GRIFFIN
DARES AND DICTYS
878
DO

Ɑ17· THE UNIVERS
THE UNIVERS
ARTES
SCIE
LIBRARIES
ERSITY
TIA VERI
OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
·
OF
378
DARES AND DICTYS
ष
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF
MEDIEVAL VERSIONS OF THE
STORY OF TROY
DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES oF THE JOHNS HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.
BY
NATHANIEL EDWARD GRIFFIN
BALTIMORE
J. H. FURST COMPANY
1907
PREFACE.
It was my earlier intention to present as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy from the Johns Hopkins University
a complete study of Dares and Dictys in three sections entitled
respectively "Dares and Dictys," "The Origin of Dictys," and
"The Origin of Dares." Inasmuch, however, as I have not yet
completed my third section and the final pages of my second
section, it has seemed best, in order to fulfil at once my long-
standing obligations to the University, to publish as my dissertation
the first and the greater portion of the second section and to
reserve the conclusion of the second and the whole of the third
section for subsequent addition. When this unfinished portion is
completed the present portion will be reprinted with it and the
entire study provided with an index and published as a single
monograph.
I wish, in conclusion, to express my deep gratitude for the
helpful and stimulating advice of Professor James W. Bright, at
whose suggestion this work was undertaken.
PRINCETON, N. J., May 4, 1907.
164156
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
I. DARES AND DICTYS........
II. THE ORIGIN OF DICTYS
1-17
17-112
DARES AND DICTYS.
I. DARES AND DICTYS.
It has long been a matter of dispute whether the two Latin
forgeries that pass under the names of Dares Phrygius and Dictys
Cretensis, respectively, were originally composed in their present
Latin form or whether they were translated from earlier prototypes
written in Greek. Before proceeding to an examination of this
question it will be well to recall briefly the character and contents
of these two compositions.
2
The so-called Ephemeris de Historia Belli Trojani of Dictys
Cretensis, the earlier and more comprehensive of the two, is a
3
¹ Each document claims to be a translation from the Greek ; the question at issue
is whether this claim is true or false (vid. p. 17).
* Ed. F. Meister, Lipsiae, 1872. The term Ephemeris occurs in the earliest MS.,
Sangallensis, of the ninth or tenth century (cf. Meister, Praef. p. 1).
3 The origin of the name Dictys Cretensis as applied to the alleged author of
pre-Homeric Records of the Trojan War has never been satisfactorily explained.
Collilieux, Étude sur Dictys et Darès (1886), pp. 61 ff., offers the ingenious sug-
gestion that the author of the Ephemeris was led to adopt the name Dictys and to
devise the story of the discovery of Dictys' annals (vid. summary of Prologue, infra, p.
7-9) by the very similar story of the finding of the body of St. Barnabas, as told
c. 478 by the Cypriote monk Alexander (cf. Kedrenos, Zúvoyis loтopiŵv, ed. Bekker,
Corp. Script. Hist. Byz., Bonn, 1839, II, 618, and Suidas, Lexicon. sub. Oúïva),
and afterwards incorporated in the Acta Sanctorum, 1698, II, 418 ff. According
to Collilieux's interpretation, the two accounts present the following striking paral-
lelisms:
"Saint-Barnabé (c. d. fils prédisant), compagnon de Saint Paul (en hébreu
Saul, c. d. interrogé), fut découvert dans un antre, sous un cerisier, près de Sala-
mine en Chypre, par Anthémius (c. d. florissant, heureux), évêque (c. d. chef des
prêtres ou pasteurs) de cette ville. Il tenait sur sa poitrine l'Evangile de saint
2
Dares and Dictys.
prose history of the Trojan war beginning with the Rape of Helen
and ending with the Death of Ulysses. The history is divided
into six books, of which the first five treat of the Siege of Troy,
the last of the Return of the Greeks. The narrative is straight-
forward, well proportioned, and written in a very fair Latin style.¹
Mathieu, écrit sur des tablettes de Thuia. Anthémius porta cet Evangile à l'arche-
vêque de Constantinople, qui envoya le livre et le porteur à l'empereur Zénon.
L'empereur, après avoir fait dorer l'evangile, le fit soigneusement placer dans
son palais; et entre autres dons il accorda à Anthémius l'independance."
"
Voyons maintenant l'Ephéméris. Dictys (deíkтns-vîs, fils démontrant), com-
paignon d'Idoménée (ou Eidoménée, qui se trouve aussi, et qui fait aussitôt songer à
eidoµévos, vu, connu), fut enseveli avec le journal de la guerre de Troie, écrit sur les
tablettes de Tilia. Ce journal fut découvert dans le sépulcre de l'auteur à Gnosse,
en Crête, par des pasieurs qui l'offrirent à leur maitre Eupraxis (c. d. heureux).
Celui-ci porta l'ouvrage à Rutilius Rufus, governeur de l'Ile, qui envoya le livre
et le porteur à l'empereur Néron. L'empereur fit soigneusement placer le journal
dans sa bibliothèque, et entre autres presentes, il accorda à Eupraxis le droit de
cité" (cf. infra, pp. 7-9).
The parrellelism in the above reports, barring the somewhat fantastic interpre-
tation placed upon the proper names by Collilieux, are, no doubt, striking and
indicate quite clearly that the one account was suggested by the other. How-
ever, inasmuch as the annals of Dictys were, in all probability, composed much
earlier than the fifth century (cf. p. 3, note 2), it is necessary to regard the
story of Barnabas as suggested by that of Dictys, not the reverse. Consequently
the theory of Collilieux, though interesting as showing the way in which
apocryphal stories of this sort propagate themselves, cannot be held to shed
light upon the origin of the name Dictys Cretensis. More plausible is the con-
jecture of Dunger (Dictys-Septimius, 1878, p. 34), that the name Dictys (which
occurs as the name of four different personages in Greek mythology, cf. Roscher,
Die griech. u. röm. Myth., sub Diktys) was suggested by the Latin adjective
Dictaeus, applied to Crete (< the Cretan A‹τý, a nymph and mountain range)
by Virgil (Dictaea arva, Aen., III, 171, etc.), Ovid (Dictaea rura, Met., III, 223),
and other Latin writers (cf., also, Aíkтuvva, a well-known Cretan epithet of
Artemis). The application to alleged authors of pre-Homeric annals of an adjec-
tival appellation denoting the country to which they belong is very common, cf.
Σίσυφος ὁ Κῷος, Φειδαλίος ὁ Κορινθίος, Κόριννος ὁ ᾿Ιλεύς, Δάρης ὁ Φρύξ, Αντίπατρος
¿'Aкávēlos, etc. (vid. p. 14, note 1).
¹ The earliest verdicts upon Dictys' style are, as a rule, favorable (J. Mercerius,
Preface to his ed. of Dictys, 1618; G. Barth, Advers. comment. libri sexaginta,
lib. 57, cap. 20, p. 2717 ff., 1624; J. Vossius, De Historicis Latinis, pp. 742 fï,,
1627; G. Scioppius, Epist. 5 in Paradoxis litterariis, 1628; Madame Dacier,
Preface to ed. of Dictys, 1684; Heyne, Primus excursus ad lib. 2, Aeneidos, ed.
Lemaire, p. 307, 1776); later verdicts are, in general, unfavorable (J. Gronovius,
Observat. Ecclesiast, cap. 25, 1662; Fabricus, Biblio. Lat., I, 6, 1697; Bernhardy,
Grundr. d. röm. Lit. A, 112, 1865; Perizonius, Dissert, in Smids' ed. of Dictys,
Dares and Dictys.
3
The contents are derived from a variety of post-classical sources,
mostly of creditable standing.¹ The date of composition is, pre-
sumably, the fourth century, A. D.2
1702; Dederich, Praef. to ed., 1832, and Meister, Praef. to ed., 1872). The
truth appears to lie midway between Barth's opinion, that "he was a man of
ancient eloquence" and the opinion of Dederich who maintains that his style is
as vicious as 'that of Hegisippus, Amiantus Marcellinus, Sulpicius Severus, and
Orosius."
Dictys' Latinity, while greatly inferior to the best standards of anti-
quity, is vastly superior to that of Dares. Vid. Collilieux, Étude sur Dictys et
Darès, Grenoble, 1886, pp. 24, 25, from whom a large number of the foregoing
citations are taken.
1 Although it is not always possible, by reason both of the confusion of legends
in Dictys and of the previous occurrence of the same legend in more than one
earlier writer, to determine, with certainty, the exact source of each, it neverthe-
less appears that the following authors were among the number consulted, directly
or indirectly, by Dictys: Homer, Iliad (Ship-catalogue), Apollodorus, Bißio0ýên
(names of Priam's sons and genealogies of Helen, Antenor, etc.), Lykophron,
Kaoσávdpa and scholiasts (Death of Oinone and murder of Achilles in the temple
of Apollo), Ptolemaios Chennos, Kaun ioropía (Menelaus' absence in Crete,
election of Palamedes as commander of the Greeks), Philostratos, 'Hpwïkós
(Achilles' love for Polyzena, allusion to the Cretan earthquake and, perhaps,
the Campaign in Moesia), Virgil, Aeneid (capture of Troy), and perhaps Ovid,
Metamorphoses (Strife for the Palladion; in Ovid, for the arms of Achilles),
Pliny (names of Phrygian cities allied to Troy), and Hyginus, Fabulae (Deipho-
bus' part in the murder of Achilles). Cf. Dunger, Dictys-Septimius, Dresden,
1878, pp. 38 ff.
2 Much critical ingenuity has been expended in the attempt to determine the
date of composition of the Ephemeris. Dunger (op. cit., 1878, p. 53) believes
that the Ephemeris was written somewhere between the appearance of Philostratos'
'Hpwïkós, A. D. 260 (whence the allusion in the Dictys-Prologue to the earthquake
in the thirteenth year of Nero's reign, vid. p. 8, note 3), and the earliest reference
to the Ephemeris, by Syrianos (c. 400), and in this he is followed by Havet, Sur le
date du Dictys de Septimius, Rev. de Phil., 1878, p. 238. However, inasmuch
as the supposed allusion to the Ephemeris by Syrianos is not genuine, but a late
interpolation (vid. Collilieux, op. cit., 1886, pp. 12 and 56), it is clear that this
means of determining the posterior limit of Dictys' date must be abandoned. In
general, however, and without at present raising the question of a Greek original,
we may accept the conclusion of Joly (Roman de Troie, 1870, I, pp. 181 ff.),
who perceives in the style and moral sentiment of the Ephemeris evidence that it
was not written later than the fourth century. In particular, numerous stylistic
imitations of Sallust and Virgil (cf. infra, pp. 114 ff.), as well as occasional Hel-
lenisms and the allusions in the Prol. and Epis. to Nero (whose pro-Hellenic sym-
pathies are here obviously played upon) alike betoken a period prior to the disrup-
tion of relations with the literary past, and therefore well within the fourth century.
A means of lowering the anterior limit 250 is sought by Havet (op. cit.) in the allu-
sion of the Dictys-Prologue to Rutilius Rufus as illius insulae (sc. Cretae) consularis
4
Dares and Dictys.
2
In general character and contents the De Excidio Trojae
Historia¹ of Dares Phrygius presents a marked contrast to
Dictys' Ephemeris. Dares' history consists of an ill-assorted aggre-
gation of meagre details,³ written in forty-four short chapters of
(1. 21), an allusion that would appear to indicate that the author of the Ephemeris
lived at a period sufficiently subsequent to the reign of Constantine (who first
instituted the official title consularis) to have forgotten that in the reign of
Nero the official title of a Cretan governor was invariably proconsul; therefore, not
before the second half of the fourth century. In pursuance of this hypothesis,
Havet calls attention to the possible identification of the G. Aradius Rufinus, to
whom the Epistle is addressed, with a Roman of that name who was comes orientalis
in 363, rather than with another of the same name who was prefect of Rome in
304 (cf. Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit., 3d ed., § 423, 3). Finally, Collilieux (op. cit.,
p. 66) finds in the striking parallelism, already pointed out (p. 1, note 3), between
the stories of the discovery of the body of St. Barnabas and of the Dictys Ms., rea-
son to suppose that the latter was not composed until after the year 478. Caution
must, however, be exercised against accepting any of the foregoing attempts to
lower the anterior limit of the date of the Ephemeris, inasmuch as they all pro-
ceed upon the assumption that the Latin text (including, of course, the Prologue
and Epistle) represents the original form of Dictys' annals—an assumption that
cannot, in the light of what has been said (p. 1, note 1), be taken for granted.
Hence, the only conclusion in which we are at present warranted is that the
Ephemeris, in its present Latin form, was surely composed after 250, and possibly
after 304 and 363—the dates of the possible prototypes of the Rufinus of the Epistle,
which, in contradistinction to the Prologue, appears to be the work of the Latin
translator (cf. infra, pp. 118 ff.). The posterior limit, on the other hand, can
hardly be brought below the year 400 for the stylistic reasons already adduced,
which, having reference to the imitation of Latin authors, can be held applicable
only to the translation.
¹ Ed. Meister, Lipsiae, 1873. This title occurs between the introductory epistle
and the history in the earliest Mss.
2 A Trojan priest named Dares is mentioned in the Iliad (e, 9).
Ην δέ τις ἐν Τρώεσσι Δάρης, άφνειός, ἀμύμων
Ιρεὺς Ηφαίστοιο.
But the association of our Dares, who is a warrior, with the Homeric priest,
though accepted, apparently without hesitation, by previous commentators, appears
to us open to very grave doubt.
3 Thus, the author limits his war narrative, in the main, to a bare recital of the
length of each battle, the names of victors and vanquished, the number of the
slain, the occurrence and duration of truces, etc. Moreover, inconsistencies are
not lacking. Meriones is twice killed (cap. XIX, XXIII); Sarpedon slays Perses
(cap. XXVI), who has appeared (cap. XIX) on the side of the Trojans; Priam at
first hopes to exchange Helen for Hesione (cap. XI), but afterwards indignantly
spurns the efforts of Ulysses and Menelaus to regain Helen (cap. XVIII); Nepos
,
Dares and Dictys.
5
10
barbarous Latin.¹ The narrative opens with the Argonautic
Expedition and ends with the Destruction of Troy. No attempt
is made to marshall events in a coherent or orderly sequence, and
more space is devoted to occurrences antecedent to the Siege than
to the Siege itself. The version of the different incidents is so
brief that the determination of specific sources for each is impos-
sible. In general, an invariably corrupt form of ancient tradition 2
bears evidence of the use of late and impure sources. The history
dates, presumably, from the sixth century A. D.*
3
affirms in his introductory Epistle that he has translated without alteration the
very words of Dares, but in cap. XII he introduces Dares Phrygius as though a
second Dares were intended. Evidences of omission also occur. The entire Argo-
nautic expedition, elaborately prepared for, is dismissed with the brief remark:
Colchos profecti sunt, pellem abstulerunt, domum reversi sunt (cap. II). So too the
Greek leaders, Polidarius and Machaon, though described in detail (cap. XIII) and
mentioned in the Ship-catalogue (cap. XIV), nowhere afterwards figure in the action.
¹ The proverbially wretched style of Dares' history may be illustrated by the
following characteristic sentences: Audivit, quia hostes parati sunt (cap. xv); rogunt
eum in consilio esse (cap. XVIII); mittit inducias petere, cap. XXXI ( cited Dunger, Die
Sage von troj. Kriege, 1869, p. 7). Peculiarly irritating is Dares' constant habit of
verbal repetition: e. g. Antenor . . . . navim conscendit et . . . . venit Magnesiam ad
ut Hesione redderetur. ... Antenor... navim ascendit
advectus est ad Telamonem, rogare eum coepit, ut Priamo Hesionem sororem
redderet, etc., ad nauseam (cap. v). Similarly such stock expressions as fit magna
caedes; tempus pugnae supervenit; nox proelium diremit; dum indutiae sunt, etc.,
recur with tiresome frequency. This habit of incessant repetition is ably charac-
terized by a thirteenth century German redactor, Albertus Stadensis, who writes
in his Troilus (ed. Merzdorf, Leipsic, 1875) :
Peleum
•
dicit.
Vocibus instare nos semper oportet eisdem
Sternuntur, sternunt, milia multa cadunt. (Lib. III, vs. 671-2).
2 Thus Dares represents as the ultimate cause of the Trojan War, not the tra-
ditional wrath of Eris, but the inhospitable treatment shown the Argonauts by
Laomedon (cap. II). To avenge this ill-treatment, not because of Hesione's
ransom, Hercules destroys Troy (cap. III) and in counter-revenge, Alexander
abducts Helen (cap. x).
3 In the Historia appear occasional episodic resemblances to Homer, Iliad
(Catalogue of ships and list of Trojan leaders), Hyginus, Fabula (Argonautic
Expedition), Dracontius, De Raptu Helenae (Rape of Helen), and the Mythologus
Vaticanus Primus (Destruction of Troy by Hercules), but of a character so vague
and fugitive as to warrant the assumption that Dares derived the materials of his
history from some such abstract of these writers or their sources as may have
existed in a contemporaneous school compendium of Trojan histories. Cf. Wag-
ner, Beitrag. zu Dares Phyrgius, Philologus XXXVIII, 91 ff. (1889).
4 * A period as late as the sixth century is rendered probable by the barbarousness of
6
Dares and Dictys.
Notwithstanding a total lack of intrinsic literary merit, Dares
and Dictys enjoyed throughout the Middle Ages a widespread
popularity—which equaled, if it did not surpass, that accorded
to the three great rival tales of Arthur, Charlemagne, and
Alexander. This popularity is to be ascribed primarily to the
2
Dares' style and his occasional resemblance to the Mythographus Vaticanus Primus
(first half of sixth century) and other works of late Latin authors (vid. preceding
note); a period no later, by a reference to Dares on the part of Isidore of Seville
(ob. 636) in his Origines I, 41 (apud gentiles vero primus Dares Phrygius de
Graecis et Trojanis historiam edidit) and by the presence of two long excerpts
from Dares in the chronicle of the Franks (seventh century) ascribed to Frede-
garius Scholasticus. The earliest MS. of the Historia, Monacensis n. 601, dates
either from the ninth or tenth century (vid. Meister, Præf. to ed. p. iv). Cf. Joly,
Roman de Troie, I, 170 (1860); Wagener, Phil., xxxvш, 91 ff. (1889); Teuffel
and Schwabe, Hist. of Rom. Lit., § 471 (1892).
¹ As is abundantly attested by the large number and extensive distribution of
medieval mss., translations and adaptations of each. The earliest extant Mss. of
each author date either from the ninth or tenth centuries and multiply rapidly
thereafter, spreading from Italy to Sicily, Switzerland, France, Spain, England,
Germany, Holland, and other countries of Furope. The earliest vernacular
adaption, in French, by the twelfth century Benoit de Sainte More, was soon
succeeded by translations and adaptations in German, Latin, English, Russian,
Italian, Irish, and even Icelandic (the Trojanmana Saga).
2 That the story of Troy yielded in popularity to no one of its three great rivals
in the field of medieval romance is sufficiently attested by the prominent position
assigned to the "tale of Troy" in various contemporary lists or catalogues of the
popular romances of the day. Thus at the opening of the fourteenth century, the
author of the Cursor Mundi (ed. Morris, E. E. T. S., 57, 1) writes at the begin-
ning of his prologue as follows:
Men zernen iestes for to here
And romaunce rede in dyuerse manere
Of Alisandre be conqueroure
Of Inlius Cesar þe emperoure
Of Greke and Troye þe longe strif
þere mony mon lost his lif etc. (including allusions to Arthur
and Charlemagne).
And again in the sixteenth century, the Scottish poet David Lindsay likewise
couples the tales of Troy with those of Arthur and Alexander in the Epistil to his
Dreme (ed. Hall, E. E. T. S., 19, 2, p. 264):
I haue, at lenth, the storeis done discryue
Off Hectour, Arthour, and gentyll Iulyus,
Off Alexander, and worthy Pompeyus,
Off Jasone, and Media, all at lenth,
Off Hercules the actis honorabyll, etc.
Dares and Dictys.
7
1
fact that each author claims that he has been an actual participant
in the Trojan War and an eye-witness of the events he records.'
These claims, set forth in each case in a preface and repeated
in the course of each history, are too familiar to require detailed
repetition.
The preface of Dictys' Ephemeris consists of two parts, a Pro-
logue and an Epistle. According to the Prologue, the annals of
Off Troylus the sorrow and the Ioyes,
And Seigis all, of Tyir, Thebes, and Troye.
(vs. 34-41.)
Indeed, from a period prior to the date of the Cursor Mundi to a time subsequent
to that of Lindsay, the story of Troy finds frequent commemoration both by way
of explicit reference and by way of scenic representation or brief narative sum-
marization both in England and, as frequently, upon the continent. Easily
outstripping in popularity the minor cycles—as, for example, the cycles of Thebes
and Aeneas, with examples of which it is closely associated in many medieval MSS.
-the legend of Troy finds perhaps its closest analogue in that of Alexander.
Akin to the latter in apocryphal origin (cf. the pseudo-Callisthenes), cultural sig-
nificance, and general community of theme, the cycle of Troy shared with that
of Alexander the immediate office of administering to the medieval thirst for the
marvels and wonders of the ancient world.
¹ That the medieval popularity of Dares and Dictys is due in large part to their
assumed character as veracious and authentic historians is abundantly attested by
frequent medieval references to each author in this capacity. To the truthfulness
of Dares, Joseph of Exeter pays the following tribute in his Historia de bello
Trojano (c. 1187), I, 24 ff.:
Mira quidem dictu sed vera, aduertite, pandam :
Nam vali Phrygio Martem certissimus index
Explicuit praesens oculus, quem fabula nescit.
So too Albertus Stadensis writes thus of Dares in his Troilus (1249), ed. Merzdorf,
lib. VI, 697 sqq.:
Nulla poetarum posuit figmenta, Daretis
Historiam soliti scribere, vera tenens,
Et Phrygius fuit ille Dares, et tempore belli
Ipse quidem miles proelia visa refert.
Likewise a French translator of Dares (publ. Anvers, 1592) writes to the same
effect as follows: Après avoir cognu Dàres Phrigius avoir plus succinctement et
véritablement escript de toute la querelle entre les Grecs et les Troyens que nul
autre, j'ay bien voulu le traduire en nostre langue, et communiquer à ung chas-
cun, afin que ceux qui pour la rarité d'iceluy ne l'ont pas en grec ou en latin, le
voyent en français, et les autres qui n'entendent les susdites langues, le puissent
facilement entendre.
8
Dares and Dictys.
the Cretan soldier Dictys, written in ten books,¹ in Phenician
characters² upon linden bark, were exhumed by an earthquake in
the thirteenth year of the reign of the emperor Nero,³ and trans-
'The Ms. reading sex (Meister, ed., p. 2, foot-note), is clearly a late substi-
tution for decem, introduced, no doubt, in accordance with the number of books in
the Latin text. The reading decem not only accords with the more natural number
of books to be expected in a history of this kind, but is clearly demanded by
the MS. reading quinque in the Epistle, there given as the number of books con-
densed into one by Septimius in the sixth book of his Latin translation. Dederich's
readings novem for sex (in the Prol.), and quatuor for quinque (in the Epis. ),
for the number of books present in the Greek original and for the number com-
bined in the Latin translations respectively, rest on no surer foundation than
the reading novem (→′) in an otherwise inaccurate entry in Suidas' Lexicon, ed.
Bernhardy, sub Diktys (vid. infra, p. 25, note 1) and, as we have said, encounter
flat contradiction in the MS. reading quinque in the Epistle. Cf. Dunger, Dictys-
Septimius (p. 3), who accepts quinque but retains novem on the strained hypothesis
of an intentional variation between Prologue and Epistle (vid. p. 119, note 1).
2 A characteristic feature of forged documents alleged to be pre-Homeric is the
frequency of their allusions to early Greek script. Thus the Prologue and Epistle
of the Ephemeris state that Dictys wrote his annals in Phenician characters
(Phoeniceis litteris, Prol. 1, 8; litteris Punicis, Epis. 1, 3; cf., also, Punicis litteris
Agamemnonis nomen designant, Eph. I, 16). Similarly Suidas, Lex. sub Korin-
nos, states that a certain Korinnos wrote the memoirs of his master Palamedes in
the Doric characters, invented by that worthy. Frequent reference is likewise
made to the origin of this script. Dictys used the script brought to Greece by
Cadmus and Danaus (Agenor), litteris quae tum Cadmo et Agenore auctoribus per
Graeciam frequentabantur (Epis. 1, 3); quae a Cadmo in Achaiam fuerant delatae
(Prol. 1. 3); litteris Punicis ab Cadmo Danaoque traditis (Eph. V, 17); whereas
the latter Greek redactors of Dictys-annals (vid. pp. 34 ff.) and Suidas (vid.
supra) reproduce the traditional ascription of the earliest Greek alphabet to
Palamedes, viz., Malalas, Xpovoypapía, ed. Dindorf, in Niebuhr, Corp. Hist.
Script. Byz. Bonn, 1833, p. 103, II. 10 ff. (as supplied from 'Eloyǹ iotopiŵv, ed.
Cramer, p. 204 vid. Noack, Die griech. Dictys, Philologus, Supplement 6,
p. 409); Kedrenos, Zúvopis iσoтpiŵv, ed. Bekker, same series, p. 220, 1. 14;
Tzetzes, Antehomerica, ed. Lehrs, Paris, 1862, v. 266.
3
³ The selection of the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero as the occasion of
the earthquake that brought Dictys' records to light appears to have been suggested
by the well-known Christian tradition that connected with that year, made memor-
able by the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, and by the first great massacre
of Christians, many direful portents, such as flames of fire, supernatural voices,
spectres, etc. The step thence to an earthquake in Crete may have been facilitated
by the memory of Nero's precipitate journey to that isle, and by an allusion to a
Cretan earthquake in Philostratos' Life of Apollonios of Tyana (ed. Wester-
mann, IV, 34), while the association therewith of an early history of the Trojan
war may very naturally have been inspired by Nero's pronounced Hellenic predi-
lections (cf. Gudeman, Literary Frauds among the Romans, Transactions of Amer.
Dares and Dictys.
9
literated into Greek' at the emperor's request. According to the
Epistle-which purports to be written by Lucius Septimius, a
Roman, to his friend Quintus Aradius Rufinus-Septimius states
that he has translated the Ephemeris into Latin, retaining the first
five books of his original intact, but condensing the last five,²
which treat of the Return of the Greeks, into one. Similarly
Dares' preface, which likewise consists of a letter-claiming
to be written by Cornelius Nepos to his uncle Sallustius Cris-
pus-informs the reader that while at Athens Nepos discovered
records of the Trojan War written by Dares the Phrygian who
Phil. Assoc., 1894, p. 152). Again the choice of the Cretan Gnossos as the spot
of discovery may well have been dictated by Philostratos' mention of that city as
visited by Apollonios (Life of Apollonios, IV, 34), particularly in view of the fact
that the same author may, in his reference to a consular Rufus in his Life of the
Sophists (I, 19) and in his notably anti-Homeric version of the story of Troy in
the 'Hpwïkós, have supplied other hints to the author of the Dictys-Prologue,
a probability that appears sufficient to justify the use of Philostratos as a starting
point in the determination of the date of the Latin Ephemeris (cf. p. 3, note 2,
and Collilieux, op. cit., p. 64).
¹ Notwithstanding the two readings of the Prologue--“ [Nero] jussit in Graecum
sermonem ista transferri (p. 3, 1. 5)," and "[Dictys] peritus vocis ac litterarum
Phoenicum (1. 2) "--the original Dictys Ms. must be understood to have been
written not in the Phenician language (as stated by Wager, Siege of Troye, 1399,
p. xiv) but in Greek, the characters only having been Phenician (Phoenicis
litteris, Prol., 1. 8, etc.). This interpretation is borne out by the statements in the
Epistle that the language of the original was Greek, nam oratio (in contrast to
litteris, immediately preceding) Graeca fuerat (1. 12), and in Eph. V, 17 where
Dictys makes the following express statement: Haec ego Gnosius Dictys comes
Idomenei conscripsi oratione ea, quam maxime inter tam diversa [sc. Graece]
loquendi genera consequi ac comprehendere potui, litteris Punicis ab Cadmo
Danaoque traditis, where the sense Graece is evident from the following sen-
tence: Neque sit mirum cuiquam, si quamvis Graeci omnes diverso tamen inter se
sermone agunt, cum ne nos quidem unius eiusdem insulae simili lingua sed varia
permixtaque utamur. (Cf. also, the words of a late interpolation in the 'Iwvá
of Eudokia; εὕρητο γεγραμμένον βιβλίον [sc. Εφημερίς] γράμμασι Φοινίκων καὶ
µedepμnveúðŋ év tŷ 'AttikŶ yλwσσŋ, ктλ, vid. infra, p. 24). We must, accordingly,
assume that the Ephemeris of Dictys passed through three distinct processes: (1)
it was originally composed in Phenician characters but in the Greek language (cf.
oratio Graeca fuerat and 'ATTIKŷ yλwooŷ; (2) it was transliterated in Greek char-
acters by Eupraxides (Prol. 1. 20; Praxis, Epis. 1. 12)—the process to which the
in Graecum sermonem of the Prologue evidently refers; and (3) it was afterwards
translated into Latin by Septimius (Epis. 1. 16). Cf. Koerting, Dares and Dictys,
1874, pp. 48 ff.; Havet, Sur les préfaces du Dictys-Septimius, Revue de Philologie,
1879, p. 81.
"The MS. reading is quinque (vid. p. 8, note 1).
10
Dares and Dictys.
fought on the side of the Trojans.¹ These he has translated
into Latin in order that the reader might judge whether Dares,
who actually took part in the war, or Homer, who was not
born until many years afterward,' possesses the better title to
1 ¹A striking contrast exists between the pretensions of Dares and Dictys. Dares,
the Phrygian soldier, fights on the side of the Trojans (Hist., epis. and cap., XXII);
Dictys, the Cretan soldier, on the side of the Greeks (Eph., Prol.). This initial
opposition of interests is, for the most part, consistently carried out in the two his-
tories. Thus Dares represents the Trojans in a favorable light. Paris does not-
as in Dictys (I, 3)—abduct Helen from the home of Menelaus, but only from the
temple of Venus at Cytherea, and not without her full consent (cap. x); Alexan-
der, moreover, is not-as in Dictys (II, 39)—a coward: he kills Antilochus (cap.
XXIXV), and wounds Menelaus (cap. XXI), Palamedes (cap. XXVIII), Achilles
(cap. XXXIV), and Ajax (cap. xxxv); Troilus-merely mentioned by name in
Dictys (IV, 9)—distinguishes himself in Dares by slaying many Greek leaders (cap.
XXIX), and wounding Diomedes, Agamemnon (cap. xxx1), and Achilles (cap.
XXXIII). In Dictys, on the other hand, interest centers chiefly about the Greeks.
Palamedes-mentioned very casually by Dares (cap. XIII, XXV)-is by Dictys
endowed with all sorts of virtues (I, 6; II, 15; V, 15). Idomineus and Meriones,
the author's immediate superiors-each mentioned and described only to be killed
by Dares (cap. XII, XIV, XIX, XXIV)-play in Dictys conspicuous and honorable
rôles (II, 19, 38; IV, 7; V, 10). Ajax Telamon-who nowhere distinguishes
himself in Dares—is by Dictys repeatedly celebrated as the bravest and most illus-
trious of the Greeks (II, 3, 12, 48; III, 10; IV, 11 et passim).
Conversely both historians reveal their partisan prejudice by representing their
opponents in an unfavorable light. Dictys stigmatizes the Trojans with the stand-
ing epithet barbarians (II, 38, 40; III, 10), and represents them as coming
forth to battle sine modo atque ordine (II, 38), and clamore ingenti ac dissono (IV, 5);
Priam's sons he represents as turbulent and treacherous (I, 7, 11; II, 8, 22, 35, 41,
etc.), and as provoking by their insolence the Trojan allies to revolt (III, 1) and
offer the Greeks a proposal of friendship which is disdainfully rejected (III, 3).
In Dares on the contrary, the fall of Troy is represented as in no sense due to the
wiles of Ulysses or to the machinations of Sinon (Eph., V. 12), but solely to
the treacherous defection of Antenor and Aeneas (cap. XXXIX); the Greeks,
though ultimately victorious, are forced to sue for peace seven times, the Trojans
but three times; the total Greek slain is 886,000, the Trojan slain but 676,000
(cap. XLIV).
The occasional instances of an attitude of apparent hostility on the part of each
historian to members of his own party (e. g. to Achilles on the part of Dictys; to
Antenor and Aeneas on the part of Dares) are to be attributed to a common spirit
of antagonism to Homer (vid. p. 13, note 2).
2 Writers of pre-Homeric forgeries are at constant pains to emphasize the priority
and superior authenticity of their own documents as contrasted with the subsequent
records of Homer, based, at best, upon indirect sources of information. Thus,
the curious statement that Homer "wrote his Iliad ninety-nine years after the
Trojan war" occurs in a marginal note to Kedrenos' (eleventh century) version
Dares and Dictys.
11
veracity;¹ for Homer was afterwards tried at Athens for repre-
senting the gods as fighting with men.2
The ingenious pretensions thus set forth in these two prefaces
of Dictys' annals, Zúvoyis iσropiŵv (see Allatius, op. cit. p. 1774). In like manner
Philostratos in his 'Hpwïkós (ed. Westermann, XIX, 3) reports varying accounts of
the period that elapsed between the Trojan war and the composition of the Iliad.
Similarly the twelfth century Benoit de Ste-More (Roman de Troie, ed. Joly, vs.
53–55), and the thirteenth century Jean de la Maire des Belges (Illust. de Gaul
chap. 19), prefer Dares and Dictys to Homer who did not live until one hundred
years after the occurrence of the events which he relates. Again Malalas, sixth
century (Xpovoypapía, ed. Dindorf, p. 132, ll. 19 ff.), and Tzetzes (Xiλiáões, ed.
Kiessling, V, 29, 30), concur in the statement that the pre-Homeric memoirs
written by Dictys and Sisyphos of Cos (vid. p. 14, note 1) were afterwards used
by Homer and Virgil. Finally Ptolemaios Chennos (first century) reports in the
fifth book of his Kaiǹ iσropía (according to the excerpts of Photios) that Homer
obtained from the Memphian priest, Phanitas, an Iliad written by Phantasia,
daughter of Nicargos, king of Memphis.
¹ Medieval writers are ever fond of contrasting the strict veracity of Dares and
Dictys with the mendacious fictions of Homer. Thus Constantine Manasses in his
Zúvoyis iσTopikń (ed. Bekker, p. 23) writes that Homer used good documents,
but usually misrepresented the facts: Albertus Stadensis (thirteenth century)
censures Homer's fiction of the cloud-born steeds of Dolon and Rhesos (Troilus,
lib. III, vv. 217 sqq.) and commends the truthfulness of Dares, Qui praeter
verum scriptitat inde nil (lib. III, v. 240); and Guido de Colonna (thirteenth
century) in his Historia Trojano accuses Homer of taking liberties with the faith-
ful record of Dares as follows:
[Daretis] historic puram et simplicem veritatem in versuta vestigia [Homerus]
variauit, fingens multa que non fuerunt, et que fuerunt aliter transformando
(Hist. Troj., Strasburg, 1486, p. 1ª, 36 ff.
2 This strange charge-an apparent perpetuation of the Platonic charges against
Homer, cf. Joly, op. cit., I, 167—occurs also in Philostratos' 'Hpwïkós, a pro-
longed diatribe against Homer, in which the author reproves the Greek poet for
mixing fiction with fact and, in particular, for representing the gods as interven-
ing in human affairs (ed. Westermann, cap. III, 40; a passage that may be regarded
as sustaining at least an indirect relation to the passage in question). Later,
medieval writers are fond of repeating this accusation, as, for example, Guido de
Colonna, who writes of Homer: Introduxit, enim, deos, quos coluit antiqua gen-
tilitas, impugnasse Troianos et cum eis fuisse velut virientes homines debellatos
(op. cit., p. 1ª, 29-16, 2). Charges against Homer of a like purport occur fre-
quently in the works of Alexandrian and post-Alexandrian writers, being often put
forward as an excuse for re-writing the history of the war from a new point of
view, or, as in the case of Dio Chrysostomos (first to second century), Orat., XI,
as an occasion for proving that there never had been any Trojan war, and con-
structing a new tale of what the war would have been had there been any (vid.
Chassang, p. 348).
12
Dares and Dictys.
meet no contradition in the narratives that ensue. Both histories
present such scrupulous attention to deal as would seem to befit
the records of eye-witnesses. Dictys declares that he learned the
events prior to the outbreak of the war from the lips of Ulysses
(Eph. lib. I, cap. 13), the events of the war itself from personal
experience (Eph., I, 13), the events subsequent to the war from
Ulysses (Eph., VI, 5), Menelaus (Eph., VI, 3), and Neoptolemus
(Eph., VI, 10).¹ In like manner Dares became acquainted with
the personal appearance of the Greeks and Trojans partly from
personal experience and partly from the reports of the Greeks
(Historia, cap. XII). These representations are given a further
semblance of reality by the careful suppression of all particulars
that could have fallen neither under the observation of Dares and
Dictys nor of their informants, by the practically total elimination
1
3
4
2
Dictys lays great stress upon the precise occasion of his interviews with Ulysses,
Menelaus, and Neoptolemus. Ulysses he met not only on the field of battle (Eph.
I, 13) but also afterwards, in Crete, where that warrior suffered shipwreck (VI, 5),
as did also Menelaus (VI, 3, 4). On the former occasion he naturally learned from
Odysseus the events prior to the war, and on the latter, both from Odysseus and
Menelaus, the history of events subsequent thereto. Finally when attending the
nuptials of his third informant, Neoptolemus, he learns the history of the Return
of the Greeks (Nóσтoi), VI, 10. Finally-as though to make the record of his
life complete-Dictys adds (VI, 11) that in the year following his attendance at
the nuptials of Neoptolemus, he was sent to Delphi, in company with Lykophron
and Ixaius, to seek relief from a pestilence of locusts in Crete.
2 Dares-unlike Dictys-invariably introduces himself in the third person. Cf.
"Dares Phrygius, qui hanc historiam scripsit, ait. . . . hos se vidisse," sqq. (cap.
XII) with "
eorum [sc. Idomenei et Merionis] ego secutus comitatum ea quidem,
quae ante apud Troiam gesta sunt, ab Ulixe cognita quam diligentissime retuli,
sqq." (I, 13).
3 Dares states also that after the capture of Troy he remained in the city with the
faction of Antenor (cap. XLIV)—a circumstance that would sufficiently explain
his knowledge of the final overthrow of the city, the number slain on each side,
and the final disposition of the Trojan prisoners (as related cap. XLIV).
* Strictly interpreted, this statement can be held to apply only to the events of
the war.
Thus Dictys and-to a far greater degree-Dares allow themselves the
liberty of introducing such past events as, having occurred prior to the war,
may be regarded as already familiar to the authors through hearsay and common
report. Thus Dictys introduces the Rape of Helen, an event witnessed neither by
himself nor his informants, but of such immediate note as to require no special
authentication, and Dares even permits himself the latitude of introducing such
remote events as the Expedition of the Argonauts, the Destruction of Troy by
Dares and Dictys.
13
of all miraculous and supernatural agencies,¹ and by the display
of an apparently honest attempt to retrieve the reputation of
heroes unduly neglected by Homer.²
Hercules and the embassy of Antenor to Greece-events which, in the nature of
the case, could have fallen neither under his observation nor that of his informants
and which, for that reason, must be regarded as depriving Dares' history of that
degree of ocular consistency that is to be found in Dictys.
1 Dares shows himself a thoroughgoing rationalist and admits no supernatural
agencies whatsoever; Dictys is less extreme in this regard and so far compromises
with ancient tradition as not infrequently to offer the reader a choice between a
literal and figurative interpretation of supernatural occurrences. He thus leaves
it uncertain whether the pestilence that visited the Greek fleet at Aulis was due to
the wrath of Diana or to the infection of the air by dead bodies (I, 19), and offers
three different explanations for the sudden disappearance of Himera (VI, 10).
Incidents of a purely mythologicial import he sometimes omits altogether (e. g.,
the Apple of Discord and Judgment of Paris, retained in the Byzantine versions
of Dictys) or, more often, retains divested of their supernatural character (e. g.
Hecuba, about to give birth to Alexander, dreams not of a burning fire-brand, but
of the burning of Mt. Ida, III, 26; at the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, the latter
is no longer a goddess, bnt a mortal, the daughter of Chiron, who is not a centaur,
but a man, VI, 7). As though in recompense for the loss of the supernatural
machinery of the ancient epos, both histories contain such bits of crass realism as
might be supposed to pique the curiosity of the reader without impugning the
credit of the historian. Thus, in Dictys, Chryses eventually restores his daughter
to Agamemnon because the Greeks have treated her so well (II, 47); the lamenta-
tions of the Trojans at the death of Hector are so great that birds fall to earth in
multitudes (III, 16). In Dares, Helen has a shapely leg and a beauty spot
between the eye-lids (cap. XII); the Wooden Horse of antiquity becomes a horse's
head painted on the Scaean gate (cap. XL).
2 Dares and Dictys turn the tables upon Homer by exalting the subordinate and
slighting the principal Homeric personages. The first process is conspicuously
illustrated in Dictys by the prominence assigned Palamedes-not mentioned by
Homer who is endowed with all sorts of virtues (I, 6; II, 15; V, 15), is sent
with Ulysses and Menelaus as embassador to Troy (I, 4) and, on one occasion,
supplants Agamemnon in command (I, 19); and in Dares, by the importance
accorded Troilus-mentioned but once by Homer, Il. w, 257-whose manifold acts
of bravery are repeatedly recorded (XXXII, XXXIII). The second process is seen
in the ill-treatment that the more prominent Homeric heroes, Achilles, Ulysses, and
Agamemnon, receive at the hands of Dares, who slights them, and of Dictys, who
represents the first as uniformly treacherous (III, 15; IV, 10), the second as loud-
mouthed and empty-headed (I, 21; II, 15), and the third as selfish and prone to
suspicion and jealously (II, 7, 15).
To reverse thus the fates of Homeric characters was a favorite device of that
class of late writers which--as we have already seen (p. 11, note 1) sought to
belittle the authority of Homer. Among the lesser Homeric figures selected by
these writers for special encomium one of the chief appears to have been Pala-
14
Dares and Dictys.
By this resort to a species of literary imposture much in vogue
at the time,' Dares and Dictys soon acquired a high reputation for
medes. Thus Suidas, in his Lexicon (sub Palamedes), states that that hero com-
posed a poem on the Trojan war that was afterwards rejected from spite by Homer
and Agamemnon's descendants. Philostratos in his 'Hpwïkós objects that Odysseus'
wanderings were not due to his ill-usage of Polyphemos but to his hand in the
death of Palamedes; and, as we have already seen, Palamedes figures conspicuously,
not only in Dictys but also in the later Byzantine versions of Dictys (vid. p. 8,
note 2). No writer whose works survive proceeded further in the general upset-
ting of Homeric relationships than Philostratos (cf. p. 11, note 1) in whose
romance, the 'Hpwïkós, the shade of Prothesilaus-mentioned in Homer but once,
Il., ß, 698—appears as protagonist, and in a secret disclosure to a vine-dresser
of Eleös, vindicates the merits of a number of heroes from the neglect to
which they have been consigned by Homer (cf. Chassang, Hist. du Roman dans
l'Antiquité., pp. 347 ff). The source of this redistribution of literary justice-
though not capable, perhaps, of exact determination-appears to have been but
one leading manifestation of a traditional antipathy to Homer that finds expression
as early as the fifth century, B. C., in the anti-Homeric diatribes of Xenophones of
Kolophon and of Zoilos, surnamed ‘Oµnpoµáorię (see Christ, Griech. Litteratur-
geschichte, Mueller, Handbuch, VII, 68: 1905), and later in the lost 'Aveóµnpos
(in 24 books) of Ptolemaios Chennos, c. 100 A. D. (see Chassang, op. cit., p. 372;
Christ, p. 649)' and finally, in allegorical form, in the 'Oµnpikà Entýμata of Porphy-
rios of the third century (Christ, p. 861). By reason of the loss of all save the
last of these four works, it becomes impossible to say to what extent a reapportion-
ment of praise or blame was carried amongst Homeric characters; but if the
ascription of an encomium of Palamendes to the sophist Gorgias be correct (see
Christ, p. 284), this practice will be led back to the fifth century, B. C. It is to
be observed that with whatever animus these Homeriec objections may have been
attended, they soon sunk to the conventional harmlessness of a purely rhetorical
tour de force undertaken by their practitioners as a valuable exercise in dialectics,
and afterwards adopted by the romancers Philostratos, Dictys, and Dares, largely
as a means of adding piquancy to their narratives. It goes without saying, how-
ever, that the medieval redactors of Dares and Dictys interpreted these represen-
tations seriously, repudiated Homer, and converted a practice hitherto undertaken
for the most part without feeling into something of the spite and rancor of a
genuine literary polemic.
1 The fiction of ancient MSS. found in tombs, or otherwise miraculously preserved,
though employed by literary fabricators at all ages of the world, appears to have
been particularly current in the period of the decline of Greek letters (cf. the
alleged inscriptional authentication claimed by Euhemeros for the marvels related
in his Sacred History, and the claim of Antonios Diogenes that the records of
Dinias, the hero of his History of the Wonders of Thule, written upon two
tablets of cypress wood were afterwards discovered in the grave of the author by
Alexander when he conquered Tyre), and to have been derived from some Greek
exemplar by the authors of the Dares and Dictys prefaces (the Nepos of the
Dares-epistle stating merely that his Ms. was found in an Athenian library), whence
Dares and Dictys.
15
disinterestedness and good faith. Henceforth Homer became
virtually set aside¹ and the specious memories of a Dares and
Dictys substituted as more trustworthy records of the Trojan
War. Throughout the Middle Ages, faith in these popular idols
2
it later passed into medieval practice (cf. story of the preservation of the gospel
of St. Matthew, p. 1, note 3, and the story of the soi-disant translator of a trea-
tise, De Vetula, said to have been found in the tomb of Ovid in Colchis, and other
close parallels to the Dictys' story cited by Joly, I, 198). Associated no doubt with
the story of long-lost MSS. in more cases than the two under consideration was
a still more prevalent fiction-applied with particular frequency to ante-Homeric
records of the Trojan war—of fathering anonymous histories of this sort upon
imaginary persons, represented in many cases as having been actual participants
in the war in question. Thus Dares and Dictys-whose annals are the only ones
of this genre that survive—are only the most noted of a number of other supposi-
titious annalists of the Trojan war; e. g., Sisyphos of Cos (who, according to
Malalas and Tzetzes, vid. infra, p. 62, was a scribe in the employ of the Salaminian
Teucer), Korinonos the Ilian (who, according to Suidas, served Palamedes in the
like capacity), Pheidalios of Corinth (also mentioned by Malalas), and Antipater
the Acanthian (cited by Ptolemaios Chennos, as a source of much fabulous infor-
mation with regard to the Trojan war; cf. Hercher, Jahrb. f. Philol., Suppl., I.
269 ff.). It is here to be noted that the foregoing names are invariably
Greek, a circumstance that will have an obvious bearing upon the investigation
of the sources of Dares and Dictys.
¹ The well-nigh complete annihilation of Homeric authority during the ten cen-
turies that intervened between the appearance of our two forgeries and the publi-
cation of Chapman's Iliad constitutes one of the most significant chapters in the
literary history of the Middle Ages. Boccaccio, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Dry-
den extract their Trojan materials not from Homer but from Dares and Dictys,
and in their versions of the Troilus and Cressida immortalize a fable unknown to
classical tradition.
2 As regards their respective spheres of influence, Dictys enjoyed a wider circu-
lation in the East, Dares in the West. The reason is obvious, Dictys with his
Greek sympathies and his less radical departure from ancient tradition became the
natural spokesman of the East, where Greek influence prevailed; Dares with his
Trojan sympathies and his more pronounced break with Homeric tradition, became
the natural spokesman of the Western nations, who, as is well-known, claimed
descent from the house of Priam (cf. C. Wager, op. cit., Introd., pp. xI, ff.). In
the East Dares remained until a late date virtually unknown, and the Byzantine
chroniclers (Malalas, etc.) derived their Trojan histories from Dictys exclusively.
In the West both were known, but Dares was invariably accorded the preference.
Thus Western writers either follow Dares to the practical exclusion of Dictys (e. g.
Joseph of Exeter, Albert of Stade, and the author of the anonymous Trojumanna
Saga), or—as in the majority of cases--base the earlier portion of their histories
upon Dares and employ Dictys (where Dares ends) only by way of supplement or
continuation (e. g. Benoit de Ste.-More, Guido de Colonna, Herbert von Fritzlar).
16
Dares and Dictys.
was unbounded and entire.¹ The names Dares and Dictys-
particularly the former-appear frequently in various medieval
romances upon other than Trojan subjects; inscriptions are dedi-
cated to both by Chaucer in his Hous of Fame, v. 1467; and
from both histories—through the medium of Benoit or Guido-
Chaucer derives the substance of his Troylus and Creseyde,
Lydgate of his Troy-Book, and Caxton of his Recuyell of the
Historyes of Troy. Faith in the authenticity of records that
had thus received permanent embodiment in the literature of the
Middle ages was not lightly abandoned in the period that followed.
The sixteenth century remains, for the most part, firm in its alle-
giance to Dares and Dictys.2 Sir Philip Sidney in his Apologie
for Poetrie (1595) contrasts with the feigned Aeneas of Virgil
the right [real] Aeneas of Dares Phrygius, and, at the turn of
the century, despite the previous appearance of Chapman's Iliad
(1598), it is the old tradition to which Shakespeare reverts and
gives final literary expression in his Troilus and Cressida (1603).
So too in the seventeenth century, in spite of a growing scepti-
cism, critics are not wanting who still believe in the pre-Homeric
1 François Faragonius in the preface of his 1499 edition of Dictys expresses his
delight in publishing the work of as famous an historian as Dictys, Dictyn lucu-
lentum historiographum (vid. op. cit. Collilieux, p. 16): an Italian translator
of Dares and Dictys, Tomaso Porcacchi (1578), places them at the forefront of
authors to be read for profit, viz., before Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, etc.,
and regards them as the first and chief link in the chain of Greek historians (see
Joly, I, 176).
2 Despite an occasional voice of dissent (e. g. Louis Vives, De trad. discipl., V,
p. 125 of ed. of 1636; Wilhelm Xylander, Annot. in Cedrenum (1565), para. 67;
Joseph Scaliger, 1600, Epistol. libri II, epis. cxv), the general opinion, as handed
down by lexicographers, etc. (e. g. Conrad Gessner in his Bibliotheca Universalis,
1545, sub. Dictys, and Glandorp in his Onomasticon, 1589, sub. Cornelius Nepos),
still remains favorable to the pretensions of Dares and Dictys. In works of criti-
cal scholarship both are admitted on a basis of equality with the classics ; Jehan
Samxon reproduces portions of each in his sequences of the Iliad (1530), and
Nicholas Viquier cites them constantly in his Bibliothèque Historiale, I, 126, 128,
134, 135, etc. (1587). But before the verdict of such enlightened critics as the
three mentioned above, medieval infatuation was doomed to yield and the por-
tentous verdict of Vives, who regarded the two histories as figmenta eorum
qui de bello famosissimo voluerunt ludere," became the general rallying cry of
critics of the seventeenth century. Vid. Collilieux, op. cit., pp. 21-3.
³ Apologie for Poetrie, ed. Arber, 1868, p. 36.
66
Dares and Dictys.
17
antiquity of these records. Leo Allatius in De Patria Homeri,
(1640), in Gronovius, Thesaurus, X, p. 1745, has no doubt of
their genuineness, and J. Vossius in Hist. Graec., III, 428 (1624)
appends to a list of documents reputedly pre-Homeric no personal
disavowal, but contents himself with a casual allusion to the earlier
verdict of Vives, that these documents were "figmenta eorum qui de
bello famosissimo voluerunt ludere." (Cf. note 3.) A final act of
homage is, in this century, accorded these histories by their inclu-
sion in the famous Delphin edition of the classics (1680). It was,
in fact, not until the opening of the eighteenth century that preten-
sions so long maintained at last met thoroughgoing repudiation at
the hands of Perizonius who, in his dissertation prefixed to the
1702 edition of the Delphin classics, by proofs too definitive to
admit further hesitation, removed for all time the last vestiges of
this peculiar veneration.
Henceforth it became clear that an initial suspicion must neces-
sarily attach to the claim of translation from the Greek, maintained
by Septimius and Nepos in their respective epistles, as being the
assertion of writers who may themselves have been the authors
of the records that they so blandly ascribe to Dares and Dictys.
Whether the authors of these epistles are to be looked upon as
the actual perpetrators of the Dares and Dictys forgeries or
as the mere translators of these Latin texts from earlier Greek
originals is, accordingly, the question to which we must now
proceed.
Inasmuch as the histories of Dares and Dictys differ widely
in style, matter, and traditional affiliations, it will be necessary to
discuss the question of the origin of each separately.
II. THE ORIGIN OF DICTYS.
It will be the purpose of the present inquiry to show that
the Latin Ephemeris of Dictys¹ does not, as many critics have
supposed, represent the original form of Dictys' annals, but
¹ The earliest extant version of Dictys' annals.
18
Dares and Dictys.
that it is the translation of a Greek 2 prototype,³ now no longer
extant.4
2 That a Greek, not a Latin, prototype is to be assumed, is obvious not only from
Septimius' own statement that he has translated his history from the Greek, but
also from the fact that, with the single exception of the Ephemeris, all surviving
versions of Dictys' annals are written in Greek (cf. infra, note 4).
³ Since the abandonment in the seventeenth century of the old faith in the
antiquity of Dictys' records (vid. supra, pp. 16, 17), two rival theories have
been advanced in explanation of their origin. One theory maintains that
Dictys' annals never existed in a form other than the Latin Ephemeris; the other
theory holds that the Latin Ephemeris is, as Septimius claims in his epistle, the
translation of an earlier Greek prototype. The theory that a Greek original
underlies the Latin text of Septimius is based upon the following grounds. (1)
Numerous marked differences in the terms in which Septimius and certain
later Byzantine writers refer to Dictys (vid. pp. 29 ff). (2) Pronounced variations
between the Latin Ephemeris and a group of later Byzantine versions of Dictys'
annals (vid. pp. 34 ff.). (3) The presence in the Ephemeris of frequent internal
indications of Greek origin: e. g., the theme of the Ephemeris (a history of the
Trojan War), its underlying conception (as the alleged records of an eye-witness),
its sources (in large part Greek), and its exhibition of occasional Greek names
and phrases (vid. p. 116). On the other hand, in view of certain characteristics of
the Ephemeris, and of the undeniably close relationship which that text sustains to
the Byzantine versions of Dictys, many scholars have been led to the opposite conclu-
sion, viz. that the Latin Ephemeris represents the original form of Dictys' memoirs.
Chief among these characteristics are the following. (1) The fundamental agree-
ment, in all essential particulars, in the mode of Dictys-citation employed by Sep-
timius and the Byzantines (vid. p. 28). (2) The basic resemblance between the
Latin Ephemeris and the Dictys-annals of the Byzantines (vid. pp. 37 ff.). (3) The
presence in the Ephemeris of unmistakable instances of a stylistic imitation of
Sallust, Virgil, and other Latin authors (vid. pp. 113 ff.).
By reason of the apparently equivocal nature of the evidence at hand and the
absence of any final and definitive test, the question whether the history of Dictys
* Although a number of Greek versions of Dictys-annals date from a period
subsequent to the composition of the Latin Ephemeris (vid. p. 34), no earlier Greek
Dictys has ever been found or positively known to exist. The fifteenth century
Constantine Lascaris expressly states that he has searched for such a мs. in vain
(quoted Allatius, op. cit. p. 1745). We accordingly assume that the lost Dictys
original, after its translation by Septimius, shared the fate of many other Greek
monuments (cf. in particular, the lost life of Alexander by the pseudo-Callis-
thenes), and perished in the general wreck of ancient civilization in the early
centuries of our era. To such a catastrophe it may have been rendered the more
liable by reason of its previous reproduction in the translation of Septimius and
in the transcriptions of the Byzantines (cf., again, the pseudo-Callisthenes,
which survives only in the Latin epitome of Julius Valerius). Vid. Koerting, op.
cit., pp. 45, 54.
Dares and Dictys.
19
All attempts to determine whether the Latin Ephemeris depends
upon a Greek original have been based fundamentally upon the
is to be accredited to a Latin or to a Greek author has proved one of the most
stubborn and hotly contested controversies known to modern critical history. It
may, accordingly, not be without interest to trace the leading stages of this dis-
cussion from the outset, the more so as a more lively sense will thereby be gained
of the nature and scope of the problem under consideration.
The radical opposition of opinion which has prevailed from the beginning with
regard to the origin of the Latin Ephemeris finds apt illustration in the antago-
nistic judgments handed down by the early Dictys controversialist Vossius, who in
his De Hist. Graec. III, 428 (1624) speaks out for the Greek Dictys, but in his
De Hist. Lat. III, 742 (1627) is led by further investigation to reverse his earlier
opinion in the oft-quoted words: "Quisquis auctor est ejus operis, Latine, non
Graece scripsit." From that day to this, the history of critical opinion upon this
question presents a perpetual series of alternations between the two extremes here
indicated.
In general, the opinion of the earliest (seventeenth century) commentators
reveals a marked reaction from the earlier faith in the Greek Dictys of pre-
Homeric times, and a consequent tendency to discern in the indubitable indications
in the Ephemeris of stylistic imitation of Sallust, Virgil, etc., positive evidence
that the memoirs of Dictys never existed in any other than Latin form. So judged
Mercerus, who wrote in his 1618 edition of Dictys, note to Eph. IV, 21: "Multa
indicia sunt Latine scripsisse nostrum, non ex Graeco vertisse"; James Rut-
gersius (1618), Vossius (1627), loc. cit.; Scioppius (1628), Parad. Var. lect.
lib. V, 220; Bachet de Mézeriac (1636), epis. of Ovid I, 4, 57; and Madame
Dacier (1680), ed. of Dictys, note to IV, 21. As regards the relation between
Septimius and the Byzantine versions of Dictys, it is of interest to note that these
critics either disregard these Byzantine versions altogether, or, as in the case of
the Dictys-editors Mercerus and Dacier, regard the discrepancy between the
account of Oenone's death given in the Ephemeris, according to which she died of
a broken heart (Eph. IV, 21), and the account attributed to Dictys by Tzetzes (loc.
cit. infra, p. 43, note 1), according to which she hung herself, as evidence that the
annals of Dictys consulted by Tzetzes and the Byzantines sprang from a tradition
separate and distinct from that of which the Roman Septimius afterwards became the
author. In the meantime, Jaspar Barth (1624), Advers XIV, 13; LVII, 20, by
his recognition at once of the essential connection between Septimius and the
Byzantine versions of Dictys, and of the impossibility of their derivation from a
Latin original, paved the way for the first promulgation of the theory of a Greek
Dictys. Nevertheless, Barth failed to press his observations to their logical con-
clusion, and remained so far true to the prevailing opinion of his day as to propose
the curious hypothesis that the numerous agreements between the Latin and
Byzantine texts were due to the use of a Greek translation of the Ephemeris by
the Byzantines.
At length, in the last decade of the seventeenth century, appeared the first rever-
sion from the view that the Ephemeris was originally composed in Latin and the
earliest enunciation of the theory of the existence of a Greek Dictys. Ulrich
20
Dares and Dictys.
three following grounds: (1) later Byzantine references to Dictys
and their presumable relation to the Dictys mentioned in the Latin
Obrecht in his 1691 edition of Dictys advanced the view (reprinted in Valpy,
Script. Lat. I, 601) that the basic resemblance between Septimius and the Byzan-
tines was due to the independent derivation of each from a common Greek proto-
type. Henceforth the new opinion, presented without especial defence by Obrecht,
was successively accepted and defended by Fabricius (1697), Biblio. Graec. I, 30
ff. (reprinted by Valpy, op. cit., II, 637 ff.); Perizonius (1702), dissertation on
Dictys (reprinted from Smidt's ed. of Dictys by Valpy, I, 19 ff.); and Dederich
(1837), ed. of Dictys, praef. pp. xxi-xxii, with the result that the theory that the
Ephemeris goes back to a Greek original was accepted without hesitation by the
various literary historians of the earlier portion of the nineteenth century: viz.
Dunlop (1816), Hist. of Fiction, II, 111; Schoell (1830), Gesch. d. griech. Lit.
II, 382; Bernhardy (1842), Pauly, Realencycl. II, 1006 ff.; Cholevius (1856),
Die Gesch. d. deut. Poesie nach ihren antiken Elementen I, 109 ff.; and
Chassang (1862), Hist. du Roman dans l'Antiquité, 362 ff. To the above men-
tioned critics, Fabricius, Perizonius, and Dederich, as to their earlier seventeenth
century opponents, the relation between Septimius and the Byzantine annals of
Dictys appeared less a matter of concern than such direct evidence as to the origin
of the Latin Ephemeris as lay at hand in the internal structure of that text itself.
Thus to the old contention, that the style of the Ephemeris reveals Latin author-
ship, the critics of the new school oppose the contrary evidence of subject-matter,
which, as drawn, for the most part, from Greek sources, speaks much more incon-
testably for the Greek authorship of the Ephemeris. For it is certainly much
more natural to suppose that a Latin translator found already woven into a Greek
original the varied strands of Greek legend upon which he afterwards embroiders
his tissue of Latin phrases than to imagine that a Latin author should have taken
the pains to ransack the annals of Greek literature for those materials which were
to supply, at best, merely the coarser fabric of his handiwork. As a result of
these new arguments, stated most cogently and exhaustively by Perizonius in 1702,
the view that the Latin Ephemeris depended upon an earlier Greek original gained
for more than a century and a half the unqualified assent of critics and seemed
likely to become the settled verdict of the future.
At length, however, a sudden and unexpected return by Dunger (1869), Die
Sage vom troj. Kriege, pp. 17 ff., to the old view of the originality of the Ephem-
eris reopened the whole problem to fresh discussion, and inaugurated, at least in
all that pertains to the relation between Septimius and the Byzantines, a new and
more productive era in the history of the Dictys-controversy. Dunger's opinion,
though stoutly assailed by Koerting (1874), Dares und Dictys, pp. 1–65; Ebert
(1874), Jenaer litt. Zeitung, No. 256, and (1889) Gesch. d. lat. Litt. im Mittelalter,
I, 574; Mommsen (1876), Zu Dictys, Hermes X, 383 ff.; and Wilamowitz, Hom.
Untersuch. CXCII, 34, was eagerly espoused and ingeniously defended with a vari-
ety of fresh arguments by Joly (1870), Benoit de Ste. More I, 184–201; Meister
(1872), ed. of Dictys, præf. pp. vii ff. (and his anonymous reviewers, Philol.
Anz. V, 1873, 364 ff. and 553 ff.); Pratje (1874), Quæstiones Sallustianæ;
Havet (1878), Sur le date du Dictys de Sept, Revue de Phil. II, 238 ff, and
(1879) Sur les préfaces du Dictys, Rev. de Phil., III, 81, ff.; Wagener
Dares and Dictys.
21
text; (2) Byzantine versions of Dictys' annals and the similar
question of their relation to the Ephemeris; and (3) the internal
(1879), Beit. zu Dares Phrygius, Philol. XXXVIII, 108 ff., and (1880),
Zu Dictys, Jahrb. f. Phil. CXXI, 509 ff.; Haupt (1881), Dares, Malalas und
Sisyphos, Philol. XL, 107 ff., and (1884), Zu Jordanes und Dictys, Philol.
XLIII, 546; Brünnert (1883), Sallust und Dictys Cretensis (and his reviewer
Schmalz, 1883, Berl. phil. Wochenschrift, pp. 613 ff.); Greif (1885), Die mittel-
alt. Bearb. d. Trojanersage, Vorrede, pp. vii ff., and (1886) Fortzetzung [zu
derselben], Stengel, Ausgabe u. Abhandl. LXI, pp. 173 ff.; Collilieux (1886),
Étude sur Dares et Dictys, passim (and his reviewers, Dunger, 1887, Berl. Phil.
Wochenschrift, pp. 505 ff., and Duvau, 1888, Rev. crit. XXV, 458 ff.); and ably
reiterated and reinforced by Dunger himself in his Dictys-Septimius, 1878 (to
the full satisfaction of his reviewers, Meister, 1878, Litt. Centralbl., 648 ff.;
Ludwig, 1879, Gröber's Zs. f. röm. Phil. III, 107; Haupt, 1880, Philol. Anz.
VI, 76 ff.; and Peiper, 1880, Anz. f. deut. Alterth. VI, 76 ff., who severally
regard the contrary contention of Koerting, etc., as finally disposed of), and, again
and lastly, by the same author, in his De Dictye-Septimio Virgilii imitatore
(1886). These new champions of the Latin authorship of the Ephemeris, though
still at one with their seventeenth century predecessors in the importance they
attach to the argument drawn from stylistic imitation by Septimius of earlier Latin
models, represent, in their general recognition of the clear and intimate relation-
ship between Septimius and the Byzantine versions of Dictys, a significant advance
upon their less informed precursors. The resemblance of the Byzantine annals of
Dictys to Septimius is, they allege, too close (amounting at times to verbal agree-
ment, vid. infra, pp. 40, 41), and their acquaintance with Latin literature in gen-
eral, and with the Latin Ephemeris in particular, too well attested, alike by
their use and citation of Latin words and authors (vid. pp. 105 ff.), and by the
specific allusion of Eudokia to Septimius (vid. p. 24, note 2), to permit any
further doubt that the Dictys to whom they refer and whose memoirs they repro-
duce is none other than the author whose name and annals were invented by
Septimius. As regards, however, the account to be taken of various passages in
which, as already stated, the Byzantine annalists vary from Septimius, and vary
to the extent that they not infrequently introduce additional episodes (in particular
those that rest upon the authority of Sisyphos), the critics under consideration are by
no means agreed. Dunger attributes the Sisyphos and other peculiarly Byzantine
additions, in part to the deliberate invention of the Byzantines, in part to the influ-
ence of current tradition; Haupt, Wagener, and Greif, to the supplementary use by
the Byzantines of the forged annals of Sisyphos and other works of even more
problematic existence. The weakness inherent in an attempt to explain in such
diverse ways the frequent departures of the Byzantine annals from Septimius was,
for a time, overborne by the numerical preponderance of its projectors, and during
the eighth and ninth decades of the last century, despite an occasional expression
of doubt, as in the case of Lehrs (1878), Wissenschaft. Monatsbl. VI, 131 ff. and
of Schwabe (1890), Teuffel's Röm. Litt. Gesch. II, nr. 423, it was generally
conceded that the advocates of the originality of the Ephemeris had carried their
case.
22
Dares and Dictys.
structure and constitution of the Latin Ephemeris itself: whether
it is such as to argue for or against derivation from a Greek
prototype.
It was, however, not long before a growing sense of the inadequacy of the hypoth-
esis that the Latin Ephemeris was the primary source of the Dictys-annals of the
Byzantines led, in the last decade of the nineteenth century, to a far more search-
ing examination than had yet been made of the relation between these versions of
Dictys. In the year 1892, Noack (Der Griech. Dictys, Philol. Suppl., VI, 403
ff.) and Patzig (Dictys Cretensis, Byz. Zs., I, 131 ff.) made the simultaneous dis-
covery (through comparison with the Ekloge and Kedrenos, vid. pp. 45 ff.) that
Malalas' history of the Trojan War, the earliest Byzantine version of Dictys, was,
in its original form, a much longer and more elaborate text than had hitherto been
supposed; indeed that it constantly surpassed the Latin Ephemeris in abundance and
fulness of treatment. Hereby was conclusively demonstrated the falsity of Dunger's
conclusion that Malalas derived his Dictys-records direct from Septimius. For the
Malalas-text that Dunger had compared with Septimius was the much abridged
version of that author contained in the Malalas-excerpt preserved in the Oxford MS.
(cf. p. 45), which agreed in general with the corresponding portions of Septimius,
whereas Noack and Patzig had used a more nearly complete reproduction of the orig-
inal found in the excerpt Ekloge, which presents, as the true text of Malalas, a version
that so frequently exceeds the corresponding portions of the Latin Ephemeris as to
be altogether incapable of derivation therefrom. As the source of this original text of
Malalas (as represented by Ekloge) and of the later Dictys-annals of Kedrenos, which
likewise not infrequently exceed Septimius, Noack and Patzig assume an equally
comprehensive Greek prototype, whence was also derived the more abridged read-
ing in Septimius. Only thus can be explained, they claim, the excess over Septim-
ius of the Byzantine annals of Dictys. But while Noack and Patzig are thus agreed
that Malalas cannot be derived from Septimius, and is to be regarded as the derivative
of a more enlarged Greek Dictys, these critics are by no means agreed as to the
account to be taken of those non-Dictaan episodes in Malalas, for which, as we have
seen, no parallel exists in Septimius, and which bear the name of Sisyphos. In
explanation of the presence in Malalas of this Sisyphos-matter, which is strange to
Kedrenos no less than to Septimius, Patzig posits as the ultimate prototype of all the
existing versions of Dictys, not a Dictys, but a Sisyphos chronicle. From this Sisy-
phos archetype, which also contained, by way of understudy, the annals of Dictys,
Patzig derives, on the one hand, the Trojan annals of Malalas (in which the records
of Sisyphos and Dictys still exist in combination) and, on the other, an hypothetical
Greek Dictys text (in which, as in Septimius and Kedrenos, the Sisyphos records
no longer appear). In extenuation of this improbable hypothesis, Patzig pleads
the fuller compass and greater apparent antiquity of Malalas (in whose annals the
memoirs of Sisyphos still survive) than of Septimius and Kedrenos (in whose
annals they have disappeared). Noack, on the contrary, denies altogether the
existence of a Sisyphos-chronicle, and maintains that the Sisyphos-matter found in
Malalas is to be looked upon merely as a later addition, afterwards grafted upon
the Dictys-chronicle, which he assumes to be the ultimate source of all the later
annals of Dictys. However, notwithstanding their difference of opinion with
Dares and Dictys.
23
(1). BYZANTINE REFERENCES TO DICTYS.
The earliest allusions to Dictys, save those contained in the
Latin Ephemeris, are made by certain early Byzantine writers,
who lived during a period (sixth to eleventh centuries) subsequent
to the date of the composition of the Latin text (fourth century).
These Byzantine writers are Joannes Malalas (sixth century), and
his two excerptors, Isaak Porphyrogenitos (eleventh century) and
Joannes Tzetzes¹ (twelfth century), Joannes Antiochenos (seventh
regard to the origin of Malalas' Sisyphos-material, Noack and Patzig agree funda-
mentally in their main thesis, viz. that a Greek text lay at the basis of the Latin
Ephemeris. From their joint conclusion but one voice of dissent has thus far
been heard. Greif, who, as we have already seen, appeared in 1885 in opposition
to the theory of a Greek Dictys, has, in the latest contribution to the Dictys con-
troversy (Neue Untersuch. zur Dictys- u. Daresfrage, Berlin, 1900), and as though
to demonstrate the futility of all hope that this much vexed question will ever be
settled to the full satisfaction of all, again stepped forth with a futile attempt to prove
that Septimius is alone responsible for the Dictys-annals of the Byzantines. Accord-
ing to Greif, there existed from the outset, as the ultimate source of the Byzantine
versions of Dictys, but one chronicle, namely, a Sisyphos-chronicle. This Sisy-
phos-chronicle, in which Teucer and his scribe Sisyphos figure as the chief centre
of interest (vid. pp. 60 ff.), contained no Dictys-elements whatsoever, and long re-
mained without rival as the only true and representative version of pre-Homeric
annals of the Trojan War. At length, however, a malicious imposter (einer böse
Mensch), Septimius, conceived the possibility of creating, in imitation of Sisyphos,
a replica of that chronicle, in which Idomeneus and his scribe Dictys should act
as protagonists. Finally, so unexpectedly successful was this attempt that, with the
single exception of Malalas, who devotes a few pages to Sisyphos, all the subse-
quent Byzantine annalists of the Trojan War chose Septimius rather than Sisyphos
as their guide. This extraordinary theory merits no particular refutation. We
shall endeavor to point out, in what follows, that not the chronicle of Sisyphos but
of Dictys stands as the primal fountain head of all subsequent versions of
Dictys, and that this Dictys chronicle was not the creation of Septimius, but of an
earlier Greek author, who, though naturally indebted to earlier Greek authors
for his materials, was himself the sole creator of the fiction that bears his name.
¹ As exceptors of Malalas, from whom they derive their Dictys-citations, Isaak
Porphyrogenitos and Tzetzes are naturally not entitled to separate consideration as
giving independent reference to Dictys (vid. p. 35, note 1). Nevertheless,
inasmuch as these two authors not infrequently supply in their correspond-
ing citations fuller particulars with regard to Dictys than occur in the abridged
text of the Oxford Malalas (particulars which may, therefore, be regarded as having
stood, in part or in whole, in the original text of that author, vid. p. 29, note 3), we
shall frequently quote in connection with the Dictys-references of Malalas the
further particulars found in these versions.
24
Dares and Dictys.
century), Archbishop Arethas (tenth century), and Georgias Kedre-
nos (eleventh century). Upon the character of these several Dictys-
citations—all made independently of one another—and upon the
nature of their relation to the Dictys-citations in the Latin Ephe-
meris, will obviously depend the determination of the question
whether the Byzantines derived their knowledge of Dictys from
the Latin text of Septimius or from an earlier Greek Dictys.
Excluding, therefore, as irrelevant to our inquiry, a further list of
late Byzantine references to Dictys, which are now known to be
derived either from Septimius2 (i. e. the Latin Ephemeris) or from
¹ As will appear not only from numerous differences in the terms in which these
writers refer to Dictys (vid. pp. 29 ff.) but, more particularly, from our consid-
eration of the relation which the Dictys-annals of these writers sustain to one
another (vid. pp. 34 ff.).
2 Thus from the Latin Ephemeris are to be derived three late Dictys citations,
formerly believed to be early and consequently adduced, by Joly, Dunger, and
others, as affording direct evidence that the Latin text of Septimius was the only
version of Dictys known to the Byzantine writers under consideration. Of these
three Dictys-citations, two, which contain, the one, an allusion to the Ephemeris
and to Cadmos (cf. Eph., prol. and V, 17): ǹ yoûv karà Kádµov кai Aavaòv yµaμ-
ματικὴ ἐπί τε τῶν Τρωϊκῶν ἀσκεῖτο, ὡς Δίκτυς ἐν ταῖς ᾽Εφημερίσι φησί, and the
other to Septimius: εὕρητο γεγραμμένον βιβλίον γράμμασι Φοινίκων, καὶ μεθερμη-
νεύθη ἐν τῇ 'Αττικῇ γλώττη, πεμφθὲν τῷ βασιλεῖ, οὗ τῷ προστάγματι Σεπτημινός
τις Ρωμαῖος, σοφὸς ἑκατέραν τὴν γλώτταν, εἰς τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν φωνὴν μετήνεγκεν,
were formerly ascribed, the former to Syrianos (fifth century) and the latter to
Eudokia (eleventh century), and consequently adduced, the first by Mercerus,
Opera III, 1274, Florence, (1744), Joly, op. cit. (1870) I, 178, Dunger, op. cit.
(1878), p. 8, and Greif (Neue Untersuch. zur Dictys- u. Daresfrage, 1900, p.
16), and the second by Joly, I, 196, and Dunger, p. 11, as affording direct evi-
dence that the Latin Ephemeris (to which they allude) was the sole source of all
Byzantine allusions to Dictys. That these adductions were incorrect, is now shown
by the fact that neither reference is genuine ; the reference ascribed to Syrianos, and
printed by C. Walz in his edition of Syrianos (Orig. in Hermog., cap. 17, in Rhet.
Græc., IV, 43), being the late interpolation in the faulty text of Syrianos printed by
Walz of a Dictys-reference in place of a quite different reference to IIɩr@eús, which
now stands in the true text of Syrianos, printed from a Venetian мs. by Rabe in his
Teubner edition of Syrianos (1893), II, 7 (cf. Collilieux, op. cit. p. 56), and the
reference attributed to Eudokia, and found in the edition of the Violarium printed
by Flach (Teubner, Leipzic, 1880, p. 221, 13 ff. ), being shown by Pulch (De Eudo-
ciæ quod fertur Violarium, 1880, pp. 54–58) to be a late interpolation by an unknown
hand of a Dictys-reference (derived from Septimius) by Michael Suliardus (fif-
teenth century). Equally without value by reason of its presumably late date, is
a third Dictys-reference which contains an allusion to Cadmos (cf. Eph., prol. and
Dares and Dictys.
25
Malalas,¹ and can, therefore, no longer be adduced 2 as furnishing
additional indication of the source from which the Byzantines derived
their knowledge of Dictys, let us limit our attention to a comparison
with Septimius of the mutually independent citations offered by
the Byzantine writers above mentioned.
All save one of these citations-that, namely, by Arethas-are,
as in the Ephemeris, embedded in actual annals of the Trojan
War. Since, as will shortly appear, more certain conclusions can
V, 17), and to the rhetorical activity of Palamedes (cf. Eph., I, 5, 6): κal yàp
Λίκτυς . . . συγγράψας Φοινίκων γράμμασιν, οἷς Ελληνες τότε ἀπὸ Κάδμου μαθόντες
ἐχρῶντο, δηλός εστιν εἰδέναι τέχνην ῥητορικήν. δημαγοροῦντας γὰρ εἰσάγει τοὺς ἥρωας,
Παλαμήδην ἐκεῖνον καὶ 'Οδυσσέα, κτλ. This Dictys-reference, quoted from the
work of an anonymous rhetorician by Allatius (op. cit., p. 1745), and adduced
by Dunger (op. cit., 1878, p. 10) and Greif (op. cit., 1900, p. 17) as again
attesting early Byzantine acquaintance with the Latin Ephemeris, is clearly
shown by its allusion to the alphabet of Cadmos, found also in the Dictys-
reference in the corrupt text of Syrianos, to be, like the latter, a late extract from
the Ephemeris, made at a period in which MSS. of the Latin text had come to
enjoy abundant circulation.
•
¹ From Malalas are ultimately derived, three later Byzantine citations which
repeat Malalas' incorrect reading Claudius in place of the Nero of the Ephemeris (vid.
p. 26, note 2). Thus from Malalas is derived, through the medium of the Ono-
matologos of Hesychius Milesius (seventh century), (1) an allusion to Dictys by
Suidas (eleventh century), in his Lexicon (sub Δίκτυς): Δίκτυς · ὅτι ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου
τῆς Κρήτης ὑπὸ σεισμοῦ κατενεχθέισης, καὶ πολλῶν τάφων ἀνεωχθέντων, εὑρέθη ἐν
ἐνὶ τούτων τὸ σύνταγμα τῆς Ἱστορίας Δίκτυος . . ὅπερ λαβὼν Κλαύδιος ἐξέδωκε
Ypáþeσðαι (cf. Mal., p. 250, 2 ff., quoted p. 4), and (2) an exact repetition
of the same allusion, quoted from Suidas by Zonaras (twelfth century) in his Lexicon
(ed. Tittmann, I, 507). Ultimately from Malalas (and, possibly, through Tzetzes,
vid. p. 30, note 1) comes (3) an allusion to Dictys by an anonymous chronographer,
quoted by Allatius (op. cit., p. 1743) : "Ομηρος συγγραφὴν εὑρὼν Σισύφου τοῦ Κώου
τὰ ἐς τὴν Τροίαν ἅπαντα συλλαμβάνουσαν συμπαρόντος τῷ πολέμῳ ἐξέθετο τὴν ᾿Ιλιάδα.
ὡσαύτως καὶ Βιργίλιος τὰ λοιπὰ. ἅτινα καί ἐν ταῖς ῥαψῳδίαις Δίκτυος φέρεται, ὅπερ
πόνημα ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου καὶ Νέρωνος εὑρέθη ἐν κασσιτερίνῳ κιβωτίῳ. (cf. the similar
allusions to Sisyphos by Tzetzes, infra p. 30, note 2, and to Claudius by Malalas,
p. 250, 2 ff. ).
2 The earlier attempts of Joly (op. cit. I, 178, 196), Dunger (op. cit., pp. 8,
10, 11), and Greif (op. cit., 1900, pp. 16, 17) to discern in the allusions
to the Latin Ephemeris in the old texts of Syrianos (fifth century) and
Eudokia (eleventh century) evidence of an early Byzantine acquaintance with
the Latin text have, as we have seen, met complete refutation in the recent dis-
covery that both these allusions are the spurious interpolations of a much later
period and written at a time subsequent to the general diffusion of MSS. of the
Latin Dictys (vid. supra, p. 24, note 3).
26
Dares and Dictys.
be drawn from citations thus embodied in Dictys-annals than from
Arethas' citation, which stands alone (in his Scholia to Dio Chrysos-
tomos), it will be best to defer our quotation of the isolated refer-
ence by Arethas until we have first quoted the references contained
in Dictys-annals. Otherwise, we shall quote the above-mentioned
Dictys-references in regular chronological order, as follows: Mala-
las, John of Antioch, Kedrenos, and Arethas.
Ο
ΤΟ
(1) Malalas cites Dictys six times in his Χρονογραφία. Only
two of his citations need concern us at present; they run as follows.
(a). Καθὼς ὁ σοφώτατος Δίκτυς ὁ ἐκ τής Κρήτης ὑπεμνημάτισε
μετὰ ἀληθείας τα προγεγραμμένα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ
Ἴλιον ἐπιστρατευσάντων Ελλήνων. ἦν γὰρ μετὰ τοῦ Ἰδομενέως
τοῦ προμάχου τῶν Δαναῶν τοῦ κατελθόντος εἰς τὸν πόλεμον
ἅμα τοῖς ἄλλοις Αχαιοῖς· συγγραφεὺς γὰρ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἰδομενέως
ἐτύγχανεν ὁ αὐτὸς Δίκτυς καὶ ἑωρακὼς ἀκριβῶς τὰ τοῦ πολέμου
καὶ συγγραψάμενος, ὡς παρὼν τότε ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις ἐκείνοις μετὰ
Ελλήνων. ὅστις ἐξέθετο καὶ τοὺς προτραπέντας ὑπὸ ᾿Αγαμέμνονος
καὶ Μενελάου βασιλέων καὶ τοὺς ὁπλισαμένους καὶ κατελθόντας
μετὰ τοῦ στόλου ἐπὶ τὸ Ἴλιον, ἕκαστον ἔχοντα ἴδιον στρατὸν και
ναύς. (Ed. Dindorf, Corp. Script. Hist. Byz., p. 107, 1-11).
Cf. the similar relation of Dictys to Idomeneus in the Eph., Prol.,
Epis., and lib. I, cap. 13 (where Dictys is enrolled among the
Greek leaders).
2
(b). Τῷ δὲ ι' ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος
1 Ed. Dindorf in Niebuhr, Corp. Script. Hist. Byz., Bonn (1831), pp. 90, 1-142,
20. The six Dictys-citations occur as follows: pp. 107, II. 1 ff.; 119, 22 ff.;
122, 1 ff.; 132, 22 ff.; 135, 16 ff.; 250, 2 ff. We shall, moreover, for reasons
already stated (p. 23, note 1), have occasion to quote, in explanation of
Malalas' Dictys-citations, citations by his two exceptors, Isaak Porphyro-
genitos and Tzetzes. Isaak Porphyrogenitos cites Dictys once in his Περὶ τῶν
καταλειφθέντων ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου (ed. Hinck, Ptolemonis Declamationes, Teub-
ner, 1873, p. 87); Tzetzes, in at least three separate works, viz.: (1) in his
Chiliades V, 30 (ed. Kiessling, Leipsic, 1826, p. 189); (2) in his Scholia to
Lykophron V, 61 (ed. C. Muller, Leipsic, 1811, 1, 357; and (3) in his Exegesis
in Iliadem (ed. Hermann, Leipsic, 1812, pp. 20, 11. 18 ff. ).
2 Malalas' reading Claudius in place of Nero (repeated, as we have seen, by
Suidas, Zonaras, and the anonymous chronographer) is not to be regarded as an
indication that Claudius was the reading of the Greek Dictys, but, as Greif has
pointed out (op. cit., 1900, pp. 16, 17 ), as an error on the part of Malalas, who in the
Dares and Dictys.
27
ἔπαθεν ὑπὸ θεομηνίας ἡ Κρήτη νῆσος πᾶσα· ἐν οἷς χρόνοις ηὑρέθη
ἐν τῷ μνήματι τοῦ Δίκτυος ἐν κασσιτερίνῳ κιβωτίῳ ἡ ἔκθεσις
τοῦ Τρωικοῦ πολέμου μετὰ ἀληθείας παρ' αὐτοῦ συγγραφεῖσα
πάσα. ἐκεῖτο δὲ προσκέφαλα τοῦ λειψάνου τοῦ Δίκτνος· καὶ
νομίσαντες τὸ αὐτὸ κιβώτιον θησαυρὸν εἶναι προσήνεγκαν αὐτὸ τῷ
βασιλεῖ Κλαυδίῳ· καὶ ἐκέλευσε μετὰ τὸ ἀνοῖξαι καὶ γνῶναι τί έστι
μεταγραφῆναι αὐτὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ δημοσίᾳ βιβλιοθήκῃ ἀποτεθῆναι
αὐτά (p. 250, 1-9). Cf. the story of the discovery of Dietys'
annals as given in the Eph., Prol. and Epis.
1–9).
(2). John of Antioch cites Dictys four times in his Ἱστορία
χρονική. But two of his citations need concern us. They run
as follows:
(α). Καὶ συνήγαγον βασιλεῖς καὶ τοπάρχας, καθώς φησιν Ὅμηρος
καὶ Δίκτυς (Ed. Mueller, Frag. Hist. Graec. frag. 23.). Cf. Eph.
I, 13 (list of Greek leaders, including Dictys) and I, 17 (ship-
catalogue).
Ο
(6). Δίκτυς ὁ μετὰ Ἰδομενέως συστρατεύσας ἐπὶ Τροίαν φησὶν ὅτι
Πρίαμος ἔπεμψε καὶ πρὸς τὸν Δαυὶδ πρεσβείαν, καὶ πρὸς Ταυτάνην
βασιλέα 'Ασσυρίων· καὶ ὁ μὲν Δαυίδ οὐ προσήκατο ταύτην, ὁ δὲ
Ταυτάνης ἔπεμψε τὸν Τιθωνὸν καὶ τὸν Μέμνονα μετὰ πλήθους
Ινδών (Ed. Mueller, Frag. Hist. Graec., p. 550, frag. 24, 3.).
No parallel in the Latin Ephemeris.
2
present passage (which occurs in his history of the Roman emperors) forgets that
in his history of the Trojan War he had already correctly written ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου
Νέρωνος βασιλέως (p. 133, 2.), and, with Claudius merely in mind, enters the
present citation under the reign of that emperor instead of his step-son Nero.
Confirmation of this conjecture is found by Greif (1) in the Malalas-excerpt
Ekloge (ed. Cramer, Anecd. Græc., II, 166 ff. ; vid. p. 46), where we
find in the corresponding passage (p. 221, 20.) the ambiguous reading: ἐπὶ
Κλαυδίου καὶ Νέρωνος and (2) in an equally equivocal: ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, οἱ δὲ [φασὶν]
ἐπί Νέρωνος in Eudokia's Violarium (ed. Flack, p. 222, 1. 6).
1 Preserved in three fragments: (1) the Constantine fragments, ed. C. Müller,
Frag. Hist. Græc. (1851), IV, 550, fr. 23; (2) idem. fr. 24; and (3) in the frag-
ments ed. H. Heinrich, Die Chronik des Johannes von Sikeliota, Graz, 1892, pp.
8-10 (cf., infra, p. 83). For the occurrence of these citations vid. tab. pp. 38, 39.
2 An allusion to King David is, naturally, not to be looked for in the annals of
Dictys and is, in the present unique instance, undoubtedly a late Christian addition
by the author of this excerpt. The allusion to King Tautanes, on the other hand,
though found in no other Dictys-version, no doubt stood in the original Dictys, as
evidenced by the rôle played by Memnon and his Indians in Septimius, Malalas,
Kedrenos, etc. (vid. p. 87, note 1).
?
28
Dares and Dictys.
(3). Georgias Kedrenos refers to Dietys once in his Σύνοψις
ἱστοριῶν ' as follows :
1
Ἰδομενέως τοῦ προμάχου των Ελλήνων ὑπογραφεὺς ἦν ὁ Δίκτυς,
ἀνὴρ ἀξιόλογος καὶ συνετός, ὃς ἀπὸ τῆς Κρήτης τοῖς ἐπὶ Ἴλιον
ἥκουσι συνεστρατεύετο. οὗτος τὸν τοῦ πολέμου χρόνον πάντα
συνὼν τῷ Ἰδομενεῖ τὰ παρακολουθήσαντα πάντα ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι
τέλους μετὰ ἀληθείας συνέγραψε, καὶ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας τῶν προ-
μάχων, ὡς πάντας ἑωρακώς, ὑπέγραψε καὶ ἀκριβῶς ὑπεμνημάτισε.
τοὺς δὲ χρόνους καὶ τόπους καὶ τρόπους καὶ τὰ ἐκείνου τοῦ πολέμου
διασαφῶν, μετὰ ἀκριβείας ἱστοριογραφῶν, καὶ καθ᾽ ἕνα τῶν ἀρχό-
ντων μεθ᾽ ὅσων νηῶν παρεγένετο συνέταξε. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ
δευτέρᾳ τῆς Ἰλιάδος ῥαψῳδία παρ' Ομήρῳ δηλοῦται (Ed.
Bekker, op. cit., p. 223, 4-14.). Cf. Eph., Prol., Epis., and I,
17 (ship-catalogue).
Finally, Archbishop Arethas cites Dictys in his Scholia to Dio
Chrysostomos 2 as follows :
Ποιητὴς μὲν οὐδείς εστι τούτων πρὸ Ὁμήρου μεμνημένος.
Δίκτυς δὲ ὄνομα Κρὴς ὅς παρατυχὼν τῷ Τρωικῷ πολέμῳ γράφει
τε τὰ πραχθέντα ἐκεῖ χαλκοῖς πίναξι καὶ ἑαυτῷ συνθάπτει· οἵ
καὶ εὑρέθησαν χρόνῳ μακρῷ ὕστερον ἐπὶ Νέρωνος, ἐξ ὧν (!) καὶ
βιβλίοις κατετέθησαν συμφώνοις κατὰ πάντα Ὁμήρῳ (cf., again,
the story of the discovery of Dictys' annals in the Ephemeris, Prol.
and Epis.).
From the general agreement between the foregoing Byzantine
allusions to Dictys and the allusions in the Ephemeris (Prol.
Epis., and I, 13), it is clear that the Byzantine writers are here
referring to the same Dictys to whom reference is made in the
Latin text of Septimius. For this reason the advocates of the
originality of the Ephemeris have concluded that no earlier Greek
version of these annals existed, and that the Byzantine writers in
3
1 Ed. Bekker in Niebuhr, op. cit., Bonn, 1838, I, 216, 13-238, 13.
2 Orat. XI, § 92, quotes Sonny, Dictys bei Arethas, Byz. Zs., I, 590, from Cobet's
ed. of Chrysostomos, p. 788.
3 This fact, apparently so obvious, was, as we have already seen (p. 18, n. 3), not
recognized by the early Dictys-commentators, Mercerus and Dacier, who, for the
reason already indicated, believed that the Byzantines followed a Dictys-tradition
distinct from that represented in the Latin Ephemeris.
Dares and Dictys.
29
question derived their Dictys-citations, either directly or indirectly,
from the Latin Ephemeris. That such, however, was not the
case and that the general parallelism between the Latin and Greek
(Byzantine) references is due, not to the derivation of the latter
from the former, but to the independent use by each of a common
Greek original, is shown by the following points of difference
between the particulars which Septimius and the Byzantine authors
report of their Dictys.
2
In the first place, Kedrenos (loc. sup. cit.) and Malalas (as
appears from his excerptors Isaak Porphyrogenitos and Tzetzes)
report that Dictys gave a personal description of the Greek and
Trojan leaders. This feature is neither reproduced in the Ephe-
meris nor anywhere alluded to by Septimius, but occurs in the
so-called "portrait-lists" in Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 103 ll. 11 ff.
(and in his excerptors, Isaak, Περὶ τῶν καταλειφθέντων ὑπὸ τοῦ
'Oμýpov, ed. Hinck, pp. 80-87, and Tzetzes, Posthomerica, ed.
Bekker, 1816, vs. 361-368; 470; 651-675), and in a clearly
pronounced portrait of Helen in Kedrenos,³ (ed. Bekker, p. 217,
19-21), and may accordingly be supposed to have occupied
a prominent place in the Greek Dictys-text consulted by the
Byzantines (vid., infra, pp. 51 ff.).
¹So Joly (1870), op. cit. I, 178, 196; Dunger (1878), op. cit., pp. 8-15; Greif
(1900), op. cit. pp. 15–23.
·
2 That an allusion to the so-called "portraits," as one of the special attractions
of Dictys' history, originally stood in Malalas' Dictys-citation, as it now stands in
Kedrenos', is rendered probable by the concurrent allusion to this feature by
Malalas' two excerptors, Isaak Porphyrogenitos and Tzetzes (vid. p. 23, n. 1). Thus
at the opening of Isaak's only Dictys-citation (which otherwise exactly corresponds
to Malalas' first Dictys-citation, p. 107, 1-11) stand the words: 8 σopúraTOS
ἐκεῖνος Δίκτυς ὑπεμνημάτισεν
οὐ μὴν μόνον ταῦτα τὰ ἰδιώματα τῶν ἀνδρῶν,
φημι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ γεγονότα, κτλ. (ed. Hinck, op. cit. p. 87). Similarly
Tzetzes writes thus in his Exegesis in Iliadem (ed. Hermann, p. 20, 11. 23 ff.) :
ὁ δὲ Δίκτυς ἦν Κρῆς, συνεστράτευσε δὲ τῷ ᾽Ιδομενεῖ. οἵτινες τά τε εἴδη τῶν
Ἑλλήνων, καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν κτλ. Moreover, it is clear from the evident reference of
the term тà πρоyeypaµµéva (107, 2), in Malalas' Dictys-citation, to the portrait-lists
that precede (103, 11 ff.), that Malalas, no less than Kedrenos, found a list of
portraits in the Greek Dictys he consulted.
3 The absence in Kedrenos of all portraits save one, Helen, is, as we shall see
(infra, pp. 90 ff.), but one of a number of indications that Kedrenos did not
derive his Dictys-annals from Malalas.
30
Dares and Dictys.
In the second place, Dictys, whose name invariably stands alone
in the references by Septimius, is by the Byzantines repeatedly
cited in immediate connection with other authors, and authors,
furthermore, who are, without exception, Greek. Thus Malalas
twice introduces in immediate association with Dictys a previously
unknown Sisyphos of Cos,¹ once as a joint authority with Dictys
for an account of Circe: περὶ ἧς Κίρκης ἐξέθεντο ταῦτα οἱ σοφώ
τατοι Σίσυφος Κῷος καὶ Δίκτυς ἐκ τῆς Κρήτης (p. 119, 1. 22), and
once as a concomitant authority (with Dictys) for the record of
Trojan events related in the Dialogue between Teucer and Pyrrhus
(p. 132, 19 ff.)—an episode which, like the Portraits, is entirely
lacking in Septimius (vid. pp. 60 ff.). In like manner, Mala-
las cites, still in conjunction with Dictys, a second fabulous author
of early Trojan records, viz., a previously unknown Pheidalios of
Corinth, as a still further authority for the above mentioned
account of Circe: ὁ δὲ σοφὸς Φειδαλίος ὁ Κορίνθιος ἐξέθετο τὴν
ποιητικὴν ταύτην σύνταξιν, ἑρμηνεύσας οὕτως (p. 120, 1. 4).
Finally, all the above mentioned annalists of Dictys cite Dictys in
immediate juxtaposition with Homer. Malalas states that Homer
fabled in what he said with regard to Circe: ὁ δὲ σοφώτατος
Ὅμηρος ποιητικῶς ἔφηασεν ὅτι διὰ πόματος μαγικού κτλ. (p.
0
0
1 Similarly Tzetzes, in evident imitation of Malalas, whom he cites, makes con-
secutive allusions to Sisyphos and Dictys: (1) in his Chiliades, V, 829 ff. (ed.
Kiessling, p. 189).
Σίσυφον Κῶον λέγουσι τοῦ Τεύκρου γραμματέα,
Καὶ πρὸ ῾Ομήρου γράψαι δὲ τοῦτον τὴν ᾿Ιλιάδα
Τεύκρῳ συνεκστρατεύσαντα καὶ καθορῶντα πάντα·
᾿Αφ᾿ οὗ πρὸς πλάτος ὕστερον "Ομηρον μεταφράσαι.
Ταῦτα μὲν ᾿Ιωάννης τις Μελέλης χρονογράφος.
Οὗτος ὁ χρονικός (sc. Μαλάλας) φησι καὶ Δίκτυν δὲ τὸν Κρῆτα
Ιδομενέι ἕπεσθαι καὶ τὰ τῆς μάχης γράψαι·
Εξ ὧν, ὡς ἔφην, ὕστερον "Ομηρον μεταφράσαι.
and (2) in his Exegesis in Iliadem (ed. Hermann, p. 20, ll. 18 ff.): ëtepoɩ dè
τῶν ἱστορικῶν [i. e., in addition to Philostratos, etc.] ἐκ τῆς Σισύφου καὶ τῆς
τοῦ Δίκτυος συγγραφῆς ["Ομηρον] ἐφευρηκέναι καὶ ἐκθέσθαι φασίν. Likewise the
anonymous chronographer cited by Allatius (loc. cit., infra p. 25, note 1) alludes, in
his Dictys-citation, to Sisyphos, whom he states to have been a main source of Homer
and Virgil.
Dares and Dictys.
31
119, 23 ff.). John of Antioch cites Homer as joint authority with
Dictys for the marshalling of the Greek host: kaì ovvýyayov
βασιλεῖς καὶ τοπάρχας, καθώς φησιν Ὅμηρος καὶ Δίκτυς (loc.
cit.). And Kedrenos refers to Homer's giving èv Tŷ devтépa Tĥs
'Imádos paywdíą (loc. sup. cit.) the Ship-catalogue in Dictys.¹
In the third place, it is to be noted that the Byzantines regularly
introduce their main Dictys-citation, not-as in the Ephemeris—
in a preface, but in the main body of their annals, and invariably
in the same place, viz. immediately between the list of Portraits and
the Ship-catalogue (vid. tab., pp. 38, 39). Here, for example, stands
the main Dictys-citation in Malalas (p. 107, 1–11) and his ex-
cerptor Isaak Porphyrogenitos,² and in an exactly corresponding
position (p. 203, 4-14) occurs the only Dictys-citation in Kedre-
nos, viz. between the Death of Polydorus ³ (222, 24–233, 4) and
an allusion to the Ship-catalogue³ at the end of his Dictys-citation
(καθ' ἕνα τῶν ἀρχόντων μεθ᾽ ὅσων νήσων παρεγένετο συνέταξε, p.
223,12-13). That, finally, this Dictys-citation occupied an exactly
identical position in John of Antioch may be inferred from the
3
¹ That an allusion to Dictys as a chief source of Homer stood also in the original
text of Malalas may be inferred both from Tzetzes (loc. cit., p. 30, note 1) and
from Malalas' allusion to Sisyphos in the same capacity : ἥντινα συγγραφὴν εὑρηκώς
Όμηρος ὁ ποιητὴς τὴν Ιλιάδα ἐξέθετο, και Βεργίλλιος τὰ λοιπά (132, 20-22).
2 Tzetzes in the annals of Dictys contained in his Antehomerica, Homerica, and
Posthomerica follows the order of Malalas' history of the Trojan War less closely
than Isaak Porphyrogenitos had done. But that he, too, recognized an essential
connection between Malalas' citation of Dictys and the Portraits, on the one hand,
and the Ship-catalogue, on the other, is evident from the allusion to both features
in the Dictys-citation found in his Exegesis in Iliadem: orives [sc. Elovpos kai
Δίκτυς] τά τε εἴδη τῶν Ἑλλήνων, καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν πλοίων καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν...
μετὰ ἀκριβείας συνεγράψαντο (ed. Hermann, p. 22, II. 24 f.).
³ Kedrenos omits both the Portraits and the Ship-catalogue. But that he found
the Dictys-citation of his Greek source in a position exactly corresponding to that
which it occupies in Malalas is clear from its position immediately between the
Death of Polydorus, an episode that immediately precedes the Portraits in Mala-
las, and an allusion to the Ship-catalogue at the end of his Dictys-citation.
That Kedrenos is here following the same ultimate Dictys-prototype as Malalas
is further evident not only from an exact verbal agreement between the account
of the Death of Polydorus in the two authors, but also from the fact that Kedrenos
introduces, immediately before the Death of Polydorus, a description of the
Discoveries of Palamedes which exactly corresponds to the same description
in Malalas' list of Portraits (vid. p. 42, note 1).
32
Dares and Dictys.
words of the excerpt: καὶ συνήγαγον βασιλεῖς καὶ τοπάρχας,
καθώς φησιν Ὅμηρος καὶ Δίκτυς (loc. cit.). Such being the normal
position of the chief Dictys-citation in those portions of the
Dictys-annals of the Byzantines that survive, such, we may sup-
pose, was also its position in the Greek Dictys-text which they
consulted.
It is, in the fourth place, a significant fact that no one of the
Byzantine writers under consideration either mentions by name
the Ephemeris,¹ or Septimius,2 or makes any other allusion that
could be construed as an indication of Byzantine acquaintance with
the Latin text. On the contrary, they allude merely and invari-
ably to "the most wise Dictys" (ô σopάτATOS AIKTUS), the
companion and scribe (Toypapeús) of Idomeneus, and author of
contemporary annals of the Trojan War, without ever a word of
a Latin Dictys, or the slightest intimation that the only version
known to them was that of which Septimius claimed to be the
translator.³
Finally, Arethas and Malalas' excerptor, Isaak Porphyro-
genitos, state that Dictys wrote his annals not, as specified in the
Ephemeris, upon linden bark (prol. in tilias: epis. ex philyra),
but upon brazen tablets (Arethas, χαλκοῖς πίναξι: Isaak, τῷ
πívaki, p. 85, 1). Here it is probable that the mention of
the more durable material, found in Arethas and Isaak, but
1 The allusions to the Ephemeris printed in the old texts of Syrianos and
Eudokia, and formerly adduced as conclusive evidence that these writers knew the
Latin Ephemeris, are, as we have seen (p. 24, note 3), not genuine, but late
interpolations, copied from the Ephemeris at a period when MSS. of that text were
common.
2 The allusion to Septimius formerly ascribed to Eudokia is, for the same reason,
incapable of furnishing evidence of early Byzantine acquaintance with the annals
of that author (vid. preceding note).
3 Dunger (op. cit., 1878, p. 15) and Greif (op. cit., 1900, p. 8) account for
the silence of the Byzantines on the subject of a Latin Dictys on the theory
that an acknowledgment of their indebtedness to Septimius would have cast
doubts upon the authenticity of Trojan records derived from a late Latin
author. But in case, as these critics maintain, no Greek Dictys existed, it is not
easy to see how a repetition by the Byzantines of Septimius' claim to translation
from the Greek could have greatly impaired their own unsubstantiated assertions
of the existence of so ancient an author.
Dares and Dictys.
33
omitted in the other Byzantine references, represents the reading
of the original Greek Dictys.'
From the foregoing points of difference between the Dictys
citations by Septimius and the Byzantines it appears that the
Byzantines derived their knowledge of Dictys, not from the
Ephemeris, but from an earlier Greek text, which contained
(1) a list of Greek and Trojan Portraits, (2) references not to
Dictys only, but also to other real or imaginary authors of early
Greek histories of Troy, (3) a principal Dictys-citation between
the list of Portraits and the Ship-catalogue, and (4) a reference to
some form of metallic tablet as the writing material used by
Dictys to insure the permanent preservation of his records."
¹ Patzig, in a communication to Sonny (Byz. Zs. I, 590) offers the valuable
suggestion that the tilias of the Dictys-prologue may be the corruption of an earlier
tabulas. This conjecture not only removes the awkwardness of supposing that
Dictys would have been so heedless of posterity as to consign his precious records
to the dampness of the tomb upon such perishable material as linden bark but has
also the mechanical advantage of interpreting the shorter word (tilias) as a
corruption of the longer (tabulas), rather than the reverse.
2 It cannot have escaped notice that the Byzantine writers under consideration
frequently differ among themselves in the particulars they report of Dictys.
Thus, Arethas and Isaak alone refer to brazen tablets; the author of the Salma-
sian fragment fails to refer in his Dictys-citation either to the portraits or to the Ship-
catalogue; no Byzantine writer save Malalas cites Sisyphos in immediate connection
with Dictys; and Kedrenos, while referring to the portraits in his Dictys-citation,
with one exception omits this feature in his annals of Dictys. That authors who
allude to Dictys in terms so diverse should have all derived their Dictys-citations
from a single source, viz., the Latin Ephemeris, is not, a priori, probable.
Derivation from so late a source, in particular, would lead us to expect greater
uniformity in the reproduction of particulars so derived. .The diversity that we
find in this regard bespeaks, rather, derivation from a more remote prototype,
which had, in the meantime, undergone a series of modifications or recensions
and had thus come to lie before the various independent Byzantine citators of
Dictys in many variant versions. To such a conclusion we shall be further led
in our consideration of the very substantial differences that exist between the
various Byzantine annals of Dictys.
34
Dares and Dictys.
(2) BYZANTINE VERSIONS OF DICTYS.
The Byzantines as a Group.
We have already found in the frequent lack of correspondence
between the Dictys-references of Septimius and of the Byzantines
reason to believe that the Byzantines derived their knowledge of
Dictys, not from the Latin Ephemeris, but from an earlier version
of Dictys written in Greek. This belief becomes further strength-
ened when we pass to a consideration of the Byzantine versions of
Dictys-annals and to the relation that they sustain to the Latin
text of Septimius.
The Byzantine versions of Dictys which we shall compare with
Septimius include, primarily, the three important versions by
Joannes Malalas (sixth century), Joannes Antiochenos (seventh
century), and Georgias Kedrenos (eleventh century), and, seconda-
rily, scattered excerpts from these versions, contained in a variety
of Byzantine excerpt-collections, shortly to be enumerated.¹
2
The earliest and most comprehensive of these versions is that
introduced by Joannes Malalas (sixth century) in the fifth book of
his Xpovoypapía (ed. Dindorf, in Niebuhr, Corp. Script. Hist. Byz.,
1831, pp. 92, 1-142, 20).³ Malalas' version of Dictys opens with
1 ¹ Cf., also, excerpts mentioned, pp. 99 ff.
"The attempt of Sotiriadis (Fleckeisen's Jahrb. Supplement, XVI, 1888, 72
ff.) to show that John of Antioch preceded Malalas has been successfuly repu-
diated by Patzig (Unerkannt u. unbekannt gebliebene Malalas-fragmente, 1891,
pp. 1–4, 25; Joannes Malalas u. Joannes Antiochenus, 1892, p. 1), who finds in
the last of four Malalas-excerpts printed by Mai (De fragmentis historicis Tuscul.,
1842) chronological references that prove beyond a doubt that the reverse is the
true relation, and that Malalas wrote in the sixth, and John of Antioch in the
seventh century. Hence no doubt can longer remain that we have in Malalas the
earliest Byzantine version of Dictys (cf. Noack, p. 479).
³ The Xpovoypapla, in eighteen books, opens with the Creation and extends some-
what beyond the death of Justinian (ob. 565). The first seventeen books, which
end with the year 528, were issued by Malalas before the year 540; the eighteenth
book, of which only that portion which extends to the ninth year of Justin II
(573) can, with safety, be attributed to Malalas, the remainder, in which the scene
is shifted from Antioch to Constantinople, being in all probability the work of a
second hand, was issued subsequent to the year 573 (cf. Patzig, Jo. Malalas u. Jo.
Antiochenus, Leipsic, 1892, pp. 27 ff.).
Dares and Dictys.
35
the Youth of Paris and ends with the Adventures of Orestes. By
reason alike of its date, its length, and its importance as a source
of the later versions of Isaak Porphyrogenitos and Tzetzes,¹ the
Dictys-annals of Malalas stand forth as, in many respects, the
most representative Byzantine version of Dictys and form, accord-
ingly, the natural starting-point of comparison with Septimius.
The original text of Malalas' Xpovoypapía is lost, but the fifth
book, sc. the history of Dictys, may be approximately recon-
¹ From Malalas, as we have already seen (p. 23, note 1), were derived the Dictys-
materials introduced by Isaak Porphyrogenitos (eleventh century) in his IIepì тŵv
καταλειφθέντων ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου and by Joannes Tzetzes (twelfth century) in his
Antehomerica, Homerica, and Posthomerica (cf. Wagener, Philol. XXXVIII,
105 ff.; Greif, Mittelalt. Bearb. d. Trojanersage, in Stengel, Ausg. u. Abhandl.
LXI, 257 ff.; and Krumbacher, op. cit., p. 235). The dependence of Isaak Por-
phyrogenitos upon Malalas has never been called in question. Isaak nowhere
cites Malalas, but the close verbal agreement between the lists of portraits (Isaak,
pp. 85-87; Malalas, pp. 103-107) and the Dictys-citations (Isaak, pp. 87-88;
Malalas, p. 107) in both leaves no doubt that it was from Malalas that Isaak
derived his history' of the Trojan War. Tzetzes, however, has been thought by Haupt
(Philol. Anzeiger, X, 1880, p. 542) and Patzig (Joannes Malalas u. Jo. Antioche-
nus, 1892, p. 17; Byz. Zs. I, 1892, p. 139) to have derived his Dictys-materials, not
from Malalas, but from John of Antioch. Thus Patzig (Jo. Malalas u. Jo. Anti-
ochenus, p. 17) attempts to show that the author whom Tzetzes cites under the am-
biguous designations, 'Iwávvns (8) 'Avтioxeús (Exeg. in Il., 132, 22) and 'Iwávvns
Xpovikós (Chil. VI, 833), is John of Antioch rather than Malalas. In support of
his contention, Patzig adduces (1) Tzetzes' frequent and explicit references to
John of Antioch either under the appellation ᾿Ιωάννης (ὁ) ᾿Αντιοχεύς, 'Ιωάννης
Xpoviкós, or ò 'AVTOXEús (Chil. I, 318) as against a single explicit reference to
Malalas ('Iwávvns tis Meλéλns, xpovoypápos, Chil. V, 833), and (2) the contra-
diction between the statement for which Tzetzes, in this sole instance, makes
Malalas responsible, viz., that Homer drew the materials of his Iliad from
Dictys (Chil. V, 836), and the report of Malalas (p. 132, 20) that Dictys was
not discovered until long after the time of Homer and Virgil. But that Patzig
is here in error is shown by the fact that the discrepancy he alleges disappears
when we reflect that Malalas is here referring not, as Tzetzes, to the time of
composition, but only of the subsequent discovery of Dictys. Moreover, we have
already found reason to believe that there existed in the original Malalas, no less
than in Tzetzes, an allusion to Dictys as well as to Sisyphos, as a joint source of
Homer and Virgil (cf. p. 31, note 1). We may, accordingly, suppose that it was
Malalas, whom he expressly cites, and not John of Antioch, from whose work no
reference to Dictys (or Sisyphos) as a source of Homer survives, that Tzetzes used
as the chief, if not the only source of his annals of Troy. Further corroboration
of this supposition is to be found in his reproduction (in various portions of his
Posthomerica) of Malalas' list of portraits (vid. p. 29), a feature entirely lacking
in Antioch.
36
Dares and Dictys.
structed by means of two transcripts. These two transcripts differ
greatly in fulness: the more reduced, which presents an abridged
reproduction of the original, occurs in an Oxford Ms., Baroccianus
128, published by Dindorf, 1831 (op. cit.); the less reduced, in
Codex Paris. 854, published under the title 'Exλoyǹ iotopiŵv by
Cramer, 1839, Anecd. Paris. II, 166 ff.¹ By combining these
two excerpts, which, in general, present concordant readings in
all passages common to both, we obtain a text which, for the
most part, approaches the original Malalas in completeness."
4
A second Byzantine version of Dictys is that introduced by
John of Antioch³ (seventh century) in his lost 'Iσropía Xpovikń.*
Fragments of John of Antioch's history of Dictys survive in the
five following excerpt-collections. Two fragments, of which the
first (ed. C. Müller, Frag. Hist. Græc. IV, 1868, frag. 23, p.
550) contains a history of events opening with the Birth of Paris
and ending with the assembling of the Greek host and a Dictys-
citation, and the second (ed. Cramer, Anec. Paris. II, 1839, 4,
3–5, 13; C. Müller, idem, frag. 25, p. 551), an account of the
Adventures of Agamemnon and Orestes, occur in the Constantine
collection; a series of ten brief fragments (ed. Cramer, idem, pp.
390 ff; C. Müller, idem, frag. 24, 1–10, p. 550), which contain
extracts from various portions of Dictys, viz.: Youth of Paris
(24, 1); Discoveries of Palamedes (24, 2); Embassy of Priam
to King David and King Tautanes (24, 3); Death of Hector
5
¹The Oxford MS. contains a continuous, though abridged and at times defective
(cf. p. 46, note 2), reproduction of the entire Xpovoypapla; the Ekloge, which is an
anonymous history of the Israelites, contains, on the other hand, merely the annals
of Dictys (pp. 197, 13–221, 19; 222, 16–227, 5), interpolated from the fifth book
of the Xpovoypapía (cf. Cramer, p. 165; Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus II, 1898,
298 ff.).
2 That the Ekloge, though more expanded than the Oxford Ms., fails to preserve
the full text of the original Malalas is shown by the fact that its readings are occa-
sionally exceeded by readings contained in the other reproductions of Malalas
mentioned p. 46, note 2 (cf. Fürst, Philol. LX, 238).
3 John of Antioch, often confused by earlier critics with his contemporary and
compatriot John Malalas (also of Antioch), has been conclusively vindicated as a
separate author by Hodius (Proleg. to Dindorf's ed. of Malalas, p. xxi).
* The 'IoTopía Xpovкń opens with the Creation and comes down to the death of
Phokas (610). Cf. Krumbacher, p. 334,
5 Cf. p. 82, note 1.
Dares and Dictys.
37
(24, 4); Death of Polydoros (24, 5); Rhesos-episode (24, 6);
Description of the Palladion (24, 7); Sacrifices of the Trojans
(24, 8); Adventures of Odysseus (24, 9); and mention of Circe
and Calypso (24, 10), occur in the Salmasian collection;¹ six dis-
connected fragments, likewise containing excerpts from various
portions of Dictys, occur under the six following rubrics in the
Lexicon of Suidas : Πάριον (Youth of Paris); Ρῆσος (episode of
Rhesos); Пaλλádiov (Description of the Palladion; Rape of the
Palladion; Palladion-strife; Death of Ajax); Kvvòs σîµa (Death
of Hecuba); Xápußdis (Adventures of Odysseus at Scylla and
Charybdis); and Beveßevτós (Adventures of Diomedes); a long
fragment, containing an unbroken narrative of events opening
with the Death of Ajax and ending with the Death of Odysseus,
occurs in an Hypothesis of the Odyssey (ed. from Codex Pala-
tinus of the fourteenth century by Dindorf, Scholia Graeca in
Odysseam, 1855, I, 3, 20–6, 13); a similarly continuous fragment,
opening with the Youth of Paris and ending with the Capture of
Troy, occurs in the Chronicle of Joannes Sikeliota (ed. A. Heinrich,
Die Chronik des Jo. Sikeliota der Wiener Hof bibl., Graz, 1892).²
A third version of Dictys'-annals is presented by Georgias
Kedrenos (eleventh century) in his Zúvoyus iotopiŵv (ed. Bekker
in Niebuhr, Corp. Script. Hist. Byz., 1838, I, 216, 13–238, 13).³
The history of the Trojan War opens with the Youth of Paris
and ends with the Death of Aeneas. In contrast to Malalas',
Kedrenos' chronicle is preserved in its entire and original form
and furnishes, in consequence, a peculiarly valuable basis of com-
parison with Septimius.
The general relation between Septimius and these several
Byzantine versions of Dictys is indicated in the following table
of episodic comparison.
¹Cf. p. 82, note 2.
4
2 For the reasons for regarding these several fragments as derived from the lost
chronicle of John of Antioch, vid. pp. 81 ff.
3 The Zúvoys iσTopiŵv runs from the Creation down to the accession of Isaak
Komnenos (1057). Cf. Krumbacher, p. 368.
*This table is designed to present, in what appears to have been their original
order (in the Greek Dictys), all the more important episodes preserved in the
several surviving versions of Dictys. All departures, in a given version, from
what may be supposed to have been the original Dictaean order, are indicated by
the insertion of an asterisk against the episode so displaced. All episodes peculiar
to a single version are omitted, unless there is evidence in the other versions that
these peculiar episodes originally existed in the Greek Dictys (vid. pp. 100 ff. ).

TABLE OF
SEPTIMIUS.
uth of Paris, related, below, in Siege of Troy
1. v.).
e of Helen (I, 3).
bassies to Priam (I, 5-11; II, 20–23).
anting].
ys-citation (I, 13).
-catalogue, (I, 17).
ifice of Iphigenia (I, 19-22).
th of Palamedes (II, 15).
ek Forays (II, 13; 16-19).
th of Polydoros (II, 27).
th of Achilles (II, 28, 30-34, 48-52).
sos-episode (II, 45).
e of Troy (III, I—V, 21).
Analysis: Hector's Death and Ransom; Youth of
Paris; Battles with Penthesilea and Memnon;
Achilles and Polyzena episode; Death of Achilles
Duel between Paris and Deiphobos; Death of Paris].
ure of Troy (II, 22; V, 1–13).
Analysis: Description of the Palladion; Trojan Sac-
rifices; Rape of the Palladion; Peace Negotiations;
Wooden Horse; Entry and Destruction of Troy].
adion-strife (V, 14).
h of Ajax (V, 15).
ch of Hecuba (V, 16).
entures of Odysseus (VI, 5-6; 14-15).
ventures of Æneas (V, 17).
entures of Diomedes (VI, 2).
entures of Agamemnon (VI, 2).
entures of Menelaus (VI, 4).
nting].
entures of Neoptolemus (VI, 7—9, 12).
entures of Orestes (VI, 3, 4, 13).
MALALAS (represented in Oxford Malalas
and Ekloge).
Youth of Paris (Mal. 92, 1-93, 11; Ekl. 197, 13—
198, 15).
Rape of Helen (Mal. 93, 23-95, 21; Ekl. 198, 3-
199, 16).
Embassies to Priam (Mal. 97, 3-11; Ekl. 199, 30 —
200, 7).
*Portraits, given below (Mal. 103, 11-107, 1), between
Death of Polydoros and Palladion-strife.
*Dictys-citation, given below (Mal. 107, 1-11), be-
tween Death of Polydoros and Palladion-strife.
*Ship-catalogue (Ekl. 200, 23-201, 16; in Oxford Ms.
given below (Mal. 107, 11-108, 10), between Death
of Polydoros and Palladion-strife.
Sacrifice of Iphigenia (Mal. 98, 1-23; Ekl. 200, 7–22).
*Discoveries of Palamedes related in Portrait of Pala-
medes (Mal. 103, 11-16).
Greek Forays (Mal. 99, 13-103, 7; Ekl. 202, 4—204, 7).
Death of Polydoros (Mal. 103, 7-10; Ekl. 204, 7-12).
*Deposition of Achilles (Mal. 101, 19—102, 9; Ekl.
203, 12-24).
[Wanting].
Siege of Troy, related below, partly in Palladion-strife,
partly in Dialogue between Teucer and Pyrrhos
(q. v.).
Capture of Troy, related below, in Palladion-strife
(q. v.).
Palladion-strife, containing recital of the latter portion
of the Siege, and of the Capture of Troy (Mal. 108,
18—114, 1; Ekl. 204, 25-207, 30.
[Analysis: Description of the Palladion; Duel be-
tween Paris and Philocletes; Death of Paris;
Rape of the Palladion; Trojan Sacrifices; Peace
Negotiations; Wooden Horse; Entry and De-
struction of Troy].
Death of Ajax (Mal. 114, 2-3; Ekl. 208, 2-7).
[Wanting].
Adventures of Odysseus (Mal. 114, 5--122, 2; Ekl.
208, 8--216, 2).
*Adventures of Eneas (Mal. 167, 7-169, 3; Ekl.
221, 25—222, 15).
Adventures of Diomedes (Mal. 122, 3-4; 167, 4-6;
Ekl. 216, 6-10).
Adventures of Agamemnon (Mal. 122, 5-7; Ekl. 216,
11-12).
[Wanting].
Dialogue between Teucer and Pyrrhos, containing re-
cital of earlier portion of Siege of Troy (Mal. 122,
7-132, 16; Ekl. 216, 16–221, 24).
[Analysis: Hector's Death and Ransom; Battles
with Penthesilea and Memnon; Achilles and
Polyzena episode; Death of Achilles].
[Wanting].
Adventures of Orestes (Mal. 133, 3--142, 20; Ekl.
222, 16-226, 31).
*An asterisk indicates an episode displaced from the position in which it may be supposed to have
pied in the original Dictys. The original position of important displacements is indicated in the table.
COMPARISON.
JOHN OF ANTIOCH (represented by excerpts in chronicle
of Joannes Sikeliota, Constantine and Salmasian col-
lections, Suidas, and Hypothesis of the Odyssey).
Youth of Paris (Sik. 4, 6--5, 8; Const. fr. 23; Salm.
fr. 24, 1; Suidas, IIápiov).
Rape of Helen (Sik. 5, 8-27; Const. fr. 23).
Embassies to Priam (Sik. 5, 35—6, 3).
[Wanting].
Dictys-citation (Const. fr. 23; cf., for further allusions
to Dictys, Sik, 7, 15; 8, 6-7, 14; Salm. fr. 24, 3, 4, 5).
Ship-catalogue (Sik. 6, 9-25).
[Wanting].
Discoveries of Palamedes (Salm. fr. 24, 2).
Greek Forays (Sik. 6, 36-7, 15).
*Death of Polydoros, related below in Siege of Troy
(q. v.).
Wrath of Achilles (Sik. 7, 5-7).
Rhesos-episode (Salm. fr. 24, 6; Suidas, 'Pñσos).
Siege of Troy (Sik. 7, 18--9, 16; Salm. fr. 24, 4, 5).
[Analysis: Hector's Death and Ransom; Battle
with Penthesilea and Memnon; Death of Poly-
doros; Death of Achilles; Death of Paris].
Capture of Troy (Sik. 9, 17-10, 25; Salm. fr. 24, 7,
8 ; Suidas, Παλλάδιον).
[Analysis: Peace Negotiations; Trojan Sacrifices;
Wooden Horse; Entry and Destruction of Troy;
Description of Palladion; Rape of Palladion].
Palladion-strife (Sik. 10, 16–17; Suidas, IIaλλádiov).
...
KEDRENOS.
Youth of Paris (216, 13-217, 8).
Rape of Helen (217, 9-218, 5).
Embassies to Priam (218, 18-22).
*Portrait of Helen, given above (217, 19–21), in 1
of Helen.
*Dictys-citation, given below (223, 4-14), bet
Death of Polydoros and Siege of Troy.
Ship-catalogue, alluded to (219, 1–4).
Sacrifice of Iphigenia (219, 6—220, 3).
Death and Discoveries of Palamedes (220, 3-21).
Greek Forays (221, 10-222, 24).
Death of Polydoros (222, 24-223, 4).
*Wrath of Achilles (222, 7-13).
[Wanting].
Siege of Troy (223, 14-229, 4).
[Analysis: Hector's Death and Ransom; Battles
Penthesilea and Memnon; Achilles and Poly
episode; Death of Achilles; Duel between
Deiphobos; Death of Paris].
Capture of Troy (229, 5-232, 2).
[Analysis: Description of Palladion; Rape of
ladion; Trojan Sacrifices; Peace Negotiati
Wooden Horse; Entry and Destruction of Ti
Palladion-strife (232, 3-8).
Death of Ajax (Suidas, Пaλλádiov; Hyp. of Od., 3,
20—4, 3).
Death of Hecuba (Suidas, Kvvds σîµa; Hyp. of Od.
4, 4-7).
Adventures of Odysseus (Salm. fr. 24, 9, 10; Suidas,
Xápußdis; Hyp. of Od. 4, 9-6, 13).
[Wanting].
Adventures of Diomedes (Suidas, Beveßevrós).
Adventures of Agamemnon (Const. fr. 25).
[Wanting]..
[Wanting].
Death of Ajax (232, 8).
Death of Hecuba (232, 13–16).
Adventures of Odysseus (232, 8—233, 22).
*Adventures of Æneas (237, 22—238, 18).
*Adventures of Diomedes (234, 12–17).
Adventures of Agamemnon (233, 23—234, 8).
Adventures of Menelaus (234, 4–11).
[Wanting].
[Wanting].
Adventures of Orestes (Const. fr. 25).
[Wanting].
Adventures of Orestes (234, 18-237, 21).
40
Dares and Dictys.
It will be seen from the foregoing table that a substantial
agreement exists between Septimius and the various Byzantine
versions of Dictys as respects (1) the general scope of each ver-
sion, (2) the nature and order of episodes in each, and (3) the
presence in each of at least one Dictys-citation. In addition to
these general resemblances in treatment, specific agreements in
text not infrequently occur, as in the following passages.
Sept. (I, 9).
1
(1) HELEN'S RECEPTION IN TROY.
Postquam memoriter cunc-
ta retexuit, ad postremum
flens orare, ne, quae semel
in fidem eorum recepta
esset, prodendam putarent.
Ea secum dono Menelai
adportata, quae propria
fuissent, nihil praeter ea
ablatum. . . . Igitur Hecu-
ba. complexa Hele-
nam, ne proderetur, sum-
mis opibus adnitebatur.
Septimius (IV, 11).
66
Tum Ajax, fuit” inquit
“ confirmatum ac verum
per mortales nullum hom-
inum existere potuisse, qui
te vera virtute superaret,
sed, ut palam est, tua te
inconsulta temeritas pro-
didit." Dein Achilles ex-
tremum adhuc retentans
spiritum "dolo me atque
insidiis" inquit "Deipho-
bus atque Alexander Poly-
zenae gratia circumvene-
re."
* Malalas (Mal. 96, 18-
97, 2; Ekl. 199, 25-
29).
ταῦτα δὲ εἰποῦσα ἡ Ἑλένη
τῷ Πριάμῳ καὶ τῇ Ἑκάβῃ
ᾔτησεν αὐτοὺς ὁρκώσασα μὴ
προδοθῆναι, καὶ λέγουσα
μηδὲν τῶν Μενελάου είλη-
φέναι, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἴδια μόνα
ἔλεγεν ἔχειν. καὶ λοιπὸν ἡ
Εκάβη περιλαβοῦσα αὐτὴν
κατεφίλει καὶ πλείω πάντων
αὐτῆς ἀντείχετο.
(2) DEATH OF ACHILLES.
*Malalas (Mal. 131, 17-
21; Ekl. 221, 6-10).
εἶπεν οὖν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ ἐμὸς
ἀδελφὸς Αἴας, Ην ἄρα
ἀληθῶς ὅστις ἀνθρώπων
ήδύνατο κτεῖναί σε ἀλκῇ
διαφέροντα πάντων; ἀλλ᾽
ἡ σὴ προπέτεια ἀπώλεσέ σε.
ὁ δὲ Ἀχιλλεὺς εἶπε, Δόλῳ
εἰργάσαντό με Πάρις και
Δηίφοβος διὰ Πολυξένην.
Kedrenos (218, 15-18)
ταῦτα Ἑλένη εἰποῦσα, καὶ
ἅμα διομνυμένη μηδὲν τῶν
Μενελάου λαβεῖν, καὶ ὅρκον
δὲ ἀπαιτήσασα μὴ προδοθῆ
ναι, ἔμεινεν ἀγαπωμένη πρὸς
αὐτῶν.
Kedrenos (228, 11-14).
πρὸς ὃν ὁ Αἴας “ ἆρ᾽ ἦν
ἄνθρωπος δυνάμενος κτεῖναί
σε; ἀλλ᾽ ἡ σὴ προπέτεια
μόνη σε ἀπώλεσε.” πρὸς
ὃν ὁ ᾿Αχιλλεὺς ἔσχατα πνέ-
ων “ δόλῳ εἰργάσαντο με
φησί “ Πάρις καὶ Δηίφο
βος διὰ Πολυξένην.
66
1 These evidences of relationship naturally appear in full only in the complete
versions of Malalas and Kedrenos; in the fragmentary versions they are preserved
only in part.
\
Dares and Dictys.
41
Septimius (V, 15).
At lucis principio Aiacem
in medio exanimem offen-
dunt perquirentesque mor-
tis genus animadvertere fer-
ro interfectum. Inde ortus
[est] per duces atque exer-
citum tumultus ingens ac
dein seditio brevi adulta
Igitur Ulysses veritus.
vim . . . aufugit etc.
(3) DEATH OF AJAX.
* Malalas (Mal. 114, 2-
5; Ekl. 208, 4-7).
και διὰ νυκτὸς σιδήρῳ ἐσφα-
γη ὁ Αἴας.
Αἴας. καὶ τῇ πρωί
ηὑρέθη τὸ λείψανον αὐτοῦ·
ηὑρέθη τὸ λείψανον αὐτοῦ·
καὶ ἐστασίασεν ὁ στρατὸς
καὶ ἐστασίασεν ὁ στρατὸς
αὐτοῦ και του Πύῤῥου κατὰ
αὐτοῦ και τοῦ Πύῤῥου κατὰ
τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως, θέλων αὐτὸν
φονεύσαι.
Kedrenos (232, 8-10).
διὰ μέντοι νυκτὸς ἀδήλως
σφάζεται Αἴας. πρωίας
δὲ γενομένης ὡς εὑρέθη νεκ
ρός, πολλῆς στάσεως γενο-
μένης εἰς ὑπόληψιν ἦλθεν
eis
τῆς πράξεως Οδυσσεύς.
tŷs
From these many close resemblances between Septimius and the
Byzantine versions it is obvious that, just as in the case of the
Dictys-references so here again, we have to do with material that
belongs to one and the same tradition. Here, therefore, the same
question confronts us as before, viz.: Is this general resemblance
between Septimius and the Byzantines due, as the advocates of the
originality of the Latin Ephemeris maintain,' to a derivation of
the Byzantine texts from the earlier Latin Dictys, or, as the
champions of the Greek Dictys contend,2 to the independent deri-
vation of the Latin and Greek texts from a common Greek proto-
type?
The answer to this question must be again sought in a consid-
eration of the various points of difference between Septimius and
the Byzantine versions of Dictys. To these differences we will
now pass.
As will appear in the following pages, Septimius differs in
certain important and fundamental respects from all the Byzan-
tines alike; in other and additional respects, from each Byzantine
*The passages from Malalas are quoted from the Oxford MS.; slight but
negligible verbal differences occur in Ekloge. No passages are quoted from John
of Antioch owing to the fragmentary condition in which that author survives.
¹Joly (1870), op. cit.. I, 146 ff.; Dunger (1878), op. cit., pp. 12 ff.; Greif
(1886), Die mittelalt. d. Bearb. Trojanersage, pp. 173 ff. and again, (1900), Neue
Untersuch. zur Dictys- u. Daresfrage, pp. 1 ff.
2 Koerting (1874), op. cit., pp. 16 ff.; Noack (1892), op. cit., pp. 403 ff.; Pat-
zig (1892), Byz. Zs. I, 131 ff.; Fürst, (1901), Philol. LX, pp. 330 ff.
42
Dares and Dictys.
in particular. It will be best, therefore, to consider, first, those
broad differences that separate Septimius from the Byzantines as
a class, and, secondly, these more particular sets of differences that
part Septimius from each of the Byzantines in turn.
We pass,
first, to the differences that hold Septimius apart from the Byzan-
tines as a class.
As may be gathered in part from the foregoing table, the
Byzantines not infrequent hold together as over against Septimius
in respect to the common possession of certain features that unite
them in a group by themselves. Thus the Byzantines differ from
Septimius and agree among themselves as respects the order of
certain incidents. For example, the Byzantines regularly intro-
duce their account of the Youth of Paris at the opening of their
histories and not, as Septimius (Eph. III, 26), as related later by
Priam to Achilles on the occasion of Priam's visit to the Greek camp.
In like manner. the Byzantines place their main Dictys-citation not,
as Septimius, between the Embassy to Priam and the Sacrifice of
Iphigenia, but later, between the Death of Polydorus and the Siege
of Troy. Finally, the Byzantines place the Adventures of
Aeneas after, and not, as Septimius, before, the Return of the
Greeks. Again, the Byzantines not infrequently differ from Septi-
mius in the version they give of certain incidents. Thus in their ac-
count of the Death of Palamedes the Byzantines (Malalas, as here re-
presented by his excerptor Tzetzes, Hom. vs. 362-385¹; Kedrenos,
220, 3-7) relate that that hero was accused of treachery by Odysseus
on the evidence of forged letters, and stoned to death by the
Greeks; Septimius (II, 15), that Palamedes was lured into a pit
by Ulysses and Diomedes, to seek hidden treasure, and there stoned
to death. Similarly the Byzantines (Mal. 111, 7–8; J. of A.,
¹The passage in which Malalas relates the Discoveries of Palamedes and, as we
may assume by comparison with Kedrenos and Tzetzes (cf. pp. 31, note 3, and 62,
note 2), his Death as well, occurs in his portrait of Palamedes (Mal. 103, 11-16).
But the earlier portion of Malalas' list of portraits, including the opening of his
portrait of Palamedes, is lacking in the Oxford Ms. by reason of a large lacuna on
p. 103 (cf. Neumann, Hermes XV, 256; Noack, pp. 408-411; Fürst, Philol. LX,
242). This portrait is likewise lacking in the Ekloge, where an important omission
occurs at this point (vid. p. 47, note 1). What, however, Malalas must either here,
or elsewhere, have recorded of Palamedes' death, appears from Malalas' excerptor
Tzetzes, whose account agrees with that of Kedrenos.
Dares and Dictys.
43
9, 15; Kedr. 229, 2–3) relate that Oinone, on seeing Paris' dead
body, died of a broken heart;¹ Septimius (Eph. IV, 21) that she
hung herself." Nor less striking is the manner in which the
Byzantines hold together either in giving a detailed treatment of
incidents but briefly recorded by Septimius or else in slighting
incidents related at length in the Latin Ephemeris. Thus the
Byzantines (Mal. 92, 1–93, 11; Ekl. 197, 13-198, 15; Kedr. 216,
13-217, 8) give a much more circumstantial account than Sep-
timius (III, 26) of the Youth of Paris; (Mal. 93, 23–95, 21;
Ekl. 198, 3-199, 16; Kedr. 217, 9-218, 5), of the Rape of Helen
(Eph. I, 3); also (Mal. 114, 5-122, 2; Ekl. 208, 8-216, 5; Kedr.
232, 8-233, 22), of the Adventures of Odysseus (Eph. VI,
5–6; 14–15); and (Mal. 133, 3–142, 20; Ekl. 222, 16–226,
31; Kedr. 234, 18-237, 21), of the Adventures of Orestes (Eph.
VI, 3; 4; 13). Conversely, the Byzantines (Mal. 97, 3-11; Ekl.
199, 30-200, 7; Kedr. 218, 18-22) have much less to say than
Septimius (I, 5-11) of the Embassies to Priam; and (Mal. 101,
3
1 Repeated from Malalas by Tzetzes, Posthom., v. 597 (cf. p. 19, note).
2 In the treatment of many other episodes as well, the Byzantines differ in a
number of minor details from Septimius. Thus the Byzantines (Mal. 94, 13;
Ekl. 198, 23-24; Kedr. 217, 13-14) relate that Paris was welcomed by Menelaus
in Sparta; Septimius (I, 3), that at the time of Paris' arrival, Menelaus had
already left for Crete. The Byzantines (Mal. 92, 1-7; Ekl. 197, 16-21; Kedr.
216, 13-17) state that it was Priam, Septimius (III, 26) that it was Hecuba who
was informed by an oracle that Paris would prove the destruction of Troy and who,
in consequence, committed him to the care of a shepherd; the Byzantines (Mal.
128, 8 ff.; Ekl. 219, 27 ff.; Kedr. 226, 15 ff., state that Ajax Telamon, while other
Greek leaders were diverting the attention of the rest of the Trojans, thrust aside
the shield of his antagonist Memnon and thus exposed him to a death blow from
Achilles; Septimius (Eph. IV, 6), that while Odysseus and Idomeneus were hold-
ing the rest of the enemy in check, Idomeneus removed Memnon's shield by stealth
and thus exposed him to a death blow from Achilles; the Byzantines (Mal. 113,
5; Ekl. 207, 15-16; Kedr. 230, 18-20) relate that Odysseus ordered the construc-
tion of the Wooden Horse; Septimius (V, 19) ascribes the order to Helenos.
³ As we shall afterwards see (pp. 111 ff.), the abbreviated account of the adventures
of Odysseus and Orestes in the sixth book of the Latin Ephemeris affords interesting
confirmation of the truth of the translator's assertion (in the preface) that he has
condensed the last five books of his Greek original into one.
Thus Septimius not only gives a much more detailed account than the Byzan-
tines of the embassy undertaken before the opening of the war (Eph. I, 5–11),
but adds an equally circumstantial account of a later embassy to propose the
restoration of Polydoros in exchange for Helen (Eph. II, 20–23).
44
Dares and Dictys.
19–102, 9; Ekl. 203, 12-24; Kedr. 222, 7-13) of the Wrath
of Achilles, an episode which Septimius (Eph. II, 30–34; 48–52)
relates with a fulness much more nearly commensurate with its
Homeric importance. Again, though less frequently, Septimius
either omits Dictaean incidents present in the Byzantines (e. g. the
Portraits, Mal. 103, 11–107, 1; cf. Kedr., Portrait of Helen, 217,
19-21), or presents incidents lacking in the latter (e. g. Advent-
ures of Neoptolemus, Eph. VI, 7-9; 12). Finally, and what is
of still greater significance, the Byzantines uniformly exhibit a
much simpler style and less varied vocabulary than Septimius,
whose phraseology is peculiarly ornate and artificial, and, as we
shall afterwards see (pp. 113 ff.), abounds in rhetorical amplifica-
tions drawn from earlier Latin models.
From these numerous points of common difference from Septim-
ius it is evident that the Byzantines are not, as the advocates of the
originality of that text maintain,² derived from the Latin Ephem-
eris, but that they form a distinct class by themselves, independent
of Septimius. Nevertheless, the Byzantine versions of Dictys
belong, at the same time, as we have seen, to the same Dictys-
tradition as the Latin Septimius. We are consequently obliged
to assume, as the common source of each, an earlier Greek Dictys,
of which Septimius and the Byzantines represent independent,
though parallel, redactions. As respects the constitution of this
1
¹ Hardly relevant to our argument, because, presumably, strange to Dictys, is
the presence in the Ephemeris of an elaborate account of the Campaign in Moesia
(Eph. II, 1-6).
2 The advocates of the originality of the Latin Ephemeris contend that
the Byzantines derived their annals of Dictys from Septimius, either directly,
as in the case of Malalas, or indirectly (sc. through Malalas), as in that
of the later Byzantines. But, as Noack has pointed out (p. 405) these critics
might have been warned from such a conclusion by a significant remark
made with reference to the Hypothesis of the Odysssey by Buttmann, who
perceived the following objection both to the derivation of that text from
Malalas and to the derivation of Malalas from Septimius: "Obstat, tamen, quod
extrema [in Hypothese] de Alcinoo, Telegono, etc. ibi [sc. in Malala] non exstant,
sed cum eis quae apud Dictyem leguntur fere conspirant. Atque Malalas sua
etiam illa e Dictye se hausisse testatur, quae tamen in Dictye nostro Latino non
inveniuntur." (Quoted by Dindorf in his 1855 edition of the Hypothesis, p. 3,
note 19).
Dares and Dictys.
45
Dictys-original and the question whether Septimius or the Byzan-
tines may be held to reproduce it the more closely, we shall gain
further light in the course of our ensuing comparisons between
Septimius and each of the Byzantines in turn. We pass first to
Malalas.
Malalas.
We have already seen that Malalas, the earliest of the Byzan-
tines, shares with the later Byzantine redactors of Dictys certain
common variations from Septimius. We shall now see that
Malalas possesses, in addition, certain further variations from
Septimius peculiar to himself and not shared by these later versions.
Now this latter class of peculiarly Malalean departures from
Septimius, no less than the former, are interpreted by the advo-
cates of the originality of the Latin Ephemeris as due, either to
Malalas' misunderstanding of the Latin text of Septimius, to his
own deliberate invention, or to his (supplementary) use of further
sources.¹ But that such was not the case and that we have to do
in Malalas, not with a Greek translation of the Latin Ephemeris,
but with an entirely separate version of Dictys, drawn from an
earlier Greek source, is made evident, in the first instance, by the
important version of Malalas' history of Dictys interpolated in
the Ekloge. In what way the interpolation in the Ekloge may
be used to supply this evidence will appear from the following
considerations.
Until recent years but little attention had been paid by Dictys-
students to the Malalas-excerpt in the Ekloge. It had formerly been
assumed that the Oxford Ms. of Malalas (ed. Dindorf) preserved,
substantially, the original form of the Xpovoypapía, and all com-
parisons between Malalas and other versions of Dictys (as, for
example, by Koerting, 1874, and Dunger, 1878) had, accordingly,
been conducted on the basis of this MS. But in the year 1892,
Noack (Philol. Supplb. VI, 403 ff.) and Patzig (Byz. Zs. I, 133 ff.)
¹Joly, op. cit., 1870, I, 193 ff.; Dunger, op. cit., 1878, pp. 12 ff.; Greif, Die
mittelalterl. Bearbeitungen der Trojanersage, Stengel, Ausgabe u. Abhandl., LXI,
1886, pp. 173 ff.; Haupt, Dares, Malalas u. Sisyphos, 1881, Philol. XL, pp. 107 ff.
46
Dares and Dictys.
made, independently of one another, the important discovery that
the Ekloge (which, though published in 1839 by Cramer, Anecd.
Graec. II, 166 ff. had since been left unheeded by subsequent
students of Malalas¹) contains a second transcript of Malalas' Trojan
War, which gives a much fuller reproduction than the Oxford Ms.
of the original text of that author.2 For it appeared that the
interpolation in the Ekloge, while frequently agreeing verbatim
with corresponding passages in the Oxford text, constantly exceeds
the limits of the latter, and serves in consequence as a means of
¹ With the sole exception of Haupt, who, despite his mention of the Ekloge
in his review of Dunger (1878) in Philol. Anzeiger, X (1880), 539 ff., and again
in his independent study, Dares, Malalas u. Sisyphos, Philol., XL (1881), 116 ff.,
is so far committed to Dunger's view of the originality of the Latin Ephemeris as
to pay little heed to the contrary results that might have been derived from a
more careful study of its contents.
2 In spite of mutilations in the Oxford Ms. of the Xpovoypapla, at the beginning,
at the end, and in the middle (Dindorf, p. 103, where a large lacuna of some
two pages occurs in the midst of the Trojan war), the abridged condition of
the text therein contained had for a long time escaped the notice of scholars.
Attention was first called to the true condition of the Oxford text in 1872 by
Mommsen (Hermes, VI, 326), who discovered that an Escurial Ms. of the Con-
stantine excerpt Пepi éπißovλŵr contained extracts from Malalas that presented,
in addition to verbal agreements with the corresponding portions of the Oxford
MS., readings that exceeded the compass of the Oxford text. A similar dis-
covery was made in 1880 by Haupt (Hermes, XV, 230 ff.) and Jagič (Hermes,
XV, 236), who found that an old Slavic translation of Malalas (in a Moscow MS.)
revealed like deficiencies in the Oxford text. In particular, Neumann discovered
in the same year (Hermes, XV, 256 ff.) that the Oxford lacuna (Dindorf, p. 103)
could be supplied from the fuller readings contained in the parallel contexts of
Ekloge, Kedrenos, and Isaak Porphyrogenitos. A series of similar results
were subsequently obtained by Jeep (1881), Die Lücken in der Chronik des
Malalas, Rhein. Mus., N. F., XXXVI, 351-368, who compared the Oxford
Ms. with Malalas excerpts in Theophanes; by Frick (1884), Zur Kritik des J.
Malalas, Hist. u. phil. Aufsaetze Ernst Curtius, pp. 51 ff., who brought into com-
parison with the Oxford Ms. the Malalas-excerpts contained in Codex Paris.
1630 and in the Chronicon Paschale; by Gelzer (1885), Sextus Julius
Africanus u. die Byz. Chronik, I, 73; II, 358-378, who again brought into
comparison the excerpts contained in Chronicon Pascale and Theophanes; and,
lastly, by Patzig (1891), Unerkannt u. unbekannt gebliebene Malalas-fragmente,
pp. 1 ff., who compared with the Oxford text four Malalas-excerpts printed by A.
Mai in his (1842) Spicilegium Romanum under the title De fragmentis historicis
Tusculanis.
Dares and Dictys.
47
restoring passages abridged in the Oxford transcript.¹ Proof that this
excess of the Ekloge over the Oxford text still represents Malalas-
material, and not material derived by Eklogarius from some other
source, was found not only in the exactness with which these fuller
readings suit the corresponding context of the Oxford Malalas but
also in their reappearance in one or more of the other versions
of Dictys (Septimius, Kedrenos, etc.). Thus in the following
account of Odysseus' adventures with Polyphemos, Ekloge (209,
27 f.) agrees with Septimius (Eph.VI, 5) in the statement, omitted in
the Oxford text (116, 22),² that Polyphemos rescued his daughter,
Elpe, from the hands of the Greeks: ταύτην [sc. Ελπην] άφα-
ρπάσαντες < τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως ἀγνοοῦντος > ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας ἐξώ
ρησαν < ὁ δὲ Πολύφημος ἔπεμψε πολλοὺς τῶν οἰκείων κατ᾿ αὐτῶν,
καί καταλαβόντες ἀφαιροῦνται βιαίως >. That the additional
thought of Ekloge originally belonged in the Dictys-recital of Mala-
las is shown by its reappearance in Septimius: ubi res cognita,
interventu parentis, puella ablata [est] per vim.³ Again in the fol-
lowing notice of the occasion of Menelaus' journey to Crete, viz.,
to sacrifice to Jove, Kedrenos (217, 17) steps in as evidence that
the epithet of the god, àστepíos, omitted in the Oxford Malalas
(94, 6), but found in Ekloge (198, 22), must also have stood in
the original Malalas.*
¹As respects episodic content the two transcripts do not invariably coincide.
The Ekloge retains matter lacking in the Oxford Malalas, viz.: the concluding
portion of the Death of Polydoros ((Ekl. 204, 10-12); the latter portion of the
Adventures of Odysseus (Ekl. 213, 13-216, 5); the subsequent fortunes of Agenor
(Ekl. 221, 23-24); the Adventures of Aeneas (Ekl. 221, 25-222, 15); and two
brief Dictys-citations (Ekl. 210, 11; 216, 4). Conversely the Oxford transcript
preserves matter lacking in the Ekloge, viz.: the Portraits (Mal. 99, 13-103, 7;
103, 11–107, 1), with the sole exception of that of Briseis (Ekl. 203, 10); and
the main Dictys-citation (Mal. 107, 1-11). Otherwise the two transcripts agree
episodically, save that Ekloge contains a list of the Kings of Troy (Ekl. 204,
16-24), interpolated from an unknown source, and an account of the Sirens (Ekl.
212, 30-213, 2) from Plutarch.
"As indicated by the symbol <>
³ Compare also the statement in Ekloge (221, 24 ff.) that Antenor was left by
the Greeks as ruler in Phrygia, omitted in the Oxford Ms., but present in Septimius
(IV, 22; V, 17), and other passages in Ekloge, cited by Noack (pp. 412 ff. ),
whose presence in the original Malalas is confirmed by the testimony of Septimius.
*Cited by Noack (p. 408), together with other similar passages (pp. 409 ff.) in
48
Dares and Dictys.
Finally, Ekloge (213, 13 ff.) agrees, over the Oxford text (121,
17), both with Septimius (VI, 5, 6) and with Kedrenos (233, 7
ff.), in the account of Odysseus' return from Crete to Ithaca.¹
Thus the first portion of the account (Ekl. 213, 13-23), viz. that
Odysseus, after leaving Crete, went to the isle of Alcinöos, omitted
in the Oxford text, reappears both in Septimius (VI, 5) and in
Kedrenos (233, 7 ff.); the second portion (Ekl. 213, 23-214, 7),
viz. that Odysseus returned with Alcinöos to Ithaca and with his
aid slew the suitors, also omitted in the Oxford text, recurs in
Septimius VI, 6, and in Kedrenos (233, 10-13).²
It is thus clear that the fuller text of Ekloge, by reason of its
constant agreement, over the Oxford text, with other versions of
Dictys, represents, more nearly than the abridged Oxford Ms., the
original text of Malalas, and that it is on the basis of the former,
not the latter, that all comparisons with Septimius should be insti-
tuted.
If now, in place of the Oxford text used by Dunger,³ we substi-
tute in our comparison with Septimius the fuller text Ekloge
(as representing the true version of Malalas), we find that the
latter not infrequently surpasses the limits of the Latin Ephemeris.
This is most clearly seen in the case of certain obscure passages
in the Oxford Malalas, due, according to Dunger, to an incorrect
reproduction of Septimius, but shown by the Ekloge to be abridged
reproductions of an original Malalas, that so far exceeded the
limits of the Latin text as to be entirely incapable of derivation
therefrom. Thus Dunger (p. 22) regarded the Oxford passage
(117, 17.): ὁ δὲ Ὀδυσσεὺς . . . . ἐδεξιώθη παρὰ τοῦ Αἰόλου, βασ-
ιλέως τῶν νήσων· ὅστις μέλλων τελευτᾶν διέμεινε τὰς δύο νήσους
ταῖς θυγατράσιν αὐτοῦ (sc. Κίρκῃ καὶ Καλυψοῖ) as an indication
that Malalas misunderstood Septimius (VI, 5): per Aeoli insulas
ỏ
which Kedrenos agrees, over the Oxford Ms., with Ekloge, and thereby establishes
the presence of the fuller version in the original Malalas.
¹The account of Odysseus' adventures in the Oxford text ends abruptly with
Odysseus' departure from Crete (122, 1); the remainder has, therefore, to be
supplied from Ekloge (213, 13–216, 5).
2 Quoted by Noack, p. 415.
3 In his comparisons with Septimius, pp. 21 ff.
Dares and Dictys.
49
devenerit ad Circen atque inde ad Calypso utramque reginam
insularum, and inferred, from the Latin, that Circe and Calypso
were identical with the islands of Aeolos. But from this erroneous
conclusion, Dunger, as Noack has pointed out (p. 413), might
have been spared had he consulted Kedrenos (232, 22), who
expressly states that Circe and Calypso were daughters of Atlas:
Κίρκην και Καλυψὼ τὰς θυγατέρας "Ατλαντος, and still more,
had he known Ekloge which not only shows that in the true text
of Malalas Atlas, not Aeolus, was the father of Circe and Calypso,
but which also shows that the error in the Oxford Malalas was
due to the presence in the original Malalas of an homœoteleuthon.
For in the following passage in Ekloge (210, 15-22) the eye of
the Oxford scribe passed from the first Tv výowv to the second,
omitting all that lay between: ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς ἦλθεν εἰς τὰς Αἰολίους
νήσους, καὶ δεξίωθεὶς παρὰ Αἰόλου τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν νήσων
ἀνάγεται πρὸς τὴν Κίρκην καὶ τὴν αὐτῆς ἀδελφὴν Καλυφὼ,
θυγατέρας "Ατλαντος βασιλέως τῶν νήσων· ὅστις μέλλων τελ-
ευτᾶν διένειμε τὰς δύο νήσους ταῖς θυγατράσιν αὐτοῦ κτλ. This
passage in Ekloge furnishes, therefore, unmistakable evidence
that the original Malalas was a version of Dictys too long to come
out of Septimius.
0
ť
1
Again, Dunger, (p. 22) attempts to explain Oáπтоνσι aŮтÒV
[se. Εκτορα] ἔξω παρὰ τὸ τεῖχος τοῦ Ἰλίου (Mal. 125, 16) as a
mistranslation of sepelivere eum haud longe a tumulo Ili regis
quondam (Eph. IV, 1). But that Septimius, and not Malalas,
is here at fault is clear from Ekloge: θάπτουσι παρὰ τὸ τεῖχος,
ἔξω τῆς πόλεως Ιλίου (218, 6), whence it appears that Malalas
did not mistake Septimius, but that Septimius and, in all probabil-
ity, the Oxford scribe as well, had recourse to a text of Dictys2
in which the words Ts Tóλews had either fallen out or become
disfigured and that Septimius, perhaps under the influence of a
foregoing allusion to King Ilos (as in Ekl. 204, 22),³ had under-
stood "Ios to be the name of a king, not of a city.
1 Cf. Patzig, Byz. Zs., I, 134.
2 The Oxford scribe, of course, to a text of Malalas in which the earlier Dictaean
error had become perpetuated.
3 Lacking in the Oxford Malalas (cf. p. 47, note 1).
50
Dares and Dictys.
Wholly lacking in the Septimius is a third passage in which the
Ekloge (211, 32-212, 6) presents an account much more detailed
than in the Oxford Ms. (119, 20) or Kedrenos (232, 23), of
Ulysses' relations with Circe:
συμμιγείς αὐτῇ πρὸς γάμον· < γνοῦσα δὲ ὅτι συνέλαβεν ἄρρενα
dè äppeva
παῖδα· οὐδὲν γάρ ήγνόει διὰ τῶν φαρμάκων, ἀπήγγειλεν αὐτῷ·
καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς εἰς σύμβολον καὶ γνώρισμα πατρικῆς ἀσφαλείας καὶ
βεβαιώσεως τοῦ τικτομένον, δίδωσι αὐτῇ δόρυ θαλασσίας τρυγόνος
κέντρον δεδορατισμένον· ὅστις Οδυσσεύς μετὰ χρόνους πόλους
γεγηρακὼς, ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ παιδὸς καὶ τοῦ δόρατος πληγεὶς ἐν τῇ
Ιθάκῃ, τελευτᾷ >· περί ἧς Κίρκης κτλ.
Here Dunger (p. 28) believes from the silence of Septimius
that Malalas must have drawn his brief notice of Odysseus' rela-
tions with Circe (in the Oxford Ms.) from tradition. But that this
is not so, is shown by the fuller version of this episode in Ekloge,
which, although lacking in the corresponding context of Sep-
timius, is nevertheless presupposed in the Latin account of the
Death of Odysseus (Eph. VI, 14-15) in which allusion is made
both to Telegonos and to the turtle-shaft with which he slays his
father Odysseus.¹ Hence the account in Ekloge, and, consequently,
in the original Malalas, must originally have stood in the Greek
Dictys, and clearly indicates that Malalas here preserves in more
detail than Septimius the original version of Dictys.
It thus appears that the original Malalas (as represented by
Ekloge) contained passages too long to render possible Dunger's
assumption that Malalas was derived from the Latin Ephemeris;
also, that Malalas' excess over Septimius cannot come from tradi-
tion, for it reappears now in Kedrenos and again in Septimius and
must, therefore, have stood in their common source, viz. the Greek
Dictys. In Ekloge, therefore, is to be found the first indisputable
evidence that Malalas, the earliest of the Byzantines, is not derived
from the Latin Dictys, but that, on the contrary, we must assume,
as his source, the existence of an earlier Greek Dictys.
¹ Clear evidence that in his account of the Adventures of Odysseus (VI, 5–6;
14–15), as in that of the adventures of many of the other home-returning Greeks,
Septimius has condensed the contents of his sixth book to the point of unintelligi-
bility (vid., pp. 111 ff.).
1
Dares and Dictys.
51
Further evidence to the same effect appears when we pass from
our special consideration of Ekloge to a consideration of those more
general differences of structure, content, method of treatment, etc.,
that separate Malalas from Septimius, and which, for the most
part, receive equal illustration in the Oxford text and in Ekloge.
Malalas differs very essentially from Septimius (and from other,
Byzantine, versions of Dictys as well¹) in many important
respects. In the first place he presents, in two different portions
of his history, certain "portraits" or personal descriptions that
are entirely lacking in Septimius and constitute a special feature of
Malalas' history of the Trojan war.2 Thus he gives, in the earlier
portion of his history, disconnected Portraits of Helen (91, 8-13)
and of the various women (Glauca, Diomeda, Astynome, etc.)
captured by Ajax, Achilles and Diomedes on the occasion of
their forays in the environs of Troy (Mal. 99, 13–103, 7) and,
later, two important lists of Portraits, one of the principal
Greek (Mal. 103, 17-105, 5), and the other of the principal
Trojan heroes and heroines (Mal. 105, 7-107, 1).3 A char-
acteristic of these Portraits, particularly of the earlier ones, is
the presence of exact and specific details as respects the age,
height, complexion and other interesting "points" of the person-
ages described.¹ As regards the explanation of the presence in
Malalas of these Portraits, lacking in Septimius, authorities are
1 ¹ To the differences that separate the later Byzantine versions from Malalas and
that by thus disproving the derivation of the former from the latter, furnish addi-
tional evidence of a Greek Dictys, we shall recur in our consideration of these later
versions (pp. 81 ff. ).
2 Aside from Dares, who, as we shall see, belongs to a tradition separate from
Dictys, the only other authors to give Portrait-lists are Malalas' redactors: Isaak
Porphyrogenitos (pp. 80-87); Tzetzes, Posthom. (vs. 361-368; 470; 651-675);
Constantine Manasses, Portrait of Helen, v. 1157 ff.; and Anonymus Uffenbachia-
nus (Halle, 1720) II, col. 655 ff.
³ These earlier Portraits occur as follows: Helen (Mal. 91, 8–13); Glauca (Mal.
89, 22–23; Diomeda (Mal. 100, 8); Astynome (Mal. 100, 18–19); Hippodamia
(Mal. 101, 16-19; Ekl. 203, 10-12); Tecmessa (Mal. 103, 5-7).
* Details which are often of a grotesque and bizarre character and clearly
mark the romance, as distinguished from the epic of the Greeks (e. g., that
Diomeda was twenty-two years old, Chryseis nineteen, and Briseis twenty-one,
etc.).
52
Dares and Dictys.
1
disagreed. The advocates of the originality of the Latin Ephe-
meris regard the Portraits either as the invention of Malalas (e. g.
Dunger, 1878, 23 ff.; Wagener, Philol. XXXVIII, 1879, 110 ff.)
or else as derived by Malalas from a non-Dictaean source (Joly,
1870, pp. 193 ff.; Meister, Ueber Dares von Phrygien, 1871,
p. 25; Haupt, Philol. XL, 1881, pp. 107 ff.; Greif (1900), pp.
11 ff.). But that these Portraits were not invented by Malalas is
shown by their presence in Dares (Cap. XII, XIII), with whom,
save for the Portraits, Malalas has, as we shall see, nothing in
common, and of whom he can, in consequence, in no wise be
looked upon as the source.¹ Nor can we assume with Joly and
Meister that Malalas derived his Portraits from a Greek trans-
lation of Septimius, in which the Portraits of Dares had already
become incorporated. For Malalas and Dares not only differ
totally in other portions of their histories, but also, as Wagener
and Haupt have pointed out, too considerably even in their por-
traits to render possible the assumption that Malalas was either
directly or indirectly indebted to Dares. Nor again, is it, as we
shall see, possible to believe with Haupt and Greif that Malalas
drew his Portraits from the highly problematical Sisyphos of Cos,
whom he cites as authority for the Adventures of Odysseus and
for the Dialogue between Teucer and Pyrrhos (cf. infra, pp. 60 ff.).*
2
3
¹ Notwithstanding the fact that the sixth century Dares presents portraits which,
though for chronological and other reasons incapable of derivation from Mala-
las, yet resemble in the main those presented by the Syrian chronographer,
Patzig (Byz. Zs., X, 1901, 608) still insists that Malalas invented his Portraits,
alleging as his reason, the presence in other portions of the Xpovoypapla of portraits
of the Roman Emperors (Mal., 283, 2-306, 13), of Peter (Mal., 256, 3 ff.) and
of Paul (Mal., 257, 5 ff. ).
2 This strange theory, first promulgated as we have seen (p. 19, note) by Barth,
rests upon no surer footing than the difficulty of otherwise explaining the presence
in Malalas of features absent in the Latin Ephemeris.
4
3 Thus Malalas presents certain Portraits absent in Dares (Idomeneus, Philoctetes,
and Calchas) and omits others present in Dares (Ajax Telamon, Podalirius [Poli-
darius], Machaon, Castor and Pollux). Moreover, Malalas places his Portrait
of Ajax the Locrian and Pyrrhos later, and of Meriones, earlier in the Greek list
than Dares. Still again Malalas attributes somewhat different characteristics to
the persons described than Dares. Dares shows a decided preference for the morals
Malalas for the physical attributes of his characters.
To this Sisyphos-chronicle Haupt ascribes, for reasons that will afterwards
appear, not only the portraits, but also practically all features of Malalas that are
lacking in the Latin Ephemeris,
Dares and Dictys.
53
For the Portraits stand, not in that later portion of Malalas in
which occur the incidents for which Sisyphos is cited, but in an
earlier portion, which, as we shall show, is solely Dictaean.' In
the light of these facts, which forbid alike the assumption that
Malalas either invented his Portraits or derived them from any
other known source, it would appear most reasonable to accept the
view of Dederich (Praef. p. xxviii), Koerting (pp. 29 ff.), and
Herzberg (Shakespeare Jahrbuch VI, 179) that Malalas found his
Portraits in the Greek Dictys. This hypothesis gains additional
support from the following considerations. In the first place, Mala-
las, as we have seen (p. 31), introduces his main Dictys-citation imme-
diately after the Portraits and there can, in consequence, be no valid
reason to doubt that it is to Dictys, not to Sisyphos, Dares, or any
other author, that he means to refer them.2 In the second place,
it is hardly to be supposed that Dictys would have omitted a feature
so well suited to sustain his claims of personal participation in the
Trojan war as the likenesses of the leading personages, with
whom, as in the parallel case of Dares, he may be supposed to
have mingled. In the third place, portraits appear, as Fürst has
shown (Philol. LXI, 1902, pp. 374 ff.), to have been a feature
of no inconsiderable antiquity in Greek literature and to have
figured frequently in works of much the same stamp as
Dictys. We may consequently assume that portraits existed in
3
¹Even more groundless than the ascription of the Portraits to Sisyphos is the
attribution of them by Bourier (cited by Patzig, Byz. Zs. X, 608) to Dominos, an
author cited by Malalas as authority for his account of the Adventures of Orestes
(Mal. 142, 20).
2 That the Portraits are to be regarded as the work of Dictys is clear not only
from the evident backward reference of Malalas' πрoyeɣpaµµéva, but also from the
fact that Isaak, Tzetzes, and Kedrenos expressly refer the Portraits (designated
respectively as idɩwµata, eldŋ, and xapaктîpas) to Dictys (cf. p. 29, note 3).
3 Fürst claims for the portraits an Egyptian genesis He finds the same con-
ventional type of portraiture that occurs in Malalas in an Egyptian papyrus of 103
B. C.; regards the knit eye-brows of Dares' Helen as a not improbable remnant of
oriental taste; and thinks it not strange that Dictys should have introduced por-
traits in a reputedly Phenician document. He moreover observes that the por-
traits enjoyed an ante-Byzantine circulation in the West, being found in the
'Epwikós of Philostratos (c. 150) and in the Acta Pauli et Theclae (c. 160-170),
and concludes that they were introduced by Dictys, or by the authors of the afore-
mentioned works, to lend an air of reality to mythical and legendary annals.
54
Dares and Dictys.
the Greek Dictys and were abstracted therefrom by Malalas.
That they fail to appear in other versions of Dictys (savè, as we
have seen, p. 29, in Kedrenos' portrait of Helen) may be explained
(as Fürst suggests, op. cit., p. 241) on some such theory as that
of Koerting (p. 64), who maintains that as a feature of unusual
interest, they may early have become detached from the main body
of Dictys' annals and have circulated thenceforth as an inde-
pendent volume, apart by themselves.
In the second place, Malalas differs from Septimius in his method
of reproducing certain portions of the Dictys-material common to
both. Thus, in contrast to Septimius, who relates that portion of his
history of Dictys devoted to the Siege and Capture of Troy (Eph.
III, 1–4, 21) in the same straightforward epic fashion in which
has conducted all other portions of his narrative, Malalas throws
his account of these events into the indirect form of two curi-
ously contrived dialogues, the one between Ajax and Odysseus,
and the other between Teucer and Pyrrhos (vid. tab.). The first
dialogue (Mal. 109, 16–114, 1; Ekl. 204, 25–207, 30) consists of
a dispute or altercation between Odysseus and Ajax Telamon as to
who shall possess the Trojan Palladion, and is hence customarily
termed the "Contest for the Palladion." By way of asserting their
rival claims to the possession of this sacred relic each warrior
recounts in turn his share in the exploits that have led to the cap-
ture of Troy. By this odd means the later events of the
Siege and the whole of the Capture of Troy are briefly
recapitulated¹ (viz., Duel between Paris and Philoctetes; Death
of Paris; Rape of the Palladion; Trojan sacrifices; Peace
negotiations; Wooden Horse; Entry and Destruction of Troy).
The second dialogue (Mal. 122, 7–132, 16; Ekl. 216, 16–221,
24), which is separated from the first by a brief interval of
direct narration,2 is employed as a means of completing the pre-
¹Septimius and Kedrenos present, to be sure, a very short debate between Odys-
seus and Ajax (Eph., V, 14; Kedr. 232, 3-8) in which each warrior recalls briefly
his former exploits, but make no attempt whatsoever to employ this debate as a
vehicle for the regular narrative of the Siege of Troy, which they have already
told at much greater length in its proper position, before the Capture of Troy
(Eph., IV, 19–V, 13; Kedr. 228, 16–232, 2).
2 The Death of Ajax and Adventures of Odysseus, Diomedes, and Agamemnon
(Mal. 114, 1–122, 7; Ekl. 208, 2–216, 2).
Dares and Dictys.
55
ceding account of the Siege of Troy by an equally ingenious
contrivance. The Salaminian Teucer, on his return to Troy to
bear aid to his brother Ajax, finds Ajax already dead and buried
by Pyrrhos. A repast is thereupon prepared, and a dialogue
ensues in which Teucer relates to the enquiring Pyrrhos those
earlier events of the war that were of more particular interest to
Pyrrhos both because they largely concerned his father Achilles
and because they occurred prior to Pyrrhos' arrival in Troy from
Scyros (viz., Hector's Death and Ransom, the battles with Penthe-
silea and Memnon, and Achilles' Death).
1
That these two dialogues can be referred neither, as Dunger
maintains (p. 28), to Malalas' invention, nor, as Haupt claims
(p. 115), to a Sisyphos-chronicle, is evident from the fact that
they contain no incidents not recorded in the Dictys-annals of
Septimius and Kedrenos (Eph. III, 1-4, 21; Kedr. 229, 5-
232, 2; Eph. VI, 22; V, 1-13; Kedr. 229, 5-232, 2),
their only distinguishing feature being found in the fact that
they relate in dramatic form what these other Dictys-versions
relate in simple, epic fashion. On the other hand, that these
two dialogues cannot, as the portraits, be held to have stood
in the original Dictys is evident from the fact that they seriously
disturb the continuity of Dictys' history by deferring until after
the Destruction of Troy those events of the Siege and Capture of
Troy that naturally belong before it. We must consequently
assume that the text of Dictys reproduced by Malalas was not
the original text but a later redaction in which the events of
the Siege and Capture of Troy had already become displaced from
their original position and reserved for subsequent insertion in the
¹Thus, as a conspicuous instance of the close agreement between the events
recorded by Malalas in his first dialogue and by Septimius and Kedrenos in their
plain epic fashion, compare the account of Paris' discomfiture at the hands of
Philoctetes (Eph. IV, 19; Mal. 110, 21–111, 2; Ekl. 206, 2–6; Kedr. 228, 19 ff.)
where all these narratives agree in the very explicit statement that Philoctetes
wounded Paris, first, in the left hand, secondly, in the right eye, and, thirdly, in
both ankles; also, in the second dialogue, Malalas' close reproduction of the circum-
stantial story of how Priam, accompanied by Andromache, with her two sons,
Astyanax and Laodamos, and by Polyzena, comes to claim the dead body of
Hector (Mal. 123, 20-125, 3; Ekl. 217, 4–218, 6).
JorM
56
Dares and Dictys.
2
two dialogues, of Ajax and Ulysses, and Teucer and Pyrrhos.¹
Further confirmation of the validity of this assumption and
a possible reason for the above-mentioned change in disposition is
to be found in the presence in Malalas of indications of still further
alterations in the version of Dictys which he reproduced. Thus, at
the very outset of his history of Dictys, Malalas proposes the sub-
ject of the Trojan War only to dismiss it in the following summary
fashion : ἐν δὲ τῇ αὐτοῦ [sc. Λαομεδόντος] βασιλείᾳ τότε καὶ τὸ
Ἴλιον καὶ τὸ Δάρδανον καὶ ἡ Τροία καὶ πάσα ἡ χώρα τῆς Φρυγίας
πορθεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αχαίων [Mal. 91, 2-4; Ekl. 197, 8–10).
Thereupon, however, he suddenly reconsiders his evident determi-
nation to omit an account of the Trojan War and, after alluding to
the Rape of Helen (as the prime cause of the war) and giving her
portrait, forthwith enters upon his annals of Dictys. These he
reproduces, in general accord with other versions, until he reaches
the end of the Ship-catalogue. Here again he gives, with equal
abruptness, a second brief recapitulation of the Capture of Troy
(Mal. 108, 9-15, Ekl. 204, 12-16), and we again expect the
conclusion of his history. But once more he changes his mind
and resumes his story as before. This time, however, it is not
with the simple Dictaean narrative that he continues, but with the
first of the two dialogues, which, as we have seen, exhibit the
inverted (or episodic) order of narration. For he resumes, not at
the point where he had left off, viz. at the Ship-catalogue, but at
1 That an earlier redactor of Dictys, and not Malalas, is to be held responsi-
ble for the alterations in question may be confidently assumed not only from
the absence of any such rearrangement in other portions of Malalas' annals of
Dictys, but also from the fact that Malalas, as the author of a world chronicle,
was, like his later Byzantine followers, primarily concerned not with the composi-
tion of particular chapters upon the history of Troy or any other subject, but only
with such a selection and close reproduction of existing sources as would enable
him to meet the requirements of his extensive subject at the least possible labor
and inconvenience to himself. It is therefore impossible to suppose that in the
present instance Malalas would have gone to the expense of rearranging in an
involved and intricate web the materials that stood before him in the straight-
forward, epic narrative of Dictys.
2 Where, as here, and, generally, elsewhere, the wording of Ekloge differs only
in insignificant details from the Oxford Malalas, quotations are made from the
latter, not the former.
Dares and Dictys.
57
the point to which his recapitulation has brought him, viz. the
departure of the Greeks from Troy (Mal. 108, 18; Ekl. 204,
27–29), and must, therefore, continue with a retrospective account
of those events of the Siege and Capture of Troy that he has
previously omitted to relate in their proper connection. This he
proceeds to give in his Dialogue between Ajax and Odysseus (Pal-
ladion-strife). At the end of this first dialogue, however, he drops
the inverted mode of narration, reverts to the simple epic style he
had hitherto employed, and relates in normal Dictaean sequence the
subsequent course of events, opening with the Death of Ajax and
ending with the Death of Odysseus (Mal. 114, 2-122, 7; Ekl. 208,
8-216, 2 Eph. V, 16-VI, 2; Kedr. 232, 8-234, 8). At
this point, however, he once more reverts to his changed, dramatic
order of recital, and in his second dialogue (between Teucer and
Pyrrhos), resumes the account of those earlier events of the Siege
that he had left untouched in the preceding dialogue between
Ajax and Odysseus. Finally, at the end of this dialogue,
he once more returns to the simple Dictaean style and concludes
his Trojan history with an account of the Adventures of Orestes
(Mal. 133, 3-142, 20; Ekl. 222, 16-226, 31= Eph. VI, 3; 4;
13; Kedr. 234, 18–237, 21). What conclusions may now be
gathered from these numerous resumptions and inversions that
constitute so extraordinary a feature of Malalas? It is, we be-
lieve, obvious that the author of the Dictys-recension followed
by Malalas originally intended to dispense so far as possible with
a prolonged reproduction of the Dictaean story of Troy; hence
his two brief dismissals of the subject, first, at the opening of his
history, and secondly, at the end of the Ship-catalogue (naturally a
tedious subject). At this point, however, the earlier recensionist
conceived the idea of employing the brief dialogue between Ajax
1
¹ Namely, those earlier events of the Siege which, as we have seen, preceded
the arrival of Pyrrhos from Scyros. Thus the two dialogues sustain an inverted
but complimentary relation to one another. The earlier dialogue could, neces-
sarily, contain only those later events of the Siege in which, after the death
of Achilles, Ajax and Odysseus played a conspicuous part; the later dialogue,
those earlier events in which Achilles played a principal rôle and of which,
by reason of his absence, Pyrrhos was ignorant.
58
Dares and Dictys.
i
and Odysseus, already present in the original Dictaean account of
the Palladion-strife (as shown by its appearance in Sept., V,
14 and Kedrenos, 232, 3-8), as a means of summarizing
these event of the Siege and Capture of Troy which, as we
have seen, were originally related separately and with due
epic elaboration. He accordingly reconsiders his previous
determination and recapitulates in dialogue-form those events
of the later portion of the Siege and of the Capture of
Troy in which Ajax and Odysseus were found to play a par-
ticularly conspicuous part. Into this Palladion-dialogue he
could not, however, introduce an account of the subsequent fortunes
of Ajax and Odysseus and so, for this purpose, he again returns to
the original Dictaean account of the Death of Ajax and the
Adventures of Odysseus' (Mal. 114, 2-122, 7; Ekl. 208, 8-216,
2 = Eph. V, 15, 16; VI, 5, 6, 14, 15; Kedr. 232, 8-233, 22).
At this point he recollects that he has not yet related those earlier
events of the Siege of Troy in which Achilles, rather than Ajax
and Odysseus, had been the prime participant. Here, however,
he is again confronted with the same difficulty as in the preceding
dialogue, viz., that these events occurred long before the point of
time to which his narrative has now brought him; hence these
events as well, must be introduced episodically, in the form of a
dialogue. Now the person to whom the deeds of Achilles would
prove of most interest is, of course, his son Pyrrhos, who had
not arrived in Troy, from Scyros, until after his father's death
(Eph. IV, 15; Mal. 104, 14; J. of A., ed. Heinrich, p. 9, 5).
The next question to settle was, obviously, who should act the part
of informant? According to Dictys, Pyrrhos learned the story of
his father's exploits from the Greeks whom he met on his arrival
(Eph. IV, 15). But it is evident that the redactor can make use of
no such device, because he has already stated that, save for Pyrrhos,
who has remained to bury his cousin Ajax (Mal. 122, 9-11; Ekl.
216, 12-15), all the Greeks have sailed for home (Mal. 122, 8;
¹To which he adds, as naturally suggested by community of theme, a brief
recapitulation of the Return of Diomedes and Agamemnon (Mal. 122, 2–7; Ekl.
216, 6-12=Eph. VI, 2; Kedr. 234, 12–17; 233, 23–234, 8).
Dares and Dictys.
59
Ekl. 216, 12). It is, therefore, obviously necessary to recall one
of these Greeks and make him the informant of Pyrrhos¹; and
the one chosen for the purpose is Teucer. The reason for Teucer's
selection is not far to seek and betrays that the pre-Malalean re-
censionist was, as in the preceding dialogue, operating upon the
basis of a suggestion in his Dictys-original. Septimius relates that
Teucer, on his arrival in Salamis, had been banished from home by
his father Telamon because he had neglected to support his brother
Ajax in the Palladion-strife with Odysseus (Eph. VI, 2) and that
he afterwards went to Cyprus where he built for himself a new
Salamis (Eph. VI, 4). Now we learn from Malalas (Mal. 122,
12-14; Ekl. 216, 16-17) that it was from this Cyprian Salamis
that Teucer returned to Troy and that his purpose in doing so was
to "bear aid to his brother Ajax." From this striking coincidence
we may infer that in the original Dictys, as in Septimius, Teucer was
banished from home because he had neglected to support his brother
Ajax in the Palladion-strife, and that our redactor, in his desire to
provide a motive for Teucer's reappearance in Troy, was thence led
to the idea of a penitential pilgrimage whereby Teucer might at
length discharge his long deferred duty to his brother. Further evi-
dence that such were the reasons for the choice of Teucer as Pyrrhos'
interlocutor may be found in the fact that Teucer and Pyrrhos are
cousins (Mal. 113, 17; 122, 10-11; Ekl. 207, 27; 216, 12-15), that,
in Teucer's absence, Pyrrhos had espoused the cause of Ajax (Mal.
113, 16-18; Ekl. 207, 26) and had since buried his dead body (Mal.
122, 9–11 ;Ekl. 216, 18), and that Teucer, on his arrival, warmly
commends Pyrrhos' devoted discharge of functions for which he had,
apparently, held himself responsible (Mal. 122, 16; Ekl. 216, 19).
1 Who, it is to be noted, desires more exact news of the fortunes of his father
(Mal. 123, 1-3; Ekl., 216, 22–24).
2
2 In providing this motive for the meeting and dialogue between Teucer and
Pyrrhos, our pre-Malalean redactor did not, however, escape certain rather
serious incongruities. Thus, as Noack has pointed out (p. 444), it is by no
means obvious how Teucer, who, according to Malalas (Mal. 108, 19 ff.: Ekl. 204,
25 ff.), had only recently left Troy (viz. immediately before the Palladion-strife)
can have had time to go home, suffer banishment, found a new city and return
again to Troy in the very short space of time that elapsed between the Palladion-
dialogue and the burial of Ajax, which occurred immediately thereafter and which
is the only pretext for Pyrrhos' delay in Troy.
60
Dares and Dictys.
1
Having thus again obtained in his Dictys-original the desired
setting for this second dialogue, the redactor allows Teucer to
communicate to Pyrrhos that earlier and complimentary portion
of the story of Troy that comprises the exploits in which Achilles
played a chief rôle. At the end of the dialogue, the redactor
again and for the last time returns to the simple Dictaean order
of narration and completes his reproduction of Dictys with a
recital of the Adventures of Orestes and Aeneas (Mal. 133, 3-142,
20; 167, 7-169, 3; Ekl. 221, 25-226, 31). Thus, from the fore-
going analysis of Malalas, it is, we believe, clear that some further
scribe, intermediary between Malalas and the Greek Dictys, intro-
duce, apparently for purposes of brevity, and no doubt, as well,
from a desire to enliven the somewhat prosaic records of his
original, two highly dramatic dialogues, accordant in all essential
respects with his original, and at all events composed of materials
extracted not from a supposititious Sisyphos-chronicle, but from
the original Dictys. What further innovation may also be laid to
his account will be seen in the course of our consideration of the
third and most striking incidents with respect to which Malalas
differs from the Latin Septimius.
The most pronounced feature with respect to which Malalas
differs from Septimius remains yet to be considered and consists
in his repeated allusions to a certain Sisyphos of Cos for par-
ticulars which, by reason of these allusions, have been held by
certain scholars to represent the remains in Malalas of a second,
non-Dictaean chronicle, namely, a lost Sisyphos-chronicle.
2
To
¹In some such manner as this, although not necessarily after the exact plan
outlined, we may imagine that a pre-Malalean redactor recast the original story
of Dictys and thus furnished the essential basis of the altered version of
Dictys that we read in Malalas. That he very probably was not himself the
sole originator of the dialogues, but found a hint for them either in a still
earlier Dictys-redaction or, more probably, in some other allied history, is ren-
dered probable by the temporal confusion involved in the hasty recall of Teucer,
However he may have been led to introduce his alterations, two things are clear:
first, that he and not Malalas made the change (cf. p. 56, note 1), and, secondly,
that he derived the matter of his dialogues, not from Sisyphos, but from Dictys.
2 Meister (Preface to ed. of Dictys, 1872, p. x); Haupt (Philol., XL, 1881,
114 ff.); Greif (op. cit., 1886, pp. 181 ff.); and Patzig (Byz. Zs., I, 1892, 141 ff.);
and Greif (op. cit., 1900, pp. 9 ff. ).
Dares and Dictys.
61
0
this Sisyphos-section of Malalas belong three episodes for which
the authority of Sisyphos is expressly adduced. These are (1)
the account of Odysseus' Adventures with the Cyclops (Mal. 114,
18-116, 23; Ekl. 208, 16-209, 30), for which Sisyphos alone is
cited: ἅτινα ὁ σοφώτατος Σίσυφος ὁ Κῷος ἐξέθετο (Mal. 117, 1 ;
Ekl. 209, 30); (2) with Circe (Mal. 117, 19–119, 22; Ekl. 210,
15-212, 7), for which Sisyphos is cited in company with Dictys:
περὶ ἧς Κίρκης ἐξέθεντο ταῦτα οἱ σοφώτατοι Σίσυφος ὁ Κῷος καὶ
AíKTUS ÈK TŶs Kρýτηs (Mal. 119, 22; Ekl. 212, 7); and (3) the
Dialogue between Teucer and Pyrrhos (Mal. 122, 7-132, 16;
Ekl. 216, 16-221, 24), for which and for the events recorded
therein Sisyphos and Dictys are again conjointly cited: Taûra dè
Σίσυφος ὁ Κῷος συνεγράψατο ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ὑπάρχων σὺν τῷ
Τεύκρῳ . . . . ἅτινα καὶ ἐν ταῖς τοῦ Δίκτυος ἐμφέρεται συγγραφαῖς
ктλ. (Mal. 132, 19; Ekl. 221, 16). Now in explanation of these
references by Malalas to a second author, Sisyphos, not mentioned
by Septimius, the advocates of the originality of the Latin Ephe-
meris, in order to sustain their theory that Malalas derived his
Dictys-materials from Septimius, maintain that Malalas here fol-
lowed, in addition to Septimius, a second author Sisyphos and that
it was from Sisyphos that he derived a large portion of his history
of the Trojan war. By reason of the fact that this theory of a
separate Sisyphos chronicle has, in one form or another, taken a firm
hold upon the minds of a large number of critics (even, in the case
of Patzig, invading the ranks of the champions of a Greek Dictys),
and that not without a certain specious semblance of reason, it will
be best to devote some little attention to a consideration of the
bases upon which this theory has been constructed, that we may
be in a better position to undertake its more complete refutation.
The Sisyphos-theory is presented in its earliest and least extreme
form by Haupt (op. cit., 1881, pp. 114 ff.), who, taking a hint
from Malalas' representation of Sisyphos as a Trojan annalist
(Mal. 132, 19; Ekl. 221, 16), proceeds upon the assumption that
we have to do in Malalas with two distinct chronicles, a Dictys-
chronicle, in which Malalas reproduces Septimius, and a Sisyphos-
chronicle, in which Malalas follows a second pre-Homeric historian,
Sisyphos of Cos. Haupt's argument is as follows. Malalas (Mal.
>
62
Dares and Dictys.
132, 19; Ekl. 221, 16) and still more explicitly Tzetzes (Chil., V,
829 ff.), who calls Sisyphos Teucer's scribe (ypaµµateús), express
themselves in terms that imply that Teucer was the actual author
and Sisyphos merely the editor of the annals that bear his name.
For this reason all those portions of Malalas in which Teucer plays
a conspicuous rôle belong, not to Dictys, but to Sisyphos. Such
are, in the first instance, the important Dialogue between Teucer and
Pyrrhos (for which, as we have seen, the authority of Sisyphos is
cited), and, in the second instance, the account of the appointment
of Teucer as leader of the Forays in place of the deposed Achilles
(Mal. 101, 19–102, 9; Ekl. 203, 12–24).¹
Now on the basis of these two Teucer incidents Haupt proceeds
to attribute to Sisyphos a large number of other incidents in Mal-
alas in which, though devoid of reference either to Teucer or to
Sisyphos, he discerns evidence of kinship to the Teucer-incidents
under consideration. Thus, by reason of structural resemblance
to the Teucer and Pyrrhos Dialogue, Haupt ascribes to Sisyphos
the earlier dialogue between Ajax and Odysseus. To Sisyphos
likewise belongs that entire account of the Greek Forays (Mal. 99,
13-103, 7; Ekl. 202, 4-204, 7) which has as its nucleus the
deposition of Achilles in favor of Teucer. Now, in the midst of
these Forays, are interspersed Portraits of the captives Glauca,
Diomeda, etc., which betray in their presentation of exact speci-
fication with regard to age, height, and complexion an evident
connection with the later Portraits of the Greek heroes and heroines
in which these same characteristics reappear. Hence, Haupt as-
signs the portraits, one and all, to Sisyphos, and further regards
as a characteristic peculiarity of that author a fondness for precise
and often grotesque detail. Moreover, since these qualities of
2
¹ Malalas rejects the traditional Homeric story of Achilles' Wrath (reproduced
by Septimius and Kedrenos) and relates instead that Achilles was deprived of
command because he had, in violation of a previous agreement, secretly kept
Briseis in his tent and refused to bring her forth as a portion of the booty to be
distributed among the army.
2 Haupt finds further confirmation of the validity of his ascription of the
Portraits to Sisyphos (1) in the presence in those portions of Malalas for which
Sisyphos is cited of brief personal descriptions of Cyclops (Mal. 115, 8) and of
Circe (Mal. 118, 1), and (2) in the absence in Malalas, as contrasted with Dares
Dares and Dictys.
63
precise and grotesque detail reappear in an earlier portrait of Helen
(Mal. 91, 8-11)¹ and a similar touch of the bizarre in the notion of
a letter from Clytemnestra to Helen (Mal. 79, 5-9; Ekl. 199,
32 ff.), Haupt also ascribes to Sisyphos the entire intervening
episode of the Rape of Helen (Mal. 93, 23–95, 21; Ekl. 198,
3-199, 16). Thus, on the basis of alleged resemblance in
treatment to the two episodes in which Teucer is brought upon.
the scene of action, Haupt detaches from Dictys and assigns
to Sisyphos by far the greater portion of Malalas' History of
the Trojan War (including not only the incidents already men-
tioned, but also the Youth of Paris and a variety of other inci-
dents). However, inasmuch as two of the three incidents for
which the authority of Sisyphos is cited, viz., Odysseus' Ad-
ventures with Circe and the Dialogue between Teucer and
Pyrrhos, are ascribed likewise to Dictys and inasmuch as all
the Malalean episodes (save the Portraits 3) in which Haupt detects
the hand of Sisyphos recur, as we shall see, in Septimius, Haupt
contents himself with the conservative opinion that Sisyphos was
not the original creator of the chronicle that bears his name, but
merely an imitator of the earlier Dictys-chronicle, which Haupt
2
(Cap. XIII), and as remarked by Isaak Porphyrogenitos (84, 23), of a portrait
of Ajax Telamon, the brother of Sisyphos' master Teucer. For the absence in
the Oxford text of any allusion to Sisyphos in connection with the Portraits,
Haupt accounts on the theory that such an allusion stood in the lost Malalas-
original, but dropt out in the lacuna (Dindorf, p. 103), alleging in support of his
contention the fact that the foregoing passage (Chil., V, 829 ff.), in which Tzetzes
refers not only to Dictys but also to Sisyphos, immediately follows the Discoveries
of Palamedes (Chil., V, 804-812), introduced by Malalas in his portrait of that
hero (Mal. 103, 11 ff.), which, as we have seen (p. 29, note 2), stands, with
Malalas' other Portraits, immediately before his Dictys-citation (Mal. 107, 1 ff.).
1 That, as Greif has pointed out (1900, p. 11), Malalas' early portrait of Helen,
introduced before the opening of the Youth of Paris, has became displaced from
its original Dictaean position and properly belongs in Malalas' account of the
Rape of Helen (95, 5) is shown by its appearance in Kedrenos' account of the
same event (217, 19 ff.).
Description of the Palladion, Adventures of Telegonos, and other incidents,
which Haupt more often allots to Sisyphos less from any detected resemblance to
Teucer-episodes than from an inability to account otherwise for the presence in
Malalas of details lacking in Septimius.
3 Which, by reason of their absence in Septimius, Haupt regards as the inven-
tion of Sisyphos.
64
Dares and Dictys.
regards as the sole invention of the Latin Septimius. By thus
conceding the priority of the Dictys-chronicle, Haupt is to be
regarded as an advocate of the Sisyphos-theory only in its mildest
form.
A second and more radical development of the Sisyphos-theory
is that entertained by Patzig (Byz. Zs. I, 1892, 141 ff.; Byz. Zs.
II, 1893, 430), who, as a champion of the Greek Dictys, might
least be expected to uphold the claims of a rival author.¹ Never-
theless Patzig assumes this position and in a form, strange to say,
even more extreme and aggressive than that maintained by Haupt.
For Patzig not only upholds the existence of a separate Sisyphos-
chronicle, but even goes so far as to maintain, in opposition to
Haupt, that Sisyphos antedated Dictys, and that the Dictys'
annals, though written prior to Septimius by a Greek author,
were, at the same time, fashioned upon the earlier model of Sisy-
phos. The steps by which Patzig is led to this highly-involved
conclusion are as follows. It is, he believes, evident that the two
Dialogues of Malalas and the intervening account of the Adven-
tures of Odysseus, occupying in all twenty-four pages, form a
connected whole structurally alien to the remainder of Malalas'
History of the Trojan War.2 Now, this structural whole of
mutually related parts exhibits evidence of greater antiquity and
of greater constructive excellence than the corresponding portions
of Septimius. Evidence of greater antiquity Patzig finds (1) in
Malalas' statement, at the end of the second dialogue, that "Sisy-
phos wrote before the times of Homer and Virgil, whereas Dictys
was not discovered until long afterwards, in the reign of Clau-
dius" (Mal. 132, 19 ff.; Ekl. 221, 16 ff.), (2) in the fact that in
both passages in which Malalas cites Sisyphos and Dictys con-
jointly Sisyphos is invariably placed first (vid. supra, p. 61), and
(3) in the presentation, in the two dialogues, of leading characters
1
¹ Patzig's views are afterwards adopted, without substantial modification, by
Fürst (Philol., LX, 1901, 244 ff.) .
2 The Adventures of Odysseus form, according to Patzig (Byz. Zs., I, 143),
the connecting link between the preceding dialogue between Ajax and Odysseus
and the following dialogue in which, as in the Adventures of Odysseus, a Sisyphos-
citation appears.
Dares and Dictys.
65
of the war as relating the chief events thereof in their own persons,
as contradistinguished from the undramatic form in which these
events are recorded by Septimius. Evidence of superior con-
structive excellence in the section under consideration he detects
in the fact that Malalas brings his account of the Death of Hecuba
and of the giving over of the sons of Ajax to Teucer (Mal. 132, 11–
14) into "much better harmony" with the encompassing narrative
than Septimius (V. 15, 16), who leaves these events without ob-
vious relation to the context in which they occur.¹
1
Thus from alleged indications of greater antiquity and of supe-
rior construction Patzig regards the two dialogues and the inter-
vening account of the Adventures of Odysseus as representing the
remains in Malalas of a chronicle earlier and more perfect than the
Dictys-chronicle. As regards, however, the amount of material in
Malalas that may be ascribed to Sisyphos, Patzig holds a much
more conservative opinion than Haupt and claims for Sisyphos
only the three episodes above-mentioned, in each of which the
authority of Sisyphos is expressly adduced. Those further inci-
dents in Malalas for which Sisyphos is not cited but which Haupt
had claimed for that author, either on the strength of the rôle
ascribed Teucer or on that of alleged resemblance to incidents in
which Sisyphos is introduced, Patzig denies to Sisyphos and claims
for Dictys. For he finds that all those portions of Malalas that
either precede or follow the two Sisyphos-dialogues occur under
Dictys-citations either in Suidas, John of Antioch, or Malalas.
Thus the Youth of Paris and Rape of Helen are shown to be Dic-
¹In his assertion with regard to the Death of Hecuba, which occurs not in
Malalas but in Kedrenos, Patzig has reference to the fact that Kedrenos (223, 13–
16), in his representation of Hecuba as slain by the companions of Odysseus, pre-
sents agreement with an earlier Dictaean statement (Eph. V, 13), that Odysseus
had received Hecuba at the taking of Troy; whereas Septimius (V, 16) so far
contradicts his earlier statement as to represent Hecuba as not slain until after the
departure of Odysseus ("post abscessum Ulixi"). As regards the giving over
of the sons of Ajax to Teucer, Patzig, for some unaccountable reason, regards this
incident as better provided for by Malalas (Mal. 132, 11-14), who represents
Teucer as receiving the sons of his brother Ajax at the end of his dialogue with
Pyrrhos, than by Septimius (V, 15), who relates that Teucer was still present
in Troy at the time of his brother's death and received his sons on the spot
and without the mediation of Pyrrhos.
66
Dares and Dictys.
taean both by the evident backward reference of the word πрoye-
ypaμμéva, used by Malalas in his principal Dictys-citation (Mal.
107, 1-11), and by the testimony of Suidas, who in his Lexicon
(sub. AúcTUs) expressly cites Dictys as authority for the Rape of
Helen : Δίκτυς ἔγραψε τὰ περὶ τῆς ἁρπαγῆς Ἑλένης; the Greek
Forays, by allusions made to Dictys in connection with this epi-
sode by Eklogarius (Ekl. 201, 28-29) and by John of Antioch
(frag. 24, 5); the Portraits, by the immediately subjoined Dictys-
citation in Malalas (Mal. 107, 1-11)'; and, finally, the entire
account of the Return of the Greeks, by the constant references to
Dictys found in connection therewith both in Malalas and in Sep-
timius.2 Accordingly, Patzig claims for Sisyphos only that middle
section in which Malalas relates in dialogue-form the story of the
Siege and Capture of Troy; the rest belongs to Dictys.
As regards now the relation that the Sisyphos-material of Mala-
las bears to the Dictys-material of Septimius, Patzig holds, in
opposition to Haupt, that the Dictys-fable was not the creation of
the Roman Septimius, but that it was written prior to Septimius
by a Greek author. Evidence of this Greek Dictys Patzig dis-
covers, with Noack, in the presence in (the Dictaean portions of)
¹Thus Patzig rejects Haupt's contention (vid., p. 62) that Malalas derived his
Portraits from Sisyphos, and regards the passage in which, after his account of
the Discoveries of Palamedes, Tzetzes introduces a joint allusion to Sisyphos and
Dictys (vid., p. 30, note 2), as a reproduction not of Malalas' portrait-citation
(Mal. 107, 1 ff.), but of the later citation (Mal. 132, 19 ff.; Ekl. 221, 16 ff.) in
which, as we have seen (p. 31, note 1), Malalas likewise makes joint allusion to
both authors.
2 In Malalas' account of the Return of the Greeks Patzig finds indubitable evi-
dence of a well-sustained and closely interwoven Dictys-fable. For he finds that in
this concluding portion of his history Malalas agrees with Septimius in making
repeated references to the way in which Dictys obtained his circumstantial account
of the return of the various Greeks to their several homes. Thus Malalas refers
to Dictys (1) as authority for the arrival of Odysseus in Crete and his subsequent
entertainment by Idomeneus, to whom he relates the adventures that have thus
far befallen him (Mal. 122, 1; Ekl. 210, 11); (2) as having received informa-
tion with regard to the closing events of Odysseus' life from certain dream
interpreters in Sparta (Ekl. 216, 4); and (3) as authority for the Adventures of
Orestes (Mal. 135, 12). In like manner, Septimius in his sixth book makes no
fewer than four distinct references to the way in which Dictys gained his informa-
tion with regard to the Return of the Greeks (cf. pp. 100, 102).
Dares and Dictys.
67
Ekloge and in Kedrenos of a "plus" incapable of derivation from
the Latin Ephemeris (cf. pp. 48 ff.). Further evidence to the
same effect he finds in the fact that Malalas gives a much fuller
version than Septimius of many of the incidents that lie outside of
the above-mentioned zone of Sisyphos-matter.¹ Consequently,
Patzig concludes that a Greek Dictys contained by far the greater
portion of those incidents that Haupt had ascribed to Sisyphos and
that the only reason why these incidents are less completely repre-
sented in Septimius than in Malalas is because Septimius in his
translation of the Greek Dictys condensed what Malalas repro-
duced in full. However, in view of the fact that the contents of
the Sisyphos-portions of Malalas recur, as we shall see (pp. 72 ff.), in
Septimius and Kedrenos, Patzig holds that the author of the Greek
Dictys used the (earlier) Sisyphos as his model, merely transform-
ing the Sisyphos-fable of his original into a Dictys-fable of his own
by the omission of the two dialogues and the addition of an exclu-
sively Dictaean account of the Return of the Greeks. Finally,
Malalas derived his two dialogues and the interposed account of
the Adventures of Odysseus from the Sisyphos-chronicle; the
remainder of his history from the Greek Dictys.3
¹As, for example, the Rape of Helen (Mal. 93, 23-95, 21; Ekl. 198, 3-199,
16), in which Malalas gives a number of details omitted by Septimius, such as the
precise date of Paris' departure for Greece, the number of companions he took
with him, and an exact inventory of the plunder he carried home with Helen;
the Greek Forays (Mal. 99, 13–103, 7; Ekl. 203, 4–204, 7), in which Malalas
(Mal. 101, 2-102, 11; Ekl. 202, 29–203, 9) gives a more circumstantial account of
the capture of Briseis than Septimius (II, 17); the Adventures of Telegonos
(Ekl. 215, 32-216, 5), in which Malalas relates with much more fulness than
Septimius (VI, 5) the story of Odysseus' dream and the consequent banishment
of Telemachos; and the Adventures of Orestes (Mal. 133, 3-142, 20; Ekl. 222,
16–226, 31), in which, among other things, Malalas gives an account of Orestes'
trial, absent in Septimius (VI, 4).
2 Thus Patzig finds evidence in the expressions “ea . . . . Latine disserere" and
non magis confisi ingenio quam" etc., used by Septimius in his epistle, that
Septimius gave, in his translation, a free abridgment not only of the last, but also,
though to a lesser extent, of the first five books of his Greek original.
3 Attention should here be called to the fact that the foregoing analysis of the
views of Patzig is based upon the theory set forth in his earlier articles (Byz. Zs.,
I, 1892, 141 ff.; Byz. Zs., II, 1893, 430). In two later articles (Byz. Zs., XI,
1902, 158, and Byz. Zs., XII, 1903, 231 ff.) Patzig retracts his earlier opinion
68
Dares and Dictys.
Finally, the latest and most extreme form of the Sisyphos
theory is that held by Greif (Die mittelalt. Bearb. d. Trojanersage,
1886, pp. 181 ff., and, again, Neue Untersuch. zur Dictys- u.
Daresfrage, 1900, pp. 9-15), who not only affirms with Patzig
that Sisyphos preceded Dictys but so far oversteps the view of
that critic as to maintain that no Greek Dictys ever existed and
that those pre-Septimian annals of Troy that certain critics are
pleased to style the Greek Dictys were at no time other than the
annals of Sisyphos. For the conception and composition of Dictys'
annals, Septimius, like Patzig's Greek Dictys, was himself solely
responsible; nevertheless, Septimius, in his creation of the Dictys-
fable, did not, as Haupt had claimed, act entirely on his own
initiative, but used the earlier Sisyphos as his model. It is, for
this reason, not merely in Malalas, but quite as much in Sisyphos'
imitator Septimius, that indications are to be sought with regard
to the original constitution of the Sisyphos-chronicle and its
subsequent transformation into the Latin chronicle of Dictys.
Now the way in which Septimius proceeded to transform Sisyphos'
annals devoted to the celebration of Teucer into Dictys' annals in
with regard to the relation which the Sisyphos and Dictys chronicles sustain to
one another and maintains that Dictys was, after all, the earlier chronicle and
that Sisyphos was written in imitation of Dictys, not the reverse. Patzig's reasons
for this complete change of opinion are as follows. The two Sisyphos-dialogues
are panegyric in character and the heroes introduced pronounce eulogies, either
upon themselves, as in the case of Ajax and Odysseus, or upon others, as in the
case of Teucer, who eulogizes Achilles, the father of his interlocutor, Pyrrhos,
and his own brother Ajax. To this especial encomiastic purpose of the dialogues
are to be ascribed various minor differences in treatment that exist between the
contents of these dialogues and the corresponding portions of Septimius. Thus
Teucer avoids the Dictaean representation of Achilles as secretly planning with
Hector a treacherous surrender of the Greeks (Eph., III, 3) by deferring the
commencement of his dialogue until after the Death of Hector (Eph., III, 15).
Similarly Teucer introduces, in praise of his brother Ajax, the non-Septimian
particular that Ajax brought back Achilles' dead body on his shoulders from the
temple of Apollo to the Greek camp (Mal. 110, 1; Ekl. 221, 11). Likewise, in
the first dialogue, Odysseus claims sole credit for Philoctetes' victory over Paris
(Mal. 110, 12–22; Ekl. 205, 20-206, 6) on the ground that he had urged the
Greek warrior to challenge Paris to single combat, had measured distance for
the combatants, and encouraged Philoctetes during the encounter; whereas in
Septimius (IV, 19) Odysseus plays merely the disinterested part of umpire.
Dares and Dictys.
69
honor of Idomeneus is traced by Greif as follows. Malalas, it is
to be observed, frequently couples Teucer (and his brother Ajax)
with Idomeneus (and his brother-in-arms Meriones). This fre-
quent coupling of Teucer (or Ajax) now with Idomeneus and
now with Meriones reappears in Septimius. Thus, just as in
Malalas Achilles is deposed in favor of Teucer, the brother of
Ajax, and Idomeneus (Mal. 102, 8-9; Ekl. 203, 21-22), so in
Septimius the first Greek leaders to arrive at Argos are Ajax
and his brother Teucer, Idomeneus and Meriones (Eph. I, 13);
as in Malalas Teucer and Meriones oppose the Amazon archers,
Idomeneus, the centre (Mal. 126, 7-10; Ekl. 218, 17-20), so in
Septimius Teucer and Meriones, who excel with the bow (Eph.
III, 1), likewise confront the bowmen of the enemy (Eph. IV, 2).
But as regards the rôle played by Idomeneus, it is to be especially
noted that Septimius not infrequently differs from Malalas. For
whereas in Malalas Idomeneus is chosen to replace Achilles, in
Septimius he is charged with the quite different task of dividing
the spoils (Eph. II, 19); whereas in Malalas (Mal. 126, 10;
Ekl. 218, 20) Idomeneus opposes the Amazon centre, he appears
in Septimius only in the subsequent battle with Memnon (Eph.
IV, 6); and whereas, finally, in Malalas Idomeneus accompanies
Priam to Achilles' tent (Mal. 124, 8-10; Ekl. 217, 13-15), in
Septimius he is preoccupied with the assignment of prizes (Eph.
III, 19). This relation of general agreement between Malalas
and Septimius as respects the association of Teucer and Idomeneus,
but of marked divergence in the treatment of Idomeneus, is thus
interpreted by Greif. Malalas here represents the original condi-
tion of the Sisyphos-chronicle, from which he derived the greater
portion of his history of Troy. Septimius, on the contrary, under-
took to construct on the basis of this Sisyphos-chronicle a new,
Dictys-chronicle, in which the centre of interest should be shifted
from Sisyphos and his master Teucer to Dictys and his lord
Idomeneus. In effecting this transformation Septimius retained,
for the next part, the close relation between Teucer and Idomeneus
found in his Sisyphos-original, but, at the same time, in order to
disguise his indebtedness to the earlier author, intentionally
assigned his own lord Idomeneus a somewhat different rôle from
70
Dares and Dictys.
that in which he appears in Sisyphos.¹ Finally, as regards the
relative proportion of Sisyphos and Dictys material in Malalas,
Greif maintains that Malalas derived the larger portion of his
history of Troy directly from Sisyphos 2; from the (transformed)
Dictys-chronicle of Septimius, only that small portion which
stands under Dictys-citations and in which his resemblance to the
Latin author is most striking.3
¹Greif moreover maintains (1900, p. 33) that Septimius did not construct his
Dictys-annals on the sole basis of Sisyphos, but used, in addition, a second fabu-
lous author Korinnos, mentioned by Suidas in his Lexicon (sub Kopívvos) as
scribe to Palamedes. Evidence of the use of this second author Greif finds in
the presence of frequent allusions to Palamedes in portions of Septimius either
lacking or otherwise treated by Malalas. Thus Septimius in his account of
the Sacrifice of Iphigenia (I, 19) represents Palamedes as chosen to replace
Agamemnon in command and again, a little later, gives (II, 14-15) an account of
the death and virtues of that hero in which reference is made to his extreme
popularity with the army. Now at the opening of the account of the Sacrifice of
Iphigenia (I, 19) occurs the first of a series of instances in which, as we have seen
(p. 13, note 1), Septimius, as though at pains to maintain the attitude of a con-
scientious historian, offers alternative explanations of the occurence of supernatural
phenomena. Thus immediately before mentioning the choice of Palamedes in
place of Agamemnon, Septimius leaves it uncertain whether the pestilence at
Aulis was due to celestial displeasure (irane caelesti) or to the pollution of the
atmosphere by dead bodies (ob mutationem aëris corpibus pertemptatis). Accord-
ingly, on the basis of this practice of giving alternative explanations of the origin
of miraculous occurrences, which he regards as a stylistic feature peculiar to
Korinnos, Greif ascribes to that author not only the two foregoing incidents in
which reference is made to Palamedes, but also other incidents in Septimius, lack-
ing or otherwise treated in Malalas, in which the same device recurs, viz.,
the
Wrath of Achilles (II, 28, 30-34, 48-52); the story of the Phenician Phallas
(IV, 4) and of the fate that overtook Himera, the mother of Memnon (VI, 10).
Finally, Greif assigns to Korinnos the account of the second meeting between
Achilles and Polyzena (III, 27) by reason of contradiction between this and an
earlier meeting (III, 1), in which, as in Malalas (130, 8; Ekl. 220, 12), reference
is made to the Thymbrian, not, as in the story of Palamedes (II, 14), to the
Sminthian Apollo. These several passages Grief accordingly regards as constitu-
ting the remains in Septimius of a special Korinnos-recital, devoted to the
celebration of Palamedes, as contrasted with the Sisyphos-chronicle, devoted to
the celebration of Teucer.
2 Thus, on the basis of alleged resemblance to incidents for which the authority
of Sisyphos is cited, Greif, like Haupt, extends to Sisyphos, the Youth of Paris,
Rape of Helen, Greek Forays, Portraits and other incidents unaccompanied by
Sisyphos-citations.
3 Greif's conclusions as regards the extent to which Malalas may be supposed to
have derived the materials for his Trojan War from Septimius suffer from the
Dares and Dictys.
71
We thus see how it has come about that two critics of hostile
camps, Patzig, a champion of the Greek Dictys, and Greif, an
advocate of the originality of the Latin Ephemeris, have been led
by the influence of Haupt's Sisyphos-theory to moderate the
intensity of their traditional animosities and through mutual con-
cessions, involving, on the one hand, the abandonment of the
priority of the Greek, on the other, of the Latin Dictys, to agree
in the claim that Sisyphos of Cos is to be regarded as the original
creator of pre-Homeric annals of the Trojan War. It cannot,
however, be denied that so sudden a rapprochment on the part
of advocates of rival theories has about it something suspiciously
fortuitous. In what follows we shall endeavor to show (1) that
the materials that Haupt and Greif claim for Sisyphos belong, for
the most part, to Dictys, and (2) that Dictys, and not Patzig's
Sisyphos, is to be regarded as the original author of pre-Homeric
annals of Troy.
In the first place, we maintain that only those passages for
which the authority of Sisyphos is expressly adduced can be
ascribed to that author, viz: the account of Odysseus' Adventures
with the Cyclops, and with Circe, and the Teucer and Pyrrhos
Dialogue. The Teucer and Pyrrhos Dialogue is shown to belong
to Sisyphos both by reason of its absence in Septimius and by
reason of the Sisyphos-citation with which it closes (Mal. 132, 19;
Ekl. 221, 16). But with the exception of this dialogue, in which
Sisyphos speaks in his own person, we possess no evidence that
Teucer played in Sisyphos a more conspicuous rôle than in Dictys.
For, in the passages cited by Grief (vid. p. 69), Teucer appears no
more frequently in the Sisyphos-annals of Malalas than in the Dic-
tys-annals of Septimius. Moreover Septimius not infrequently men-
confusion incident to any attempt to trace the reappearance in Malalas of strands
of material so inextricably interwoven as those in which in the Latin Ephemeris
he detects the hand of Sisyphos, Korinnos, and Dictys, respectively. His con-
clusions are, in general, that Malalas derived the greater portion of his history
directly from Sisyphos, his indebtedness to Septimius being limited to a repro-
duction of original Dictys-material, such as the Adventures of Odysseus and
of Orestes, which, as we have seen (p. 66, note 2), are accompanied by Dictys-cita-
tions. Of the Korinnos-element in Septimius, Malalas, according to Greif, made
no use whatsoever.
72
Dares and Dictys.
用
​tions Teucer where Malalas does not. Thus Septimius not only
represents Teucer as among the first of the Greek leaders to arrive
at Argos (Eph. I, 13), but in his account of Iphigenia's Sacrifice
(Eph. I, 19) represents Teucer (and Idomeneus) as chosen to
replace the (deposed) Agamemnon.¹ Conversely, passages are not
lacking in which Malalas mentions Idomeneus where Septimius
does not. Thus, as we have just seen, Malalas not only relates
that Idomeneus (as well as Teucer) is chosen to replace Achilles
in command of the Greek Forays (Mal. 102, 9; Ekl. 203, 32),
but also assigns Idomeneus a part in the battle with the Amazons
(Mal. 126, 10; Ekl. 218, 20). It thus appears, both from the
frequent appearance of Teucer in Septimius and of Idomeneus in
Malalas, that we have no more right to determine Sisyphos-material
on the basis of the rôle ascribed Teucer by Malalas than we should
have to determine Dictys-material on the basis of the part assigned
Idomeneus by Septimius. We have, in other words, no evidence
that Sisyphos, though designated by Tzetzes as scribe to Teucer,
accorded a more prominent position to that hero than Septimius
accords to Idomeneus. Furthermore, with the sole exception of
the Teucer and Pyrrhos Dialogue, all incidents in Malalas that
contain allusions to Teucer or that bear an alleged resemblance to
those that do, either stand under Dictys-citations or else recur in
the Dictys-annals of Septimius. Thus the Greek Forays, ascribed
by Haupt to Sisyphos by reason of the rôle attributed to Teucer,
not only reappears in Septimius (II, 16–19, 27, 41) and in Kedre-
nos (221, 10-222, 24) but is expressly assigned to Dictys by
Eklogarius (Ekl. 201, 28), and there can, in consequence, be
no doubt that this incident is purely and solely Dictaean. If,
now, we deny the Greek Forays to Sisyphos, it is clear that
we must also deny that author the embodied Portraits of the
Greek captives. That the Portraits belong not to Sisyphos but
to Dictys is further shown by the fact that the later Portraits
¹ Indeed it is by all means probable that Malalas' non-Septimian representation
of Achilles as superceded by Teucer (vid. supra) is due merely to a hasty repro-
duction of the present passage whereby the name Achilles came to be substituted
in place of Agamemnon, which stood in the Greek Dictys, as in Septimius.
Dares and Dictys.
73
of the Greek heroes and heroines are, like the similar Portraits of
the Greek captives, nowhere ascribed to Sisyphos, but expressly
claimed for Dictys, not only by Malalas in his immediately sub-
joined Dictys-citation (Mal. 107, 1 ff.), but also, as we have seen
(p. 29), by Isaak, Tzetzes, and Kedrenos, who explicitly
state, in their Dictys-citations, that Dictys gave Portraits (respect-
ively designated as ἰδιώματα, εἴδη and χαρακτήρας) of the leading
personages of the war. If, therefore, we refuse the Portraits to
Sisyphos, there evidently remains no further reason why we should
ascribe to that author the Youth of Paris or the Rape of Helen.
For the recurrence in these two episodes of the same peculiarities
of precise and often grotesque detail that characterize the Portraits
carries no further weight as a test of Sisyphos-authorship so long
as we deny the Portraits to Sisyphos. Again, we are unable to
concede, with Patzig (Haupt and Grief), the first dialogue, between
Ajax and Odysseus, to Sisyphos. For this dialogue, notwith-
standing its evident structural resemblance to the later dialogue
between Teucer and Pyrrhos, not only contains no Sisyphos-
citation but is already present, as we have seen p. 55, (in
undeveloped form) in the Palladion-strife related by Septimius
(V, 14) and Kedrenos (232, 3-8). As regards, finally, Malalas'
story of the Adventures of Odysseus, we again take issue with the
above-mentioned critics in that we deny to Sisyphos more of
Odysseus' Adventures than the two incidents covered by Sisyphos-
citations, viz. his experiences with the Cyclops and with Circe.
For the subsequent portion of Odysseus' Adventures, viz.: from
his arrival at the isle of Calypso to his death at the hands of Tele-
gonos (Mal. 121, 3–122,1; Ekl. 212, 22–216, 5), stands not under
a Sisyphos-citation, but under two important Dictys-citations, the
first introduced in connection with the story of Odysseus' arrival in
Crete and his subsequent report to Idomeneus of the adventures
that have thus far befallen him (Mal. 122, 1; Ekl. 210, 11), the
second, in explanation of the way in which Dictys obtained his
information with regard to the closing events of Odysseus' life,
viz. from certain dream-interpreters at Sparta (Ekl. 216, 4).
We thus maintain, in opposition to Haupt and Greif, that the only
incidents in Malalas that reveal the hand of a second author, Sisy-
:
74
Dares and Dictys.
phos, are the three episodes for which the authority of that author
is expressly adduced, viz.: the Adventures of Odysseus with the
Cyclops, and with Circe, and the Dialogue between Teucer and
Pyrrhos.
In the second place, it cannot be maintained that we have in
Sisyphos a chronicle either of greater antiquity or of greater con-
structive excellence than in Dictys. As regards the alleged evi-
dences of greater antiquity in Sisyphos, Patzig infers from Mala-
las' statement (Mal. 132, 20-22; Ekl. 221, 17-18) that Dictys
was not discovered until long after the period at which Sisyphos
was composed (sc., before the time of Homer and Virgil) that
Sisyphos must be the older chronicle. But it is here evident,
as Patzig afterwards recognizes (Byz. Zs. XI, 151), that Malalas
is here referring, not to the composition of Dictys, but only to
the late discovery of that chronicle, which, as we have already
seen (p. 26, note 2), he incorrectly places under the reign of
Claudius instead of Nero (Mal. 250, 1-9). Nor is it possible
to maintain with Patzig that dialogues in which heroes of the war
relate their exploits in person must of necessity belong to an earlier
period than passages in which these exploits are related in plain,
historical fashion. Indeed, in the present instance, it is obvious
that the contrary was the case. For had Dictys, as Patzig supposes,
found two well-developed dialogues, admirably suited to the history
of an eye-witness of the Trojan war, already present in his Sisyphos-
original, it is impossible to see why he should not, like Malalas,
have retained a feature so well calculated to sustain his preten-
sions, and why we should not have in Septimius, as in Malalas,
in place of the brief Palladion-dialogue, the two full-fledged dia-
logues of Sisyphos. We believe, therefore, that the two dialogues
of Malalas are to be looked upon as an outgrowth of the earlier
Palladion-dialogue of Septimius, not the reverse.¹ Equally without
foundation is Patzig's further claim that in respect to harmony of
construction Dictys is inferior to Sisyphos. For although, in the
¹ Moreover, as Patzig afterwards acknowledges (vid. p. 67, note 3), the panegyric
purpose evident in these two dialogues shows most conclusively that the dialogues
in question are to be looked upon as a special adaptation of the earlier Dictys-
chronicle, in which no such purpose is discernible.
Dares and Dictys.
75
passage cited by Patzig (p. 65), we might naturally expect Sep-
timius to represent Hecuba as slain before and not after the
departure of Odysseus, to whom she had already been given
(Eph. V, 13), it is to be borne in mind that the Death of
Hecuba, as shown by Kedrenos, forms an inseparable part of the
Adventures of Odysseus and belongs, accordingly, to that sixth
book of Septimius, in which the Dictaean story of the Return of
the Greeks has been unduly abridged. Hence the confusion here,
as in also in many other portions of the sixth book (cf. pp. 111 ff).
In all other respects it is evident that Septimius presents a
much more consequential and better organized narrative of events
than Sisyphos. For it is obvious that Septimius, who repre-
sents Teucer as not going to Cyprus until after the Palladion-
strife (VI, 2) and as still present in Troy to receive the sons
of his brother Ajax on the death of the latter (V, 16), gives
a much clearer and more consistent version of this incident than
Malalas, who is compelled by the exigencies of his dialogue to
represent Teucer as absent on the occasion of his brother's death
and as unable to receive the sons of Ajax until his return from
Cyprus to interview Pyrrhos (Mal. 122, 13; Ekl. 216, 17).¹
Indeed the entire treatment of Teucer is much more intelligible
in Septimius than in Malalas. For, as we have already seen (p.
59, note 2), it is by no means clear from Malalas how Teucer, who
must be supposed to have left Troy, with the other Greeks, imme-
diately before the Palladion-strife, can have had time to return
2
¹ For by representing Teucer as present at the death of Ajax, Malalas would, as
we have seen (p. 59), have left Teucer's return to Troy to confer with Pyrrhos
without motive.
2And not, as Patzig supposes (Byz. Zs., XI, 155), at the time of Pyrrhos'
arrival in Troy from Scyros (Mal. 104, 17). For Malalas represents Teucer as
still present in Troy on the occasion of the subsequent battle with the Amazons
(Mal. 126, 10; Ekl. 218, 20). Moreover, it is impossible to conceive how
Teucer could have learned of the danger that threatened his brother Ajax, still
less how, as in Septimius, he should have been excluded from home by his father
Telamon, in case he left Troy so long before the outbreak of the Palladion-strife.
It is, accordingly, to be inferred that Teucer left Troy immediately before the
dispute that ended in his brother's death and that it was only the events of
the Palladion-strife, and not, as Patzig imagines, the account of the preceding
battles with Penthesilea and Memnon, that Teucer learns from the lips of Pyrrhos
(Mal. 122, 15; Ekl. 216, 17).
76
Dares and Dictys.
1
home, suffer expulsion at the hands of his father Telamon (Eph.
VI, 2), repair to Cyprus, found a new Salamis (Eph. VI, 4), and
return to Troy in the brief space of time that has elapsed between
the opening of the Palladion-strife and the dialogue with Pyrrhos
that immediately ensues. Hence it is evident that we have in
Septimius the earlier and more consequential story of Teucer's
adventures and in Malalas a late and awkward attempt to adjust
the Dictaean rôle of Teucer to the exigencies of the Sisyphos' dia-
logue. Further evidence of the inadequency of the Sisyphos-
annals of Malalas as compared with the Dictys-annals of Septi-
mius is furnished by the contrast between the total absence in
Malalas of any reference to the manner in which Sisyphos may be
supposed to have obtained his information with regard to the
events he relates and the full and circumstantial manner in which
Dictys undertakes to account for the way in which he gathered
his knowledge of the materials of his history. Thus Dictys
learned of the events prior to the war from Odysseus, of the events
of the war itself from personal experience, while for the events
subsequent to the war he was indebted in part to Menelaus (Eph.
VI, 3, 4), in part to Odysseus (Eph. VI, 5; Mal. 121, 1; Ekl.
210, 11), and in part to Neoptolemus (Eph. VI, 10).² If now
we compare the frequency with which Dictys introduces himself
upon the scene of action and the painstaking manner in which, as
a veracious historian, he attempts to account for his knowledge of
events which he did not personally witness with the total lack of
any statement by Sisyphos with regard to the way in which as an
absentee he gained his knowledge either of the Dialogue between
Ajax and Odysseus or of the Adventures of Odysseus with the
Cyclops and Circe or, even as a presentee, of the Dialogue
1 ¹In view of this difficulty, it is more natural to suppose with Patzig (Byz.
Zs., XI, 155) that, according to Malalas, Teucer did not, as in Septimius, return
to Salamis, but repaired directly to Cyprus, whither he had already gone, on an
earlier plundering expedition in company with Idomeneus (Mal. 102, 6–7; Ekl.
203, 23).
"Also, according to Eklogarius, to certain dream-interpreters in Sparta (cf.
p. 66, note 2).
Dares and Dictys.
77
3
between Teucer and Pyrrhos,' it becomes at once evident that
Sisyphos, so far from exhibiting a constructive skill superior to
that of Dictys, is, in comparison with the latter, an inept and in-
effectual bungler. Finally, conclusive demonstration of the un-
tenability of Patzig's assumption is to be found in the fact that
Malalas is the only Dictys-annalist to refer in any way to Sisy-
phos. Had Sisyphos indeed been the earlier and better chronicle,
how are we to explain that fact that neither Septimius, John of
Antioch,2 or Kedrenos allude at any time to this superior source
but solely and invariably to Dictys? How does it happen that
they all alike reject a feature so appropriate to the character of an
eye-witness and prefer instead the simple, epic style of Dictys?
How, moreover, does it happen that Malalas, who, according to
Haupt and Greif, drew the larger portion of his annals from Sisy-
phos, introduces but three references to that author as against six
to Dictys? (cf. p. 26, note 1). Why, finally, did not Malalas, if he
discerned in Sisyphos a chronicle of superior éxcellence to Dictys,
follow that author throughout, or, if only in part, why at least
does he not refer more often to his superior than to his inferior
source?
3
Our own views with regard to the disposition to be made of the
Sisyphos-material in Malalas are as follows. We have in Malalas,
as already stated, three and only three episodes that betray the
hand of a second author Sisyphos, viz. the Adventures of Odysseus
with the Cyclops, and with Circe, and the Dialogue between
Teucer and Pyrrhos. For each of these three incidents the
authority of Sisyphos is expressly cited and there can, in conse-
quence, be no doubt that these incidents are to be regarded as the
reflection in Malalas of the work of an actual author Sisyphos, not,
as Noack supposes (pp. 439 ff.), as invented and attributed to an
¹ For had such allusions existed in an earlier and more authentic Sisyphos
chronicle it is certainly not to be supposed that Malalas would have failed to
repeat them.
2 Save, as we shall see (p. 90), in a single instance (Mueller, frag. 24, 9).
3 Not to mention the two additional references to Dictys in the Malalas-excerpt
Ekloge, which must also have stood in the original text of Malalas (cf. p. 66 and
p. 66, note 2).
78
Dares and Dictys.
i..
imaginary Sisyphos by a pre-Malalean redactor of Dictys. More-
over the striking resemblance between the Sisyphos-annals of
Malalas and the Dictys-annals of Septimius, attested alike by the
parallelism between the relation sustained by Sisyphos to Teucer
and by Dictys to Idomeneus and by the significant fact that
Sisyphos is twice cited in immediate connection with Dictys and
in no case for incidents not recorded by Septimius, leaves no doubt
that the one chronicle was written in imitation of the other. As
to which of the two was the earlier, there can, in view of what
has already been said, remain no further doubt that Sisyphos was
fashioned upon the earlier model of Dictys, not the reverse.
As
regards, now, the explanation of why it is that Malalas has
introduced the name of a second and apparently superfluous
author Sisyphos, light is afforded by a consideration of the
way in which Malalas cites, not Sisyphos alone, but also
Euripides, Pheidalios of Corinth, and Homer as concomitant
authorities with Dictys for his account of the strange adven-
tures that Odysseus experienced at the hands of the Cyclops
and of Circe. Thus the testimony of Euripides and Pheidalios is
adduced in corroboration of the rationalistic explanation given by
Sisyphos and Dictys of the fabulous Homeric story of the
one-eyed Polyphemos (Mal. 117, 1–16; Ekl. 209, 31–210, 14)
and again, as affording, in consonance with that of Dictys and
Sisyphos, additional refutation of the Homeric fable of the
power of Circe's charms (Mal. 119, 23-121, 2; Ekl. 212, 8-21).
Now the purpose of this accumulation of names in Malalas is
evidently not to diversify or enrich the Dictaean story of Odysseus'
Adventures with the Cyclops and Circe (Eph. VI, 5, 6) by the
introduction of additional material from other authors, but simply
to confirm the truth of the Dictaean story by adducing the con-
current testimony of authors who have interpreted these events in
a similar rationalistic manner. It is only for this reason that
Sisyphos is introduced in the two incidents under consideration.
and it becomes, accordingly, as futile to seek the origin of these
incidents in Sisyphos as in Euripides or Homer. Only when we
pass to the third Sisyphos-incident in Malalas, viz. the Dialogue
between Teucer and Pyrrhos, do we detect evidence of the ex-
Dares and Dictys.
79
clusive use of Sisyphos-matter by Malalas. For as we have
already seen, the idea of a meeting between Teucer and Pyrrhos
is entirely strange to Septimius and has, in consequence, neces-
sitated on the part of Sisyphos a complete alteration of the rôle
accorded Teucer by Septimius. Here we must accordingly sup-
pose that the pre-Malalean redactor of Dictys-to whom we have
already attributed the introduction of the two Dialogues in
Malalas-perceived in the Teucer-dialogue of Sisyphos a con-
venient means of abridging his account of the Siege of Troy and
was consequently led, at this single point, to choose Sisyphos
rather than Dictys as his guide.¹ But even in this Sisyphos-
1 That, even in this dialogue, the Sisyphos-narration of Malalas bears a most
decided resemblance to the Dictys-narrative of Septimius is shown by the fact that
an obscure passage in Malalas may be explained on the basis of the corresponding
portion of Septimius and, contrariwise, an obscurity in Septimius may be emended
on the basis of the corresponding portion of Malalas. We have reference, in the
first instance, to the much disputed passage in which Malalas relates the burial of
Hector (Mal. 132, 3 f. ; Ekl. 221, 14 f.): βαλόντες ἐν ὑδρίᾳ θάπτομεν σιγῇ. ὁ δὲ
ô dè
Πυρρος κτλ. The difficulty lies in the word σιγῇ. That σιγῇ is not a corruption of
Sigeum (Mal. 122, 11; Ekl. 216, 15) is shown by the corresponding passage in
Ekloge: θάπτομεν σιγῇ < εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Σίγριν >. ὁ δὲ Πύρρος κτλ. Noack
(p. 420) conjectures that the original (Dictaean) reading was yŷn and that we
have in σy a survival of an originally third person ending σ+y and compares
Kedrenos: 0άTтovoι Y. That, however, Sisyphos, who, as we must assume,
undertook, for the purpose of his dialogue, an intentional alteration in the person
of his original, would have committed so careless a blunder, is, as Patzig (Byz.
Zs. XI, 158) and Fürst (Philol. LX, 247) have pointed out, not to be supposed.
We moreover find, with Fürst, justification for the retention of σy in the cor-
responding portion of Septimius (IV, 13), where we read that the traitor Achilles,
receives a silent burial, unattended by any of the martial ceremonies that accom-
pany the later burial of the patriot Ajax (Eph. V, 15,16; Mal. 122, 10; Ekl. 216,
18). Conversely, we find, with Greif (1900, p. 13), in Malalas a clue to the interpre-
tation of an obscure passage (IV, 2) in Septimius' account of the battle with the
Amazons: cadunt sagittis reginae plurimi neque ab Teucris secus bellatum. That
here the reading ab Teucris cannot, as Dunger (p. 21) and Noack (p. 447)
suppose, be correct is shown by the fact that the Trojans take no part in the
Amazon conflict (cf. Eph. p. 70, 28), that they are nowhere designated by Dictys
as Teucri, and that it is, obviously, the Greeks and not the Trojans who fell
beneath the arrows of Penthesilea. That, at the same time, we have here to do,
not with the Greeks in general, as Lûnák conjectures in his emendation ab nostris
(Philol. LII, 205), but with Teucer (and his fellow-archers) in particular is, as
Lehrs (Königsb. wissenschaft. Monatsbl. VI, 132) admits in his unnecessarily
complicated emendation a Teucri sociis, evident both from the fact that Teucer
80
Dares and Dictys.
dialogue we discern no indications that the redactor in ques-
tion has sought more than a new means of continuing the
abridged story of the Siege and Capture of Troy begun in the
preceding dialogue between Ajax and Odysseus, which, as we
have already seen (p. 73), is purely Dictaean.¹
Finally, explanation of the way in which the author of
the transformed Dictys-annals of Malalas may be supposed to have
enjoyed access to Sisyphos is to be had in a further consideration
of the two foregoing references to Pheidalios of Corinth and in a
subsequent reference to Dominos, cited by Malalas as authority for
Orestes' Adventures in Syria (Mal. 142, 20). For it is evident
that we have in Pheidalios and Dominos, cited, like Sisyphos,
only by Malalas, pre-Homeric annals of much the same stamp as
Sisyphos, and that the same reasons that induced our redactor to
quote these two additional authors prompted likewise his allusions
to Sisyphos. These reasons can be found only in the assumption
that there existed, at a period subsequent to the composition of
Dictys and prior to the appearance of Dictys' annals in the works
of the Byzantines, a book, similar to that preserved under the
name of Ptolemaios Chennos, designed to bring together the most
famous Trojan forgeries of the day within the compass of a single
volume.2 To some such a collection of forgeries, in which, to
has just taken his station opposite the Amazon archers (Eph. p. 70, 32) and, in
particular, from the express reference to his activity in Malalas: Kal Kтeivw ¿yw
Тeûкρos πоλÙ πλños (Mal. 126, 11; Ekl. 218, 21). From this last passage in
particular it is, we believe, clear that the ab Teucris of Septimius makes no sense
and that in the original Dictys, no less than in the Sisyphos-adaptation, the
reference was clearly and unmistakably to Teucer.
1 For the Palladion-dialogue not only contains no allusion to Sisyphos, but is .
already present, in embryonic form, in the Dictys-annals of Septimius. More-
over, it is quite impossible to regard this dialogue as sustaining any organic
relation to the later Teucer-dialogue. For, as we have already seen (p. 74), the
Teucer-dialogue opens at a point earlier than that at which the present dialogue
ends.
2 That collections of alleged extracts from early fabulous histories of Troy were
common in post-Alexandrian times is rendered probable by the frequency with
which later writers refer to works of this sort. Thus Suidas in his Lexicon (sub
Kopívvos) mentions a certain Korinnos who acted as scribe to Palamedes (cf. the
relation of Dictys to Idomeneus and of Sisyphos to Teucer), and who wrote a
history of the Trojan war in the Doric letters invented by his master (cf. the
'
Dares and Dictys.
81
judge from the analogy of Chennos¹ and from the manner in
which Malalas introduces concomitant allusions to Sisyphos,
Pheidalios and Dictys, extracts from various Trojan apocrypha had
become episodically classified, our redactor, in all probability, had
recourse, and from it he extracted those ultra-Dictaean features
that would seem otherwise to constitute a most anomalous element
in a chronicle that aims primarily to reproduce Dictys.
John of Antioch.
The second Byzantine version of Dictys with which we have to
deal is that by John of Antioch. The determination of the rela-
tion of John of Antioch to other versions of Dictys, has, in the
past, been rendered difficult by reason of the following facts. The
Troica of John of Antioch, contained in his Ἱστορία χρονική or
'Apɣaioλoyía,² no longer survive in their original form, being,
2
Phenician script of Dictys). In like manner Aelian (Var. Hist., XI, 2; XIV,
21) attributes pre-Homeric records to Oroibantes the Troizenian, Dares the
Phrygian, and Syagrios. Similarly Eustathios (ad. Odys., p. 453, 32), and, most
important, Ptolemaios Chennos, who is to be regarded as one of the principal
collectors of fabulous notices of this sort (Kawǹ iotopía, excerpts of Photius, ed.
Roulez, p. 147 a 24), cite Asclepiades the Myrleanian, Timolaos the Macedonian,
Dardanos the Thessalian, Antipater the Acanthian, Dares the Phrygian, and a
variety of other authors as authority for special versions of specific incidents of
the Trojan war. In view of these many allusions to Trojan apocrypha, many
of which, as in the case of the majority of those cited by Chennos, can have
had no existence whatsoever in fact, there can be but little doubt that a veritable
epidemic of forgeries prevailed in post-Alexandrian times (cf. p. 13, note 2) and
nothing is more probable than that at a later period, such as that represented by
Chennos (2nd century A. D.), extracts from real or alleged forgeries pertaining to
the Trojan war, were afterwards gathered together and arranged, as in Chennos
(cf. the following note), according to the specific subjects (or episodes) of which
they treat. (Cf., in general, Hercher, Ueber die Glaubwürdigkeit des Ptolemaeus
Chennus, Fleckeisen's Jahrb., 1855, Supplement, I, 269 ff.)
¹ Thus Chennos (loc. cit.) adduces a list of (alleged) extracts from early authors
in support of his assertion that various Greek heroes (e. g., Patroclus, Achilles,
Hector, etc.) received oracular intimations of the fates that awaited them (quoted
by Hercher, pp. 269 ff. ).
2 Both titles receive Ms. justification: the first from the two Constantine MSS.,
Codex Turonensis, in which the Antioch-fragments under the title πepì åperîs,
bear the superscription Εκ τῆς Ἰωάννου 'Αντιοχέως ἱστορίας χρονικής, and Codex
Escorialensis, in which the Antioch-fragments, under the title πepì èπißovλŵv, bear
the superscription 'Εκ τῆς ἱστορίας Ιωάννου 'Αντιοχέως, the subscription Τέλος τῆς
82
Dares and Dictys.
!
until recent years, represented only by twelve brief fragments, two
in the Constantine,' and ten in the Salmasian collection.2 More-
over, in the past, doubt has been expressed with regard to the
genuineness of these Trojan fragments by reason of the fact that
the fragments in question occur in portions of the Constantine and
Salmasian collections which, though signed by John of Antioch,³
exhibit marked stylistic inferiority to other signed portions of the
same collections. This doubt has, however, been finally removed
4
3
ἱστορίας Ιωάννου τοῦ ᾿Αντιοχέως ; the second from the Salmasian Ms. Codex Paris,
1763), in which the Antioch-fragments bear the superscription: 'Apxacoλoyía
'Iwávvov toû 'Avтioxéws (cf. Mueller, op. cit., 1868, IV, 535; Patzig, Byz. Zs.
II, 414).
¹The Constantine collection (or encyclopedia), compiled under the direction of
the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos (tenth century), contains excerpts from
a variety of earlier Byzantine historians, arranged not according to author, but
according to the subject of which they treat (e. g. περὶ ἀρετῆς, περὶ ἐπιβουλῶν
KTλ.); the two Constantine fragments are edited, the first, which stands under
the rubric repì ȧperîs, by Mueller, op. cit. (1868), IV, 550, frag. 23, the second,
which occurs under the rubric πeρì èπißоνλŵv, by Cramer, Anecd. Paris (1839),
II, 4, 3-5, 13, and Mueller, p. 551, frag. 25.
2 The Salmasian collection, so-called from its discoverer Clement Salmasius
(seventeenth century), comprises unclassified excerpts, derived, for the most part,
from John of Antioch (cf. Patzig, progr. 1891, pp. 3 ff.); the ten Salmasian frag-
ments are edited by Cramer, II, 390 ff., and Mueller, p. 550, frag. 24.
3 Cf. p. 81, note 2.
4 For this reason Sotiriadis (op. cit., 1888, pp. 3 ff., 24, 55 ff., 96 ff.) has
denied the Constantine Troica to John of Antioch and attributed them to Malalas;
likewise, and for the same reason, de Boor (Hermes XX, 1885, 327 ff.); Sotiriadis
(1888, pp. 24, 37); Noack (1892, p. 433); de Boor (Herm. XXXIV, 1899,
298 ff.); and Greif (1900, p. 24), have assigned the Salmasian Troica, not to
John of Antioch, but to an anonymous hand of the ninth century. On the other
hand, Patzig has maintained (progr. 1892, pp. 2 ff.; 20 ff.; Byz. Zs. I, 1892, 138;
II, 18934, 23 ff.) that the Constantine and Salmasian Troica both originally formed
portion of one and the same Antioch-original. Patzig's reasons for this opinion were
that the contents of both the Constantine and Salmasian fragments reappear alike
in the Dictys-glosses of Suidas and in the Hypothesis of the Odyssey (ed. Dindorf),
and must, therefore, have originally existed in a single chronicle, the joint source
of Suidas and the Hypothesis. Thus Patzig finds that Suidas reproduces the con-
tents of both in his Lexicon (cf. Const. Youth of Paris, frag. 23, with Suidas, sub
Пápiov; Salm. art. on Rhesos, frag. 24, 6 with Suidas, sub Pros; Salm. art. on
the Palladion with Suidas, sub Пaλλádiov). Of the objection urged against the
genuineness of the Troica by reason of their stylistic inferiority to other portions
of the two collections in which they occur Patzig (prog. 1891, p. 6) disposes on
the assumption that in the Troica we have to do either with a portion of the
'Apxacoλoyía in which John of Antioch had recourse to inferior sources or with
the work of a continuator.
Dares and Dictys.
83
by new Trojan material by John of Antioch discovered by A.
Heinrich in a Vienna Codex (Vindobonensis historicus 99) and
edited in a Graz program (1892), entitled,, Die Chronik des
Johannes Sikeliota,, (pp. 4-10).¹ These new materials, save
for their greater copiousness, present readings that accord with
the Constantine and Salmasian fragments and leave, therefore,
no further doubt that the three groups of Troica under consider-
ation represent parallel excerpts from one and the same Antioch
original.²
We have, now, to determine whether the Dictys-version of John
of Antioch (represented by the three sets of fragments above men-
tioned) is capable of derivation from one or both of the earlier ver-
sions of Septimius and Malalas, or whether it contains additional
details of such a nature as to necessitate the assumption that Antioch
derived the materials of his history from an earlier Greek-Dictys.
A comparison of Antioch with Malalas and Septimius yields the
following results. Antioch presents throughout his history con-
stant agreements now with Malalas and now with Septimius, not
infrequently uniting within one and the same episode elements
that exist apart in the works of his predecessors.3 Thus Antioch
agrees with Malalas and differs from Septimius in respect to the
following particulars. Antioch (Jo. Sik., 5, 8-9) reproduces
an account of the ancestry of Menelaus present in Malalas (Mal.
94, 2-4; Ekl. 198, 19-20) but absent in Septimius; Antioch (5,
8-20; Const. frag. 23) agrees with Malalas (Mal. 94, 5–21; Ekl.
198, 20-31) in the statement that Paris arrived in Sparta before
and not, as in Septimius (1, 3), after the departure of Menelaus for
¹ This new version of John of Antioch, inserted in the chronicle of John of
Sicily, presents, in contrast to the disconnected fragments preserved in the Con-
stantine and Salmasian collections, a consecutive, though abridged, reproduction
of a considerable portion of the original Troica of Antioch. Nevertheless,
this version, though more copious than the fragments hitherto known, is still
incomplete. It opens with the Youth of Paris and ends abruptly, in the midst of
an account of the Rape of the Palladion. (vid. tab. ).
2 The discovery of this new material serves, therefore, to substantiate the view
of Patzig (cf. Patzig, Byz. Zs., IV, 1895, pp. 23 ff.; Gleye, Byz. Zs., V, 1895,
p. 452; Patzig, Byz. Zs., X, 1901, p. 42).
³ These resemblances are, of course, somewhat obscured by the fact that the
excerpts by which Antioch is represented present a much more compressed version
of Dictys than is in Malalas and Septimius.
84
Dares and Dictys.
!
Crete; Antioch (5, 31) incorrectly gives the name of Hecuba's
father as Dynas (Mal. 96, 17; Ekl. 199, 25) in contradistinction
to Septimius' correct Dymas (Eph. I, 9); Antioch (6, 5-9)
presents a brief account of the Youth of Achilles present in
Malalas (Mal. 97, 13-16) but absent in Septimius; Antioch
(7, 19) repeats in harmony with Malalas (Mal. 123, 5; Ekl.
216, 26) the non-Septimian detail that Achilles slew Hector
by night; Antioch (7, 31) relates that not only Nestor (Eph.
III, 20; Mal. 124, 8-9; Ekl. 217, 14) but also Idomeneus
(Mal. 124, 8-9; Ekl. 217, 14) begged Achilles to restore
the dead body of Hector to Priam; Antioch (Salm. frag. 24, 9)
like Malalas cites Sisyphos as authority for the Adventures of
Odysseus with Circe.' Elsewhere, however, and in immediate con-
nection with incidents peculiar to Malalas, John of Antioch pre-
sents many specific points of agreement with Septimius. Thus
Antioch (5, 17; frag. 23) states that Clymene (Eph. I, 3) as well
as Aethra (Mal. 95, 2; Ekl. 199, 3) attended Helen in Sparta;
Antioch (5, 28) relates that not only Menelaus (Mal. 97, 9; Ekl.
200, 3) but also Odysseus and Palamedes (Eph. II, 4) went as
embassadors to Troy; 2 Antioch (5, 41; 6, 1; 9, 20; Const.
frag. 23) repeats the constant Septimian allusion to the law-
less conduct of the sons of Priam (Eph. I, 7, 11; II, 8,
25, 41 ff.); Antioch (8, 30) states that Achilles undertook
negotiations for the hand of Polyzena, not, as in Malalas (Mal.
130, 11-12; Ekl. 220, 13-16), at the instigation of Priam,
but, as in Septimius (IV, 10), entirely on his own initia-
tive;³ Antioch (Salm. frag. 24, 6) relates in accordance with
1
¹By reason of these numerous points of resemblance between the Antioch-text
represented in the Constantine and Salmasian fragments and Malalas, Dunger
(1878, pp. 14 ff.) and Greif (1886, pp. 247 ff.), to whom the Vienna-Troica were
as yet unknown, derived Antioch from Malalas.
2 Malalas states only at a much later point (Mal. 110, 6; Ekl. 205, 20) that
Odysseus and Palamedes, as well as Menelaus, went as ambassadors to Troy.
³ The exceptional representation by Malalas of Priam as seeking to induce
Achilles to betray the Greeks in return for the hand of Polyzena proceeds from
the fact that Malalas has, in order either, as Patzig believes (p. 68, note), to
preserve the panegyric purpose of his dialogue, or, as is more probable, to secure
the compression essential to his dialogue, omitted an earlier account of the
meeting between Achilles and Polyzena (Eph, III, 2).
Dares and Dictys.
85
Septimius (II, 45) the story of the arrival of Rhesos in Troy
and his death at the hands of Odysseus and Diomedes; Antioch
(9, 30) agrees with Septimius (V, 4) in the statement, omitted
by Malalas, that Helen begged Antenor to intercede with the
Greeks in her behalf and procure her restoration to Menelaus ;
Antioch (10, 22-25) relates that not only Antenor (Mal, 109, 8-
11; Ekl. 204, 33-205, 2) but also his wife Theano (Eph. V, 8)
was instrumental in the delivery of the Palladion to Odysseus
and Diomedes; finally, Antioch agrees with Septimius in the omis-
sion of the Portraits and the two Dialogues peculiar to Malalas.
Passages likewise occur in which, in the midst of one and the
same incident, Antioch combines details peculiar to Malalas with
others found only in Septimius. Thus in his account of the Youth
of Paris (4, 1–3; Const. frag. 23) Antioch unites Septimius' story
of the Dream of Hecuba (Eph. III, 26) with Malalas' representa-
tion that Priam, and not Hecuba, sent Paris into the country to be
educated. Again Antioch (7, 5-7) mediates between Malalas and
Septimius in attributing the Wrath of Achilles' (Eph. II, 28 ff.)
to the fact that Achilles concealed Briseis in his tent (Mal. 101,
19-102, 9; Ekl. 203, 12-24).2 In like manner, Antioch (10,
12–24).²
17-20; Salm. frag. 24, 7) presents, as alternative explanations of
the origin of the Palladion, the Septimian version that it fell from
heaven (Eph. V, 5) and the version of Malalas that it was given
to King Tros by the philosopher Asios (Mal. 108, 1–8; Ekl. 207,
30-208, 1).
•
By reason of these many points of contact with Malalas, on the
one hand, and with Septimius, on the other, many critics have
been led to regard John of Antioch as representing a blend or
fusion of Malalas and Dictys. Thus Greif (1900, pp. 24 ff.)
derives Antioch in part from Malalas and in part from the Latin
Septimius; Haupt (Philol. Anzeiger X, 1880, pp. 542 ff.), Patzig
(Byz. Zs. I, 1892, 139 ff.; Byz. Zs. IV, 1894, 23 ff.; Byz. Zs.
1 ὅθεν αὐτοῖς ἀρχὴ γέγονεν τῆς ἔχθρας are the words used by Antioch in referring
to the enmity between Achilles and Agamemnon.
2 Malalas, it will be remembered (p. 62, note 1), says nothing of the Wrath
of Achilles; Septimius, nothing of his selfish retention of Briseis.
86
Dares and Dictys.
X, 1901, 48 ff.), and Fürst (Philol. LX, 1901, 251 ff.) derive
Antioch in part from Malalas and in part from a Greek Dictys.
But that neither of these two hypotheses is correct and that we
must, with Noack (1892, pp. 482 ff.)¹ and Gleye (Byz. Zs. V,
1896, 451 ff.), seek the origin of Antioch, not in the two separate
versions of Malalas and Dictys, but in a single Greek Dictys will
appear from the following considerations.
It is, in the first place, not to be supposed that John of Antioch,
who, like Malalas, was not primarily concerned with the history
of Dictys, but with a world-chronicle for which Dictys should sup-
ply merely the contents of a single chapter, should have taken the
unnecessary pains to extract his materials from two separate sources
when either one alone would have served his purpose equally well.
Still less is it to be supposed, with Greif, that Antioch would have
possessed either the ability or inclination to extract the materials
of his history in part from a Latin Dictys and in part from a
Greek Malalas.2 Furthermore it is by no means probable that
materials so closely interwoven as the Malalas and Dictys materials
in Antioch were derived by that author from two separate ver-
versions, even though both were written in Greek.
In the second place, we find in Antioch, not infrequently in
immediate connection now with particulars in respect to which he
agrees with Malalas and now with particulars shared by him in
common with Septimius, further particulars that find no parallel
in either of these earlier versions and that necessitate the
assump-
tion that Antioch followed a version of Dictys other than that
of either of his two predecessors. Thus Antioch cites Dictys for
details either absent in Malalas and Septimius or not ascribed
by these authors to Dictys. Antioch cites Dictys as author-
ity for the statement that Priam sent for aid to David and
¹ Noack's failure to perceive that the Constantine and Salmasian Troica repre-
sent the work of Antioch can, of course, in no way invalidate his conclusions that
the contents of these fragments are alike incapable of derivation either from
Malalas or from Septimius.
2 For, as we shall see (pp. 104 ff.), it is altogether unlikely that Antioch or
any other of the Byzantines under consideration possessed a sufficiently ultimate
knowledge of Latin to translate the Latin Ephemeris.
Dares and Dictys.
87
1
Tautanes and that David made no response but Tautanes
sent Tithon and Memnon (J. of A. 7, 15; 8, 14; Salm. frag.
24, 3);¹ as authority for the account of the insidious murder
of Hector by Achilles (Salm. frag. 24, 4);² as authority for
the Death of Polydoros (Salm. frag. 24, 5);³ and as authority
for the Death of Penthesilea (J. of A. 8, 6-7). Peculiar to
Antioch is, likewise, the treatment of the following incidents.
Antioch (7, 12-13) differs alike from Malalas (Mal. 102, 20;
Ekl. 204, 1) and Septimius (II, 18) in the reason he gives why
4
¹As regards the genuineness of the two statements for which Dictys is here
made responsible, a distinction is to be drawn between the first statement and the
second. The first statement, viz. that Priam sent for aid to David and that David
(very significantly) failed to reply, is naturally, as Noack (p. 434) has shown,
not to be looked for in an early (pagan) Dictys and must, accordingly, be set
aside as a late Christian interpolation. On the other hand, the second statement,
viz., that Priam sent for aid to Tautanes and that Tautanes sent Tithon and
Memnon, rests upon an assuredly Dictaean basis. That such is the case is
shown by the fact that in all the extant versions of Dictys Memnon appears as
an ally of Priam (Eph. IV, 4; Mal. 128, 18; Ekl. 219, 9; J. of A. 8, 14 ff. ;
Kedr. 225, 23). As regards, moreover, the similar allusion to Tithon, there can,
in like manner, be little doubt that this detail as well is Dictaean. For although
Dunger (p. 21), Sotiriadis (p. 24, note 19), Patzig (Byz. Zs. I, 135) and Greif
(1900, p. 24) regard this allusion to a (mythological) Tithon as necessarily
strange to the scrupulous rationalism of Dictys, Noack (p. 434) finds the same
event alluded to by Diodorus (II, 22) and ascribed to Kephalion (sc. the Ger-
githian Kephalon, Hegesianax) in an Armenian translation of Eusebios and is
therefore led to assume its existence in an ante-Byzantine version of Dictys.
Confirmation of Noack's view is further found in the fact that both Malalas (Mal.
127, 10; Ekl. 219, 16) and Septimius (IV, 4) refer, in a single instance, to
Tithon. For there is here much less reason to infer, with Patzig and Greif, that
Malalas, who expressly represents Tithon as the leader of the Assyrian, drew his
reference to that author from an earlier version in which, as in Septimius, Tithon
appears merely as the father of Memnon, than there is to infer that in the ori-
ginal Dictys Tithon no less than Memnon figured as a leader in the war, though
stript, as in the case of Chiron (cf. p. 13, note 1) of all supernatural attributes.
2 This incident stands without accompanying Dictys-citation in Malalas (Mal.
123, 4-9; Ekl. 216, 25-31) and in Septimius (III, 15).
3 The incident of Polydorus' Death stands without accompanying Dictys-citation
in Malalas (Mal. 103, 7-10; Ekl. 204, 7-12) and in Septimius (II, 27).
* This incident likewise stands without accompanying Dictys-citation in Malalas
(Mal. 123, 5; Ekl. 216, 26) and in Septimius (III, 15). It is, of course, quite
possible that the present Dictys-citation is identical with that which occurs in the
Salm. frag. at end of the account of the Death of Hector, who had at the time,
gone forth to meet Penthesilea.
88
Dares and Dictys.
Priam entrusted his son Polydoros to King Polymestor. Thus in
contradistinction to Septimius, who assigns no reason, and to Mala-
las, who reports that Priam was anxious that the youth should be
bred afar from the sounds of war, Antioch relates that Priam
desired that his son should escape the impending destruction of
Troy; Antioch (8, 33-38) gives a much more circumstantial
account than either Malalas (Mal. 130, 21 ff.; Ekl. 220, 23 ff.)
or Septimius (IV, 11) of the Murder of Achilles by Paris and
Deiphobus; Antioch (9, 5) relates the detail, strange to each of
his predecessors, that the Greeks guarded the unburied urn of
Achilles until the arrival of his son Pyrrhos; Antioch (9, 6)
relates that Pyrrhos on his way to Troy from Scyros brought with
him Philoctetes from Lemnos, whereas Malalas omits the incident
altogether, while Septimius (II, 47) states that Philoctetes returned
to Troy with certain Greeks who had brought him his share of the
booty captured on the Greek Forays. Still again, Antioch differs
alike from Malalas and Septimius in respect to certain details that
reappear in the later Dictys-version of Kedrenos. Thus Antioch
(Const. frag. 23) refers in accordance with Kedrenos (223, 13)
to Homer (as well as Dictys) as authority for the Ship-catalogue;
Antioch (8, 14) relates in consonance with Kedrenos (225, 14-15)
that Penthesilea was flung into the river Scamander by the army,
not, as in Malalas (Mal. 127, 6-7; Ekl. 219, 3) and Septimius
(IV, 3), by Diomedes and against the wishes of Achilles, who
desired to bury her; Antioch (10, 6) agrees with Kedrenos (230,
23) in giving an exact specification of the number of armed men
concealed in the Wooden Horse;¹ Antioch (as here represented by
Suidas,² Lexicon, sub Kvvòs oñµa) differs from Septimius (V, 16)
and agrees with Kedrenos (232, 13-16) in his account of the
death of Hecuba, omitted by Malalas; thus Antioch, like Kedre-
nos, represents Hecuba as slain by the companions of Odysseus at
Maronia and not, as Septimius, after the departure of Odysseus at
¹ Thus Antioch gives nine and cites therefor the authority of Virgil, who gives
the same number; Kedrenos gives twenty-four.
2 Suidas is shown, as we have already seen (p. 82, note 4), by Patzig (progr.
1892, p. 20; Byz. Zs. I, 138; II, 423 ff.) and by Gelzer (I, 79-81) to have drawn
his Dictys-materials from John.
?
Dares and Dictys.
89
Abydos; finally, Antioch (Const. frag. 25) agrees with Kedrenos
(233, 4 ff.) in the story of the poisoned tunic wherewith Clytem-
nestra compassed the death of Agamemnon, omitted by Malalas
(Mal. 133, 11–12; Ekl. 222, 14–24) and Septimius (VI, 2).
In the third place, Antioch frequently disposes incidents in a
quite different order from that which they occupy in Malalas and
Septimius. Thus Antioch introduces his account of the Death of
Polydoros not, as Malalas and Septimius, immediately after the
Greek Forays, where it properly belongs, but later, in immediate
connection with the arrival of Penthesilea; likewise Antioch
improperly places his account of the Trojan Sacrifices, the Palla-
dion, and the Rape of the Palladion after, and not, as his prede-
cessors, before the Peace Negotiations (vid. tab.).
Finally, conclusive evidence that Antioch was not derived in
part from Malalas and in part from Septimius is to be found in
the fact that he relates incidents, in respect to which he agrees with
Septimius, in the style (phraseology and word-order) peculiar to
Malalas (cf. p. 44), and, conversely, those incidents of the Siege
of Troy, in which he agrees with Malalas (viz. the representation
of Idomeneus as interfering in behalf of the aged Priam and of
Achilles as slaying Hector by night), not in the dialogue-form
peculiar to that author, but in the same straightforward epic
fashion as Septimius. Evidently such a conjunction of the style
or method of one author with the content of the other, and the
reverse, is entirely incompatible with the theory that we have in
Antioch a mechanical compilation from the works of his predeces-
sors, and necessitates, instead, the conclusion that Antioch, like
Kedrenos, with whom, as we have seen, he frequently agrees,
derived the materials of his history from a single Greek Dictys-
exemplar that combined those features of style, with respect to
which he agrees with Malalas, with the simpler episodic disposition
of Septimius, and that contained within itself the basis of those
several variations in episodic treatment that exist apart in Malalas
and Septimius. As regards date of composition, there can be
no doubt that the redaction of Dictys consulted by Antioch
occupied a position intermediate between the version used
by Septimius, in which the style and condensed form of
90
Dares and Dictys.
treatment peculiar to the Byzantine world-chronicle had not
as yet made their appearance, and the later redaction fol-
lowed by Malalas, in which the dialogues peculiar to that author
had already been introduced. In both these respects the original
to which Antioch had access resembled that used by Kedrenos,
with whom in many other respects as well Antioch has been found
to agree. That, however, Antioch and Kedrenos did not go back
to the same original is shown by the fact that, in addition to other
differences, Antioch (Salm. frag. 24, 9), unlike Kedrenos, cites
Sisyphos as authority for the Adventures of Odysseus with
Circe.¹ We must accordingly conclude that the version of Dictys
used by Antioch was written somewhat later than that consulted
by Kedrenos, at a period when, as in the case of the Dictys
redaction followed by Malalas, allusions to a second author
Sisyphos had already begun to make their appearance.
Kedrenos.
As in the case of John of Antioch, so also in that of Kedrenos,
we have to do with a version of Dictys which exhibits points of
contact now with Malalas and now with Dictys and which, for this
reason, presents, at first sight, the aspect of a compilation from
these two sources.
As regards, in the first place, the relation of Kedrenos to
Malalas, Kedrenos stands in general much closer than Antioch
to Malalas. Thus he not only shares with that author those
peculiar features of style and episodic treatment, which, as we
have seen (p. 44), distinguish the Byzantines as a group from
Septimius, but sustains, throughout the larger portion of his
2
¹That this (single) allusion to Sisyphos by Antioch, confirmed as genuine by
its reappearance in the Hypothesis of the Odyssey (4, 27), can in no wise be inter-
preted as due to the use of Malalas is shown both by the absence in Antioch of the
Sisyphos-Dialogue between Teucer and Pyrrhos and, as Noack has pointed out
(p. 433), by the fact that Antioch cites Sisyphos not only for the statement, found
in Malalas (Mal. 117, 20-21; Ekl. 210, 26), that Circe was goddess of the Sun,
but also for the additional statement, not found in that author, that Calypso was
goddess of the Moon.
2 Thus Kedrenos like Malalas (and Antioch) employs a simpler, more direct,
and much more highly compressed style of narration than Septimius. He likewise
Dares and Dictys.
91
history of Dictys, a very close and intimate relation to Malalas.
Thus in his account of the Youth of Paris, Rape of Helen, and
Embassy to Priam (216, 13-218, 22) and in his entire story of
the Siege of Troy (223, 14-229, 4) Kedrenos admits none of those
specific points of contact with Septimius found in Antioch (cf. pp.
84, 85), but agrees throughout almost verbatim with Malalas.
Likewise Kedrenos (234, 18-237, 12) relates the Adventures of
Orestes at much greater length than Septimius (VI, 3, 4, 13) and
in general accord with Malalas (Mal. 133, 3–142, 20; Ekl. 222,
16-226, 31).¹
In other passages, however, which lie between the three sections
above indicated and which exhibit the character of interpolations,
Kedrenos agrees over against Malalas with Dictys (as represented
either by Septimius or John of Antioch, or both). Thus Kedrenos
(222, 5-13) relates in accordance with Septimius (II, 28 ff.) that
Achilles was deprived of Briseis by Agamemnon and refused to
reënter battle until presented with rich gifts by the Greeks.
Again, in a passage separated from the foregoing by an interme-
diary section (222, 13–223, 14), in which occurs an account of
the Forays of Ajax and of the Death of Polydoros that agrees
with Malalas (Mal. 102, 11-103, 10; Ekl. 203, 25-204, 12),
Kedrenos presents a second version of the Wrath of Achilles
(223, 14-20) in which, as in John of Antioch (7, 25-27) the
death of Patroclos is represented as the immediate occasion of
Achilles' return to battle. Still again Kedrenos (223, 13) agrees
with John of Antioch (frag. 23) in referring to Homer as con-
comitant authority with Dictys for the list of names and number
of ships contained in the Ship-catalogue. Likewise Kedrenos
(230, 12–232, 2) agrees now with Septimius and now with John
of Antioch in his account of the Wooden Horse and of the Entry
introduces his account of the Youth of Paris, Dictys-citation, and Catalogue of
ships in the same (Byzantine) position as Malalas and gives, in accordance with
the latter, the same non-Septimian version of the Deaths of Palamedes and Oinone
(cf. pp. 42, 43).
¹Throughout this section the verbal correspondence with Malalas is almost
exact, save for the fact that Kedrenos is more condensed and here and there omits
words present in Malalas.
t
92
Dares and Dictys.
and Destruction of Troy. Thus Kedrenos gives, in harmony with
Septimius (V, 11), an account of the construction of the Wooden
Horse and the name of the architect, Epios, and with John of
Antioch (10, 6), an exact specification of the number of armed
men concealed in the interior. Finally, with the exception of the
Adventures of Orestes, Kedrenos frequently agrees more closely
with Septimius and with Antioch than with Malalas in his account
of the Return of the Greeks. Thus Kedrenos, as we have seen
(pp. 88, 89), presents a version of the Death of Hecuba (232, 13–
16) and a story of the poisoned tunic wherewith Clytemnestra com-
passes the Death of Agamemnon (233, 4 ff.) that recur only in
John of Antioch. Again, Kedrenos (234, 9–11) relates, in agree-
ment with Septimius (VI, 4), that Menelaus on his return from
Troy was driven with Helen to Egypt; and (234, 11–12) men-
tions, in accordance with Septimius (VI, 1), the shipwreck of
Ajax the Locrian. Still again, Kedrenos (233, 3-5) gives, in
accordance both with Septimius (VI, 5) and with Antioch (as
represented by Suidas, sub Xápußdis), a description of the perils
of Scylla and Charybdis lacking in Malalas (121, 13; Ekl. 213, 3);
also (234, 12-16), in consonance with the same authors, (Sept. VI,
2; J. of A. as represented by Suidas, sub Beveẞevτós), a fuller
account than Malalas (Mal. 167, 4–6; Ekl. 216, 6–10) of the
Return of Diomedes, his expulsion from home by his wife Aegiale,
and his subsequent founding of Beneventum in Calabria.
Finally, incidents are not lacking in which Kedrenos combines
elements peculiar to Malalas with others peculiar to Dictys (as
represented either by Septimius or John of Antioch) in a single
composite version of his own. Thus Kedrenos (219, 6-220, 3)
opens his account of the Sacrifice of Iphigenia with a reproduction
of details peculiar to Malalas (Mal. 98, 1–23; Ekl. 200, 7–22), but
continues with a reproduction of quite different particulars found only
in Septimius (I, 19).¹ Kedrenos relates in accordance with Mala-
las that upon the arrival of the Greeks at Aulis a storm arose, that
Calchas prophesied that the storm could be allayed only by the
sacrifice of Iphigenia, and that Agamemnon refused to comply
¹ The story of the Sacrifice of Iphigenia is not preserved in the Antioch-excerpts.
Dares and Dictys.
93
with this condition. At this point, however, Kedrenos passes
abruptly to the Septimian version, in accordance with which he
relates that a certain prophetess (yʊvý = quaedam mulier) declared
that the storm could be allayed only by the sacrifice of Iphigenia,
that, according to another report (oi dè... paoi), not a storm, but
a pestilence arose, due to the wrath of Diana, and that by reason
of Agamemnon's unwillingness to sacrifice Iphigenia Palamedes
was appointed leader in his stead. Again, in his account of the
Wooden Horse and Entry of Troy by the Greeks, Kedrenos (230,
17-232, 2) unites particulars peculiar to Malalas with others that
are found only in Septimius and in Antioch. Thus he
Thus he opens with
the report of Malalas (Mal. 113, 4-5; Ekl. 207, 15) that the
name given the Horse was Durios and that Odysseus, not
Helenos, as in Septimius (V, 11), ordered its construction, but
continues by giving, in accordance with Septimius (V, 11), the
name of the maker, Epios, in accordance with Antioch (10, 6), the
exact number of men concealed within, and, in accordance with
both, an account, omitted by Malalas, of the nature and purpose of
the work (Eph. V, 11; J. of A. 10, 5), of the manner of its intro-
duction into the city (Eph. V, 11; J. of A. 10, 9), of the depar-
ture of the Greeks for Tenedos (Sigeum), and of their triumphant
return and slaughter of the Trojans (Eph. V, 12; J. of A. 10,
11–14).
By reason of this union in Kedrenos of materials that exist
apart now in Malalas and now in other versions of Dictys, many
critics have been led to regard Kedrenos, no less than John of
Antioch, as a blend or fusion of Malalas, on the one hand, and of
some further (purer) version of Dictys, on the other. Thus Koer-
ting (1874, pp. 23 ff.) claims that, in addition to Malalas, Kedre-
nos made supplementary use of a Greek Dictys; Haupt (Philol.
Anz. X, 1880, 542) that this supplementary source was John of
Antioch; Patzig (Byz. Zs. I, 1892, 137 ff.; Byz. Zs. II, 1893,
425 ff.), Greif (1900, pp. 30 ff.), and Fürst (Philol. LX, 1901,
257 ff.) that Kedrenos represents a compilation (ultimately) drawn ¹
in part from Malalas and in part from John of Antioch.
¹Through the medium of Codex Paris., 1712 (cf. p. 95).
94
Dares and Dictys.
That we have to do in Kedrenos, as opposed to John of Antioch,
with something in the nature of a compilation is, we believe,
evident from the following considerations.
In the first place, it is possible in Kedrenos, as it was not in
John of Antioch, to distinguish sections that betray affiliations
with Malalas from others that stand in close and immediate rela-
tion to a second Dictys-source other than Malalas. Thus, as we
have seen above, Kedrenos agrees closely with Malalas from the
opening of his history through the account of the Embassy to
Priam. With the opening of the Sacrifice of Iphigenia, on the
other hand, Kedrenos has combined with features peculiar to
Malalas others found only in Septimius. At the end of this
episode, however, Kedrenos returns to his first source and relates
in accordance with Malalas the Death and Discoveries of Pala-
medes and the earlier portion of the Greek Forays. Suddenly,
however, he again introduces an (apparent) interpolation from
Dictys and relates, in contradistinction to Malalas, the Septimian
version of the Wrath of Achilles. Thereupon he again returns to
his first source and relates in accordance with Malalas the Forays
of Ajax and Death of Polydoros. At this point he inserts, in direct
contradiction of the Septimian account that precedes, a second
(Homeric) version of Achilles' Wrath, in which he represents the
return of Achilles to battle as due to the death of Patroclos. Im-
mediately thereafter he again returns to his first source and relates
the story of the Siege and of a large portion of the Capture of Troy
in general consonance with Malalas. When, however, he reaches
the story of the Wooden Horse, he once more reverts to his second
source and relates in frequent accordance with Septimius and John
of Antioch the Virgilian account of the construction of the Horse,
the pretext and mode of its admittance into the city, the departure
of the Greeks for Tenedos, the signal given for their return,
together with a more or less detailed account of the slaughter and
capture of the Trojans. Finally, with the exception of the Adven-
tures of Orestes,¹ Kedrenos, in his account of the Return of the
¹ Which is not preserved in the extant fragments of Antioch and has been evi-
dently much condensed in Septimius.
Dares and Dictys.
95
Greeks, presents, as over against Malalas, many specific points of
resemblance to Septimius and Antioch.
In the second place, Kedrenos, as we have indicated, not only
presents two contradictory versions of the Wrath of Achilles but
introduces obviously composite accounts of the Sacrifice of Iphi-
genia and of the Wooden Horse under the significant captions
οἱ δὲ . . . φασι κτλ. (219, 11), and φασὶ γὰρ ὅτι κτλ. (229, 22),
respectively.
Finally, Gelzer (op. cit. II, 358-78) and Patzig (progr. 1892,
p. 18; Byz. Zs. I, 138 ff.) have found that precisely the same
combination of extracts "from two separate sources" that appears in
Kedrenos occurs likewise in an earlier version of Dictys preserved
in Codex Parisinus, 1712.¹ There can, accordingly, be no doubt
that, as these critics maintain, Codex Parisinus was the immediate
source of Kedrenos and that it was in this text that Kedrenos
found that conjunction of diverse elements which, as the author of
a world-chronicle, he could, as little as John of Antioch, be
thought of as having brought together himself.
But while it is clear from what has been said that we have in
Kedrenos the results of what appears to have been an earlier com-
pilation effected by the author of Codex Parisinus 1712, it is by
no means clear that, as Patzig supposes, the compilation in ques-
tion was extracted in part from Malalas and in part from John of
Antioch. That such, indeed, was not the case, and that Kedrenos,
notwithstanding apparent indications to the contrary, is to be
looked upon as derived (through the medium of Codex Parisinus)
from one and not from two versions of Dictys, will appear from
the following considerations.
That, in the first place, Kedrenos is not derived from Malalas,
is shown by the fact that he relates his account of the Siege and
Capture of Troy, in which, as we have seen, he resembles Malalas,
not in the dialogue-form peculiar to that author, but in the same
straightforward epic fashion that appears in Septimius and John of
1 Patzig claims that the author of Codex Parisinus 1712 compiled his Dictys-
materials in larger part from Malalas, but inserted interpolations from Antioch in
such a manner that he retains more nearly the word-order of Antioch in the
interpolations than of Malalas in the main body of his text.
96
Dares and Dictys.
Antioch. On this account we have as little reason as in the case
of John of Antioch to suppose, with Patzig (Byz. Zs. II, 425),
that Kedrenos could have drawn his materials from one author,
Malalas, and his method of presenting these materials from a
second author, Dictys. Moreover, as Patzig has observed (Byz.
Zs. II, 428), Kedrenos nowhere reproduces in his account of the
Siege of Troy Malalas' repeated allusions to Pyrrhos (Mal. 111,
12; Ekl. 206, 12; Mal. 113, 17; Ekl. 207, 26; Mal. 122, 8
ff.; Ekl. 216, 17 ff.) These omissions Patzig attempts to explain
away on the supposition that Kedrenos in his omission of the
dialogues omitted also all references to Pyrrhos, who appears as
abettor of Ajax in the first dialogue (Mal. 113, 17; Ekl. 207, 26)
and as his interlocutor in the second (Mal. 122, 8 ff.; Ekl. 206, 17
ff.). But this hypothesis not only fails to explain why Kedrenos
has omitted Malalas' allusion to Pyrrhos in the first passage (Mal.
111, 12; Ekl. 206, 12), which, as containing reference to the im-
molation of Polyzena, is not structurally implicated in either dia-
logue, but it also fails to take account of the fact that Kedrenos.
has also omitted an earlier passage in which, in connection with
his portrait of that hero, Malalas (Mal. 104, 9 ff.) gives a prolonged
account of the personal history of Pyrrhos. Finally, in case we
assume that Kedrenos derived from Malalas those sections of his
history in which he resembles that author, we should expect a re-
production of Malalas' Portraits, which stand between the Death
of Polydoros and the Dictys-citation, both reproduced by Ked-
renos, and of his reference to Sisyphos of Cos, which likewise
occurs in connection with a portion of Malalas' account of the
Siege of Troy reproduced by Kedrenos. Both of these features
are, however, omitted by Kedrenos and constitute thereby addi-
tional evidence that that author did not, as Patzig supposes, derive
his account of the Siege of Troy or any other portion of his version
of Dictys from Malalas, but that he went back, instead, in com-
pany with John of Antioch and Septimius, to an earlier version of
Dictys in which the portraits found in Malalas had either become
displaced or else entirely omitted and in which the dialogues and
accompanying allusion to Sisyphos of Cos had not as yet made
their appearance.
Dares and Dictys.
97
In the second place, it is equally impossible to regard the second
set of passages above indicated, in which Kedrenos differs from
Malalas and agrees with Dictys, as due to a special use of John of
Antioch. For in his first version of the Wrath of Achilles and in
his account of the Sacrifice of Iphigenia Kedrenos agrees, not with
John of Antioch, but with Septimius. Moreover, even as regards
those particulars in respect to which Kedrenos exhibits specific
agreements with John of Antioch, there is no need to assume, with
Patzig (Byz. Zs. II, 426), a use of that author. For the verbal
coincidence between Kedrenos and Antioch is by no means suffi-
ciently close to render probable the assumption that the former
derived from the latter his allusion to Homer as an authority for
the Ship-catalogue and his reproduction of the Homeric version of
Achilles' return to battle. Furthermore Septimius mentions the
Death of Patroclos (III, 12) and the funeral games in honor of
that hero (III, 17), and there can, in consequence, be little doubt
that Kedrenos, no less than Antioch, was induced by suggestions
already present in a Greek Dictys to engraft these more specifically
Homeric allusions upon an original in which, as in Septimius, they
were lacking. Quite as little is it to be supposed that Kedrenos
derived his reference to the twenty-four armed men concealed in
the Wooden Horse from Antioch, in whom the number given is
nine, but rather that he was again led by the elaborate Dictaean
story of the Wooden Horse to make direct use of a Greek trans-
lation of Virgil, in which the original number nine had become
corrupted to twenty-four.
Finally, it is by no means possible to argue from Kedrenos'
frequent habit of presenting alternative versions of a given episode
that his version of Dictys is a compilation. For Antioch (as repre-
sented by Suidas, sub Пaλλádiov) likewise introduces, under the
caption οἱ δὲ ποιητικῶς γράψαντες κτλ., a dual version of the
origin of the Palladion, and it is, as we have seen, manifestly
impossible to regard Antioch as a blend of two earlier versions.
Moreover Septimius, as we have seen (p. 70, note 1), is in the
constant habit of offering alternative explanations of various occur-
rences (as of the origin of the pestilence of Aulis, the disappearance
98
Dares and Dictys.
of Himera, etc.), and it is clearly impossible to regard the Latin
Ephemeris as a composite of earlier versions.
We must accordingly conclude, as a result of the foregoing con-
siderations, that Kedrenos, no less than John of Antioch, is derived
from a single version of Dictys. As regards the position of this
Kedrenos-original there can be no doubt that it runs back to a
Byzantine original which antedated the peculiar Sisyphos-redaction
to which Malalas had access and yet, at the same time, preserved,
somewhat more distinctly than the Antioch-original, those
common Byzantine features of style and episodic treatment that
reappear in Malalas and underlie with greater or less uniformity
all the Byzantine versions of Dictys.
Results as Regards the Interrelation of Septimius and the
Byzantines.
From the foregoing consideration of the relation between
Septimius and the Byzantines it becomes clear that the Byzantines
derived their versions of Dictys neither from Septimius nor
from one another, and that it accordingly becomes necessary to
postulate as the common source of the Greek and Latin versions
an earlier Greek Dictys from which each version was derived
independently of the others. We accordingly obtain the following
scheme of derivation:
Septimius.
Malalas.
Δίκτυς.
John of Antioch.
Kedrenos.
This scheme fails, however, to take into account those radical
differences in style and episodic treatment which, as we have seen
(p. 44), separate Septimius, on the one hand, from the Byzantine
group, on the other. Now as respects these differences it is by all
means probable that Septimius, who wrote earlier than the Byzan-
tines, preserves, in general, an earlier and purer version of Dictys
than they, and that the variations in question are, in consequence,
due to deviations from the original on the part of the latter
Dares and Dictys.
99
rather than of the former. A variety of general considerations
predispose us to this view.
It is, in the nature of the case, more reasonable to suppose that
Septimius, who was solely concerned with the annals of Dictys,
should, in his translation, depart less radically from the original
form of these annals than the Byzantines, who, as world-chroniclers,
were concerned rather with the task of adapting the annals of
Dictys to the requirements of universal history. Again, it is less
natural to assume that Septimius, who, in general, far exceeds
the Byzantines in bulk and fulness of treatment, expanded the
contents of the Greek Dictys, than that the Byzantines com-
pressed the contents of this original to the narrow dimensions
of what constituted but a single chapter in their world-histories.
Instances, again, are not wanting in which Septimius appears to
represent more nearly than the Byzantines the order of incidents
originally present in the Greek Dictys. Thus Septimius who, in
contrast to Malalas (Oxford text), introduces his Dictys-citation
and Ship-catalogue before and not after the departure of the Greek
fleet from Aulis, not only observes the logical (and traditional)
order of arrangement, but agrees, in so far as the earlier position
of the Ship-catalogue is concerned, with Ekloge, John of Antioch,
and Kedrenos (vid. tab.). If now, Septimius preserves, in con-
trast to the Oxford Malalas, the original position of the Ship-
catalogue, he must also preserve, in contrast to Malalas (Oxford
text and Ekloge) and Kedrenos, the original position of the
Dictys-citation, which, as we have seen (p. 31), is, in all extant
versions of Dictys, immediately connected therewith, and which
we must accordingly regard as having become displaced from its
original position by the Byzantine redactors of Dictys.¹
¹ As regards the original position of the Dictys-citation in John of Antioch, no
certain inference can be drawn from the extant fragments of that author. In
these fragments Dictys is cited on five separate occasions, of which four (Sik. 8,
6-7; Salm. frag. 24, 3, 4, 5) occur subsequent to the departure of the Greeks from
Aulis, and but one (Const. frag. 23), prior to that event. That, however, this
one represents the original position of the Dictys-citation and that the later four
are but repetitions of this earlier citation, is rendered probable by the fact that
Dictys is here cited in immediate conjunction with an allusion to the Ship-
catalogue (cf. p. 27).
100
Dares and Dictys.
1
It is, furthermore, to be observed that Septimius gives, in
contradistinction to the Byzantines, a full and circumstantial
treatment of all that pertains to Dictys' native kingdom of
Crete. Thus Septimius dwells, at the very outset of his history
(Eph. I, 1), with peculiar emphasis upon the assemblage of
the Greek kings at Crete to share the patrimony of Atreus,
whereas the Byzantines state merely that Menelaus, soon after
Paris' arrival in Sparta, sails to Crete to perform a yearly
sacrifice to Jove (Mal. 94, 6-10; Ekl. 198, 20-23; J. of A.
5, 10; Kedr. 217, 15-18). In like manner, we again find in
the sixth book of the Ephemeris frequent allusions to Crete
as the home of Dictys. Hither, at the close of the war, Dictys
returns in company with Idomeneus and Meriones (Eph. VI, 2),
there he is afterwards visited by Menelaus and Orestes, who inform
him either of their own adventures or of those of their comrades
(Eph. VI, 3, 4), and it is to save that country from a scourge of
locusts that he subsequently repairs to the oracle at Delphi (Eph.
VI, 11). These frequent allusions to Crete must, in the nature
of the case, have stood in the Greek Dictys, and furnish clear evi-
dence that we have in Septimius, who retains them, a closer repro-
duction of the original, than in the Byzantines, who omit them.
Again, although both Septimius and the Byzantines not infre-
quent betray evidence of having abbreviated or omitted incidents
more fully recounted in the Greek Dictys,' the preponderance
¹Instances in which the original form of Dictys may be conjecturally recon-
structed on the basis of the Byzantines, and fuller readings supplied from them in
Septimius, are of comparatively slight moment and occur, for the most part, in that
sixth book in which Septimius acknowledges that he has condensed the contents of
his Greek original (cf. pp. 111 ff.). Such instances in the first five books, indi-
cated, for the most part, by Koerting (pp. 21 ff.) and Noack (pp. 426 ff.), are as fol-
lows. Malalas (Mal. 95, 22-96, 1) supplies, in the explicit statement that Menelaus
was offended because Aethra, who had been left in charge of Helen, aided Paris in
the capture of her mistress, the reason why Septimius (1, 3) represents Menelaus
as more incensed at the defection of his kinswomen, Aethra and Clymene, than at
the loss of his wife. Again, it is probable that Kedrenos ( Kedr. 222, 3-8), in his
Homeric representation of Achilles as not returning to battle until after the death
of Patroclos, and not Septimius (II, 51), who relates these events in the reverse
order, preserves the original sequence of these events. Again, Malalas, who states
(Mal. 104, 15) that Pyrrhos came to Troy to avenge his father's death and that
Dares and Dictys.
101
of such abbreviations is to be found in the Byzantines, whose
deficiencies may not infrequently be supplied from Septimius.
Thus Septimius, who gives (Eph. III, 26) the traditional story of
Hecuba's Dream, explains why it is that the Byzantines merely
represent Priam as consulting an oracle on his son's birth (Mal.
92, 1-3; Ekl. 197, 15-16; J. of A. 4, 4; Kedr. 216, 13-16).
Again Septimius, who mentions Menelaus, Odysseus, and Palame-
des as participants in the first embassy of the Greeks to Priam
(Eph. I, 5-11),¹ and who gives a full account of a later embassy
to negotiate the exchange of Polydoros for Helen (Eph. II, 20-
23), shows that Malalas and Kedrenos, who, in their accounts of
the first embassy, mention merely Menelaus (Mal. 97, 9; Ekl.
200, 3) or Menelaus and Odysseus (Kedr. 218, 18-22) and merely
note the occurrence of the later embassy (Mal. 103, 8; Kedr.
223, 1), are deficient in their representation of these incidents.
Again, the discrepancy between a passage in which Malalas leaves
(Mal. 104, 21-105, 3) Pyrrhos greets Briseis, upon his arrival, and appoints
her guardian of his property, explains the cause of Neoptolemus' unexpected
arrival in Septimius (IV, 15), and satisfies the expectations aroused by Septimius'
description of the meeting between Pyrrhos and Briseis. Still again, we must
assume, for reasons already indicated (p. 65, note 1), that Septimius (V, 16) in
his representation of Hecuba as slain after the departure of Odysseus and buried
at Abydos, has, perhaps from confusion with Cynosema at Abydos, altered an
original version in which, as in John of Antioch (Suidas sub. Kuvòs σîµa) and
Kedrenos (232, 13-16), Hecuba was slain by the companions of Odysseus and
buried at Cynosema in Maroneia. Finally, it is probable that the Byzantines
(Malalas, as repr. by Tzetzes, Hom. v. 362-285; Kedr. 230, 3-7), who represent
Palamedes as stoned to death on the evidence of forged letters, and not Septimius
(II, 15), who represents that hero as lured into a pit and stoned to death from
above, retain the original version of this incident; for their version is the more
common, being found, also, in the Schol. to Euripides' Orestes 452; in Cicero,
Tusc. I, 41, 89; Ovid, Metam. XII, 56 ff; Hyginus, Fab. 103; and in Servius,
ad Aen. II, 81. That, in like manner, the Byzantine version of the Death of
Oinone (Mal. 111, 7-8; J. of A. 9, 15; Kedr. 229, 2-3), according to which, at
the sight of Paris' corpse, she hung herself, and not the Septimian version (Eph.
IV, 21), according to which she died of a broken heart, is the original one, is
rendered probable not only by the consensus of the Byzantines, but also by the
recurrence of the same version in Kolon (c. XXIII), Appolodoros (III, 12, 6)
and, in all probability in Kephalion (cf. Chassang, p. 127; Koerting, pp. 43, 44;
and Noack, p. 474).
¹ Also John of Antioch, who likewise, mentions all three embassadors as taking
part in the first embassy to Troy (5, 28).
102
Dares and Dictys.
Iphigenia in Aulis (Mal. 98, 20; Ekl. 200, 20) and a later pas-
sage in which he reintroduces her in Scythia (Mal. 136, 19; Ekl.
224, 3), is reconciled by Septimius, who states (Eph. I, 22) that at
Aulis Achilles gave Iphigenia to the king of Scythia; and the
obscurity in a further passage in which Malalas (Mal. 130, 9-10;
Ekl. 218, 1–2) represents Priam, on his visit to Achilles' tent, as
offering Polyzena to the Greek warrior, although no tenderness
has as yet passed between them, and in which John of Antioch
(8, 29) mentions a "revival" (avaveŵσa) of Achilles' affec-
tion, is removed by Septimius, who has already stated, in an
earlier passage (Eph. III, 2, 3) that Achilles has fallen in love
with Polyzena in the temple of Apollo and has treated for her
with Hector. Entirely strange to the Byzantines is finally, the
ingenious contrivances by which Dictys, in his sixth book,
undertakes to account for the way in which he obtained his
information with regard to the return of the Greeks. Many of
the Greeks, being excluded from home by civil dissensions that
had occurred in their absence, repair to Corinth, where they find
Idomeneus (Eph. VI, 2); others, including Menelaus and Orestes,
afterwards visit Idomeneus at Crete, where they relate to him the
adventures that have befallen them on their return from Troy, or
request his aid in the adjustment of their domestic difficulties
(Eph. VI, 3, 4); and, finally, as we have seen (p. 12, note 1),
Dictys attends in person the Nuptials of Neoptolemus in Sparta
(Eph. VI, 10), where he learns the events that have befallen
that hero subsequent to his departure from Troy.¹ Peculiar to
Septimius are, likewise, two representations that shed still further
light upon obscurities in Malalas. Septimius states (Eph. VI, 2)
that Oeax persuades Aegiale and Clytemnestra of the infi-
delity of their absent lords, Diomedes and Agamemnon, by
forged letters in which he represents them as having taken
concubines in Troy, and thus explains why it is that Malalas
¹ These specific references to the means by which Dictys gained his information
with regard to the concluding portion of his history must, of course, have stood in
the original Dictys-recital and constitute the strongest evidence that we have in
Septimius' sixth book the isolated remains of a Dictys-web which is entirely omit-
ted by the Byzantines but which must have existed in far more complete and
intelligible form in the original Greek Dictys.
Dares and Dictys.
103
(Mal. 135, 7) represents Oeax as pleading the cause of Clytemnestra
at the trial of Orestes; and, again, Septimius states (Eph. VI, 2)
that Teucer, having been banished from home by his father
Telamon, for having failed to aid his brother Ajax in the Palla-
dion-strife, repaired to Cyprus where he founded a new Salamis
(Eph. VI, 4), and thus explains, as we have (p. 59), why Malalas
(Mal. 122, 13; Ekl. 216, 16-17) represents Teucer on the occa-
sion of his dialogue with Pyrrhos as having returned to Troy from
Salamis in Cyprus. Again, as Noack (pp. 496–7) and Fürst
(Philol. LX, 334-5) have pointed out, the Byzantine redactors of
Dictys place the Trojan War either in the times of the High-
priest Eli (Ekl. 197, 3), of King Saul (Kedr. 216, 11), or of
King David (Mal. as repr. by Manasses, v. 1107; J. of A. 7, 16;
Salm. frag. 24, 3). These specifications, which, as already indi-
cated (p. 87, note 1), nowhere occur in Septimius, and are to be re-
garded as late Christian interpolations in the pagan annals of Dictys,
furnish clear and convincing evidence that we have in the By-
zantines later and less pure versions of Dictys than in Septimius.
From what has been said, it appears that the foregoing varia-
tions between Septimius and the Byzantines are to be attributed,
not to the former, but to the latter; furthermore, that these varia-
tions, being common to all the Byzantines alike, cannot have been
introduced by each member of this group in turn, but must have
been present in an earlier Byzantine redaction of Dictys, from
which in each extant version they were independently derived.
We gain, accordingly, the following amended scheme of derivation:
Δίκτυς.

Septimius.
Byzantine redaction of Dictys.
Malalas.
John of Kedrenos.
Antioch.
But, as we have already seen, each individual Byzantine version
possesses, in addition to the foregoing points of agreement with the
104
Dares and Dictys.
Septimius.
others, a substratum of differences peculiar to itself. Chief of
these inter-Byzantine differences are that changed order of episodic
arrangement and these references to Sisyphos of Cos which dis-
tinguish Malalas from John of Antioch and Kedrenos, and which,
as we have seen, were undoubtedly introduced by a pre-Malalean
redactor of Dictys. Lesser differences occur, in like manner,
between John of Antioch and Kedrenos, John of Antioch tending
to agree somewhat more closely with Septimius, Kedrenos with
Malalas. From Malalas, finally, were derived the Dictys-material
in the chronicle of John of Nikiu,' and in the Trojan histories of
Isaak Porphyrogenitos and Tzetzes; from John of Antioch, that in
the glosses of Suidas and in the Hypothesis of the Odyssey; while
Kedrenos exhibits the same disposition of incidents present in the
earlier Codex Parisinus 1712. We accordingly obtained as our
final scheme of interrelationship the following:
Δίκτυς.
Byzantine redaction
of Dictys.
Pre-Malalean
redaction of Dictys.
John of Antioch.
Codex Parisinus
1712.
Malalas.
Suidas.
Нуро-
thesis of the
Odyssey.
Kedrenos.

John of
Isaak
Tzetzes.
Nikiu. Porphyrogenitos.
Byzantine Knowledge of Latin.
It is necessary, in the concluding pages of our consideration of
the Byzantine versions of Dictys, to expose the futility of the
means to which advocates of a Latin Dictys are compelled to
resort in order to maintain their theory that Malalas translated
1
¹ Vid. p. 112, note 2.
Dares and Dictys.
105
his Dictys' annals from the Latin Ephemeris. In extenuation of
this claim, these critics undertake to show from internal evidence
that Malalas possessed sufficient acquaintance with Latin to trans-
late Septimius, and that it consequently becomes unnecessary to
posit as his source the existence of a Greek Dictys. To disprove
the validity of this attempt is, in reality, superfluous. For even
if it could be shown, as appears most improbable, that Malalas
knew sufficient Latin to translate the Dictys'-annals of Septimius,
it would still remain possible that a Greek version of Dictys
existed, and that, as a Greek, Malalas would have preferred this
Greek version to the Latin version of Septimius. Moreover,
positive proof that Malalas, whether he may be supposed to have
known Latin or not, did not, in either event, translate his Dictys'
annals from Septimius, has already been found in the presence in
Malalas of contents incapable of extraction from Septimius.
Nevertheless, in order to make the refutation of our adversaries
complete, it will not be amiss to devote a few words to the
demonstration of the inherent improbability of a theory which
has played no unimportant part in the history of Dictys-contro-
versy.
Dunger (pp. 15 ff.) contends, in support of the view that
Malalas translated Septimius, that a knowledge of Latin was still
common among the educated Byzantines of the sixth to the ninth
centuries¹; that Malalas uses a large number of Latin words in
his Xpovoypapía 2; and that he cites, in the course of that work,
no fewer than twelve Latin authors. In reply to these argu-
ments, it may be answered that Malalas was not, like Anna
Komnena,* a learned historian, but a popular annalist, who com-
3
¹ The period within some portion of which Dunger believes that Malalas lived.
"That Latin words abound in Malalas there can be no doubt. Koerting (De
vocibus Lat. quae apud J. M. inveniuntur, 1879, p. 20) finds 157 Latin expres-
sions in 800 passages of the Xpovoypapía.
3 Thus Malalas cites Virgil six times; Livy, three times; Eutropius, Servius,
and Lucan, twice each; Sallust, Florus, Juvenal, Pliny, Suetonius, C. Licinius
Macer, and an otherwise unknown Brunichius once each (cf. Dunger, pp. 19, 20;
Koerting, p. 60).
* Who, although a late historian (1083–1148) knew Latin (ef. E. Oster, Anna
Komnena, Rastatt, 1868–71, I, 44; III, 58; J. H. Krause, Die Byzantiner des
Mittelalters, Halle, 1869, p. 305).
106
Dares and Dictys.
posed his Xpovoypapía as a vulgar digest for monkish consump-
tion.¹ Again, although Malalas lived in the sixth century, and
therefore at the opening of the period in which Dunger believes
that a knowledge of Latin still prevailed among the Byzantines,
it is nevertheless certain that the period of greatest activity in
the study of Latin authors had by the latter half of the sixth
century, when he wrote his Xpovoypapía, already past. For there
is abundant evidence that a knowledge of Latin among the
Byzantines was much less common in the period following the
promulgation of the Pandects of Justinian (sixth century), than in
the period preceding that event. In the earlier period the spread
of the Latin language, consequent upon the removal of the Impe-
rial Capital from Rome to Byzantium, (third century) was rapid,
and resulted in the composition of many original treatises in Latin,
to the translation of Greek works into Latin, and of Latin works
into Greek; but in the later period the growing prominence of
the eastern capital rendered the acquisition of Latin less and less
important, and resulted at length in the almost complete disuse
of that language. Again, the Latin words which Malalas uses,
though numerous, are almost all technical terms (pertaining to
politics, jurisprudence, etc.),³ and technical terms of this character
were common in the vulgar Greek of his day. The Latin words
he uses are, moreover, almost invariably accommodated to a Greek
system of phonology and inflection.5 Finally, as Koerting has
2
4
A circumstance that accounts in large part for its subsequent use as a popular
model for the baser order of historians down to the time of Michael Glykas (cf.
Dunger, p. 15; Patzig, prog. 1891, p. 4; Krumbacher, p. 114).
2 In this period the Byzantine scholars, Dositheus (third century), Diomedes
(fourth century), Rufinos (fifth century), and Priscian (sixth century) composed
in Latin original treatises on Latin grammar; Euagrios, bishop of Antioch,
translated a Greek author into Latin; and Kapito and Zenobios translated Latin
authors into Greek (cf. Dunger, pp. 9, 17; Patzig, progr. 1891, p. 5; Noack,
p. 448; Teuffel, p. 1077; and Fürst, Philol. LX, 242).
3 E. g. waλátiov (=palatium), Mal. 94, 15; dikтov (= edictum), Mal. 216,
14 ; μάγιστρος (= magister), Mal. 329, 20 ; ἀσεκρῆτις ( =a secretis), Mal. 494, 8.
* Cf. Mullach, Grammatik d. griech. Vulgarsprache, Berlin, 1856, (passim);
Koerting, pp. 58 ff.
ver-
5 Ε. 8. τριομβυράτωρ (= triumvir), Mal. 214, 6; 221, 5 ; βερνάκυλοις (
naculis), Mal. 186, 24. The limitations of Malalas' linguistic experience with
Dares and Dictys.
107
2
shown (p. 62), there is no reason to suppose that Malalas consulted
at first hand the Latin authors whom he cites. For he either cites
these authors incorrectly, that is, as authority for statements they
do not make,¹ or, when correctly, for such slight and trivial de-
tails as might easily have been gathered from Greek translations
of the authors in question. Indeed, the extent of his knowledge
of Latin literature is sufficiently revealed by the fact that he calls
Sallust and Cicero poets (Mal. 212, 8.³) Moreover, as Noack
(pp. 448 ff.) and Fürst (Philol. LX, 243) have pointed out, we
should expect that if Malalas were to follow Latin authors in any
portion of his Xpovoypapía, he would do so in that portion in
which his citations of these authors very naturally occur, namely,
in that portion devoted to Roman History (Lib. VII-XII).
But here no more Latin words occur than in these later portions
in which he follows oriental authors. Furthermore, pretty con-
clusive evidence that, whatever may have been his practice with
regard to other Latin authors, Malalas made at any rate no use
of a Latin Dictys, is to be found in the fact that he uses no more
Latin words in his history of the Trojan War than elsewhere in
the Xpovoypapía. Finally, as Koerting (pp. 18, 62) and Patzig
(Byz. Zs. I, 135) have shown, Malalas, though in the habit of
specifying with regard to a Latin author the language in which
4
Latin may be further guaged by many curious examples of faulty etymologies.
Thus he derives the Latin word prasinus from a Greek verb πрaισeνтeúw and
gives it the meaning permanens (Mal. 176, 3). Cf. Hodius, Proleg. to Malalas,
ed. Dindorf, p. lxvii.
¹As when, for example, Malalas cites Lucan as authority for the statements
that Caesar killed Pompey in Egypt (Mal. 215, 12), and that Augustus killed
Brutus (Mal. 224, 20).
2 As when, for example, he attributes the Catalina to Sallust and quotes from
that work Caesar's reference to Perseus, king of Macedonia (Mal. 209, 2; Cat.
cap. 41), or when he assigns a description of the nocturnal Orgia to the fourth
book of Virgil's Aeneid (Mal. 285, 6 ff.; Aen. IV, 302 ff.) and, by reason of the
description there given of the inscription of the battle of Actium on Aeneas'
shield, designates the eighth book of the Aeneid doπidoπoita (Mal. 220, 2).
³ Cited by Krumbacher, p. 114.
4
* Indeed, as Noack has pointed out (p. 449), Malalas on one occasion uses in
his history of Dictys a Latin word not found in the corresponding passage in
Septimius: e. g. oùv rŵ olyvų (Mal. 126, 5; Ekl. 218, 6; cf. Eph. IV, 2).
108
Dares and Dictys.
he wrote,¹ makes no such specification on any one of the six occa-
sions upon which he cites Dictys.2
(3) THE STRUCTURE AND CONSTITUTION OF THE
LATIN EPHEMERIS.
The same necessity for assuming the existence of a Greek
Dictys that exists in the case of the foregoing consideration of the
relation that the Latin Ephemeris sustains to the Byzantine ver-
sions of Dictys, occurs likewise when we pass to an examination
of the structure and constitution of the Latin text itself.
Presumptive evidence of the Greek origin of the Ephemeris is
already to be found in the fact that it purports to be a pre-Homeric
record of the Trojan War, composed by an eye-witness of that
event, and afterwards brought to light in a miraculous fashion.
Reports of forgeries based upon similar fictions abound in Greek
literature, but are unknown in the literature of the Romans.³
Thus Malalas, as we have seen (p. 14, note 1) reports the exist-
ence of the pre-Homeric annals of Sisyphos of Cos and Pheidalios
of Corinth; Suidas, of Korinnos the Ilian; Aelian, of Syagrios ;
Ptolemaios Chennos, of Dares the Phrygian, Antipater the Acan-
thian, and a large number of other pre-Homeric records, of many
of which the existence was, no doubt, mythical (cf. p. 80, note 2).
That this entire class of forgeries, which are invariably reported
by Greek authors, were also written in Greek, is rendered probable
by the (Greek) subject of which they treat, the (Greek) names of
the authors to whom they are ascribed, the characteristically Greek
subtilty displayed in the ingenious fictions by which they are
accompanied, and by the fact that all extant specimens of such
forgeries (Dictys, Dares, and presumably, in part, Sisyphos) betray
¹ With the two noteworthy exceptions of Sallust and Florus, each of whom he
cites but once, Malalas invariably specifies with regard to a Roman author that
he wrote in Latin.
2 The absurd belief of Dunger (p. 15) that Malalas purposely refrained from
acknowledging his indebtedness to the Latin Dictys in order not to invalidate the
claims of that author to pre-Homeric antiquity has already been sufficiently re-
futed above (p. 32, note 3).
³ Cf. Gudeman, Literary Frauds among the Greeks, in Classical Studies in honor of
Henry Drisler, pp. 52-74; and Literary Frauds among the Romans, op. cit. 140 ff.
Dares and Dictys.
109
a spirit of antagonism to Homer which elsewhere finds reflection
only in the works of Greek authors (cf. the 'Hpwikós of Philos-
tratos, the lost 'Aveóμnpos of Chennos, and the various anti-
Homeric diatribes of Greek origin mentioned p. 13, note 2).¹
Again, the contents of the Latin Ephemeris are, as shown by
Dederich (1837, Praef. pp. xvii-xxxii ff.); Koerting (1874, pp.
1 ff.); Dunger (1878, pp. 38 ff.); and Lehrs (1878, pp. 133 ff.),
drawn, for the most part, from Greek authors.2 Thus from
Homer's Iliad are derived the list of Greek leaders (I, 13, 14);
the Ship-catalogue (I, 17); the list of Trojan allies (II, 35); and
the famous opening lines of Priam's speech to Helen (III, 21;
Il. y 164 f.); from Appolodoros' Bißλiοlýкα, the account of the
descent of the kings of Greece from Atreus (I, 1; Appol. III, 2,
1-2); the number (36) and many of the names of Priam's sons
(Eph., passim; Appol. III, 12, 5); the genealogies of Helen (I,
9; Appol. III, 10, 3-4) and Antenor (IV, 22; Appol. III, 12);
the Description of the Palladion (V, 5; Appol. III, 12,3); from
Lykophron's Kaoσávdpa (and scholiasts), the representation of the
king of Scythia as present at the Sacrifice of Iphigenia (I, 22;
Lyk. v. 200 ff.); mention of the oenotropae (I, 23; Lyk. v. 580);
the account of the disposition of Penthesilea's body (IV, 3; schol.
to v. 999); of the plots of Oeax (VI, 1, 2; Lyk. v. 612 ff.);
and of the Death of Odysseus at the hands of Telegonos (VI, 15;
Lyk. v. 795 ff.)³; from Ptolemaios Chennos' Kawn ioтopía, the
representative of Menelaus as absent at Crete at the time of Paris'
arrival in Sparta (I, 1; Ptol. Lib. V); of Palamedes as chosen to
¹Cf. Fabricius (1697) Biblio. Graec. I, cap. 34; Heyne (1819), Excurs. I to
Aen. II; Hercher (1855), loc. cit.; Chassang (1862) op. cit., pp. 347 ff.; Herz-
berg (1867), in Ebert, Jahrb. VIII, 160; Joly (1870), op. cit. II, 198 ff.; and
Gudeman (1894), op. cit., pp. 140 ff.
2 Although, for the reason already stated (p. 3, note 1), it is not always possible
to determine with certainty the author from whom a given incident in Dictys is
taken, and the danger of mistaking mere analogies for origins cannot, in conse-
quence, be altogether eliminated, the authors here specified appear to represent,
in general, the range of Dictys' sources.
These and other analogies between Dictys and Lykophron pointed out by
Dunger are disputed by Lehrs (pp. 134 ff.) as insufficiently close to establish the
indebtedness of the former to the latter. But insomuch as Lehrs fails to cite any
closer analogues, those indicated by Dunger may be provisionally accepted as
the sources of the Dictaean incidents in question.
110
Dares and Dictys.
2
replace Agamemnon in command (I, 19; Ptol. Lib. V); of
Priam as accompanied by Andromache and her children on his
visit to Achilles' tent (III, 20; Ptol. Lib. VI); and, possibly,
the conception of pre-Homeric annals of the Trojan War after-
wards used by Homer (cf. with Prol. and Epis. the story of
the records written by Phantasia, Ptol. Lib. V), and of a MS.
buried in a tomb (cf. with Prol. and Epis. the story of Kerki-
das, the lawgiver, Lib. V); from Philostratos' 'Hpwikós, the
account of the compaign in Moesia (II, 1-7; Philost. 2, 15);
of Achilles' love for Polyzena and his Death in the Temple
of Apollo ² (IV, 10, 11; Philost. 191, 11); and, from his
Life of Apollonius of Tyana (IV, 34), the fiction of the earth-
quake in Crete (Prol. and Epis.). As opposed to this considerable
array of incidents drawn from Greek sources, the only details that
can be attributed with any degree to probability to Latin authors
are the following: the Story of the Capture of Troy (IV, 11–13),
and of the pestilence of locusts at Crete (VI, 11), to Virgil (Aen.
II, 235 ff.; III, 137 ff.; the list of names of countries in the
neighborhood of Phrygia (II, 13, 17, 27; V, 15, 16; VI, 4, 6)
to Pliny (V, 30, 31); the account of the Death of Neoptolemus
(VI, 12, 13) to Ennius (adaptation of Euripides 'Avdpoµáɣn, v.
1243 f.); and, perhaps, the account of the Sacrifice of Iphigenia
(I, 19–22) and of the Palladion-strife (V, 14) to Ovid (Metam.
XII) and representation of Deiphobus as taking part in the
murder of Achilles (IV, 11) to Hyginus (Fabul. 110).*
3
¹ Peculiar to Dictys and Chennos is the statement that Agamemnon slew a she-
goat instead of the traditional doe.
2 A similar account of these two events occur in the Scholia to Lykophron's
Kaooávdpa (v. 269 ff.) and it is, consequently, impossible to determine whether
Dictys was here indebted to Philostratos or to the (earlier) Lykophron.
3 "As already remarked (p. 3, note 1), the dispute between Odysseus and Ajax
takes in Ovid the form of a contest for the arms of Achilles, not, as in Dictys, for
the Trojan Palladion. In general it may be said that Dictys' points of affinity
with Latin authors are not only fewer but less close than with Greek authors.
* Attempts have been made by the advocates of a Greek Dictys to seek evidence
of the Greek authorship of the Ephemeris not only in the sources from which
Dictys derived his materials but also in the indications of Greek sympathy mani-
fest in his work. But although such indications are unmistakable (cp. p. 10, note
1), the attempt must be dismissed as inconclusive. For Koerting's contention that
Dares and Dictys.
111
In like manner, the structure of the Ephemeris is such as to
suggest a Greek rather than a Latin origin. Thus the scope of
Dictys' history is comprehensive, embracing all three of the divis-
ions of Trojan history, treated separately by the cyclicists. For
example, the opening portion of the Ephemeris, including the
events prior to the Trojan war, corresponds in range to the
KÚTρia; the central portion, comprising the events of the war
itself, corresponds, in like manner, to the sum of the separate sub-
divisions severally treated in the 'Ιλιάς, Ιλιάς μικρά, Αιθιοπίς, and
Пépois 'Ixíov; the latter portion, containing the events subsequent
to the war, in part to the Νόστοι and in part to the Τηλεγονία.
The practice of thus combining in one comprehensive whole the
several portions of Trojan history treated separately by the earlier
cyclicists appears to have been an exclusively Greek practice, an
example of such usage being found at a period much later than
Dictys, viz. in the case of the twelfth century Byzantine chrono-
grapher Tzetzes, who divided his history of the Trojan war into the
three sections : Τὰ πρὸ Ομήρου, τὰ Ομήρου, and τὰ μεθ' Ομήρον.
Again, striking corroboration of the truth of Septimius' asser-
tion that he has condensed the last five books of his Greek origi-
nal in the sixth book of his translation appears in the presence of
constant gaps and omissions in this final book of the Latin text.
The existence of such abbreviations is made abundantly manifest
by a comparison of this sixth book both with the corresponding
portions of the Byzantine versions of Dictys and with earlier por-
tions of the Ephemeris itself. Such a comparison reveals that
Septimius has, in his account of the Return of the Greeks, omitted
many details that may be supplied either from the Byzantines or
it is inconceivable that a Roman author would so far depart from the traditions of
his race as to represent Aeneas as a traitor to Troy (Eph. IV, 22; V, 1) and as
founding a colony in Corcyra Melaena (Eph. V, 17), instead of in Italy, and that
not only the Roman authors Virgil and Pindarus Thebanus but also the Greek
authors Tryphiodoros "Aλwors 'Ilov (v. 651–655), Quintus of Smyrna (XIII,
333 ff.) and Tzetzes (Posthom. v. 737 f.) represent Aeneas as the founder of the
Roman Empire, is overthrown by Dunger (pp. 5, 6) who urges with equal
cogency that Livy (1, 1) and Servius (ad Aen. I, 242) represent Aeneas as a
traitor to Troy and that Dictys was restrained from a like representation only
from fear of betraying the modernity of his work.
112
Dares and Dictys.
3
2
from earlier portions of his own history. Thus it is probable that
there stood in one or other of the last five books of Septimius'
original the following particulars:¹ a statement, as in Kedrenos
(Kedr. 234, 12-17), that Diomedes founded Argyrippa (Beneven-
tum) in Italy and carried thither the Trojan Palladion, which, ac-
cording to Septimius (V, 15) had been left in his charge; an
account of how Aeneas obtained the Palladion from Diomedes and
of his subsequent adventures in Italy, as in Malalas (Mal. 167, 7-
169, 3; Ekl. 221, 25-222, 15; John of Nikiu, ed. Zotenberg,
Notices et extraits, Chap. XXIV), and in Kedrenos (237, 22-238,
18); a much more circumstantial account of the Death of Aga-
memnon than in Septimius (VI, 2), and one that more nearly
agrees in fulness with that given by John of Antioch (frag. 25)
and Kedrenos (233, 23-234, 8), must be assumed in fulfilment of
the prophecies uttered with regard to that event by the voice that
forbids the sacrifice of Iphigenia (Eph. I, 21) and by Cassandra
(Eph. V, 16); a much fuller report of the Adventures of Orestes
than in Septimius (VI, 4) and one more in keeping with the
copious treatment of this event by Malalas (Mal. 133, 3-142, 20;
Ekl. 222, 16-226, 31), who, in this instance (Mal. 135, 11), ex-
pressly cites the authority of Dictys in his "sixth rhapsody,"
4
¹Of which a large number are recorded by Patzig (Byz. Zs. XI, 147 ff. ).
2 The statement that Diomedes founded Argyrippa is found also in Servius (ad
Aen. VIII, 9).
3 That we have to do in the above passage from John, bishop of Nikiu (seventh
century), not, as Noack supposes (p. 431), with an independent excerpt from
Dictys, but with an extract from Malalas, is rendered probable by the closeness
with which Nikiu here reproduces the contents of that chronographer. Slight
variations between the two, such as the correct statement by Nikiu that Livinium
and Albania were founded by Aeneas and Ascanius respectively, instead of the
reverse, as in Malalas, must be interpreted merely as corrections made by Nikiu
in the incorrect text of Malalas.
4
* We here hold, in opposition to Greif (1900, p. 20), that Malalas refers in his
mention of the "sixth rhapsody of Dictys" to the sixth book of the Greek, not
of the Latin Dictys. For Greif's contention that Malalas must here be referring
to the last book of the Latin text because this is his last Dictys-citation, is suffi-
ciently refuted by the fact that Malalas fails to reproduce further Dictys-cita-
tions in the Latin text which follow the account of Orestes' Adventures (Eph. VI.
3, 4), viz. : the reference to Dictys as present at Neoptolemus' nuptials (Eph. VI,
10), as returning to Crete (Eph. VI, 11), and as undertaking a subsequent trip
to Delphi (Eph. VI, 11).
Dares and Dictys.
113
and Kedrenos (234, 18-237, 21); a statement of the way in which
Dictys gained his information with regard to the later Adventures
of Odysseus,¹ from his departure from Crete (VI, 5) to his death
at the hands of Telegonos (VI, 15). Again, expectations are not
infrequently aroused in the first five books of the Ephemeris which
remain unsatisfied in the sixth book. Thus it is by no means
clear why Helenos, who in the fifth book (V, 9) foretells that he
will afterwards spend some time in Greece with Neoptolemus,
nowhere appears in the sixth book as associated with Neoptolemus
(VI, 7, 9); or why the sons of Hector, who in the fifth book (V,
16) are delivered by Neoptolemus to Helenos, should in the sixth
book reappear in charge of Neoptolemus (VI, 12). Again, in the
case of
passages not retained by the Byzantines, it is evident from
instances of incoherence that Septimius has omitted passages neces-
sary to make the sense complete. Thus we may infer that the
reason why Idomeneus is so unexpectedly discovered at Corinth
(Eph. VI, 2) is because he, like Diomedes (VI, 1) and Agamem-
non (VI, 2), has been excluded from home by his wife, whose
paramour, Leukos (Apollodoros, Epitoma, c. XXII), may, like
Clytemnestra's bed-fellow Aegistheus (VI, 2), have been mentioned
in the Greek Dictys. Again, much is left unaccounted for in the
story of Menelaus' Adventures. It is not clear on what occasion
that hero lost his pilot Canopus, nor what the wonders were
which he witnessed in Egypt; why he cherished resentment
¹ We should here naturally expect that Dictys, who is careful to specify the
precise occasion on which he gained his information with regard to the earlier
Adventures of Odysseus, viz., on the field of battle (I, 13) and when Odysseus
suffered shipwreck in Crete (VI, 5), would make the same specification in the
case of the later adventures of that hero. That such specification originally stood
in the Greek Dictys is shown by Eklogarius, who reports (Ekl. 216, 14–15) that
Dictys learned these later events from certain dream interpreters whom he met in
Sparta. In just what way this statement, which finds no further explanation in
Ekloge, may be supposed to have fitted into the economy of the Dictys-recital is
not clear. We read (VI, 10) that Dictys visited Sparta on the occasion of the
Nuptials of Neoptolemus. But that this could not have been the occasion on
which he learned of the Death of Odysseus is evident from the fact that this event
did not occur until some time after Dictys' return, the following year, from Sparta
to Crete (VI, 11), being contemporaneous with the death of Neoptolemus (VI,
14), which Dictys witnessed on a subsequent visit to Delphi (VI, 11).
114
Dares and Dictys.
against Orestes (VI, 4), nor why his daughter Hermiona, who had
but recently married Orestes (VI, 4), should afterwards appear
as the wife of Neoptolemus (VI, 10).
Finally, it is necessary to reveal the insufficiency of an argu-
ment urged with persistent recurrence by the opponents of a
Greek Dictys (Mercerus, 1618, Introd. to notes to ed. of Dictys,
reprinted by Valpy, op. cit. II, pp. 579 ff.; J. Barth, 1624,
loc. cit.; Vossius, 1627, loc. cit.; Anna Fabri, 1680, Introd. to
notes to ed. of Dictys; Joly, 1870, II, 185 ff.; Meister, 1872,
Praef. pp. viii-x; Pratje, 1874, Quaest. Sallust, passim; Dunger,
1878, pp. 7 ff.; and, again, 1886, pp. viii ff.; Lehrs, 1878, pp.
137 ff.; Wagner, 1880, J. J. CXXVI, 509 ff.; Brünnert, 1883,
Sallust u. Dictys Cret., passim; and Greif, 1886, pp. 4, 245),
who find in the presence in the Ephemeris of imitations of a
variety of Latin authors reason to believe that Dictys is the
work of a Latin author.
That the Ephemeris contains indubitable evidence of an imita-
tion of Sallust and Virgil is sufficiently indicated by the follow-
ing passages.
1
Eph. I, 9: [Priamus] bonum animum uti gereret [Helenam]
hortatur ;¹ Jug. (54, 1): [Metellus] hortatur. . . . parem animum
gerant.
Eph. (I, 14): Hic [Achilles] in primis adolescentiae annis,
procerus, decora facie, studio rerum bellicarum omnes iam tum
virtute atque gloria superabat etc.; Jug. 6, 1: [Iugurtha] qui ubi
primum adolevit, pollens viribus, decora facie, . . . non se luxu
neque inertiae corrumpendum dedit, set. . . . equitare iaculari,
cursu cum aequalibus certare, et cum omnis gloria anteiret,
omnibus tamen carus esse.
Eph. (II, 12): Cycnus. ... Graecos invadit eosque ancipiti
malo territos, etc.; (II, 23): Postquam finem loquendi [Ulixes]
fecit, magno silentio cunctis, ut in tali negotio fieri solet, alienam
sententiam expectantibus, etc.; Cat. (29, 1): ancipiti malo
quod plerumque in atroci negotio solet.
•
Eph. (IV, 7): Tum vero cerneres, etc.; Redundant circa muros
1
¹Cf. also, the recurrence of the same phrase in the Ephemeris (V, 9).
Dares and Dictys.
115
campi sanguine, et omnia, qua hostis intraverat, armis atque cada-
veribus completa sunt.; neque prius finis factus, quam Graecos
saties. . . incessit.; Cat. (61, 1): ... tum vero cerneres, etc.;
Jug. (101, 11): ... postremo omnia, qua visus, erat constrata
telis armis cadaveribus, et inter. ea humus infecta sanguine; Cat.
(51, 34): ...
neque prius finis iugulandi fuit quam Sulla omnis
suos divitiis explevit.
Eph. (I, 9): [Helena] timore poenarum, quas ob desertam
domum a coniuge metuebat; Aen. (II, 571 ff.) :
[Illa] ...
Et poenas Danaum et deserti coniugis iras
Praemetuens, etc.
Eph. (III, 15): Antomedonti [Achilles] imperat, daret lora
equis. Ita curru concito per campum
(I, 156):
pervolat, etc.; Aen.
[Triton]
flectit equos curruque volans dat lora secundo.
Eph. (V, 3): cuncti simul gemitum edunt, tendentes ad caelum
manus, etc.; Aen. (I, 93):
[Aeneas]
Ingemit, et duplicis tendens ad sidera palmas.
Moreover passages are not wanting in which Septimius exhibits
resemblances to other Latin authors. As Dederich has pointed
out (p. xxxvi), Odysseus, in his speech at Troy (II, 21), expresses
himself in language that recalls the opening lines of Cicero's
oration Pro Roscio Amerino. Other passages reveal the presence
of stylistic imitations of Livy, Caesar, Nepos, Plautus, Terence,
and Apuleius. Most frequent, however, are the parallels with
Sallust, whose epigrammatic brevity and fondness for archaisms
reappear, as Brünnert has observed (p. 11), in Septimius, and of
whom Pratje finds in the Ephemeris no fewer than 358 distinct
instances of imitation.¹
¹ We believe that the Latinisms Martem atque concordiam (I, 15); lictores
(II, 33; IV, 14); instructus legionibus (IV, 14); and ad probantibus consilium
Aiacis multis bonis (V, 14), cited by Dunger as an indication of the Latin origin
of the Ephemeris, were, like the foregoing borrowings from earlier Latin authors,
due wholly to the hand of the translator Septimius.
116
Dares and Dictys.
In the foregoing instances of imitation of Latin authors in the
Ephemeris the advocates of a Latin Dictys discover insuperable
objections to the theory that Septimius translated his Dictys'
annals from a Greek author. For they find it impossible to be-
lieve that a translator would have taken the trouble to overlay
the substance of his translation with so many borrowings from
authors in his own language. But how little faith is to be placed
in this contention is clear from the following considerations. In
the first place, it is by no means uncommon for a translator to
enrich the reproduction of his original with phrases and collocu-
tions drawn from his own native literature. Such, for example,
was the practice of Hegesippus, who, as Noack has pointed out
(p. 461 f.), embodied in his translation of Josephos some of the
very same phrases from Sallust that Dictys introduces in his
Ephemeris. Moreover, presumptive evidence that Septimius has,
in like manner, interwoven collocutions from other Latin authors
in his reproduction of Dictys is afforded by his own words in the
Epistle: "[nobis] cupido incessit ea uti erant Latine disserere,
non magis confisi ingenio, quam ut otiosi animi desidiam discute-
remus," a statement which can be interpreted only as an explicit
declaration on the part of the translator that he has not attempted
to adhere closely to the letter of his original, but that, just as he
has in the last book of his translation condensed the last five books
of that original, so likewise in the earlier portions of his transla-
tion he has allowed himself considerable latitude in his method of
reproduction. In the second place, we might naturally expect that
the Byzantines could not fail to reproduce, in what the advocates
of a Latin Dictys claims to be their translations of a Latin text
originally composed by Septimius, certain of the Latin phrases
borrowed by Septimius from the Latin authors under consideration.
But Noack has shown (pp. 451 ff.), in a careful comparison of all
passages in Septimius that reveal the influence of other Latin
authors with all corresponding passages in Malalas and Kedrenos,
that neither of these authors express themselves in terms that be-
tray the slightest resemblance to the borrowed phrases employed
by Septimius. In the third place, pretty conclusive evidence of
the Greek origin of the Latin text is to be found in the many
Dares and Dictys.
117
Greek names that occur in the Ephemeris, e. g. Ephemeris (Epis.);
oenotropae (I, 23); Hippodamia (II, 17, 19); Diomedea (II, 19);
Astynome (II, 28, 29, 33, 47); Aeantides (V, 16).
Having thus demonstrated the necessity of assuming the exist-
ence of a (lost) Greek Dictys as the original from which Septimius
translated his Latin memoirs of Dictys, it remains to speak briefly
of the relation that may be thought to exist between the Prologue
and Epistle prefixed to the Latin text, and of the presumable
date of composition of the Latin and the Greek version of Dictys
respectively.
As regards, in the first place, the relation between the Prologue
and Epistle. It has long been recognized that certain very sub-
stantial differences exist between the story of the discovery of the
Ephemeris as given in the former and in the latter of these two
documents respectively. Thus the Prologue gives sex, the Epistle
novem as the original number of books in the Greek Dictys; the
Prologue, through the statement that Dictys was skilled in the
language as well as in the alphabet of the Phenicians ([Dictys]
peritus vocis ac litterarum Phoenicum) and that Nero afterwards had
the Ephemeris translated into Greek (in Graecum sermonem ista
transferri), conveys the impression that the Ephemeris was written
not only in the Phenician script, but also in the Phenician lan-
guage; the Epistle states that the Ephemeris was written in Greek
(oratio Graeca fuerat), the script merely being Phenician (litteris
Punicis); and was afterwards transliterated into the Attic dialect
(commutatos litteris Atticis); the Prologue specifies that Dictys'
tomb was opened by an earthquake (terrae motus), the Epistle
that it collapsed from old age (per vestutatem); the Prologue gives
Eupraxides, the Epistle Praxis as the name of the master of the
shepherds to whom Dictys' records were carried; the Prologue states
that Eupraxides carried these records to Rutilius Rufus, the governor
of Crete, and that Rufus conveyed them to Nero, the Epistle that
Praxis himself bore the records to Nero; the Prologue relates that
Nero himself had these records translated [or transliterated] into
Greek, the Epistle that Praxis performed the task of transliteration
[translation] before presenting the records to Nero; finally, the
118
Dares and Dictys.
Epistle alone contains reference to Septimius and his translation
of Dictys' memoirs from Greek into Latin. The question accord-
ingly arises which of these two versions is to be preferred as
giving the original form of the Dictys-fiction.
In answer to this question we believe, with the advocates of a
Greek Dictys,' that the Prologue was written by the author of the
Greek Dictys to accompany that text, and that the Epistle was
afterwards added, to take the place of the Prologue, by the trans-
lator Septimius. To this conclusion we are led for the following
reasons. In the first place, the Prologue gives, with one single
exception,² readings that are more specific and circumstantial, and,
on that account, better entitled to the rank of genuineness than
those contained in the Epistle. Thus it is much more natural to
¹ Obrecht (1691, note to Prol. in ed. of Dictys, reprinted by Valpy. I, 601);
Fabricius (1697, Biblio. Graec. I, 30 ff.); Perizonius (1702, op. cit. § XXX,
XXXI); Koerting, (pp. 48 ff.).
2 Namely the readings [Dictys] peritus vocis Phoenicum and in Graccum sermonem
ista transferri, which would seem to imply, as Koerting recognizes (p. 48), that
the Ephemeris was written not only in Phenician script but also in the Pheni-
cian language. That here the reading of the Epistle is preferable which states
that the language of the Ephemeris was Greek (oratio Graeca fuerat), the
characters only being Phenician (litteris Punicis), is evident from the words
that Dictys himself uses in the Ephemeris, V, 17 : Gnosius Dictys . • conscripsi
oratione ea, quam maxime inter tam diversa loquendi genera consequi ac comprehendere
potui, from a gloss formely attributed to Eudokia (cp. p. 24, note 2) which
describes the Ephemeris as βιβλίον γράμμασι Φοινίκων, and from the occurrence
of the words Punicas litteras in a later passage of the Prologue itself. In expla-
nation of the in Graecum sermonem transferri of the Prologue and of the Cretan
language referred to in the Ephemeris, V, 17, Koerting suggests the possibility
of two operations, first the transliteration of the Phenician script into Cretan
(or Doric) Greek, which is described in the Ephemeris, V, 17, and, second, the
translation of this Doric dialect into Attic, which is described in the Epistle
(commutatos litteris Atticis), in the gloss attributed to Eudokia (µedepµnveúon év TÔ
'Attikĥ yλwtt?), and in the Prologue (in Graecum sermonem, sc. Atticum, trans-
ferri). But that Koerting is presumably in error, and that we are to understand
but one single process, which was not that of translation from one dialect into
another, but only of transliteration from Phenician into Greek script, is rendered
probable by the fact that neither the Prologue, the Epistle, nor the Eudokia-gloss
say anything of a Cretan dialect, and that the terms Graecum of the Prologue,
Atticis ('ATTIK) of the Epistle (and Eudokia-gloss), and oratione quam inter
tam diversa loquendi genera (i. e., Punicum, etc.). comprehendere potui of
the Ephemeris may very naturally refer to one and the same language, viz., to
Attic or standard Greek.
Dares and Dictys.
119
1
suppose that the name Praxis is a corruption of an earlier Eu-
praxides than the converse; that the notion that an earthquake, such
as that mentioned by Philostratos (cp. p. 110), was the cause of
the disclosure of Dictys' records, than that the tomb of the author
merely collapsed through old age; that these records were officially
conveyed to Nero by Rutilius Rufus, governor of Crete, than by
an irresponsible shepherd Eupraxides; and, in particular, that the
learned Nero, and not the ignorant Eupraxides, was the person who
ordered their transliteration [translation] into Greek. In the
second place, convincing evidence that the Epistle was composed
as a translator's preface, and, therefore, at a later period than the
Prologue, is to be found in the fact that this document is formally
addressed by the translator Septimius to his friend Q. Aradius
Rufinus, and that it alone contains the story of the way in which
the translator performed his task, viz., by condensing the last five
books of his original in the final book of his Latin translation.
But the question here arises why did not Septimius, in his transla-
tors' preface, content himself with the story of translation instead
1 The advocates of a Latin Dictys are compelled by their theory that Septimius
was the author of the Ephemeris to assume either that both the Prologue and the
Epistle were the work of Septimius, or else that one or other of these two documents
were the spurious addition of a later hand. Dunger (1878, p. 3, note 2) and
Grief (1900, pp. 5–7) believe that both the Prologue and the Epistle proceeded
from the hand of Septimius, who purposely introduced the above-mentioned varia-
tions between the two in order to make it appear that as soi-disant translator of
the Ephemeris he was not to be identified with the author of that text; Havet
(1879, Rev. de Philologie, III, 81 ff.) believes that Septimius brought out three
separate editions of the Ephemeris, the first being an edition of the first five books,
for which the Prologue was written, the second an edition of the sixth book, for
which that portion of the Epistle that relates to the translation into Latin was pre-
pared, and the third an edition of all six books, for which the entire Epistle was
composed; Teuffel (1892, op. cit. nr. 423, 2), that Septimius published his
Ephemeris in two separate editions, to one of which the Prologue was prefixed,
to the other the Epistle; Mercerus (1618, note to Prol. in ed. of Dictys, reprinted
in Valpy, op. cit., p. 580), Vossius (1627, De Hist. Lat. III, 742), Scioppius
(1628, loc. cit.), and Meister (1872, Praef. p. vi) that Septimius wrote only
the Prologue and that the Epistle was afterwards copied in from Suidas (cf. p.
25, note 1); Hildebrand (1838, J. J. XXIII, 278 ff.) and Joly (1870, p. 201,
note) that Septimius wrote only the Epistle and that the Prologue was afterwards
added in imitation of the Epistle.
120
Dares and Dictys.
of adding thereto an inaccurate reproduction of the story of the
discovery of Dictys' record which had already been related at
length in the Prologue. In answer to this question, we must
assume, with Perizonius (op. cit., § XXX) that Septimius trans-
lated his annals of Dictys from a Ms. in which, as in many later
instances,¹ the Prologue was missing, and must believe that in
order to make the loss good he repeated as much of the story
of Dictys as he could recollect either from what he had heard,
or read in a MS. which contained the Prologue.
1 Thus in many of the oldest codices the Prologue is wanting (as reported by
Obrecht and Perizonius); in others (cod. Sangallensis, ninth or tenth century;
cod. Bernensis, thirteenth century) the Epistle.
ERRATA.
P. 1, note 3.
p. 5.
p. 5, note 1.
p. 5, note 1.
p. 10.
p. 12.
p. 12.
p. 13, note 1.
p. 13, note 2.
p. 16, note 1.
pp. 23, note 1; 26, n. 1.
pp. 29, 51, 53–56, 63.
p. 32.
p. 60.
p. 60.
p. 62.
p. 67.
p. 69.
p. 80.
p. 104.
p. 105.
for parrellelism read parallelism.
for marshall read marshal.
for ably read aptly.
for milia read millia.
for Idomineus read Idomeneus.
for contradition read contradiction.
for deal read detail.
for mythological read mythological.
for Homeriec read Homeric.
for as famous read so famous.
for exceptors read excerptors.
for portrait read Portrait.
for prol. and epis. read Prol. and Epis.
for introduce read introduces.
for allusions read references.
for their presentation of exact read their exact.
for finally read lastly.
for next read most.
for such a read such.
for obtained read obtain.
for extenuation read support.
LIFE.
I was born in Williamstown, Massachusetts, in 1873. After
spending two years (1888-1890) at Phillips Academy, Andover,
and two years (1890-1892) at Williams College, I entered the
Johns Hopkins University, where I received the degree of Bachelor
of Arts in 1894, and that of Doctor of Philosophy in 1899.
For inspiration in my graduate studies I am greatly indebted
to Professors Bert J. Vos, Henry Wood, William Hand Browne,
and, in particular, to Professor James W. Bright, under whose
invaluable guidance the present study has been conducted.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 00560 6051
‛**,,、