We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Professor N. G. L. Hammond has of late published some of his thoughts on the activities of Philip II in 347 and 346 B.C. In addition he has treated aspects of Philip's earlier involvement in Thessalian, Thracian, and Phokian affairs. In the process he has in many instances disagreed with a number of current findings. Among those challenged are some of mine. Healthy scholarly debate is always desirable, and in this f spirit I should welcome an opportunity to contest Professor Hammond's views on several points, the most important being the basic factor of methodology and the interpretation of various factual details.
1 ‘Philip's Actions in 347 and Early 346 B.C.’, CQ 44 (1994), 367–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Philip Hand the Sacred War (Leiden, 1989), 148–95.Google Scholar
3 Op. cit. (n. 1 above), 368 n. 2;Philip of Macedon (Baltimore, 1994), 200 n.Google Scholar
4 The references are to Hammond, N.G.L. and Griffith, G. T., A History of Macedonia II (Oxford, 1979), and Hammond, N. G. L., ‘Diodorus’ Narrative of the Sacred War', JHS 57 (1937), 44–77.Google Scholar
5 ‘ 0 EniKEAAOZ OBOAOZ’, BCH 73 (1949), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Amphictionie, L., Delphes et le temple d'apollon au IV siècle (Lyon, 1979).Google Scholar
7 Op. cit. (n. 5 above), lines 1–3 of the inscription.Google Scholar
8 Op. cit. (n. 6 above), 39–50.Google Scholar
9 Ibid., 105–11, 114.
10 Bourguet, E., Fouilles de Delphes III.5 (Paris, 1932), no. 19, lines 3–5; [hereafter cited as FdD].Google Scholar
11 IGII 2 109;FdD 1II.5, nos. 15–18.J., Buckler, ‘Thebes, Delphoi, and the Outbreak of the Third Sacred War’, in Roesch, P.Google Scholar and G., Argoud (eds.), La Béotie Antique (Paris, 1985), 237–46; Buckler (op. cit., n. 2 above), 202 n. 24.Google Scholar
12 Diod. 16.14.3, 30.1; Pouilloux, op. cit. (n. 5 above), 198; Buckler, op. cit. (n. 2 above), 153.Google Scholar
13 FdD III.5, no. 19 lines 8–30, especially 10–11.
14 Ibid., line 31.
15 Ibid., line 71: πε εἰρνα γνετο.
16 Ibid., lines 37, 66, 68–70: τοῖς ναοποιῖς ν τι πολμωι.
17 E., Bourguet, FdD III.l (Paris, 1929), no. 392; see also Buckler, J., Delphi und die Söhne des Kersebleptes, Klio 68 (1986), 348–50.Google Scholar
18 Buckler (n. 2 above), 202–3.Google Scholar
19 FdDUl.5. no. 23, line 114.Google Scholar
20 Similarly, Hammond op. cit. (n. 4 above), prefers Demophilos' account of the Sacred War to the actual documents of the period, even though virtually nothing in the literary source corresponds to the epigraphical evidence.
21 Hammond op. cit. (n. 1 above), 371–3. Throughout the article he is conveniently vague as to whether Trogus or his epitomizer is responsible for the extant text of Justin. On this question, see n. 40 below.
22 Diod. 16.35.2, 38.1; Justin 8.3.2; 11.3.2. Buckler, op. cit. (n. 2 above), 78–80;Google ScholarErrington, R. M., A History of Macedonia, Eng. trans. (Berkeley, 1990), 62–6.Google Scholar
23 A Historical Commentary on Polybius II (Oxford, 1967), 165.Google Scholar
24 Op. cit. (n. 1 above), 368.Google Scholar
25 Dem. 4.35; 19.319; Diod. 16.35.5–6, 61.2. Buckler, op. cit. (n. 2 above), with full bibliography.Google Scholar
26 6.20, 74;Letter to Philip 1.20. Although Hammond opines (n. 1 above, 368) that Isokrates sent a copy of his tract to Philip with the second Athenian peace delegation, which Hammond places in May 346 B.C., Isokrates (6.7) states quite plainly that Philip and the Athenians had already made peace before he had finished his essay. So also Kallisthenes, FGrH 124 F 44.
27 Dem. 19.36, 163, 174.Google Scholar
28 Op. cit. (n. 1 above), 368–9;Google ScholarG., Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon (London, 1978), 92.Google Scholar
29 Dem. 23.179–80, 189; Diod. 16.22.3. Kahrstedt, ‘Ketriporis’, RE 11 (1921), 372;Errington, , op. cit. (n. 22 above), 47–8.Google Scholar
30 For the date of Demosthenes' speech,Google Scholar see A., Lesky, A History of Greek Literature, Eng. trans., 2nd. ed. (New York, 1963), 601.Google Scholar
31 FGrH IIIB, 371.Google Scholar
32 Judeich, ‘Amadokos’, RE 1 (1894), 1713;Google ScholarSchaefer, A., Demosthenes und seine Zeit I 2 (Leipzig, 1885), 446; Griffith, op. cit. (n. 4 above), 282–5. Amadokos III: Polyb. 22.14.12; Livy 39.35.4.Google ScholarWalbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius III (Oxford, 1979), 199; Errington, op. cit. (n. 22 above), 209.Google Scholar
33 ‘The Macedonian Navies of Philip and Alexander until 330 B.C.’, Antichthon 26 (1992), 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 Polyain. 4.2.22. Badian, ‘Philip II and Thrace’, Pulpudeva 4 (1983), 57–60;Buckler, J., ‘Pammenes, die Perser und der Heilige Krieg’,Google Scholar in H. Beister and J., Buckler (eds.), BOIOTIKA (Munich, 1989), 157–60.Google Scholar
35 Ps. Dem. 7 passim, especially 2–16, for Philip's alleged reasons for suppressing piracy.Google Scholar
36 Ps. Dem. 12.2, 16.Google Scholar
37 Both Griffith, op. cit. (n. 4 above), 567, and Errington, op. cit. (n. 22 above), 80, have mistranslated the aorists in the passage as presents. Hammond, op. cit. (n. 33 above), 34, also misinterprets the meaning of the passage. For a fuller discussion of the episode, see my ‘Philip's Designs on Greece’,Google Scholar in Wallace, R. W. and Harris, E. M. (eds.), Transitions to Empire in the Greco-Roman World, 360–146 B.C. (Norman, Okla., forthcoming in 1997).Google Scholar
38 Buckler, op. cit. (n. 2 above), 127–8, with earlier bibliography.Google Scholar
39 Op. cit. (n. 1 above), 370–71.Google Scholar
40 Kroll, ‘Iunianus’, RE 10 (1918), 956–8;Google ScholarR. Syme, ‘The Date of Justin and the Discovery of Trogus’, Historia 37 (1988), 358–71.Google Scholar
41 Klotz, A., ‘Pompeius Trogus’, RE 21 (1952), 2300–13, where direct knowledge of Theopompos is assumed. Jacoby, FGrH IIC, 220–2, takes a more cautious position. For Trogus' use of Timagenes, see R. Laquer, ‘Timagenes’, RE 6A (1936), 1063–71, especially 1065–6.Google Scholar
42 Jacoby, FGrH 88 T7; F 1, prove that Timagenes had used a variety of sources, and had also treated Greek prehistory (see F 1 and Hdt. 1.173). Theopompos had likewise known his Herodotus quite well, as proven by his epitome of The Histories in two books: Jacoby, FGrH 115 FF 1–4.Google Scholar
43 DePraefatio des Pompeius Trogus (Erlangen, 1955), 18–23;Google ScholarForni, G., Valorestorico efonti diPompeo Trogo (Urbino, 1958), 45–9Google Scholar;Yardley, J. C., trans., Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus (Atlanta, 1994).Google Scholar
44 Flower, M. A., Theopompus of Chios (Oxford, 1994), 5Google Scholar, 133 n. 44, 148–9, also points out that Hammond himself in ‘Sources of Justin on Macedonia to the death of Philip’, CQ 41 (1991), 496–508, prefers Marsyas as Trogus' source for early Macedonian history. Pertinent also is Homblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford, 1981), 66 n. 160Google Scholar
45 Op. cit. (n. 1 above), 370.Google Scholar
46 Tronson, A., ‘Satyrus the Peripatetic and the Marriages of Philip II’, JHS 104 (1984), 116–26; Buckler, op. cit. (n. 2 above), 59–63.Google Scholar
47 Although Hammond, op. cit. (n. 3 above), 206 n. 15, rejects my interpretation of the peace treaties of 346 B.C., a detailed exposition of my views can be found in ‘Philip II, the Greeks, and the King, 346–336 B.C.’, ICS 19 (1994), 99–122.Google Scholar See also the excellent article of Dobesch, G., ‘Phokion und der Korinthische Bund Philipps II’, in Vita e Pensiero (Milan, 1994), 231–55.Google Scholar
