Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T15:01:25.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ARCHIMEDES AT SYRACUSE: TWO NEW WITNESSES TO CASSIUS DIO'S ROMAN HISTORY 15 (TZETZES’ CARMINA ILIACA AND HYPOMNEMA IN S. LVCIAM)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2023

Philip Rance
Philip Rance*
Affiliation:
Centre for Advanced Study, Sofia
*
philip.r.rance@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cassius Dio's fragmentary Roman History 15 contains an account of Archimedes’ role in defending Syracuse during the Roman siege of 213–212 b.c., incorporating a legendary tale about a solar reflector Archimedes constructed to burn Roman warships, and including details of his death when the city fell. The textual basis of this famous episode depends on two derivative twelfth-century works: Zonaras’ Epitome of Histories (9.4–5) and Tzetzes’ Chiliades (2.35). After clarifying the present state of enquiry, this paper introduces two new witnesses, overlooked by editors of Dio and extensive scholarship on Archimedes, and assesses their value for reconstructing Dio's text. Comparative analysis of corresponding Dio-derived material in Tzetzes’ Carmina Iliaca and Hypomnema in S. Luciam, especially verbal correspondences with Zonaras’ Epitome, demonstrates that they are independent and, sometimes, superior witnesses to Dio's wording and content, reflecting Tzetzes’ selective use of the Roman History in different verse and prose compositions over several decades. The study considers editorial implications for this section of Dio's work and general characteristics of Tzetzes’ writings as repositories of testimonia and fragments.

Keywords

Cassius DioRoman historiographyArchimedesTzetzestextual fragments

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , May 2023 , pp. 436 - 456
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Parts of this paper were presented at Tzetzes: An International Conference, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice (6–8 September 2018); I am grateful to other participants for their comments, and particularly to Ugo Mondini (Vienna) and Enrico Emanuele Prodi (Oxford) for subsequent assistance with bibliography. I especially thank Kathleen Hogarth for collocutiones Archimedeae balneariae. All translations from Greek are my own.

References

1 Among many recent volumes, cited below are: Simons, B., Cassius Dio und die römische Republik (Berlin, 2009)10.1515/9783110225877CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kemezis, A.M., Greek Narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans. Cassius Dio, Philostratus and Herodian (Cambridge, 2014)10.1017/CBO9781107477308CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fromentin, V., Bertrand, E., Coltelloni-Trannoy, M., Molin, M., Urso, G. (edd.), Cassius Dion: nouvelles lectures I–II (Bordeaux, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C. Burden-Strevens and M.O. Lindholmer (edd.), Cassius Dio's Forgotten History of Early Rome: The Roman History, Books 1–21 (Leiden and Boston, 2019); Burden-Strevens, C., Cassius Dio's Speeches and the Collapse of the Roman Republic: The Roman History, Books 3–56 (Leiden and Boston, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 U.P. Boissevain (ed.), Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt, vols. 1–3 (Berlin, 1895–1901); index vols. 4 (1926), ed. H. Smilda; 5 (1931), ed. W. Nawijn (repr. Berlin, 1955; Hildesheim, 2002). The Collection Budé Dion Cassius, Histoire romaine (Paris, 1991–) to date comprises Books 36–42, 45–51, 53, 78–80.

3 A. Németh, The Excerpta Constantiniana and the Byzantine Appropriation of the Past (Cambridge, 2018), 7–8, 69, 98, 271–2, 275–6. See 153–4, 160 for traces of Dio in tenth-century historiography.

4 Mallan, C., ‘The style, method, and programme of Xiphilinus’ Epitome of Cassius Dio's Roman History’, GRBS 53 (2013), 610–44Google Scholar; B. Berbessou-Broustet, ‘Xiphilin, abréviateur de Cassius Dion’, in Fromentin et al. (n. 1), 81–94; Kruse, M., ‘Xiphilinos’ agency in the Epitome of Cassius Dio’, GRBS 61 (2021), 193–223Google Scholar.

5 See nn. 29 and 58 below.

6 See most recently E.E. Prodi (ed.), Τζετζικαì ἔρευναι (Bologna 2022), with bibliography.

7 The classic study of Archimedes’ life and writings remains E.J. Dijksterhuis, Archimedes (rev. ed. Princeton, 1987). Subsequent bibliography: M. Jaeger, Archimedes and the Roman Imagination (Ann Arbor, 2008); I. Schneider, Archimedes: Ingenieur, Naturwissenschaftler, Mathematiker (Munich, 20152).

8 The bibliography on Archimedes’ ‘burning-mirror(s)’ is vast and venerable, but often lacks dialogue between philological, historical and scientific scholarship. See selectively Schneider, I., ‘Die Entstehung der Legende um die kriegstechnische Anwendung von Brennspiegeln bei Archimedes’, Technikgeschichte 36 (1969), 1–11Google Scholar; Simms, D.L., ‘Archimedes and the burning mirrors at Syracuse’, Technology and Culture 18 (1977), 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knorr, W., ‘The geometry of burning-mirrors in antiquity’, Isis 74 (1983), 53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 53–5; R. Rashed, Les catoptriciens grecs, I: Les miroirs ardents (Paris, 2000), 317–20; Jal, P., ‘Archimède et les miroirs ardents: quelques remarques’, RÉL 85 (2007), 39–45Google Scholar; F. Acerbi, ‘I geometri greci e gli specchi ustori’, Matematica, cultura e società (2007–2008 [2011]), 187–230, especially 190–200.

9 Polyb. 8.3–7, 12, 37; Livy 24.33–5; Plut. Vit. Marc. 14.2–19.6; Sil. Pun. 14.292–340; Polyaenus, Strat. 8.11.1. See Schübeler, P., De Syracusarum oppugnatione quaestiones criticae (Geestemünde, 1910)Google Scholar; Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford, 1967), 2.69–78Google Scholar.

10 Gal. De temperamentis 3.2; [Lucian], Hippias 2; Apul. Apol. 16.2–6.

11 See recently Rashed (n. 8); F. Acerbi, ‘The geometry of burning mirrors in Greek antiquity: analysis, heuristics, projections, lemmatic fragmentation’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 45 (2001), 471–97; Acerbi (n. 8).

12 Olympiodorus, In Platonis Gorgiam comm. 38.2; Anthemius, Περὶ παραδόξων μηχανημάτων 2–5 (see below, pages 7–8), cf. Agathias, Hist. 5.7–8. See P. Rance, ‘Tzetzes and the mechanographoi: the reception of late antique scientific texts in Byzantium’, in Prodi (n. 6), 427–81, at 473–4.

13 Rance (n. 12), 466–74.

14 Tzetzes’ Chiliades are cited from P.A.M. Leone (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae (Naples, 19681; Galatina, 20072). Older scholarship follows G. Kiessling (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae historiarum variarum Chiliades (Leipzig, 1826; repr. Hildesheim, 1963), in which the verses are differently numbered. Zonaras’ Epitome is cited from L. Dindorf (ed.), Ioannis Zonarae Epitome historiarum (Leipzig, 1868–1875) for Books 1–12; thereafter, T. Büttner-Wobst (ed.), Ioannis Zonarae Epitomae historiarum libri XIII–XVIII (CSHB 49/3) (Bonn, 1897).

15 Boissevain (n. 2), 1.232–5, reprised with English translation in E. Cary, Dio's Roman History (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1914–1927), 2.170–7.

16 Spelthahn, H., Studien zu den Chiliaden des Johannes Tzetzes (Munich, 1904), 18–35Google Scholar; C. Wendel, ‘Tzetzes’, RE VII.A (1948), 1959–2011, at 1964–5, 1993–2000; Leone (n. 14), xxxix–lxiv; Grünbart, M., ‘Prosopographische Beiträge zum Briefcorpus des Ioannes Tzetzes’, JÖB 46 (1996), 175–226Google Scholar, at 217, 220.

17 T. Braccini, ‘Erudita invenzione: riflessioni sulla Piccola grande Iliade di Giovanni Tzetze’, Incontri triestini di filologia classica 9 (2009–2010), 153–73, at 157–60; Savio, M., Screditare per valorizzare. Giovanni Tzetze, le sue fonti, i committenti e la concorrenza (Rome, 2020), 64–8Google Scholar.

18 Archimedes and his inventions: Chil. 2.35, 12.457; Schol. Ar. Nub. 1024a (Holwerda 621.12–622.4). Archimedes’ burning-mirror(s): Alleg. Il. 5.10–15; Chil. 2.35.121–31, 156; 4.505–6; 12.457.967; Hypomn. in S. Luciam 3, 11. See Rance (n. 12), 431–52.

19 Chil. 2.35.156; 12.457.967; cf. 11.381.589. Collected ‘fragments’ of a Catoptrica ascribed to Archimedes: J.L. Heiberg, corr. E.S. Stamatis, Archimedis Opera omnia cum commentariis Eutocii (Stuttgart, 19722), 2.549–51, F17–21. See Schneider (n. 7), 72–4; Acerbi (n. 8), 190–2.

20 Dio and Diodorus: Chil. 1.27.703; 3.68.85, 69.102, 70.157; 4.132.280; 9.275.563–6; Dio: 2.34.87; 3.69.87, 111.880; 5.21.109; 6.60.522; Diodorus: 1.16.393, 22.596, 25.671, 27.703, 32.970; 2.32.18, 33.36, 38.562, 39.570; 3.91.389, 95.451, 113.942; 5.15.562; 6.53.465, 74.703; 8.252.978; 9.275.518; 12.399.181, 253, 258, 261. See C. Harder, De Joannis Tzetzae historiarum fontibus quaestiones selectae (Kiel, 1886), 58–9, 61–2; Schübeler (n. 9), xxv–xxvi; J.M. Moscovich, ‘Dio Cassius, Tzetzes, and the “Healthful Islands”’, AHB 8 (1994), 50–3.

21 Braccini (n. 17), 159–60; A. Pizzone, ‘The Historiai of John Tzetzes: a Byzantine “Book of Memory”?’, BMGS 41 (2017), 182–207; Savio (n. 17), 12–13, 58–68; Rance (n. 12), 427–30.

22 The foundational exposition of Tzetzes’ use of Anthemius’ treatise was L. Dupuy, Fragment d'un ouvrage grec d'Anthémius, sur les Paradoxes de Mécanique (Paris, 1777), 28–36 (rev. repr. MAIBL 42 [1786], 392–451, at 429–35). Nevertheless, later scholarship on Dio, though doubtful that these details of the mirror derived from his work, remained uncertain of the source: e.g. H. Haupt, ‘Neue Beiträge zu den fragmenten des Dio Cassius’, Hermes 14 (1879), 431–46, at 439; Boissevain (n. 2), 1.232–3 (app. crit.). Studies of Tzetzes’ sources also overlooked Anthemius’ text: e.g. Harder (n. 20), 72–3, 82, Schübeler (n. 9), xxviii; and it was omitted from Leone's apparatus fontium (n. 14), 48. See Huxley, G.L., Anthemius of Tralles: A Study in Later Greek Geometry (Cambridge, MA, 1959), 4–5Google Scholar, 36–8; Rance (n. 12), 452–65.

23 Chil. 2.35.153–4 καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς [Δίων καὶ Διόδωρος] δɛ μέμνηνται πολλοὶ τοῦ Ἀρχιμήδους, | Ἀνθέμιος μὲν πρώτιστον ὁ παραδοξογράφος. Cf. Schol. Carm. Il. 2.45b (166.7); Alleg. Il. 5.18; Chil. 12.457.969.

24 The sole manuscript is Vaticanus gr. 218 (1r–2v). The commonly cited edition is J.L. Heiberg (ed.), Mathematici graeci minores (Copenhagen, 1927), 77–87. Two Arabic versions are variously preserved: edition with French transl. in Rashed (n. 8), 217–44, 286–321. M. Rashed re-edits the Greek text in Rashed (n. 8), 343–59, with emendations based on the Arabic tradition and/or re-examination of the Vaticanus under ultraviolet light. The English transl. in Huxley (n. 22), 6–19 is partly obsolete.

25 Anthemius 2 tit., 3–4 (Heiberg 81.19–21, 83.27–84.26), with Rashed (n. 8), 356.

26 Anthemius 3 (Heiberg 83.24–6). See Dupuy (n. 22), 31–3; Huxley (n. 22), 36–7; Rance (n. 12), 461–5.

27 E.g. Chil. 2.34 (68–97), concerning Apollodorus’ Danubian bridge, combines material from Dio 68.13.1–6 (Xiph. S232.28–233.23) and a lost technological monograph On Coastal Foundations by an otherwise unattested Theophilus. See Rance (n. 12), 474–8.

28 The Epitome terminates in 1118 and was used by Constantine Manasses in composing his Chronological Synopsis, seemingly before c.1152/3. Evidence, arguments and bibliography: T.M. Banchich and E.N. Lane, The History of Zonaras. From Alexander Severus to the Death of Theodosius the Great (London and New York, 2009), 2–7 (completed pre-1134); Treadgold, W., The Middle Byzantine Historians (Basingstoke and New York, 2013), 389–92Google Scholar, 399, 402 n. 67 (completed c.1145). Neville, L., Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing (Cambridge, 2018), 193–510.1017/9781139626880CrossRefGoogle Scholar summarizes broader scholarly opinions.

29 W.A. Schmidt, ‘Über die Quellen des Zonaras’, in Dindorf (n. 14), 6.i–lx, especially xxiv–xxxix; Haupt (n. 22), 438–9; T. Büttner-Wobst, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Geschichtsschreibers Zonaras von den erhaltenen Quellen’, in A. Fleckeisen (ed.), Commentationes Fleckeisenianae (Leipzig, 1890), 121–70, especially 140–69; Boissevain (n. 2), 1.ii–vi, civ–cv; Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), 2–3Google Scholar, 195–203; K. Ziegler, ‘Zonaras’, RE X.A (1972), 718–32, at 725–9; Simons (n. 1), 27–32; V. Fromentin, ‘Zonaras abréviateur de Cassius Dion: à la recherche de la préface perdue de l’Histoire romaine’, Erga-Logoi 1 (2013), 23–39; M. Bellissime and B. Berbessou-Broustet, ‘L'Histoire romaine de Zonaras’, in Fromentin et al. (n. 1), 95–108; C. Mallan, ‘The historian John Zonaras: some observations on his sources and methods’, in O. Devillers and B.B. Sebastiani (edd.), Sources et modèles des historiens anciens (Bordeaux, 2018), 359–72.

30 Zonar. pr. 2, 4 (1.5.12–17, 9.11–12); 9.31 (2.338.32–339.25), with Banchich and Lane (n. 28), 37–8. The library of this monastery, refounded in the 1090s, probably comprised core devotional texts, though Zonaras’ private ownership or acquisition of secular historiography is reasonably inferred: Mango, C., ‘Twelfth-century notices from Cod. Christ Church gr. 53’, JÖB 42 (1992), 221–8Google Scholar; Treadgold (n. 28), 391–4.

31 Narrating Vitalian's revolt in 513–515, Zonar. 14.3.29–30 (Büttner-Wobst, 138.1–11) rehearses a largely unhistorical story about a philosopher named Proclus who defended Constantinople using burning-mirrors (or, in early versions, an inflammable chemical compound): κάτοπτρα γὰρ ᾄδεται χαλκεῦσαι πυρφόρα ὁ Πρόκλος, καὶ ταῦτα ἐκ τοῦ τείχους τῶν πολεμίων νεῶν ἀπαιωρῆσαι κατέναντι, τούτοις δὲ τῶν τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτίνων προσβαλουσῶν πῦρ ἐκεῖθεν ἐκκεραυνοῦσθαι καταφλέγον τὸν νηίτην τῶν ἐναντίων στρατὸν καὶ νῆας αὐτάς, ὃ πάλαι τὸν Ἀρχιμήδην ἐπινοῆσαι ὁ Δίων ἱστόρησε, τῶν Ῥωμαίων τότε πολιορκούντων Συράκουσαν, ‘For the story goes that Proclus wrought burning-mirrors and suspended them from the wall opposite the enemy ships, and when the sun's rays fell upon them, fire burst forth and consumed the opposing naval force and the ships themselves; this, as Dio narrates, Archimedes long ago thought up, when the Romans were besieging Syracuse.’ See J. Duffy, ‘Proclus the philosopher and a weapon of mass destruction’, in M. Grünbart (ed.), Theatron: Rhetorische Kultur in Spätantike und Mittelalter (Berlin, 2007), 1–11; Rance (n. 12), 467–72.

32 Haupt (n. 22), 438–9. Some specialists in the history of science misapprehend the significance of Dio's work and its textual relationships with Tzetzes and Zonaras, unaware of prior Quellenforschung and explicitly Zonar. Epit. 14.3.30 (see n. 31 above). Simms (n. 8), 7–10, 21, 24 needlessly doubts whether the lost section of Dio's Roman History mentioned a mirror. W.R. Knorr, ‘Catoptrics’, OCD³, 303 deems ‘legends of Archimedes’ use of great burning mirrors … the product of Byzantine imaginations’. Recently, Acerbi (n. 8), 198–200 wishes to make Anthemius’ treatise alone the common source for the κάτοπτρον recorded by Tzetzes and Zonaras.

33 Klotz, A., ‘Über die Stellung des Cassius Dio unter den Quellen zur Geschichte des zweiten punischen Krieges’, RhM 85 (1936), 68–116Google Scholar proposed lost historical works by Coelius Antipater and Valerius Antias as Dio's sources for the Second Punic War, though both predate the emergence of the legend by more than two centuries. See recently Simons (n. 1), 167–77; G. Urso, ‘Cassio Dione e le fonti pre-liviane: una versione alternativa dei primi secoli di Roma’, in Burden-Strevens and Lindholmer (n. 1), 53–75, especially 63–5.

34 Kemezis (n. 1), 282–93 with bibliography.

35 Anthemius 5 (Heiberg 85.7–9) καὶ γὰρ οἱ μεμνημένοι περὶ τῶν ὑπὸ Ἀρχιμήδους τοῦ θειοτάτου κατασκευασθέντων <ἐκκαῦσαι> οὐ δι’ ἑνὸς ἐμνημόνευσαν πυρίου ἀλλὰ διὰ πλειόνων, ‘for the authorities on what was contrived by the most godlike Archimedes recall that he effected ignition not by means of a single burning-mirror but by several’. Cf. Gal. De temperamentis 3.2 διὰ τῶν πυρείων.

36 See the early assessment of Heiberg, L.J., Quaestiones Archimedeae (Copenhagen, 1879), 39Google Scholar: ‘sed putaverim eum [Tzetzem] ex illo [Diodoro] nihil nisi narrationem de morte Archimedis hausisse’; likewise, recently Jal (n. 8), 39–45. Plutarch's silence has particular significance, given his access to now-lost sources and familiarity with burning-mirrors used as temple gadgetry (Vit. Num. 9.6–7).

37 Earlier editions of Diodorus admitted verses 134–52, where Diodorus is cited (134, 152); see first P. Wesseling (ed.), Diodori Siculi Bibliotheca (Amsterdam, 1746), 2.468. The editorial convention of quoting verses 106–52 as a ‘fragment’ originates in L. Dindorf (ed.), Diodori Bibliotheca Historica (Leipzig, 1828–18292), II.2 205–6; thence (via Dindorf ed. 1866–18684) F.R. Walton, Diodorus of Sicily (Cambridge, MA and London, 1933–1967), 11.192–6; L. Dindorf, corr. C.T. Fischer, Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica 6 (Stuttgart, 1969), 359–61.

38 Critical text, with Latin translation, in G. Sola, ‘Ioannis Tzetzis Hypomnema et S. Methodii patriarchae Canon in S. Luciam’, Roma e l'Oriente 14 (1917), 42–50; 15 (1918), 48–53; 16 (1918), 106–15; 17 (1919), 90–105. This supersedes A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Varia graeca sacra. Сборник греческих неизданных богословских текстов IV–ХV веков (St Petersburg, 1909; repr. Leipzig, 1975), 80–97. Authorship and date: P.L.M. Leone, ‘Sull’Hypomnema in S. Luciam di Giovanni Tzetzes’, Rivista di Bizantinistica 1 (1991), 17–21.

39 Hypomn. 3.14–21, 11.14–22; cf. 41–3, 48–50.

40 P.A.M. Leone (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae Carmina Iliaca (Catania, 1995); repr. (without scholia) with Italian translation in P.A.M. Leone (ed.), Giovanni Tzetzes, La Leggenda Troiana (Carmina Iliaca) (Lecce, 2015).

41 Braccini (n. 17); M. Cardin, ‘Teaching Homer through (annotated) poetry: John Tzetzes’ Carmina Iliaca’, in R. Simms (ed.), Brill's Companion to Prequels, Sequels, and Retellings of Classical Epic (Leiden, 2018), 90–114; Conca, F., ‘L'esegesi di Tzetzes ai Carmina Iliaca, fra tradizione e innovazione’, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ 42 (2018), 75–99Google Scholar; B. van den Berg, ‘John Tzetzes as didactic poet and learned grammarian’, DOP 74 (2020), 285–302; U. Mondini, ‘Composing the Μικρομεγάλη Ἰλιάς. Macro- and microstructure of a Byzantine Homeric poem’, BZ 114 (2021), 325–54. The compositional termini c.1133–1140 can perhaps be narrowed to c.1138–1140: Leone, P.L.M., ‘I Carmina Iliaca di Giovanni Tzetze’, Quaderni Catanesi di studi classici et medievali 6 (1984), 377–405Google Scholar, at 377–8; Cardin (this note), 93–4.

42 Braccini (n. 17), 158–60; Rance (n. 12), 433–4.

43 Schol. Carm. Il. 2.45b, 2.46a. G.B. Schirach (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae Carmina Iliaca (Halle, 1770), 45–8 published corrupted texts of both scholia. I. Bekker (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae Antehomerica, Homerica et Posthomerica (Berlin, 1816) omitted all scholia. B. ten Brink, ‘Hipponactea’, Philologus 6 (1851), 35–80, 215–27, at 225–6 reprinted Schirach's text of schol. 2.45b with conjectural emendations. Both scholia are re-edited in Leone (n. 40 [1995]), 165.17–166.10, 166.13–169.13. Tzetzes’ scholia are currently omitted from the TLG, which cites a revision of Bekker's edition in F.S. Lehrs and F. Dübner (edd.), Hesiodi Carmina (Paris, 1840).

44 Schol. Carm. Il. 2.45b (165.17–166.10). See Rance (n. 12), 434–5.

45 Alleg. Il. 5.1–24 (Boissonade 105–6/Matranga 1.66–7). Date: A. Rhoby, ‘Ioannes Tzetzes als Auftragsdichter’, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 15 (2010), 155–70, at 159–65. Cf. Eust. Il. 5.4–7 (van der Valk 2.5.1–7). See Rance (n. 12), 435–9.

46 Schol. Carm. Il. 2.46a (166.13–169.6). Schol. 2.46b (169.7–13) is a later truncated paraphrase; see Leone's editorial remarks at viii–ix, xxviii–xxix.

47 Schol. Carm. Il. 2.46a (168.2–6) concerns the charistion (χαριστίων), here identified as a triple pulley (τρίσπαστον), and Archimedes’ boast that, given a place to stand, he could move the earth. The parallel section at Chil. 2.35.132–3 is briefer. Cf. Schol. Ar. Nub. 1024a (Holwerda 621.20–622.4); Chil. 2.35.110–11; 3.66.63–5; Hypomn. 11.61–4. See Dijksterhuis (n. 7), 14–18; Jaeger (n. 7), 103–9. Plutarch (Vit. Marc. 14.4–9, 17.3–7) likewise digresses from his siege narrative to discuss Archimedes’ mechanical achievements, but does not mention these details.

48 Preger, T., Inscriptiones graecae metricae (Leipzig, 1891), 131–2Google Scholar, no. 168, citing Tzetzes’ scholium from MS Augustanus 354, 47v (now Monacensis gr. 546), seemingly unaware of Schirach's 1770 edition (n. 43).

49 Schol. Carm. Il. 2.46a (166.13–168.2, 168.6–18).

50 E.g. Cardin (n. 41), 93 n. 11, 101–5; Mondini (n. 41), 330–1. Variations in the manuscript transmission of the scholia do not assist in resolving this issue: Leone (n. 40 [1995]), xii–xxxii.

51 The chronological reference ἐπὶ Ἱέρωνος ἦν καὶ Πυθαγόρου (166.13–14) is baffling: while Archimedes lived under Hieron II (reigned 269–215 b.c.), no Pythagoras figures in contemporary Syracusan history. If the famous philosopher is meant, Tzetzes has blundered. Archimedes’ near 80-year lifespan (166.15) conflicts with the implication of Chil. 2.35.108 that he died aged 75, though Tzetzes’ source in either case is unknown and he may merely elaborate ancient indications of Archimedes’ senectitude (see n. 62 below). The foot-wide dimension (ποδιαῖον τὸ μέγεθος) of the hexagonal mirror (167.9) finds no parallel in Chil. 2.35 nor in Tzetzes’ source, Anthemius. Obviously, Marcellus was not ὁ βασιλεὺς Ῥωμαίων (168.14).

52 E.g. Tzetz. Prol. Comm. 1.144–7, 2.34–9 (Koster) explicitly corrects an error in Exeg. Il. (Papathomopoulos 68.12–69.4). See Giske, H., De Ioannis Tzetzae scriptis ac vita (Rostock, 1881), 61–3Google Scholar; Wendel (n. 16), 1966–7, 1974–7.

53 In this chronological scheme, a dating of Zonaras’ Epitome to the mid/late 1140s (see n. 28 above) would make Tzetzes’ scholium 2.46a the earlier text.

54 A similar pattern of bilateral correspondences is apparent in Tzetz. Hypomn. 3.16 τριήρεις μὲν αὔτανδροι ἀνασπώμεναι, combining the passive participial ἀνασπάω and αὔτανδρος. There are other inexact parallels between Tzetzes’ Hypomnema and Zonaras’ Epitome: e.g. Hypomn. 3.20 ἐκπυρούμεναι, cf. Zonar. 9.4 (263.6) πυρώσας; Hypomn. 11.17 ἀναρτῶν μηχαναῖς, cf. Zonar. 9.4 (262.29) μηχανήμασιν ἀπαρτῶν.

55 Rance (n. 12), 461–5.

56 E.g. Chil. 2.35.132–3, quoting Archimedes on moving the earth (see n. 47 above); 2.35.142–5, Archimedes’ final utterances (see below). Exceptional cases of extended direct discourse: e.g. Chil. 6.39.214–24, stichomythic dialogue between Porsenna and Gaius Mucius, which Boissevain (n. 2), 1.39 derived from Cass. Dio 4.

57 Zonar. pr. 1 (1.3.10–20) criticizes lengthy orations in previous histories.

58 V. Fromentin, ‘La fiabilité de Zonaras dans les deux premières décades de l’Histoire romaine de Cassius Dion: le cas des discours’, in Burden-Strevens and Lindholmer (n. 1), 27–52 provides nuanced analysis. See also J. Rich, ‘Speech in Cassius Dio's Roman History, Books 1–35’, in Burden-Strevens and Lindholmer (n. 1), 217–84, especially 228–30, 273–4; M. Bellissime, ‘Zonaras, l'auteur derrière l’épitomateur’, in I. Boehm and D. Vallat (edd.), Epitome: abréger les textes antiques (Lyon, 2020), 107–17; broader observations in Burden-Strevens (n. 1).

59 Examples in Rich (n. 58), 222–4, 229; Mallan (n. 29), 364.

60 Zonar. 9.4 (2.263.5–10) = Cass. Dio 15 F57.35 (Boissevain 1.233.17–26).

61 Polyb. 8.3.3 (μία ψυχή), 7.7–9 (μία ψυχή, πρεσβύτην ἕνα Συρακοσίων); Livy 24.34.1 (unus homo); Plut. Vit. Marc. 17.1–2 (ψυχὴ μία); Sil. Pun. 14.338 (calliditas Graia atque astus pollentior armis). See Dijksterhuis (n. 7), 26–9; Jaeger (n. 7), 75–122.

62 Cf. Schol. Ar. Nub. 1024a (Holwerda 622.2) ἑνὸς ἀνθρωπαρίου γηρανδραρίου. LBG s.v. γηρανδράριον, citing only the latter instance, construes a neuter noun, ‘altes Männchen’. In fact, the adjectival γηρανδράριος qualifies the noun ἀνθρωπάριον, ‘one withered old little man’. I similarly construe Schol. Carm. Il. 2.46a (167.18) ἕν τι δαιμόνιον γηρανδράριον. Archimedes as ὁ γέρων: Chil. 2.35.118, 131, 147; 3.66.63; 4.505.

63 See page 7 above for Tzetzes’ conflation of two stages of the siege.

64 Hypomn. 12.1–12.

65 Certain ‘classical’ words and phrases, atypical of Tzetzes’ lexicon, occur in multiple witnesses, without parallels in Zonaras: e.g. Schol. Carm. Il. 2.46a (167.3–4) ὑποβρυχίους ἐποίει; Hypomn. 11.18–19 ὑποβρυχίους ποιῶν (cf. Cass. Dio 39.61.2 ὑποβρύχια). The adjective ὑποβρύχιος does not otherwise occur in Tzetzes’ writings.

66 For example, despite numerous occurrences of ξίφος and cognates across Tzetzes’ works, the scholium contains the sole instance of ξιφήρης. Four instances are documented in Dio's Roman History, preserved directly or in excerpta: 15 F57.28 = EV 33; 56.43.2; 78(77).15.3; 79(78).7.1. Among Roman historical writers ξιφήρης occurs more frequently only in Plutarch and Josephus; no occurrence is found in Diodorus.

67 For example, the immediately following Schol. Carm. Il. 2.48a Αἰνεάδαο (169.14–170.6) contains condensed material drawn from the fragmentary beginning of Dio's Roman History 1 F1–5 (Boissevain 1.2–7), as witnessed by Zonar. 7.1 (2.85.6–87.9) and by Tzetz. In Lycophr. Alex. 1232 (Scheer 2.352–5). Cf. Schol. 2.71a Αἰνείαν ἀπάραξε (172.6–11). Furthermore, Tzetzes cites Cassius Dio (Δίων Κοκκειανός) at Schol. 1.239e καὶ Λουκριτίην τε (140.1–141.4 at 140.1–2) in a list of authors who wrote about Lucretia (cf. Cass. Dio 2 F11.13–19: Boissevain 1.32–4). Prior scholarship on Dio has overlooked this testimonium and fragment.