based. He therefore asked Nicolaus to present the J ewish case before
Agrippa.
Nicolaus, often regarded as a symbol of Herods Hellenistic tenden
cies,188was now confronted with the task of maintaining J udaism in
the cradle of Greece. The irony of the situation becomes even more
evident when J osephus quotes Nicolaus as having extolled the virtues
of the Sabbath and as having identified himself as a devout J ew.140Some
scholars, therefore, have expressed the opinion that the speech quoted
by J osephus was one that had really been delivered by Nicolaus.141
Carefully weighed, the speech has the ring of general, if not literal,
authenticity. Nicolaus recorded in his history, moreover, that he de
29 Life and Works
livered a speech in Ionia, even devoting parts of two books to this
subject, and it is likely that he also gave its text. I t may be added that
the other speeches attributed to Nicolaus by J osephus sound authentic.
Praise for Herod and the Romans is the unifying theme of all three
recorded speeches by Nicolaus.142
How, then, are we to explain Nicolaus praise of the Sabbath as a
day of study, or his personal identification with it? Do the parts that
were clearly designed to curry favor with Agrippa and Herod emanate,
as Laqueur maintains, from Nicolaus, the passages that extol J udaism
belonging to later additions?148I t is more likely that the address, though
delivered by Nicolaus, was actually composed with the aid of Ionian
J ews. Nicolaus use of the first person did not necessarily imply that he
himself practiced such beliefs as he referred to; perhaps he was merely
using the prerogatives of an advocate.144Or perhaps J osephus, in para
phrasing Nicolaus, slipped into the first person. Be that as it may, the
skillful delivery of the speech before Agrippa must have greatly in
creased Nicolaus prestige in the eyes of Herod and the J ews.
Herods successful journey through Asia Minor encouraged the king
to attempt to increase even further his influence at home and his renown
abroad. But determined opposition in J erusalem to the kings Hellenis
tic pretensions created dissension within and derision outside the
country.145I t is not unreasonable to maintain that Nicolaus historio
graphic activities were part of Herods design for counteracting these
divisive forces.146A world history, written by a defender of J udaism
abroad, might help weaken the parochial tendencies among some prom
inent J ews and at the same time prove to the literary world that J eru
salem was becoming a center of Hellenistic learning. Under Herods
prodding, Nicolaus began the Histories.U7
Fragment 135 gives an insight into the genesis and background of
Nicolaus history:
Herod soon abandoned his enthusiasm for philosophy (as usually occurs with
prominent men because of the great variety of diversions which they have), desiring
next to study rhetoric. And Nicolaus was obliged to teach him rhetoric: so they
practiced rhetoric together. In turn Herod took a liking to history. History was
recommended by Nicolaus as beneficial to the citizen and as a necessity for a king
to learn of former times and past events. He [Herod] then persuaded Nicolaus to
begin working on a history. And Nicolaus was even more enthusiastic about the
project; he compiled the whole history [the meaning is not clear, but the passage
seems to say without aid from Herod or anyone else ] and labored as no one had
before. Having worked on it unremittingly for a long time he completed it, saying
that i f Eurystheus had challenged Heracles to such a task, it would certainly have
worn him out.
Nicolaus of Damascus 30
This fragment is revealing. Nicolaus would like his readers to believe
that he was Herods scribe for the purpose of teaching him the truths
of philosophy. Herod, however, rejected the study of philosophy, pre
ferring rhetoric, and then changing again to history. The location of
this fragment following the discussion of Herods journey to Ionia
makes it seem likely that it refers to the year 14 B.C.148I t is surprising
to learn that Herod, then some sixty years old, suddenly expressed a
desire to master philosophy or rhetoric. J osephus long account of
Herod contains nothing to suggest that the king had an interest in
either discipline. The apologetic nature of the Autobiography makes it
appear that Nicolaus set out here to defend his past association with
Herod, a man notorious for his inhumanity. Nicolaus may also be apol
ogizing for his own activities.149Aristotle said that the study of history
was inferior to that of poetry.0No one, it is true, adhered to this
belief any longer. Nevertheless, for a man who described himself as a
zealous Aristotelian151it was rather strange that he should sit down
and compose a history in a hundred forty-four books. He therefore
points out the utility of historiography. Subtly, this removes the sting
of Herods lack of interest in philosophy; history, after all, is an exten
sion of philosophy. What began as a damnation of Herod ends with
his praise. The end of this fragment offers some proof for this con
tention: Later [12 B.C.] when Herod sailed to Rome to see Augustus
he took Nicolaus along in his own ship, and they philosophized together
( Kowfi k<t>L\oa0<t>ovv) I f used in the technical sense of the word, phi
losophy was Herods interest also.
A somewhat different interpretation, not necessarily contradictory,
may be given to fragment 135, if one assumes the veracity of Nicolaus
statements concerning Herods expressed desire to study the arts, and
attempts to place them in context. There is no reason to doubt that
Nicolaus attempted to expose Herod to the Peripatetic philosophy.
Herod was not impressed. To his untrained ears, Nicolaus exposition
of Aristotelian concepts of moderation and justice must have sounded
very much like the Pharisaic nonsense about piety, and Nicolaus rheto
ric not unlike a rabbinic sermon.158To Herod, both were equally tire
some.
History, however, seemed more useful. I t might be of help in enlarg
ing still further his domain, as well as in dealing with his internal
foes.154The prestige accruable to a history written under his patronage
must have been another consideration. Archelaus, the king of Cappa-
docia, whose daughter had married Herods son, entertained philoso
31 Life and Works
phers and historians in his court and was an author himself.165J uba,
king of Mauretania, likewise composed many historical works.1 But
in Herods case, there may have been still another motive. The J ews,
believing as they did that only they possessed a past worthy of careful
contemplation, may well have been impressed by a universal history,
opening a window to Hellenism.17
Mention may be made of another semi-historical work of Nicolaus
written under Herods patronage, the Collection of Remarkable Cus
toms.158 This work described the strange laws and customs of certain
barbarian and Greek peoples, arranged geographically, beginning with
the Italian Peninsula and moving toward the EastIllyria, Thrace,
Pontus, and Asia Minor, and then on to Libya.158J acoby suggests that
this was a byproduce of the history and that the two were based on the
same sources.160I f so, the work on customs must be dated in the last
decade of Herods rule, between 14 and 4 B.C. But this is doubtful. The
subject matter of the Collection belongs to the Peripatetic tradition,
and thus may be classed with Nicolaus philosophical works that seem
to antedate his history.161I t is doubtful, moreover, that Nicolaus, pre
occupied as he was with state missions and with the immense labor
required for his history, had the time to write another work during
that period. We know of Nicolaus interest in Indian customs in 20 B.C.,
and this may offer a clue to the date of composition of the Collection.
The sequence of Nicolaus historical works seems to be as follows: the
Augustan Vita in the middle 20s, the Collection of Remarkable Cus
toms, circa 20, and the Histories from 14 to 4 B.C.
Nicolaus, then, was continuously producing for the greater glory of
Herod. The object of the glorified Augustan biography is self-evident
and that of the Histories is stated, but the purpose of the Collection is
not known. Perhaps it was written to divert Herod, though this would
presuppose a genuine literary interest on the part of the king. Possibly
it was a comparative study of J ewish and barbarian customs. But this
is unverifiable, for the fragments do not contain anything dealing with
the J ews.168A similar work by Conon, however, dedicated to Archelaus,
the king of Cappadocia,16*suggests that it was perhaps part of an inter
national literary competition.
The intrigues in Herods court caused Nicolaus to interrupt his
writing of history. I n 12 B.C., Nicolaus boasts, Herod invited him to
sail in the kings own ship to Rome.165Nicolaus brief statement in his
Autobiography does not tell of his attitude to the charges against
Herods sons, Alexander and Aristobulus. But Nicolaus subsequent
Nicolaus of Damascus 32
attitude toward Mariamnes sons would suggest that he must have
been pleased by the reconciliation between father and sons, brought
about by Augustus advice.1
Both the Autobiography and the Antiquities offer more details con
cerning Nicolaus' next journey to Rome, perhaps the most delicate
foreign mission he had undertaken on behalf of Herod."" In Rome,
Syllaeus, the leading Nabataean general, in 8 b .c . accused Herod of
invading the neighboring Nabataea. To Augustus, this seemed a gross
violation of the principle that no client king was to engage in military
actions against any other without the express permission of Rome.
After Herod's permanent representative in Rome and Herods special
envoys were refused admittance to Augustus, the king dispatched Nico
laus hurriedly to Rome.1 The brief account in the Autobiography
merely boasts that Nicolaus did not encounter any difficulties in bring
ing about a reconciliation between Herod and Augustus.1 J osephus,
however, offers some details which reveal Nicolaus sophistic skill.
Instead of merely defending Herods actions, Nicolaus began with a
personal attack upon Syllaeus, for which purpose he had carefully
made a study of the intrigues in the enemy camp. Exploiting the split
within the Arab delegation, he accused Syllaeus of plotting against
his own Nabataean chieftain. The irrelevant charge that Syllaeus was
guilty of committing adultery with both native and Roman women
was brought up.170Nicolaus effectiveness as an advocate cannot be
questioned, but his claim of fairness is another matter.171Indeed, Nico
laus was so successful in convincing Augustus of Herods innocence
that the Princeps was now ready to hand over the faction-ridden
Nabataean kingdom to the J udaean king.178
Unfortunately, at that moment, according to J osephus, new letters
arrived from J udaea requesting Augustus permission to bring to trial
the sons of Herod for persistent attempts at conspiracy. Augustus now
had second thoughts about entrusting Nabataea to the aged Herod, but
he granted the request to bring the sons to judgment.178A hastily con
vened synedrion, consisting of Roman notables at Berytus, condemned
them to death.174
Both the Autobiography and the Antiquities agree fully as to Nico
laus reaction to the death sentence against Alexander and Aristobulus.
Upon his return from Rome, Herod met Nicolaus at Tyre. The king
told Nicolaus of the proceedings and asked him whether the sentence
should be carried out. Nicolaus advised Herod to keep his sons behind
bars until the king had more time to arrive at a judicious decision.175
J osephus quotes Nicolaus as having added that this was also the opinion
33 Life and Works
in Rome.176But from here on the two sources diverge. According to the
fragments of the Autobiography, it was Antipater, Herods oldest son,
who was also an aspirant to the throne, who urged his father to carry
out the death sentence quickly, claiming that the army, being in sym
pathy with the Hasmonaeans, was ready to join in a rebellion. The
Autobiography adds that Herod, without consulting Nicolaus, again
ordered the carrying out of the sentences. Nicolaus says that his advice
to postpone the execution made Antipater his enemy.177The account in
the Antiquities and Bellum is quite different. Here the immediate
cause of the execution of Mariamnes sons was the sympathy toward
them voiced openly by some of Herods servants, Antipater, if at all,
being but indirectly involved.178
This discrepancy between the two sources is important, for it may
help us determine the date when Nicolaus completed his history. Here
we have Nicolaus account in his Autobiography, written after Herods
death, implicating Antipater directly in the deaths of Alexander and
Aristobulus. J osephus account, based on Nicolaus history, hardly men
tions Antipater.179I t must be assumed, then, that Nicolaus had composed
the account of the death of Mariamnes sons before 5 B.C., while Antip
ater was still Herods heir-to-be. I t follows that Nicolaus, in his history,
gave an account which stated that Mariamnes sons were in fact guilty
of conspiring against their father. This assumption is confirmed by
J osephus, who expressly states that Nicolaus, in his subservience to
Herod, wrote an account wrhich accused Mariamnes sons of treason.180
And because Alexander and Aristobulus were put to death in 7 B.C.,
it follows that in 5 B.C. Nicolaus was already describing events that
had occurred two years earlier.181
Nicolaus played a leading role in Herods slaying of his oldest son,
Antipater. When the latter was brought to trial in 5 B.C. for conspiring
against his father and brothers, Herod entrusted the prosecution to
Nicolaus. The enmity between Antipater and Nicolaus, the Autobi
ography says, was now personal.182Nicolaus was eager to remove Antip
ater from the scene, no doubt fearing that Antipater would try to do
the same to him. Antipaters guilt, however, is vouched for by both the
fragments and J osephus.183But the close parallel between the Autobi
ography and J osephus account in the Bellum and Antiquities suggests
that the latter quotes directly from Nicolaus I t will therefore never
be known whether Antipater was really the rascal the sources make
him out to be.186
Nicolaus indictment of Antipater, as quoted in the Antiquities at
great length, sounds authentic.186Whereas, in the Autobiography, Nico
Nicolaus of Damascus 34
laus later expressed doubt as to the guilt of Mariamnes sons,1in his
indictment of Antipater he takes it for granted that the two sons were
justly condemned. The charge against Antipater was not that he was
zealous in his prosecution of his brothers, but that he subsequently
imitated their despicable behavior; not that he brought about the death
of Mariamnes sons, but that he joined with their accomplices in a con
spiracy against the surviving brothers and the king.1 Nicolaus, in his
Autobiography, written after the kings death, clearly charges Antip
ater with fratricide.
Despite Nicolaus successful prosecution, Antipater temporarily es
caped punishment. Herod was advised by Nicolaus to forward to
Augustus the evidence of the trial, but was warned against dispatching
the accused to Rome; the risk that Antipater might gain his freedom
was too great.190Put behind bars, Antipater, upon hearing that his
father was mortally ill, started to behave not like a jail prisoner but
like one who had the kingdom almost in his grasp. Herod, informed of
this, ordered immediate execution. Five days later Herod died.11
Nicolaus last known political act was his intervention in the struggle
of succession among Herods sons. Herod, before his death, had changed
the line of succession from Antipas to Archelaus.8After Herods death,
Archelaus became king, subject to Augustus confirmation. I n 4 B.C.,
the brothers, as well as the other leading members of the royal family,
assembled before Augustus to lay their claims before him.19There
Nicolaus and his brother took different sides; Nicolaus supported
Archelaus, but his brother Ptolemy sided with Antipas.14This is the
only time the sources mention that Ptolemy, described by J osephus as
Herods most honored friend,196was also in Herods service.
Both J osephus and Nicolaus Autobiography confirm that Nicolaus
siding with Archelaus was decisive.196But in several important details
which will be discussed in chapter four, J osephus account, in both
Bellum and the Antiquities, differs from that of the fragments. Nico
laus intervention on behalf of Archelaus is best summarized in his
own words: At first he contested the claims of the relatives; then he
took up those of the J ewish subjects. The arguments, however, of the
Greek cities he did not contest, advising Archelaus not to oppose their
freedom but to be satisfied with ruling the remainder of the kingdom.
Neither did he contest the claims of the younger brother [Antipas]
because of his common friendship for their father.197J osephus, how
ever, gives more details of the proceedings, illustrating Nicolaus foren
sic and legal skills. The arguments of the members of the royal family
against Archelaus were primarily legal. Was Herod sane when he made
35 Life and Works
his last will? Did Archelaus usurp the royal title without Augustus
permission? Was Archelaus massacre of the revolting J ews justified?198
Nicolaus countered that the J ewish rebellion was directed as much
against the Romans as it was against Archelaus; at any rate, Archelaus
brothers advised him to proceed violently against the rebels. The fact
that Augustus was made the executor of the will proved the sanity of
the donor, which is further confirmed by the excellence of the bene
ficiary.199Nicolaus felt no need to answer the charge of Archelaus
usurpation, for it had been clear from the beginning that any assump
tion of power required Augustus confirmation.200Augustus indicated
that he agreed with Nicolaus but he postponed the proceedings, pos
sibly to hear the views of the delegates of the J ewish people.801
The charges leveled by the J ewish deputies were political. They
indicted Herods rule as the most cruel since they had regained auton
omy in the days of Xerxes. The tyrant had drained the wealth of the
country to adorn the temples of foreign cities, had dishonored their
daughters, and had violated their ancestral laws. Archelaus proved
himself to be Herods son by his massacre of three thousand J ews in
front of the temple.802Nicolaus countered that the J ewish deputies, by
their own admission, sanctioned the rebellion, thus justifying Arche
laus reprisals. As to their indictment of Herod, the dead king was not
on trial. Moreover, no such charges had been leveled against him when
he was alive.203Naturally not, for no one had ever dared.
Nicolaus boasts that Augustus praised his defense of Archelaus.204
But whether this was decisive is another matter. Augustus appointed
Archelaus as ethnarch over half of Palestine, with the promise of king
ship if he should prove himself deserving, and he gave tetrarchies to
the two younger brothers.806I n other words, Herods will to keep the
kingdom intact, if it had been carried out, was set aside. Nicolaus
advocacy was not as successful as he and J osephus would make one
believe, although by no means a failure.206
From his Autobiography we infer that Nicolaus remained in Rome
for some time, after his defense of Archelaus.807There he completed his
history, which ended with the events of 4 B.C. Here J osephus descrip
tion of J ewish history ceases to be a running account and continues
haphazardly with disjointed anecdotes. I t is clear that J osephus no
longer had a source to draw upon for a continuing history.808Lacqueurs
argument that Nicolaus must have had a better perspective of world
history than the one that permitted him to begin with the Assyrians
and end with the death of Herod, has nothing to commend it.809As
Herods scribe, he made the death of the king the termination of his
Nicolaus of Damascus 36
interest in historiography. This is perhaps indicated by Nicolaus him
self. Describing the purpose of his voyage with Archelaus to Rome,
he says, referring to himself, And he was then some sixty years old,
suggesting the end of an era in his life.210
I n Rome, Nicolaus apparently retired from politics, devoting himself
instead to philosophical studies. Many wondered, he says, why he
spurned the society of the wealthy who sought his company.211Nicolaus
answer that the wealthy are generally corrupt, that he therefore pre
ferred to associate with the common people, is surprising.212The tutor
of Cleopatras children, Herods adviser, and Augustus friend, Nico
laus boasted of being a dedicated democrat who even treated his slaves
as equals.2 I f taken literally, these words raise the question as to
whether his friendship for Herod was as sincere as he would have one
believe. But there is no reason to demand consistency, for we are obvi
ously confronted with a complex personality.
Whether Nicolaus died in Rome or spent his last days in his beloved
native city is not known. Despite his admiration for Damascus, he had
spent most of his life away from it. The citizens of Damascus, however,
continued to cherish his memory until the Saracen conquest of that
city in the seventh century.214Before his death, Nicolaus wrote his
Autobiography, a work which sheds further light upon the complexity
of his character, and it is the Autobiography that is the subject of the
next chapter.
Ch a p t e r I I I
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
T h e full title of Nicolaus autobiography is Concerning His Life and
His Education (epi rrjs 4 )1Whether this
is a Byzantine phrase or, as is more likely, the authors own,* it accu
rately describes the nature of the work. The title parallels closely
Nicolaus other biographical tract, the Augustan Vita: Concerning the
Life of Caesar and His Education.* Both bios and agoge (education)
are terms often used in Hellenistic biographical titles.4But this is the
first known instance of its use in an autobiography.6Nicolaus, it would
seem, clearly intended to contrast his bios with the usual Greek mem
oirs (hypomnemata) or the Roman commentarii de vita sua.* The latter
were concerned principally with political or military events in which
their authors were leading participants. Nicolaus, however, included an
account of the growth of his personality: ancestry, education, outlook
on life, environment, and ethical values. The historical events, although
given, seem to be rather deemphasized.
The primary purpose of Nicolaus self-portrait seems to have been to
offer the reader a model of the life of a philosopher. Xenophon chose
Cyrus as his model king. For Nicolaus, freedom of choice was more
circumscribed, his biographical heroes being limited to Augustus and
Herod. As an example of the ideal man, he chose no one but himself.
There was no place for modesty in such a work; thus the only way the
author could maintain an air of objectivity was by the use of the third
person.7
The nine extant fragments offer a fair idea of the original form of
the Autobiography,8 and the Suda fragment begins with a description
of Nicolaus parents. The description is purely exemplary.9I t is prob
able that the work, like his Augustan Vita, contained an introduction
which outlined the purpose of the work.10Misch maintains that the
purpose was scientific.11But the very first available remnant would
seem to make it clear that the aim was moral edification, rather than
psychological analysis.12The authors natural endowments and his thor
ough training in the arts and sciences are described in the next frag
ment. But, as Nicolaus stops to reflect, education for what? Certainly,
he says, for its great value to both young and old: not to acquire wealth,
but because it leads to philosophy which is ones real native home.14
By philosophy Nicolaus meant ethics. Fragments 133-134 make this
clear. Fragment 133, though not even a complete sentence, equates the
[ 3 7 ]
Nicolaus of Damascus 38
philosopher with the man of virtue: [Herod] commended him as a
philosopher and as a man of mercy and treated him afterwards with
more honor and respect. An example of Nicolaus observance of the
precept to love his fellow man is offered in fragment 134. Nicolaus
requested Herod to intercede with Agrippa to forgive the fine imposed
unjustly upon the Ilians. Although this is the only passage in the
fragments which exemplifies directly Nicolaus philanthropiait is
probable that the Vita contained many more. Nicolaus missionary zeal
to convert the mighty of his day to philosophy is implied in the begin
ning of fragment 135, where he voices his annoyance over Herods
rejection of its study. This led Nicolaus to compose his History.
Nicolaus relationship with Herod and his services for the king were
a prominent feature of the Autobiography. Fragments 135 and 136
make this abundantly clear. One wonders whether Nicolaus mentioned
his tutorship of Cleopatras children, or whether he described in detail
his relationship with Augustus. Misch commends Nicolaus for omitting
these facts from the Autobiography.17 I t is probable, however, that
much of the additional information concerning Nicolaus life supplied
by Plutarch, Athenaeus, Sophronius, and the Suda, all very laudatory,
was based on the Autobiography.18Fragment 136 is a digression from
the main theme. Nicolaus the statesman and historian replaces for a while
Nicolaus the saint. Nicolaus success in appeasing Augustus anger
against Herod shows the Damascenes skill as an ambassador, as well
as Augustus great regard for Nicolaus.19How deeply Nicolaus was
involved in the domestic intrigues of the J udaean king is indicated by
the length and character of the descriptions of the feuds in the royal
family.80Having attempted to save the sons of Mariamne,21Nicolaus
defends his prominent role in the condemnation of Antipater. For the
latter he was praised by everybody.22Nicolaus concludes with a de
scription of his decisive role in the settlement of the succession after
Herods death. Whether the purpose of these memoirs was to point out
that the philosopher could also be a successful politician, or merely to
indicate that he was a part of the hypomnemata tradition, as Laqueur
conjectures, is not clear.23But the apologetic nature of these memoirs
is evident. Nicolaus often pauses to point out that his actions were
commended and that they were ever on behalf of justice.24
The remaining three fragments of the Autobiography deal with the
main theme: Nicolaus ethical beliefs and practices.25He repeats for
the third time his disregard for wealth.26He ascribes to himself a cata
logue of virtues prescribed, as Misch has pointed out, in Aristotles
39 Autobiography
Nicomachean Ethics. A leaf in the manuscript of the Constantine
Excerpta is missing, but the mood of the continued self-praise hardly
changes. Fragment 137 concludes with an attack upon the Sophists of
his day who pose as Greeks by acquiring Athenian and Rhodian birth
certificates. The next fragment covers his associations in Rome. Here
the contrast between the man of virtue and the man of wealth is clearly
drawn. Asked why he refused the invitations of the wealthy of Rome,
Nicolaus replied that he preferred a life of study and contemplation.
Once again he stops to boast of his attitude in regard to giving and
taking money.28 He cherished the company of humble but ethical asso
ciates. For a wealthy man needs much luck to be able to lead a virtuous
life.29 I n fragment 139, the last remnant extant, Nicolaus seems to have
dealt with his domestic affairs. But all that remains is a statement,
discussed below, about the fair and equal status that he had granted to
his slaves.
These fragments are substantial enough to permit evaluation of the
work as a whole. The Constantine writers excerpted from Nicolaus
works, using the same sequence as the author, as a result of which the
original order of the fragments is certain. As is to be expected, the
Autobiography was arranged in chronological order.80Compared to the
boasts made by Nicolaus for himself, the virtues he ascribes to Augustus
are a series of understatements. But as a piece of literature the Auto
biography was an utter failure. One misses the poignant depictions
found in the Bios Caesaros or the dramatic and sometimes humorous
touches effectively woven into the lives of Cyrus or Herod.81What is
most annoying in Nicolaus vita is its incoherence and its cumbersome
and repetitive style. For an author who had shown such a skillful pen
in describing Augustus or Herod, the lack of subtlety in the story of
his own life is surprising. Was it the want of a Greek autobiographical
literary tradition that prevented Nicolaus from presenting himself
more effectively?
Georg Misch, who has devoted a lifetime to the study of autobiog
raphy, has expressed surprise at the absence of self-relevation among
the Greeks. Autobiography, now regarded as the most elementary and
most popular literary form, was hardly known to the classical authors.82
Of the Hellenistic literature, it is true, only a small part has come
down. But, as J acoby says, the extremely small number of known frag
ments of hypomnemata, or even of titles, is conspicuous.88Roman politi
cal and military memoirs are more frequent. But, as in the Greek, no
Latin author before Augustine is known to have attempted to give a
Nicolaus of Damascus 40
portrait of himself. Both Misch and J acoby ascribe the absence of auto
biographical literature among the Greeks to a limitation of the Greek
spirit.84
How, then, are we to explain the appearance of autobiography in
the work of Nicolaus of Damascus? Misch traces its origin to Aristotle.
Following Leo, who ascribes the early development of biography to the
Peripatetics,88Misch sees a parallel origin in autobiography. Aristotles
attempts to find principles in the unfolding of the human personality
gave rise to a literature of self-description. The concept of evolution of
the human personality, allegedly found in Aristotle, was predicated on
the analysis of the growth of individual behavior; hence the need for
both biography and autobiography.88The Peripatetics, according to
Misch, started out with the idea that mans characteristics consist
chiefly in his ethical traits. To ascribe moral character became the
object of the autobiographer: How convenient a method of idealiza
tion became possible in this sphere is strikingly shown in the autobiog
raphy of the Peripatetic court historiographer Nicolaus Damascenus.87
Mischs explanation for the origin of autobiography is not very satis
factory. As Nicolaus is the only Peripatetic who is known to have
written such a work, the generalization about the Peripatetic tradition
in this field is drawn not from autobiography but biography. That the
two cannot be equated is shown by their subsequent development. While
biographical literature saw a constant growth, that of autobiography
did not.88Ethical analysis might have led to autobiography, but it did
not. Certainly J osephus, the only other author of his own Bios, was
not a Peripatetic. Biography, it may be added, did not begin with
Aristotle, nor was it an exclusive monopoly of the Peripatetics.89Politi
cal speeches do contain autobiographical notes. But J acoby finds them
to be but one cause, not the cause, of autobiography.40
The appearance of Nicolaus Autobiography seems unique only if
the dichotomy between Eastern and Greek cultures is held to be ap
plicable as late as the second half of the first century B.C. The wealth
of autobiographical literature in the East is as striking as is its want
among the Greeks.41Misch is perhaps justified in separating the Eastern
autobiographies, which date back to the Egyptian and Babylonian
annals, from the late Greek literature. But Nicolaus of Damascus can
not be excluded from the contemporary literary development of Pales
tine.42A Damascene, he had spent many years in J erusalem, and it may
be presumed he was acquainted with the Hebrew and Aramaic works,
probably in their original tongues, and certainly in the current Greek
41 Autobiography
translations. Nicolaus inclusion of events of Syriac and Hebrew history
indicates an acquaintance with the literature.48Herods court probably
served as an entrepot for Hebrew and Greek scholars.44
The Eastern literature in general, the Hebrew in particular, is rich
in autobiographical motives. The kings of Egypt enshrined their glori
ous deeds in their tombs. However, written accounts of marital prowess
and civil accomplishment can be found throughout antiquity, begin
ning with the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians and continuing
down to the Roman generals of the first century b .c . More surprising is
the fact that we have remnants of autobiographies written by ordinary
citizens of Egypt. The best account available of the expulsion of the
Hyksos from Egypt is that by Ah-mose, the son of the woman Eben,
an ordinary soldier in the service of Ahmose I (circa 1570 to 1540
b .c .) .48 Another soldier of minor rank, Amenemheb, described his
experiences as a participant in the northern campaigns of Thut-mose
I I I (circa 1490 to 1436 b .c .) .46 The story of Sinuhe, written in the
seventeenth century B.C. is regarded by Gardiner as an authentic auto
biography. Writing in a bombastic tone, but not without psychological
depth, Sinuhe related his experiences as a voluntary exile longing for
his homeland.47Even more remarkable is the self-relevation of the
author of A Dispute over Suicide. Weary of the misfortunes that had
befallen him, this unknown writer, who lived at the end of the second
millennium B.C., revealed his inner struggle over the problem of whether
a life of pleasure or of one responsibility was preferable, and whether or
not to end his life.48
The doctrine of retribution maintained by the Babylonians, and even
more strictly by the Hebrews, inspired a literature of self-revelation
that is essentially confessional and autobiographical. The Egyptians
appear to have been hesitant to admit error or guilt. In chapter 125
of the Book of the Dead, a king of Egypt listed a long catalogue of sins
which he had not committed. No such reluctance over the admission
of wrongdoing, however, is evident in the Babylonian and Hebrew lit
erature. The author of Leviticus commanded that each sin-offering
must be accompanied by a confession.49As misfortune implied sin,
whether intentional or not, one was required to search constantly for
possible errors. Occasionally, men such as J ob protested that their mis
fortunes could not have been caused by their own fault. The Book of
J ob, as we have it today, is undoubtedly fiction. But the more penitential
Psalms were, before they assumed cultic forms, autobiographical. I t is
not only the first person singular which identifies the Psalms of lamenta
Nicolaus of Damascus 42
tion as autobiographical, but the spirit of utter despair intermingled
with limitless confidence, the sleepless nights and the daily toil in an un
friendly world which made them remarkable poems of self-revelation.60
The contrast between Hebrew and Greek thinking is perhaps well
exemplified in the transmission of divine oracles. The role of the manteis
was as impersonal as possible; their duty was to transmit the oracle in
the most objective form they could. The nabi (prophet) not only
prophesied in his own name, but regarded his life as a symbol of Israel.
No wonder, then, that Isaiah, J eremiah, and Ezekiel felt compelled to
describe the experiences which inspired them to prophesy.61
Historiography affords another contrast between the attitude of the
Greeks and the Hebrews toward self-relevation. When a Greek or Latin
writer wished to recreate a vivid picture of a historical event, he made
the speaker deliver a speech. Hebrew historiography, or rather pseudo
historiography, made the hero tell the story in his own words. Enoch,
the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Tobit, were written in an
autobiographical form. The author of Tobit introduces his hero with
the following words: I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and right
eousness all the days of my life, and I performed many acts of charity
to my brethren and countrymen who went with me into the land of the
Assyrians, Nineveh.62 Tobit then tells of his pilgrimages to J erusalem,
of the instruction he had received from his grandmother, and then
relates the story of his marriage.68There is no doubt that the life of
Tobit was intended to serve as a model for the pious J ew, just as the
speeches composed by the Hellenistic historians were frequently meant
to be lessons in rhetoric.
Simon ben Sira, or J esus son of Sirach, as he is called in the Septua
gint, left an autobiographical sketch. Unlike Tobit, Simon is a historical
figure. He composed the so-called Wisdom of J esus, Son of Sirach, more
commonly known as Ecclesiasticus, about 190 B.C., which was translated
into Greek circa 110 B.C. in Alexandria by his grandson.54To the col
lection of sayings, in the tradition of the Biblical Proverbs, Simon (or
J esus, as he is called in the Greek text) appends biographical sketches
of the Hebrew heroes ranging in time from the antediluvian Enoch
to his contemporary Simon the High Priest.56An autobiographical ac
count is placed at the conclusion of the work.56Like St. Augustines
Confessions, but in a cruder and more primitive fashion, Ben Siras
autobiography is a combination of praises to God and an address to
man.57The two are so intertwined that it is sometimes impossible to
separate them. The spirit of the Psalmist, the mentor of Augustine, is
echoed by Siracides:
43 Autobiography
I will give thanks to you, Lord and king
-> -o o
For you have been my protector and helper
And have delivered my body from destruction,
And from the snare of the slanderous tongue.
Siracides never identifies the unrighteous tongue which uttered slander
to the king or his numerous troubles.50 But in the resume of his life
he is somewhat more specific:
When I was young, before I went on my wanderings,
I sought wisdom in my prayers.
-o- -o- ->
For I resolved to practice her [wisdom];
And I was zealous for the good, and I shall not be disappointed.60
Siracides expresses gratitude to his teachers, who had imposed upon
him the yoke of wisdom. He then exhorts the unlearned to come and
study under him in his house of instruction. The parallel between his
own learning as a youth and the exhortation to the young to follow the
same path is sharply drawn. I t is through the search for wisdom that
the young would acquire gold and silver.1
The object of Hebrew autobiography was not to reveal ones vital
statistics but to depict mans experience in living a pious life. I t is
partially confessional; it tells how to find salvation, and it exhorts
others to follow the true path. The Book of Psalms and the recently
discovered Thanksgiving Psalms are permeated with this theme.82Its
full potential, however, remained unexploited until St. Augustine. But
the Rabbinic literature as well as the New Testament made free use of
this autobiographic tradition.83The life of the pious served as an ex
ample of Gods will. This was the origin of medieval hagiography.
Nicolaus Autobiography is a synthesis of the Greek and Hebrew
traditions. The validity of the Aristotelian ethics was not necessarily
dependent upon his own example. I n Greek thought the moral life
was primarily a social virtue, in J ewish thought a personal duty. The
Hellenistic philosopher did not feel the same compulsion to point out
that he adhered to the principles he prescribed to others.84But to
Nicolaus, as to the J ewish hasid, breast-beating became the outstanding
characteristic of moral life. The J ewish element in Nicolaus autobi
ography consisted in the latitude it gave the teacher to cite himself
as an example. Occasionally, it is true, a pagan writer such as Horace
did point to his own experiences, though some scholars suspect that
Horace may have been influenced by J ewish traditions. Seneca, Epic
tetus, and Marcus Aurelius enriched the Stoic system with autobio
Nicolaus of Damascus 44
graphical passages, but they reflected the rise of individuality which
spread in the early centuries of the Christian era* However, the doc
trine that man must dedicate his whole life to the observance of divine
laws and must guard himself from ever-present sin was an exclusively
J ewish idea. This perhaps explains why autobiography, in the Hellen
istic period, did not have the same growth as biography. To depict
someone elses genius was one thing; to write an encomium upon one
self was another matter. To the J ewish mind, there was nothing im
modest in claiming modesty. How else could piety be imparted to
others? As with the Egyptians, the detailed listing of ones moral traits,
ones adherence to the Torah, became the very essence of J ewish teach
ing and preaching.66 Nicolaus perhaps realized its effectiveness by the
successful J ewish proselytizing. The Pauline epistles testify concerning
the limits to which the J ewish technique of self-example could be uti
lized. Nicolaus used the same means to spread Peripatetic and Stoic
ethics.
Nicolaus Autobiography, then, belongs to his philosophical, or rather,
to his ethical writings. I t was perhaps largely a digest of what he
considered the most important ideas, in a simplified form, of his philo
sophical works. This seems to be confirmed by the titles of his works
such as On the Gods; On the Ideals of Action Quite possibly, the Auto
biography furnishes us some concept of the philosophical instruction
Nicolaus attempted to give Herod and others.68 The vital concern in
J erusalem with questions of piety and ethics makes it likely that there
were animated discussions dealing with these problems between him
and certain J ewish scholars.
The nature of these discussions, if they took place, cannot be deter
mined. But it may be possible to muster evidence indicating a link
between the ideas propagated by Nicolaus and those of Hillel the Elder,
the leading Pharisaic scholar during the rule of Herod. Hillel is the
only contemporary J ewish figure whose ethical precepts and maxims
have survived to warrant a comparison with those of the Damascene.
The Hillelite traditions, it is true, are recorded only in the Talmudic
literature which was edited from about a .d . 200 onward.6Nevertheless,
these traditions seem to bear a stamp of their own, comparable to no
other. We are perhaps justified, then, in assuming that most of the
accounts concerning Hillel that are found in the Talmudic literature
emanate from the second half of the first century b .c .70
A brief digression into the biographical form of the books of
Aboth and Aboth dRabbi Nathan, the major sources concerning
Hillel, would seem to be in order here.71 The first chapter of Aboth lists
45 Autobiography
the leading masters of oral law, from Simon the J ust (circa 200 B.C.)
to Hillel and Shammai. The biographical sketch of each of these sages
consists not in giving any historical facts about the men but in quoting
several, usually three, moral sayings attributed to them. Aboth dRabbi
Nathan further elaborates and comments on these maxims. But the
principle that the important facts about any man are their good deeds
remains the same. The need for tracing the oral law to Moses is clearly
felt by the authors of Aboth, but the mundane facts about the leading
carriers of the Mosaic teachings were completely ignored. The Tal
mudists were concerned with piety and ethics, not with history.
Now to return to the comparison of the virtues ascribed to Hillel and
those boasted by Nicolaus. The education of Nicolaus, he says, was very
thorough. I t included not only the arts and sciences, but also the intri
cate traditions of the Muses handed down by the diviners.73 These
boasts are reinforced by superlatives such as all poetry, entire
philosophy.7* Of Hillel it is likewise said that none of the teachings
of the wise had escaped him, including all the languages, even the
sciences75 of the mountains, hills, and valleys, of trees and grasses,
of animals, spirits, and fables.78 The same wisdom is likewise attributed
to the leading Pharisaic scholar of the first century a .d ., Rabban
Yohanan ben Zakkai.77 There is, of course, a difference between Nico
laus, who claimed great learning for himself, and Hillel, to whom others
attributed comparable skills. But the superlative nature of the claims
is similar. Whether Hillel in fact was a master of the languages, arts,
and sciences, as ascribed to him, is impossible to say. Perhaps he was.
Perhaps these claims for Hillel, the founder of Rabbinic J udaism, were
a reaction to the wide learning ascribed to the Greeks in Herods court.78
Be that as it may, both among J ews and Hellenists there seems to have
been a tendency to vaunt supreme scholarship. Equally characteristic
was the pride in traditional learning, rather than in adding to the body
of scholarship.7
Taken by itself, this comparison is not enough to establish a nexus
between Hillel and Nicolaus. The evidence for such a link lies in several
of Nicolaus statements, which may be paralleled with those of Hillel.
Hillels maxim, Whoever makes worldly use of the crown [of the
Torah] shall perish80 is worth comparing with Nicolaus statement,
He never needed to make use of his learning to increase his wealth
or to peddle it.81 Nicolaus was repeating the attack upon the Sophists,82
fashionable since Plato. But the spirit of the attack was different. To
the general reader it may seem that for Plato learning was a means for
leading a good life; for Aristotle, it was a means for increasing mans
Nicolaus of Damascus 46
knowledge concerning himself and nature. For Nicolaus, however, as
for the Rabbis, learning acquired virtue of its own.8To study the
Torah, in the Talmudic sense, or to master Aristotle, as Nicolaus under
stood the objective, became the supreme goal.84 Both Nicolaus and
Hillel recognized the same prerequisites for the wise man. He must not
engage overmuch in trade;88 learning is not a spade wherewith to dig;88
one must not be distracted by the ignorant the distinction of learning
is learning; pleasure and wealth are stumbling blocks in the path to the
scholar.88
Convincing evidence of a connection between the virtues recom
mended by both Hillel and Nicolaus lies not only in their similarity but
in their arrangement. Misch has called attention to the fact that Nico
laus arranged his virtues in a hierarchical system of values.8First came
the inferior levels of morality, climbing up to what was considered by
Aristotle the higher stages of a good life: attitude to money, pleasures,
self-control, self-sufficiency ( a i rdp#cta), simplicity, endurance, bravery,
and finally justice.90 In similar fashion, Hillel arranged the scale of
vices, which, if avoided, lead to an ever-rising path of virtue: The
more flesh the more worms; the more possessions, the more worry; the
more women, the more witchcraft; the more female servants, the more
lewdness; the more slaves,91 the more stealing; the more Torah, the more
life; the more contemplation, the more wisdom; the more counsel, the
more reasoning; the more justice, the more peace.*3 Aside from the fact
that both Hillel and Nicolaus had hierarchical systems of virtues, the
scales themselves have several aspects in common:
Hillel Nicolaus
VICES
pleasure
wealth
lewdness
stealing
love of money (stinginess)
pleasure
lack of restraint
VIRTUES
self-control
self-sufficiency
temperance
self-control
endurance
temperance
bravery
CARDINAL VIRTUES
study of Torah
contemplation
justice
peace
study of philosophy
justice
fairness
47 Autobiography
Both Nicolaus and Hillel compared the striving for a good life with
climbing up a ladder, avoiding the vices of pleasure and slowly reaching
the goal of justice. The differences are equally striking: Nicolaus used
Aristotelian abstractions, but Hillel employed simple and telling words
from everyday living;98 HilleFs guide was the Pharasaic halakah, Nico
laus was the Peripatetic and Stoic rjdoi. 94 That Hillel was aware of the
fundamental distinction between Peripatetic and Pharisaic ethics is
perhaps evident from his concluding statement: I f one has gained a
good name (shem tob)9he has gained something [temporary]; but if
he has gained the words of the Torah, he has gained for himself life
in the world to come.96 By shem tob Hillel means what the Greeks
called fame (evdoijia), one of the highest virtues in Nicolaus.98 Though
Hillel and Nicolaus used similar words, there was a basic difference
between the meanings attached to those words by the founder of Rab
binic J udaism and the Greek philosopher. The semantic bridge between
Hebrew and Greek, between Mosaic and Aristotelian teachings, was not
crossableat least not in J erusalem. Hillers master, Abtalion,97 urged
his fellow scholars to avoid fraternization with Herod and his court;98
Nicolaus, though preaching in the name of justice and equity, had his
hands deeply stained with the blood of Herods sons.99 Hillels famous
saying to the floating skull, Because you drowned [others], they have
drowned you, and those who have drowned you will finally be drowned,
seems to be applicable to the Antipater affair.100
The rabbinic biographers of Hillel attribute to him personal traits
similar to those claimed by Nicolaus. Nicolaus says he was exceedingly
stouthearted in the face of danger, be it war, sickness, robbers, or sea
storms.101 Hillel, the Talmud tells, was once traveling. Upon hearing a
noise coming from the town he remained calm. He was certain that it
did not come from his household: He shall not fear evil tidings.108
The quotation from Psalms 112:7 makes it clear, as Kaminka says,
That the moral of this story is not only that this righteous man would
have been happly only in the belief that a misfortune did not occur in
his house but that he was not affected by any misfortune.103 Hillels
temperateness, simplicity, and philanthropia assume the same emphasis
in the Talmud as their counterparts do in Nicolaus Autobiography.104,
Rabbinic tradition maintains that during the Hellenistic period there
was intense rivalry between J ewish and Greek scholars. In typical Tal
mudic fashion, the rivalry is described indirectly through historical
anecdotes whose object it was to illustrate the superiority of J udaism
over the surrounding cultures. The antagonists in the anecdotes were
sometimes figures no less important than Alexander the Great and
Nicolaus of Damascus 48
Simon the High Priest (circa 200 B.C.);105 or the Athenian philoso
phers and Rabbi J oshua ben Hanania (circa a .d . 100).106 Greek-speak
ing J ews, from Demetrius (at the end of third century B.C.)107and Aris-
tobulus the Peripatetic108 to Philo of Alexandria and J osephus, on a
somewhat more sophisticated level, attempted to show that Greek learn
ing was either inferior to or derived from the Mosaic teachings. Tal
mudic anecdotes ascribe to Hillel the Stoic virtue of patience which
non-J ewish residents of J erusalem admired.100 Hillel, it is boasted,
excelled in the knowledge of geography and ethnic customs of the
Babylonians, Palmyrenes and Africans (Phrygians?).110 Whether or
not these anecdotes are historical, there is no reason to doubt that J ewish
and Greek scholars in the times of Herod attempted to surpass each
other. That the J ews were not always superior in their arguments, how
ever, is evident in the rancor toward the Greek residents of J erusalem
after Herods death.111 I t is conceivable that the stories concerning
Hillers supposed secular learning endeavored to counter the then
famous polymath Nicolaus, the right hand of the despised king.
The evidence assembled indicates that there existed no iron curtain
between J udaism and Hellenism, at least not in the second half of the
first century b .c .112 Hillel was not averse to blending Greek ideas with
Pharisaic J udaism. Hillers seven rules of Biblical hermeneutics,
it has been argued, had their roots in Hellenistic logic and grammar.118
The composition of historical works under Herods auspices presup
poses a fairly large Greek library in J erusalem.114 Certainly the leading
Pharisees studied Greek even when they attempted to discourage its
dissemination among the people.115 The exact relationship between the
J ewish and Greek scholars of J erusalem during Herods rule cannot
be ascertained. Rabbinic sources claim that Hillel succeeded in con
verting a few Greeks to J udaism.118 I f this were so, perhaps the converse
was true also. But under Herods iron rule the rivalry was peaceful.
I f Hillel may be regarded as the representative of J udaism, and Nico
laus as the exponent of Hellenism, then both sides used philanthropia
and justice as their slogans.117 Even the reputedly intemperate Shammai
stressed tolerance: Receive all men with a cheerful countenance.118
All men apparently included the Greeks in Herods court. In Hillels
time, then, there was nothing in the air that made the collision between
J udaism and Hellenism inevitable. But after Herods death the collapse
of political stability brought about a war that was both ideological and
national. The subsequent Rabbinic decrees declaring the lands of the
gentiles impure and prohibiting the partaking of gentile oil and bread
49 Autobiography
followed the mutual slaughter of J ews and Greeks during the war
against the Romans.11
Nowadays, it is fashionable to ask whether this philanthropia,
preached so fervently by Hillel and Shammai as well as by Nicolaus, in
cluded slaves. Here it is possible to answer with a qualified yes. Hillel
hints at the evil of slavery.120 Nicolaus brought up his slaves, and living
together with them, treated them as equals, and made use of them not
worse than friends.131 Misch points to the much abused Aristotelian
statement concerning slavery and calls attention to Nicolaus departure
therefrom.133 He agrees with Martin Braun that the J ewish influence
upon Nicolaus had a tempering effect upon this Peripatetic philoso
pher.138 There is some evidence in support of this contention: the Rab
binic laws concerning slavery of Hebrews imposed so many duties on
the master that it almost made of him a slave.134 J obs passionate protest
against the abuse of slaves,136 and the more temperate one in Ben Sira,
may be cited.138 Generally, however, Rabbinic slavery legislation was as
harsh as that prevalent in the Hellenistic world, perhaps even harsher,
although some rabbis made it a point to treat their slaves like human
beings.137 But nowhere, not even in Nicolaus, is there an attack upon the
institution of slavery as such. Yet the ninth letter of Pseudo-Heraclitus,
which Bernays ascribes to a J ewish author, does ridicule the distinction
between one who is freeborn and one who is a slave,138 and according
to Philo and Therapeutae, a sect identical with or similar to the Essenes,
regarded slavery as being contrary to nature.130 Nicolaus, then, like
many learned J ews, was aware of the oppression of his fellow man. But
one must beware of stretching the point. Nicolaus, unlike the Tal
mudists, did not bar the testimony of slaves. In his prosecution of Antip
ater, Nicolaus cited the evidence of the tortured slaves to prove Antip
aters guilt.130 As in the case of many a Southern gentleman of nine
teenth-century America, one must beware of passing judgments that
are too tolerant; fair treatment of a slave ought not be interpreted as
advocacy of the abolition of the institution of slavery, nor does the
advocacy of its abolition necessarily mean fair treatment.
Nevertheless, Nicolaus boasting of the just treatment he accorded
his slaves must be understood in the context of the ethical milieu of
contemporary J udaea. The same is true of his attacks upon the wealthy:
A rich man needs much luck to lead a good life,mclearly antedates
the Sermon on the Mount. Because of the universality of the concept,
however, this point should not be stressed too far. Nicolaus pride in his
native Damascus reflects the tide of nationalism which was soon to
engulf Palestine and its surrounding territories.183 Nicolaus saw no
Nicolaus of Damascus 50
contradiction between his alleged sympathy for the humble and his
feasting with Cleopatra, Herod, and Augustus, nor between his pro
fessed devotion to Damascus and his long stays in Alexandria, J eru
salem, and Rome. I n the Rabbinic tradition, Hell and Heaven are but
separated by a thin wall.188 The same may be said of philanthropia and
misanthropia, cosmopolitanism and chauvinism, and for that matter,
of first-century J udaism and Hellenism.
Besides Nicolaus, the only other author of Greek antiquity whose
autobiography has survived is J osephus. A comparison between the
two works, written within a century of one another, sheds light on
both. Nicolaus and J osephus each wrote their autobiographies after
illustrious careers in J udaea. The death of Herod left Nicolaus without
a patron.184 He found the aristocracy of J erusalem congenial, but he had
no use for Roman aristocrats.185 J osephus gained entrance into the
highest circles of Rome, but for him also J erusalem remained home. He
was regarded by many J ews as a traitor, and some, like J ustus of
Tiberias, accused him of being responsible for the war of the J ews
against the Romans.13* J osephus then wrote a double apology: he was
neither responsible for the beginning of the war nor guilty of losing it
by betraying the J ews. Nicolaus motive for composing his bios was
primarily hortatory. But a case can be made that Nicolaus Autobiog
raphy was equally an apologia. The tone of the work would indicate
that it was addressed to fellow philosophers.7 This was undoubtedly
the impression derived by Emperor J ulian.138 One may perhaps assume
that Nicolaus was taunted by Greek scholars, because of his defense
of the J ews against the Hellenistic interests.I t goes without saying
that there was no love lost between the Greek intellectuals and the J ews.
Nicolaus then went on to show that, after all, he had attempted to con
vert Herod into a Peripatetic.140 As to the Greeks taunt that he was a
Syrian and not a Greek, he was proud of that fact.1 But that was not
to say that he had acted against the interests of the Greeks. I n his
Histories Nicolaus pointed out his services to the J ews in Ionia.14* I n
his Autobiography the emphasis was upon the services he had rendered
to the Ilians or the manner in which he helped to detach the Hellenistic
cities from J udaea.148
The similarities between Nicolaus Autobiography and that of J ose
phus should not cause us to disregard the differences. Nicolaus Vita
is an ethical treatise in the J udaeo-Peripatetic tradition; that of J ose
phus is in the tradition of the Roman commentarii pro vita sua. J ose
phus was concerned because his reliability as a historian was questioned.
His Vita was an appendix to his Jewish Antiquities. Whether Nicolaus
51 Autobiography
had done the same may be questioned. The Byzantine scribes, like
J ulian, seem to have found the Nicolaus Vita placed at the beginning
of his Histories.144 Hoelscher and Misch maintain that J osephus Bios
was an imitation of the similar work by Nicolaus.145 J acoby is probably
right, however, when he points out that when Nicolaus calls attention
to his historical work, in the middle of the Autobiography, that excludes
the possibility that the bios was a supplement to the Histories.14* I t is
possible to say, then, that Nicolaus work was closer in spirit to the
Pharisaic tradition than that of J osephus the Pharisee.
Ch a p t e r IV
JEWISH HISTORY
N i c o l a u s Histories is the first world history known to have been
written in J erusalem. Whether this was a singular occurrence or
whether Greek historiography flourished under Herod is difficult to
say. Even in the field of J ewish history very little is known. Alexander
Polyhistor, writing in the middle of the first century B.C., had made
extensive excerpts from J ewish authors in his work on the J ews.1 But
except for the names, little is known of these Graeco-J ewish historians.
Some seem to have served as diplomatic agents for the Maccabean
rulers.2 For Herods interest in history, at least in that of his own reign,
we have a fragment of his Memoirs8 and a contemporary biography of
the J udaean king by a certain Ptolemy.4 The sources are more reliable
with respect to non-J ewish historians. Remnants of monographs on the
history of the J ews by several Greek authors have survived.5 Writers
who dealt with world history likewise included accounts of the origin
of the Jews.
But whereas the treatment of J ewish history by non-J ewish historians
is only a peripheral problem, in the case of Nicolaus it is a question of
primary importance. The problem may be divided into two parts: the
Biblical period and the Hellenistic epoch. Did Nicolaus devote much
space to the early history of the J ews in his work? Bloch, the first to
raise the issue, answers in the negative.7 And Adolph Buechler, who
discusses this problem extensively, agrees fully: As to the question
whether Nicolaus remark about Abraham occurred in a book on the
J ews, we do not have the slightest indications that he had given a con
nected description of the history of ancient Israel in the midst of that
of other nations.8
To agree with Buechler, we would have to believe that Nicolaus was
one of the few general historians who failed to describe the origin of the
J ews. Other first century authors such as Posidonius, Diodorus, Timag-
enes, Pompeius Trogus, and Strabo,gave colorful if false descriptions
of the peculiar development of the J ewish people.10 Nicolaus failure to
give an account of ancient Israel could not be attributed to the brevity
of his work, for it contained one hundred forty-four books.11 For a
court scribe to ignore his masters nation would be an unpardonable
slight Nicolaus could hardly afford, unless we suppose that this was
done by Herods own orders, a ridiculous thought.
But Nicolaus own words seem to confirm the reasonable assumption
[ 52]
53 Jewish History
that he faithfully made plans for a discussion of the early history of
Israel in his work. In a reference to Abrahams reign in Damascus and
his subsequent settlement in Canaan, Nicolaus adds the words: whose
history I shall recount in another book.13 Buechlers argument that
these words are J osephus and not Nicolaus18 is unacceptable. The
context makes it clear that the promise to tell the history of the descend
ants of Abraham is not J osephus but the Damascenes.14 J osephus
obviously had no need to make such an assertion; his whole work is
nothing but an account of the descendants of Abraham. As to Buechlers
main argument that, had Nicolaus given a connected account of ancient
Israel, J osephus surely would not have failed to cite him, Buechler
himself voids his own evidence. For on the one hand he maintains that
Nicolaus, although not named, was J osephus source for the citations
from Berossus and other Greek historians found in the Antiquities;19
on the other hand he argues that had Nicolaus dealt extensively with
Biblical history he would have been cited more often. J osephus failure
to cite Nicolaus proves nothing. I t does not indicate that J osephus did
not borrow from Nicolaus account of Biblical history.17 Certainly there
is no reason to doubt that Nicolaus kept his promise to devote a book or
more to the descendants of Abraham.18
The question, then, is not whether but how Nicolaus described the
history of the Biblical period. For though there was an abundance of
accounts of the J ews, the treatment varied according to the prejudices
of the authors. J ewish apologists rewrote the early history of the J ews
to indicate either kinship with or superiority to the Greeks,19 sometimes
even attributing those claims to respectable Greek historians.80 Some
Greek authors countered with equally fanciful anti-Semitic versions of
the degraded origin of the J ews.21 Other writers, as Bickerman has
shown, merely followed the commonly accepted hypothesis of a single
ancestry for most, if not all, mankind. Barbarian accounts, including
that of the Bible, even when well known, were rejected because indig
enous traditions seemed inferior to speculations based on Greek schol
arship. With imagination, philological or mythological proof was
sufficiently elastic to rationalize the existence of any people anywhere
with the versions of the Heraclidic migrations. The J ews, with their
own Noahite tradition, subscribed to the same theory, but of course
they arrived at a different conclusion.23 Occasionally, learned men at
tempted to blend all these theories together. The confusion resulting
from such a blending may be seen in the fragments of Alexander Poly
histor. He reproduced the J ewish Noahite claims as described in
Genesis and embellished by the Hellenistic J ewish writers.25 Perhaps
Nicolaus of Damascus 54
striving to be objective, he quoted from Apollonius Molons diatribe
against the J ews, an important anti-Semitic source* Alexander then
continues to fuse the origin of the J ews with that of other Eastern
peoples by making the author of the Decalogue a woman and J udah
and Idumaea sons of the mythical Semiramis.3" I t was not ignorance
of the Old Testament but the prevalent hermeneutic approach to history
which prompted both J ews and Greeks to compose colorful but fantastic
accounts.28 I t is in the light of this mixture of learned fabrications and
personal prejudices that an inquiry into Nicolaus' treatment of Biblical
history must be pursued.
A fragment preserved by Stephanus of Byzantium supplies a partial
answer. Nicolaus, following X an thus Lydiaca, ascribed the foundation
of Ascalon to the sons of the Lydian Tymanaeus, Tantalus and Ascalus.
The two brothers led an army into Syria, where Ascalus fell in love with
a native girl, later naming the Syrian town that he founded after him
self.2I t is a good story, love being Nicolaus' favorite theme, but it is
so fantastic in nature that it does not even need any proof.80 According
to Ctesias, incidentally, Ascalon was Semiramis' birthplace.81 But there
is another element that makes this statement significant. The town of
Ascalon, though not under direct J ewish tutelage, was perhaps Herod's
birthplace also; certainly the J udaean king had close affiliations there.82
Nicolaus, it must be presumed, was aware of these connections. Was his
account of the Lydian foundation of Ascalon perhaps intended to
flatter the king? More significant, however, is the evidence the fragment
furnishes that Nicolaus was simply following the prevalent trend, in
ascribing a Lydian origin to the Hellenized cities of Gaza and Ascalon.*8
Nicolaus' treatment of the history of ancient Israel becomes discern
ible in the next two fragments.84 After claiming that Berossus referred
to Abraham without naming him, and that Hecataeus of Abdera wrote
a work on Abraham,85 J osephus cites the following from the fourth
book of Nicolaus Histories:
Habrames reigned [In Damascus] after having as an invader led an army from the
country beyond Babylon called the land of the Chaldees. But soon thereafter he
left this country together with his people for the land then called Canaan, now
Judaea, where his descendants multiplied.. . . The name of Abram is still celebrated
in the region of Damascus, and a village is known that is called after him "Abrams
abode.36
The tradition that made Abraham a Damascene king was also men
tioned by Trogus (Timagenes?). But one would expect Nicolaus to
have been better informed about the history of his place of birth, of
which he was so proud. A Samaritan writer, Pseudo-Eupolemus, related
55 Jewish History
that Abraham paid a visit at Hargarizin, where he was received with
gifts by Melchizedek, the king and priest.87 For it appears to have been
the custom to make the Hebrew patriarch sojourn in places that are
the authors favorites. Nicolaus claim for Abraham, perhaps like that
of Ascalon, may have been intended to express both pride in his own
native city and flattery of the J udaean king.88 I t did not weaken Herods
expansionist ambitions for that ancient city, either.
Nicolaus technique of intermingling J udaean and Syrian prowess is
still more clearly visible in Fragment 20. Both I I Samuel 8:5-6 and I
Chronicles 18:5-6 record Davids conquest of Damascus upon his defeat
of Hadad-ezer, king of Zobah, and his allies the Aramaeans of Damascus.
According to J osephus, however, Nicolaus supplied the name of the
Damascene king as Adadus, the founder of a Syrian dynasty of the
same name. The war between David and Adadus, said Nicolaus, was
long and bitter before the brave king of Damascus was finally defeated
in a decisive battle as the Euphrates.89 The Adadoi ruled over Syria for
ten generations. Adadus the third was the most powerful of the dynasty.
To avenge his grandfathers defeat, he sacked the region which is now
called the Samarite land.40 Nicolaus undoubtedly expressed pride in
the glorious past of Damascus, but there is nothing here which slighted
the J ews;41 quite the contrary. What Nicolaus attempted was to shed
further light upon certain abbreviated passages of the Bible.
That this was not merely an incidental passage but part of the scheme
of the Histories may be seen from an analysis of fragment 72. To con
firm the Genesis account of Noahs ark, J osephus cites as witnesses
certain Greek and barbarian historians: Berossus, Hieronymus the
Egyptian, Mnaseas, and many others.42 J osephus then concludes with
a quotation from the ninety-sixth book of Nicolaus history:
Above the country of Minyas in Armenia there is a great mountain called Baris
where many refugees saved themselves, so the story goes, during the flood, and some
one in an ark ran ashore on the summit, and the relics of the timber were preserved
for a long time. This is perhaps the same of whom the Jewish law-giver Moses
wrote.43
I t is worth noting that while many authors mentioned the flood, only
Nicolaus, presumably, attempted to identify Noah with the popular
tradition of the ark.
Admittedly, fragments 18 to 20 were not part of a connected account
of Biblical history. Fragments 17 to 20 were part of the fourth book,
which dealt with early Lydian history. Nothing except fragment 72 has
survived of book 96.44Was the promised account of the descendants of
Abraham the main subject of this book then? The answer seems to be
Nicolaus of Damascus 56
negative; the context of the quotation makes it appear that the subject
matter dealt with Armenian, rather than J ewish affairs. Thus one must
give up the attempt to name the book in which Nicolaus gave an account
of ancient J ewish history.45 This is a pity, for if we had such an account
we would have a better concept of the intent and method Nicolaus
employed as Herods court historian.
But the references to Syrian and J ewish history, in addition to the
bearing they have on the main theme,46 are instructive. They show that
Nicolaus frequently referred to such histories either to indicate the
relation between general history and the J ewish past or for the purpose
of confirming the Biblical account. This is also evident from fragment
141, where Nicolaus, together with other Greek historians, is cited in
confirmation of the Biblical claims of the longevity of the ancients.47 I t is
perhaps reasonable to assume that Nicolaus here, as in fragment 72, him
self quoted the long list of the authorities cited by J osephus.48 But even
discounting this fragment, the references to J ewish history, based as
they were on Hebrew and Hellenistic sources, would seem to indicate
that Nicolaus work was tailored to appeal to Herod and his court. I t
may be assumed, then, that Nicolaus full account of Biblical history
contained J ewish apologetics mixed with Hellenistic embellishments.
A question remains: Did J osephus preserve some of Nicolaus ac
counts of Biblical history without acknowledging the source? Incon
trovertible evidence is available only in reference to the nomenclature
of the Damascene kings. The kings of Damascus are either unidentified49
or referred to in the Masoretic text as Ben Hadad, in the Septuagint as
Ben Adar.50 J osephus, following the usage in fragment 20, calls them
Adadus.51 Does it follow that some of J osephus frequent deviations
from both the Masoretic and the Greek Biblical nomenclature were
based on Nicolaus account of J ewish history? Nicolaus Hellenization
of the name Abraham may provide a supplementary clue: the Septua
gint attempted to preserve the Hebrew forms of or J o
sephus form is s, but the quotation from Nicolaus names him
*.58 I t is evident, however, that Nicolaus, like J osephus, made the
Hebrew name sound more Greek than did the J ewish translators of the
Bible.
As to more substantial use of Nicolaus account of Biblical history
by J osephus, we are forced to conjecture. Marcus is probably correct
when he suggests that Nicolaus is the source for J osephus statement
that the Syrian kings, Adadus and his successor Azelus (Hebrew:
Hazael; LXX: Azael), were worshipped in Damascus as gods.54 But
either J osephus or, as is more likely, Nicolaus is wrong in identifying
57 J ewish History
this Adadus I I I as the ruler who made war against the king of Israel,
Ahab.55 For if Nicolaus is correct in stating that all Damascene kings
bore the same name for ten generations and that Adadus I flourished
in the time of David, Adadus I I I could not have been a contemporary
of Ahab. The Biblical account, however, confirms the statement that
the Damascene king besieged Samaria in the days of Ahab.67 An Assyr
ian inscription, it may be added, records that in 853 B.C. both Ahab
and Adad-idri, king of Damascus, fought Salmanasser I I I at Karkar,
apparently checking the first Assyrian attempt to expand southward.68
Be that as it may, the extra-Biblical material in Nicolaus account of
the wars between Ahab and Adadus has probably been preserved in
the J ewish Antiquities
What were Nicolaus' sources, in addition to the Bible, for his account
of Biblical history? A few more details supplied by Nicolaus resemble
those of Trogus,80 whose probable source was Timagenes.61 In the ab
sence of verifiable fragments of Nicolaus' treatment of ancient J ewish
history, what is known of his method of assembling world history may
offer some guide. I n his treatment of Assyrian, Lydian, and Persian
history, Nicolaus chose to copy or paraphrase highly dramatic incidents.
The heroes are romanticized, and women, for good or evil, play an
important role. I t is likely that Nicolaus' account of the Biblical heroes
was given this usual treatment. I n many cases, these romantic stories
already existed. Traces of such fictionalized accounts are preserved by
J osephus, whose use of Nicolaus throughout his works is beyond doubt.
The J oseph-Potiphar drama, in the Antiquities, seems to bear a
Nicolaus stamp. Martin Braun has called attention to the striking simi
larity of presentation between J osephus' accounts of Herod and Mari-
amne and the story of J oseph.82 Potiphar's wife is a victim of t &$o s
(passion); J oseph is a symbol of Xo7to/x6s (reason).88 J oseph's behavior
was not far removed from Herod's, when the latter refused to be
trapped by Cleopatra.84 Nicolaus, it may be recalled, claimed to have
treated his slaves fairly and to have given them an excellent education.85
J oseph received exactly the same treatment, as a slave of Potiphar.88
Nicolaus' incidental references to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David
suggest that the author of the Histories gave full descriptions of the
Biblical heroes.87 The references to the location of Noah's ark and to
Abraham's reign in Damascus lead one to believe that Nicolaus made
use of the Hellenized accounts which amplified and supplemented the
Biblical versions of the Hebrew heroes. Nicolaus' extensive borrowings
from Ctesias, Xanthus, and Ephorus88 to describe Semiramis, Arbacus,
Lycurgus, and Cyrus,89 suggest that Moses may have received similar
Nicolaus of Damascus 58
treatment. Moses supposed campaign against the Ethiopians, preserved
in the Antiquities, seems to suggest Nicolaus pen. The Ethiopian in
vaders had threatened Memphis, and Moses freed Egypt and seized the
Ethiopian capital. The climax of the legend is Moses marriage to the
daughter of the Ethiopian king.70 An early version of this story, it is
true, is found in Artapanus, an author who flourished not later than
the beginning of the first century B.C.71 But, as has been pointed out,
the account found in the Antiquities suggests that J osephus was follow
ing a modified version of Artapanus.72 An unknown historian, between
the times of Artapanus and J osephus, had in all probability rewritten
the legend, adding a romantic touch.78 A. Schalit suggests that Alex
ander Polyhistor may have been the immediate source.74 This is
unlikely. Polyhistor was a dry copyist never interested in romance.75
Nicolaus would seem to be a more likely source, for the Moses legend
in the Antiquities interweaves romance with warfare, an important
characteristic of Nicolaus technique.78 The prominent role of women,
the Egyptian conspiracy against Moses, and the anti-Egyptian bias are
elements which strengthen the suspicion that we have here Nicolaus
version of the story of Moses. Certainly, it is unbelievable that Herods
court historian would have been satisfied with merely paraphrasing
the version of Moses found in Exodus. Nicolaus was one of the Hellen
istic historians who claimed to have more information than is found
in the classical accounts of Herodotus or the Old Testament.77
Whereas Nicolaus treatment of Biblical history is of interest because
it sheds light upon first century B.C. midrashic historiography, his
treatment of J ewish history during the Hellenistic period is of greater
significance. Except for the I and I I Maccabees and scattered refer
ences in the works of Hellenistic historians, J osephus is the primary
source for J ewish history. The consensus of modern scholars is that
J osephus, in his account of Hellenistic history, largely followed Nico
laus, as has already been noted in chapter one, where the differing views
are also summarized.78 Here, however, one must review the evidence,
not so much to find out J osephus indebtedness to Nicolaus as to analyze
Nicolaus treatment of J ewish Hellenistic history. In his Histories, it
has been assumed, Nicolaus frequently referred to J ewish events, be
sides giving a connected account of ancient Israel. Did he follow the
same procedure during the Hellenistic epoch?
To answer this question the safe method is to begin with an analysis
of the ascertainable fragments. I n his Contra Apion, J osephus cites a
long list of Hellenistic historians who confirmed that Antiochus IV
Epiphanes, in need of money, sacked the temple at J erusalem of gold;
59 Jewish History
these historians include Polybius, Strabo, Nicolaus, Timagenes, Castor,
and Apollodorus.7* Few scholars would claim that J osephus himself
collected all these witnesses; 80 he undoubtedly found the names, either
in Strabo or Nicolaus, or both.81 As to the other historians, none of them
is known to have given a connected account of J ewish history.8* Anti
ochus sacking of the temple at J erusalem was included in their accounts
of the Seleucids. I t is plausible, then, that the same remark of Nicolaus
also occurred in that part of his history dealing primarily with the
affairs of Antiochus, rather than with the J ews.
The next fragment, from the thirteenth book of the Antiquities,
seems to confirm the impression that J osephus, citations from Nicolaus
were derived from accounts which dealt with general, rather than
J ewish, history.88 Both the Bellum and the Antiquities tell of Antiochus
VI I Sidetes siege of J erusalem in 129 B.C., whereupon J ohn Hyrcanus
bribed Antiochus to remove the blockade.8*According to the Antiquities,
however, Hyrcanus became Antiochus ally. J osephus cites Nicolaus as
witness for this statement:
Antiochus, after defeating the Parthian general Indates, set up a trophy at the
Lycus river. He remained there in camp for two days at the request of the Jew
Hyranus because there was a national festival during which the Jews were for
bidden to march out.
I t is not clear whether the context of this passage in Nicolaus has to
do with J ohn Hyrcanus or Antiochus Sidetes. I t is also possible that the
fragment dealt with Parthia, a topic treated by Nicolaus in the one
hundred and fourteenth book of his H i s t o r i e s From J osephus, how
ever, it would seem that the subject matter in Nicolaus was Antiochus
Sidetes. For instead of continuing with his account of Hyrcanus,
J osephus digresses to tell a chapter of Seleucid history. He describes
Antiochus death at the hands of the Parthian king Arsaces, whereupon
Demetrius I I ascended the Syrian throne. Demetrius, J osephus con
tinues, was able to succeed Antiochus because Arsaces had released him
from captivity when Antiochus was invading Parthia, as has already
been related elsewhere.87 As J osephus never did retell this story, and
had no reason to, it is the general consensus of modern scholars that
J osephus copied the cross reference from his source.88 That the source
was Nicolaus is evident from the fact that the Damascene is cited by
J osephus immediately before his digression from J ewish history. Thus
it would seem that J osephus, while copying from Nicolaus the fact of
Hyrcanus presence in the Parthian campaign, followed his source in
its description of Antiochus and Demetrius. The note as has already
been related elsewhere fits well into the kind of work Nicolaus wrote.
Nicolaus of Damascus 60
His topical treatment of history required cross references. I n this in
stance, the note probably referred to Nicolaus account of Parthia,
where more details of Antiochus invasion were given.
Of greater interest is the fact that while dealing with Antiochus
Sidetes, Nicolaus recorded a relatively insignificant fact concerning
Hyrcanus request to remain in camp to celebrate the J ewish holiday.89
Such a detail would have been of interest to J ewish readers only. At
any rate, the parallel account in the Bellum, which keeps to a minimum
the general background of the period, omits Hyrcanus campaign in
Parthia.90
The evidence so far indicates that Nicolaus integrated J ewish history
with that of the general Hellenistic monarchies. But the possibility that
he gave a full description of the internal affairs of the Hasmonaeans
cannot be excluded, especially inasmuch as historians generally tended
to become more detailed as they described the later times.91 But it does
not follow that J ewish history was treated apart from that of the Seleu-
cids and the Ptolemies. This assumption would seem to run counter to
the accepted view of modern scholarship. I t is generally assumed that
the Bellum was more dependent on Nicolaus history than the Antiqui
ties. The basis for this hypothesis is that (a) the treatment of Herod
in the Bellum is more favorable than in the Antiquities; (b) in the
Antiquities Strabo is cited often; (c) the outlook of the Bellum reflects
that of a Hellenistic author writing in the days of Herod.98 Putting
aside for the moment J osephus treatment of the Herodian period, this
hypothesis leaves some questions unanswered. I n his Antiquities, J ose
phus frequently strays from his account of the Hasmonaeans to include
subject matter which had no direct bearing on J ewish affairs; but the
parallel account in the Bellum is free from such extraneous material.
I t is only if we assume a Hellenistic source for the Antiquities, such as
Nicolaus Histories, whose interest was not limited to J ewish history,
that the inclusion of the extraneous material in the Antiquities can be
explained. A more compelling argument for the assumption that J ose
phus account of the Hasmonaeans in the Antiquities was based on the
Damascene is the fact that it is interspersed with direct citations from
the Damascene.98 The hypothesis that the Bellum followed Nicolaus,
however, is founded on sheer guesswork. The evidence, then, points to
a fuller dependence on Nicolaus in the Antiquities than in the Bellum.
This is not to say that Nicolaus must be excluded as the source of the
Bellum. True, the Bellum, unlike the Antiquities, deals primarily with
internal affairs. But it is likely that Nicolaus included a detailed ac
count of the Hasmonaeans, as background for the rise of Herod, an
61 Jewish History
account that J osephus might have excerpted in the Bellum.MI n the
Antiquities, however, J osephus, writing at a more leisurely pace, felt
free to follow his source more closely.
The hypothesis that J osephus, in the Antiquities, supplemented his
account of the Bellum with citations from Nicolaus which dealt with
general rather than J ewish history, gains support from fragment 93:
Ptolemy Lathyrus overran J udaea, commanding his soldiers to cut
the throats of women and children, chop them up, boil and eat them.
Nicolaus and Strabo are cited as authorities for this statement.95 Now,
Nicolaus and Strabo independently followed Timagenes, cited just pre
viously by J osephus.98 Timagenes, it is known, never gave a connected
history of the J ews, although he made frequent references to them.1"
I f Timagenes was here the source, as J acoby assumes, it follows that
Nicolaus may have simply paraphrased his sources account of Ptolemy
Lathyrus. A check in the parallel account in the Bellum shows that the
author knew nothing of Ptolemys atrocities in J udaea.98 And once
again, the fragment concludes with the note as we have shown else
where.99
These cross references served a useful purpose. Having arranged his
history topically, it is easy to imagine the difficulties Nicolaus encoun
tered in his attempt to integrate a detailed history of the J ews with the
complexities of Hellenistic history. For a Posidonius or a Timagenes
it was reasonable to subordinate accounts of the J ews to that of the
period, adding some background of the peculiar development of the
J ews.100 But Nicolaus history was much wider in scope. Wanting to
include a detailed account of the Hasmonaean rulers, he solved the
problem by subordinating the internal to the external history and con
necting the two with cross references. Thus, Pompeys conquest of
J erusalem, as well as Crassus campaign against Parthia and Caesars
conquest of Gaul, were treated consecutively under the general heading
of the conflict between Pompey and Caesar.101 This was a logical arrange
ment. For aside from petty border quarrels, the external history of the
J ews must be viewed from the centers of power, rather than from the
factional conflicts within J erusalem.
Nevertheless, approaching the fall of the Hasmonaean dynasty and
the rise of Antipater, Nicolaus lost his sense of proportion. The descrip
tion of the early Hasmonaeans, while adequate, was never dispropor
tionate to the general account of the Histories. But the struggle between
Hyrcanus I I and Aristobulus served to introduce the prominent role
of Antipater and his son Herod.102 J acoby conjectures that fragment 96,
which deals with Antipaters ancestry, was described in one of the
Nicolaus of Damascus 62
books from one hundred eleven to one hundred thirteen.108 This would
mean that the last thirty books, or more, out of the one hundred forty-
four of the entire universal history, dealt primarily with the rise and
life of Herod. Unbelievable as this lack of proportion would seem, it
may nevertheless be correct. Nicolaus devoted, as fragment 81 shows,
a book or so (on the average) to each two years of Herods life, from
14 to 4 B.C.104As Antipater rose to prominence in the early seventies B.C.,
the same proportion of a book per two years for the whole period is
probable. I f this is true, then Herods reign was one of the most minutely
described periods in J ewish history. And despite the loss of Nicolaus
work, it has remained so, thanks to J osephus condensation of this period
into nearly four books.106
As already noted, Destinon scholars have since attempted to probe
deeper into the nature of Nicolaus treatment of Herod. The consensus
is that Nicolaus account may be reconstructed from those passages in
J osephus favorable to the king.106 As far as it goes, this seems a reason
able assumption. Its weakness, however, is that this hypothesis rests
almost exclusively on J osephus own quotations from Nicolaus.107 The
question still remains whether J osephus accurately reproduced Nico
laus views. Fortunately, the remnants of Nicolaus Autobiography fur
nish some evidence on this point.108 To be sure, these fragments deal with
relatively few incidents of the history of the period, and they do not
come from the Histories. But unless there are special reasons why
Nicolaus changed his views, it may be assumed that the description of
the events in the Histories was essentially the same as in the Autobiog
raphy, although in a much abbreviated form.109
From fragment 135 we learn that Nicolaus described Herods intel
lectual interests, something that J osephus failed to do. Nicolaus, as
fragment 134 shows, not only described fully Herods benevolent acts
on behalf of the Greek cities, but also explained his purpose: philan-
thropia, a point strongly belabored by the Damascene, but omitted by
J osephus, perhaps intentionally.110 Nicolaus journey to Rome in the
company of Herod in 12 B.C., which was probably mentioned in the
history, is not recorded in J osephus.111 The same may be true of Nico
laus visit to Antioch in 20 B.C., perhaps as an aide to the king.1 By
omitting these incidents J osephus probably eliminated some of the
cruder aspects of Nicolaus Herodian propaganda.
Fragment 136 begins with Nicolaus second known journey to Rome
in 8 b .c . to bring about a reconciliation between Augustus and Herod.1
Here the account in the Antiquities conforms to that related by Nico
laus.114 According to the Antiquities, Augustus not only resumed his
63 Jewish History
friendly relations with Herod but also condemned to death Herod's
accuser, the Arab general Syllaeus.1 J osephus, however, records that
Syllaeus agitated against Herod in 4 B.C., in Rome.1 But a check of
Nicolaus may explain how J osephus came to make such a gross error.
The relevant passage in fragment 136 concludes: And having been
found subsequently very evil, he [Syllaeus] was condemned to death.117
Nicolaus clearly referred to Syllaeus' misdeeds in 4 B.C., for which, as
Strabo records, he was executed.1 When paraphrasing Nicolaus, J ose
phus seems to have overlooked the word subsequently." Incidentally,
the Syllaeus affair is not recorded in the Bellum, which confirms the
impression that the Antiquities was even more dependent on Nicolaus
than J osephus' earlier work.
In the Autobiography, Nicolaus' account of the condemnation of
Herod's sons parallels that of J osephus.1 But Nicolaus, despite his
brevity, adds details missing in J osephus: that Mariamne's sons were
executed at night and that Antipater plotted to kill Salome, Herod's
sister.0 Nicolaus' version of the event following Herod's death contains
facts missing in J osephus. He similarly records the number of the J ews
massacred by Archelaus as three thousand, but only Nicolaus says that
more than ten thousand participated in the revolt.1 Nicolaus alone
records that the revolt of the J ews was directed against the Hellenes,"
as it was against Archelaus.* As might be expected, Nicolaus is more
accurate than his copyist.
Unlike J osephus, who describes two separate proceedings before
Augustus dealing with the disposition of Herod's realm, Nicolaus, for
the sake of brevity, combines them into one.8 Otherwise the superiority
of Nicolaus' version to that of J osephus is again apparent. Nicolaus
mentions the presence in Rome of a delegation from the Hellenistic
cities to demand freedom and that Archelaus, on the Damascene's ad
vice, did not oppose their demand.4 J osephus, although omitting the
presence of the Hellenistic delegation, does say that the Greek cities of
Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos were detached from Archelaus' ethnarchy
and incorporated into the province of Syria.5 The pleadings of the
J ewish delegation are more precisely recorded in Nicolaus' account
than that of J osephus. According to J osephus, the J ewish representa
tives pleaded for direct Roman rule; according to Nicolaus, they pre
ferred Roman rule, but as second choice consented to be governed by
Antipas,8 Archelaus' younger brother. The J ewish opposition to the
house of Herod was not as uncompromising as one would assume from
J osephus. Nicolaus affirms that he deliberately refrained from attack
ing Antipas.127 J osephus quotes Antipas' bitter attacks against Arche-
Nicolaus of Damascus 64
laus, but Nicholaus response to these charges, as quoted by J osephus,
is free from personal recriminations. J osephus thus indirectly confirms
Nicolaus account.128
The following may be deduced from fragments 133 to 136, assuming
that Nicolaus Histories contained the same information as his Auto
biography: (a) Nicolaus described Herods intellectual aspirations, in
cluding perhaps a philosophical justification of the kings reign;120 (b)
the relations between the J ews and the Hellenistic elements in Palestine
were more clearly delineated than in J osephus;180 (c) the prominence
of Nicolaus was strongly emphasized;131 (d) Nicolausaccount contained
many details now lost;132 (e) J osephus dependence on Nicolaus, even
more in the Antiquities than in the Bellum, need not be questioned.133
The loss of (a) and (b) is especially lamentable.
Nicolaus account of ancient Israel, his treatment of the Hasmonaeans
and Herod, as well as the frequent references to the J ews elsewhere in
his works, make it evident that a substantial part of the Histories dealt
with J ewish affairs. During the Hellenistic period, J ewish and non-
J ewish historians had written monographs about the J ews, and world
history was a popular subject. But Nicolaus, under the inspiration of
Herod, was the first to combine the two. The J ews felt slighted because
the classical historians had hardly mentioned them; the Hellenistic
authors treated them briefly and disdainfully. The prominence given
to the J ews in Nicolaus world history may have been intended, at
Herods wish, to heal this wound. I t may be assumed, then, that Nico
laus world history was one more apologetic work similar to that of other
J ewish-Hellenistic authors, but of much larger dimensions.
Chapter V
MYTH AND HISTORY
N i c o l a u s Histories, containing as it did one hundred and forty-four
books, was perhaps the most voluminous history written in Greek.1 Its
scope was equally impressive; beginning with mythology, it concluded
with a full account of the authors own times. A brief outline of the
contents of the fragments will show Nicolaus scheme:
BooTcs I and I I (FF 1-6; 82)
The history of Assyria, Babylonia and Media:
Semiramis returning from India founded Babylon and foiled a conspiracy
by her son ( F I ) ; Keign of Sardanapalus (F 2); Arbaces the Median with
the aid of the Babylonian Belesys, overthrows Sardanapalus (F 3); Nanarus,
satrap of Babylon under Median King Artaeus, mutilated Parsondes, a Per
sian competitor for the satrapy (F 4); Stryangaeus, a general under Asty-
baros, commits suicide because of unrequited love (F 5) ; Origin of the
Achaemenids (F 6).
Boole I I I (FF 7-11; 83?; 84)
Hellas to the Trojan wars:
Amphion and Zethus (F 7); Laius and Oedipus (F 8); Bellerophon (F 9);
Pelops overthrow of Oenomaus and marriage to Hippodamia (F 10); Argo
nauts (F 11; F 12?); Heracles (F 13); Trojan wars (F 14).
Booh IV (FF 15-36; 85; 86?)
The history of Lydia to the Heraclid dynasty: Founding of Torrebus (F 15);
King Moxus (F 16); Camblitas (F 22).
Digression into the history of Syria and Palestine: Founding of Nerabus (F
17); Ascalon (F 18); Abrahams reign in Damascus (F 19); King Adadus of
Damascus (F 20).
Aeolian migrations: The rape of Salmoneus daughter by her father (F 21);
settlement of the Peloponnesus (F 23); fame of the Amythaonidae (F 24);
Orestes (F 25); Scamandrius and Andromache (F 26); foundation of Carnia?
(F 27).
The Heraclids: Lacedaemon (FF 28-29); Argos (F 30); Messenia (FF 31
34); Corinth (FF 35-36).
BoohV (FF 37-43)
Arcadia (FF 37-39); Aegaean Islands? (FF 40-42); Mesembria (F 43).
Booh VI (FF 44-56)
History of Lydia: Lydian Heraclids: Cadys and Ardys, Sadyattes, Meles,
Myrsus, Sadyattes (Tudo), Gyges (FF 44-47).
Athens: The kings Demophon (F 48) ; Hippomenes (F 49).
Cyrene and Ionian migrations: Cyrene (F 50) ;2 Cyme (F 51); Miletus (FF
52-53).
[65]
Nicolaus of Damascus 66
The Heraclidai of Thessaly: Pelias; Jason; Medea, Peleus, Acastus (FF
54-55).
Sparta: Lycurgus (F56).
Book VII (FF 57-70)
Tyrants of Corinth and Sicyon: Cypselus (F 58); Periander (F 59); Cypselus
or Psammetichus? (F 60); tyrants of SicyonMyron; Isodemus; Clisthenes
(F 61).
History of Lydia: Gyges campaign against Magnesians (F 62); Alyattes,
Sadyattes (F 63); Alyattes (F 64); Croesus (F 65).
Rise of Persia: Rise and reign of Cyrus (FF 66-67); Cyrus and Croesus
(F 68).
Early Rome(?):8 Amulius; Numitor; Romulus and Remus (FF 69-70).
This table of contents shows that Nicolaus Histories was a true uni
versal history. I ts scheme may properly be compared to the Histories
of Ephorus, the first universal historian.4 But Nicolaus history was
much wider in scope; it began properly, like the works of Herodotus
and Ctesias, with the oriental empires, rather than with the conquest of
the Peloponnesus used as the opening for Ephorus work.8 Nicolaus,
following in the footsteps of Ctesias, gave an account of Semiramis
mythical conquest of India,then he described the fates of Assyria,
Media, and Babylonia, until the rise of Persia.7 Unlike Ephorus, he
included the mythological accounts of pre-Trojan Hellas.8 The history
of Lydia was divided into three parts, interwoven with the prehistory
of the Hellenic states, both Dorian and Ionian.Following Herodotus
method, the fall of Lydia was in turn subordinated to that of the rise of
Persia, where the East and the West met. Even if we credit the broader
vision of Nicolaus to the knowledge acquired since the days of Ephorus,
the organization of the Histories is commendable. Here was neither a
mere collection of national histories nor a synchronous account of gen
erations.10 The national histories were divided into parallel periods, each
division being designed to coincide with an event of major import. The
schemes charted by Herodotus and Ephorus were broadened in scope.11
As the work developed, it must have included more and more peoples,
their histories becoming increasingly detailed. Unfortunately, all that
we have of the work, after book seven, are a few incidents recorded in
sundry fragments:18 the landing of Noahs ark in Armenia, in book
XCVI (F 72); the Mithradates wars, in books CIII-CIV (FF 73-74);
Sulla, in book CVII (F 75); Pompeys crossing of the Alps, in book
CVIII (F 76); Lucullus triumph in 63 B.C., book CX (FF 77-78);
Crassus defeat by the Parthians in 53 B.C., book CXIY (F 79); Caesars
Gallic wars, in book CXVI (F 80); Nicolaus journey through Ionia in
the company of Herod, in 14 B.C., was described in books CXXI I I-
67 Myth and History
CXXIV (F 81). The remaining twenty-one fragments have no book
number.1*And as has already been noted, the last thirty or so books
were devoted to the history of Herod. The work seems to have been
organized according to subject matter, with frequent digressions.
Less praiseworthy was Nicolaus choice of authorities. His source for
the history of Assyria and Media was the Persica by Ctesias, Artaxerxes
Mnemons fourth-century physician.16 Ctesias novelistic version of the
history of Babylonia and Persia, chiefly known through the summaries
of Diodorus and Photius, was extremely popular.17 Not that there was
no other source. The history of Babylon by Berossus, a native priest,
was based on original sources and was more reliable than that of
Ctesias. The latter, however, was very popular with Greek historians.
Although there is evidence that Nicolaus made use of Berossus in his
account of J ewish history,80 for his Assyrian history Ctesias romantic
tales were better suited to the needs of Nicolaus highly dramatized
history. From the time of Herodotus, Greek historiography has been
faced with the conflict between telling a good story and telling the
truth. There is no doubt that Nicolaus preferred a good story. Of all
the authors who made use of Ctesias, Nicolaus alone has preserved, and
perhaps expanded upon, the dramatic flavor of the original.21
For the history of Lydia, Nicolaus made use of the account of
Xanthus, the fifth century B.C. native.28 Nicolaus has probably preserved
more of Xanthus Lydiaca than all the other sources combined.2* Al
though Nicolaus occasionally made use of Herodotus, he preferred the
tradition of the Lydian to that of the Halicarnassian, another indication
of Nicolaus tendency to choose the fanciful but less reliable source.24
Nicolaus authorities for Hellenic history were Hellanicus and Eph-
orus, whose works were standard.25 Who were Nicolaus other sources?
Meyer has suggested Polybius, for Roman history.88 Certainly Posido
nius was the source for Nicolaus account of Mithradates, perhaps also
for most of the period covered by the Apamean (145 to 109 B.C. ) . 77
J acoby suggests Timagenes of Naucratis as the common authority for
both Strabo and Nicolaus, for the first century.28 Finally, we are certain
that Caesars Gallic Wars was also used by Nicolaus.28 Thus far, the
evidence shows that Nicolaus based his history on none but popular
authors.
Acquaintance with the lesser known historians, evident in the works
of other first-century writers such as Alexander Polyhistor, Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, or J uba of Mauretania, may appear to be lacking.80
Although this view is accepted by such authorities as von Gutschmid
and J acoby, it is not necessarily correct.81 J osephus frequently lists
Nicolaus in the company of other writers: Hesiod, Hecataeus of Miletus,
Nicolaus of Damascus 68
Acusilaus of Argos, Hellanicus of Lesbos, Ephorus of Cyme, Berossus
of Babylon, Hieronymus the Egyptian, and Mnaseas of Patara ( ? ) The
fact that J osephus cited Nicolaus twice, at the bottom of the list of the
authorities, indicates, according to Hoelscher and Thackeray, that J ose
phus probably copied the whole list from Nicolaus.83 This view is
strengthened by the evidence that Nicolaus frequently quoted from
Hesiod, and also made use of Hellanicus and Ephorus, while J osephus
had no reason to be acquainted with these writers.8" Thus it is no longer
possible to assume that Nicolaus sources were restricted, as those of
Diodorus reputedly were, to a handful of renowned names. I f one adds
the authorities he used in his Collection of Remarkable Customs, the
number of authors can no longer be limited to a handful of famous
historians.85 J acoby, it is true, says that in view of the popularity of
this genre of literature the material for the Customs must have been
easily accessible. As J acoby himself says, however, the fact remains
that the sources of only a few of these fragments can be identified.8I t
might therefore be assumed that Nicolaus claim that he put an immense
amount of labor into his history is correct.87 I n his philosophical works,
Nicolaus paraphrased Aristotle but added the views of Theophrastus
and other Peripatetics. From Nicolaus references to Theophrastus
Metaphysics, regarded by Andronicus and Hermippus as already lost,
it is evident that he had access to remarkable library resources.88 I n his
histories, he seems to have supplemented his major source with the views
of other authors.
More important than the sources themselves is Nicolaus technique
in using them. J acoby maintains that Nicolaus made use of scribal
marks in selecting the passages, which he then ordered his secretaries
to transcribe. These he later rewrote, sometimes fusing the sources, at
other times leaving contradictions, and occasionally even preserving
the archaic style.8Laqueur argues that Nicolaus constantly combined
two sources according to contemporary rhetorical principles, though
not skilfully enough to escape Laqueurs detection.40 This thesis is based
on verbal contradictions which may perhaps be reconciled.41 But because
none of the authorities presumably used by Nicolaus have survived,
Laqueurs view is unverifiable.42
Laqueur is probably correct, however, when he disputes J acobys
assertion that Nicolaus account of Persia is an indication of Ctesias
artistic skill as a wri terThe fragments of Ctesias, as handed down by
Diodorus and Photius, show him to have been an author with a lively
style.44 But Nicolaus seems to have dramatized even more the account
as he found it in his source.46 There is no evidence that either Ctesias
69 Myth and History
or Xanthus utilized dialogue to dramatize a story, though Herodotus
did.46 Nicolaus, however, also wrote tragedies, and so he employed his
dramatic skill to heighten interest in a story.47 Nicolaus description of
the conspiracy by Arbaces the Median and Belesys the Babylonian is
perhaps a good example. When Belesys had been advised in a dream
that Arbaces would one day wrest the kingship from the Assyrian
Sardanapalus, he was naturally eager to profit as much as possible from
the advance information:48
Belesys: Tell me, Arbases, if Sardanapalus the despot should appoint you satrap
of Cilicia, what will you give me for the good tidings?
Arbaces: Why, devil, are you laughing at me? Why should he make me a satrap
of Cilicia and pass over other, more powerful men ?
Belesys: But if he indeed does make you (I know even more than what I say),
what favor will you do me ?
Arbaces: Nothing to complain o f . . . a part of the country, not the least of it.
Belesys: Tell me now, if you become satrap over all of Babylon, what will you
do for me ?
Arbaces: Stop, by Zeus, making a fool of me. I do not think it proper for a
Median to be made a laughing stock by a Babylonian.
Belesys: By the mighty Baal, Fm not deriding you, when I tell you this; I can
foretell you even more.
Arbaces: If I should become the satrap of Babylon, I would make you hyparch
of the entire satrapy.
Belesys: I dont believe you. Tell me this, if you became king over the entire
country now under Sardanapalus, what would you do for me?
Arbaces: If Sardanapalus should hear this, reckless man, were it not well that
you as well as I should destroy ourselves? But what makes you talk such nonsense?
Why dont you stop being a fool?
Belesys (seizing Arbaces hand) : By my right hand of honor and by the great
Baal, I do not say this in sport, but as what I know to be the most true oracle.
Arbaces: I shall give you Babylon to keep, free of tribute.40
This excerpt and others, such as the description of Cyrus, rise and
his saving of Croesus, give us a glimpse of Nicolaus skill at telling a
story in dialogue.50 But the method is by no means limited to the
Histories. In his Augustan Life, Nicolaus also utilized forms practiced
by the dramatists. Nicolaus alone, among the ancients, and Shake
speare after him, records that the crown was offered to Caesar not once
but three times.51 Nicolaus heightens the effect by making Licinius first
place the diadem upon Caesars feet; then Cassius, in reality one of the
conspirators, put it on Caesars lap; finally Antony, naked and anointed,
places it on Caesars head.52 Hohl has dubbed this version a nieder-
traechtige Erfindung.53 J osephus account of Herod, probably based
on that of Nicolaus, often employs the same dramatic devices.54
The moralistic eulogies frequently used to summarize the lives of the
Nicolaus of Damascus 70
noble kings indicate Nicolaus attitude to history. Nicolaus described
Cyrus as the son of a destitute shepherd, who, by his sheer ability, rose
from slavery to kingship.56 I t is therefore surprising to read subse
quently that Cyrus, in his youth, had really studied philosophy under
the Magi. Their precepts of justice and piety he practiced throughout
his life, in accordance with the excellent laws of Persia as well as in
accordance with the oracles of the Ephesian Sibyl.68 I t goes without
saying that in Persia such an education was available only to the upper
echelons of aristocratic youth. But Cyrus was not unique in the observ
ance of these principles. Other kings, like Ardys and Alyattes, are
equally eulogized for their love of piety and justice.6The idea is clear:
the good king, like a good man, is one who follows the precepts of
philanthropia and dikaiosyne so strongly emphasized in Nicolaus Auto
biography
Aside from the primitive concepts of history found in the Babylonian
records,6the ancients developed two schools of historiography. Herodo
tus and Thucydides perfected the pragmatic style of writing history
that was current among the Greeks. Although strongly influenced by
moral ideas, this school had as its outstanding aims factual description
and objective analysis of historical events. Hebrew historiography, so
familiar to us from the historical books of the Bible, developed the
theory that the success of a king or a nation must be judged by moral
and theological values exclusively.80 In Nicolaus, we may discern a com
bination of the two schools. He transcribed the accounts found in his
Greek authorities, but he also appended moralizing summaries. The
fact that occasionally, as in the case of Cyrus youth, the summary con
tradicted the version he had given before, is irrelevant.81 The good king
must exemplify the lesson.
Perhaps it was out of sheer curiosity, or possibly to divert Herod, or
perhaps because the pursuit of justice among the civilized countries was
rather rare, that Nicolaus felt impelled to write his Collection of Re
markable C u st o msAt any rate, he described the strict observance of
truth and justice among some of the barbarian and Hellenic peoples,
as found in the utopian literature dealing with them.88 The first frag
ment of this work tells of the Tartessians, among whom the younger
could not testify against the older;04 it also describes the laws of the
Lucani which condemned idleness and profligacy.85 Nicolaus reports
these unusual customs without comment.88 But the reader gains the
impression that the author admired the custom ascribed to the Samnites,
a custom also recommended by Plato, who in annual assemblies awarded
the prettiest virgins to the most deserving men.87 There is no question
71 Myth and History
that Nicolaus expressed approval of the supposed honesty of Celts and
Ethiopians, among whom theft was unknown and whose doors were
never locked. Of the Greeks, the Cretans are credited, as usual, with
an excellent legal system, and the Spartans, with a stern constitution.69
The customs of historical peoples are indiscriminately intermingled
with fantastic accounts of mythical nations.70
Whether Nicolaus included an account of J ewish laws and customs
in his Collection is a question worth asking. I f he did, there is no trace
of it in the fragments. But the fact that Nicolaus described the con
stitution and practices of both Hellenes and barbarians gives reason to
assume that the customs of the J ews were not absent. Philo, in his
description of the Therapeutae, a J ewish sect either similar to or iden
tical with the Essenes, compares their communal living and their dis
dain of wordly goods to those of the Galactophagi mentioned in the
Iliad J1I t is perhaps no coincidence that both Philos quotation from
Homer and its interpretation, which diverges from the simple meaning,
is found in Nicolaus.72 Philos reference to those who live on milk is
rather brief; that of Nicolaus is lengthy. The Galactophagi, Nicolaus
says, were a Scythian tribe, among whom envy, hatred or fear had
never been recorded because of their communal life and practice of
justice.73 I n view of the ever-repeated theme of communal living
among various peoples, one ventures to speculate that the Collection of
Remarkable Customs may have contained a description of the Essenes.74
I t is possible to go even further and to assume that both Philos and
J osephus accounts of the Essenes were based on the account of Nico
laus.75 Perceptive readers of J osephus have recognized that his descrip
tion of the Essenes was based on some authority whose information was
firsthand, but who was ignorant of the nicer distinctions of J ewish
customs.76 The Essenes alone, among J ewish sects, are favorably treated
in J osephus account of Herod, a version that was probably based on
the one by Nicolaus.77 Certainly J osephus, a Pharisee himself, cannot
be regarded as the original author of the slurring remarks referring
to a group he was identified with.78 Philos account of the Essenes, which
is not too different from that of J osephus, also mentions that the Essenes
were favored by kings, possibly a reference to Herods sympathy with
that sect.79 In the Antiquities, the account of the Essenes concludes with
a reference to the Dacians, another Scythian tribe.80 This comparison
seems to echo Nicolaus description of the Galactophagi, whose Scyth
ian way of life was said to have contained many elements comparable
to those of the Essenes.81 I f Nicolaus, the author of several philosophical
treatises, described the J ewish sects at all, he would have been likely to
Nicolaus of Damascus 72
compare them with one or another of the Greek philosophical schools.
To a non-J ew trained in the acrimonious metaphysical debates, the dis
putes in religious doctrines and practices among the Saducees, Phari
sees, and Essenes may have assumed familiar philosophical connota
tions, which later J ewish apologists were glad to repeat.82
I t is easy to dismiss the Collection of Remarkable Customs as one
more of those mythological works that were so popular in Hellenistic
literature.88 Photius, however, writing in the ninth century, devotes
more space to it than to any other writings of Nicolaus.84 Of some inter
est is Photius statement that the Collection resembled the writings of
Conon, a mythographer in the court of king Archelaus, whose daughter
had married Herods son.85 Does this suggest a kind of literary compe
tition between the kings of Cappadocia and J udea? Alexander Poly
histor is likewise cited by Photius as the author of the Collection of
M a r v e l s Whether Nicolaus made use of Alexanders work is unveri-
fiable, as J acoby says, because we have only a meager fragment of the
latter.87 Nicolaus Collection is especially valuable because it is one of
the few remnants which attest to the interest of the Peripatetics in
comparative anthropological and constitutional studies in Hellenistic
literature.88
In some respects, Nicolaus historical works may be likened to the
writings of other first-century historians, such as Alexander Polyhistor
and J uba of Mauretania.89 J acoby lists twenty-five works by Alexander
Polyhistor, twenty of which are historical monographs on various cities
and states, a mythological collection on the Delphic oracles, and essays
on the Pythagorean symbols and the succession of the heads of philo
sophical schools.90 I f On the Jews, the only work of which substantial
fragments remain, was typical of his other ethnological works,91 Alex
ander must have been a man of amazing industry. Within the space of
a few pages more than a dozen Greek, J ewish, and Samaritan historians
and poets are quoted.92 J acoby suggests that Alexander was the greatest
of the first century historians, his honesty and reliability beyond re
proach.98 King J uba was almost as prolific, if less scientific than
Alexander Polyhistor.94 Nicolaus, in common with both of these his
torians, possessed wide curiosity and a cosmopolitan outlook which
extended even to the uncivilized tribes.95
Alexander and J uba composed local histories, but Nicolaus wrote a
general history, which probably included most of the histories treated
by Alexander and J uba. Thus Nicolaus devoted the first two books and
parts of the seventh to the history of Assyria, a subject covered by
Polyhistor and J uba in monographs.96 Both Nicolaus and Alexander
73 Myth and History
made use of Ctesias.97 But whereas Alexanders Chaldaeca is an im
portant source for Berossus, Nicolaus use of this Babylonian priest
can only be surmised.98 Nicolaus, like Alexander and J uba, was basically
a compiler.99 But Alexander and J uba listed their authorities, of which
they seem to have given faithful summaries or transcriptions. With
Nicolaus, one is not so certain.100 He seems to have liked to show off his
skill as a writer, sometimes paraphrasing an account into a dialogue,
sometimes adding a humorous touch, but frequently transforming his
source into a more dramatic account.101 The result is that Nicolaus
history was probably more readable than those of either Alexander
Polyhistor or J uba, but less reliable.
I n the world of the first century B.C., the eminence accorded a people
was partially measured by the amount of space devoted to that people
in the Greek histories. The Romans, like the J ews, felt slighted because
Greek historians had, by and large, either misrepresented or neglected
them.102 Both Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Livy, and Vergil as well,
tried to fill the void. But attempts to tell the glory of Rome were not
confined to those who wrote in Rome. Alexander Polyhistor, J uba, and
Conon wrote histories of Italy, all undoubtedly flattering to the mighty
power.103 I t is impossible to know how many books of Nicolaus Histories
were devoted to Roman affairs, but it may be assumed that all glorified
the greatness of Rome. I t is possible, although unverifiable, that Nico
laus thesis in the Histories was the evolution of Rome and how she,
more than any other world power, had brought justice and peace to
the East. This view was stressed, at least, in Nicolaus life of Augustus.104
Taking his cue from the Princeps himself, Nicolaus described Augus
tus as a great soldier, though the emphasis was upon the man of peace.105
Nicolaus seems at his best when he describes Octavians humanity. The
young man is presented almost as if he were an average Roman aristo
cratic youthbut not quite. We see the meticulous parental care given
him, the problems of adolescence and social pressure, aggravated by
sickness.100 Nicolaus stresses Octavians moral, almost puritanical, be
havior, in contrast with the debauchery of most Roman youth. And
Caesars parental affection for his adopted son is feelingly described.101
But Augustus showed his greatness, Nicolaus seems to imply, when he
gambled everything against the general advice, including that of his
mother, that he ought to challenge Antony. I t was an unselfish risk
made on behalf of the Roman people, for Antony, Nicolaus charged,
sought to appease the assassins of Caesar.108 One reason Caesar was
assassinated, according to Nicolaus, was his failure to understand that
generosity and forgiveness do not necessarily banish envy and hatred.109
Nicolaus of Damascus 74
Octavian, however, unlike Antony, kept faith with elementary human
feelings; unlike Caesar, he knew whom to forgive and whom to condemn
by proscription.110
By law and nature, Nicolaus said, Caesars office belonged to
Octavian.mThus Nicolaus, more than any other ancient historian,
stressed Augustus legitimate rights.113 These rights rested upon Caesars
will which, found after his death, made Octavian his adopted son and
the heir to three-fourths of his fortune.113 Technically, under a Repub
lican form of government the adoption was strictly a familial affair.114
Nicolaus, however, either because he was addressing readers to whom
the Hellenistic monarchial system was taken for granted or because
he himself came from such a tradition, reiterated that the adoption in
effect bestowed upon Octavian all of the dictators powers.115 I t may be
doubted that even Augustus, who exploited the adoption to the full,
made such maximal claims for this extremely valuable document; at
least, none of the other biographers of the Princeps went so far. Nico
laus, however, carried his argument a step further. He claimed that
Caesar had groomed the young Octavian to be his successor,1 although
Nicolaus elsewhere said that the dictator had so successfully concealed
his intention to adopt Octavian that no one, including the adopted son
himself, knew about it until the will was opened.117 Whatever the facts
were, the panegyrists apologies must have appeared truthful to the
Greek readers, who were ignorant of Roman law.
Nicolaus was addressing himself to the Hellenistic reader when he
idealized Augustus reign. I n the very beginning of the biography,
Nicolaus stressed that Augustus was not a mere mortal. Men over the
world dedicated temples and offered sacrifices to him. Augustus ruled
over the greatest number of people ever governed by any man.118 Nico
laus was probably pointing out here that Augustus attained greater
power than Alexander the Great.11Moreover, Augustus overshadowed
Alexander, it is implied, not only in the extent of the empire but also
in moral qualities. To be sure, at first the Greeks and the Barbarians
were subjected to Augustus through the feat of arms. But wise ruler
that he was, he knew that true conquest can be attained only by kind
ness and full obedience, rendered by free choice. Among the rulers of
the world, only Augustus succeeded in gaining the devotion of those
he had conquered.130 To the modern reader these words may appear
somewhat too familiar, but they must have flattered the audience to
whom the biography was addressed.
Nicolaus description of Augustus as the ideal ruler apparently im
plied that the Roman empire was humanitys highest achievement. On
75 Myth and History
another occasion, in Ionia, where the Greeks and the J ews quarreled,
he had an opportunity to expand upon his thesis. Citing Roman edicts,
Nicolaus defended the rights of the J ews to worship as they pleased.
Any curtailment of the religious freedom of the J ews, he argued, was
an offense against Rome, an empire which had brought happiness and
unequaled freedom to humanity.121 Whether Nicolaus himself originated
some of this or, as is more likely, he merely mouthed the official view,
he displayed excellent skill as a progagandist. I t is no wonder that he
became a favorite of Augustus.122
Nicolaus propagandistic activities on behalf of Augustus, however,
were merely incidental to his services as an agent of Herod. The author,
having been urged by Herod to undertake the writing of a history, the
tenor of the work was calculated to add to his masters glory.3 The
degeneration of the Histories into a description of Herodian rule has
led some scholars to suspect that Nicolaus wrote a separate biography
of Herod.124 For this there is no evidence; the Nicolaean tradition does
not mention such a work.5 Whether Nicolaus subordinated the general
period to his account of Herod, or whether he simply ignored events
not directly connected with the J udaean king, is not known. The latter
is probable, however, if J osephus account of this period is based on
Nicolaus. For the treatment of this period in both the Antiquities and
Bellum contains no trace of reference to the non-J ewish world. This is
in sharp contrast to the treatment of the Hellenistic period in the
Bellum and the Antiquities, whose frequent references to the Seleucids
betray a source which certainly dealt with non-J ewish history.8 What
greater monument to the king could there be than to begin with the
exploits of Semiramis and end with the adventures of Herod?
The devotion of perhaps one-fifth of the Histories to Herod does not
heighten our estimate of Nicolaus historical perspective. Even so, we
are grateful to Nicolaus for giving an account of the world in which he
was an active participant. One complaint against Strabo is that in his
Geography he deals mostly with a world gone by.7 J osephus maintained
that the first duty of the historian was to describe the events which he
knew best, instead of paraphrasing the accounts of others, a view per
haps widely held in antiquity.8 Nicolaus is important precisely because,
having become Herods mouthpiece, he gave a full treatment of the
contemporary scene that he knew intimately.
The reliability of Nicolaus as a faithful recorder of the contemporary
scene is not high, however. The Augustan Vita has given its author a
poor reputation. Plutarch cites Nicolaus as the authority for the state
ment, clearly false, that Porcia, upon hearing of the dealth of her hus
Nicolaus of Damascus 76
band, Brutus, ended her life by swallowing burning charcoal.Was
he, then, more reliable when describing his patron Herod? The king
appears to have been depicted as representating the best of contempo
rary culture. According to Nicolaus, Herod was a cultured man inter
ested in the arts and benevolent to both J ew and Greek.1" The charge
of misanthropia that was frequently hurled at the J ews did not apply
to one who endowed Hellenistic cities and temples with lavish gifts.1*1
In the field of foreign policy, as one might expect, Nicolaus pointed
out Herods unconditional submission to Rome and his personal devo
tion to Augustus. I n his address before Agrippa, as quoted in the
Antiquities, Nicolaus stressed that Herods pro-Roman policies had
been inaugurated by the kings father, Antipater, who had fought on
Caesars behalf, in Egypt.2 Nicolaus words here recall J osephus dra
matic account, probably based on Nicolaus, of Antipaters response to
the charge of Antigonus that Hyrcanus I I and Antipater had sided
with Pompey: Antipater stripped off his clothes, exposing the numerous
wounds he had suffered in Egypt.13*Nicolaus advice to Herod was not
to make any important move, such as carrying out death sentences
against his sons, without the expressed approval of Augustus.134 I t is
not surprising, therefore, that when Herod did arouse Augustus anger,
Nicolaus was dispatched to heal the breach.135 Nicolaus, accompanying
Herod on his visit to Agrippa, also made trips through Ionia to spread
Herods fame.13These journeys, as well as Herods participation in the
Olympic games, suggest that Nicolaus was deeply involved in a grandi
ose plan of public relations.137 The idea, it appears, was to spread the
word that, excepting Augustus and Agrippa, Herod was the greatest
benefactor of the Greek world.138
But in his detailed account of Herod, Nicolaus was compelled to
allude to the less seemly aspects of the kings reign. I t is not without
irony that when Nicolaus was writing his major work in 14 B.C., Herods
reign was on the downgrade.138 The king, it is true, was never without
worries. His Greek subjects resented his rule.140 More serious were the
constant conflicts with the Nabataean kingdom, on whose territory
Herod had attempted to encroach. I n 12 B.C., while the king was accus
ing his sons of conspiracy before Augustus, his subjects in Trachonitis
revolted.141 Important segments of the J ewish population were never
reconciled to the kings cosmopolitan outlook; they resented the pres
ence of foreigners in his court, and they hated his oppressive methods.
But the difficulties within his own family weakened Herods position
beyond repair. Nicolaus, according to the fragments of his Autobiog
raphy, regarded the struggle for succession among the royal sons as
77 Myth and History
the beginning of the period of decline of Herods reign.142 Whether or
not Nicolaus presented the same view in his Histories is not known.
But J osephus account seconds this opinion.148 Nicolaus work, then,
while intended to glorify the J udaean king, became more and more
apologetic, and the story of Herods benevolence become somewhat
muted when Nicolaus had to defend the slaughter of the royal sons.144
Concerning Nicolaus description of contemporary J udaism, the
fragments are not too informative. All we know directly is that Nico
laus praised the piety of the J ews, who continued to sacrifice at the
temple while Pompeys troops broke into J erusalem.145 The evidence
that this may have reflected Nicolaus personal opinion is somewhat
weakened by J osephus, who besides Nicolaus also cites Strabo and Livy,
men hardly in sympathy with J udaism.146 But it is likely that J osephus
found the friendly account of the J ews in Nicolaus and appended the
names of Strabo and Livy, although these two gave only the bare facts.
Among the most eloquent glorifications of J udaism are the words J ose
phus attributes to Nicolaus in his praise of J ewish religious practices
in general and the Sabbath in particular.147 But here againassuming
the speech to be that of Nicolaushe was speaking as an advocate in
defense of the rights of Ionian J ewry. However, the fact that Nicolaus
apparently recorded it in his history, although its importance may have
been exaggerated, would still indicate a favorable attitude to a much
maligned J ewish custom.148 At any rate, there is no reason to assume
that Nicolaus would, on the one hand, describe his own acts, which were
designed to strengthen the practice of J udaism in the Diaspora and,
on the other, disparage the same practices in J erusalem.
The fragments are more explicit concerning Nicolaus views of
Herods domestic troubles. According to J osephus, Nicolaus upheld
the legality of the execution of Mariamne and her two sons.14He him
self prosecuted Antipater, Herods oldest son.150 I t follows, perhaps, that
Nicolaus in his history justified Herods other wholesale killings, just
as he defended the slaughter of three thousand J ews by Archelaus in
4 B.C.151 Nicolaus accused Mariamne of &ae\yet.af or wanton behavior,
a charge used by Nicolaus to incriminate the Arab general Syllaeus,
and subsequently also Antipater.152 The story of Alexandra I I, Mari
amnes mother, who according to J osephus had sent paintings of
Mariamne and Aristobulus to Antony, to parade before him their
comeliness, may also be based on Nicolaus.153 After the kings death,
incidentally, the J ewish leaders alleged that Herod had dishonored
their virgin daughters.1*4 In this instance, Nicolaus retorted that Herod
was not on trial.155 Licentious behavior was a stock charge to be hurled
Nicolaus of Damascus
78
against anyone; even Nicolaus used it frequently to discredit the
enemies of Herod.
One question still remains to be answered: Did Nicolaus believe in
his apology for Herod, or was he acting like the modern advertiser of
cigarettes who in private smokes a different brand? Nicolaus curt
retort to the J ewish deputies that Herod was not on trial would seem
to indicate that he was not prepared to answer their charges.*But it is
difficult to believe that a man of such wide experience as Nicolaus could
be completely blinded by Herods splendor. As noted, Nicolaus assumes
in his Autobiography that Mariamnes sons were innocent, although in
his history he had declared them guilty of conspiring against their
father.7 He had even hinted as much in his history, when he advised
Herod to postpone their execution.8 Thus Nicolaus seems to have been
a court historian in the full sense of the word, writing as if someone
were always looking over his shoulder.
Thus far it has been shown that Nicolaus defended the legality of
Herods executions. He recorded that Mariamne had been convicted of
wanton behavior and her sons of conspiracy, but he conveniently forgot
to mention that they were perhaps innocent. Did he also invent facts
to glorify Herod? J osephus censures Nicolaus for his failure to record
Herods desecration of the Davidic sepulcher in a search for gold,
whereupon two guards were consumed by fire.To atone for this sin,
Herod built a monument in front of the royal shrines. Nicolaus, accord
ing to J osephus, mentioned the monument but failed to record Herods
violation of the shrine and the divine punishment.10 J osephus weakens
considerably his general indictment of Nicolaus bias by building it
around this incident.181 In fact, Destinon has thereby attempted to show
J osephus unreasonableness vis-a-vis Nicolaus.182 But even if we accept
J osephus premises, Nicolaus sin once more consisted in glossing over
important facts.
Only in one case does J osephus point to an outright invention by
Nicolaus. Nicolaus wrote that Antipater, Herods father, was a descend
ant of the J ewish aristocracy, rather than an Idumaean.188 J acoby is
correct in rejecting Hoelschers view that a J ewish polemicist had in
vented this quotation to discredit Nicolaus account.184 Laqueur finds
that J osephus, in his Antiquities, deliberately and ingeniously misin
terpreted Nicolaus reference to Antipaters distinguished ancestry,
as found in the Bellum, to mean J ewish aristocratic ancestry.186 There
is no reason, however, to question the genuineness of J osephus quota
tion.8 The only issue would seem to be whether Nicolaus was here in
venting something completely false or whether he was merely, as usual,
79
Myth and History
overstating his point. Here, perhaps, the author of Yosiphon is correct
in pointing out that Antipater had married an Idumaean, which accord
ing to J ewish law would have made his descendents Idumaeans.7 The
fact that only Herod, among Antipaters sons, bore a Hellenistic name
may indicate that the Idumaean family had been J udaized, perhaps by
having intermarried with the native population.168 I t is not inconceivable
that one of Herods ancestors belonged to the J ewish aristocracy.1 This,
however, did not make Herod less of an Idumaean, especially to those
who hated him.170 J osephus indictment of Nicolaus must therefore
stand: For he [Nicolaus] lived in Herods kingdom and was his favo
rite; he wrote as his servant, touching upon nothing but what tended to
increase his glory, and apologizing for many of his clearly unjust acts
and very diligently concealing others.171
J osephus sanctimonious attitude is somewhat overplayed. He prided
himself that although he was a friend of Herods descendants, he still
maintained his objectivity concerning the king.173 One would have
greater respect for J osephus critique had he maintained the same degree
of impartiality when dealing with events of his own days. Certainly
J osephus treatment of Vespasian and Titus is not less biased than
Nicolaus description of Herod.178 But even this is not the worst of
J osephus sins. I t is more objectionable that while he rightly condemns
Nicolaus apology for Herod, his own account of this king is confusing.
In the Bellum, J osephus sounds as apologetic for Herod as Nicolaus
account apparently did.17i I n the Antiquities, passages defending Herod
are often followed by unfriendly passages, and both contain conclu
sions not supported by the narrative.178 Nicolaus account of Herod, if
J osephus is to be believed, was consistent; that of J osephus lacks
coherence.
At present, we possess J osephus undigested accounts based on a
biased original. One may imagine the state of our knowledge of Roman
affairs if nothing had remained of the contemporary Roman records
except a version by some second-class historian, say Appian, or Nico
laus Life of Augustus. Posterity owes a debt to both Nicolaus and J ose
phus. But if one were forced to choose between Nicolaus bias and
J osephus incoherence the choice would not be difficult. Nicolaus ac
count, based as it was on personal participation and firsthand sources,
would seem preferable to J osephus mediocre summaries of the Dama
scenes Histories.
Taken as a whole, Nicolaus seems a fair representative of first cen
tury B.C. historiography. Kings and princes added luster to their prin
cipalities by patronizing renowned writers. Men wrote voluminously on
Nicolaus of Damascus 80
diverse topics, and freely, provided that what they wrote did not dis
please their patrons. I t was good business for Strabo to pay homage to
Roman power, or for J uba to dedicate a work to Augustus son.176For
dissenters, such as Timagenes of Alexandria, there was no place.177Most
writers, however, felt grateful to Augustus for inaugurating an age of
peace. And this spirit may be reflected in Nicolaus works. Warfare was
the main subject of the writings of the three major Greek historians:
Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius. Authors of lesser stature
J osephus, Appian, and Plutarch, to mention a fewappear to have
followed the same tradition. Nicolaus, however, as far as the fragments
indicate, while mentioning important battles, seems to have shunned
gory descriptions. Instead, he wrote at length about domestic and inter
national intrigues. This is evident not only in his Life of Augustus but
also in his treatment of Herod. I t is significant that J osephus, who in
his Bellum set out to describe the greatest war of all times, keeps to a
minimum his description of Herods wars, thus probably reflecting the
emphasis of his source.178Lengthy speeches, the curse of Greek histori
ography other than from the pen of a Thucydides, seem to have been
singularly absent in Nicolaus, except when they were delivered by
himself.170
APPENDIX
Gr e e k A u t h o r s i n H e r o d s L i b r a r y
I wish to express my gratitude to Herbert C. Zafren, chairman of the
'board of editors of Studies in Bibliography and Booklore, for permis
sion to reprint this essay, the substance of which originally appeared
in that journal. B. Z. W.
T h e H e l l e n i s t i c P e r i o d witnessed the spread of libraries throughout the Medi
terranean world. Gone were the days when large Greek libraries were restricted to
Alexandria, Rhodes, or Athens.1Almost every city of distinction in the first century
B.C. boasted public libraries whose rolls sometimes numbered in the hundreds of
thousands, and private collectors who owned more than a thousand books.2Antonys
transfer of 200,000 rolls from Pergamum, allegedly to compensate for the burning
of parts of the Alexandrian library during Caesars siege (48 B.C.), shows the pres
tige resulting from possession of the largest collection of books in the world.8
Whether or not the Pergamum Library was actually stripped to satisfy Cleopatra
is still a debatable issue. There is reason to suspect, moreover, that the loss of books
from Caesars warfare was minor.4 But it shows that Antony and Cleopatra were
determined to preserve the supremacy of Alexandrias cultural treasures, just as
they strove to enlarge their dominion over foreign lands.
The Romans, somewhat boorish in cultural matters, were at first tardy in the
building of public libraries. Julius Caesar was prevented by death from fulfilling
his ambition to build the first public library in Rome.6 That honor belongs to C.
Asinius Pollio, who, after returning from the Parthian campaign in 39 B.C., founded
a public library in the temple of Libertas.6Augustus made it a matter of policy to
build and to enlarge public libraries.7
It may be presumed that Herod, who aspired to become the Augustus of the East,
and whose building program paralleled that of Augustus, also built a public library.
Walter Otto has already pointed out that Herod possessed a large Greek court
library.8 Josephus, it is true, describing the royal constructions, makes no mention
of a library, although he does mention the libraries owned by the Essenes.9 But
Josephus silence is no argument that such a library did not exist, for this historian
is notoriously weak in his description of cultural events. It is conceivable, however,
that Josephus assumed that the reader would know that one of the buildings he
described, for example the stoas where books were usually housed, was intended for
a library. Whatever the meaning of this omission on Josephus part, the central issue
is not in doubt. Herods aspirations to make Jerusalem an important cultural center
to which Greek scholars would flock presupposes a large collection of Greek books in
that city.10If Herods overlord, Antony, and Herods bitter enemy, Cleopatra, went
to great lengths to maintain Alexandrias cultural supremacy, the least Herod could
do was to erase the impression that Jerusalem was an intellectual wilderness. It may
be significant that when the king sent his sons to study in Rome they were the guests
of one Asinius Pollio, perhaps the same man who built the first public library there.11
It is not my intention to imply that there were no libraries in Jerusalem before
Herods time. As the Talmud shows, old copies of scripture were preserved in the
court of the temple.13The royal archival system is attested in Kings and Chronicles.
Ernest Richardson identifies six types of libraries in Jerusalem during Herods
reign.18 And there is good reason to believe that a number of Greek volumes were
[ 81]
Appendix 82
acquired even during the Hasmonean period. When Eupolemus, Judas Maccabeus7
Greek secretary,14 boasts that Moses invented the alphabet, which the Phoenicians
adapted and in turn taught the Greeks, he indicates an awareness of the debate
among the Greek historians over the origin of the alphabet.15 As the process of
Hellenization continued, during the Hasmonean period, the acquisition of Greek
works must have become a matter of court policy, especially under King Aristobulus,
dubbed the Phil-Hellene.18 Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to identify the
types of books available to the Jewish Hellenistic writers of Jerusalem.
We have more precise knowledge of Herods library. This is partly due to the
spread of literacy among the provincial towns of the Orient during the first century
B.C. The Roman generals from Lucullus to Caesar were men of letters. Under Augus
tus, the Eastern kings and princes, now forbidden to make war, attempted to add
luster to their courts by patronizing scholars. It was a bookish age, and the writers
were highly industrious. Alexander Polyhistor (circa 80-35 B.C.), who himself left
at least twenty-five titles, quoted more than a dozen authors dealing with the same
subject matter.17Juba, king of Mauretania (25 b.c -25 a . d . ) , was almost as prolific
as Alexander.1*Herod married his son to the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappa-
docia, a historian himself and a patron of scholars.1Among the Jews, too, learning
assumed greater significance than ever before. The trend continued during the first
century a.d. and onward. Philo of Byblos (circa a.d. 54-142 was fascinated by the
writings he attributed to the ancient Sanchuniathon.90 And the works cited by
Plutarch of Chaeronea, Diogenes Laertius, or Athenaeus of Naucratis number in
the hundreds. Josephus literacy has often been questioned, and his citations are
regarded by many as stolen goods. No doubt some of them were. But one must be
careful, for literacy was the trend of the day. Had the works of Josephus literary
enemy, Justus of Tiberias, survived we might wonder equally concerning the number
of books available in the court of Agrippa II.
The fragments of the works of Nicolaus of Damascus are the main source for the
identification of titles in Herods library. Generally, it may be assumed that Herods
library was strong in philosophy, rhetoric, and history, the evidence for this conten
tion being Herods interest in these fields. The king, Nicolaus says, at first asked
to be instructed in philosophy, changed to the study of rhetoric, and subsequently
preferred history.2*Nicolaus tells us that his own education started with "grammar
and the whole of the poetic art, followed by music and mathematics. Introduced
to philosophy, Nicolaus studied "the entire philosophy and became a "dedicated
Aristotelian.*4What was available to the son of a wealthy commoner of Damascus
was undoubtedly equally available to Herods sons in Jerusalem. For Herod cer
tainly aimed to give his sons the best Hellenistic education possible before he killed
them.
Of the forty-four authors or works included in this list, nineteen seem to be well-
attested: Apollodorus, Archives, Aristotle, Augustus, Caesar, Ctesias, Ephorus,
Euripides, Hellanicus, Herod, Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer, Polybius, Posidonius, The
ophrastus, Timagenes, Xanthus, and Xenophon. Fourteen listings are based on the
fragments of Alexander Polyhistor, whose existence in Jerusalem may be assumed:
Anonymous (Xenophon?), Apollonius Molon, Aristeas, Artapanus, Berossus, Cleo-
domus-Malchus, Demetrius, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Ezekiel, Philo the Elder,
Theodotus, Theophilus, and Timochares. The inclusion of Archelaus, Conon, and
Ptolemy may be defended because of their close connections with Herods court.
Acusilaus, Aristobulus, Castor, Laetus-Mochus, and Mnaseas remain doubtful, Diony-
83 Appendix
sius and Theodoras less so. Quellenkunde still being an inexact science, it may be
argued that this classification is uncertain, or that authors omitted from the list
should have been included, or even that the writings of some of these authors were
derived from other works. (See p. 88 for abbreviations used.)
Acusilaus of Argus. A fifth century B.C. logographer, author of Genealogy (FGrH
No. 2 = FHG, I, 100 ff.; Schwartz, BE, I, 1222 f.). That Nicolaus cited him is
perhaps evident from 2 F 46 = 90 F 141 = AJ, I, 108; see Thackeray, AJf I. 194,
n. b (LCL).
Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus. Flourished circa 80-35 B.c., author of numerous
monographs on various cities; twenty-five titles have survived, including a rela
tively large remnant of his account On the Jews (FGH, III, 206 if.; FGrH, No.
273; A. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1 ff. Nicolaus use of Alexander is
indicated by Photius, Bibl., 189, pp. 145b-f. = 90 TT 13; 15 = 273 T 5; cf. AJ,
I, 238-240 = 273 F 102.
Anonymous (Xenophon ?). An unknown author who described the dimensions of
Jerusalem, cited by Alexander Polyhistor (273 F 19; FGrH, No. 849). Mueller
(FHG, III, 209) identifies him with Xenophon, a Hellenistic geographer who
specialized in land measuring.
Apollodorus of Athens. Flourished circa 180-110 B.C., chronographer and gram
marian (FHG, I, 104 ff.; FGrH, No. 244). Nicolaus use of Apollodorus may be
deduced from 90 F 91 = 244 F 79.
Apollonius Molon of Alabanda. Flourished in the first half of the first century B.C.,
rhetorician and pamphleteer, including a work Against the Jews (FHG, III, 213
ff.; FGrH, No. 728). Since Apollonius Molon was cited by Alexander Polyhistor
(see above: 273 F 19; 723 T 2; F 1), his diatribe against the Jews was well known
C. Apion, II, 16; 70; 145 ff.), and it is probable that copies of his works, espe
cially Against the Jews, were extant in Jerusalem in Herods time.
Archelaus, king of Cappadocia. Reigned from 41 B.C. to a.d. 14, author of poetical
and rhetorical works and a history of Alexander (FGrH No. 123). It is incon
ceivable that Herod would not have possessed Archelaus works, as Alexander,
Mariamnes son, married Glaphyra, Archelaus daughter.
Archives. Aside from the documents of his own kingdom, Herod evidently possessed
copies of various Roman decrees dealing with the Jews. Nicolaus quoted them in
his defense of the rights of the Ionian Jews (AJ, XVI, 48 = 90 F 142).
Aristeas. Flourished in the second or first century B.C., whose account of Biblical
history was cited by Alexander Polyhistor (FHG, III, 220; FGrH, No. 725).
Aristobulus of Cassandrea. Participated in the campaigns of Alexander, which he
described. Nicolaus evidently made use of him (cf. 90, 124 with Aristobulus, 139
F 42; see Jacoby, FGrH, IID, 519).
Aristotle of Stagira, 384-322 B.C. Nicolaus, who called himself a dedicated Aris
totelian (90 F 132), wrote abridgements and commentaries on Aristotle (for
Greek titles, see Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 320. Important Syriac fragments of Nico
laus paraphrases of Aristotle, however, remain unpublished (Gg 2,14).
Artapanus. Known from the excerpts made by Alexander Polyhistor (FHG, III,
212; FGrH, No. 726; Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 143-174; 231-234).
Appendix 84
Augustus, 63 B.c.A.D. 14. His autobiography was the mam source of Nicolaus
Vita Augustae, probably written on Herods orders.
Berossus of Babylon. Flourished in the third century B.c. (FHG, II, 495 ff.; FGrH,
No. 680). His history of Babylon was used by Alexander Polyhistor (273 F 79 =
680 FF 1-5). Nicolaus seems to have cited him (90 F 72 = 680 F 4c = AJ, I,
93-95).
Caesar, Julius Graius. 100-44 B.C. Nicolaus made direct use of Caesars Commentarii
de Bello Gallico, III, 22 = 90 F 80.
Castor of Rhodes. Flourished in the middle of the first century B.c., author of numer-
our works on chronology, geography and rhetoric. Nicolaus seems to have used
him (90 F 91 = Castor, 250 F 13 = C. Apion, II, 83).
Cleodemus-Malchus. Cited by Alexander Polyhistor (273 F 102 = 727 F 1 - A J , I,
238-241). Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 130-36, identifies him as a Samari
tan historian, which is doubtful.
Conon. A mythographer in the court of Archelaus of Cappadocia, mentioned above.
Photius cites him and Nicolaus as authors who described marvelous customs (90
T 13 = 26 Tib).
Ctesias of Cnidus. Flourished in the first half of the fourth century B.C. The personal
doctor of Artaxerxes Mnemon, he wrote the Persica, in twenty-three books; Indica;
and other historical and medical books (J. Gilmore, The Fragments of Ctesias,
London, 1888; FGrH, No. 688). Nicolaus paraphrases Ctesias in his history of
the Orient (90 FF Iff.).
Demetrius, 221-204 b.c. Author of an account of the Jews based on Biblical history
which was excerpted by Alexander Polyhistor (273 F 19; 722 FF 1-7).
Dionysius of Halicarnassus. A contemporary of Nicolaus, and an author of rhetorical
and historical works. Nicolaus account of ancient Rome (90 FF 69-70) is a direct
copy of Dionysius (A.B., I, 82, 3 ff.; I, 351, 21 ff.). See Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 253,
on the question of whether these fragments were attributed to Nicolaus by
mistake.
Ephorus of Cyme. Flourished circa 350-330 B.C. The author of the first world history
(FHG, I, 234 ff.; FGrH, No. 70). Nicolaus own universal history was modeled
after Ephorus histories, of which he made extensive use (90 FF 28-33; 70 FF
15-19; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 242 f.).
Eupolemus. An aide to Judas Maccabeus (I Macc. 8:17), author of an account
based on Biblical history; excerpted by Alexander Polyhistor {FGrH, No. 723;
273 F 19a; Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 105-30).
Pseudo-Eupolemus. According to Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 85-102, an
anonymous Samaritan historian, cited by Alexander Polyhistor {FGrH, No. 724;
273 F 19a).
Euripides. Died in 407-406 B.C. His Phoinissai was used by Nicolaus (90 F 8; FGrH,
IIC, 237).
Ezekiel. He wrote dramatized accounts of Biblical history whose description of the
Exodus is cited by Alexander Polyhistor (273 F 19); J. Wienke, Ezechielis
Judaei. . . fabulae quae inscribitur Exagoge fragmenta (Muenster, 1931).
Hellanicus of Lesbos. Fifth century b.c. author of genealogical, chronological, and
chronographic works {FGrH, Nos. 4; 323a; 601a; 687a). They were the main
85 Appendix
sources used by Nicolaus in his account of Hellenic history (90 FF 6: 10; 14;
25-26; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 234).
Herod, king of Judaea, 37-4 B.C. His Memoirs are cited in A J, XV, 165-174 = FGrH,
No. 236.
Herodotus of Halicarnassus. Fifth century B.C. historian. Nicolaus supplemented the
accounts of Ctesias and Xanthus with bits of Herodotus (90 FF 15; 47; 68;
E. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, Halle, 1892-99, 1, 167; 317; Jacoby,
(FGrH, IIC, 234; 240; 252).
Hesiod. Nicolaus maintained (90 F 83), like Ephorus (70 F 101), that Hesiod
preceded Homer by a generation.
Homer. See Hesiod. Frequently cited by Nicolaus (90 F 71), sometimes giving an
unusual gloss (90 F 104: Iliad, 13, 5).
Laetus-Mochos. Flourished in the second century B.C. Author of a Phoenician history
and the Lives of Philosophers (FGH, IV, 437 f.; FGrH, No. 784). For some evi
dence that he was used by Nicolaus, see 90 F 141 = 784 F 3 = AJ, I, 107.
Mnaseas of Patara (?). Third century B.C., collector of Delphic oracles and remark
able customs (FHG, III, 149 ff.). Probably source for 90 F 72 - AJ, I, 94.
Philo the Elder. His poetical work on Jerusalem was cited by Alexander Polyhistor
(FGrH, No. 729).
Polybius of Megalopolis. Flourished in the second century B.C. His Roman history
was used by Nicolaus, according to Eduard Meyer, Ursprung und Anfaenge des
Christentums, II, 132.
Posidonius of Apamea. Born circa 135 B.C., historian and philosopher. The use of
his histories by Nicolaus is attested (90 F 95 = 87 F 38).
Ptolemy. A contemporary biographer of Herod (FGrH 199 F I ) , perhaps of Ascalon
or, more likely, Nicolaus brother (Otto, Herodes, No. 14, BE, Suppl. II, 4;
FGrH, IIC, 625 f.).
Theodorus of Gadara. A contemporary of Herod, and a rhetorician whose works gave
rise to a new rhetorical school; also wrote on history, including a history of Syria
(FHG, III, 489: FGrH, No. 850; Victor Stegemann, Theodoros, No. 39, BE,
V (1959), 1847-1859). Nicolaus apparently accused him of denying the place of
his birth, for Theodorus assumed Rhodian citizenship (Quintilian, Inst. Or., I l l ,
1,17; 90 F 137, 6).
Theodotus. His poetical rendition of the Shechem-Dinah affair was cited by Alex
ander Polyhistor (273 F 19: 732 FI ) . Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 99,
was the first to identify him as a Samaritan historian. This is denied by Y.
Gutman, Ha-sifrut ha-yehudit ha-helenistit, 246.
Theophilus. He wrote an account of King Solomon (FHG, III, 228; FGrH, No.
733). Alexander Polyhistor quoted him (273 F 19), and Josephus mentioned him
(C. Apion, I, 216).
Theophrastus of Eresus, circa 372-287 B.C., head of the Peripatetic school after
Aristotles death. Some 225 works were attributed to him (Diogenes Laertius, V,
42-50). Nicolaus in his abridgements of Aristotle summarized Theophrastus
works (Gg, 2, 14, leaf 366b; Schol. ad Theophr., cited by Susemihl GGLZ, II,
320, n. 407).
Appendix 86
Timagenes of Alexandria. Older contemporary of Nicolaus, whose history of the
world (FGrH, No. 88), it is said, was the basis of Pompeius Trogus history,
which has survived because of Justins abridgements (Gutschmid, Kleine Schrif
ten, II, 218 ff.; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 220 ff.). Nicolaus use of Timagenes is well
attested (90 F 91 = 88 F 4 = C. Apion, II, 83; Jacoby, IIC, 294).
Timochares. He wrote a work named On Antiochus, either Antiochus IV Epiphanes
or Antiochus Sidetes (FGrH, No. 165; FHG, III, 228). Alexander Polyhistor
quoted this work (273 F 19).
Xanthus of Lydia, circa 400 B.C. His Lydiaca (FHG, I, 36 ff.; FGrH, No. 765), was
Nicolaus source for the history of Lydia (90 FF 15-16; 22; 44-47; 62-65).
Nicolaus has probably preserved more of Xanthus writings than all other sources
combined.
Xenophon of Athens, circa 430-354 B.c. That Nicolaus made use of Xenophon is
evident from 90 F 103z; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC 256; 259.
NOTES
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES
The interdisciplinary nature of this study requires an explanation of the critical
apparatus adopted here. The two great collections of Greek historical fragments,
Jacobys and Muellers, are the basic sources. Unless otherwise noted, fragments by
Nicolaus are cited by the numbers assigned to them by Jacoby. Abbreviations most
frequently used are:
FGrH Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and
Leiden, 1923-1958). Number 90 refers to Nicolaus, whose fragments
appear in Volume IIA, the commentary in IIC.
F Fragment, followed by the number of the particular fragment.
T Testimony, also followed by a number, thus: 90 F 3 or 90 T 3 refers to
Nicolaus, Fragment No. 3 or Nicolaus, Testimony No. 3, respectively,
as arranged by Jacoby. Jacobys Commentary, however, is cited as
FGrH, followed by the number of the volume and the number of
the page.
FHG Carolus Mueller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Paris, 1841-1870),
is cited by volume and page.
For the convenience of the general reader, passages from Josephus works, in
addition to those included in FGrH, are cited by chapter and line of the editions of
Niese and the Loeb Classical Library (LCL). Most other abbreviations are conven
tional, or their significance is obvious. The following abbreviations occur frequently:
AJP American Journal of Philology.
CPh Classical Philology.
CR Classical Review.
GGL Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, by Christ-Schmid-Staehlin. 6th
ed.; Berlin, 1920-1924.
GGLA Geschichte der griechischen Litterratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, by Franz
Susemihl. Leipzig, 1891-1892.
HGM Historici Graeci Minores, by L. Dindorf. Leipzig, 1870.
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies.
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review.
JRS Journal of Roman Studies.
LCL Loeb Classical Library.
MGWJ Monatschrift fuer die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums.
PhdG Philosophie der Griechen by Eduard Zeller. 4th ed.; Leipzig, 1909.
Vol. IV, part I.
RE Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, edited by
Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll.
REJ Revue des tudes Juives.
Rh.M. Rheinisches Museum fuer Philologie.
NOTES
C h a p t e r I : T h e T r a d i t i o n
1F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and Leiden, 1923-.),
henceforth designated as FGrH, IIA, No. 90 T lOa-b; cf. TT 1; 13. See Liddell
and Scott, s. vl koXRos, where the papyrological evidence is cited; Harpers Latin
Dictionary, s. Nicolaus, quotes the Latin sources; Pliny, Nat. Hist. XIII, 9, 45,
describes the nicolai as a variation of the dactyli and gives their shape; i(Sicciores ex
hoz genere nicolai, sed amplitudinis praecipuae, quatemi cubitorum longitudinem
efficiunt; Isidorus, Origine8} XVII, 7, 1. For evidence from the Talmudic literature,
see n. 3, below.
290 T 10b = Plut. Quaest. conv., VIII, 4, 1, p. 723D. E. L. Minar, Jr., in Plutarch,
Moralia, IX (LCL, 1961), 147, n.b., misquotes Jacoby [FGrH, IIC, 229] that the
tradition which claims Augustus named the dates nicolauses, after the Damascene
is erroneous.
3Strabo, XVI, 2, 41, seems to refer to this plant, which he describes as costly
and as grown only in Judaea, except for Babylonia and further east. The Mishnah,
Abodah zarah, 1, 5, refers to the nicolai as or . The identification of the
Talmudic term was first made by R. Benjamin of Musafia in the seventeenth cen
tury, in his Mosaf ha-arukh, s. Dl l . The Babylonian Talmudists seem to have
been unaware of its meaning, Abodah zarah, 14b; but its luxurious nature is attested
in the Palestinian Talmud, Berakhot, 6, 5; its export to Rome, Yerushalmi, Ma(aser
sheni, 4, 1. Cf. I. Loew, Aramaeische Pflanzungen (Leipzig, 1881), 78 f.; Lieberman,
JQR, XXXVII (1946-1947), 51-52.
4See [Aristotle], De plantis, I, 5, 820b; cf. I, 7, 821a. For the evidence that De
plantis was written by Nicolaus, see below, n. 16.
590 T 10b.
6On Sophronius, see Karl Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantischen Literatur
(Munich, 1891), 318 f.
790 T 2: cf. A. Brinkmann, Rh.M., LX (1905), 634 f., who points out Nicolaus
fame.
8William Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the Library
on the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1901), Gg, 2, 14, II, 1017-1021. Although
J. Draeseke, Woch. f. class. Phil. XIX (1902), 1272, expressed the wish that the
fragments be speedily translated, neither the manuscript not the published sum
maries have been translated into a modern language. Jacoby does not refer to their
existence, nor does Laqueur, who merely refers to the use made by Draeseke (RE,
Nikolaos No. 20, XVIII, 424) of Wrights Syriac summaries. I wish to express
my gratitude to both Prof. J. C. Greenfield and Prof. Samson Levey for their efforts
in transcribing the Syriac fragments and their aid in translation.
9A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlich-
palaestinischen Texte (Bonn, 1922), 229.
10A. J. Arberry, The Nichomachean Ethics in Arabic, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, XVII, 1 (1955), 1-9.
11The Arabic and Greek fragments of Nicolaus philosophical writings (but not
the Syriac) were collected by Gottlieb Roeper, Nicolai Damasceni de Aristotelis
philosophis librorum reliquia: Lectiones Abulpharagianae, I (Danzig, 1844), 35-54,
but have not been available to me; see J. G. Weinrich, De auctorum Graecorum Vers.
[89]
Notes to Pages 2-3 90
et Comment. (Leipzig, 1842), 294 f., 306; August Mueller, Die griechischen philoso
phen in der arabischen Ueberlieferung (Halle, 1873), 25-26; M. Steinschneider, Die
Hebraeischen Ueberzetzimgen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin,
1893), 141; F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechische Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit
(Leipzig, 1890-1892), II, 318-321.
12Diogenes Laertius, V, 25, No. 108.
13Alexander, DE sensu, 86, cited by H. J. Drossaart Lulofs, Aristotles Ilept
, Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXXVII (1957), 75, . 1. According to R.
Walzer, Greek Into Arabic (Oxford, 1962), 239, n. 2, Lulofs is now preparing a major
study on Nicolaus in the Syriac and Arabic traditions.
14J. C. Scaliger, In libros de Plantis Aristoteli inscriptos commentant (Geneva,
1566), cited by Lulofs, JHS, LXXVII (1957), 75, was the first to attack the Aristo
telian authorship of De plantis. It was first published under Nicolaus name by
E. H. F. Meyer, Nicolai Damasceni De plantis libri duo Aristoteli vulgo adscripti.
Ex Isaaci ben Honain verstone arabica latine ver tit Alf redus (Leipzig, 1841).
15 C. Mueller, FHG, III, 344b; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 229, lines 31-35; and Laqueur,
RE, XVII, 424, were among those who accepted Meyers identification. M. Croiset,
Histoire de la littrature grecque (Paris, 1928), V. 101, argued that there was no evi
dence to attribute it to Nicolaus. Ross, OCD, 95, cautiously says, perhaps by
Nicolaus.
18 M. Bouyges, Sur le De plantis dAristote-Nicolas; A propos dun manuscrit
arabe de Constantinople, Mlanges de VUniv. St. Joseph (Beirut), ix (1923), 97
115; editio princeps by A. J. Arberry, An Early Arabie Translation from the Greek
Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Univ. of Egypt, I (Cairo, 1933), 48-76; II (1934),
84-105; reprinted by *A. Badaw, Aristotelis De anima . . . , Islamica, XVI (Cairo,
1954), 243 ff. See also Lulofs, JHS, LXXVII (1957), 75-86; Roger Paret, Notes
bibliographiques quelques travaux rcents consacrs aux premires traductions
arabes doeuvres grecques, Byzantion, XXIX-XXX (1959-1960), 387-443.
17Steinschneider, Hebraeische Ueberzetzungen, 140-143; J. Chotzner, Kalonymos
ben Kalonymos, a XIII Century Satyrist, JQR, XIII (1900), 144, No. 11; two
m s s . of the Sefer ha-zemahim (Book of Plants) are listed in the Catalogue of Hebrew
m s s . in the Collection of E. N. Adler (Cambridge, 1921), No. 1933 V; p. 57, No. 1523:
Translated by Kalonymos in 1314, with Averroes Commentary, now in the
library of the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York. The Hebrew m s s . however,
do not indicate that Nicolaus is the author. See also Lulofs, JHS, LXXVII (1957),
75 ff.
18Bar Hebraeus, Candelabrum Sanctorum, ed. by J. Bakos, Patrol. Orient. XXIV,
3 (Paris, 1933), 320-325; m s . Gg, 2, 14, leaf 383.
1990 T 10a = Athenaeus, XIV, 66, p. 652A; 90 T, 10b = Plut., Quaest. conv.,
VIII, 4, 1.
20Simplicius, Commentaria ad Phys., IX, p. 23, 14; p. 25, 8; ad Caelo, 3, 28;
Diels, Doxographi Graeci (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929), 180; 481, where Simplicius is
cited; Porphyry is quoted in Stobaeus, Eel., I, 833-847.
21Stobaeus, Eel, I, 842, p. 254, 14 ff.; 844, p. 254, 27 ff.
2290 T I, p. 324, line 32: 1! , which Susemihl, GGLAZ,
II, 320, n. 412, proposes to read . ., to indicate Nicolaus contribution to both
schools.
23 Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, Gg, 2, 14, leaf 328a, II, 1018; Gg, 2, 14
leaf 366b, II, 1020.
91 Notes to Pages 3-5
24Diogenes Laertius, X, 4.
2590 F 100 = Strabo, XV, 1, 73; L. Dindorf, HGM (Leipzig, 1870), I, 80-81;
Mueller, FHG, III, 419-420, F 91.
26Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 255, line 26; Mueller, FHG, III, 419, n. on F 91.
27See 90 F 135, where Nicolaus discusses the composition of the Histories, a work
which was not completed until some time after 4 b .c . Admittedly, Strabo could still
have made use of Nicolaus Autobiography, but this seems unlikely.
2890 F 91 = 91 F 10 = C. Apian, II, 83-84; 90 F 93 = 91 F 12 = AJ, XIII, 345-347;
90 F 97 =91 F 13 = A J } XIV, 104; 90 F 98 = 91 F 15 = AJ, XIV, 66-68.
29 Paul Otto, Quaestiones Strabonianae, Leipziger Studien, XI (1889), Suppl., pp.
12; 144, dates Strabos history as between 24-18 b .c .; E. Honigmann, RE, IV (N.S.),
90, dates it 27-25; while Jacoby, FgrH, IIC, 291, proposes 20 b .c . as the latest date.
Nicolaus did not start his history before 14 b .c .
30FGrH, IIC, 292, lines 12 ff. For Timagenes, see 88 FF 1-13.
31Strabo, XVI, 2, 41. See W. Aly, Strabon von Amaseia (Bonn, 1957), 208.
32Momigliano, CAH, X, 322, n. 4, parallels Strabo, XVI, 2, 46, with 90 F 96 =
AJ, XIV, 9; Honigmann, RE, IV (N.S.), 105. Strabos second edition of his Geog
raphy was published during the reign of Tiberius (VI, 4, 2) and may have referred
to Nicolaus, as his history did not.
33Strabo, XVI, 2, 46.
34Strabo, XVI, 2, 20; AJ, XV, 360 = BJ, I, 404; Honigmann, RE, IVA, 105,
assumes that Strabo and Josephus were using Nicolaus here.
35P. Otto, Leipziger Studien, XI (1889), 243; and Honigmann himself, RE, IVA,
105, point out that Strabos citation from Nicolaus (90 F 100) was an addendum to
his second edition of the Geography. This would make Honigmanns position (see
previous note) less tenable. For other possible evidence of Strabos use of Nicolaus,
see 90 F 12 = XIII, 3, 4; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 238, lines 34 f., however, considers
this as unlikely.
3690 F 99 = Plut. Brut. 53; Val. Max., IV, 6, 5. Dio Cassius, LIV, 9, 8-10; and
Appian, B.C., IV, 136, likewise repeat this false story. Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, p. 231,
lines 10 ff., therefore writes: das einzige Zitat Plutarchs stammt eher aus der
Caesarvita; ob es direkt ist, laesst sich kaum sagen. But there is no reason to as
sume that Plutarch got his information from a secondary source. Perhaps 90 T 10b
was also derived directly from Nicolaus work.
37F. Leo, Die griechisch-roemische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leip
zig, 1901), 190-192.
38W. Steidle, Sueton und die antike Biographie = Zemteata, I, (Munich, 1951),
133-140; cf. G. Misch, A History of Autobiography in Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.,
1950-1951), I, 287-288; 293.
3990 F 77 = Athen. X, 9, 415 E; Plut. Quest. Conv., I, 6, 624a; A. Gercke, Ein
leitung in die Altertumswissenschaft (Berlin and Leipzig, 1910), I, 85.
40 90 T 10b.
41For Nicolaus description of the assassination of Caesar, see 90 F 130, 58-106.
For parallels cf. F 130, 59-66 with Plut. Caes., 60 ff. For the sources, see Jacoby,
FGrH, IIC, 272, lines 31 ff.
4290 F 19 = AJ, I, 159; F 20 = AJ, VII, 101-103; F 72 = A J } I, 93-94; F 91 =
C. Apian, II, 83-84; F 92 = AJ, XIII, 250; F 93 = AJ XIII, 345-347; F 96 = AJ,
XIV, 8-9; F 97 = XIV, 104; F 98 = AJ, XIV, 66-68; F 101 = AJ, XVI, 179-183;
F 102 = AJ, XVI, 185; F 141 = AJ, I, 108; F 142 = AJ, XVI, 31-57; F 143 = A J
Notes to Pages 5-6 92
XVII, 107-120. FF 142-143, Nicolaus speeches, are relegated to the appendix, as
they are not quoted from the history, and because the other fragments do not con
tain speeches.
4890 T 4 = A J , XVI, 27-30; T 5 AJ, XVI, 299; 335; T 6 = AJ, XVI, 370
372; T 7 = AJ, XVII, 99; 106 = BJ, 629; 637-638; T 8 - AJ, XVII, 219; 244;
225 = BJ, II, 14 ff.; 34-36; T9 = AJ, XVII, 315; 316; T 12 = A J, XVI, 183-185.
44 T 12; FF 96; 101-102.
46The first study was done by M. Nussbaum, Observationes in Flavii Josephi
Antiquitates Lib. X I I, 8 - X V I I I , 14 (Goettingen, 1875), 1, ff.
48This is true generally, not only in the strictly Biblical books but also in Josephus
paraphrase of Aristeas: AJ, XII, 11-118, except for a few paragraphs such as XII,
43-44; the paraphrase of I Macc. in AJ, XII, 242-XIII, 42, indicates that Josephus
made no use of Jasons account of this period (182 T 1 = II Macc. II, 19 ff.) nor of
II Macc. For the literature, see works cited below. The dissenting view is that of
H. Druener, Untersuchungen ueber Josephus (Marburg, 1896), 1 ff.; now given some
impetus by Horst Moehring, Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius
Josephus (unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1957), 132 ff.
47The problem of whether or not Nicolaus was Josephus source is centered around
AJ, XII, 119-XVII, 323; BJ, I, 31-11, 100.
48Justus von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus (Kiel, 1882), 53 ff., 91 ff.
49 Destinon, Quellen d. FI. Jos., 53-60, citing AJ, XIII, 347 = 90 F 93 = 91 F 12
(Strabo), where both Strabo and Nicolaus are quoted as witnesses. This means that
the author of the account collected his material from various sources. And as Destinon
showed (p. 18) that Josephus always followed a single source, he must have had
here some account which summarized and quoted these and other historians. Books
XIV-XVII, however, are completely indebted to Nicolaus, for they deal with Herod
(pp. 92 ff.).
60 Destinon, Quellen d. FI. Jos., 10-18.
61H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archaeologie (Leipzig, 1879),
106-116.
62For Herods Memoirs, see AJ, XV, 174 = 236 F 1. Josephus critique of Nicolaus,
AJ, XVI, 179-185 = 90 T 12; FF 101-102, convinced Bloch that Nicolaus was not
the exclusive source (Bloch, Quellen d. Jos. FI., 109-111).
63A. Buechler, The Sources of Josephus for the History of Syria in Antiquities
XII, 3-XIII, 14, JQR, IX (1896), 311-349; Les sources de Flavius Josphe dans
les Antiquits, REJ, XXXII (1896), 179-199.
54E. Schuerer, Geschichte des juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I4 (Leip
zig, 1901), 92-93, rejects Destinons hypothesis of an anonymous source.
65 One English scholar regarded the Quellenkritik as somewhat repellent (H. St.
Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian [New York, 1929], 62).
66 G. Hoelscher, Die Quellen des Josephus fuer die Zeit vom Exil bis zum juedischen
Kriege (Leipzig, 1905), 4-36; Iosephos, RE, IX, cols. 1946 ff, attempts to show
verbal similarities bet. fragments of Nicolaus and BJ ; cf. Jocoby, FGrH, IIC, 230,
where Hoelschers view of a falsification by a middle source is rejected. See below,
p. 119, n. 96.
67Walter Otto, Herodes, No. 14, RE, Suppl. II, 6 ff; IX, 2513 ff.
68Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 10 ff., says that T 12 = AJ, XVI, 183 ff., Josephus critique
of Nicolaus, was copied from the middle source, which was critical of Nicolaus
favorable account of Herod. Jacoby generally follows Otto, although he assumes T 12
93 Notes to Pages 6-8
to be Josephus own (FGrH, IIC, 230, lines 24 ff.; A. Momigliano, CAH, X, 885,
rejects Ottos hypothesis, as does E. Taeubler, Die nicht bestimmbaren Hinweise
bei Josephus und die Anonymos-hypothese, Hermes, LI (1916), 211-232. Cf. also
the recriminatory debate between Otto and Hoelscher in RE, IX, 2513 ff.
59 R. Laqueur, Der juedische Historiker Flavius Josephus (Giessen, 1920), 136 ff.
He analyzes in detail only book XIV of AJ, but maintains that this was true of
Josephus entire treatment in AJ.
60R. Marcus, Josephus (LCL), VII, 448, n.b. He seems to have been dissatisfied
with Ottos and Laqueurs theses. In his notes Marcus indicates that he regarded
Nicolaus as Josephus direct source for books XIV-XVII and as an important source
for XII-XIII (VII, 373, n.d.; 480, n. c.; 455 n.c.).
81Abraham Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (Jerusalem, 1960), 419, n.
285 (in Hebrew).
82Athen., 90 TT 10a; 11; FF 77, line 1; 78 line 15; 94; 95, line 23, stresses Nicolaus
Peripatetic activities, as well as his reputation as a historian.
8390 T 11; FF 73-80; 90; 94-95.
6490 TT lOa-b; FF 77; 78; 94; 95; cf. Suda, 90 T 1.
66Books 103 = 90 F 73; 104 = F 74; 107 = F 75; 108 = F 76; 110 FF 77-78;
114 F 79; 116 = F 80.
68It is difficult to say whether the apparent thesis that the Roman conquest of
Mithradates proved ultimately fatal for the Republic, as indicated by the blame of
Lucullus (FF 76-77; 75) for his triumphs, is that of Nicolaus or Athenaeus own. If
this view was that of Nicolaus, it would explain his popularity in certain circles.
8790 T 14.
88Stobaeus, Eel. I, 842, p. 254, 14 ff.; 844, p. 254, 14 ff.
8990 FF 103-124 = Stobaeus, Anth., Ill, 1-IV, 55.
70 Cf. 90 FF 107; 121 with Aelian, V.H., VI, 1. The Paradoxographus Vat. Rhodii,
sometimes credited to Isigonus, excerpted Nicolaus (E. Reimann, Quo ex fonte
fluxerit N. Damasceni , awaywyij, Philologus, N.S., VIII [1895],
689-690; Jacoby, FgrH, IIC, 256, lines 30 ff.).
7190 FF 103-124; pp. 384-390.
7290 TT 13; 15.
7390 F 72 = Euseb. P.E., IX, 11, 414B = AJ, I, 93. Socrates, H.E., VII, 25 =
F 89. Ragner Hoistad has shown, however, that Joh. Chrysostomus, XV, 22 (the
fourth-century Christian writer), followed the Cyrus tradition found in Nicolaus,
F 66 (Cynic Hero and Cynic King [Uppsala, 1948], pp. 86-88).
7490 FF 15; 17-18; 26-27; 29; 32-33; 37; 39-43; 85-88.
7690 F 6 = Etym. M., p. 180, 42; F 83 = Schol. Strabon., VII, 3, 6; F 84 = Schol.
Vindob. Homer, Od., I, 21.
78 For the date of Etym. M., see Forbes, OCD, 341b.
77Suda, 90 T 1; FF 82; 131-132; Photius, TT 13; 15.
78Suda, 90 T 1; Photius, T 13, pp. 327, lines 35 ff. cf. T lOa-b.
79 Photius 90 T 13, p. 328, line 2; Suda, T 1: typa\pev ev
6ydorjKovTa, cf. 90 T 11; FF 72-81.
80 Dindorf, HGM, I, p. IV; Croiset, Hist. litt. gr., V, 399, n. 3.
8190 TT 13; 15. The length of Nicolaus history may have made it necessary to
divide the work into sections.
82 Mueller, FHG, III, 345a, considers the number found in the Suda an error
in transcription. At any rate, the number 80 shows that more than the Assyriaca
Notes to Pages 8-9 94
was known. 90 FF 82; 131-132 of Nicolaus Autobiography have been preserved in
the Suda.
83Excerpta Historica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta, of which the
following volumes are relevant: II, pt. 1 = Excerpta De virtutibus et vitiis (Berlin,
1906-1910), pp. 326-361; Vol. I ll = Excerpta De insidiis (Berlin, 1905), pp. 1-58.
8490 FF 1-5; 7-14; 16; 21-25; 28; 30-31; 34-36; 38; 44-70; F 71 is from Constan
tines De Them.; FF 125-130 of Nicolaus Augustan Vita; FF 133-139 of the Auto
biography (pp. 328-336; 337-340; 340-341; 342-343; 343-345; 346-376; 391-420;
421-426.
86See preceding note. As to whether 90 F 71 is from Book VII, see FGrH, IIA,
app. crit. to p. 376, line 23 and below, n. 90.
88 This may be seen by comparing the Constantine excerpts from Herodotus,
Josephus, or Diodorus. See Waltons comments in his Introduction to Vol. XI of
Diodorus, the LCL, p. IX.
8780. See 90 FF 133; 139.
88Dindorf, HGM, I, p. IV; Croiset, Hist. litt. gr., V, 399, n. 3.
89See 90 F 1, p. 329, lines 16 f.; F 125, p. 391, lines 18 f.
90 Both Mueller (FGH, III, 413, F 71) and Jacoby (FGrH, 90 F 71), wonder
whether F 71 comes, as it would appear from the m s s ., from book XVIII, or possibly
from book VII. But see A. Petrusis edition of De Thematibus (Vatican City, 1952),
III, line 30, which cites the evidence that F 71 was taken from the XVIII book.
91Autobiography, 90 FF 133-139; Vita Caes., FF 125-130.
9290 FF 23; 71. See Pausanias, 854 T 1, line 8, app. crit., as emended, where
Constantine shows his familiarity with Nicolaus entire work.
93R. J. H. Jenkins, The Classical background of the Scriptores post Theo-
phanem, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VIII (1958), 11-30. Cf. Kurt Weitzmann, Greek
Mythology in Byzantine Art (Princeton, 1951), 200 ff.; Alphonse Dain, La transmission
des textes littraires de Photius Constantin Porphyrognte, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, VIII (1958) 31-47.
94The first edition of the Yosiphon (Josippon, as used by German scholars, or
Josef on, as referred to in medieval times) was published in Mantua, 1476-1479; the
edition of Constantinople, 1510, is a more extensive text. The references here, if not
otherwise noted, are to the edition of Hominer, Jerusalem, 1956. A scientific edition
is in preparation by D. Flusser of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
95 Y os., Chap. Ill, p. 23; this is at least the impression gained from the printed
texts. However, D. Flusser, The Author of the Book of Josiphon: His Personality
and His Age, [in Hebrew] Zion, XVIII (1953), 109-112, shows that its author
never intended to masquerade as Josephus, but that the claims were medieval addi
tions. If Flusser is correct, the argument given below is bolstered.
96For its date, see the literature cited by U. Cassuto, Encyclopaedia Judaica, IX,
419-426 s. Jossipon; S. Zeitlin, Josephus on Jesus (Philadelphia, 1931), 52-60;
The First Book of the Maccabees (New York, 1950), 59, dates it as of some time in
the fourth century. This view is followed by A. A. Newman, Yosiphon and the
Apocryphal Books [in Hebrew], Sefer Asaf (Jerusalem, 1953), 391-392. However,
Y. Baer, The Hebrew Book Yosiphon, [in Hebrew] Sefer Dinabburg (Jerusalem,
1950), 180 ff., assumes it to be of the tenth century; Flusser, Zion XVIII (1953),
112 ff., fixes the date more precisely as 953. But the mention of this work by Hisdai
Ibn Shaprut (J. Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature [Cincin
nati, 1931 ], I, 26), who flourished in the middle of the tenth century, would seem to
indicate a somewhat earlier date.
95 Notes to Pages 9-11
97 Cassuto, s. Jossipon, Encycl. Jud.t IX, 422; S. Baron, Social and Religious
History of the Jews (New York, 1952), VI, 191 f.
98Hegesippus is cited often, e.g., Yosiphon, Chap. XLIII, p. 145. For the date of
the Hegesippus, see Hegesippus qui dicitur sive Egesippus De Bello Judaico (Mar
burg, 1864) ed. by C. Weber and J. Caesar, p. 396.
99 K. Trieber, Zur Kritik des Gorionides, Nachrichten von der Koenigl. Gesell
schaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen, phil. histor. Klasse (1895), 381-401. Trieber,
404-405, points out that the mention of Nicolaus in the Yosiphon indicates its his
torical value.
100J. Wellhausen, Der arabische Josippus, Abhandlungen d. koenig. Ges. d.
Wiss. zu Goett. [N. S.] I (1897), 47 ff.; Schuerer, Gesch. d. jued. Volkes, I4, 160;
W. Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 14-15 follow Wellhausen.
101Jacoby neither cites Yosiphon nor mentions the work in his commentary to
Nicolaus; nor does Laqueur in his article Nikolaos, RE, No. 20, XVII, 362 ff.
102 may be translated as and I saw it [the work] or as and I saw
him [Nicolaus]. Either translation presents difficulties. The authors meeting with
Nicolaus is absurd; since he quoted him, there was no need to mention that he saw
his books. We may perhaps agree with Flusser, Zion, XVIII (1953), 111, that the
whole phrase was a later addition, as it is missing in the Mantua edition of 1476-1479.
103 Yos., Chap. Ill, p. 24.
104 Yos., Chap. XLIII, p. 145; Chap. LV, pp. 195-196. But Flusser (see previous
note) maintains that all autobiographical passages are subsequent additions.
105 Yos., Chap. VI, p. 34.
106 Yos., Chap. XIII, p. 61.
107Nicolaus is usually referred to as trustworthy: Yos. Chaps. Ill, pp. 24;
XXVIII, 107; XXXVII, 129; XLII, 142-143. Cf. Chap. LXI, p. 222, where Nicolaus
is referred to as a man of wisdom and understanding.
108 Cf., for instance, the reference to the Egyptian magicians when introducing
the account: Der Alexanderroman des Archipresbysters Leo, ed. by Pfister (Heidel
berg, 1913), I, 1, with Yos. Chap. Ill, p. 24. The Hebrew version was published by
I. Halevy, Kobez lal yad, II (Berlin, 1886). For the relation of the Alexander romance,
in Yos., to other accounts, see G. Gary, The Medieval Alexander, ed. by D. J. Ross
(Cambridge, 1956), p. 51. See also R. Merkelbach, Die Quellen des griechischen
Alexanderromans (Munich, 1954), 1 ff.
109 Livy, IX, 18; see Timagenes, 88 T 9, FGrH, IIC, 223 f., where Jacoby assumes
that Livy was quoting Timagenes. The latter is perhaps referred to in Yosiphon,
Chap. Ill, p. 24, under Thugatet of Jerusalem, a corruption of Timagenes, com
pounded by a wrong identification.
110 Prof. Elias Bickerman, to whom I am indebted for his reading of this study,
maintains that this is the case.
J11 Yos., XXVIII, p. 107.
112AJ, VII, 393; XIII, 249; BJ, I, 61. Hegesippus, I, 8, p. 6, merely reproduces
BJ, I, 61.
11390 F 101 = AJ, XVI, 179, where Hyrcanus entrance into the Davidic tomb
is referred to once again.
11490 F 101 = AJ, 179 ff.
115 Yos., XXXVII, p. 129. Cf. above, n. 107.
11690 F 96 AJ, XVI, 8-9.
117It may be noted that Yosiphon8 description of Herods ancestry departs not
Notes to Pages 11-12 96
only from that of Josephus but also from that of Hegesippus, a major source. Hege-
sippus, I, 14, p. 19, describes Antipater as is erat Idumaeus genus, a close trans
lation of BJ, I, 123.
118See, e.g., Yos., LV, pp. 188-189, for the favorable treatment; but especially
Chap. LXI, p. 219: And king Herod died, a man of fortune, wherever he turned. . . .
And as God granted him success in his external and over-all affairs, Herod was
provident and compassionate to the members of his family; but they made him
become quarrelsome and contentious. Since his youth he had showed himself sue-
cessful and deserving to be a king more than any of his ancestors; and he reigned
with greatness and glory. Contrast this passage with Josephus estimate in A J
XVII, 191; or that of Hegesippus, II, 1, p. 119: Sepulto igitur Herode libera ut in
defuncto solent iudicia depromebantur, gravem fuisse ilium et intolerabilem sibi,
iniusta imperia in cives exercuisse, tyrannum non regem suorum parricidam dome-
ticum, expoliatorem publicum, nemini quicquam dereliquisse, tributis exhausta
omnia, locupletatos alienigenas, Iudaeos exinanitos, qui templo hostem induxerit,
sancta omnia sacrilegio contaminarit. Barons suggestion {Social and Religious
History j VI, 193): our author [Yosiphon] thus wished to counteract the Christian
propaganda that the scepter had departed from Judah shortly before the birth of
Jesus, has no basis in the sources. This is too refined a subtlety to be attributed
to Yosiphon.
119 Yos., L, p. 169-170; cf. AJ, XV, 163-176 236 = F 1 (Herod).
120 Yos., LVIII, pp. 203-205; cf. 90 F 102 = A J , XVI, 185.
121 Yos., LX, pp. 216-217 quotes Nicolaus to the effect that Mariamnes sons were
innocent, but condemned only because of Antipaters calumnies; cf. 90 F 136, 5-7.
122As did another medieval chronicler, Yerahmeel ben Shelomoh, an author who
quotes Yosiphon, through whom he apparently knew of Nicolaus and Strabo. Ac
cording to Yerahmeel (as quoted by A. Neubauer, JQR, XI [1899], 367, from a
Bodleian Library ms.), Strabo gave an account of Nimrod (identified as Sems son),
telling of his training in astrology, under Yonithes, and in the interpretation of
dreams, under Daniel. Nicolaus (op. cit., 365) is said to have identified Abrahams
living quarters, in the suburb of Elonei Mamre. Baron, Social and Religious
History, VI, 422 f., n. 57, equates Yerahmeel with Yosiphon.
123In all probability, it required some boldness for a pious Jew to depart from
that tradition: Baba Bathra, 3b; Kiddushin, 70b; cf. Math. 2:1 ff.
124 Yos., L, p. 166, describing Herods miraculous escape, adds: This is also
attested by other non-Jewish writers, for king Herod was beloved by God.
125 Yos., VI, pp. 34; XIII, 61. For the Alexander romance, Nicolaus is only one of
the several authorities quoted.
126Flusser, Zion, XVIII (1953), 115-122.
127Trieber, Nachrichten Goett. (1895), 387 ff., based his view that Yos. utilized
primary sources on the Greek nomenclature of this work; Wellhausen, Abh. Goett.
Ges. phil.-hist. Kl., N. S. I (1897), 447 ff., argues that Greek forms might have had
their origin in Jewish Greek; Baer, in Sefer Dinabburg, 188, n. 15, points out paral
lels between Yos. and Aristeas, but adds that because the author of Yos. did not
know Greek he could not have used that work. Flusser, Zion, XVIII (1953), 122, n. 62,
says that Baer showed conclusively the authors ignorance of Greek, which Baer
does not show at all. Flussers own proof: since Yos. (LV, p. 187) renders Heges. I, 38,
p. 72: eruditi latinis iuxta et graecis litteris into ,
this proves only that the author did not know Latin well; or rather, that wishing to
97 Notes to Pages 12-14
remain faithful to the text he coined a Hebrew term, as (it is true) he often did. For
there is no doubt that the scribe had a good background in Latin literature, though
as pointed out by L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortraege der Juden (Frankfurt,
1892), 156-157, the author sometimes mistranslated Hegesippus.
128A. Buechler, MGWJ, XLI (1897), 1 ff.; Newman, in Sefer Asaf, 391-403;
Jossipon: History and Pietism, Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York, 1952),
636-667, discuss Yosiphons sources in the apocryphal literature.
129Trieber, Nachrichten Goett., (1895), 387-409; also A. Neubauer, JQR, XI
(1899), 367 f.
130The authors proficiency in European languages is made evident by his use of
Germanic, Slavic, and Arabic geographic forms (Flusser, Zion, XVIII [1953],
120 f.); Flussers statement (122), that few in Southern Italy during the tenth cen
tury knew both Greek and Latin, may be shown to be exaggerated; see P. Charanis,
On the Question of the Hellenization of Southern Italy and Sicily During the
Middle Ages, American Historical Review, LII (1946), 74-86; the Archpriest Leo
made Latin translations of Scripture, Josephus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and
others during the middle of the tenth century {Der Alexanderroman des Archi-
prebyters Leo, 46, 9 ff.).
131Prof. Bickerman, in a note to me, questioned the availability of Nicolaus 144
books in the tenth century. To my mind, there is no reason to doubt such a possi
bility. If Nicolaus Vita, the Vita Augustiy as well as 18 books of the Histories, are
attested to have been extant then, there is good reason to assume that either the
whole of the Histories or parts of the later books thereof were still available to a
tenth-century writer.
132It is difficult to agree fully with Flusser, Zion, XVIII (1953), 123: the author
of Yosiphon generally quotes responsibly his ancient sources, unlike many other
medieval authors. This overstates the point.
133 Yos. reiterates his dependence upon Josephus and Hegesippus: XLII, 144;
XLIII, 145.
134 Yos., Chap. XLIII, 145 ff., the account of Roman history (Yos., XXXVI, 127)
is of interest; where the author vouches for his sources, adding: I shall not do as
Titus [Livy ] the Roman writer did, who, writing the history of Roman kings, men
tioned Eupator, the son of Antiochus, before his father, [thus] reversing the order.
Livy also reported many events on the basis of unreliable authors. So that the elders
of Rome in my time were prepared to burn his book.
136Flusser, Zion, XVIII (1953), 124, n. 63, however, explains Yosiphons silence
on the events between the death of Herod and the Jewish war as the lack of a Latin
translation of the last three books of AJ. This is implausible, in view of the preva
lence of Latin translations of Josephus.
136 Yos., XXXIX, pp. 137; L, 167.
137FGrH, IIC, 231, lines 13 f.
C h a p t e r II: L i f e a n d W o r k s
190 FF 131-139.
290 T 4 = AJ, XVI, 27-30; F 81 = AJ, XII, 125-7; F 142 = XVI, 31-57 deal
with Nicolaus defense of the rights of the Ionian Jews, not mentioned either in the
Autobiography nor in the BJ. AJ, XVI, 299; 332-350; 355 (cf. T. 5; BJ, I, 574;
F 136, 1) treat of Nicolaus mission to Rome in 8 b .c . Nicolaus attitude toward
Mariamnes sons in T 6 = AJ, XVI, 370-372 (cf. F. 136, 2-4 and F 102). His prose
Notes to Pages 14-16
98
cution of Antipater in T 7 = AJ, XVII, 99 ff. = BJ, II, 14 ff., F 143 (cf. F 135
5-7). Nicolaus plea on behalf of Archelaus in T 8-9; AJ, XVII, 219; 224 f.; 240 ff;
315 ff; BJ, II, 14 ff., 34 ff. For Josephus critique of Nicolaus history, see T 12;
FF 96; 101-102 = AJ , XVI, 179 ff.
390 TT 1-3; 10-11; 13-15; Diogenes Laertius, X, 4; the Yosiphon citation, quoted
at the end of Chap. I, may perhaps be added.
490 FF 131-132.
6Nicolaus age, in 14 b .c ., was about sixty (F 136, 8).
6See Chap. IV; cf. parallel passage cited above, n. 2.
7Cf. G. Misch, History of Autobiography in Antiquity, I, 287 ff., 307 ff.
8In 90 FF 96; 101-2, Josephus charges Nicolaus with outright falsification to
please Herod. The Vita Caesaris was equally flattering to Augustus. Mueller, FGH,
III, 347a, cites Eggers comparison between Nicolaus work and Xenophons Cyro-
paedia; Schwartz, Die Verteilung der Provinzen nach Caesars Tode, Hermes,
XXXIII (1898), 211, is even more critical. For a more favorable view, see Jacoby,
FGrH, IIC, 262 ff.; and C. H. Hall, Nicolaus of Damascus Life of Augustus (Nor
thampton, Mass., 1923), 76-97.
9F 90 131 = Suda, s. ' . Brzoska, Antipatros, No. 28, RE, I, 2516;
Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 515, n. 235: and Laqueur, RE, XVII, 363, reject Cichorius
identification (Rome und Mitylene [Leipzig, 1888], 63) of this Antipater with the
one who, according to Dio Chrys., 16, p. 480 R, participated in an oratorical contest
in Rome in 33 b.c.
1090 F 131. Concerning Ptolemy, see also T 8 = A J , XVII, 225 = BJ, II, 21.
11Cf. 90 F 131, 2, with F 137, 3.
12. . . den wer auch immer eine politische Rolle spielen wollte, konnte in der
1griechischen dies nur als Grieche tun (Laqueur, RE, XVII, 362 f.).
13Laqueur, RE, XVII, 364.
1490 F 96.
16Laqueur, Der juedische Historiker Fl. Jos., 137.
16Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1959),
31 ff.
17II Macc. 4:7-9.
18See Meleagers auto-epitaph, where he uses Phoenician and Aramaic words:
Anth. Pal. VII, 419; he offers a good example of the cosmopolitan education among
some Hellenized Aramaeans.
19Kareyeka ' , eyXois ,
, ( '^
tlvai & ' fjs 7 $ , * ' %\\ ) re rots
yoveas & (90 F 137, . 425, lines 34 ff.).
20Strabo, XIV, 2, 13 = 87 4.
21Quint., Inst., Ill, 1, 17 =* 850 T 2: . . . et Theodorus Gadareus qui se did maluit
Rhodium; Christ-Schmid-Staehlin, GGL, II, 1, 459 f.; Stegemann, Theodoros,
No. 39, RE, V (N. S.), 1847-1859.
22C. Apion, II, 28 = 616 T 4.
2390 FF 19-20; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 241, lines 24 f.
2490 T 2.
2690 F 131 = Suda, S. ' .
26Laqueur, RE, XVII, 364, states this as a fact.
27AJ, XIV, 37-46; BJ, I, 126-133.
99 Notes to Pages 16-18
28Damascus had a large Jewish population: BJ, II, 559561 ; Acts 9; Rabin (ed),
Zadokite Documents (Oxford 1954) VI, 5, 19; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization
and the Jews, 289; B. Z. Luria, The Jews in Syria (Jerusalen, 1957), 235-255 [in
Hebrew]. The Judaean rulers therefore had political interests in that city and
were in close contact with the Damascene aristocracy. Thackeray, Josephus: the
Man and the Historian, 66, attributes the fraternal relations between Herod and
Nicolaus to their respective fathers. This is implausible, for Antipater was a common
name. Not much can be deduced therefore.
29F. 136, 8.
30Cf. M. Croiset, Histoire de la littrature grecque, V, 383-384.
31F 132, 3. For a comparison of education and travel, see Varro, Sat., fr. 418;
cf. Philo, De cong. 3. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa2 (Darmstadt, 1958), II, 671, n. 3.
Norden (II, supplementary notes, p. 9) assumes that Philo borrowed his concept
of education from Posidonius. But it is possible that Philo borrowed his comparison
between education and travel from Nicolaus.
32Cicero, De Hort., fr. 6; Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, II, 671.
33TTonjTucrjs Trarjs (F 90 F 132, 1) refers to Homer, Hesiod, and others. FF 71; 83;
84, show Nicolaus deep interest in Homer and Hesiod.
3490 F 132, 1.
36 Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, II, 1018; 1020; Gg, 2, 14, leaves
328a, 366b.
3690 F 132, 1.
37See Chap. V, pp. 68-69.
38Varro, Sat. fr. 418, who included medicine and architecture, later dropped. For
the history of the development of the liberal arts in antiquity, see Norden, Antike
Kunstprosa, II, 670 ff.; 671, n. 3, cites Nicolaus. See also J. E. Sandys, A History of
Classical Scholarship3 (Cambridge, 1921), I, 241.
39Cf. [Plato] Hipp, maior, 285D; Cicero, De or. Ill, 127; Xen., Mem., IV, 7.
40Kai <f)t\o<ro<t>Las Tr(njs. rjXjriis yp ApioToreXous yevofievos, F 132, 12.
41Zeller, PhdGr, III, l 4, 641-642; cf. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts,
II, 1018; 1020; Gg, 2, 14, leaves 328a, 366b.
42Misch, Hist, of Autob., I, 314; Laqueur, RE, XVII, 423. For a more balanced
picture, see Zeller, PhdGr, III, l 4, 650, n. 4, (p. 652): Weit mehr Gelehrter als
Philosoph.
43Andronicus of Rhodes. See Zeller, PhdGr, III, l 4, 642-646.
44Zeller, PhdGr, III, l 4, 641 ff.
48For the rediscovery of Aristotle, see Cicero, Top., I, 3; Strabo, XIII, 1, 54;
Plut., Sylla. 26.
4890 T 2 mentions his stay in Alexandria; he visited Rome at least three times:
12 b .c . (F 135); 8 b .c . (T 7); 4 b .c . (TT 8-9; FF 136, 8-11; 138).
47F 140 = Anthol. Pal. VII, 304. Rhodes special connection with Hercules gave
rise to Pisanders epitaph (Christ-Schmid-Staehlin, GGL, I, 1, 296). For Nicolaus
visit to Rhodes, cf. 90 F 134, p. 422, lines 14 f.
48See 90 T 4; FF 81; 142 concerning his visit to Ionia; F 100 for Antioch; F 134
for the other places cited.
4990 F 134. For Nicolaus fondness for travel, cf. F 132, 3.
60See 90 F 135, p. 422, lines 31 ff., where it is stated that Nicolaus accompanied
Herod to Rome to 12 b .c . According to BJ, I, 426-428, the king, on his way home,
presided over the Olympic games, presumably accompanied by Nicolaus.
Notes to Pages 18-20 100
61It might be argued, though it is not certain, that Nicolaus was Herods chief
agent, through whom he distributed his gifts to foreign cities (cf. 90 F 134). This
would have led Nicolaus not only to Athens, but also to Nicopolis, Pergamum,
Lycia, and Samos, as well as to other places (BJ, I, 422-425; AJ, XVI, 147-149).
62Diog. Laertius, X, 4. The grouping of Nicolaus with Posidonius, Sotion, Dio
nysius may indicate a concerted attack against Epicureanism. See also 90 F 137,
p. 425, lines 35 ff.
6390 F 100 = Strabo, XV, 1, 73; see Aly, Strabon, 208.
64See Strabo, XIV, 5, 4, who says that Xenarchus was his teacher; he wrote
commentaries on Aristoles De caelo, disputing his concept of aether. Simplicius on
De caelo mentions him frequently: 13, 20; 20, 12; 21, 33; 33, 11; see Zeller, PkdGr,
III, l 4, 653; Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 321 f. According to Strabo, Athenaeus, a Peripa
tetic, was active in politics in his native town and was at one time declared innocent
of having engaged in a plot against Augustus.
66 Concerning Andronicus, see Strabo, XIV, 2, 13; Plut., Sylla, 26, 1, credits him
with editing the works of Aristotle; he taught in Athens after 40 B.C. Gercke, RE,
I, 2164; Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 301-305; Zeller, PhdGr, III, l 4, 642-646. On Boethus
and Diodotus, see Strabo, XVI, 2, 24, who says that Strabo and Boethus studied
together, perhaps under Andronicus, or, as is more likely, under Xenarchus. Boethus,
like Nicolaus, wrote commentaries on Aristotle and is frequently cited by Simplicius,
Cat., 1, 17; 106, 5; 163, 6. Cf. Zeller, PhdGr, III, l 4, 646-649.
66See F 138; cf. FF 135; 137.
67See, for instance, Strabos comment on Apamea, where Posidonius is mentioned
(XVI, 2, 10); Rhodes (XIV, 2, 13); Seleucia (XIV, 5, 4). This, of course, would
refer especially to localities that Strabo knew firsthand, rather than to those places
he merely copied from his source. The fact that kings like Archelaus of Cappadocia
(FGrH, IIB, No. 123) and Juba of Mauretania (IIIA, No. 275) engaged in the
writing of history undoubtedly reflects the high position of the scholar.
68AJ, XVII, 41-42; Mishnah, Haggigah, 2, 7.
69ms. Gg, 2, 14, II, leaf 366b; Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Mss., II, 1020.
60ms. Gg, 2, 14, II, leaf 366b; Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Mss., II, 1020.
61 ev ry *
. Schol. to Theophr. Metaph., p. 323, Brandis; G. Roeper, Nicolai Damas-
ceni de Aristotelis philosophia librorum reliquiae; Lectiones Abulpharagianae, I, fr.
XV, not seen by me, but cited in Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 320, n. 407.
62* bk 6 . . . kv , H. Diels, Doxographi graeci (Berlin
and Leipzig, 1929), p. 481; Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 320, 408.
63 kv rots * , Simplicius Ad Epict., 37, 194C, where it is de
scribed as , Zeller, PhdGr, III, l 4, n. 4 to p. 650, conjectures that
in this work Nicolaus must have attacked the Epicureans (Diog. Laertius, X, 4).
64Exact title lost. See Stobacus, Eel., I, 842, 844; Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 320.
66 , . Probably the same as Cambridge Syriac ms.
Gg 2, 14, II, described below. For the nature of this work and earlier literature, see
Susemihl, GGLAZ, 318, n. 403.
66See Croiset, Hist. litt. gr., V, 401, n. 3. As to whether or not Nicolaus had written
epl , as some have read into Stobaeus, Eel. I, 34, 2; see Usener, in Bemays
Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1885), II, 281; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 229, lines 38 ff.
67For a description of the ms., see Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Mss., II, 1008 f.,
designated as Gg, 2, 14; leaves 328-354, and 263-386, belonging to Nicolaus, have
the designation Gg, 2, 14, II.
101 Notes to Pages 20-23
88Gg, 2, 14, II, 1018, leaves 328a-329a.
69Gg, 2, 14, II, 1018 f, leaf 329a-b.
70Gg, 2, 14, II, 1019 c, leaves 329b-330a.
71Gg, 2, 14, II, 1019 d, leaves 330a-b.
72Gg, 2, 14, II, 1019 a, leaves 331a-b.
73Gg. 2, 14, II, 1019 f, leaves 331b-354b.
74Gg. 2, 14, II, 1020 g, leaves 366b-378a.
76Gg, 2, 14, II, 1020 h-i, leaves 378a-379a.
76 Gg, 2, 14, II, 1020 j, leaves 379 a-b.
77 Gg, 2, 14, II, 1021 k-1, leaves 379b-380b; the twelfth was on the fifteenth of
Aristotle.
78 Gg, 2, 14, II, 1021 m, leaves 381a-384b. For the Greek title see n. 61.
79 Gg, 2, 14, II, 1021 n, leaves 384b-385b.
80 Gg, 2, 14, II, leaf 384. See also above, pp. 1-3.
81Lulofs, JHS, LXXVII (1957), 75-80.
82Lulofs, JHS, LXXVII (1957), 76-80.
83W. Jaeger, as quoted by Laqueur, RE, XVII, 1269. Jaegers verdict was based
on the Greek fragments only.
84Laqueur, RE, XVII, 373, deduces this from parallels of Nicolaus Autobiography
(90 FF 131-139) and Aristotles works.
8590 F 132, p. 421, line 15.
86There is no reason to doubt Nicolaus words (90 F 132, 2-3), that he became a
devotee of Aristotle in his early youth. Note also F 135, where Nicolaus interest in
philosophy in 14 b . c . is expressly stated. The appropriation of Aristotle in Nicolaus
Autobiography (see note 84, above) merely shows that having paraphrased Aristotle
all his life he no longer distinguished between his own work and that of his master.
8790 T 2. There is no reason to question Sophronius statement (FGrH, IIC, 229,
lines 37 f.).
8890 F 137; Misch, Hist, of Aut. in Antiq., I, 311-14.
89Laqueur, RE, XVII, 365.
90AJ, XV, 96 = BJ, I, 362.
9190 F 137, 6.
9290 F 130, 68. J. P. V. Balsdon, The Ides of March, Historia, VII (1958),
pp. 85, n. 32; 87, n. 42, cites this passage to support the view that Antony and
Cleopatra invented the story of Caesar as the father of Caesarion. But Nicolaus
does not support Balsdons view; if Caesar disowned Caesarion in his will, the father
hood issue was laready alive before his death.
93See Tarn. CAH, X, 36, who adds that Cleopatra was unpopular in Jerusalem
because she once excluded the Jews, as noncitizens, from the distribution of grain.
94AJ, XV, 96-103; see Schalit, King Herod, 71; 382, nn. 91, 93, who seems to
believe the story.
9590 F 100 = Strabo, XV, 1, 73. Nicolaus was close enough to Augustus to be
able to describe the contents and the language of the Indian message. Cf. Jacoby,
FGrH, IIC, 229.*
96See 90 TT 5-6; 9-10; cf. T 1, where Nicolaus friendship with Herod is men
tioned before that of Augustus.
97AJ, XV, 354r-358; Walter Otto, RE, Herodes, No. 14, Suppl. II, 70. FF 134
135 and T 4 suggest strongly that Nicolaus, in 14 B.C., was already an old friend of
Herods.
Notes to Pages 23-25 102
98AJ, XV, 354-360 - BJ. I. 400; Dio Cass. LIV. 9.
99Laqueur, RE, XVII, 366-367.
100Laqueur, RE, XVII, 366-367, bases this conclusion on a comparison of the
itinerary of Nicolaus, as described in 90 F 134, and Josephus description of this
trip, in AJ, XVI, 16-23. Laqueur finds that the part of the journey in which Nico
laus participated, from Palestine to Rhodes, Cos, and Chios, is described fully (AJ,
XVI, 17-19, but that the part in which Nicolaus was separated from Herod (AJ,
XVI, 23) is described meagerly. It is one thing, however, to point out that Josephus
account sometimes follows very closely Nicolaus personal participation, and another
to argue, as Laqueur does, that all detailed descriptions of Herod in Josephus there
fore emanate from Nicolaus personal experience.
101BJ, I, 225: Cassius appointed Herod kTnfxeXTjTris; AJ, XIV, 280: arparrfyds. For
this difficulty and the chronology, see Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 19; Momigliano, Ricerche
sullorganizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio Romano (63 A.C.-70 D.C.),
Atti della reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, 1934, 219-220; R. Marcus, on AJ
(LCL), VII, p. 599, note d.
102On Herods Hypomnemata, see FGrH, 236 F I = AJ, XV, 165-74. The dialogue
between Herod and Mariamne (AJ, XV, 84-85; and the Cleopatra-Herod meeting
in Jericho (AJ, XV, 96-103) are but two examples that can be cited to prove that
detailed descriptions do not necessarily mean that Nicolaus personally participated
in, or was present during, those occurrences.
10390 T 2. It is unreasonable to argue, as Tarn does in CAH, X, 36, that the enmity
between Cleopatra and Herod is wholly a subsequent embellishment by Nicolaus.
Cleopatra certainly had her eye on the Judaean kingdom. Herod had to pay tribute
of 200 talents for the domain which he was forced to lease her (AJ, XV, 103-106;
BJ, I, 362); and after Herods slaying of his nephew, the Hasmonaean Aristobulus,
Cleopatras intervention almost brought Herods downfall. (AJ, XV, 62-67).
10490 TT 1; 5; 10; 13; FF 100; 125-130 = Vita Caesaris; F 136, 1, line 11, indi
cate the cordial relationship between Augustus and Nicolaus.
105 Herod shrewdly pointed out to Octavian their mutual hatred of Cleopatra,
AJ, XV, 187 ff.; BJ, I, 388 ff.
106Herods position as the leading client king is evident in AJ, XVII, 246, where
Nicolaus, addressing Augustus, refers to Herod as <f>i\os Kal crbiiiiaxos; Otto, RE,
Suppl. II, 103 ff.; Momigliano in CAH, X, 326; and Schalit, King Herod, 207 ff.,
ascribe Herods success to his attempted Hellenization of Judaea. But this explana
tion is based on a few superficial acts which were already in process during the
Hasmonaean rule. It is more likely that Augustus was taken in by Herods successful
propaganda, rather than by Herods solid attempts to interfere with the beliefs of
his subjects. Certainly, Herods costly rebuilding of the temple only strengthened the
forces opposing Hellenization (AJ, XV, 380-425); it may be noted that the only time
Herod introduced customs contrary to Jewish tradition was to honor Augustus (AJ,
XV, 267-279); even the theaters were primarily designed to impress foreigners (A J,
XV, 267-276), rather than to Hellenize Judaea. For the Hellenization of Judaea
under the Hasmonaeans, see Bickermann, The Maccabees (New York, 1947), 77 ff.;
V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 24-253.
107Aside from Nicolaus and his brother Ptolemy, the following Greeks are men
tioned: the rhetorician Eirenaeus (BJ, II, 21 = AJ, XVII, 226), Eurycles of Sparta
(BJ, I, 513 ff. = AJ, XVI, 301 ff.). Euarestus of Cos (BJ, I, 532 AJ, XVI, 312);
and possibly others. See Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 87; Schalit, King Herod, 211.
103 Notes to Pages 25-26
108A. von Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1889-1894), V, 542; J. Buerger,
De Nicolai Damasceni fragmento Escorialensi quod inscribitur Bios Kalaapos (Bonn,
1869); FGrH, IIC, 264, lines 24 ff., cite the evidence.
109To the bibliographies listed by Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 263-265; and Laqueur,
RE, XVII, 401-420, the following should be added: F. Altheim, Roemiszhe Geschichte
(Berlin, 1956), II, 113 ff.; W. Steidle, Sueton und die antike Biographie (Munich,
1951) 133 ff.; and W. Schmitthenner, Octavian und das Testament Caesars; eine
Untersuchung zu den politischen Anfaengen des Augustus (Munich, 1952); G. Torturro,
Nicola Damasceno, Vita di Augusto (Bari, 1945); C. Brutscher, Analysen zu Suetons
Divus Julius und der Parallelenueberlieferung (Bern-Stuttgart, 1958).
110J. Asbach, Zu Nikolaus von Damascus, Rh.M., XXXVII (1882), 297.
111 . . . 6 kvrbs ,P kp re ,!
, y (90 F 125. 1).
112Gutschmid, Kl. Sehr., V, 539 f., following Mueller, FHG. Ill, 434, . 1, points
out the usage of (FGrH F 130, 37), as referring to Apollonia. According to
Mueller (op. tit. Ill, 344a), Nicolaus returned there after 4 b .c . See Jacoby, FGrH,
IIC, 270, lines 31-37, but especially p. 263, line 8 ff., where he rejects this evidence
on , giving reasons. Aside from the works cited by Jacoby (op. tit.), see
C. M. Hall, Nicolaus of Damascus* Life of Augustus (Northampton, Mass., 1923),
pp. I l l and 81, . 1, to Chap. XVI.
113Suetonius, Aug., 85; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 263 f.
114Laqueur, RE, XVII, 405-406; Steidle, Sueton, 133-135.
115Laqueur, RE, XVII, 405, grants that fjp&v, in F 125, line 9, may also mean
das er [Augustus] die Herrschaft gewann; but & (F 126, line 26), can only
be intelligible if Augustus was already dead; cf. Steidle, Sueton, 134.
116Laqueur, RE, XVII, 406; Steidle, Sueton, 134.
117Steidle, Sueton, 133-4, emphasizes the references to the accomplishments of
Augustus as a whole (F 125; and F 130, 58), as proof that Nicolaus was evaluating
Augustus life in retrospect.
118Laqueur, RE, XVII, 373, writes that Augustus, upon Herods death, and
realizing Nicolaus skill as a historian, attempted to exploit his talent for himself.
Laqueur concludes, Aeussere Belege fuer diese Rekonstuktion der Dinge fehlen,
doch spricht die innere Wahrscheinlichkeit dafuer. Schmitthenner, Oktavian und
das Testament Caesars, 12, n. 4, agrees with Jacoby, rejecting Laqueurs and Steidles
dating of the Vita Caesaris.
119F 138. That he stayed in Rome instead of returning to Damascus was probably
due to the intellectual climate of Rome.
12090 F 130, 68, and Jacobys comments, FGrH, IIC, 274.
121Jacoby, who assumes the work to have been a Greek version of Augustus
Autobiography (FGrH, IIC, 264, lines 4 ff.), grants that important parts (F 130, 58
106) must be credited to Nicolaus himself (FGrH, IIC, 272, 25 ff.).
122Gutschmid, Kl. Sehr., V, 539-540. For Herods visit to Aquileia, see AJ, XVI,
91; for Nicolaus visit to Rome, F 135. Herod (and presumably Nicolaus) afterwards
went to Olympia, where the king presided over the games in 12 b .c . See also, Jacoby,
FGrH, IIC, 263, for further argumentation against Gutschmids point of view.
123Gutschmid, Kl. Sehr., V, 542; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 264.
124T 10. When did Augustus bestow this honor upon Nicolaus? As these dates
emanated from the region of Jericho (Strabo, XVI, 2, 41; Pliny, Hist. Nat., XIII,
9, 44), Nicolaus must already have been in Herods service. As Nicolaus left Judaea,
Notes to Pages 26-28 104
in 4 B.C., the period 14-4 b . c . may also be excluded, for the nicolai are not mentioned
either in the Nicolaus fragments or in Josephus, a period of Nicolaus life of which
we are well informed. The time of 90 T 10 must then be combined with F 100, which
yields the date around 20 B.C.; hence the likelihood that Augustus rewarded Nicolaus
for his Vita Caesaris; and it follows, further, that Nicolaus was already in Herods
service during its composition.
125So Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 264.
126BJ, I, 400.
127Aside from the Vita Caesaris itself, 90 F 80 is based on Augustus autobiography,
FGrH, IIC, 264. 90 F 80 follows Caesars B.G., III, 22 (FGrH, IIC, 254), indicating
that Nicolaus utilized Latin sources. It is conceivable, however, that Nicolaus
learned Latin when he was tutoring Antonys children.
12890 F 100; AJ, XV, 354 ff.
12990 T 4; F 81; 133-135. W. Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 72.
130 AJ, XVI, 12 ff.
131Herod paid the cost of repairing the damaged portico of Chios (AJ, XVI, 18);
for other gifts to Greek cities, BJ, I, 422-425; see also 90 F 134.
132Upon Herods return from Asia Minor, he pointed out to the Jews that he had
done everything possible to benefit their co-religionists. According to Jsoephus,
Herods popularity in Jerusalem was never as high as at this time (AJ, XVI, 62-65).
133F 134. For the details of the itinerary followed by Herod and Nicolaus, see
Mueller, FHG, III, 350, n. 2; Laqueur, RE, XVII, 366-367.
134AJ, XII, 125-137 = 90 F 81; F 142 describes the clash in Ionia. But Agrippas
edict granting tolerance to the Jews of Cyrene (AJ, XVI, 169-170) follows immedi
ately that of a similar grant by Agrippa to the Jews of Ephesus (AJ, XVI, 167-168).
!35 9 0 T 4 = AJ, XVI, 27-28; cf. F 81 = AJ, XVI, 125-126.
13690 F 81 = AJ, XII, 125-126, states the Greeks initiated the complaint; AJ,
XVI, 27-29, says that the Jews did. G. Hoelscher, Iosephus, RE, IX (1916),
1979, n., assumes AJ, XVI, 27 ff. to be Josephus invention. But no one any longer
believes in Hoelschers thesis; see FGrH, IIC, 230 to T 4. Laqueur, RE, XVII, 395
396, considers AJ, XVI, 27 ff., as correct, assuming F 81 to be Josephus mistake
in paraphrasing Nicolaus. This seems unlikely; the contradiction is apparent and
need not be attributed to an error in paraphrasing.
137For Herods attitude on Hellenism see above, n. 106. The fact that Herod inter
vened on behalf of the Jews when they were in direct conflict with the Greeks under
mines the thesis of many scholars that Herod was estranged from Judaism and was
instead a fervent devotee of Hellenism (Schuerer, Gesch. d. jued. Volkes, I4, 396;
Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 103, ff.); Klausner, Historia shel habayit ha-sheni (Jerusalem,
1954), IV4, 39 ff., says that though Herod believed himself to be the Jewish messiah,
his reign was more Greek than Jewish. Schalit, King Herod, 207 ff., ascribes to
Herod a coherent political philosophy. What is more likely is that Herod was both
a sincere Jew and a Hellenist, but that he never let either of the two interfere with
his ambitions (cf. Alon, Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple,
the Mishnah and Talmud [Jerusalen, 1957], I, 41, n. 49, [in Hebrew]).
138Laqueur, RE, XVII, 369, who says that Herod, as a Jew, was an interested
party; but so was Nicolaus, appearing as the kings representative.
139Schuerer, Gesch. d. jued. Volkes, I4, 396; Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 105; Klausner,
Historia shel habayit ha-sheni, IV4, 44 f.; Schalit, King Herod, 211 ff.
14090 F 142 = AJ, XVI, 41 ff.
105 Notes to Pages 28-30
141Mueller, FHG, III, 421, n. 2, dismisses the speech with: Sequitur Nicolai
oratio longissima, quam apud ipsum Josephum legas. Jacoby, however, commenting
on F 142, writes: als Probe, for there are no speeches in the attested fragments;
see also H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaeischen Erhebung (Goettingen,
1895), 9; Hoelscher, RE, IX, 1976.
142AJ, XVI, 342-350, not among the fragments in Jacoby; AJ, XVII, 107-120 =
F 143; AJ, XVII, 240-247 - BJ, II, 34-36, not in Jacoby, but cf. F 136, 10.
143Laqueur, RE, XVII, 370, 395-396, agrees with Hoelscher, RE, IX, 1976, that
the speech quoted in AJ, XVI, 31-57 (F 141), contains certain parts that are gen
uine and others that are later additions. Hoelscher considers sections 41-57 as later
additions; Laqueur, however, limits the additions to sections 41-47; Schalit, King
Herod, 218, believes that the speech reproduces in part the thoughts of Nicolaus and
in part those of Herod.
144Laqueurs and Hoelschers division (see preceding note) of the Nicolaus speech
into two parts, genuine and not, sounds artificial. Either the speech must be regarded
as Josephus fabrication or as substantially genuine. As there is nothing anachronistic
in it, the parts praising Judaism cannot be taken as false; after all, this was an address
clearly labeled as a defense of Jewish beliefs. Schalits division is equally difficult to
comprehend. Did not Nicolaus speech contain many of Herods thoughts?
145For the internal opposition to Hellenism, see AJ, XV, 267 ff.; XVII, 149 ff.
For an unfriendly description of Judaism, see Strabo, XVI, 2, 34 ff., although Strabo
treats Herod favorably. For Herods ambivalent attitude to Hellenism see above
notes 106; 137. Rabbinic tradition maintains that normative Judaism reached new
heights in the schools of Shammai and Hillel, under Herod. Whether we regard this
as the beginning of the atomization of the halakah or as the period of growth, the
conflict between Judaism and Hellenism became acute, partly as a result of Herods
policies (AJ, XVII, 41 ff.; 90 F 136, 8).
146Herods Memoirs, 236 F 1; Ptolemys biography of Herod, 199 F 1, are indica
tive of Herods interest in the revival of historiography. See Chap. IV, pp. 52; 115, n.4.
147The Constantine excerptors refer to the work as simply (90 FF 6;
135), as does Athenaeus (T 10a); the Suda1s statement (T 1), , may
simply mean that he wrote a general history (Mueller, FHG, III, 344b; Jacoby,
FGrH, IIC, 230, lines 38 f.). But the description of the Suda characterizes the work
admirably; cf. Ephorus, 70 T 7.
14890 F 135 follows the description of Herods journey to Asia Minor (F 134). For
the date, see Schuerer, Gesch. d. jued. Volkes, I4, 405; Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 72.
149For the nature and purpose of Nicolaus Autobiography, see Chap. Ill, pp. 37-51.
160Aristotle, Poet., 9, 1451b. See T. Brown, Herodotus and His Profession,
American Historical Review, LIX, 829 ff.; A. W. Gomme, The Greek Attitude to Poetry
and History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1954), 49-72.
16190 F 132, 2. Aristotle, it is true, had undertaken a historical work on the Greek
constitutions, but this was not descriptive history in the vein of Herodotus and
Thucydides.
15290 F 135. Herod sailed to Rome in 12 b . g (AJ, XVI, 90 ff.).
183See F 137, 2, where Nicolaus preaches virtues recommended by Aristotle:
', ' ' , el ,
. yap kvavrios
, re ^ el , .
These were words unlikely to please Herod.
Notes to Pages 30-33 106
154The pragmatic aspects of history are pointed out by Nicolaus in F 135; during
the first century, pragmatic historiography was very popular, e.g., Diodorus, Dio
nysius of Halicarnassus.
166FGrH, IIB, 123 TT 1-2; FF 1-9; Susemihl, GGLAZ, I, 700 f.
168FGrH, IIA, No. 275, pp. 127-155; Ilia pp. 317-357.
167The question of why the Jews ceased to write history at about this period has
not been dealt with as yet. II Macc., probably written at the end of the second
century B.C. (Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 383), strictly speaking, is the last
historical work before Josephus, although the aggadic literature, as well as minor
works such as Hegillat Ta'anit, continued to treat Jewish history for religious pur
poses. Did Herod attempt to revive historiography among the Jews? Cf. ch. IV,
pp. 52 ff.
158For the title, see 90 T 13, 327, line 24: WG>v FF 101 ff.:
* ^ ^ . Photius (T 13, p. 327, lines 23 ff.) says that it was written for Herod.
169So Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 257, lines 3 ff.
160 FGrH, IIC, 256, lines 1-2.
161Duemmler, Rh.M., XLII (1887), 192, n. 2., is perhaps right in suggesting that
the Collection was partially based on Aristotles . Jacoby, FGrH,
IIC, 256, regards this as unverifiable.
162See 90 F 100.
183For possible material dealing with the Jews, see pp. 52-64; 70-73.
184Photius (90 T 13, p. 327, lines 26 ff.) connects Nicolaus work with that of
Conon. Concerning the latter, see FGrH, I A, No. 26; U. Hoefer, Konon (Greifswald,
1890) 2 ff.; Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 59-61.
18590 F 135. Josephus, AJ, XVI, 90 ff.; BJ, I, 452, ff., gives a report of Herods
journey, but it does not mention Nicolaus.
188A J, XVI, 121 ff.; BJ, II, 454. For Nicolaus subsequent attitude, see F 90
136, 6-7.
18790 F 136; AJ, XVI, 335-55; no parallel in BJ.
188AJ, XVI, 289; XVI, 293; 90 F 136, 1; Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 125.
18990 F 136, 1. For the differences between the fragment and Josephus, see Otto,
RE, Suppl. II, 126; Laqueur, RE, XVII, 396-397; and above, pp. 62-64.
170AJ, XVI, 335-350.
17190 F 137, 2-4, where Nicolaus boasts that he never acted unfairly against anyone.
172AJ, XVI, 353.
173AJ, XVI, 353-358.
174AJ, XVI, 356 ff.
176 6 = AJ, XVI, 370-373; F 136, 2-3.
178Josephus, AJ, XVI, 370; 372 = T 6 is undoubtedly correct in asserting that
Herod was anxious to learn Augustus reaction to the trial. Whether Augustus
really said that he would have preferred to be Herods vs (swine) than his vl6s (son)
as recorded by the fifth century Macrobius, Saturnalia, II, 4, 11, is not known (Otto,
RE, Suppl. II, 127).
17790 F 136, 4.
178Josephus, AJ, XVI, 387-404 = BJ, I, 544-551, does not mention Antipater at
all. But as the rise of Antipater as heir-to-be is told immediately thereafter (AJ,
XVII, 1 ff. = BJ, I, 552 ff.), he is indirectly implicated.
179The interpretation followed here is contrary to Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 129, who
argues that Josephus, in his account of the execution of Mariamnes sons, was not
107 Notes to Pages 33-35
following Nicolaus. Otto points out that Nicolaus enmity towards Antipater pre
cludes the Histories as the source. But this, it would seem, makes it even more prob
able that Nicolaus was the source, for as long as Antipater was living he would not
have pointed out his guilt, at least not directly. As to A J , XVI, 404, where Josephus
at the end of the book points out Herods cruel character, this is clearly a comment
by Josephus and is not, as Otto argues, proof of some anonymous author from whom
Josephus supposedly copied the entire account of the death of the sons of Mariamne
(see below, p. 119, n. 96).
18090 F 102 A J , XVI, 185.
181For the chronology I have followed Schuerer, Gesch. d. jued. Volkes; and Otto
RE, Suppl. II, 1 ff.
18290 F 136, 4-7.
18390 F 136, 4-7; AJ , XVII, 1 ff.; BJ, I, 552 ff.
18490 F 136, 5-7; F 143.
185Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 142, denies the possibility of an exaggeration of Antipaters
guilt by the sources. But Otto follows his assumption that Josephus source is not
Nicolaus but an anonymous authors paraphrase of Nicolaus.
18690 F 143 = AJ, XVII, 107-120.
18790 F 136, 2-4, and Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 290. See also F 136, 7, where Antipater
is dubbed .
18890 F 143 = AJ , XVII, 109 ff.
18990 F 136, 7.
19090 F 136, 7, p. 424, lines 9 ff.; AJ , XVII, 144 f., however, does not quote
Nicolaus.
191A J , XVII, 182 ff.; BJ, I, 661 ff.
19290 AJ , XVII, 188 ff. = BJ, I, 664, 668. Archelaus was to become king over the
entire country; the brothers were to receive tetrarchies.
19390 F 136, 8-11; AJ, XVII, 219 ff. = BJ, II, 14 ff.
194Antipas won over e
kvov ( 8, AJ , XVII, 225 = BJ, II, 21; cf. F 131).
195See preceding note.
196Both A J , XVII, 240 ff., and BJ, II, 33 ff., list Nicolaus as the last speaker;
whereupon Augustus confirmed Archelaus as heir. In his Autobiography, Nicolaus
claims that Augustus praised his speech on behalf of Archelaus (90 F 136, 10-11).
197F 136, 10.
198BJ, II, 26-32; A J, XVII, 230-239. A J is more detailed but agrees substantially
with BJ.
199BJ, II, 3 -36; AJ, XVII, 240-247.
200BJ, I, 666; AJ , XVII, 202.
201BJ, II, 37-38; A J , XVII, 247-248. Nicolaus, F 136, 8-11, for the sake of
brevity, combines the two sessions into one.
202BJ, II, 84-92; AJ , XVII, 301-314.
203BJ, II, 92; AJ , XVII, 315-316. Josephus indirectly confirms Nicolaus state
ment (90 F 136, 10) that the latter refrained from attacking Archelaus brothers.
For the details of Nicolaus skillful strategy, see Otto, Herodes [Antipas], No. 24,
RE, Suppl. II, 168.
20490 F 136, 11, p. 425, lines 1-2.
20590 F 136, 11; BJ, II, 94 ff.; AJ , 317 ff.
208Archelaus came to Rome with the hope of receiving the 6 (90 F 136,
Notes to Pages 35-37 108
p. 424, line 19) or PaaiXeLa (BJ, I, 668). Schuerers assertion (Gesch. d. jued. Volkes,
I4, 422) that Augustus essentially confirmed Herods will is not precise. Cf. Otto,
Herodes Antipas No. 24; Herodes [Archelaos], No. 25, RE, Suppl. II, 168 ff.,
192 ff. Klausner, Historia shel ha-bayit ha-sheni, IV4, 179, blames Herod for more or
less initiating the division. But see Momigliano, CAH, X, 338.
207F 138. Nicolaus decision to stay in Rome instead of returning to Jerusalem
indicates his coolness to Archelaus; perhaps Archelaus was dissatisfied with Augustus
disposition, blaming Nicolaus for not securing the entire kingdom.
208Beginning with AJ, XVII, 250; BJ, II, 39, Josephus sources become meager
(cf. Schuerer, Gesch. d. jued. Volkes, I4, 84; Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 3; Jacoby, FGrH,
IIC, 232, lines 43 ff.).
209Laqueur, RE, XVII, 400, offers no proof for his contention that Nicolaus must
have ended his history with some event (which?) of Roman history. Hoelschers
assertion that the Histories described Archelaus reign to a . d . 6 is effectively answered
by Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 233, lines 20 ff.
21090 F 136, p. 424, line 21.
21190 F 138, lines 5-9.
21290 F 138, lines 10 ff.
213For Nicolaus statement concerning his slaves, see 90 F 139.
21490 T 2.
C h a p t e r III: A u t o b i o g r a p h y
190 T 1.
2Ottos objection (RE, Suppl. II, 3) to the title as emanating from Nicolaus is
effectively answered by Jacoby (FGrH, IIC, 288, lines 30 ff.).
8Heading of 90 F 125, and apparatus; cf. also FGrH, IIC, 261, lines 23 ff.
4Cf. Onesicritus, FGrH, No. 134, T 1; Marsyas, No. 135, T 1; see also IIC, 261
262; T. S. Brown, Onesicritus: A Study in Hellenistic Historiography (Berkeley and
Los Angeles, 1949), 135, n. 2.
6Only Josephus is known to have entitled his work Iwariirov Bios, but see the app.
crit. to this title in Nieses ed. of Josephus.
6Remnants of vtto/u^ara are assembled in FGrH, Nos. 229, 230, 231, 234, 236;
Caesar and Augustus, to cite the most prominent Romans, composed commentarii.
7Augustus used the first person; both Xenophon, in his Anabasis, and Caesar
employed the third person; but Josephus used the first person, in his Vita, and the
third in the autobiographical parts of BJ. See also Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 288; IID,
639 f.; F. H. Adcock, Caesar as Man of Letters (Cambridge, 1956), 6-18. Adcock
maintains that aside from the stylistic motive, Caesars habit of using the third
person implied an air of authority and preeminence (pp. 74-76).
890 FF 131-139.
990 F 131.
10Prefaces among historians were standard. But 90 FF 125-126 would seem to
indicate that Nicolaus wrote detailed prefaces to his works, a specimen of which
may be seen in Diodorus. Strabo, Dionysius, A.R., and Josephus.
11G. Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 293.
12Nicolaus begins by pointing out his fathers social and moral traits, including
the fact that he fulfilled his duties to the gods (90 F 131).
1390 F 132, 1-2.
1490 F 132, line 32.
109 Notes to Pages 38-40
16The translation assumes Herod to be the subject, as do Mueller and Jacoby.
16Nicolaus insistence upon his </>iX<u0pcona: F 134, p. 421, line 35; F 137, p. 425,
line 33; F 138, p. 426, line 14. For its meaning, see works cited by Rostovtzev,
Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 1941), III, 1358-1359,
nn. 4-5.
17Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 311-312. Mischs treatment of Nicolaus
Vita suffers from the fact that he seems to assume that the fragments were all that
Nicolaus wrote.
1890 TT 1-2; lOa-b.
1990 F 136, 1; cf. 136, 11.
2090 F 136, 2-7.
2190 F 136, 3.
2290 F 136, p. 424, lines 14-15.
23Laqueur, RE, XVII, 423.
24See note 22; 90 FF 133; F 134, p. 422, line 18; F 136, p. 425, line 1.
2590 F 137-9.
2690 F 132, lines 9, 23-24; F 137, line 6; cf. also F 131, lines 32-33. Perhaps Nico
laus frequent assertions about his dislike of money may indicate just the contrary.
27Aristotle, Eth. Nie. II, 7, 1107b-1108a; Misch, History of Autobiography, I,
310-311.
2890 F 138.
2990 F 138, lines 18-9.
3090 F 134; 135; 136; 138 seems to follow a chronological order.
3190 F 127, 12; F 130, 73; F 68, 9; AJ, XV, 97 ff. Cf. P. Jacob, De Nicolai Dam.
Romanorum fontibus (Berlin, 1900), 53 ff., 65 ff.; Christ-Schmid-Staehlin, GGL,
II6, 376.
32Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 59-66.
33The paucity of autobiographical works in Greek is clearly evident in FGrH,
Nos. 227-237, which includes all kinds of memoirs and autobiographical accounts.
See Jacobys comments, IID, 639-640.
34Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 61: Jacoby, FGrH, IID, 639-640.
35F. Leo, Die griechisch-roemische Biographie, 188 ff.; cf. A. Dihle, Studien zur
griechischen Biographie (Abhandlungen der Akad. der Wissenschaften in Goettingen,
philol.-hist. Kl., 3d Serl, No. 35, 1956), 8, 56-87.
36See preceding note; Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 289-295.
37Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 293.
38The use of the term ioypa<t>la is first attested in the fifth century a .d .; auto
biography is a modern word. Nevertheless, biographical literature saw a high degree
of development with such authors as Plutarch and Suetonius. Cf. W. Steidle, Sueton
und die antike Biographie; Dihle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie, 10. The best
comparison, however, between the two traditions may be seen in Nicolaus bioihis
own and that of Augustus.
39Dihle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie, 13 ff., traces the origins of biography
to the Athenian courts, the earliest work of which is Platos Apology, though he grants
Peripatetic influence.
40FGrH, IID, 640, lines 34 ff.
41It should be made clear that the discussion here is concerned with the primitive
forms of autobiography. Genuine autobiography, as the word is now understood,
made its appearance only with the publication of St. Augustines Confessions.
Notes to Pages 40-42 110
42For an example of what is possibly a Hebrew style evident in Nicolaus*
history, see p. 70.
4390 FF 19-20; 72; cf. F 137, p. 426, line 3.
44Cf. 90 F 133; Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 104 f.; S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish
Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs, and Manners of Palestine in
the I Century B. C. E.- I V Century C. E. (New York, 1950), 3 ff.
46John Wilson in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited
by James B. Pritchard (2d ed.; New York, 1955), 233 f. (cited hereafter as ANET).
46J. Wilson in ANET, ed. Pritchard, 240 f.
47J. Wilson in ANET, ed. Pritchard, 18-22. Whether The Story of Si-nuhe was
a genuine autobiography or a work of fiction is a debatable point. A. H. Gardiner,
Notes on the Story of Sinuhe (Paris, 1916), 168, cited by Wilson, ANET, 22, n. 44,
maintained that this was an autobiography intended to be inscribed on Si-nuhes
tomb. Wilson himself is inclined to regard it as genuine, but is not certain: Much
of the phrasing is pompous and overstyled . . . , but the central narrative is a credible
account, which fits the period as we know it. If this is fiction it was based on real
ities . . . (AN ET j 18). See also G. Posener, Littrature et politique dans Vgypte de
la X l l e dynastie (Paris, 1956), 16-20; 70.
48J. Wilson in ANET, 405-407. Mischs dismissal of Eastern autobiography as
stereotyped and without any idea of development (Misch, History of Autobiography,
I, 20) needs revision.
49Lev. 5:1-26.
50See G. Widengren, Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation (Stockholm,
1937), 1 ff.
61Cf. H. Frankfort (ed.), The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago,
1949), 4 ff., who draws a contrast between the method of thinkingI and thou
and that of the Greeksit.
52Tobit I: 1-3. The date of Tobit is generally given between the fifth and third
centuries b . c .
63Tobit I: 4 ff. The autobiography of Ahikar, a vizier at the court of Sennacherib,
may also be mentioned. In the older accounts the story is told in the first person,
which is changed later to the third (A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the V Century
B. C. [Oxford, 1923], 212 ff.; F. C. Coynbeare, J. Rendall Harris, and A. Smith
Lewis, The Story of Ahikar from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopie,
Old Turkish, Greek, and Slavonic Versions [Cambridge, 1913]).
54E. Bickermann, in The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, ed. by L. Finkel
stein (Philadelphia, 1949) I, 2, 95 f., points out the interaction between Judaism and
Hellenism as evident in Ben Sira; I. Gutman, Ha-sifrut ha-yehudit ha-helenistit
(Jerusalem, 1958), I, 171-3, 183-185, agrees that Ben Siras concept of Torah was
influenced by the idea of sophia; hence some of the basic rabbinic concepts had a
Hellenistic tinge. Gutman nevertheless argues convincingly that Ben Siras outlook
was basically Jewish (181). For the date of Ecclus. see E. Bickermann, ,Die Datierung
des Pseudo-Aristeas, Zeitschrift fuer neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XXIX (1930),
285, who cites Wilcken, Archiv fuer Papyrusforschung, III (1908), 321; Paul Kahle,
The Cairo Geniza (New York, 1959), 216.
65Ecclus. 44:1-50:21.
66Ecclus. 50:27-51:30.
67 Misch, History of Autobiography, II, 645, emphasizes St. Augustines debt to
the autobiographical tradition of Nicolaus, Cicero and Galen. But the nexus between
I l l Notes to Pages 43-45
the Hellenistic autobiography and Augustinian Confessions, if unavoidable by the
scope of Mischs work, is nevertheless artificial. It is doubtful whether Augustine
was acquainted with the Peripatetic authors, as his knowledge of Greek is generally
regarded as negligible. (Can/., 1, 13, 20). There is no question, however, that the
writer of the Confessions was following in the tradition of Tobit, Ben Sira, and the
Psalms (cf. Conf. Chap. I with Ecclus. 50:22-24).
68Ecclus. 51:1-2. Prof. J. Greenfield has called to my attention the use of
[I shall praise thee], which is characteristic of the Thanksgiving Psalms (The
Scrolls from the Judean Desert [Tel Aviv, 1959], 115 ff.; cf. G. Widengren, Accadian
and Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation, 36). It may be assumed that all Akkadian, and
most of the Hebrew Psalms were originally written in the first person singular.
69 Ecclus. 51:2.
60Ecclus. 51:13, 18.
61Ecclus. 51:23-28.
62Psalms chaps. 3-7.
63For the Talmudic tradition, cf. Yerushalmi Sabbath, 1, 3, 8a-b; Meggillah, 28a,
Pesahim, 49b; II Cor. 11:22-33.
64 Later moralists, however, such as Plutarch, De fort. Al. M., I, 4, and Lucian,
Banquet of the Philosophers, made the same point.
65 Concerning Horace, see M. Hadas, Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion
(New York, 1959), 242, and the literature cited in the notes. Concerning Seneca,
Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, see Misch, History of Autobiography, II, 408 ff.
66This is also what Egyptian wise men claimed in their mortuary texts and
inscriptions: Ptah-hotep, Meri-ka-re, Amen em het I, and others, see ANET, 412
424; The Book of the Dead, Chap. CXXV.
67See above, pp. 19-20.
6890 F 135.
69 The scattered references concerning Hillel were collected by W. Bacher, Die
Agadah der Tannaiten (Strassburg, 1884), I, 4-25. The traditions of the House of
Hillel are excluded from the discussion, for they seem to belong to a later period.
Finkelstein, Mabo la-Massektot Abot ve-Abot dRabbi Nathan (New York, 1951),
5 ff., maintains that the first chapter of Aboth and certain sections of Aboth de-Rabbi
Nathan are very old. Presumably, he means that the sayings are authentic.
70 Many of the sayings of Hillel are cited in the Aramaic (Aboth, 1 ,13; 2, 7; Sabbath
31a; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, 12, 13, cites four maxims by Hillel in Babylonian;
Eduioth, i, 3), although the Mishnah itself was written in Hebrew.
71The text of Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan used here is that of S. Schechter (2d ed.;
New York, 1945); L. Finkelstein, Mabo, has been consulted. The references are to
both the standard Rom edition and to Schechter.
72Aboth, chap. 1.
7390 F 132, 1-2.
7490 F 132, lines 12, 15.
76 For the meaning of see the view cited by B. N. Lewin, Iggeret Rab Sherira
Gaon (Haifa, 1921) app. II, p. IV, n. 2.
78Soferim, 16, 9. See A. Kaminka, Hillers Life and Work, JQR (N. S.), XXX
(1939), 115.
77Sukkah, 28a; Baba batra, 134a; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, 14, 1; p. 29a; cf. Soferim,
16, 8.
78Cf. 90 F 133, where Herod is said to have commended Nicolaus as a philosopher
and as a man of mercy.
Notes to Pages 45-47 112
79For Nicolaus see 90 F 132; for Hillel, Yerhshalmi Pesahim, 6, 1; Babli Pe8ahimf
66a. In both instances, the stress is upon traditional learning. Hillel undoubtedly
was a great innovator (Introd. to Sifra; Tosefta Sanhdrin, 7, 11; Aboth de-Rabbi
Nathan, 37, 10; p. 56b), but the rabbis were reluctant to admit this.
80Aboth, 1, 13; 4, 5. This was a relatively novel idea in Judaism. The Bible con
stantly stresses this-worldly rewards (Deut. 11:13-21), a view never repudiated by
Rabbinic Judaism (Aboth, 4, 9).
8190 F 132, lines 23-24; cf. F 137, 1.
82Cf. 90 F 137, p. 425, line 35 ff.; F 138.
8390 F 132, 2; 138.
84A both 1, 4 and passim; F 132, lines 15 ff.
8690 F 132 lines 20 ff.; Aboth, 2, 7. Aboth, 2, 4-7, is sometimes attributed to Hillel
II, instead of to Hillel the Elder. But there is no doubt that the ancients attributed
it to Hillel I (see Machsor Vitri [Nuremberg, 1923], 496; Sukkah, 53a).
86Aboth, 4, 5; cf. preceding note and 90 F 138.
8790 F 138; Aboth, 2, 5.
8890 F 132, 2; 137, 1; 138; Aboth, 2, 7.
89 Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 310 f.
9090 F 137, 1-2; Aristotle, Eth. Nie., II, 7, 1107b-8a; III, 9, 1117b ff.; Misch.
History of Autobiography, I, 310.
91Nicolaus, as was usual among Greek authors, regarded pleasure as enslaving
(F 137, lines 10-11). Thus Hillers use of slaves as symbols of lewdness was not
accidental.
92Aboth, 2, 7. In the context should be rendered to mean justice rather
than charity, as it is generally translated.
93Kaminka, JQR, XXX (1939), 121-2, maintains that Hillel borrowed the her
meneutic rule of mtP (analogy) from 51s \ey6/zeja; Lieberman, Hellenism in
Jewish Palestine, 57-62, argues that its Greek equivalent was abyKpiais, as employed
by Polybius, III, 32, 5. Tosefta, Sanhdrin, 7, 11; Introd. to Sifra; Aboth de-Rabbi
Nathan, 37, 10; p. 56b; if correct in ascribing this rule to Hillel, then Hillers knowl
edge of Greek is implied. I do not know why Lieberman (pp. 61-62) questions the
authenticity of the sources ascribing the 1 to Hillel. The Prosbol (1rp6s
(30v\fi (ovXevTv), a declaration to avoid the cancellation of debts by the sabbatical
year, is a Hillelite institution (M. ShebiHt, 10, 3-4; Gittin, 36a) and indicates that
Hillel employed Greek terms.
94For the concept of r!dos, see Dihle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie, 60-64.
96Aboth, 2, 7.
9690 F 137, p. 425, line 12.
97AJ, XV, 3; XV, 370, mentions Pollio, the Pharisee, and his pupil Samaeas.
Some scholars identify Pollio with Abtalion, known from the Talmudic literature;
Samaeas with Shemaiah, or Shemaias pupil, Shammai, the reputed protagonist of
Hillel (L. Ginsberg, s.v. Abtalion, Jewish Encyclopaedia, I, 136; J. B. Mayor,
Further Notes on the Fourth Eclogue, CR, XXII [1908], 140-141; L. Feldman,
The Identity of Pollio, the Pharisee, in Josephus, JQR, XLIX [1958], 53-62.
Other scholars identify Pollio with Hillel (J. Lehmann, Le procs dHrode, REJ,
XXIV, 1892, 68-81; S. Zeitlin, Sameias and Pollion, Journal of Jewish Lore and
Philosophy, I [1919], 63-67; Kaminka, JQR, XXX [1939], 113; Schalit, King Herod,
275). Regardless of whether Nicolaus, Josephus source, meant Abtalion or Hillel by
the name Pollio, the Damascene and the reputed founder of Rabbinic Judaism must
have had opportunities to meet.
113 Notes to Pages 47-49
98 Aboth, 1, 11.
9990 F 136, 2-7; T 7 = A J, XVII, 99, 106; F 143 = A J , XVII, 107 ff.
100Aboth, 2, 6. Kaminka, JQR, XXX (1939), 121, argues that Hillel was referring
to Pompeys death after the battle of Pharsalus in 48 B.C. But the reference is more
likely to be to internal, rather than to international affairs.
10190 F 137, lines 15-18.
102Psalms 112:7; Berakhot, 60a.
103Kaminka, JQR, XXX, 1939, 117, parallels many passages of Hillel with those
of Seneca.
10 For Hillers temperate character, (One
should always be as modest as Hillel) Sabbath, 30b-31a; cf. Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan,
15, 2-3, p. 30b; Aboth, 2, 5; 2, 7; for <f>ikavdpwTia, see Aboth, 1, 12; Tosefta Peah 4, 10;
Sabbath, 31a, Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, 15,3, p. 30b; Hillers statement
{Aboth, 2, 4) recalls Nicolaus claim as being a kolvcovlkSs (F 138, line 13;
cf. 137, 3); , Aboth, 1, 13, is probably related to what Nicolaus meant by
vTreprj<t>avla, F 138, line 20. For Nicolaus emphasis of 4>1\av6puTrla see note 16. Hillels
statement Trust not unto thyself until the day of thy death evokes, as Kaminka
has pointed out (JQR, XXX, 1939, 118), the reputed statement of Croesus when
saved by Cyrus from the pyre, as told by Herodotus (I, 86) and Nicolaus (90 F 68, 9).
105 Yoma, 69a; Scholion to Megillath Ta'anith, IX; AJ, 317 ff.; for the literature
see Marcus, AJ, (LCL), VI, 512-532. For debates between Alexander and Jewish
scholars, see Tamid, 31b-32b; Yerushalmi Baba Mezia, 2, 5; Vayikra Rabah, 27, 1.
108 Bekhoroth, 8b.
107Demetrius, FGrH, IIIC, 2, No. 722; C. Apion, I, 218; Freudenthal, Hellenis
tische Studien, 1-2: Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau, 1875), 35-82.
108722 F 3, line 21; 737 FF 9-10.
109A Gentile tested Hillels patience by challenging him to impart the entire
Torah, while the non-Jew was standing on one foot (Sabbath, 31a; Aboth de-Rabbi
Nathan, 15, 2-3, pp. 30b-31b.
110Sabbath, 31b; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, 15, 2, p. 30b. Kaminka, JQR, XXX
(1939), 116, points out the Greek flavor of the anecdote, but goes astray in citing
this as proof of an Alexandrian influence, or even a Greek residence for Hillel (as
does Rabinowitz, Jewish Law [New York, 1956], 73 f.). Jerusalem, under Herod,
had a powerful Hellenistic element.
11190 F 136, 8.
112This view is emphasized by Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 3 ff.;
and more recently by M. Hadas, Hellenistic Culture, 83-104.
113Tosefta Sanhedrin, 7, 11; cf. Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, 37, 10, p. 55b. Introd. to
Sifra; D. Daube, Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenic Rhetoric,
Hebrew Union College Annual XXII (1949), 239 ff.; Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish
Palestine, 53-68.
114See Wacholder, Greek Authors in Herods Library, Studies in Bibliography
and Booklore, V (1961), 102-109; also the Appendix to the present volume.
116Sotah, 49b; Baba kamma, 82b; Menahoth, 64b.
116Sabbath, 31a; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, 16, 3, p. 31a. According to these sources,
the converts appear to be educated men.
117Aboth, 1, 12; 2, 4, 7; Sabbath, 31a; 90 FF 134; 137, 3, 6; 138.
118Aboth, 1, 10.
119Sabbath, 17b; Abodah zarah, 36b; Yerushalmi Sabbath, 1, 4. These prohibitions
Notes to Pages 49-52 114
were part of the socalled eighteen decrees, allegedly adopted at the insistence of
the Shammaites, under the protest of the Hillel school.
120Aboth, 2, 7. It is, however, the excess of slaves which Hillel condemns.
12190 F 139.
122Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 311, n.
123Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 311, n.; M. Braun, Griechischer Roman und
hellenistische Geschichteschreibung = Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der
Antiket IV (1934), 35, compares F 139 with Josephus account of Joseph and Potiphar
(AJ, II, 39): Joseph supposedly received an excellent education while a slave.
124Kiddushin, 20a.
125Job, 31:13-5.
126Ecclus. 7:20-1.
127For rabbinic slavery legislation, see Gittin, lib; 12a ff. For fair treatment of
slaves by individual rabbis, see M. Berakhoth, 2, 7; Yerushalmi Keth., 5, 5; Baba
Kamma, 8, 5; Bickerman, The Maxims of Antigonus of Socho, Harvard Theo
logical Review, XLIV (1951), 158 ff.
128Pseudo-Heraclitus, in J. Bernays Die heraklitischen Briefe (Berlin, 1869), 92;
cf. Bernays commentary (pp. 102-103) for parallel sources from Seneca, and his
conclusion that the authorship of this letter (110 f.) was Jewish.
129Philo, De vita cont., 70.
13090 F 136, 5-6; F 143 = AJ, XVII, 118.
13190 F 138, lines 18-19.
13290 F 19-20; F 137, p. 425, lines 35 ff.
133Midrash Talpiyot, s. Gehinnom; Yalkut Shim(oni, Eccles., 976.
134This, it would seem, is implied in his statement about his age (90 F 136, p. 424,
line 21) and by the fact that he never returned to Jerusalem.
13690 F 138.
136FGrH, No. 734 F 5 = Jos. Vita, 340; 350.
13790 F 132, 3; 133; 135; 137-8.
13890 T 14.
139Cf. F 134; 136, 9.
14090 F 135.
14190 F 137, p. 425, lines 32 ff.
14290 F 81 AJ, XII, 125; F 142 = AJ, XVI, 31.
14390 F 134; 136, 9.
144In both Exc. De virt. and De insid., the Vita remnants precede those of his
historical works (cf. FGrH, IIC, 290). For Julian, see 90 T 14.
145 Hoelscher, RE, IX, 1941, n.; Misch, History of Autobiography, I, 316.
14690 F 135; FGrH, IIC, 289.
C h a p t e r IV: J e w i s h H i s t o r y
1For the date of Alexander Polyhistor, see Jacoby, FGrH, Ilia, 248, lines 19 ff.
Alexander (273 F 19) cites Demetrius (722 T 1; FF 1-7); Eupolemus (723 TT 1-3;
FF 1-5); Pseudo-Eupolemus (724 FF 1-2); Aristeas (725 F 1); Artapanus (726 FF
1-3); Apollonius Molon (728 TT 1-5; FF 1-4); and Philo the Elder (729 T 1; FF
1-4) as having composed works on the Jews. All but Molon were either Jews or
Samaritans, but Alexander probably was neither (FGrH, Ilia, 253, lines 6 ff., 269,
25 ff. 303, 35 f.). Josephus, however (C. Apion, I, 218 = 723 T 3), mistakenly refers
to Demetrius, Eupolemus and Philo the Elder as non-Jews.
115 Notes to Pages 52-53
2Eupolemus (I. Macc. 8, 17 = 723 T 1), like Nicolaus afterwards, was sent on a
diplomatic mission to Rome by Judah Maccabee.
3236 F 1 = AJ, XV, 165-177.
4 199 F 1. Ptolemy, sometimes identified as Nicolaus brother (90 T 8, line 21;
F 131, 3); with the grammarian of Ascalon (Schuerer, Gesch. d. Jued. Volkes, l 4, 49;
Otto, RE. Suppl. II, 4), for unlike Nicolaus, Ptolemy calls Herod an Idumaean. But
see Jacoby, FGrH, IID, 625; A. Dihle, Ptolemaios No. 74, RE, XXIII (1959),
1861, who deny that Ptolemys biography was necessarily critical of Herod and re
fuse to identify this Ptolemy.
6See under Jews, FGrH, IIIC, pt. 2, Damocritus, 730 F 1; Theophilus, 733 F 1;
Alexander Polyhistor, 273 F 19; Teucrus of Cyzicus, who wrote a history of the Jews
in six books, 274 T 1.
6Hecataeus of Abdera included an account of the Jews in his Aegyptiaca, 264 F
6 = Diod. 40, 3 (PsHec. FF 21-24); Posidonius, 87 F 69; 70 = Strabo, XVI, 2,
34-45; Pompeius Trogus (Timagenes), Justin, XXXVI; cf. also 737 FF 1-19.
7Bloch, Quellen d. FI. Jos., 107.
8A. Buechler, Sources of Josephus for the History of Syria. JQR, IX (1897), 327.
9 Cf. note 6.
10Posidonius, 87 F 69 = Apion, II, 80; Diod. 34, 1, 3, wrote that an ass was found
in the Jerusalem Temple; Justin, XXXVI, 2, 1 ff.; Strabo, XVII, 2, 5; 91 F 7; cf.
also Damocritus blood accusation, 730, F 1; FGrH, IIC, 197, lines 6 ff. See also
Ptolemy of Mender, 611 F 1. Juba of Mauretania, however, mentions the Jews
briefly (275 F 4 = 680 F 8b).
1190 T 11.
127Tpl 3Vkv hr'tpy Xycf) ieipi r iaropoviiepa 90 F 19, lines 16-17 = AJ, I, 160.
13Buechler, JQR, IX (1897), 328.
14 Doch wohl verweis N. s.; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 241, 28.
16Buechler, JQR, IX (1897), 328.
16Buechler, JQR, IX (1897), 329-39. Buechlers thesis that if the authorities cited
in AJ, I, 93 (F 72) and 108 (F 141), were derived from Nicolaus history, then all
historians mentioned in A J were necessarily based on the same source is an exag
gerated claim for the Damascene. Mediocre as Josephus may have been, it does not
follow, ipso facto, that he was incapable of ever opening a book himself. In the first
eleven books of AJ, some twenty Greek authors are quoted, a number of them re
peatedly. If such learning exceeds Josephus literacy, it may exceed that of Nicolaus
also.
17See below, pp. 56-58.
1890 F 19, line 16.
19726 F 1; 727 F 1 = AJ, I, 241; cf. C. Apion I, 276 = 737 F 7. The best treat
ment of Jewish Hellenistic historiography remains J. Freudenthals Alexander Poly
histor, 16 ff. See also Y. Gutman, Ha-sifrut ha-yehudit ha-helenistit, 39 ff.
20 Cf. Pseudo-Hecataeus, 264 F 21-24, which is generally regarded as a forgery.
See Jacobys comments, FGrH, Ilia, 61-62, on the attempts to demonstrate that
these fragments are genuine; H. Lewy, Hekataios von Abdera irepl 'Ioiaco*,
Zetschr. f. neutest. Wiss. XXXI (1932), 117 ff.; and now maintained by Gutman,
Ha-sifrut ha-yehudit ha-helenistit, 66-73; and Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization,
426, n. 49. Pseudo-Aristeas is perhaps the best example of citing a Greek historian
(Demetrius of Phalerum) to attest the veracity of the Septuagint.
21Th. Reinachs Textes dauteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judasme (Paris, 1895),
though requiring extensive revisions, is still the most convenient work to follow the
Notes to Pages 53-55 116
Hellenistic views concerning the Jews. It should be noted, however, that unflattering
accounts of the Jews were not necessarily inspired by enmity to the Jews (op. t i t .,
pp. X ff.), though many such accounts were.
22See E. Bickermans instructive essay, Origines Gentium, CPh, XLVII (1952),
65-81, where the sources are given.
23 See the Targumim, Jonathan, Yerushalmi, to Gen. 9:2-32; AJ, I, 122-147;
238-241.
24 Cf. also Tacitus, Hist., 5, 2-5.
25 273 F 19; Jews, FGrH, IIIC, 2 , Nos. 722-727; 729.
26 728 T 2 ; F 1 ; cf. C. , II, 16; 145; 148; 208; 255; 258; 295; 728 T 3a-d;
FF 2-3; Apion, 616 F 4a-o; Chaeremon, 618 F 1 .
27 273 FF 70; 1 2 1 . Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 29 ff., classifies Alexander
with Justin, XXXVI, 2 ; Tacitus, Hist., 5, 2 ff. But see Jacoby, FGrH, Ilia, 303,
who points out that Alexander could hardly be classified as an anti-Semite, but rather
as one who followed his sources faithfully.
28 See I. Heinemann, Antisemitismus, RE, V (1931), 23, for a discussion of
whether Greek authors writing about the Jews were acquainted with the Old Testa
ment. He argues that they were not. See, however, I. Levy, RE J, IL (1913), 211
ff.; E. Bickermann, MGWJ, LXXI (1927), 173, cited by Heinemann.
2990 F 18 = Steph. Byz., s. (Xanthus) 765 F 8 .
30 A thirteenth century b . c . Egyptian hymn celebrates the victory over Ashkolon
(Pritchard, ed., ANET, 378.).
31 Diodor. II, 4, 2-4, who here follows Ctesias.
82 Justin Martyr, Dial. C. Tryphon, 52, makes Antipater, Herods father, an
Ascalonite. See further Marcus note b to AJ, XIV, 9 (LCL). Antipas, Herods
Grandfather, initially rose to power by winning over the inhabitants to Gaza and
Ascalon (AJ, XIV, 10).
33 For the Hellenistic tradition concerning Gaza, see Alexander Polyhistor, 273 F
117; Claudius Iolaus, 788 F 3, in his attempt to give a Greek etymology to Gadara
(777 ) is an excellent example of the way in which a Greek origin is ascribed
to a Palestinian city. See also Pausanias, 854 F 7.
34 90 F 19-20.
36 AJ, I, 158-159, where Josephus ascribes a book on Abraham to Hecataeus of
Abdera, 264 T 8 .
36 90 F 19 = AJ, I, 159.
37 Justin, XXXVI, 2 , Pseudo-Eupolemus, 724 F 1 .
38 See 90 F 137, pp. 425, line 35 f. Although Nicolaus was following the same
tradition found in Justin, he was undoubtedly better informed than Pompeius
Trogus, and the likelihood of flattery thus cannot be excluded from Herods aide.
39 According to II Sam. 8:3, David defeated Hadad-ezer at the Euphrates (I Chr.
18:3, Hemat on the Euphrates). Damascus subsequently allied itself to Hadad-ezer,
who also enlisted the aid of the Ammonites. Davids decisive victory seems to have
occurred near Helam (II Sam. 8:3 ff.; 10:3 ff.). Wright and Filson, The Westminster
Atlas of the Bible, do not locate the place; M. Noth, The History of Israel (New York,
1958), 154, locates Helam somewhere in the northernmost land east of Jordan.
At any rate, Nicolaus ascribed much greater power to Damascus than the Biblical
narrator.
40 90 F 20 = AJ, VII, 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 ; I Kings 20:1 ff. According to the Assyrian in
scription (Pritchard, ANET, 278 f., 500 f.; CAH, III, 2 2 n. 1 ), Ahab joined Ben
117 Notes to Pages 55-57
Hadads alliance which succeeded in temporarily checking Salmanassar III of
Assyria in 853 b .c . See also M. F. Unger, Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus
(London, 1957), 47 ff.
41As claimed by Laqueur, RE, XVII, 363.
4290 F 72 = AJ, I, 93 = Berossus, 680 F 4c = Hieronimus, 787 F 2.
4390 F 72 = AJ, I, 95. AJ, XX, 25, locates the ark in a region in Carrhes, Meso
potamia, remote from Ararat.
44The subject matter of the books preceding and following book 96 is also unknown.
46 It is possible that Nicolaus combined ancient and Hellenistic Jewish history
with his detailed biography of Herod. The biography of the king took up an important
part of the final section of his history, more than 22 books (F 81; Jacoby, FGrH,
IIC, 232, 37-41). Cf. also Trogus account of ancient Jewish history which followed
the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes (Justin, XXXVI). On the question
as to whether Timagenes followed the same procedure, see Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 226,
12 ff.; Posidonius, F 70 = Strabo, XVI, 2, 34-45, FGrH, IIC, 196-197. But Nicolaus
is a special case, and perhaps nothing can be inferred from Posidonius, Trogus, or
Timagenes, or even Diodorus (XL, 3), who wrote about the Jews in connection with
Pompeys conquest of the East.
46 FF 19-20; 72.
47F 141 = AJ, I, 108. Jacoby prints this fragment in very small type: Zweifel
haftes. See his comments on Hecataeus, 1 F 35, FGrH, la. But there is no reason to
doubt that Ephorus (70 F 238) did mention the longevity of the ancients (70 F 112),
as did Nicolaus, who frequently followed Ephorus.
48Thackeray, AJ, I, 94, note b (LCL).
49 II Samuel, 8:5; I Chronicles 18:5; II Samuel 10:6.
601 Kings, 15:18 ff.; II Chronicles 16:2, 4; I Kings, 20:1 ff.; II Kings, 6:24; 8:7.
The LXX invariably renders Ben Hadad as vls Aep.
61AJ, VII, 100; VII, 103; VIII, 363-80, 392, 401. Cf. J. Weill, in Th. Reinach,
Oeuvres Compltes de Flavius Josphe, II (Paris, 1926), 99, n. 2; Marcus, AJ, VII,
100, Vol. V, p. 413 n.b.
62 " before Genesis 17:5; thereafter.
6390 F 19, line 10.
64AJ, IX, 93-94. Marcus, Vol. VI, p. 50 n.b.
65 90 F 20 = AJ, VII, 103.
66 David flourished c. 1000-961 b .c .; Ahab, c. 869-850 b .c . Albright, The Chron
ology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel, Bull, of Am. School of Oriental Research,
No. 100 (1945), 16-22.
671 Kings, 20:1 ff.; cf. I Kings, 22:1 ff., where Ahab is said to have died while
fighting the Aramaeans. Some scholars have questioned whether I Kings 22 refers
to Ahab, for Ahab is mentioned only once (v. 20), and v. 41 seems to assume a natural
death (Noth, History of Israel, 242, n. 1).
68The references are given in n. 40.
69A J contains details and additions not found in Kings: the assembly of kings as
allies of Adadus from beyond the Euphrates, AJ, VIII, 363; Adadus invasion of
Samaria (90 F 20) is described more fully in AJ, VIII, 364-365 than in I Kings,
chap. 20. Cf. also AJ, IX, 93-94. At any rate, F 20 makes it seem probable that
Nicolaus gave a full account of the Damascene Adadoi. He probably utilized, with
supplements from other sources, the descriptions found in the Biblical books of
Syrian prowess. For extra-biblical sources, see the Zakir inscription quoted in
ANET2, 501-502.
Notes to Pages 57-59 118
80Like Nicolaus (90 F 19), Trogus (Justin, XXXVI, 2, 3) made Abraham king
of Damascus; cf. also A J , IX, 93-94, with Justins statement concerning Hazael.
81A. von Gutschmid, Kl. Schr., V, 218 ff.; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC 220-221. For Nico
laus use of Timagenes, see 88 F 6; 90 F 93; 91 F 12; FGrH, IIC, 293.
82M. Braun, Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichteschreibung, 118.
83AJ, II, 41-3. However, Moehring, Novelistic elements, 132 if., and passim,
believes that all these stories should be credited to Josephus.
64Cleopatra {AJ, XV, 97), intended to entrap Herod by claiming that she had
been raped by him.
85AJ, II, 39; F 139.
88 Cf. jj {AJ, II, 59), ascribed to Joseph with
Nicolaus self-boast in 90 F 137, line 25; Thackeray, A J , II, 59, n.a. finds a similar
phrase in Philo, De Jos., 9, 40.
8790 FF 19-20; 72.
88 FGrH, IIC, 233, 26 ff.
8990 F 1-3; 56; 66-68.
70 AJ, II, 238-253.
71Artapanus, 726 F 3.
72Artapanus, 726 F 3, like AJ, II, 238 ff. makes Moses a great military leader and
the founder of the Egyptian pantheon and worship; Antiquities, however, tells of
the romance. For a detailed analysis of Artapanus, see Freudenthal, Alexander Poly-
histor, 143-174.
73Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 169-171; Thackeray, AJ, II, 238, n.b. {LCL).
74A. Schalit, A J [Hebrew translation], I, pp. XLVIII-XLIX.
75 Alexander Polyhistor seems to have been a faithful copyist, rather than one who
would change the ideological version of the story into a romantic affair. As to whether
Josephus made extensive use of Alexander (273 F 102), see the literature cited by
Jacoby, Ilia, 269, lines 27 ff. Jacoby himself is rather skeptical on this point. As
Alexander copied Artapanus account, it is very unlikely that he is the author of
the rewritten version.
78 See Chap. V. Cf. 90 FF 1; 4; 5; 44, 2 ff.; 66, p. 362, line 1; 102; 130, p. 398, line 1.
7790 FF 18-20; 72; on Cyrus and Croesus, see F 68, 8-9.
78Aside from the works cited above, pp. 5-6; 92-93, scholars treating this period
generally take it for granted that Josephus is largely reproducing Nicolaus words.
See, for example, E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfaenge des Christentums (Berlin, 1921),
II, 164; E. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabaer (Berlin, 1937), 163; cf. V. Tcherikover,
Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 394.
7990 F 91 = C. Apion, II, 83.
80 Apollodorus is cited nowhere else in the works of Josephus; Castor, only once
more {C. Apion, I, 184); AJ, XII, 135-137; 358 does cite Polybius, but Josephus
direct use of him is doubtful, for the account frequently differs from that of Polybius;
Josephus use of Timagenes was indirect (88 F 5, line 16 = AJ, XIII, 319).
81Nicolaus is a more likely source than Strabo (cf. FGrH, IIC, 294, lines 34 ff.)
For Nicolaus as a probable source for other historians see 90 FF 72; 141, where,
unlike F 91, Nicolaus is listed last.
82Neither Polybius, Apollodorus (244 F 1-356), nor Castor (250 FF 1-20), seem
to have given a substantial account of Jewish affairs; for Timagenes, see FGrH, IIC,
226, lines 28 ff.
8390 F 92 - A J , XIII, 250.
119 Notes to Pages 59-62
84AJ, XIII, 245-250; BJ, I, 61.
85 90 F 92.
86 90 F 79 = Athen. VI, 61, p. 252D.
87AJ, XIII, 253.
88Destinon, Die Quellen des Fl. Jos., 21 ff., was the first to point out many of the
cross references in Josephus were taken bodily from his sources, especially in the
books 13-14 of AJ, where he followed closely his Hellenistic sources. See also
Reinach, Oeuvres compltes, III, 171; Marcus, A J (LCL), v. VII, p. 203, n.g., and
passim. A recent attempt to justify these references, H. Pedersen, Real and Alleged
Literary Projects of Josephus, AJP, LXXIX (1958), 259-274, merely proves that
the references belong to the authors sources. But see H. Druener, Untersuchungen
ueber Josephus (Marburg, 1896), 1 ff.
8990 F 92.
90 BJ, I, 62, likewise places Hyrcanus attack upon the neighboring Syrian cities
in 129 b . c . , but AJ, XIII, 254 ff. dates his conquest of these cities only some months
later, after Antiochus death (Marcus, AJ, [LCL], v. VII, p. 355, n.e.).
91Cf. FGrH, IIC, 232, lines 39 ff.
92Hoelscher, Quellen d. Josephus, 4 ff.; RE, IX, 1946 ff.; Otto, RE, Suppl. II,
10 ff., assume a middle source between Nicolaus and Josephus, but both grant
that the Bellum was more dependent on Nicolaus than on the Antiquities. See also
Reinach, Oeuvres compltes, V, p. 9, . 1 ; Laqueur, Jued. Historiker Fl. Jos., 136 ff.
93 It is true that in AJ, unlike BJ, the sources are frequently cited. Yet the fact
remains that the use of Nicolaus in the former is attested, while in the latter it is
based on inference.
94That BJ was based on an author writing in the time of Herod may be inferred
from the frequent identifications of geographic locations by their older, as well as by
their Herodian, names (BJ, I, 87, 118); cf. Reinach, Oeuvres compltes, V, 9, n. 1.
9690 F 93 = AJ, XIII, 345-347.
96FGrH, IIC, 292, lines 9 ff.; 293, 15 ff. Jacoby, following Destinon, Quellen d. Fl.
Jos., 40, and passim, assumes an anonymous source which made use of both Strabo
and Nicolaus for 90 F 93. For this there is no evidence; see 90 T 12, where Jacoby,
FGrH, IIC, 230, questions W. Ottos (RE, Suppl. II, 10) argument that us was
taken from an anonymous source. T 12, as well as FF 96; 101-102, leave no doubt
that Josephus himself was the critic, rather than some hypothetical author, perhaps
a priest or a friend of Agrippa II, who had written a history almost identical to
Josephus.
97FGrH, IIC, 226, fines 28 ff.
98BJ, I, 86, knows nothing of Ptolemy Lathyrus atrocities.
99Jacoby, in F 93, has omitted (as has Mueller, FGH, III, 415) the final sentence
of A J, XIII, 347 : \ . . . s hv aXXots , .
For a similar phrase used by Nicolaus in reference to Jewish history, see F 19, line 17.
100Posidonius, 87 F 70; Timagenes, FGrH, IIC, 226, lines 14 ff.; cf. Justin (Trogus),
XXXVI.
go FF 79-80; 95-8; FGrH, IIA, p. 378, line 30; IIC, 254, lines 28 ff. FF 79-80
are from Athenaeus, VI, 61, p. 252D; IV, 54, p. 249A, who may be quoting out of
context. Still, this is what the evidence shows.
10290 F 96 AJ, XIV, 8.
103FGrH, IIA, 381, fines 29-30.
10490 F 81, line 27 = AJ, XII, 127; FGrH, IIC, 232, lines 40-41.
Notes to Pages 62-64 120
106A J , XIV, 8-XVII, 323.
108See above, Chap. I.
107See especially the following important studies on this subject: Destinon, Quellen
d. FI. Jos., 10 ff., makes use of the fragments from the Autobiography to exonerate
Nicolaus from Josephus attacks (pp. 91 ff.); Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 7 ff., and passim,
gives the most thorough analysis, but he is more interested in proving two anony
mous middle sources between Nicolaus and Josephus (cf. above, n. 92), than in an
extrinsic evaluation of the evidence; Laqueur, Juedische Historiker FI. Jos., 136 ff.,
bases his study on extremely subtle differences between BJ and AJ, and in the latter
Josephus imposed his nationalistic bias, a refutation of which may be found in
Marcus notes to A J (.LCL), v. VII, pp. 384, n.b., 487, n.g., 490, n.a., 491 n.e., 500
n.a.; only Hoelscher, RE, IX, 1946, gives due weight to the fragments by finding
verbal similarities between them and BJ. Otto, however, in a postscript, RE, IX,
2513, denies that anything may be deduced from the similarities alleged by Hoelscher,
except that the source of BJ was a Hellenistic writer, rather than a Jew. These
studies, moreover, were directed primarily to Josephus, rather than at Nicolaus.
10890 FF 135-136.
109For possibly intentional change by Nicolaus, see above, pp. 32-33.
110AJ, XVI, 26, devotes to this half a sentence, which 90 F 134 describes at length,
but this incident, as well as the entire journey of Herod to Agrippa, is omitted in BJ.
11190 F 135, p. 422, lines 30 ff.
11290 F 100; see above, pp. 22-23; 24.
11390 F 136, 1.
114 AJ, XVI, 335-355; cf. 271-299.
116t 6 8k abnirav &/xkv SuXAcuos &veirkinrTOras 8Uas Kal rd xpea rots 8e8apeiK6<nv k'Kob&crwv
eid * ouroo KoXaadrjadfxeuos (A J , XVI, 353).
118AJ, XVII, 54 ff.
11790 F 136, 1, p. 423, line 7: Kal xxrrepov evpwv k6lkkjtov &TreKTeivev.
118Strabo, XVI, 4, 24, records the beheading of Syllaeus, for treacherously causing
the death of the Roman general Gallus. For the date, see CAH, X, 254.
119For the evidence, see above, pp. 32-34; 106-107.
12090 F 136, 4, p. 423, line 23; F 136, 6, p. 424, line 1.
12190 F 136, 9, p. 424, line 26, gives the number of the dead = AJ, XVII, 218 =
BJ, II, 13. For the number of those in revolt, see F 136, 8, p. 424, lines 17 f.
12290 F 136, 8.
123BJ, II, 25-39; 80-100 = AJ, XVII, 228-249; 301-323; 90 F 136, 9-11.
12490 F 136, 9-10.
126BJ, II, 97 = AJ, XVII, 320. This would seem to mean either that Strabos
Tower and Sebaste (Caesarea) were not Hellenistic cities, since they were retained
by Archelaus, or that not all Hellenistic cities were granted autonomy.
128The indictment of Herod and his family in BJ, II, 84 ff. = 304 ff. is uncompro
mising; 90 F 136, 9, p. 424, lines 27 f., would indicate that the anger of the Jews was
primarily directed against Archelaus.
12790 F 136, 10, p. 424, lines 33-34.
128BJ, II, 26-36; AJ, XVII, 230-247. See Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 169; Reinach,
Oeuvres Completes, IV, 113, n. 1.
12990 FF 133-135.
13090 F 136, 8-10; the account of the Jewish revolt having been directed against
the Greeks is missing in Josephus.
121 Notes to Pages 64-67
13190 FF 133-135; 136, 7.
132See especially 90 FF 135; 136, 8-10.
133In 90 F 136, 7, for example, Nicolaus tells of his advising that the evidence of
Antipaters trial be dispatched to Rome, but not Antipater in person. BJ does not
mention this; A J , XVII, 144-145, substantially reproduces this advice without men
tioning Nicolaus.
Ch a p t e r V : M y t h a n d H i s t o r y
1Only Livys History of Rome, with its 142 books, approached the length of Nico
laus history; Ephorus Histories (70 FF 7-221) contained 30; Diodorus Library, 40;
that of Timagenes {FGrH 88), 44(?). See 90 T 11 = Athen. VI, 54, p. 249A, where
Nicolaus work is referred to as s .
2 Cyrene was in fact a Dorian settlement; see FGrH, IIC, 246, lines 41 ff.
3Both Mueller (FHG, III, 409, F 69) and Jacoby {FGrH, IIC, 253, lines 5 ff.)
are probably correct in assuming that the Constantine excerptors mistakenly credited
to Nicolaus material (FF 69-70) taken from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, AR, I, 82,
3-84, 2 = F 69; II, 32, 1-34, 1 = F 70. But it may be assumed that at this point
Nicolaus began his account of Roman history {FGrH, IIC, 232, lines 32 ff.).
4Ephorus {FGrH, No. 70) is classified by Jacoby as the first universal historian
{FGrH, IIC 26 ff.; Brown, Timaeus, 13), although he does not regard him as a great
historian.
6FGrH 90 FF 1-6; Ephorus, 70 TT, 8; 10; Herod., I, Iff.; Ctesias, 688 FF 1 ff.
690 F 1, p. 328, line 20.
790 FF 1-6; Ctesias, 688 FF 1 ff.
8See Ephorus, 70 T 8 Diod. IV, 1, 2-3; T 10 = Diod. XVI, 76, 5, for the reasons
for Ephorus exclusion of mythological history. But Jacoby {FGrH, IIC, 25-26)
denies that Ephorus was the first to distinguish between heroic and human
history, an idea already present in Herodotus. The distinction is also present in
Nicolaus, where the mythological accounts are frequently interspersed with ration
alizations such as they say, it is said, etc. (F 38, p. 345, line 28; cf. IIC, 235
lines 1 ff.).
9Lydia, in books IV, VI and VII (see outline, above). It is not known why this
division was made, but as book VII concludes with the meeting between Croesus and
Cyrus, it follows that the other divisions were likewise based on historical epochs.
10Aside from Ephorus work, there remains only Diodorus history, whose corre
lation of Roman and Greek history by archons and consuls helped to give him a low
reputation. It would be of interest to know where Nicolaus placed his account of
Egypt.
11For Herodotus scheme see Jacoby, RE, Suppl. II, 282-330; Ephorus, Laqueur,
Hermes, XLVI (1915), 321 ff.; FGrH, IIC, 25 ff.
12This is standard in Greek historiography: Herodotus, Polybius, Ephorus,
Livy, etc.
1390 F 71, dealing with the etymology of Thrace, is difficult to place (see 90 F 71,
p, 376, line 1, and Apparatus). But it was shown above (p. 94, n. 90) that this
fragment comes from book XVIII.
1490 FF 82-102. See Jacobys suggested placement of some of these fragments.
16See above, Chap. IV, pp. 61-62.
1890 FF 1-6; 66; 82, seems to belong to Ctesias; Persica, FGrH, IIIC, 1, 688 FF
1-44. pp. 420-486. As to the parallels between Nicolaus and Ctesias, cf. 90 F 1 with
Notes to Page 67 122
688 F lb, p. 438 = Diod. II, 20; Cephalion, IIC, 93 F 1, p. 439, lines 6 ff. where
Ctesias is cited; 90 FF 2-3 with 688 F lb, p. 443 = Diod. II, 24 ff.; 90 F 4 with 688
FF 5-6, p. 450 = Diod. II, 33; Athen. XII, 40, 530D; 90 F 5 with 688 FF 7-8a b.
For 90 F 66, see FGrH, IIC, 251, where Jacoby says that it fills the void berween
Diodorus excerpts of the Persica (Diod. II, 1, 4-34, 6 = 688b) and Photius (.Bibl.
72, i.e., between 688 F 8 and F 9.
17For Ctesias popularity, see 688 TT 1-19, Alexander Polyhistor (273 F 81 =
688 F 102, p. 441), Plutarch (Artox. = 688 and lid) Galen (688 FF 67-68) among
others who made use of him. Most of the excerpts are known through Diodorus and
Photius (see preceding note). See further Jacoby, Ktesias No. 1, RE, XI, 2032 ff.;
Brown, The Reliability of Megasthenes, AJP, LXXVI (1955), 23-24.
18For Berossu8 (fl. after 293 b . c . ) , known chiefly through Alexander Polyhistor
(273 F 79 =* Berossus, 680 F 1, pp. 367-373) Josephus (680 FF 4c; 6-7a-b; 8-9a,
but especially through Eusebius (680 FF Iff.) and other Christian authors, who
copied Alexander Polyhistor.
19E. Schwartz, Griechische Geschichtschreiber, 196 = RE, III, 313, suggests Beros-
sus unattractive style as the reason for his unpopularity with Greek authors, a
style in sharp contrast with that of Ctesias.
20AJ, I, 93-95 = 90 F 72 = 680 F 4c; AJ, I, 158-160; F 90 F 19; cf. 680 F 6.
See also above pp. 54, 55, 56 and below, p. 68.
21Ctesias lively style is visible even in Diodorus (680 F lb), a writer known for
his dullness. But Nicolaus dramatic presentation is not found in either Diodorus or
Photius. See also below, pp. 68-69.
22Xanthus, Lydiaca, 765 FF 1-33, is cited in 90 F 18 = 765 F 8; 90 F 85 = 765 F 2.
23Except for the Strabo citations, I, 3, 4 = 765 F 12; XII, 8, 19; XIII, 4, 11 =
765 F 13; XIV, 5, 29 = 765 F 14; XII, 8, 3 = 765 F 15, Xanthus is chiefly known
through the geographical identifications of Stephanus of Bysantium, 765 FF 1-3; 5-11;
and Athenaeus, 765 FF 4a; 17a; 18. None of these FF give a fair representation of Xan
thus, as do those of Nicolaus, 90 FF 15-18; 44-47; 62-65. Basically, the importance
of the remnant of Xanthus is that they give us a different tradition of Lydian history
than that found in Herodotus, 1,6-94. For the differences between Xanthus and Herod
otus, see FGrH, IIC, 233, lines 35, 244 ff.; cf. also CAH, III, 502, 508, 518, 556,
570; Gutschmid, Kl. Sehr. I, 17; H. Kaletsch, Zur lydischen Chronologie, Historia
VII (1958), 1-47; L. Alexander, The Kings of Lydia (Princeton, 1913); G. M. A.
Hanfmann, Lydiaka, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, LXIII (1958), 68-76;
Otto Seel, Lydiaka, Wiener Studien, LXIX (1956), 212-236.
24For Nicolaus occasional use of Herodotus see E. Meyer, Forschungen, I, 317;
Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 245, lines 11 f., where F 42 is dubbed as Nicolaus Kontamination
of Herodotus and Xanthus. See also Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, p. 46, commenting on the
beginning of 90 F 50.
25Book III (90 FF 7-14), seems to have been an adaptation of Hellanicus, FGrH,
I, Nos. 4; 333a; IIC, 233, lines 30 f. Cf. 90 F 7 with 4 F 31; for Nicolaus use of
Ephorus, 90 F 30 with 70 F 18; 90 FF 31-33 with 70 F 116; 90 F 41 with 70 F 191,
6-7.
26See E. Meyer, Ursprung und Entstehung d. Christ., II, 132; FGrH, IIC, 234.
line 34, on the assumption that BJ, I is based on Nicolaus; cf. Jos. C. Apian, II,
83-84 = 90 F 91.
27Posidonius is cited in 90 F 95 = 87 F 38.
28Timagenes, 88 F 4; 90 F 91; 91 F 10; FGrH, IIC, 294, line 37.
123 Notes to Pages 67-69
2990 F 80 = Caesar, BG, III, 22. Otherwise the Sibyl of Ephesus is cited (F 67,
2; cf. F 68, 8, II, p. 372, lines 3, 31).
30 Concerning Alexander Polyhistor and Juba, see below; pp 72-73.
81Gutschmid, Kl. Schr., I, 17; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 233 ff.
32AJ, I, 108 = Hellanicus 4 F 202 = Acusilaus, 2 F 46 = Ephorus, 2 F 238 =
Nicolaus, 90 F 141; A J , I, 93-94 = Berossus, 680 F 4c = Hieronymus, 787 F 2;
Mnaseas and many others.
83Thackeray, A J, I, 95, n.b. (LCL); Hoelscher, RE, IX, 1966, who attributes
these fragments to a middle source, a Jewish scholar who quoted from Nicolaus.
3490 FF 103-124. The use of Ephorus has been shown by Jacoby, FGrH, IIC on
90 F 109 = 70 F 132. But others were likewise excerpted: Onesicritus, 134 F 21;
Megasthenes and/or Onesicritus, see FGrH, IIC, 259, n. on 103y; Brown, Onesicritus,
156, n. 52; see also E. Reimann, Quo ex fonte fluxerit N. Damascene
W&v , Philologie, LIV (1895), 654 ff. None of these identifications, however,
are certain, for these authors might have been known to Nicolaus only from secon
dary sources.
86 FGrH, IIC, 256, lines 1 ff.; Duemmler, Rh.M., XLVII (1887), 192, 2, assumes
Nicolaus made use of Aristotles ., which Jacoby regards as incon
clusive.
38Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 256.
37F 135.
38Theophrastus and others are cited in Gg, 2, 14, leaf 366b; Wright, Catalogue
of Syriac Mss., II, 1020; Lulofs, JHS, LXXVII (1957), 79, n. 46.
39FGrH, IIC, 233, lines 33 ff.; cf. Jacobys similar remarks (Iuba No. 2, RE,
IX, 2387) on Juba.
40 Laqueur, RE, XVII, 375 ff., analyzes F 66, where he finds that Nicolaus com
bined two traditions of Cyrus, a friendly and an unfriendly one. Ctesias account
made Cyrus an aristocrat; Xanthus work held Cyrus to have been of common
descent. In F 56, says Laqueur, Nicolaus added to Ephorus description (70 F 175)
of Lycurgus suicide the story of the oath, which Laqueur finds contradictory.
41See preceding note. Before one assumes that Nicolaus added Xanthus anti-
Cyrus tradition, it is necessary to show (a) that there existed an anti-Cyrus tradition
in Greek historiography; (b) that Xanthus had written such an account. Possibly
the only anti-Cyrus tradition is Herodotus account of Cyrus death (I, 204). See
How and Wells, Commentary on Herodotus2 (Oxford, 1928), I, 391 f . But this is out
of character in Herodotus pro-Cyrus version.
42Cf. Mueller, FGH, 111,347, col. 2; 356 n. to F 7; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 233-234;
Meyer, Ursprung und Anfaenge d. Christ., II, 132; Weissbach, Kyros no. 6, RE,
Suppl. IV, 1134.
43FGrH, IIC, 235, lines 26-27; Laqueur, RE, XVII, 398
44See Ctesias, 688 FF lb; 9 ff. (cf. above, n. 21).
46 For changes made by Nicolaus, contrary to Jacoby, cf. 90 F 5, with the recently
discovered papyrus from Ctesias Persica (C. H. Roberts, P. Ox., XII [1954], 81 ff.);
688 F 8b, shows that the wording is dissimilar.
4*The remnants of Xanthus are too meager, it is true, to draw any conclusion one
way or the other; of Ctesias we have a great deal, but none of Ctesias excerptors
except Nicolaus uses such dramatic devices.
4790 FF 3-4; F 44; F 66 may be cited as examples.
4890 F 3, p. 330, lines 13 ff.
Notes to Pages 69-71 124
4990 F 3, p. 330, lines 25-331, 8.
60See especially F 68; cf. FGrH, IIC, 252, where Jacoby credits Nicolaus with
rewriting effectively Herodotus im Stile der tragischen Historie.
51Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, I, ii; 90 F 130, 72; cf. Appian, II, 109; Dio, XLIV,
11; Livy, epit. 116; Velleius, II, 56, 4; Plut. Caes. 60; Ant., 12; Cic. Phil. II, 84-85,
where only Anthonys placing of the crown is mentioned See also Hall, Nicolaus of
Demascus* Life of Augustus, p. 87, n. 2; Buttlinger, Untersuchungen ueber d. his-
torischen Wert d. Bios KaLaapos, 102 f., attempted to prove Nicolaus version; FGrH,
IIC, 276.
6290 F 130, 72.
63E. Hohl, Das Angebot des Diadems an Caesar, Klio, XXXIV (1941), 94.
64For parallel dramatic devices cf. the description of Antipater, Herods father,
stripped his clothes to expose his numerous wounds (BJ, I, 197-198 = AJ, XIV,
141-142); Herods appearance before Augustus after Actium: without a diadem, a
commoner in dress and appearance, but with the proud spirit of a king (BJ, I, 387).
6590 F 66.
6890 F 67.
6790 F 44, p. 348, lines 16-18: 5k 6 " l|
ylverai AvSoXs . See also F 56, p. 356, 1213.
68Cf. citations in the preceding note with Autobiography 90 F 137, p. 425, lines
20 ff.; see also above, pp. 40-46.
89According to L. Bull in The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East (New Haven,
1955), 32, the Egyptians had no idea of history. E. A. Speiser, op. cit., 60 ff., points
out the connection between the Assyrian annals and the annual letters to the gods
and that Babylonian concepts formed the basis of subsequent development in his
toriography.
80E. Bickerman, Gott der Makkabaeer, 33 ff.
8190 F 67.
8290 FF 103-124, dedicated to Herod (T 13).
83Since Plato {Laws, 678B) the Golden Age was sought among the barbarians
(Rohde, Griechischer Roman, 206; cf. Brown, Onesicritus, pp. 54-77.
8490 F 103a.
8690 103b.
88This is true at least in fragments as we have them. But one can never be sure
that the verbose Nicolaus refrained from comments.
8790 F 103c; cf. Strabo, V, 4, 12, where this custom is described as admirable
and conducive to noble qualities. See Plato, Rep. V, 460b.
8890 F 103e, 4; 103m, 2; cf. Megasthenes in Strabo, XV, 1, 53 = 715 F 32, where
these virtues are ascribed to the camp of Sandrocottus, India.
8990 F 103z; 103aa; cf. Xen., Resp. Lac., I, 7-8; Ephorus, 70 F 131 (FGrH, IIC,
259,) notes on FF 103z and 103aa.
70The Amazons, familiar from Herod. IV, 110 ff., are described in 90 FF 103f,
2-3; 104, 7.
71Philo, De vit. contemp., 17, cites Iliad, XIII, 5-6.
72Both Philo and Nicolaus, F 104, 5, interpret (II, XIII, 5) in the sense of
having no subsistence; Nicolaus explains that this was because the Galactophagi
either did not till the land, possessed no houses, or that they lived by the chase only.
It is generally agreed that , is a proper name (Liddell and Scott, s. &0ios); this
is at least the meaning in Nicolaus probable source, Ephorus, 70 F 42 = Strabo,
VII, 3, 9.
125 Notes to Pages 71-72
78F 104, 6.
74For the tribes having a communal living that are cited in the Collection see 90
F 103d, the Libyrnii; F 103p, the Dapsolibyes; F 104, Galactophagi; F 105, Iberians.
It is probable, then, that Nicolaus treated the communal living of the Essenes like
wise.
75 See Bauer, Essener, RE, Suppl. IV, 408, who speculates, without giving proof,
that Nicolaus was Philos source for his account of the Essenes. Hoelscher, Quellen d.
Josephus, 8, 14, 16, assumes the same for Josephus treatment of this sect. His evi
dence is based on the unfavorable treatment of the Pharisees, in contrast with the
favorable description of the Essenes in Josephus account of Herod.
76 See the comments of S. Lieberman (an authority on this subject) on BJ, II,
128, 248, as quoted by M. Smith, The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and
the Philosophumena, Hebrew Union College annual, XXIX (1958), 288, n. 55,
. . . the reason alleged to explain them (the Essene practices of being careful with
their excretion) probably reflects the misunderstanding of an outside (Gentile?)
observer, wherefore it is not reliable evidence for Essene doctrine. He [Lieberman]
finds similar misunderstanding in (Josephus) account of Essene prayers to the
sun. Incidentally, Nicolaus own dislike of slavery (90 F 139) echoes that ascribed
to the Essenes (AJ, XVIII, 21; Philo, De vita cont., 70). Cf. J. Strugnell, Flavius
Josephus and the Essenes, Antiquities, XVIII, 18-22 JBL, LXXVII (1958), 109
110. See above, p. 49.
77The sympathy for the Essenes may be seen in A J, XV, 371-379; XVIII, 18-22;
contrast with the unfavorable treatment of the Pharisees, AJ, XIII, 288 ff. (see the
comments of Reinach, Oeuvres de Joshphe, III, 177, n. 3; Marcus, VII, 373, n. d.,
that the language and style of this passage look like those of Nicolaus); AJ, XVII,
41-45. See also Hoelscher, Quellen d. Josephus, pp. 8; 14; 16; Meyer, Ursprung u.
Anfaenge d. Christ., II, 286, n.
78For Josephus self-identification as a Pharisee, see Vita, 12; for unfavorable
references to this sect, see preceding note.
79Philo, Hyp. 11, 1-18, see esp. end; Platos reference to Herods favoring of the
Essenes is even more evident in Quod, omnis pr., 89-91.
80 AJ, XVIII, 22.
8190 F 104, 6, describing the Scythian Galactophagi, lists almost the same virtues
found in AJ, XVIII, 20-21, concerning the Essenes (cf. also BJ, II, 120 ff.). The
Dacians are also mentioned by Nicolaus in F 125, 17, according to the readings of
Mueller and Jacoby.
82Both Philo, Quod omnis pr., 75 ff.; Hyp. 11 ff.; and Josephus, AJ, XV, 371;
BJ, II, 156; Vita 12, compare the Jewish sects with the Greek philosophical schools.
83Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 255 f.
84TT 13; 15.
85 T 13 p. 327, line 26; T 15. For fragments of his works see FGrH, I, no. 26; cf.
Susemihl, GGLAZ, II, 59-61. On Archelaus, see FGrH, IIB, No. 123; IID, 410-411.
8690 T 13 = 273 T 5; see Jacobys comment to 273 TT 4-5, Ilia, 262.
87FGrH, Ilia, 262.
88See Duemmler, Zu den historischen Arbeiten der aeltesten Peripatetiker,
Rh.M., XLII (1887), 179-197.
89 Alexander Polyhistor, FGrH, III A, No. 273; Juba, No. 275.
90Alexander wrote monographs on: Egypt (273 FF 1-11); Bithynia (FF 12-13);
Pontic Euxine (FF 14-16); Illyria (F 17); India (F 18); the Jews (F 19a-b); Italy
Notes to Pages 72-73 126
(F 20); Cana (FF 21-28); Cilicia (F 29); Crete (F 30); Cyprus (F 31); Libya (FF
32-47); Lycia (FF 48-67); Paphlagonia (FF 68-69); Rome (F 70); Syria (FF 71
72); Phrygia (FF 73-78); Chaldeans (FF 79-81); Collection of Marvels (T 4; F 82);
Delphic oracles (FF 83-84); philosophical academies (FF 85-93); Pythagoraean
symbols (FF 94-96); and commentaries on the poet Aleman (FF 95-96) and the
Biotian poet Corinna (F 97).
81273 F 19a-b.
92Jacoby, unlike Mueller (FHG, III, 210-244), placed the authors quoted in 273
F 19 in FGrH, IIIC under the following headings: Jews Nos. 722-729: Demetrius
(722); Eupolemus (723); Pseudo-Eupolemus (724); Aristeas (725); Artapanus (726);
Cleodemus-Malchus (273 F 102; 727); Apollonius Molon (728); Philo the Elder
(729). Theodotus is listed under No. 732. Theodotus, Philo and Ezekiel (737 F 4)
seem to have been epic writers. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 99 ff., 131 ff.,
has maintained that Theodotus and Malchus were Samaritans. In the case of The
odotus, however, this is denied by Gutmann, Ha-sifrut ha-yehudit ha-hellenistit, 246.
93 Jacoby is impressed by Alexanders neutrality in quoting both pro^Jewish and
anti-Jewish sources (FGrH, Ilia, 270, lines 6 ff.), and by the accuracy of the quota
tions (255, lines 16 ff.).
94Only nine titles have been preserved from among Jubas many monographs: on
the history of Arabs, Rome, Assyria, Libya, the theatre, zoology (275 FF 1-22),
aside from geographical, grammatical, cultural, anatomical, and other scientific
material whose works have been lost. Jacoby (RE, Iuba No. 2, IX, 2388) uses
almost the same words to describe Juba as he does Nicolaus (FGrH, IIC, 233, lines
33 ff.): all Juba needed was a good library and competent secretaries, because he
never digested the material he compiled. For a comparison between Alexander Poly
histor and Juba, see FGrH, Ilia, 317 f.
91Juba and Alexander Polyhistor, like Nicolaus, showed an interest in Peripatetic
themes (Alexander, 273 FF 82; 94; Juba, 275 T 11). All of them also wrote on the
Pythagoraeans and on Aristotle.
98Nic., 90 FF 1-6; Alex., 273, FF 79-81; Juba, 275 F 4.
97For Nicolaus use of Ctesias, see above; for Alexanders, 273 F 81a, p. 113, lines
9-10 = 688 F lo, p. 441.
98 Most of Berossus has been preserved by Eusebius quotations from Alexander
Polyhistors summaries; Berossus, 680 F 1, a-b, IIIC, 1, pp. 367-373 = 273 F 79;
680 FF 3 ff. = 273-279 ff. For Nicolaus possible use of Berossus, see above, n. 34;
for Juba, see 275 F 4 = 680 T 2. The use of Berossus is significant because only
Eastern and Christian authors seem to have excerpted him (Schwartz, Griechische
Geschichtschreiber, 196 = RE, III, 315).
99The term as used here need not imply a criticism, a criticism such as the German
Kompilator does convey (Jacoby, RE, Iuba IX, 2388, line 34; FGrH, Ilia,
319, lines 4 ff.). A general history is, by its nature, based on other works.
100273 F 19; 275 F 4; 90 FF 72; 141.
101 Cf. Nic., 90 FF 1-3 with Alexander, 273 F 81. Although this is based on Ctesias
(688 F la), Nicolaus lively style is evident, and so is his dialogue.
102Dion. Hal., AR, I, 4, 2, ff.; cf. Jos. C. Apion, I, 57 ff.
103Alexander, 273 FF 20; 70; Juba, 275 FF 9-12; Conon, 26 F 3. Juba dedicated
his Arabica to Gaius (275 FF 1-3).
10490 F 125, 1-2; F 130, 58; FGrH, IIC, 264, lines 22 ff.
10590 F 125, 1-2; 130, 58, 73, 132.
127 Notes to Pages 73-76
1 go F 127, 4-15 For the sources of the Vita, see Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 266, lines
28 ff. But the sentimental passages of this work are credited to Nicolaus himself.
107See 90 F 127, 5, 6, 7, 14-15 F 128, 28-30.
10890 F 130, 51-57.
109 Caesar was nave in supposing that doing favors for his former enemies would
turn them into faithful friends (90 F 130, 67).
110Octavian was bitter because Antony temporized with Caesars assassins;
Cicero and his friends pretended to be Octavians friends, but were really interested
in using him to seize power (90 F 130, 110-111).
11190 F 130, p. 401, line 2: yp rs pxs . Cf. Veil.
2, 59, 3.
112See Schmitthenner, Octavian und das Testament Caesars, 2 f.
11390 F 128, 30, F 130 48; Suet., Caes.} 83; Livy, Epit. 116, assign only a half to
Octavian.
114Whether Augustus reign was monarchical, republican, or diarchical has been
a much-debated issue in modern historiography. For a review of the modern liter
ature, see Schmitthenner, Octavian, 4-6. Whatever the final solution of this problem,
Caesars will must be regarded by Roman law as a family adoption, rather than a
bestowal of political powers.
11690 F 130, 113; 120.
118Caesars grooming of Octavian 90 F 127, 14 ff.; Caesar adopted Octavian during
the celebrations of the Libyan campaign: F 127, 17.
11790 F 128, 30.
11890 F 125, 1.
119 Cf. Strabo, XIII, 1, 27; E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie und das Prinzipat des
Pompeius (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1922), 509 ff.; Schalit, King Herod [in Hebrew], 218 f.
12090 F 125, 1.
12190 F 142 = A J , XVI, 38 ff.; cf. Schalit, King Herod [in Hebrew], 218 f.
in 90 TT 1; lOa-b; 13, p. 327, lines 34 ff.
12390 F 135.
124Thackeray, A J (LCL), II, pp. XXII-XXIII; Josephus, the Man and the His
torian, 40, speculates that Nicolaus had written probably a separate life of Herod.
125See 90 TT 1; 13; F 81 = AJ, XII, 127.
126See above, pp. 58-64.
127Perhaps Strabo relied on his historical work (FGrH, No. 91) to describe the
contemporary scene.
128BJ, I, 13 ff., AJ, XIV, 2: ancient history requires elegance, but modern history
calls for accuracy.
12990 F 99 = Plut. Brut. 53. For the falsity of the account, see FGrH, IIC, 255,
lines 20 ff.
130See 90 FF 133-135, where Herods interest in virtue, study, and benevolence
is pointed out.
131For Herods benevolence, see F 134. The charge that the Jews kept to themselves
( ) is found in AJ, XIII, 245, which Marcus (LCL) note c, attributes to Nico
laus paraphrase of Posidonius, on the basis that Nicolaus is mentioned in 251.
Marcus also cites Diod. XXXIV, 1.
13290 F 142 = AJ, XVI, 53.
133BJ, I, 197-198 = AJ, XIV, 159-160.
13490 F 136, 4 AJ, XVI, 371.
Notes to Pages 76-78 128
13690 F 136, 1; AJ, XVI, 299.
13890 F 134.
137In 12 b . c . Nicolaus accompanied Herod to Rome (F 135; cf. A J , XVI, 90 ff. For
Herods presiding over the Olympic games, upon his return from Rome, see BJ, I,
426-428.
138Cf. BJ, I, 400.
139See 90 F 135, which yields the date of Nicolaus composition of the universal
history.
140See the request of the Gadaraeans to gain their freedom from Herod (AJ, XV,
351); for the feeling among other Hellenistic cities, see F 136, 8-10.
141AJ, XVI, 271 ff.; (cf. F 136, 1).
142See 90 F 136, 2; cf. BJ, I, 431: the point is clear in both Nicolaus and Josephus:
the kings domestic troubles constituted the major misfortune embittering the last
decade of his rule.
143See preceding note. This view is also reflected in AJ, XVI, 66 ff., where the
struggle among the kings sons follows Herods triumphal reception by Agrippa
(F 136, 2 ff.).
144This, at least, is Nicolaus presentation of the events in his Autobiography: 90
FF 133-135 show Herod at his best; F 136, dealing with last years of the reign is
extremely apologetical.
14690 F 98 AJ, XIV, 66-68.
14690 F 98 = AJ, XIV, 68 = Strabo, 91 F 14 = Livy, per. 102.
14790 F 142 AJ, XVI, 41-47.
148See Chap. II.
14990 F 102 = AJ, XVI, 93.
15090 F 136, 7; F 143; (T 7) = AJ, XVII, 99 ff. - BJ, I, 629, 637-638.
16190 F 136, 8-10; AJ, XVII, 315-316; BJ, II, 92.
15290 F 102; AJ, XVI, 340; XVII, 121; cf. BJ, I, 638. As noted in Chap. II,
Nicolaus seems to have been Josephus source for Cleopatras attempted seduction
of Herod (AJ, XV, 97-102).
163AJ, XV, 25-30. Wellhausen (Israel und juedische Geschichte4, 318, n. 2) and
Otto, (RE, Suppl. II, 37) find it hard to believe that a Jewess would have so clearly
violated Jewish customs; Klausner, Historiah shel ha-bayit ha-sheni, IV4, 12, n. 15,
however, believes the story. The difficulty is not so much the paintings, but the
fantastic account of the attempted seduction of Antony.
164AJ, XVII, 309.
155AJ, XVII, 315. Nicolaus is said to have added that these people would never
had dared to bring charges against Herod when he was alive.
156AJ, XVII, 315.
16790 F 136, 5, p. 423, line 30; F 136, 7, p. 424, line 15; see above, pp. 33-34.
15890 T 6 = AJ, XVI, 370-372; F 136, 4.
159 90 F 101 = AJ, XVI, 179-182.
16090 F 101 = AJ, XVI, 183.
161It is in this connection that Josephus gives a general critique of Nicolaus
biography of Herod (F 101, continued in 90 T 12 and F 102 = AJ, XVI, 179-185).
162Destinon, Die Quellen d. FI. Jos., 96. Destinons generalization discrediting
Josephus other criticisms, however, is not justified. See below.
18390 F 96 = AJ, XIV, 8-9; cf. Ptolemy, 199 F 1.
184Hoelscher, RE, IX, 1945-1946; Jacoby, FGrH, IIC, 230; see above, Chap. IV.
129 Notes to Pages 78-80
1 Laqueur, Der Juedische Historiker Fl. Jos., 137: as BJ, I, 123, in the words of
Nicolaus, describes Antipater as y&os ' , e
&\\ $ , which Laqueur renders: Um seiner Vorfahren,
seines Reichtums und seiner sonstigen Kraft willen die erste Rolle in Volke gespielt;
Josephus interpreted this to mean that Nicolaus ascribed to Antipater a distinguished
Jewish ancestry. But if this sentence is from Nicolaus, so also must be its beginning,
which says outright that Antipater was an Idumaean. By ignoring this, Laqueur
considerably weakens his thesis that Josephus, having turned nationalistic with the
passage of time, rewrote the account of Herod given in A J in accordance with his
change of mind.
1 See preceding note; Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 16; IX (Supplemental note Herodes
No. 14), 2513-5.
167 Yosiphon, XXXVII, p. 129; see above, p. 11.
168The names of Herods brothers, Phasael, Joseph, and Pheroras, and his sister,
Salome, all of Antipater and Cypros the Arabian (BJ, I, 181; A J , XIV, 121).
Whether Cypros was a Jewish name, see L. Loew, Die Flora der Juden, II, 218-225;
Willrich, Das Harn des Herodes zwischen Jerusalem und Rom (Heidelberg, 1929),
172. P. Abel, Histoire de la Palestine depuis de la conqute d'Alexandre jusqu' Uin
vasion Arabe (Paris, 1952), I, 314, n. 6, citing CIS, II, 354, RAO, II, 378, shows that
Phasael was a Semitic name, as its ending shows.
169Agrippa II, though descended from Mariamne, was regarded by some Jews as
an Idumaean {Mishnah Sotah, 7, 8; Sotah, 41b).
170It may perhaps be assumed that had Herod proved popular his Idumaean
ancestry would not have been a great handicap (see preceding note).
17190 T 12 = AJ, XVI, 185.
172Josephus contrasts his own objectivity with Nicolaus bias (AJ, XVI, 187):
Ottos assumption that Josephus is quoting an anonymous critic of Nicolaus (RE,
Suppl. II, 10) must be rejected (see above, p. 119, n. 96).
173See BJ, VI, 238-241; Sulpicius, Chron., II, 30; Schuerer, Geschichte d. jue-
dischen Volkes, l 4, 631, n. 115, who cites the literature.
174See, for example, BJ, I, 429-430: Herods genius was matched by his physical
constitution. . . . But besides these preeminent gifts of soul and body, he was blessed
by good fortune. This point has been repeatedly made (Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 7-8).
178Cf. Josephus two accounts of Mariamnes indiscretion: AJ, XV, 80-87 with
XV, 218-236; in BJ, I, 441-444 the two incidents are combined. All three descrip
tions remain favorable to Herod, except for AJ, XV, 237-238, which accuses Herod
of cruelty. The confusing account of AJ, XV, is the basis of Laqueurs thesis that
Josephus turned orthodox during his later years (Der juedische Historiker Jos. FI.,
128-221).
176Strabo, VI, 4, 2; Juba, 275 FF 1-4.
177Timagenes, 88 TT 1-4.
178BJ, I, 1. Josephus, a general, liked to dwell on war, as the title Bellum indicates.
But his account of Herod, which is based on Nicolaus, is nevertheless free from de
scriptions of warfare. Even his description of Herods reconquest of Judaea (AJ,
XIV, 394-491 = BJ, I, 290-353) is rather brief when compared with his discussion
of Herods personal affairs, which constitutes the bulk of books XIV-XVII, 320 of
AJ and I of BJ.
179F 142 = AJ, XVI, 31-57; F 143 AJ, XVII, 107-120; cf. AJ, XVI, 349 ff.;
however, AJ, XV, 127-146 or BJ, 1,373-379 appear to be Josephus own composition.
Notes to Pages 81-82 130
A p p e n d i x
1Greek and Roman libraries are described in the following works, which will lead
the reader to the general literature: Theodor Birt, Das antike Buchwesen in seinem
Verhaeltniss zur Litteratur (Berlin, 1882), and Die Buchenrolle in der Kunst (Leipzig,
1907); Dzadzko, RE, III, 406 ff.; H. L. Pinner, The World of Books in Classical
Antiquity (Leiden, 1948).
2Birt, Buchenrolle, 244.
8Plut., Caes. 49; Dio Cassius, 42, 38.
4See William Linn Westermann, The Library of Ancient Alexandria (University
of Alexandria Press, Egypt, 1954), 12 ff.
*Suet., Div. Iul., 44.
6Ovid, Trist. Ill, I, 71 f.; Pliny, N. H., VII, 115; XXXV, 10: Isid., Or., VI, 5, 2.
7See Dzadzko, RE, III, 418.
8W. Otto, Herodes, No. 14, RE, Suppl. II, 105; A. Schalit, King Herod, 211
[in Hebrew]; Ernest Cushing Richardson, Biblical Libraries: A Sketch of Library
History from 8400 B. C. to A. D. 150 (Princeton, 1914), 180 ff.
9BJ, II, 142.
10Otto, RE, Suppl. II, 105; Schalit, King Herod. 211.
11AJ, XV, 342 f.
12Mishnah Kelim, 15:6; Yer. Talanit, 4:2; Soferim, 6:4; Ludwig Blau, Studien zum
althebraeischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Litteraturgeschichte (Budapest, 1902),
101 ff.
13Richardson, Biblical Libraries, 183 ff.
14I Macc. 8:14.
15FGrH, 723 F 1.
16AJ, XIII, 318.
17FGrH, 273 F 19a-b.
18FGrH, No. 273.
19 FGrH, No. 123; Archelaus visited Herod in an attempt to reconcile his son-in-
law, Alexander, with his father (AJ, XVI, 261-270; BJ, I, 499-512).
20FGrH, 790 F I.
21FGrH, No. 734; Josephus, Vita, 40 and passim.
2290 FF 1-143, 328-430.
2390 F 135.
2490 F 132, 1-2.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wo r k s b y N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s
COLLECTIONS OF GREEK FRAGMENTS
Dindorf, L. Historici Graeci Minores, Vol. I. Leipzig, 1870.
Jacoby, Felix. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Vol. IIA, No. 90, pp.
324-430; [Commentary] IIC, 229-291. Berlin, 1928.
Mueller, Carolus. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorim, Vol. III. Paris, 1849.
Orelli, J. C. Nicolao Damasceni Historicorvm excerpta. Leipzig, 1804.
SEPARATE WORKS
De Plantis
Arberry, A. J. An Early Arabic Translation from the Greek, Bulletin of the
Faculty of Arts, University of Egypt, I (1933), 48-76; II (1934), 71-83.
Badaw, A. Aristotelis De Anima, etc., in Islamica, XVI. Cairo, 1954.
Meyer, E. H. P. De Plantis, libri duo Aristoteli vulgo adscripti. Ex Isaaci ben
Honain ver stone arabica latina vertit Alfredus. Leipzig, 1841.
See also under Pseudo-Aristotle.
Philosophical fragments
Gg, 2,14. Manuscript in the library of the University of Cambridge.
Vita Augusti
Hall, Clayton Morris. Life of Augustus: A Historical Commentary embodying a
translation. Northampton, Mass., 1923.
Piccolas, N. Vie de Csar. Paris, 1850.
Torturro, G. Vita di Augusto. Bari, 1945.
W o r k s C o n t a i n i n g F r a g m e n t s f r o m N i c o l a u s L o s t W o r k s
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. De Thematibus, ed. Petrusi. Vatican City, 1952.
Excerpta Historica, Vol. II, Part 1: Excerpta De Virtutibus et vitiis, ed. T.
Buettner Vobst. Berlin, 1906. Vol. I l l : Excerpta De msidiis, ed. K. de Boor.
Berlin, 1905.
Excerpta e Polybio, Diodoro, Dionysio Halicarnassensi atque Nicolao Damasceno,
e magni imperatoris Constantini Porphyrogeniti digestorum opere libri *pi
Tiov\cp inscripti relinquiae, ed. K. Feder. Darmstadt, 1848-1855. 2 vols.
Reinach, Theodore. Textes dauteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judasme. Paris,
1895.
Roeper, Gottlieb. Lectiones Abulpharagianae, Vol. I. Danzig, 1844. [Non vidi.]
Wright, William. A Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the Univer
sity of Cambridge, Vol. II. Cambridge, 1901.
Ot h e r A n c i e n t a n d Me d i e v a l Wo r k s
GREEK AND LATIN
Aelian. Varia Historia, ed. T. R. Hercher. Leipzig, 1864-1866. 3 vols.
Anthologia Graeca, ed. F. Duebner. Paris, 1864-1890. 3 vols.
Appian. Civil Wars, ed. and tr. Horace White. LCL, 1955.
Aristotle. De Anima, Vol. I l l of I. Bekkers edition of Aristotle. Oxford, 1837.
[133]
Bibliography 134
. Ethica Nicomachea, ed. I. Bywater. Oxford, 1890.
. Physics, ed. W. D. Ross. Oxford, 1936.
Pseudo-Aristotle. De Plantis, in Minor Works, ed. and tr. W. S. Hett. LCL, 1936.
For Arabic and Latin editions of De Plantis, see Nicolaus of Damascus.
Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists, ed. and tr. C. B. Gulick. LCL, 1927-1941. 7 vols.
Augustine, Saint. The Confessions of St. Augustine, ed. by John Jib and W. Mont
gomery. Cambridge, 1908.
Caesar, Gaius Julius. Cwil Wars, ed. and tr. A. G. Peskett. LCL, 1938.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Epistulae, Vols. IX-X of Opera, eds. J. G. Baiter and C. L.
Kayser. Leipzig, 1866-1867.
. Orationes, Vols. III-V, ed. C. L. Kayser. Leipzig, 1861-1862.
Dio Cassius. Bom<m History, ed. and tr. E. Cary. LCL, 1914-1927. 9 vols.
Dio Chrysostomus. Discourses, ed. Guy de Bude. Leipzig, 1916-1919. 2 vols.
Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca Historica, ed. F. Vogel. Leipzig, 1888-1906. 5 vols.
Diogenes Laertius. Lives of the Philosophers, ed. and tr. R. D. Hicks. LCL, 1925.
2 vols.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Antiquitatum Bomanorum, ed. Carolus Jacoby. Leipzig,
1895-1905. 4 vols.
Etymologicum Magnum, ed. T. Gaisford. Oxford, 1848.
Eusebius. Praeparatio Evangelica, ed. E. H. Gifford. Oxford, 1903. 4 vols.
Hegesippus, eds. F. Weber and J. Caesar. Marburg, 1864.
Pseudo-Heraclitus. Die pseudoherdklitische Brief e; ein Breitrag zur philosophischen
und religionsgeschichtlichen Literatu/r, ed. J. Bernays. Berlin, 1869.
Herodotus. Histories, ed. H. Kallenberg. Leipzig, 1926-1933. 2 vols.
Josephus. Oeuvres compltes, French ed. and tr., Th. Reinach. Paris, 1900-1929.
6 vols.
. Opera, Greek ed. B. Niese. Berlin, 1955. 7 vols. Reprint of 1885-1895 edition.
. Kadmoniyoth ha-yehudim, Hebrew ed. A. Schalit ; Books 1-10 of Jewish
Antiquities. Jerusalem, 1944. 2 vols. publ. to date.
. Works, Vols. I-V, ed. and tr. H. St. J. Thackeray; Vol. V, eds. and trs.
Thackeray and R. Marcus ; VI-VII, R. Marcus. LCL, 1926;
Justin. Pompei Trogi Fragmenta, ed. Otto Seel. Leipzig, 1956.
Justin Martyr. Diologus cum Try phone, eds. A. Hemman and Franois Gamier.
Paris, 1958.
Leo. Der Alexanderroman des Archipresbyster Leo, ed. F. Pfister. Heidelberg, 1913.
Livy, Titus. History of Borne, ed. and tr. B. O. Foster. LCL, 1919-1951. 13 vols.
Lucian. Opera, ed. O. Iacobitz. Leipzig, 1881-1883. 3 vols.
Macrobius. Saturnalia, eds. Henri Borneque and F. Richard. Paris, 1937.
Philo. Works, eds. and trs. F. H. Colson and W. H. Whitaker, Vols. I-V; VI-IX,
ed. and tr. Colson; Supplement, Vols. I-II, English translation from the Arme
nian by R. Marcus. LCL, 1929.
Photius. Bibliotheca, ed. I. Bekker. Berlin, 1824-1825. 2 vols.
Plato. Opera, ed. John Burnet. Oxford, 1905-1913. 5 vols.
Pliny. Natural History, ed. D. Detletson. Berlin, 1862-1882. 6 vols.
Plutarch. Lives, ed. B. Perrin. LCL, 1914-1928.11 vols.
. Moralia, ed. G. N. Barnardakis. Leipzig, 1888-1896. 7 vols.
Polybius. Histories, ed. and tr. P. R. Pat on. LCL, 1922-1927. 6 vols.
Pseudo-Callisthenes. Scriptores Berum Alexandri Magni, ed. C. Mueller. Paris, 1846.
135 Bibliography
Seneca. Ad Lucilvum Epistulae Morales, ed. and tr. R. M. Gummere. LCL, 1925
1934. 3 vols.
. Moral Essays, ed. and tr. John W. Basone. LCL, 1925-1928. 3 vols.
Simplicius. Commentaria in Aristotelem Greaca; Vol. VII, De Caelo, ed. L. I.
Heiberg; Vols. IX and X, Physica, ed. H. Diels. Berlin, 1887-1895.
Stobaeus, Joannes. Eclogarum Physicarum et ethicarvm, ed. Meineke. Leipzig,
1840. 2 vols.
Strabo. Geography, ed. and tr. H. L. Jones. LCL, 1917-1932. 8 vols.
Suda, Lexicon, ed. Ada Adler. Leipzig, 1828-1838. 5 vols.
Valerius Maximus. Exempta, ed. C. Kempt. Leipzig, 1888.
Varro, Marcus Terentius. Saturae Menippae, ed. F. Buechler. Berlin, 1862.
Xenophon. Cyropaedia, ed. and tr. W. Miller. LCL, 1914. 2 vols.
JUDAICA AND ORIENTALIA
Aboth deRabbi Nathan. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, ed. S. Schechter.
2d ed.; New York, 1945. English tr. by J. Goldin. New York, 1955.
Ahikar. The Story of Ahikar from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopie,
Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions, eds. F. C. Coynbeare, J. R. Rendell
Harris, and A. Smith Lewis. Cambridge, 1913.
Bacher, W. Die Agadah der Tannaiten, Vol. I. Strassburg, 1884.
Bar Hebraeus. Candelabrum Sanctorum, ed. J. Bakos, in Patrologiae Orientalis,
XXIV (1933), 320-325.
Bible, The. Novum Testamentum Graecae, ed. Nestle. Stuttgart, 1950.
. Old Testament (Masoretic text) ; Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs. Stuttgart,
1952.
Charles, R. H. (ed.). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.
Oxford, 1913. 2 vols.
Cowley, A. E. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Centwry B.C. Oxford, 1923.
Eliyahu HaKohen. Midrash Talpiyot. Zitomir, 1860.
Habermann, A. M. The Scrolls from the Judean Desert [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv, 1959.
Halevi, Israel. Toledoth Aleksander, in Kobez al yad, II. Berlin, 1886.
Lichtenstein, Hans. Die Fastenrolle, eine Untersuchung zur juedisch-hellenistischen
Geschichte, Hebrew Union College Annual, VIII-IX (1931-1932), 257-351.
Pritchard, James B. (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Belating to the Old Testa
ment. 2d ed. ; Princeton, 1955.
Shimon Ashkenazi. Yalkut Shim'oni. New York, 1954.
Si fra, ed. J. M. Weiss. Vienna, 1862.
Talmud. Babilonian Talmud. Wilno : Rom, 1928.
. Yerushalmi. Wilno, 1926.
Tosephta, ed. S. M. Zuckermandel. 2d ed.; Jerusalem, 1939.
Yerahmeel ben Shelomoh. The Chronicles of Yerahmeel, ed. M. Gaster. London, 1899.
Yosiphon, ed. S. Huminer. Jerusalem, 1956.
Zadokite Documents, ed. and tr. by Ch. Rabin. Oxford, 1954.
Ge n e r a l
Abel, F. M. Histoire de la Palestine depuis de la conqute dAlexandre jusqu
linvasion arabe. Paris, 1952. 2 vols.
Adcock, F. H. Caesar as Man of Letters. Cambridge, 1956.
Bibliography 136
Alexander, Leigh. The Kings of Lydia and an Arrangement of Some Fragments
from Nicolaus of Damascus. Princeton, 1914.
Alon, G. Studies in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud
[In Hebrew]. Tel Aviv, 1957. 2 vols.
Altheim, A. Boemische Geschichte, Vol. II. Berlin, 1956.
Aly, Wolfgang. Strdbon von Amaseia: Untersuchungen ueber Text Aufbau und
Quellen der Geographica. Bonn, 1957.
Arberry, A. J. The Nicomachean Ethics in Arabic, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, XVII (1955), 1-9.
Asbach, Julius. Zu Nikolaus von Damascus, Bh. M., XXXVII (1882), 295-298.
Baer, Y. Sefer Yosifon haibri [The Hebrew Book Yosiphon], in Sefer-Dindburg.
Jerusalem, 1949,178-205.
Balsdon, J. P. The Ides of March, Eistoria, VII (1958), 80-94.
Barber, G. L. The Historian Ephorus. Cambridge, 1935.
Baron, Salo. A Social and Beligious History of the Jews. 2d ed.; Philadelphia,
1952. 8 vols, published.
Bauer, A. Essener, BE, Suppl. IV (1924), 386-430.
Bauer, W. Die Kyros-Sage und Verwandtes. Vienna, 1882.
Baumstark, Anton. Geschichte der syrischen Literatu/r mit Ausschluss der christlich
palaestinische Texte. Bonn, 1922.
Bell, H. I. Philanthropia, in Homages J. Bidez et F. Cumont. Paris, 1948.
Bernays, Jacob. Bernays Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ed. H. Usener. Berlin, 1885.
2 vols.
Bickerman, Elias J. Der Gott der Makkabaeer ; Untersuchungen ueher Sinn und
ursprung der makkabaeischen Erhebung. Berlin, 1937.
. Die Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas, Zeitschrift fuer die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft, XXIX (1930), 280-298.
. The Maccabees. New York, 1947.
. The Maxims of Antigonus of Socho, Harvard Theological Beview, XLIV
(1951), 153-165.
. Notes on the Greek Book of Esther, in Proceedings of the American
Academy for Jewish Besearch, XX (1951), 101-133.
. Origines Gentium, CPh, XLVII (1852), 65-81.
. The Septuagint as a Translation, in Proceedings of the American Acad
emy for Jewish Besearch, XXVIII (1959), 1-39.
Bloch, Heinrich. Die Quellen des Flavvus Josephus im, seiner Archaeologie. Leipzig,
1879.
Blumenthal, F. Die Autobiographie des Augustus, Wiener Studien, XXXV
(1913), 113-130; 267-288; XXXVI (1914), 84-103.
Bouyges, M. Sur le de Plantis dAristote-Nicolas, propos dun manuscript arabe
de Constantinople, Mlanges de lUnvversit St. Joseph, Beyrouth, IX (1923),
71-89.
Braun, Martin. Griechischer Boman und hellenistische Geschichteschreibung = Frank
furter Studien zur Beligion und Kultur der Antike, Vol. VI. Frankfurt, 1934.
. History and Bomance in Graeco-Oriental Literature. Oxford, 1948.
. King Herod as Oriental Monarch : Ancient History and the Modem British
Mind, Commentary, XXV (1958), 48-53.
Brink, K. O. Peripatos, BE, Suppl. VII (1940), 899-949.
Brinkmann, August. Kritische Keminiscenzen, Bh. M. LX (1905), 634-635.
137 Bibliography
Brown, Truesdell S. Herodotus and His Profession, American Historical Review,
LIX (1954), 829-843.
. Onesicritus: A Study in Hellenistic Historiography. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1949.
. The Keliability of Megasthenes, American Journal of Philology, LXXVI
(1955), 18-33.
. Timaeus of Tauromenium. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1958.
Bmtscher, Cordula. Amalysen zu Suetons Divus Julius und der Parallelenueberlie-
ferung (Noctae Eomnae, No. I). Bern-Stuttgart, 1958.
Brzoska, J. Antipatros, No. 27, BE, I (1894), 2516-2517.
Buechler, Adolph. Das apocryphische Esrabuch, MGWJ, XLI (1897), 97-103.
. Les Sources de Flavius Josphe dans ses Antiquits, XII, 5, I-XIII,
BEJ, XXXII (1896), 179-199.
. The Sources of Josephus for the History of Syria, JQB, IX (1896),
311-349.
. Types of Jewish Palestinian Piety from 70 B. C. E. to 70 C. E. : The Ancient
Pious Man. London, 1922.
Buerger, J. De Nicolai Damasceni fragmento Escorialensi, quod inscribitur Bios
Kaltrapos. Bonn, 1896.
Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge, 1923-1939. 12 vols.
Cassuto, Umberto. Josiphon, in Encyclopaedia Judaica, IX (1932), 419-426.
Charanis, Peter. On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy
during the Middle Ages, American Historical Beview, LII (1946), 74-86.
Christ, Wilhelm, Wilhelm Schmid, and Otto Staehlin. Geschichte der griechischen
Literature. 6th edition; Munich, 1920-1924. 2 vols.
Cichorius, Conrad. Bome and Mithylene. Leipzig, 1888.
Croiset, M. Histoire de la Littrature grecque. Vol. V. Paris, 1929.
Dain, Alphonse. La transmission des textes littraires classiques de Photius Con
stantin Porphyrognte, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VIII (1958), 31-47.
Dalbert, Peter, Die Theologie der hellenistisch-juedischen Missionsliteratur unter
Ausschluss von Philo und Josephus. Hamburg, 1954.
Daub, Adam. Ueber der Titel einer Schrift des Nikolaus Damaskenus, JEh. M.,
XXXV (1880) 56-68.
Dentan, E. C. (ed.). The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East. New Haven,
1955.
Destinon, Justus von. Die Quellen des Flavkis Josephus in der juedischer Archaeol-
ogie Buch XII- XVI I , Jeudischer Krieg Buch I. Kiel, 1882.
. Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus. Kiel, 1904.
Deutsch, M. E. Caesars Son and Heir, University of California Publications in
Classical Philology, IX (1928), 149-200.
Dihle, Albrecht. Ptolemaios Nos. 74-75, BE, XXIII (1959), 1861.
. Studien zur griechischen Biographie-Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wis
senschaften in Goettingen, ph.-hist. Kl. 37 ; Goettingen, 1956.
Dill, Samuel. Boman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelms. New York, 1956.
Dindorf, L. Nikolaos von Damascus, Jahrbuecher fuer Philologie, IC (1869),
107-119.
Dobias, Josef. Djepisectvi Starovke. Prague, 1948.
Draeseke, J. Zu Aristoteles, Wochenschrift fuer classische Philologie, XIX (1902),
1270-1272.
Bibliography 138
Druener, H. Untersuchungen ueber Josephus. Marburg, 1896.
Duemmler, F. Zu den historischen Arbeiten der aeltesten Peripatetiker, Rhein
isches Museum, XLII (1887), 179-197.
Duttlinger, R. Untersuchungen ueber den Wert des Nikolaus Damascenus.
Zurich, 1911.
Encyclopaedia Judaica. Berlin, 1928-1934.10 vols. Not completed.
Feldman, L. The Identity of Pollio, the Pharisee, in JosephusJQR, XLIX (1958),
53-62.
Finkelstein, L. (ed.). The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion. Philadelphia,
1949. 2 vols.
. Mdbo le-Maskatot Abot ve-Abot dRabbi Natan. New York, 1951.
Fleschenberg, Ottmar Schissei von. Die griechische Novelle: Reconstruktion ihrer
literarischen Form. Halle, 1913.
Flusser, David. The Author of the Book of Josiphon: His Personality and His
Age, Zion, XVII (1933), 109-126 [in Hebrew].
. Tobiah, in Encyclopaedia Biblica, III (1958), 367-375.
Frankfort, Henri (ed.). The Intellectual Adventu/re of Ancient Man. Chicago, 1946.
Freudenthal, J. Hellenistische Studien 1-2: Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm
erhaltenen Reste juedischer und samaritischer Geschichtswerke. Breslau, 1875.
G-ary, G. The Medieval Alexander, ed. D. J. Ross. Cambridge, 1956.
Gercke, Alfred, and Eduard Norden (eds.). Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft.
Berlin and Leipzig, 1910-1912. 3 vols.
Gomme, A. W. The Greek Attitude to Poetry and History. Berkeley and Los An
geles, 1954.
Goosens, Godefroy. Lhistoire d'Assyrie de Ctestias, UAntiquit Classique, IX
(1940), 25-45.
Graetz, Heinrich. Geschichte der Juden, Vol. III. 2d ed. ; Leipzig, 1863.
Gutman, Y. Ha-sifrut ha-yehudit ha-helenistit. Jerusalem, 1958.
Gutschmid, Alfred von. Kleine Schriften. Leipzig, 1889-1894. 5 vols.
Hadas, Moses. Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion. New York, 1959.
Haebler, A. von. Hat Strabo seine Geographie in Rom Verfast? Hermes, XIX
(1884), 235-241.
Hanfmann, George M. A. Lydika, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, LVIII
(1958), 68-88.
Heinemann, I. Antisemitismus, RE, Suppl. V (1931), 3-44.
Hoefer, U. Konon. Greisswald, 1890.
Hoelscher, Gustav. Iosephus, RE, IX (1916), 1834-1899.
. Die Quellen des Josephus fuer die zeit von Exil bis zum Juedischen Kriege.
Leipzig, 1905.
Hohl, Ernst. Das Angebot des Diadems an Caesar, Hermes XXXIV (1941), 92
117.
Hostad, Ragnar. Cynic Hero and Cynic King: Studies in the Cynic Conception of
Man. Uppsala, 1948.
Honigmann, E. Strabon, No. 3, RE (N.S.), IV (1932), 76-151.
How, W. W., and I. Wells. Commentary on Herodotus. 2d ed. ; Oxford, 1928. 2 vols.
Jacob, Paul. De Nicolai Damasceni sermone et arte historica; Quaestiones selectae.
Goettingen, 1911.
Jacoby, Felix. Herodotus, No. 7, RE, Suppl. II (1913), 205-520; Iuba, No. 2,
RE, X (1916), 2384-2395 = Griechische Historiker. Stuttgart, 1956.
139 Bibliography
Jenkins, R. J. H. The Classical Background of the Scriptores post Theophanem,
Dumbarton Oalcs Papers, VIII (1954), 11-40.
Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Genizah. 2nd ed. ; New York, 1959.
Kahrstedt, Ulrich. Syrische Territorien in hellenistischer Zeit. Berlin, 1926.
Kaminka, Armand. Hillels Life and Work, JQB, XXX (1939), 107-122.
Kernyi Kroly. Die Griechische-orientalische Bomanliteratur in religionsgeschichtl
icher Beleuchtung. Tuebingen, 1927.
Kirkand, G. S., and J. E. Raven. The Presocratic Philosophers. Cambridge, 1957.
Kirn, P. Das Bild des Menschen im, Geschiehtesschreibung von Polybius bis Banke.
Goettingen, 1955.
Klausner, Joseph. Eistoria shel harbayit ha-sheni. Vol. IV. 4th ed.; Jerusalem, 1954.
Krumbacher, Karl. Geschichte der byzantischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum
Ende des ostroemischen Beiches. Munich, 1891.
Laqueur, Richard. Ephorus I, Die Proemien, Eermes, XLII (1911), 167-176.
.Der juedische Eistoriker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf
neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage. Giessen, 1920.
. Nikolaos, No. 20, BE, XVII (1936), 362-424; Nachtraege, 1269.
Leo, Friedrich. Die griechisch-roemische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischen Form.
Leipzig, 1901.
Lewin, Benjamin M. Iggeret Bab Sheri/ra Gaon in der franzoesischen und spanischen
Version. Eaifa, 1921 [in Hebrew].
Lewy, Hans. Hekataios von Abdera Ilepi , Zeitschrift fuer neutestament-
liche Wissenschaft, XXXI (1933), 117-132.
Lieberman, Saul. Eellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmis
sion, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E.
New York, 1950.
Lods, Adolphe. Eistoire de la littrature hbraque et juive depuis les origins
jusqu la ruine de ltat juive. Paris, 1950.
Loew, Immanuel. Aramaeische Pflanzungen. Leipzig, 1881.
-------- . Die Flora der Juden. Vienna and Leipzig, 1924-1934.
Lulofs, H. J. Drossaart. Aristotles Hepl ,' Journal of Eellenic Studies,
LXXVII (1957), 75-80.
Luria, Ben Zion. Ea-Yehudim be-suriah bi-ymei shibat zion, ha-mishnah veha-
talmud. Jerusalem, 1957.
Luther, H. Josephus und Justus von Tiberian. Halle, 1910.
Mahaffy, John P. The Silver Age of the Greek World. Chicago, 1906.
Mann, Jacob. Texts and Studies in Jewish Eistory and Literature. Cincinnati, 1929.
2 vols.
Mekler, Siegfried. Zu den der Flinders Petrie Papyri, Wiener Studien,
XXIV (1902), 456-461.
Merkelbach, Reinhold. Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderroman. Munich, 1954.
Meyer, Eduard. Geschichte des Altertums. Stuttgart, 1884-1902. 5 vols.
. Forschungen zwr alten Geschichte. Halle, 1892-1899. 2 vols.
. Ursprung und Anfaenge des Christentums, Vol. II; Berlin, 1921.
-------- . Caesars Monarchie und das Prinzipat des Pomp eins. Stuttgart and Berlin,
1922.
Meyer, Ernst H. F. Geschichte der Botanik. Koenigsberg, 1854-1857. 4 vols.
Misch, Georg. A Eistory of Autobiography in Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass., 1950
1951.
Bibliography 140
Moehring, Horst Rudolf. Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus
(Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; University of Chicago, 1957).
Momigliano, A. Ricerche sullorganizzacione della Guidea sotto il dominio Romano
(63 A.C.-70 D.C.), Annali della B. Scuola Normale Superwre di Pisa. Lettere,
Storia e Filosofia, 1934,183-221 (pt. 1).
Mueller, August. Die griechischen Philosophen im, der a/rabischen Ueberlieferung.
Halle, 1873.
Munz, Robert. Posidonius und Strabo; I Untersuchungen. Goettingen, 1929.
Neubauer, A. Pseudo-Josephus, Joseph ben Gorion ; Yerahmeel ben Shelomoh,
JQB, XI (1899), 355-364; 364-386.
Neuman, Abraham A. Josipon and the Apocryphal Books, in Sefer Asaf.
Jerusalem, 1953, 391-403 [in Hebrew]. Now collected in Landmarks and Goals:
Historical Essays and Addresses. Philadelphia, 1953.
. Josipon: History and Pietism, in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume.
Hebrew Section; New York, 1952, 637-667.
Nock, Arthur Darby. Posidonius, JBS, XLIX (1959), 1-15.
Norden, Eduard. Antike Kunstprosa. Lith. reproduction of 2d ed. ; Leipzig, 1915
1918, Darmstadt, 1958. 2 vols.
Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. New York, 1958.
Nussbaum, M. Observationes in Flavii Josephi Antiquitates XII, S-XII, 14. Goet
tingen, 1875.
Ohler, H. Paradoxographi Florentmi anonymi. Tuebingen, 1913.
Otto, Paul. Strabonis fragmenta, Leipziger Studien, XI
(1889), Supplement.
Otto, Walter. Herodes, No. 7, BE, XIII (1913), 918-920; No. 14, BE, Suppl. II
(1913), 1-158; No. 15, BE, Suppl. II (1913), 158-161; No. 16, BE, Suppl. II
(1913), 161-162; No. 24, BE, Suppl. II (1913), 168-191; No. 25, BE, Suppl.
II (1913), 191-200; [Supplemental notes] No. 14, BE, IX (1916), 2513-2515.
Paret, Roger. Notes bibliographiques sur quelques travaux rcents consacrs aux
premires traductions arabes doeuvres grecques, Byzantion, XXIX-XXX
(1959-60), 387-446.
Patsch, Carl. Zu Nicolaus von Damascus, Wiener Studien, XII (1890), 231-239.
Pedersen, Hans. Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus, American
Journal of Philology, LXXIX (1958), 259-274.
Pfleiderer, Edmund. Die pseudoheraklitischen Briefe und ihr Verfasser, Bh.M.,
XLII (1887), 153-163.
Posener, G. Litrature et politique dans Vgypte de la XI I e dynastie. Paris, 1956.
Reinmann, E. Quo ex fonte fluxerit Nicolai Damasceni & y'1
Philologue, N.S., VIII (1895), 654-709.
Richards, G. C., and R. J. H. Shutt. Critical Notes on Josephus, Classical
Quarterly, XXXI (1937), 170-177.
Rohde, Edwin. Der griechische Boman und seine Vorlaeufer. 2d ed.; Leipzig, 1900.
Rostovtzev, M. Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford, 1941.
3 vols.
Roth, O. Bom und die Hasmonaeer. Leipzig, 1914.
Sandy, J. E. A History of Classical Scholarship. 3d ed. ; Cambridge, 1921. 3 vols.
Saulcy, F. de. Histoi/re dHrode roi des Juifs. Paris, 1867.
Schalit, A. King Herod: Portrait of a Buler. Jerusalem, 1960 [in Hebrew].
Schemann, Fr. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der juedischen Archaeologie
XVIII-XX = Polemos, II. Marburg, 1887.
141 Bibliography
Schlatter, Adolf. Geschichte Israels von Alexander dem Grossen bis Hadrian. 3d ed.
Stuttgart, 1925.
. Die Theologie des Judenthums nach dem Bericht des Josephus. Guetersloh,
1932.
Schmitthenner, Walter. Octavian und das Testament Caesars = Zetemata, No. 4.
Munich, 1952.
. Octavians militaerische Unternehmungen, in Historia, VII (1958), 189
236.
Schuerer, Emil. Geschichte des juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 4th ed.;
Leipzig, 1907-1912. 3 vols.
Schwartz, Eduard. Griechische Geschichtschreiber. Leipzig, 1957. [Reprint of
articles published in BE, Vols. I-IV.]
. Fuenf Vortraege ueber den griechischen Boman. Berlin, 1806.
. Die Verteilung der Provinzen nach Caesars Tod, Hermes, XXXIII
(1898), 185-244.
Schmidt, O. B. Die letzten Kaempfe der roemischen Republik, Jahrbuecher fuer
classische Philologie, XIII, Supplement (1884), 663-722.
Schubert, Rudolf. Geschichte der Koenige von Lydien. Breslau, 1884.
Scott, K. The Political Propaganda of 44-30 b.c . , Memoirs of the American
Academy in Bome, XI (1933), 7-49.
Seel, Otto. Lydiaka, Wiener Studien, LXIX (1956), 212-236.
Shakespeare, W. Julius Caesar, in the Complete Works. Philadelphia, 1936.
Shutt, R. J. H. Studies in Josephus. London, 1961. [Received too late to be cited.]
Smith, Morton. The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosoph -
umena, Hebrew Union College Annual, XXIX (1958), 273-313.
Stegemann, Victor. Theodoros, No. 39, BE, V (1934), 1847-1859.
Steidle, Wolf. Sueton und die antike Biographie. Munich, 1951.
Steinmetz, K. Herodot und Nikolaus Damascenus. Luenburg, 1861.
Steinschreiber, Morris. Die hebraeischen Ueber S e t z u n g e n des Mittelalters und die
Juden als Dolmetscher: Ein Beitrag z u r Litteratu/rgeschiehte des Mittelalters.
Berlin, 1893.
Strugnell, John. Flavius Josephus and the Essenes: Antiquities XVIII, 22,
Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVII (1959), 106-115.
Stuart, D. Epochs of Greek and Boman Biography. Berkeley, 1928.
Susemihl, Franz. Geschichte der griechischen Litter atur in der Alexandriner zeit.
Leipzig, 1891-1892. 2 vols.
Taeubler, E. Die nicht bestimmbaren Hinweise bei Josephus und die Anonymus-
Hypothese, Hermes, LI (1916), 211-232.
Taylor, L. R. Party Politics in the Age of Caesar. Berkeley, 1949.
Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia, 1960.
Thackeray, H. St. John. Josephus: the Man and the Historian. New York, 1929.
Tietz, Paul. De Nicolai Damasceni fontibus. Marburg, 1896.
Tozen, H. F. The Greek-Speaking Population of Southern Italy, Journal of
Hellenistic Studies, X (1889), 21-42.
Trieber, Konrad. Zur Kritik des Gorionides, Nachrichten der koeniglichen Gesell
schaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen, phil.-hist. Kl. (1895), 381-409.
Unger, Merrit F. Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus: A Study in the Archaeo
logical Illumination of Bible History. London, 1957.
Uxull-Gyllenband, W. Plutarch und die griechische biographische Technik. Stutt
gart, 1927.
Bibliography 142
Volkmaim, Hans. Ptolemaios, No. 54, BE, XIII (1959), 1785.
Wacholder, Ben Zion. Greek Authors in Herods Library, Studies in Bibliography
arid Booklore, V (1961), 102-109.
Wachsmuth, Kurt. Einleitung in die Studien der alten Geschichte. Leipzig, 1895.
Walton, Francis W. Introduction, to Vol XI of Diodorus, LCL, 1957, pp. VII-
XXIV.
Walzer, R. Greek into Arabic: Essays on Arabic Philosophy. Oxford, 1962.
Weiszaecker, Adolph. Plutarchs biographische Technik. Berlin, 1931.
Wellhausen, Julius. Der arabische Josippus, Abhandlungen der koeniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen. N.S., I (1897), 1-50.
. Juedische Geschichte. 4th ed.; Berlin, 1901.
. Pharisaeer und Sadducaeer: Eine Untersuchung zur innerer juedischen
Geschichte. 2d ed.; Hannover, 1924.
Wendland, Paul. Die hellenistisch-roemische Kultur und ihre Beziehungen zu Juden
tum und Christentum. 2d and 3d eds.; Tuebingen, 1912.
Wenrich, Joannes G. De auctorum graecorvm versionibus et commentaries syriacis
arabicis aremeniacis persicisque commentatio. Leipzig, 1842.
Wilcken, U. Antipatros, No. 16, BE, I (1894), 2509; No. 17, BE, I (1894), 2509
2511; No. 18, BE, I (1894), 2511-2512.
Willrich, Hugo. Das Haus des Herodes zwischen Jerusalem und Bom. Heidelberg,
1929.
-------- . Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-juedischen Litteratur. Goettingen,
1900.
. Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaeischen Erhebung. Goettingen, 1895.
. Urkundenfaelschung in der hellenistisch-juedischen Literatur. Goettingen,
1924.
Witte, Wilhelm. De Nicolai Damasceni fragmentorum Bomanorum fontibus. Berlin,
1900.
Zeller, Eduard. Die Philosophie der Griechen. Vol. I l l , pt. 1. 4th ed.; Leipzig, 1909.
Ziegler, Konrad. Plutarchos, No. 2, BE, XXI (1951), 635-962.
Zeitlin, S. Introduction to The First Book of Macabees. New York, 1953. 1-66.
. Josephus on Jesus. Philadelphia, 1931.
Zunz, Leopold. Gottesdienstliche Vortraege. 2d ed.; Frankfurt, 1892.
INDEX
INDEX
Antipater (Nicolaus father), 14, 16, 23
Anti-Semitism, 53
Antony, 21-22, 69, 73-74, 77
Apion of Oasis, 15
Apollodorus of Athens, 59
Apollonia, 25, 26
Apollonius Molon, 54
Appian, 8, 79, 80
Aquileia, 26
Arabia. See Nabataea
Arados, 15
Aramaeans, 55
Aramaic literature, 40-41
Arbaces, 57, 65, 69
Arberry, A. J., 1
Arcadia, 65
Archelaus (king of Cappadocia), 30-31,
72
Archelaus (son of Herod), 34-36, 63-64,
77
Ardys, 65, 70
Argonauts, 65
Argos, 65
Aristobulus (high priest), 77
Aristobulus (son of Herod), 12, 31-34,
63, 77
Aristobulus II, 61
Aristobulus the Peripatetic, 48
Aristotle, 1-3, 17-19, 30, 38, 40, 45-46,
47, 49, 68
Armenia, 55, 66; history of, 56
Arrian, 8
Arsaces, 59
Artaeus, 65
Artapanus, 58
Asbach, Julius, 25
Ascalon, 54, 55, 65
Ascalus, 54
Assyria: citizens of, 35; history of, 65,
66, 67, 72
Astybaros, 65
Athenaeus, 1, 3, 38; use of Nicolaus by,
6-7
Athenaeus of Seleucia, 19
Athens, 18, 65; citizenship in, 15; phi
losophers of, 48
Augustine, St., 42, 43
Augustus, 1, 3, 4, 14, 18, 21, 22-23, 25
26, 30, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 50, 73-74, 76,
80; anti-Cleopatra propaganda of, 22;
autobiography of, 25, 39-40; Eastern
policies of, 26; and Herods succes-
Ahoth, 44-45
Aboth dBabbi Nathan, 44-45
Abraham, 52-57, 65
Abrams abode, 54
Abtalion, 47
Acastus, 66
Achaemenids, 65
Actual things, 20
Acusilaus, 68
Adad-idri, 57
Adadus, 55-57, 65
Adadus III, 56-57
Aegaean Islands, 65
Aelian, 7
Aeolian migrations, 65
Africans, 48
Agrippa, Marcus Vipsanius, 26-29, 38,
76
Ahab, 57
Ah-mose (son of Eben), 41
Ah-mose I, 41
Alexander, 10,15, 47
Alexander (Herods son), 12, 31-34, 63,
72, 77
Alexander Helios, 22
Alexander of Aphrodisias, 1, 2
Alexander Polyhistor, 53-54, 58, 67, 72
73
Alexander romance. See Pseudo-Callis-
thenes
Alexandra II, 77
Alexandria, 16, 18, 21, 22; scholarship
in, 16
Alphred of Sarashen, 2
Alyattes, 66, 70
Amenemheb, 41
Amisus, 18
Amphion, 65
Amulius, 66
Amythaonidae, 65
Andromache, 65
Andronicus, 68
Andronicus of Rhodes, 19
Antigonus, 76
Antioch, 18, 22, 62
Antiochus IV, 15, 58, 59
Antiochus VII, 6
Antipas (son of Herod), 34-35, 63-64
Antipater (Herods father), 11, 16, 23,
61, 62, 76, 78-79
Antipater (Herods son), 12, 33-34, 47,
49, 63, 77
[ 145]
Index 146
Cleopatra, 21-22, 23, 24, 38, 50, 57
Cleopatra Selene, 22
Collection of Remarkable Customs, 7,
31, 68, 70-72
Conon, 31, 72, 73
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, 8-9,
13, 39
Contemplation, 20
Corinth, 65, 66
Cosmopolitanism, 16-17
Crassus, 61, 66
Cretans, 71
Croesus, 65, 69
Ctesias, 54, 57, 66, 67, 68-69
Cyme, 65
Cyprus (mother of Herod), 11
Cypselus, 66
Cyrene, 28, 65
Cyrus, 39, 57, 69, 70
Dacia, 25; citizens of, 71
Damascus, 14, 15, 16, 21, 36, 49, 53, 55,
65. See also Demetrias
Daniel, 9
Date palm. See Nicolauses
David, 11, 55, 57
De anima, 20
De caelo, 19, 20
De fallacia, 20
De generatione et corruptione, 20
Demetrias, 15
Demetrius (historian), 48
Demetrius II, 59
Demophon, 65
De motu animalium, 20
De plantis, 1, 2-3, 20
De sensu, 20
Destinon, Justus von, 5, 6, 62, 78
Diaspora, 27-29, 75, 77
Dindorf, L., 3
Diodorus, 8,16, 52, 67, 68
Diodorus of Sidon, 19
Diogenes Laertius, 2, 3
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 16, 67, 73
Divine logos, 20
Eastern cities, population of, 15-16
Eastern courts, 7
Ecclesiasticus, 42-43, 49
Elements, 20
Enoch, 42
Ephesian Sibyl, 70
Ephorus, 57, 67, 68
Epictetus, 43
Epicureanism, 18
Essenes, 71-72
Ethiopians, 58, 71
sion, 34-35, 63-64. See also Herod;
Nicolaus; VitaAugustae
Autobiography, 14, 22, 30, 32, 36-40,
62-64; Peripatetic, 37; as model for
ideal life, 37-41; Greek, 37, 39-40;
Roman, 37, 39-40; literary quality of,
39; Babylonian, 40-41; Egyptian, 40
41; Jewish, 40, 41-43; apologetic na
ture of, 50
Averroes, 2
Azelus. See Hazael
Babylon, 54, 65, 69
Babylonia: citizens of, 48; history of,
65, 66, 67; historiography of, 70
Bacon, Roger, 2
Barbarians, 74; customs of, 70-71
Bar Hebraeus, 3
Baris, 55
Basil, 9
Belesys, 65, 69
Bellerophon, 65
Ben Adar. See Ben Hadad
Ben Hadad, 56
Bernays, Jacob, 49
Berossus, 53, 55, 67, 68, 73
Berytus, 32
Biblical hermeneutics, 48
Biblical history, 52-58
Biography, 4, 26, 37; and autobiog
raphy, 40
Bloch, Heinrich, 5, 52
Boethus of Sidon, 19
Book of the Dead, 41
Bouyges, P. M., 2
Braun, Martin, 49, 57
Brutus, Marcus, 4, 75
Buechler, Adoph, 6, 52-53
Byblos, 15
Byzantine historiography, 8-9
Byzantium, 18
Cadys, 65
Caesar, Gaius, 80
Caesar, Julius, 4, 10, 22, 25, 26, 61, 66,
67, 69, 73-74, 76
Caesarion, 21-22, 26
Camblitas, 65
Canaan, 53, 54
Carnia, 65
Cassius, 69
Castor, 59
Celts, 70
Chaldees, 54
Chios, 18
Cilicia, 69
147 Index
Heracles, 18, 65
Heraclid dynasty, 65
Heraclidic migrations, 53
Hermippus, 68
Herod, 14, 16, 18, 22, 30, 38, 39, 44, 47,
48, 50, 52, 55, 57, 61-63, 66, 69, 75,
76-80; account of, in Josephus, 4;
account of, in Nicolaus, 4; account
of, in Strabo, 4; account of, in Yosi-
phon, 11-13; Idumaean ancestry of,
14^15, 78-79; and Cleopatra, 22; as
governor of Coele-Syria, 23; and flight
from Judaea, 23-24; reign of, 24, 27,
34-35, 76-77; in Asia Minor, 27-29;
and Hellenism, 27-30, 48, 62, 76;
condemnation of sons of, 31-34; sons
of, by Mariamne, 31-32; succession
of, 34-35, 63-64, 76-77; death of, 35
36; and Jewish historiography, 52;
birthplace of, 54; intellectual inter
ests of, 62; devotion of, to Rome, 76;
Jewish charges against, 77-78; dese
cration of Davidic sepulcher by, 78.
See also Augustus; Josephus; Nico
laus
Herodotus, 8, 66, 67, 70, 80
Hesiod, 67, 68
Hieronymus, 55, 68
Hillel, 13, 44-49
Hippodamia, 65
Hippomenes, 65
Histories, 8, 37, 38, 51, 52 ff., 62-64,
79; purpose of, 29-31, 73; date of, 31,
35-36; literary quality of, 39; scheme
of, 65-67; sources of, 67-69
Historiography, 29-31, 35-36, 79-80
Hoelscher, Gustav, 6, 51, 68, 78
Hohl, Ernst, 69
Homer, 19, 71
Homeric scholia, 7
Hunayn ibn Ishk, 1
Hyksos, 41
Hyrcanus 1,11, 60
Hyrcanus II, 4,12,16, 61, 76
Ideals of Action, On the, 19, 44
Idumaea, 54
Idumaean ancestry, 11, 78-79
Ilium, 18, 27-28, 38, 50
Indates, 59
India, 65, 66
Ionia, 18, 28-29, 50, 66, 75, 76; Jewry
of, 28-29, 77
Isaiah, 42
Ishk ibn Hunayn, 1, 2
Isigonus, 7
Etymolgium Magnwm, 7
Eusebius, 7
Ezechiel, 42
Ezra, 11
First Philosophy, On the, 19
Flusser, David, 12
Gadara, 23
Galactophagi, 71
Gallic Wars, 66
Gardiner, A. H., 41
Gaul, 61
Gaza, 54
Genesis, 53
Gentile oil, 48-49
Gercke, A., 4
Germanic tribes, 25-26
Germanicus, 25, 26
Glaphyra, 72
Gods, On the, 19, 44
Greeks, 74; cities of, in East, 14-16;
citizenship of, 15-16, 17, 28, 39;
scholarship among, 16-17; education
among, 17-18; historiography of, 42,
52, 53-54, 64, 66-68, 70, 73; ethics of,
47; library of, 48; knowledge of Old
Testament among, 54; customs of, 71
Gregorius de Gregoriis, 2
Gutschmid, Alfred von, 25, 26, 67
Gyges, 65, 66
Habrames. See Abraham
Hadad-ezer, 55
Hagiography, 43
Hajji Khalifa, 2
Halakah, 46
Hargarizin, 55
Hasid, 43
Hasmonaeans, 6,16, 59-61
Hazael, 56-57
Heavens, On the, 19
Hebrews. See Jews
Hecataeus of Miletus, 67
Hegesippus, 9,13
Hellanicus, 67, 68
Hellas, 65; mythical, 66
Hellenism, 47-49, 50, 60, 76; in East,
15; versus Judaism, 28-29; and Hel-
lenization of Semitic names, 56-57
Hellenists: languages spoken in cities
of, 15-16; scholarship of, in Eastern
courts, 19; historiography of, 29-31,
52, 58, 64, 72-73; literature of, 39;
education among, 45; slavery among,
49; cities of, in Palestine, 63
Index 148
Laqueur, Richard, 6, 14-15, 18, 21, 23
24, 25, 38, 68
Leo, Friedrich, 4
Li fe of Augustus. See Vita Augustae
Livy, 10,13,19, 73, 77
Lucani, 70
Lucullus, 66
Lulofs, H. J. Drossart, 2-3, 20
Lycurgus, 57, 66
Lydia: historiography of, 54; Heraclids
in, 65 ; history of, 66-67
Magi, 70
Magnesians, 66
Magnus, Alfredus, 2
Malalas, 11
Marcus, Ralph, 6
Marcus Aurelius, 43
Mariamne, 57, 77
Masoretic nomenclature, 56
Mathematics, 20
Medea, 66
Media, history of, 65, 66
Melchizedek, 55
Meleager of Gadara, 15
Meles, 65
Memphis, 58
Mesembria, 65
Messenia, 65
Metaphysics, 19, 20, 68
Meyer, E. H. F., 2
Midrashic historiography, 58
Miletus, 65
Misanthropia, 50, 76
Misch, Georg, 18, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51
Mithradates, 66, 67
Mnaseas, 55, 68
Moses, 54-57
Moxus, 65
Mueller, Carolus, 3
Nabataea, 32, 77
Nanarus, 65
Nehemiah ben Hacaliah, 11
Neo-Platonists, 7, 20
Nerabus, 65
New Testament, 43
Nicolaus: date palm named after, 1;
descendants of, 1; Oriental transla
tions of works by, 1-3 ; De plantis by,
1, 2-3, 20; as a Peripatetic, 1-3, 4,
17-19, 19-21; ancient testimonies on,
1-13 ; Autobiography of, 3,14, 21, 26,
37 ff., 43-44, 45-49, 50-51; biograph
ical tradition in, 4; use of, during
Middle Ages, 7-13; use of, by Yosir
Jacoby, Felix, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,13, 25-26, 39,
40, 51, 61, 67, 68, 72, 78
Jaeger, Werner, 20
Jason, 65, 66
Jeremiah, 42
Jericho, 1, 22
Jerusalem, 13, 15, 19, 26, 28, 40, 48, 50,
58, 59, 77
Jews, 73; rights of, in Diaspora, 28-29;
historiography of, 29, 42, 52, 64, 65,
69-70; accusations against Herod by,
35, 63-64; literature of, 40-41; auto
biography among, 41-43; values of,
46; in Greek historiography, 52; apol
ogetics of, 53, 56; customs of, 71-72;
aristocracy among, 78
Job, 41, 49
Joseph, 57
Joseph ben Gurion haKohen. See Yosi-
phon
Josephus, 8, 15, 28-29, 48, 53, 67-68, 75,
78, 80; account of Herod by, 4-6, 22,
23-24, 30, 62, 69, 77; use of Nicolaus
by, 4-6, 35, 52-53, 54-64, 68, 69;
use of Nicolaus in Antiquities by, 11,
60-64, 76; use of Nicolaus in Bellum
by, 11, 60-64; sources of, 5-6; use of,
by Yosiphon, 11-13; critique of Nico
laus by, 14, 78-79; account of Cleo
patra by, 22; account of rift between
Augustus and Herod by, 32; autobi
ography of, 50-51; Hellenization of
Semitic names in, 56-57; account of
Moses by, 57-58; cross references in,
59-61; account of Palestinian Hel
lenistic cities by, 63; account of Es
senes by, 71-72; account of contem
porary events by, 79
Joshua ben Hananiah, 48
Josiphon. See Yosiphon
Juba II, 16, 31, 72-73, 80
Judaea, 1; division of, 35. See also
Palestine
Judaism, 50, 60; versus Hellenism, 28
29, 47-48, 50, 76
Julia, 27
Julian the Apostate, 7, 50, 51
Justus of Tiberias, 50
Kalonymos ben Kalonymos, 2-3
Kaminka, Armand, 47
Karkar, 57
Lacedaemon, 65
Laius, 65
149 Index
Passion, 57
Peloponnesus, 65, 66
Peleus, 65
Pelias, 65
Pelops, 65
Periander, 66
Peripatetic school, 17-18, 19, 20, 30, 46,
68
Persia, 66, 70; history of, 66, 67, 68
Pharisees, 30, 47, 48, 51, 71-72
Philanthropia, 14, 27, 38, 47, 48, 49, 50,
62, 70
Philo, 48, 49, 71; account of Essenes by,
71-72
Philosophy of Aristotle, On the, 19, 20
Phoenician cities, 15
Photius, 7-8, 9, 67, 68, 72
Phrygians, 48
Physics, 20
Pisander of Rhodes, 18
Plato, 3, 45, 70
Plutarch, 1, 3, 4, 7, 38, 75, 80
Poetry, 30
Pollio, 13
Polybius, 8, 59, 67, 80
Pompey, 13,16, 61, 66, 76, 77
Porcia, 4, 75
Porphyry, 3, 7,10
Posidonius, 15, 52, 61, 67
Potiphar, 57
Proverbs, 42
Psalms, 41- 42, 43
Psammetichus, 66
Pseudo-Callisthenes, 9,10-11
Pseudo-Eupolemus, 54-55
Pseudo-Heraclitus, 49
Pseudo-Plutarch, 11
Ptolemy (brother of Nicolaus), 14, 16,
34
Ptolemy (historian), 52
Ptolemy VIII, 61
Ptolemy Caesar. See Caesarion
Quadrivium, 17
Rabbinic Judaism, 44-49
Reason, 57
Remus, 66
Rhetoric, 29-30
Rhodes, 18; citizenship in, 15-16
Roman aristocracy, 7, 25, 36, 49, 50, 73
Roman autobiography, 50
Romance, 57, 67
Roman Empire, 16-17, 74-75
Romantic history, 67
Rome, 18, 24, 26, 32, 66, 73
Romulus, 66
phon, 10-13; sources about, 14; an
cestry of, 14-16; account of Herod
and Augustus by, 14, 32, 62-63; as
rhetorician, 17, 34-35; education of,
17-18, 45; dramatic style of, 17, 57,
68-69, 76; as favorite of Augustus,
18, 22-23; travels of, 18, 22-23, 30,
32, 34-36, 50, 62, 66, 76; and con
temporary scholars, 18-19; date of
works by, 21, 25-26, 31, 33; in Cleo
patras court, 21-22, 24; and anti
Cleopatra propaganda, 22; account of
Herod by, 23-24, 38, 61-63, 64, 67, 75,
76-80; in Herods court, 23-34, 36,
40, 50; and Hellenism, 28-29, 63, 64;
and plea for Jewish rights, 28-29, 75;
on Judaism, 28-29, 60, 77; as Herods
advocate, 32; account of Herods exe
cutions by, 32-34, 38, 76, 77, 78-79;
and Herods succession, 34-35, 38, 63
64, 76; death of, 36; on slavery, 36,
49, 57; as praised by Herod, 38; on
wealth, 38, 39; ethical system of, 45
50; stay in Rome, 50; treatment of
Biblical history by, 52-58, 64; sources
of, 55, 56, 67-69; account of ancient
Damascus by, 55, 56-57; account of
Eastern history by, 57; account of
Seleucids by, 58-61; account of Has-
monaeans by, 58-62, 64; account of
Parthian history by, 59-60; account
of Ptolemies by, 60-61; fusion of
sources by, 68; account of Cyrus by,
70; account of Essenes by, 71-72;
and Hellenistic historiography, 72-73;
idealization of Roman Empire by, 74
75; speeches of, 80. See also Herod;
Histories; Josephus; Vita Augustae
Nicolauses, 1, 4, 8, 26
Nicomachean Ethics, 39
Noah, 55, 57; Noahite traditions, 53
Noah's ark, 55, 66
Numitor, 66
Oedipus, 65
Oenomaus, 65
Old Testament, 54
Oracles, 42
Oral law, 45
Orestes, 65
Otto, Walter, 6
Palestine, 21, 49
Palmyrenes, 48
Pannonian campaign, 25
Parsondes, 65
Parthia, 23-24, 59, 61, 66
Index 150
Tartessians, 70
Tcherikover, Victor, 15
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, 42
Thackeray, H. St. John, 68
Theodoras of Gadara, 15, 17, 18
Theology, 17
Theophrastus, 2, 3, 20, 68
Therapeutae, 49, 71
Thessalian Heraclids, 65
Thucydides, 8, 70, 80
Thugatet the Jerusalemite, 10
Thut-mose III, 41
Tiberius, 25
Timagenes, 4, 52, 57, 59, 61, 67, 80
Titus, 70
Tobit, 42
Torah, 17, 44
Torrebus, 65
Trachonitis, 76
Transjordan, 23
Trieber, Konrad, 9,13
Trivium, 17
Trogus, Pompeius, 52, 54, 57
Trojan wars, 65
Troy, 18
Tudo, 65
Tymanaeus, 54
Tyrants, 66
Tyre, 15
Tzetzes, Johannes, 7
Universal state, 16-17,19
Valerius Maximus, 4
Varro, 17
Varus, 25, 26
Vergil, 19, 73
Vespasian, 79
Vita Augustae, 4, 21, 23, 25-26, 31, 37,
39, 69, 73-74, 75-76, 79, 80
Wellhausen, Julius, 10
Xanthus, 54, 57, 67, 69
Xenarchus of Seleucia, 19
Xenophon, 37
Yohanan ben Zakkai, 45
Yosiphon, 9-13, 79
Zenodorus, 4, 23
Zethus, 65
Zeus, 14
Saducees, 71-72
Sadyattes, 65, 66
Salmanasser III, 57
Salmoneus, 65
Samaria, 57
Samnites, 70
Sardanapalus, 65, 69
Scamandrius, 65
Schalit, Abraham 6, 58
Schuerer, Emil, 6
Scythians, 71
Seleucids, 75 ; history of, 58-61
Semiramis, 54, 57, 65, 66
Seneca, 43
Septuagint nomenclature, 56
Sermon on the Mount, 49
Shakespeare, William, 69
Shammai, 45, 48, 49
Sibyl, 70
Sicyon, 66
Sidon, 15
Simon ben Sira. See Ecclesiasticus
Simon the Just, 45
Simplicius, 3, 7
Sinuhe, 41
Slavery, 49
Socrates (ecclesiastical historian), 7
Sophists, 45
Sophronius of Damascus, 1,16, 21, 38
Soul, On the, 19
Sparta, 66, 71
Steidle, Wolf, 4, 25, 26
Stephanus of Byzantium, 7, 54
Stobaeus, Joannes, 3, 7
Stoicism, 43-44, 47, 48
Stoic school, 20
Strabo, 3-4,10, 13, 16, 18,19, 52, 59, 61,
75, 77, 80; account of Nicolaus by,
22-23
Strabonic scholia, 7
Stratonice, 14
Stryangaeus, 65
Suda, 3, 8; on Nicolaus, 14; fragments
of Nicolaus in, 38
Suetonius, 4
Sulla, 66
Syllaeus, 32, 63, 77
Syria, history of, 65
Talmud: on ethics, 44-48; on slavery,
49
Tantalus, 54