Timaios (566) - Brill Reference

BrillOnline.
com
BrillOnline Reference Works

▶
Home > Classical Studies > Jacoby Online > Brill’s New Jacoby > Timaios (566)
Brill’s New Jacoby
Timaios (566)
(108,569 words)
This entry was prepared by Craige Champion and

published on 1 October 2010. Article Table Of Contents
About this Historian T 1 : Suda, Lexikon, Τίµαιος

T 2 : Diodoros of Sicily,
Historical Library, 21.16.5
T 3a : Diodoros of Sicily,
T 3b : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Timoleon,
10.6-8
T 4a : Diodoros of Sicily,
T 4b : Polybios, Histories (ed.
Büttner-Wobst), 12.25h.1
T 4c : Polybios, Histories (ed.
Büttner-Wobst), 12.25d.1
T 4d : Diodoros of Sicily,
T 4e : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), On Exile,
14.605C
T 5 : Pseudo-Lucian, ,
T 6a : Polybios, Histories (ed.
Büttner-Wobst), 1.5.1
T 6b : Polybios, Histories (ed.
Büttner-Wobst), 39.8.4-5
T 7 : Polybios, Histories (ed.
Büttner-Wobst), 12.26d.4
T 9a : Cicero, M. Tullius,
Epistulae ad Familiares,
5.12.2
T 9b : Dionysios of
Halikarnassos, Roman
Antiquities, 1.6.1
T 9c : Gellius, Aulus, Attic
Nights, 11.1.1
T 13 : Markellinos, Life of
Thucydides, 27
T 14 : Agatharchides, On the
Red Sea, 64
T 15a : Clement of
Alexandria (T. Flavius
Clemens), Miscellanies (ed.
Stählin), 1.1.2
T 15b : Philodemos, On
Poems, 5 col. 5.22 Jensen
T 16 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 6.103.272B
T 17 : Josephus, T. Flavius,
Against Apion, 1.16-17
T 18 : Plutarch (Ploutarchos),
Nikias, 1.1-4
Büttner-Wobst), 12.3.1-28.7
T 20 : Cicero, M. Tullius, On
the Orator, 2.55-58
T 21 : Cicero, M. Tullius,
Brutus, 325
T 22 : Dionysios of
Halikarnassos, On
Deinarchos, 8
T 23a : Pseudo-Longinus, On
the Sublime, 4.1-2
T 23b : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Nikias, 1
T 24 : Josephus, T. Flavius,
Against Apion, 1.16
T 25 : Athenaios,
T 26 : Athenaios,
T 27 : Strabo, Geographica
[Vide: Apollodorus et
Eratosthenes apud
Strabonem], 14.1.22 (C640)
T 28 : Pseudo-Skymnos,
Periegesis (Voyage around
the Earth) for Nicomedes,
125-126
T 29 : Cicero, M. Tullius,
Letters to Atticus, 6.1.18
T 30 : Vitruvius Pollio, M.,
On Architecture, 8.3.27
T 31a : Pliny (G. Plinius
Secundus) Lexikon, Natural
History, 1.4
T 31b : Pliny (G. Plinius
History, 1.6
T 31c : Pliny (G. Plinius
History, 1.33
T 31d : Pliny (G. Plinius
History, 1.33
T 31e : Pliny (G. Plinius
History, 1.33
F 1a : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 4.38.153D
F 1b : Athenaios,
F 2 : Diogenes Laertios, Lives
of the Philosophers, 8.66
F 3 : Polybios, Histories (ed.
F 4a : Diogenes Laertios,
Lives of the Philosophers,
1.114
F 4b : Scholia, 9.95a
F 5 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 6.103.272.B
F 6 : Diogenes Laertios, Lives
of the Philosophers, 8.67
Büttner-Wobst), 12.28.8-
28a.3
F 8a : Photios, Lexikon (ed.
Naber, Reitzenstein),
Καλλικύριοι
F 8b : Scholia, 10
F 9 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 12.58.541BC
F 10 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 13.32.573CD
F 11a : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 6.86.264CD
F 11b : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 6.103.272AB
F 13a : Scholia, 279C (T)
F 13b : Diogenes Laertios,
8.10
F 14 : Diogenes Laertios,
8.54
F 15 : Cyril (Kyrillos of
Alexandria), Contra
Julianum imperatorem
(Spanheim E.), 6.208
F 16 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 4.56.163EF
8.11
F 18 : Scholia, 9.95a
F 19a : Scholia, 5.19a
F 19b : Scholia, 5.19b
F 19c : Scholia, 5.19c
F 20 : Scholia, 2.2
Büttner-Wobst), 12.25k.2-
26.8
F 23 : Athenaios,
F 24a : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 13.54-
55.588B-589A
F 24b : Stephanos of
Byzantium , Ethnica,
Εὐκαρπία
F 24c : Scholia, 2.2
F 25 : Diodoros of Sicily,
F 26a : Diodoros of Sicily,
Historical Library, 13.81.3-
82.6
F 26b : Diogenes Laertios,
8.51
F 26c : Aelian (Claudius
Aelianus), Varia Historia,
12.29
Historical Library, 13.85.3-4
F 28b : Polybios, Histories
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.25.1-5
F 28c : Scholia, 1.185
F 29 : Scholia, 10
F 30a : Diogenes Laertios,
8.60
(ed. Büttner-Wobst),
12.25k.2-26.8
F 31a : Polybios, Histories
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.25.7
12.26a.1-4
F 32 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 6.56.250A-D
F 33 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 11.43.471F
Büttner-Wobst), 12.25h.1
F 35a : Suda, Lexikon, ὧι τὸ
ἱερὸν πῦρ οὐκ ἔξεστι φυσῆσαι
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.13.1-
14.1
Büttner-Wobst), 12.4b.1-4c.1
F 37 : Scholia, 4.965
F 39a : Stephanos of
᾽Αταβύριον
F 39b : Scholia, 7.160c
F 40 : Cicero, M. Tullius, On
the Commonwealth, 3.43
F 41a : Kallimachos,
Collection of Wonderful
Tales, 140
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.4d.5-
7
F 41c : Strabo, Katasterismoi,
6.2.4 (C270-C271)
F 41d : Polybios, Histories
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.4c.2
F 42a : Gellius, Aulus, Attic
Nights, 11.1.1
F 42b : Varro, M. Terentius,
On Agriculture, 2.5.3
F 43a : Antigonos, Collection
of Wonderful Tales [Vide:
Callimachus apud
Antigonum], 1-2
F 43b : Strabo,
Katasterismoi, 6.1.9 (C260)
F 44 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 12.22.522A
F 45 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 12.22.522C
F 46 : Kallimachos,
Tales, 134
F 47 : Athenaios,
F 48 : Athenaios,
F 49 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 12.16.518E-F
F 50 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 12.17-
18.519B-520C
F 51 : Athenaios,
F 52 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 12.25.523DE
F 53 : Scholia, 615
F 54 : Pollux, Iulius (Ioulios
Polydeukes), Onomasticon,
2.29-30
F 55 : Scholia, 1137
F 56a : Scholia, 1050
F 56b : Etymologicum
Genuinum (M.: Miller E.,
Mélanges; R.: Reitzenstein
R., Geschichte) [Vide:
Lexicon rhetoricum &
Orosius apud Etymo1ogicum
Genuinum], 320.1
F 57 : Kallimachos,
Tales, 152
F 58a : Strabo, Katasterismoi,
5.4.9 (C248)
F 58b : Dionysios of
Antiquities, 1.6.1
F 59 : Dionysios of
Antiquities, 1.67.4
F 60 : Dionysios of
Antiquities, 1.74.1
F 61 : Pliny (G. Plinius
History, 33.42-43
F 62a : Tertullian (Q.
Septimius Florens
Tertullianus), On the
Spectacles, 5
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.4c.2
History, 3.85
F 64 : Scholia, 337A
F 65 : Strabo, Katasterismoi,
14.2.10 (C654)
F 66 : Scholia, 633
History, 4.120
F 69 : Etymologicum
Magnum (Gaisford T.) [Vide:
Lexicon rhetoricum &
Photius apud Etymologicum
Magnum], 220.5
4.1.8 (C183)
F 71 : Pseudo-Skymnos,
209
F 72 : Stephanos of
Μασσαλία
F 73 : Aetios of Antioch, On
the Doctrines of
Philosophers (Excerpts by
Stobaios) (ed. Diels H.,
Doxographi Graeci),
3.17.6.383
History, 4.104
F 75a : Pliny (G. Plinius
History, 4.94
F 75b : Pliny (G. Plinius
History, 37.35
F 76 : Photios, Lexikon (ed.
Naber, Reitzenstein), Αἷµον
F 77 : Pseudo-Skymnos,
405
F 78 : Stephanos of
᾽Αργυρῖνοι
F 79 : Scholia, 4.982-992g
F 80 : Scholia, 4.1216
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.28a.3
F 82 : Anonymus-Anonymi,
6.215
F 83 : Parthenios,
Narrationes amatoriae, 29.1-
2
F 84 : Scholia, 2.399-401a
F 86 : Scholia, 4.786-787
F 87 : Scholia, 4.1153-1154
F 88 : Scholia, 4.1217-1219b
F 91 : Scholia, 18.486 (A)
F 93a : Scholia, 2 inscr. 58.12
F 93b : Scholia, 2.29d
Büttner-Wobst), 12.26b.1-5
F 95 : Tzetzes, Ioannes,
Chiliades, 4.132.269-281
Leone
F 96 : Scholia, 6.158a-c
F 98 : Scholia, 732
F 99 : Cornelius Nepos,
Alcibiades, 11.1-6
F 100a : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Nikias, 19.5
F 100b : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Nikias, 28.1-4
F 100c : Plutarch
41.4
F 101 : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Nikias, 28.5
F 102a : Pseudo-Longinus,
On the Sublime, 4.3
F 102b : Plutarch
F 105 : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Table Talk
(Symposiaka), 8.1.1.717C
F 109 : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Dion, 6.2-3
F 110 : Polybios, Histories
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.4a.3-
4
Büttner-Wobst), 12.24.3
F 112 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 5.40.206E
F 113 : Plutarch
F 114 : Plutarch
F 115 : Plutarch
F 116 : Plutarch
4.5-8
Büttner-Wobst), 12.4a.2
F 118 : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Table Talk
(Symposiaka), 5.3.2.676D
7
F 119b : Plutarch
36.1-2
F 119c : Cicero, M. Tullius,
Letters to Friends, 5.12.7
F 122 : Pseudo-Longinus, On
the Sublime, 4.5
F 123b : Pseudo-Lucian, ,
10
F 124c : Polybios, Histories
F 124d : Diodoros of Sicily,
Histories, 21.17.1-3
F 125 : Censorinus [Vide:
Anonymi historici], On the
Date of Birth, 21.2-3
F 126 : Clement of
Clemens), Miscellanies (ed.
Stählin), 1.21.139.4
F 127 : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Lycurgus, 1.1-3
F 128 : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Lycurgus, 31.7
13.1.39 (C600)
F 130a : Cicero, M. Tullius,
On Laws, 2.15
F 130b : Cicero, M. Tullius,
Letters to Atticus, 6.1.18
F 131 : Porphyrios of Tyre,
Life of Pythagoras, 4
F 132 : Scholia, 131
F 133 : Clement of
Clemens), Miscellanies,
1.64.2
8.63-64
F 135 : Markellinos, Life of
Thucydides, 25
F 136 : Markellinos, Life of
Thucydides, 33
F 137 : Dionysios of
Halikarnassos, Lysias, 3
F 138 : Cicero, M. Tullius,
Brutus, 63
F 139 : Pseudo-Longinus, On
the Sublime, 4.2
F 140 : Athenaios,
F 141 : Scholia, 2 inscr.
F 142a : Scholia, 1 inscr.
F 142b : Scholia, 25a
F 143a : Scholia, 23.269
F 143b : Scholia, 23.269B
F 144 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 13.79.602F
F 145 : Scholia, 13.29b
F 146a : Scholia, 1155
F 146b : Scholia, 1141
F 147 : Censorinus [Vide:
Anonymi historici], On the
Date of Birth, 2.3
F 148 : Zenobios, Epitome of
the Collections of Proverbs
by Lucius of Tarrha and
Didymos of Alexandria, 1.31
F 149 : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 2.5.37B-D
F 150a : Cicero, M. Tullius,
On the Nature of the Gods,
2.69
F 150b : Strabo,
Katasterismoi, 14.1.22 (C640)
3
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.25d
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12, 28-
28a
F 152d : Polybios, Histories
F 153a : Josephus, T. Flavius,
Against Apion, 1.221
F 153b : Josephus, T. Flavius,
Against Apion, 1.16
F 153c : Plutarch
(Ploutarchos), Nikias, 1
F 154a : Plutarch
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.23
12.12b.2-3
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.13-15
F 155c : Plutarch
F 157 : Scholia, 405-406
F 158a : Athenaios,
Deipnosophists, 10.49.437b
F 158b : Philodemos,
Herculanean Index of
Academic Philosophers (ed.
Mekler), col. 8, 11; p. 43
F 158c : Diogenes Laertios,
8.71
F 159 : Aelian (Claudius
Aelianus), Historical
Miscellany, 4.7
F 160 : Aelian (Claudius
Aelianus), On the Nature of
Animals, 17.15
F 161 : Pseudo-Plutarch,
Opinions of the
Philosophers (H. Diels,
Doxographi Graeci),
5.18.428.1
(ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.12a.1-
3
F 163 : Stephanos of
Χάλκεια
Historical Library, 5.2.1-23.5
Biographical Essay
Bibliography
Historian: Timaios
Jacoby number: 566
Attested works:
Historian's date: 4th century BC
3rd century BC
Historical focus: III. History of Cities and Peoples ( Horography and
Ethnography) | B. Authors on Single Cities and Regions |
LXIX. Sicilia and Magna Graecia
Place of origin: unknown
BNJ 566 T 1
Source: Suda, s.v. Τίµαιος

Work mentioned:
Source date: 10th century AD
Source language: Greek
Fragment subject: biography-to 500 - Library of Congress
criticism - Library of Congress
Textual base: Jacoby
Suda, Lexikon, Τίµαιος

Τίµαιος· ᾽Ανδροµάχου Ταυροµενίτης, ὃν ᾽Αθηναῖοι Son of Andromachos, a Tauromenian, whom
᾽Επιτίµαιον ὠνόµασαν, Φιλίσκου µαθητὴς τοῦ the Athenians called ‘Epitimaios’, student of
Μιλησίου· παρωνόµαστο δὲ τοῦτο διὰ τὸ πολλὰ Philiskos the Milesian. He was called this on
ἐπιτιµᾶν, καὶ γραοσυλλέκτρια δὲ διὰ τὸ τὰ account of excessively bitter criticism, and
τυχόντα ἀναγράφειν. ἔγραψεν ᾽Ιταλικὰ καὶ ‘gossip-monger’ on account of recording
Σικελικὰ ἐν βιβλίοις <λ̄>η̄ · ῾Ελληνικὰ καὶ whatever came his way. He wrote Italika and
Σικελικά· Συλλογὴν ῥητορικῶν ἀφορµῶν βιβλία Sikelika in [thirty]-eight books (see F 35a);
ε̄η̄· ᾽Ολυµπιονίκας ἤτοι Χρονικὰ Πραξιδικά. Hellenika and Sikelika; a collection of
rhetorical starting-points in sixty-eight books;
a treatise on Olympic victors, or Chronological
Handbook (cf. T 10).
Commentary
For commentary on Timaios’s life, see Biographical Essay. Timaios and Neanthes of Cyzicus (
BNJ 84 T 1a; FGrH IVA1 1013 (= 337bis) T 7) were said to have been disciples of the Milesian
rhetorician and political pamphleteer Philiskos, but this statement in Suda raises problems for
the chronology of Timaios’s lifetime (see Commentary to T4a below; J. Engels, Commentary to
FGrH IVA1 1013 T 7 (364-65)). Concerning Timaios’s works, the entry in Suda is unreliable.
There is no indication outside of this notice that Timaios composed a rhetorical handbook,
and the number of books (68) recorded for this work is unlikely (Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar,
546 n. 1 (‘schwer glaublich’)). It is probably the case that the alternate title for Olympionikai is
a gloss of the compositor and does not stem from Timaios. Italika and Sikelika and Hellenika
and Sikelika should not be taken as separate works, but rather as comprising parts of Timaios’s
major historical work in thirty-eight books (cf. F 35a), usually referred to simply as Historiai
(cf. F 1a, F 5, F 11a, F 16, F 17, F 23, F 26b, F 28a, F 32, F 33; L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the
West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 53). The final five books of this work treated
the career of Agathokles (cf. T 8, with Commentary), about whom Timaios was unable to
remain unbiased (cf. T 13 for Timaios’s partiality for Timoleon). Timaios’s history was popular
at least until the 1st century AD, and it had an important influence on the development of
Roman historiography. For the nickname ‘Epitimaios’ and Timaios’s reputation as a severe
critic, see further T 11, T 16, T 17, T 18, T 19, T 23, T 27, F 5, 12c.11.4, 99, 150b; for the treatise on
Olympic victors, cf. Commentary to T 10 below.
BNJ 566 T 2
Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 21.16.5

Work mentioned:
Source date: 1st century BC
Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 21.16.5
Τίµαιος ὁ Συρακόσιος. Timaios the Syracusan.
Commentary
From at least the later 1st century BC Timaios was known as ‘Timaios the Tauromenian’ (cf. F
150b), though Diodorus here calls him a Syracusan (cf. F 123a, F 138). It is possible that he was
born in Syracuse and later went to Tauromenion with his father Andromachos (see R. Laqueur,
‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), cols. 1076-7).
BNJ 566 T 3a

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: constitutional history, ancient - Library of Congress
biography-to 500 - Library of Congress

ἅµα δὲ τούτοις πραττοµένοις ᾽Ανδρόµαχος ὁ At the same time as these events (scil. Dion’s
Ταυροµενίτης, Τιµαίου µὲν τοῦ τὰς ἱστορίας expedition) Andromachos the Tauromenian,
συγγράψαντος πατὴρ ὤν, πλούτωι δὲ καὶ ψυχῆς father of the historian Timaios, and renowned
λαµπρότητι διαφέρων, ἤθροισε τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Νάξου for his wealth and high-spiritedness, gathered
τῆς κατασκαφείσης ὑπὸ Διονυσίου together those from Naxos, reduced by
περιλειφθέντας. οἰκίσας δὲ τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς Νάξου Dionysios. He settled the hill-crest above
λόφον τὸν ὀνοµαζόµενον Ταῦρον, καὶ µείνας κατ᾽ Naxos called Tauron, and remaining there for a
αὐτὸν πλείω χρόνον, ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ταύρου considerable time, he called it Tauromenion,
µονῆς ὠνόµασε Ταυροµένιον. from the stopping-place at Tauron.
Commentary
For Dion’s expedition against Syracuse in 357 BC, see Diodorus 16.9.1-10.5; Plutarch, Dion 26.1-
27.5. Diodorus (14.59.2) gives an alternative story of the foundation of Tauromenion, located in
eastern Sicily north of Naxos. According to this account, in 396 BC the Carthaginian
commander Himilko dispatched his subordinate officer Mago with a squadron to sail to the
peak called ‘Tauros’. Sikels then occupied the site, but they were leaderless. Dionysios I had
formerly given the Sikels the territory of the Naxians (he had destroyed Naxos in 403: Diod.
14.15.2), but at this time they moved to the peak, naming it ‘Tauromenion’. In 392 Dionysios
recaptured it, resettling it as a Greek polis. The account of the name ‘Tauromenion’ here may
be Diodorus’s own conjecture, since Timaios may be the source of the statement that it was
given to the place in 396 when the Sikels occupied it (Diod. 14.59.2). Andromachos gathered
Naxian refugees at the site and became ruler in 358. Tauromenion later supported Timoleon
and Pyrrhos. Agathokles gained control there some time between 317-310, at which time
Timaios may have gone into exile (but see Commentary to T 4a). If this account of the naming
of Tauromenion is from Timaios, it serves to glorify and amplify his father’s achievement.
BNJ 566 T 3b
Source: Plutarch, Life of Timoleon 10.6-8

Work mentioned:
Source date: 1st century AD 2nd century AD
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Timoleon, 10.6-8

καὶ κατήχθησαν εἰς Ταυροµένιον τῆς Σικελίας, And they (scil. Timoleon and his followers)
ὑποδεχοµένου καὶ καλοῦντος αὐτοὺς ἐκπάλαι put in at Tauromenion in Sicily, where they
προθύµως ᾽Ανδροµάχου τοῦ τὴν πόλιν ἔχοντος καὶ had been heartily invited for some time, and
δυναστεύοντος. (7) οὗτος ἦν πατὴρ Τιµαίου τοῦ where they were kindly received by
ἱστορικοῦ, καὶ πολὺ κράτιστος τῶν τότε Andromachos, master and ruler of the polis.
δυναστευόντων ἐν Σικελίαι γενόµενος, τῶν θ᾽ (7) Andromachos was the father of the
ἑαυτοῦ πολιτῶν ἡγεῖτο νοµίµως καὶ δικαίως, καὶ historian Timaios, and after making himself by
πρὸς τοὺς τυράννους φανερὸς ἦν ἀεὶ διακείµενος far the most powerful of rulers in Sicily at that
ἀπεχθῶς καὶ ἀλλοτρίως. (8) διὸ καὶ Τιµολέοντι time, not only led his citizens lawfully and
τότε τὴν πόλιν ὁρµητήριον παρέσχε, καὶ τοὺς justly, but clearly was hostile and opposed to
πολίτας ἔπεισε συναγωνίζεσθαι τοῖς Κορινθίοις tyrants. (8) Consequently, at this time too he
καὶ συνελευθεροῦν τὴν Σικελίαν. permitted Timoleon to use the polis as a base
of operations, and persuaded his citizens to
join with the Corinthians and liberate Sicily.
Commentary
The principal ancient sources for Timoleon are the Lives in Plutarch and Nepos, and Diodorus
16.65-90 (for the meager source evidence beyond these three authors, see R.J.A. Talbert,
Timoleon and the Revival of Greek Sicily, 344-317 BC (Cambridge 1974), 39-43). Plutarch and
Nepos probably used Timaios’s account of Timoleon directly or through an intermediate
Hellenistic source; Timaios was certainly among Diodorus’s main sources. Timoleon arrived in
Sicily in 345/44 BC from Corinth with a small band of mercenary soldiers at the request of
Syracusan aristocrats (Diod. 16.66.1), who were struggling for power against Dionysios II. After
gaining control at Syracuse (Plutarch, Timoleon 16; Diod. 16.70.1; see now B. Smarczyk,
Timoleon und die Neugründung von Syrakus (Göttingen 2003)), Timoleon proceeded to a
career of putting down tyrannies in other Sicilian poleis and fighting against Carthaginian
power on the island. His great triumph was the defeat of Carthaginian forces at the Krimisos
river in northwestern Sicily in 341 (cf. Commentary to F 118 below). Timoleon’s understanding
with Andromachos at Tauromenion (cf. T 13) is remarkable in light of the former’s hostility to
one-man rule. The idea that Andromachos was hostile to tyrants seems like special pleading –
it is difficult to see what distinguished him at Tauromenion from Greek tyrants in other
Sicilian poleis (cf. Talbert, Timoleon, 114-5). In any event, Timaios certainly exaggerated the
power of his father Andromachos in Sicily. Timoleon was Timaios’s hero (cf. T 13, F 119a, F 119b,
F 119c (Polybios 12.23.4; Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares 5.12.7)), and the laudatory treatment of
his champion distorts the material in Plutarch, Nepos, and to a lesser extent Diodorus, making
it difficult for subsequent historians to construct a balanced account of Timoleon’s career. For
discussion of the number of books Timaios devoted to Timoleon, see F.W. Walbank, A
Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 384.
BNJ 566 T 4a

Work mentioned:

φυγαδευθεὶς γὰρ ὑπ᾽ ᾽Αγαθοκλέους ἐκ τῆς (Timaios), having been banished by
Σικελίας. Agathokles from Sicily …
Commentary
Like the three major Greek historians whose works have survived largely intact, Herodotos,
Thucydides, and Polybios, Timaios suffered the fate of political exile. Timaios’s banishment by
Agathokles could have fallen in 317, 314, 312, or 310 BC; different passages in Diodorus can be
used to support each of these dates: 19.8.1 (317), 19.72.1 (314), 19.102.6 (312), 20.4.1-8 (310). But
the time of Timaios’s official banishment is not necessarily the exact time at which he left his
hometown (contra L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors
(Atlanta 1987), 37, who assumes Timaios left Tauromenion after 317). Since Agathokles died in
289, Timaios was presumably able to return home any time after that date. As Timaios himself
stated in his 34th book, he spent some fifty years in Athens, where he wrote his historical
works (T 4b, T 4c, T 4e, T 19 (Polybios 12.25h.1-2), F 34). Combining the fifty-year sojourn in
Athens with the assumption that Timaios returned home shortly after it was possible for him
to do so yields the conclusion that Timaios left Tauromenion as a very young man, long before
his official banishment by Agathokles (cf. R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), cols. 1077-8).
This assumption would also provide a solution to the chronological difficulties raised by the
tradition that Timaios had been a student of Philiskos (T 1), since scholars generally assume
that Philiskos died ca. 320 BC (see J. Engels, Commentary to FGrH IVA1 1013 T 6 and T 7 (364-
65)).
BNJ 566 T 4b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.25h.1

Work mentioned:
Source date: 2nd century BC
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst),

12.25h.1
πεντήκοντα συνεχῶς ἔτη διατρίψας ᾽Αθήνησι Living abroad in Athens for fifty years
ξενιτεύων. continuously …
Commentary
It is likely that Timaios began his work as historian after he arrived in Athens (cf. T 4e). He
would therefore have turned to history-writing only after having suffered political exile, like
his successor Polybios (Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 533; cf. Polybios 3.59.4-5, an allusion to
former Greek statesmen turning to the solace of scholarship). See Commentary to T 4a above,
and Biographical Essay below. 
BNJ 566 T 4c
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.25d.1

Work mentioned:

12.25d.1
ἀποκαθίσας γὰρ ᾽Αθήνησι σχεδὸν ἔτη Staying abroad in Athens almost fifty years …
πεντήκοντα.
Commentary
See Commentary to T 4a, T 4b, and Biographical Essay.  
BNJ 566 T 4d

Work mentioned:

καταβιώσας ἐν ἑνὶ τόπωι ξενιτεύων. Living in one place as a foreigner ...
Commentary
See Commentary to T 4a, T 4b, and Biographical Essay.
BNJ 566 T 4e
Source: Plutarch, On Exile 14.605C

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), On Exile, 14.605C

Τίµαιος ὁ Ταυροµενίτης ἐν ᾽Αθήναις. Timaios the Tauromenian (wrote his history)
in Athens (T 19 c. 28.6).
Commentary
See Commentary to T 4a, T 4b, and Biographical Essay.
BNJ 566 T 5
Source: Pseudo-Lucian, Octogenerians (Makrobioi, Long-livers) 22

Work mentioned:
Source date: uncertain
Pseudo-Lucian, ,
Τίµαιος ὁ Ταυροµενίτης ἓξ καὶ ἐνενκοντα. Timaios the Tauromenian (lived) ninety-six
(years).
Commentary
The dates of Timaios’s birth and death defy precise calculation. First of all, Pseudo-Lucianus is
not a source that inspires a great deal of confidence: this same source follows Agatharchides in
maintaining that Hieronymos lived to the age of 104, despite serious illnesses (Pseudo-
Lucianus, Macrobii 22 = BNJ 86 F 4b). Timaios is said to have been a student of Philiskos the
Milesian (see T 1 and T 4a with Commentaries), who cannot be dated securely (Jacoby, FGrH
3b, Kommentar, 531 with nn. 57-8). Timaios’s relations with Agathokles cannot help to
determine Timaios’s dates, since we cannot assume that Timaios began his fifty-year stay at
Athens from the time of his official banishment by Agathokles, probably between 317 and 310
BC (see Commentary to T 4a). It is clear that Timaios’s history reached, at the latest, a
chronological end-point shortly before 264 BC (T 6a, T 6b), which provides a terminus post
quem for his death. It is a reasonable conjecture that Timaios returned to his hometown of
Tauromenion as soon as he was able to do so, upon the death of Agathokles in 289 (see
Commentary to T 4a). Under this assumption, Timaios would have arrived at Athens,
commencing his fifty-year long stay there, around 340. He may have left Tauromenion before
the age of twenty, since Polybios states that he had no experience in public life (12.25g.3, 25h.1,
28.6); Cicero also testifies to this inexperience (T 20). The date of Timaios’s birth will therefore
have been not many years after 360 BC; his death not many years after 264 BC. Consequently
the notice in Pseudo-Lucianus on Timaios’s longevity may well be correct, but we should
perhaps think that this is so by a fortunate coincidence. See Biographical Essay; cf. R. Laqueur,
‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), cols. 1077-8.
BNJ 566 T 6a
Source: Polybios, Histories 1.5.1

Work mentioned:
history, ancient - Library of Congress
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 1.5.1

ὑποθησόµεθα δὲ ταύτης ἀρχὴν τῆς βύβλου τὴν I will take as the starting-point of this book the
πρώτην διάβασιν ἐξ ᾽Ιταλίας ῾Ρωµαίων· αὕτη δ᾽ first crossing of the Romans overseas from
ἐστὶν συνεχὴς µὲν τοῖς ἀφ᾽ ὧν Τίµαιος ἀπέλιπεν, Italy. This follows immediately upon the place
πίπτει δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἐνάτην καὶ εἰκοστὴν πρὸς ταῖς where Timaios left off and took place in the
ἑκατὸν ὀλυµπιάδα. 129th Olympiad (264/63 BC).
Commentary
Timaios’s main work, usually referred to as Historiae (F 1a, F 5, F 11a, F 16, F 17, F 23, F 26b, F
28a, F 32, F 33), is considered to have ended with the death of Agathokles in 289 BC (T 8, F
124b; cf. F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 395). But
Timaios’s work on Pyrrhos (T 9a, T 9b, T 19 (Polybios 12.4b.1), F 36) will have concluded either
with the death of Pyrrhos in 272 or shortly before the Romans crossed over into Sicily in 264.
Polybios’s testimony in T 6a and T 6b makes the latter end-point almost a certainty. And it is in
any event clear that Timaios covered the period of the Pyrrhic wars in his main historical work
as well (Dionysios of Halikarnassos considered the work on Pyrrhos as a separate monograph
(T 9b), as did Cicero (T 9a); Polybios implies the same at F 36 (12.4b); see F.W. Walbank,
Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections (Cambridge 2002), 173-4). The
129th Olympiad marked the beginning of Polybios’s first two introductory books, the so-called
prokataskeue; the main work from Book Three and following commenced with the 140th
Olympiad (220-216 BC). For the general distribution of the preserved fragments in terms of
book numbers or groups of books, see Commentary to T 8 below.
BNJ 566 T 6b
Source: Polybios, Histories 39.8.4-5

Work mentioned:
history, ancient - Library of Congress

39.8.4-5
(4) ἐξεθέµεθα τοιγαροῦν ἐν ἀρχαῖς ὅτι τῆς µὲν I set out at the beginning that I would
προκατασκευῆς ποιησόµεθα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀφ᾽ ὧν commence my introductory books from the
Τίµαιος ἀπέλιπεν. (5) ἐπιδραµόντες δὲ point where Timaios stopped, touching upon
κεφαλαιωδῶς τὰς κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ιταλίαν καὶ Σικελίαν the main points of the affairs in Italy, Sicily,
καὶ Λιβύην πράξεις, ἐπειδὴ περὶ µόνων τῶν τόπων and Libya, since this author dealt only with
τούτων κἀκεῖνος πεποίηται τὴν ἱστορίαν ... these parts in his history (cf. F 119a) …
Commentary
Agatharchides described the geographical concerns of Timaios more generally as the ‘west’ (T
14). For Timaios’s geographical interests, see Commentary to T 7. For the beginning of
Polybios’s work, see Commentary to T 6a.
BNJ 566 T 7
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.26d.4

Work mentioned:

12.26d.4
… τοῖς πρώτοις ὑποµνήµασιν, ἐν οἷς αἱ περὶ τῶν When those who have by long study made
προειρηµένων εἰσὶ συντάξεις. themselves familiar with the earlier parts of
(Timaios’s) work (scil. concerning colonies,
foundations, and kinship among states), in
which the subjects I’ve mentioned are to be
found …
Commentary
In Jacoby’s ordering of the fragments, F 37-82 concern foundations, lands, and peoples.
Timaios focused mainly on Sicily, Italy, and Libya (T 6b), but Sicily was the paramount
concern of his historical writing (see, e.g., T 17, F 37-41c, F 83, F 90, F 92-97, F 100a-102b, F 104, F
107-124, F 149, F 158b; but as an indication of Timaios’s wide-ranging geographical interests, cf.
F 3 on Corsica; F 63, F64 on Sardinia; F 65, F 66 on the Balearic islands; F 71, F 72 on Massalia; F
69 on Galatia; F 77, F 79 on Corcyra). A considerable number of fragments concern Italy (F
42a-53, F 55-62, F 68, F 89). Timaios clearly dealt with the foundation of Rome (F 60; cf. T 9b, F
59, F 61), though scholars disagree as to whether Rome played a central or peripheral role in
Timaios’s History (A. Momigliano, ‘Athens in the Third Century BC and the Discovery of Rome
in the Histories of Timaeus of Tauromenium’, in Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography
(Middletown, Conn. 1987), 37-66; contra L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus
and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 84-85). Timaios’s ethnography touched upon many
peoples, including Corsicans, Ligurians, Galatians, Iberians, Etruscans, and Epeirotes (F 1a, F
1b, F 7, F 50, F 69, F 72, F 73, F 78). It is impossible to know how ambitious Timaios’s treatment
of world geography (perhaps influenced by Ephoros’s description of the oikoumene) may have
been, but he had Timoleon state in a recorded speech the conventional division of the
oikoumene into three parts, Asia, Libya, and Europe (F 31a, cf. F 74, F 75b concerning regions of
the ‘Outer Ocean’). Timaios seems to have been capable of serious geographical mistakes, as
for example in his reasoning for the tides in the Atlantic Ocean (F 73), or in his account of the
origins of the fountain of Arethousa in Ortygia (F 41a, F 41b, F 41c). Polybios singles out
Timaios’s account of Libya as an egregious example of Timaios’s geographical blundering (F
81, but cf. F 31b, a speech of Timoleon in Timaios correcting erroneous earlier ideas about
Libya). Timaios stressed important contributions of Sicilian Greeks to Hellenism (cf. F 138 for
Timaios’s claim that Lysias Lysias was a Syracusan), and he was eager to demonstrate the
significance of the west generally (cf. T 14, F 94, F 135, F 36 for Timaios’s claim that Thucydides
lived and was buried in Italy; for Timaios’s vaunting of Sicily as a bastion of Hellenism, cf. F.W.
Walbank, ‘Timaios’ Views of the Past’, in Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and
Reflections (Cambridge 2002), 165-77, esp. 167). Polybios considered Timaios as his predecessor
and most serious competitor in Greek historiography of Sicily and Italy. Polybios engaged in a
lengthy criticism of Timaios’s methodology (see, e.g., T 19, from which the present passage is
excerpted). Polybios’s complaints about Timaios’s geographical knowledge form but a part of
his general criticisms of Timaios as an historian, which are treated at length in the
Commentary to T 19.
BNJ 566 T 8

Work mentioned:

... τὰς ἐσχάτας τῆς συντάξεως ε̄ βίβλους … καθ᾽ ἃς The last five books of the work, in which he
περιείληφε τὰς ᾽Αγαθοκλέους πράξεις. (scil. Timaios) takes up the deeds of
Agathokles …
Commentary
These will have been Books 34-38; accepting, with Jacoby, Gutschmid’s emendation of the
Suda notice (T 1) to read <λ̄>η̄ , yielding a total of 38 books for the History (cf. F 35a). See
Commentary to T 6a; cf. F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967),
395. The arrangement of the historical work appears to have been five introductory books
(prokataskeue) dealing with western Greek ethnography and geography and colonial
foundations (T 7); Books 6-15 treating the early history of Sicily and Dionysios I’s rise to power
in 406/05 BC; Books 16-33 treating the reigns on Dionysios I and Dionysios II (406/05-344/43
BC); and the remainder (Books 34-38) on Agathokles. According to Jacoby’s arrangement of
the fragments, F 1-6 may tentatively be considered as deriving from the prokataskeue; F 7-33
from Books 6-33 (before Agathokles); F 34 and F 35 from Books 34-38 (Agathokles). F 37-158 are
fragments without book number and/or title (F 36 from the monograph on Pyrrhos); F 159-163
are doubtfully attributed to Timaios; F 164 (from Timaios) undoubtedly contains some
material from Timaios (cf. the table at T.S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley 1958),
21-22). For the ordering of the fragments and book numbers, cf. R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1
(1936), cols. 1078-81.
BNJ 566 T 9a
Source: Cicero, Letters to Friends 5.12.2

Work mentioned:
Source date: 2nd century BC 1st century BC
Cicero, M. Tullius, Epistulae ad Familiares,

5.12.2
ut multi Graeci fecerunt, Callisthenes As many Greeks have done, Kallisthenes ( BNJ
Phocicum bellum, Timaeus Pyrrhi, Polybius 124 T 25) separated the Phokian war, Timaios
Numantinum, qui omnes a perpetuis suis (F 36) the Pyrrhic, and Polybius the
historiis ea quae dixi bella separaverunt. Numantine, all of them (separated) those wars
I have mentioned from their continuous
histories.
Commentary
For Timaios’s work on Pyrrhos (T 9a, T 9b, T 19 (Polyb. 12.4b.1), F 36), which appears to have
been a separate monograph from the general historical work (which also included a treatment
of Pyrrhos’s wars), see Commentary to T 6a. From the evidence of Polybios and Kallisthenes,
who wrote monographs on the Numantine (Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares 5.12.2) and
Phokian ( BNJ 124 T 25) wars, respectively, we should expect a war monograph, on whose
origins see T. Rood, ‘The Development of the War Monograph’, in A Companion to Greek and
Roman Historiography 1, ed. by J. Marincola (Malden, Mass. 2007), 147-58.
BNJ 566 T 9b
Source: Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities 1.6.1

Work mentioned:
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman

Antiquities, 1.6.1
πρώτου µέν, ὅσα κἀµὲ εἰδέναι, τὴν ῾Ρωµαικὴν The first, as far as I know, to touch upon
ἀρχαιολογίαν ἐπιδραµόντος ῾Ιερωνύµου … ἔπειτα earliest Roman times was Hieronymos of
Τιµαίου τοῦ Σικελιώτου τὰ µὲν ἀρχαῖα τῶν Kardia ( BNJ 154 F 13) … Afterwards Timaios
ἱστοριῶν ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς ἱστορίαις ἀφηγησαµένου, the Sicilian related their early history in his
τοὺς δὲ πρὸς Πύρρον τὸν ᾽Ηπειρώτην πολέµους general history and treated the wars with
εἰς ἰδίαν καταχωρίσαντος πραγµατείαν. Pyrrhos of Epeiros in a separate work.
Commentary
Hieronymos of Kardia was a contemporary of the period he treated in his historical work, from
the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC) to the death of Pyrrhos of Epeiros (272 BC), or
perhaps as far as 263 BC, in which year Antigonos Gonatas and Alexander of Epeiros struck a
treaty. Hieronymos was in the service of the loyalist Eumenes of Kardia. After Eumenes’ defeat
at Gabiene (316), he served under Antigonos and was present at the battle at Ipsos (301).
Demetrios Poliorketes appointed him harmost in Boiotia (293). He enjoyed good relations
with Antigonos Gonatas. His work was an important source for Arrianos, Diodorus’s Books 18-
20, Pompeius Trogus, Strabo, Pausanias, and Plutarch’s Lives of Eumenes, Pyrrhos, and
Demetrios. The loss of his work is particularly unfortunate; the surviving evidence indicates
historical writing of very high quality (see J. Hornblower, Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford 1981)).
BNJ 566 T 9c
Source: Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 11.1.1

Work mentioned:
Source date: 2nd century AD
Gellius, Aulus, Attic Nights, 11.1.1

Timaeus in historiis, quas oratione Graeca de Timaios in his Histories, which he composed
rebus populi Romani composuit, et M. Varro in on the affairs of the Romans in Greek (F 42a),
Antiquitatibus rerum humanarum. and M. Varro in his Antiquities of Human
Affairs …
Commentary
Timaios certainly discussed Roman affairs in his history (see Commentary to T 7), but Gellius’s
characterization of his work as a Roman history written in Greek is most definitely inaccurate:
Timaios’s major historical work ended with the death of Agathokles in 289 BC (T 8); but a
continuation in some form ended with the 129th Olympiad, Polybios’s starting-point (T 6a).
See Commentary to T 6a and Biographical Essay.
BNJ 566 T 10

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: criticism - Library of Congress
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.11.1-

2
(1) ὁ γὰρ τὰς συγκρίσεις ποιούµενος ἀνέκαθεν τῶν (1) For this is the writer who compares dates
ἐφόρων πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς τοὺς ἐν Λακεδαίµονι from earliest times of the Ephors with those of
καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς ᾽Αθήνησι, καὶ τὰς ἱερείας the kings at Sparta, and the archons at Athens,
τὰς ἐν ῎Αργει παραβάλλων πρὸς τοὺς and the priestesses at Argos with the Olympic
᾽Ολυµπιονίκας, καὶ τὰς ἁµαρτίας τῶν πόλεων victors, and who convicts cities of inaccuracies
περὶ τὰς ἀναγραφὰς τὰς τούτων ἐξελέγχων, παρὰ in their records, there being a difference of
τρίµηνον ἐχούσας τὸ διαφέρον, οὗτός ἐστι. (2) καὶ three months. (2) It is Timaios who found
µὴν ὁ τὰς ὀπισθοδόµους στήλας καὶ τὰς ἐν ταῖς inscriptions at the back of buildings and
φλιαῖς τῶν νεῶν προξενίας ἐξευρηκὼς Τίµαιός proxeny-lists on the door-jambs of temples.
ἐστιν.
Commentary
Polybios may well be referring in this passage to Timaios’s work on Olympic victors (cf. T 1).
Elsewhere Polybios praises Timaios’s chronologies and the quality of his research (Polyb.
12.10.4; cf. T 11, T 20, T 23, T 30, with F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2
(Oxford 1967), 347-8). For Timaios’s chronological method and its impact upon subsequent
historians, see R. Vattuone, ‘Timeo di Tauromenio’, in Storici Greci d’Occidente, ed. by R.
Vattuone (Bologna, 2002), 177-232, esp. 223-24; R. Vattuone, ‘Timeo, Polibio e la storiografia
greca d’occidente’, in The Shadow of Polybius: Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek
Historiography, ed. by G. Schepens & J. Bollansée (Leuven 2005), 89-122, esp. 113-22; cf. D.
Asheri, ‘The Art of Synchronization in Greek Historiography’, SCI 11 (1991-1992) 52-89. 
BNJ 566 T 11

Work mentioned:

Τίµαιος µὲν οὖν µεγίστην πρόνοιαν πεποιηµένος Timaios indeed gave the greatest attention to
τῆς τῶν χρόνων ἀκριβείας καὶ τῆς πολυπειρίας chronological precision and had due regard for
πεφροντικώς, διὰ τὰς ἀκαίρους καὶ µακρὰς knowledge gained through experience (T 20, T
ἐπιτιµήσεις εὐλόγως διαβάλλεται, καὶ διὰ τὴν 23), but he is rightly criticized for his untimely
ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἐπιτιµήσεως ᾽Επιτίµαιος ὑπό and lengthy censures, and on account of his
τινων ὠνοµάσθη. excess of blame he was named ‘Epitimaios’
(Censurer).
Commentary
For Timaios’s reputation for chronological accuracy, see Commentary to T 10. But Polybios
condemned Timaios precisely because of his lack of experience (cf. T 19, with K.S. Sacks,
Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley 1981), 21-66, 112-16). For the nickname ‘Epitimaios’
and Timaios’s polemical stances towards rivals, see T 1, T 16-19, T 23, T 27, F 5, F 12, F 99, F 150b.
Timaios was an important source for Diodorus, who praises his accuracy elsewhere (T 12). But
Diodorus was independent in his judgments, and capable of severe criticism of Timaios
(perhaps influenced by Polybios’s castigations), as in the present fragment (cf. F 28a).
BNJ 566 T 12

Work mentioned:

ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἱστορικὸς τὰς ἁµαρτίας τῶν πρὸ This historian who bitterly chastised historians
ἑαυτοῦ συγγραφέων πικρότατα ἐλέγξας κατὰ µὲν before him for their mistakes, showed
τἄλλα µέρη τῆς γραφῆς πλείστην πρόνοιαν εἶχε exceedingly high regard for truth in the rest of
τῆς ἀληθείας, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ᾽Αγαθοκλέους πράξεσι τὰ his writings, but the greater part of his history
πολλὰ κατέψευσται τοῦ δυνάστου διὰ τὴν πρὸς of Agathokles consists in lies about the dynast
αὐτὸν ἔχθραν. on account of his hatred of him (F 124).
Commentary
Agathokles was born in Thermai Himeraiai and came to Syracuse in the time of Timoleon. In
Syracuse he opposed the ruling oligarchy and was twice driven into exile; he finally
established himself as tyrant in 317 BC, appealing to the lower orders as his base of power. This
may have been the time of Timaios’s official banishment from Tauromenion (cf. Commentary
to T 4a). Agathokles went on to suppress a coalition of Greek states which had risen against
him, controlling most of eastern Sicily in the process. Carthaginian power, however, blocked
his attempt on Akragas. After a defeat by Carthaginian forces at Licata in 317, Agathokles,
blockaded in Syracuse, slipped out of the city and sailed to Africa. With the aid of Ophellas of
Cyrene, he came within an ace of taking Carthage itself. Agathokles defeated another coalition
led by Akragas upon his return to Sicily. He soon thereafter returned to Africa, but finding that
his chances had passed, he abandoned his army and escaped back to Sicily in 307. He
controlled much of the island and assumed the title of king in 305. He was unable to secure a
dynastic succession, and before his death in 289 he restored an illusory freedom to Syracuse.
For Timaios’s biting criticisms of Agathokles, see F 121-124d. Timaios’s slanders against
Agathokles undoubtedly distorted the historical record as much as his praises of Timoleon
(see K. Meister, ‘Agathocles’, in CAH 2 7.1 (Cambridge 1984), 384-411). On Greek historiography
on Agathokles, see S.N. Consolo Langher, ‘Polibio e gli storici contemporanei di Agatocle
(Duride tra Polibio e Diodoro)’, in The Shadow of Polybius: Intertextuality as a Research Tool in
Greek Historiography, ed. by G. Schepens & J. Bollansée (Leuven 2005), 165-81; cf. C. Lehmler,
Syrakus unter Agathokles und Hieron II (Frankfurt 2005) passim. See also Commentary to F 120.
BNJ 566 T 13
Source: Markellinos, Life of Thucydides 27

Work mentioned:
Markellinos, Life of Thucydides, 27

Τίµαιος δ᾽ ὁ Ταυροµενίτης Τιµολέοντα Timaios the Tauromenian praised Timoleon
ὑπερεπήινεσε τοῦ µετρίου, καθότι ᾽Ανδρόµαχον for his moderation, on account of the fact that
τὸν αὐτοῦ πατέρα οὐ κατέλυσε τῆς µοναρχίας. he did not deprive his father Andromachos of
monarchical power.
Commentary
See also BNJ 556 T 13c. Plutarch states that Andromachos was always averse and hostile to
tyrants (Timoleon 10.7; cf. Diod. 16.68.8). But there is little to distinguish Andromachos from
other Sicilian tyrants of the time, except for the fact that he welcomed and supported
Timoleon. There is no evidence that Andromachos opposed tyranny on principle before the
arrival of Timoleon (cf. R.J.A. Talbert, Timoleon and the Revival of Greek Sicily, 344-317 BC
(Cambridge 1974), 114-5). For Timaios’s excessive praise of Timoleon, see Commentary to T 3b. 
BNJ 566 T 14
Source: Agatharchides, On the Red Sea 64

Work mentioned:
geography, ancient - Library of Congress
Agatharchides, On the Red Sea, 64

τῆς ὅλης οἰκουµένης ἐν τέτταρσι κυκλιζοµένης Of the inhabited world in four enclosed
µέρεσιν … τὰ µὲν πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐξείργασται regions (we have) Lykos ( BNJ 570) and
Λύκος τε καὶ Τίµαιος, τὰ δὲ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς Timaios who treated the portions to the west,
῾Εκαταῖος καὶ Βάσιλις τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὰς ἄρκτους Hekataios ( BNJ 1 T 14) and Basilis those to the
Διόφαντος καὶ Δηµήτριος, τὰ δὲ πρὸς µεσηµβρίαν east, Diophantes those to the north, and
… ἡµεῖς. Demetrios those to the south.
Commentary
For Timaios’s geography, see Commentary to T 7. For discussion of this passage from
Agatharchides, see J. Engel’s Commentary to Demetrios of Kallatis BNJ 85 T 3; for the historical
and literary background of geographical writing in general and Agatharchides’ On the Red Sea
in particular, see J. Engels, ‘Agatharchides von Knidos’ Schrift Über das Rote Meer’, in Ad Fontes!
Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag am 15. September 2004, ed.
by H. Heftner & K. Tomaschitz (Vienna 2004), 179-92.
BNJ 566 T 15a
Source: Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies (Stromata) 1.1.2

Work mentioned:
Source date: 2nd century AD 3rd century AD
Clement of Alexandria (T. Flavius Clemens),

Miscellanies (ed. Stählin), 1.1.2
ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα Θεοπόµπωι µὲν καὶ Τιµαίωι µύθους καὶ And indeed to Theopompos ( BNJ 115 T 26) and
βλασφηµίας συντάττουσιν … Timaios they attribute myths and blasphemies
…
Commentary
Theopompos of Chios ( BNJ 115) was born ca. 378 BC and ca. 334 BC suffered banishment,
along with his father, for Spartan allegiances. Alexander restored him to Chios, but after the
former’s death Theopompos fled to Egypt. Theopompos was a student of Isokrates and a
contemporary of Ephoros. Only fragments remain of his Hellenika and Philippika (see W.R.
Connor, Theopompus and Fifth-Century Athens (Cambridge, Mass. 1968); M.A. Flower,
Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC (Oxford 1994)). Timaios’s
use of myth and mythological aetiologies (cf. T 19 ad Polyb. 12.24.5) is evident in his account of
two rivers. He states that the Althainos river in Apulia takes its name from its powers to heal
wounds (althainein). This statement is connected to the myth about Podaleirios, a Greek hero
who came to Italy after the sack of Troy (F 56a, cf. F 53on Diomedes in Italy, F 59 on Trojan
artifacts). Timaios’s account of the Po river was most likely embedded in a recounting of the
myth of Phaethon and his tragic attempt to drive Apollo’s chariot (F 68). In his account of
Corcyra, Timaios mentioned Demeter, Poseidon, Hephaistos, the Titans, Zeus, Ouranos,
Kronos, and Dionysos (F 79); in discussing Galatia he wrote of Galatos, son of Kyklops and
Galateia (F 69); and he commented on Daphnis and the nymphs around Mount Aitna (F 83),
the Pleiades (F 91), the Locrian maidens (F 146), and perhaps Demeter and Persephone,
Odysseus and Aiolos, and further accounts of Herakles (F 164, with T.S. Brown, Timaeus of
Tauromenium (Berkeley 1958), 38-42, assuming that this appendix from Diodorus reflects
Timaios’s attention to these myths). Timaios was interested in the wanderings of Herakles and
his sons (F 67, F 77, F 89, F 90, F 102b, F 126, F 162; cf. R. Laqueur ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), cols.
1175-6, 1185), and tales of Jason and the Argonauts (F 84-88; cf. Laqueur (RE, ‘Timaios’), col.
1179). See L. Pearson, ‘Myth and Archaeologia in Italy and Sicily - Timaeus and His
Predecessors’, YCS 24 (1975), 171-95; G. Schepens, ‘Politics and Belief in Timaeus of
Tauromenium’, Ancient Society 25 (1994) 249-78; G. Schepens, ‘Polybius on Timaeus’ Account of
Phalaris’ Bull: A Case of DEISIDAIMONIA’, Ancient Society 9 (1978), 117-48, at 138 nn. 52-53; and
generally, B. Bleckmann, Fiktion als Geschichte (Göttingen 2006).
BNJ 566 T 15b
Source: Philodemos, On Poems 5 col. 5.22 (ed. Jensen)

Work mentioned:
Philodemos, On Poems, 5 col. 5.22 Jensen

[τὸ δὲ ε]ὐτ[ελὲ]ς καὶ ἐλαφ[ρὸν παν]τελῶς I think that it is necessary for the worthless
ἀπεῖναι δεῖ[ν καὶ ἀ]π[ὸ] τῶν τοιούτων [οἶµαι]· καὶ and the silly to be absent from these things;
δὴ µύθους ἰδίο[υς καὶ ὑ]πόθεσιν καὶ ἀλήθ[ει]α[ν and Timaios indeed might not employ suitable
καὶ ἰδι]ότητα Τίµα[ιος κατ]ὰ ταῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἂν myths, hypothesis, truth and the appropriate
προσφέρ[οι]. things accordingly.
Commentary
See Commentary to T 15a.
BNJ 566 T 16
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 6.103.272B

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 6.103.272B

ὁ ᾽Επιτίµαιος – οὕτως δ᾽ αὐτὸν καλεῖ ῎Ιστρος ὁ ‘The Censurer’ – thus Istros the Callimachean
Καλλιµάχειος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀντιγραφαῖς. calls (Timaios) in his polemical treatise against
him ( BNJ 334 F 59).
Commentary
Istros ( BNJ 334), whose native home may have been Paphos, Alexandria, or Cyrene, was a
student of Kallimachos. His literary activity probably fell in the second third of the 3rd century
BC. He was a grammarian of the Callimachean type, who wrote a major work on Athens in at
least fourteen books, in which mythological material predominated. It apparently was built
upon compilation of earlier Atthidographers. His work treated Athenian ‘Archaeology’:
Erichthonios, Theseus, the trial of Orestes, Kodros and the abolition of monarchy at Athens.
Istros’s interest in Timaios therefore attests to the rich mythological element in Timaios’s
historiography (see Commentary to T 15a). See S.B. Jackson, Istrus the Callimachean
(Amsterdam 2000).
BNJ 566 T 17
Source: Iosephos, Against Apion 1.16-17

Work mentioned:
Source date: 1st century AD
Josephus, T. Flavius, Against Apion, 1.16-17

(16) ῎Εφορον δὲ Τίµαιος καὶ Τίµαιον οἱ µετ᾽ (16) Timaios (has shown the mendacity of)
ἐκεῖνον γεγονότες, ῾Ηρόδοτον δὲ πάντες. (17) ἀλλ᾽ Ephoros ( BNJ 70 T 30a), later writers (that of)
οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν Σικελικῶν τοῖς περὶ ᾽Αντίοχον καὶ Timaios, everyone (that of) Herodotos. (17)
Φίλιστον ἢ Καλλίαν Τίµαιος συµφωνεῖν ἠξίωσεν. Even on Sicilian affairs Timaios did not choose
to agree with Antiochos ( BNJ 555 T 5),
Philistos ( BNJ 556; cf. F 38), or Kallias ( BNJ 564
T 4).
Commentary
Antiochos, Philistos, and Kallias were Syracusan historians who preceded Timaios as
historians of Sicily and the west (Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 486-514, 523-26; see also R.
Vattuone, ‘Western Greek Historiography’, in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography
1, ed. by J. Marincola (Malden, Mass. 2007) 189-99). Polemic against earlier and rival historians
was a standard practice in ancient Greek historiography, serving to establish authority and
credibility. Our best evidence for this is Polybios’s Book 12, an extended attack on Timaios (see
F.W. Walbank, ‘Polemic in Polybius’, in Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and
Historiography (Cambridge 1985), 262-79; cf. K.S. Sacks, Polybius on the Writing of History
(Berkeley 1981), 21-95).
BNJ 566 T 18
Source: Plutarch, Life of Nikias 1.1-4

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Nikias, 1.1-4

(1) ... ὅπως ἐπὶ ταῖς διηγήσεσιν αἷς Θουκυδίδης ... (1) … in order that in my narration of what
ἀµιµήτως ἐξενήνοχε, µηδὲν ἡµᾶς ὑπολάβωσι Thucydides inimitably recounted (concerning
πεπονθέναι Τιµαίωι πάθος ὅµοιον, ὃς ἐλπίσας τὸν Nikias and the Athenian expedition to Sicily)
µὲν Θουκυδίδην ὑπερβαλεῖσθαι δεινότητι, τὸν δὲ … (no one) imagines that I have undergone the
Φίλιστον ἀποδείξειν παντάπασι φορτικὸν καὶ same experience as Timaios, who hoping to
ἰδιώτην, διὰ µέσων ὠθεῖται τῆι ἱστορίαι τῶν rival Thucydides in skill, and to reveal Philistos
µάλιστα καθωρθωµένων ἐκείνοις ἀγώνων καὶ in every way as tedious and clumsy, moves his
ναυµαχιῶν καὶ δηµηγοριῶν, … ὅλως τις ὀψιµαθὴς history through conflicts and naval battles and
καὶ µειρακιώδης φαινόµενος ἐν τούτοις καὶ κατὰ political speeches, handled well by their
τὸν Δίφιλον «παχύς, ὠνθυλευµένος στέατι authors … appearing entirely as someone of
Σικελικῶι», (2) πολλαχοῦ δ᾽ ὑπορρέων εἰς τὸν late learning and youthful bravado, as in the
Ξέναρχον, ὥσπερ ὅταν λέγηι ... (4) ἀλλὰ τούτωι words of Diphilos (PCG 5.118 Kassel-Austin),
µὲν ἴσως ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐµµελείας ταῦτά τε ‘Obese, stuffed to the full with Sicilian grease’.
γράφειν ἐπήιει καὶ τὴν Φιλίστου διάλεκτον (2) Indeed in many places he falls into the
εὐθύνειν καὶ τοῖς περὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ ᾽Αριστοτέλην manner of Xenarchos, as when he says (F102b)
λοιδορεῖσθαι· ἐµοὶ δ᾽ ὅλως µὲν ἡ περὶ λέξιν ἅµιλλα … (4) but perhaps he was moved to write in
καὶ ζηλοτυπία πρὸς ἑτέρους µικροπρεπὲς this way in the same critical vein that made
φαίνεται καὶ σοφιστικόν, ἂν δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἀµίµητα him correct Philistos’s language and abuse
γίγνηται, καὶ τελέως ἀναίσθητον. Plato and Aristotle; but as for me, I feel that
jealous rivalry with other writers in matters of
diction is completely undignified and
pedantic; and when it is practiced to the point
of what is beyond imitation, utterly silly.
Commentary
Philistos of Syracuse ( BNJ 556) witnessed Gylippos’s rescue of his native city as a youth, and as
an adult he supported both Dionysios I and Dionysios II. He fell out of favor with Dionysios I,
but was recalled to Syracuse by Dionysios II. He worked to expel Dion from Syracuse in 366 BC
(F 113), but he failed to intercept Dion’s invasion in 357 ( BNJ 556 T 9a, BNJ 556 T 9b, BNJ 556 T
9c). He either committed suicide in the wake of this failure, or he was brutally tortured to
death after having fallen into the hands of Dion’s generals (for his death, see F 115, F 154). His
historical work was composed in thirteen books during the period of exile. His narrative style
was in the tradition of Thucydides. For the 4th-century BC New Comic poet Diphilos of
Sinope, see T.B.L. Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy, 2nd ed. (New York 1970), 152-83.
Nothing is known about Xenarchos outside of this passage and F 102b, unless this is the late
5th-century BC Sicilian writer of mimes mentioned at Aristotle, Poetica 1447b (K. Ziegler,
‘Xenarchos (4)’, RE 9A2 (1967), col. 1422). For further criticism of Timaios, see Commentaries to
T 11, T 17, and T 19.
BNJ 566 T 19
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.3.1-28.7

Work mentioned:

28.7
(3.1) τὴν µὲν τῆς χώρας ἀρετὴν πᾶς ἄν τις (3.1) No one can help admiring the virtue of
θαυµάσειε, τὸν δὲ Τίµαιον εἴποι τις ἂν οὐ µόνον the country, and one should say that Timaios
ἀνιστόρητον γεγονέναι περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην, was not only unacquainted with Libya but that
ἀλλὰ καὶ παιδαριώδη καὶ τελέως ἀσυλλόγιστον he also was childish and completely deficient
καὶ τας ἀρχαίαις φήµαις ἀκµὴν ἐνδεδεµένον … (7) in judgment, and given over to ancient reports
καθάπερ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ Λιβύην (F 81) … (7) regarding Corsica as well he makes
ἀπεσχεδίακεν, οὕτως καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ … Κύρνον the same sort of random statements as
… (4a.1) ὅτι διασύρας ὁ Πολύβιος τὸν Τίµαιον ἐν concerning Libya (F 3) ... (4a.1) And Polybios
πολλοῖς αὖθίς φησι· τίς ἂν ἔτι δοίη συγγνώµην criticizing Timaios in many respects again
<ἐπὶ> τοῖς τοιούτοις ἁµαρτήµασιν, ἄλλως τε καὶ says: Who could continue to pardon such
Τιµαίωι τῶι προσφυοµένωι τοῖς ἄλλοις πρὸς τὰς faults, especially when committed by Timaios,
τοιαύτας παρωνυχίας; (2) ἐν αἷς Θεοπόµπου µὲν who likes cavilling at similar mistakes in
κατηγορεῖ … (3) ᾽Εφόρου δὲ πάλιν ἄγνοιαν others? (2) He accuses Theopompos (F 117) ...
καταψεύδεται … (6) … τὸ δὲ Τιµαίου φιλεπίτιµον (3) and again he falsely accuses Ephoros of
καὶ φιλέγκληµον οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀποδέξαιτο. (4b.1) ... mindlessness (F 110) … (6) ... no one could
ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Πύρρου ... (4c.1) οὐ µόνον ἀπειρίαν, approve of Timaios’s love of cavilling and
ἔτι δὲ µᾶλλον ὀψιµαθίαν δοκεῖ µοι πολλὴν fault-finding. (4b.1) ... in his account of Pyrrhos
ἐπιφαίνειν ... (2) πλὴν ὅτι γε κακῶς ἱστόρηκε καὶ (see F 36) … (4c.1) he seems to me to show
τὰ περὶ τὴν Λιβύην καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Σαρδόνα, καὶ clearly not only a lack of experience, but also
µάλιστα τὰ κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ιταλίαν, (3) ἐκ τούτων ἐστὶ late learning … (2) except that he gives poor
συµφανές, καὶ καθόλου διότι τὸ περὶ τὰς historical accounts concerning Libya and
ἀνακρίσεις µέρος ἐπισέσυρται παρ᾽ αὐτῶι τελέως, Sardinia, and especially Italy, (3) and it is clear
ὅπερ ἐστὶ κυριώτατον τῆς ἱστορίας ... (4d.1) ἐν ὧι that in general the job of investigation has
γένει µεγίστην ἐπίφασιν ἕλκων Τίµαιος πλεῖστον been entirely betrayed by him, and this is the
ἀπολείπεσθαί µοι δοκεῖ τῆς ἀληθείας. (2) τοσοῦτο most important part of history ... (4d.1) In this
γὰρ ἀπέχει τοῦ δι᾽ ἑτέρων ἀκριβῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν respect Timaios, who makes a great fuss about
ἐξετάζειν ὡς οὐδὲ τούτων ὧν αὐτόπτης γέγονε ... accuracy, seems to me to fall far short of truth.
οὐδὲ περὶ τούτων οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς ἡµῖν ἐξηγεῖται. (3) (2) So far is he from accurate investigation of
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστα δῆλον, ἐὰν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν the truth by questioning others that not even
Σικελίαν δείξωµεν αὐτὸν ἀγνοοῦντα περὶ ὧν concerning things he himself has seen … does
ἀποφαίνεται … (5.4) ἀλλ᾽ ὅµως οὐκ ὤκνησα καὶ he report anything soundly. (3) This will be
λέγειν καὶ γράφειν ὅτι τὴν ὑπ᾽ ᾽Αριστοτέλους clear if we can show that he makes mistaken
παραδιδοµένην ἱστορίαν περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας statements about Sicily (F41b on the source of
ἀληθινωτέραν εἶναι συµβαίνει τῆς ὑπὸ Τιµαίου Arethousa in Syracuse) ... (5.4) But I have not
λεγοµένης ... (7.1) ὅτι πολλὰ ἱστορεῖ ψευδῆ ὁ hesitated to declare both in speech and in
Τίµαιος καὶ δοκεῖ τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ἄπειρος ὢν writing that Aristotle’s account on the
οὐδενὸς τῶν τοιούτων, ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς φιλονεικίας foundation of the colony (scil. of the Locrians)
ἐπισκοτούµενος, ὅταν ἅπαξ ἢ ψέγειν ἢ τοὐναντίον is truer than that which Timaios (F 12) gives ...
ἐγκωµιάζειν τινὰ πρόθηται, πάντων (7.1) Timaios often makes false statements. He
ἐπιλανθάνεται καὶ πολύ τι τοῦ καθήκοντος seems in general not to be uninformed about
παρεκβαίνει … (11.8) ὅτι Τίµαιός φησι µέγιστον such matters, but he is blinded by his love of
ἁµάρτηµα περὶ τὴν ἱστορίαν εἶναι τὸ ψεῦδος ... contention, and whenever he determines to
(12.4) δύο µέντοι τρόπους ἔφαµεν εἶναι ψεύδους, praise or blame someone he forgets everything
ἕνα µὲν τὸν κατ᾽ ἄγνοιαν, ἕτερον δὲ τὸν κατὰ and goes beyond what is appropriate
προαίρεσιν ... (7) ὧ γένει µάλιστ᾽ ἂν εὕροι τις (invective against Aristotle: see F 156) … (11.8)
ἔνοχον αὐτὸν ὄντα τὸν Τίµαιον. διότι δ᾽ ἐστὶ Timaios says the worst vice in history is
τοιοῦτος, σκοπεῖν ἤδη πάρεστιν ... (12b.1) ** falsehood (F 151) ... (12.4) I said, however, that
κατηγορεῖν καὶ ** τῶν ὀνειρωττόντων καὶ there are two kinds of falsehood, one is the
δαιµονώντων ἐν τοῖς ὑποµνήµασιν. ὅσοι γε µὴν result of ignorance, the other according to
αὐτοὶ πολλὴν τῆς τοιαύτης ἐµπεποίηνται one’s free decision … (7) in this regard
φλυαρίας, τοὺς τοιούτους ἀγαπᾶν ἂν δέοι µὴ especially one will discover that Timaios is a
τυγχάνοντας κατηγορίας, µηδ᾽ ὅτι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων chief sinner. It is indeed patent that he is a
αὐτοὺς κατατρέχειν, ὃ συµβέβηκε περὶ Τίµαιον ... man of this sort. ... (12b.1) *** to reprove and
(23.1) ὅτι κατὰ τοῦ ᾽Εφόρου Τίµαιος πλείστην ridicule dreamers and madmen in their
πεποίηται καταδροµήν, αὐτὸς ὢν δυσὶν writings of history. But those who indulge
ἁµαρτήµασιν ἔνοχος, (2) τῶι µὲν ὅτι πικρῶς knowingly in this kind of nonsense, far from
κατηγορεῖ τῶν πέλας ἐπὶ τούτοις οἷς αὐτὸς ἔνοχός accusing other writers, (should be happy) to
ἐστι, τῶι δὲ διότι καθόλου διέφθαρται τὴν ψυχήν, escape others’ censure. This was the case with
τοιαύτας ἀποφάσεις ἐκτιθέµενος ἐν τοῖς Timaios (F 155) ... (13-15: invective against
ὑποµνήµασι καὶ τοιαύτας ἐντίκτων δόξας τοῖς Demochares and Agathokles (see F 35b and F
ἐντυγχάνουσιν. (3) πλὴν εἰ τὸν Καλλισθένην 124)) ... (23.1) Timaios, while passionately
θετέον εἰκότως κολασθέντα µεταλλάξαι τὸν βίον, attacking Ephoros, is himself guilty of two
τί χρὴ πάσχειν Τίµαιον; πολὺ γὰρ ἂν δικαιότερον serious faults. (2) The first of these is that he
τούτωι νεµεσήσαι τὸ δαιµόνιον ἢ Καλλισθένει … bitterly accuses others of the same faults as he
(8) περὶ µὲν οὖν ᾽Αριστοτέλους καὶ Θεοφράστου himself commits, and the second is that he
καὶ Καλλισθένους, ἔτι δ᾽ ᾽Εφόρου καὶ Δηµοχάρους, displays an utterly depraved mind in writing
ἱκανὰ ταυτ᾽ ἡµῖν ἐστι πρὸς τὴν Τιµαίου such things in his works and bringing such
καταδροµήν, ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἀφιλοτίµως ideas to his readership. (3) If, indeed, we must
πεπεισµένους ἀληθεύειν τὸν συγγραφέα τοῦτον. admit that Kallisthenes suffered a just fate (in
(24.1) ὅτι διαπορεῖν ἔστι περὶ τῆς αἱρέσεως suffering the death penalty), what fate did
Τιµαίου … (4) ** ἀνάγκη τὴν ἀκόλουθον ποιεῖσθαι Timaios deserve? For the anger of the gods
διάληψιν καὶ δυσαρεστεῖσθαι κατὰ τὴν would have overtaken him with much more
προαίρεσιν. (5) οὗτος γὰρ ἐν µὲν ταῖς τῶν πέλας justice than Kallisthenes (F 119a; cf. F 155) …
κατηγορίαις πολλὴν ἐπιφαίνει δεινότητα καὶ (8) I have said enough in defense of Aristotle,
τόλµαν, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀποφάσεσιν ἐνυπνίων καὶ Theophrastos, and Kallisthenes, and Ephoros
τεράτων καὶ µύθων ἀπιθάνων καὶ συλλήβδην and Demochares as well, against Timaios’s
δεισιδαιµονίας ἀγεννοῦς καὶ τερατείας barbs, and to convince those who without
γυναικώδους ἐστὶ πλήρης. (6) οὐ µὴν ἀλλὰ διότι spirit have been persuaded to trust in this
γε συµβαίνει διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν καὶ κακοκρισίαν writer. (24.1) One is at a loss to understand the
πολλοὺς ἐνίοτε † καθάπερ εἰ παρόντας τρόπον authorial choices of Timaios (Polybios states
τινὰ µὴ παρεῖναι καὶ βλέποντας µὴ βλέπειν, ἐκ that style betrays character: see F 152; cf. F 111]
τῶν εἰρηµένων γε νῦν καὶ τῶν Τιµαίωι ... (4) [Textual problem; supply: ‘We are forced
συµβεβηκότων γέγονε φανερόν ... (25.5) ... κατὰ to judge’] Timaios unfavorably in terms of his
τῆς Τιµαίου τί ποτε δεῖ λέγειν ὄνοµα καὶ ῥῆµα; reasoning. (5) For this man exhibits great
πάντα γὰρ ἐπιδέχεσθαί µοι δοκεῖ τὰ πικρότατα τὸ boldness and daring in accusing other writers,
γένος, οἷς ἐκεῖνος κέχρηται κατὰ τῶν πλησίον. (6) but his own statements are full of dreams,
ὅτι µὲν οὖν ἐστι φιλαπεχθὴς καὶ ψεύστης καὶ prodigies, fantastic tales, and in short,
τολµηρός, σχεδὸν ἱκανῶς ἐκ τῶν προειρηµένων unworthy superstition and womanly
ὑπεδείχθη· διότι δ᾽ ἀφιλόσοφός ἐστι καὶ marvelling. (6) It is clear from what I have said
συλλήβδην ἀνάγωγος συγγραφεύς, ἐκ τῶν and from the case of Timaios that many
λέγεσθαι µελλόντων ἔσται συµφανές. people [text is uncertain here] at times in
some way are absent though they are present,
(25a.2) ... οὐδὲν ἂν ἔτι βέβαιον οὐδ᾽ ἀσφαλὲς and do not see though they are looking …
γένοιτο τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ τοιούτου συγγραφέως (25.2-5: concerning the bull of Phalaris (see F
λεγοµένων. (3) ἵνα δὲ καὶ τοὺς φιλοτιµότερον 28b)) ... (5) What words and terms are we to
διακειµένους µεταπείσωµεν, ῥητέον ἄν εἴη περὶ use in speaking about Timaios? It seems to me
τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ µελέτης τῆς κατὰ τὰς that the kind of most bitter words he uses of
δηµηγορίας καὶ τὰς παρακλήσεις, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς others is to be applied to himself. (6) That he is
πρεσβευτικοὺς λόγους, καὶ συλλήβδην πᾶν <τὸ> quarrelsome, mendacious, and bold has been
τοιοῦτο γένος, ἃ σχεδὸν ὡς εἰ κεφάλαια τῶν sufficiently shown from what I have said. That
πράξεών ἐστι καὶ συνέχει τὴν ὅλην ἱστορίαν. (4) he is an unphilosophical and uneducated
διότι γὰρ †τα … πανταµ (?) ... ἐν τοῖς ὑποµνήµασι writer will be clear from what I am about to
κατατέταχε Τίµαιος, καὶ τοῦτο πεποίηκε κατὰ say (F 31a).
πρόθεσιν, τίς οὐ παρακολουθεῖ τῶν ἀνεγνωκότων;
(5) οὐ γὰρ τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν, οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἐρρήθη (25a.2) ... nothing said by such a writer could
κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλὰ προθέµενος ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι, be reliable and certain. (3) In order to
πάντας ἐξαριθµεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τὰ convince those who are well-disposed to him,
παρεπόµενα τοῖς πράγµάσιν οὕτως ὡς ἂν εἴ τις ἐν it is necessary to discuss the principle on
διατριβῆι πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν ἐπιχειροίη ** ὥσπερ which he composes public speeches, speeches
ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάµεως ποιούµενος, ἀλλ᾽ before battle, and even discourses of
οὐκ ἐξήγησιν τῶν κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν εἰρηµένων. (25b) ambassadors, and in short all utterances,
... (4) ὁ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τὴν which summarize the main points of events
αἰτίαν παρασιωπῶν, ψευδῆ δ᾽ ἀντὶ τούτων and hold the whole history together. (4) Who
ἐπιχειρήµατα καὶ διεξοδικοὺς λέγων λόγους, could not notice that Timaios puts down these
ἀναιρεῖ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας ἴδιον, ὃ µάλιστα ποιεῖ things [textual problems, supply: ‘contrary to
Τίµαιος· καὶ διότι τούτου τοῦ γένους ἐστὶ πλήρη truth’] in his history, and that he has done this
τὰ βυβλία παρ᾽ αὐτῶι, πάντες γινώσκοµεν. of set purpose? (5) For he has not written what
was said, nor the real sense of what was said,
(25c.1) ἴσως δ᾽ οὖν ἄν τις ἐναπορήσειε πῶς, but has decided for himself what ought to
τοιοῦτος ὢν ... τοιαύτης παρ᾽ ἐνίοις ἀποδοχῆς have been said, recounting all these speeches
τέτευχε καὶ πίστεως. (2) τούτου δ᾽ ἐστὶν αἴτιον and all the things that followed upon events
διότι πλεοναζούης αὐτῶι κατὰ τὴν πραγµατείαν (as) someone in a rhetorical exercise showing
τῆς κατὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιτιµήσεως καὶ λοιδορίας, off his skill, but he gives no report of what was
οὐκ ἐκ τῆς αὑτοῦ θεωρεῖται πραγµατείας … ἀλλ᾽ actually said. (25b) … (4) But the writer who
ἐκ τῆς τῶν πέλας κατηγορίας, πρὸς ὃ γένος καὶ keeps silence on words spoken and causes of
πολυπραγµοσύνην δοκεῖ µοι καὶ φύσιν events and instead introduces false rhetorical
προσενέγκασθαι διαφέρουσαν ... (25d.1) τῶι δὲ exercises betrays the proper function of
Τιµαίωι καὶ ἕτερόν τι χωρὶς τῶν προγεγραµµένων history. Timaios especially writes in this way.
συµβέβηκεν. ἀποκαθίσας γὰρ ᾽Αθήνησιν σχεδὸν And everyone of us knows that his books are
ἔτη πεντήκοντα καὶ πρὸς τοῖς τῶν προγεγονότων full of this sort of thing.
ὑποµνήµασι γενόµενος, ὑπέλαβε τὰς µεγίστας
ἀφορµὰς ἔχειν πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν, ἀγνοῶν ὡς γ᾽ (25c.1) Perhaps therefore one wonders how,
ἐµοὶ δοκεῖ ... (25e.7) τό γε µὴν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς ταύτης this man being such as I have shown him to be,
<τῆς> δυνάµεως ὁρµηθέντα πεπεῖσθαι γράφειν he has obtained such a reputation and credit
τὰς ἐπιγινοµένας πράξεις καλῶς, ὃ πέπεισται from some people. (2) The reason for this is
Τίµαιος, τελέως εὔηθες καὶ παραπλήσιον, ὡς ἂν εἴ that, as throughout his entire work he is so
τις τὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ζωγράφων ἔργα θεασάµενος excessive in fault-finding and abuse, they do
ἱκανὸς οἴοιτο ζωγράφος εἶναι καὶ προστάτης τῆς not judge him from his treatment of history
τέχνης ... (25f.6) τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ συµβαίνει καὶ and his own statements, but rather from the
Θεοπόµπωι καὶ µάλιστα Τιµαίωι, περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ accusations he brings against others, and for
λόγος. (7) οὗ µὲν γὰρ ἂν ὑπὲρ τῶν τοιούτων this he seems to me to have had remarkable
κεφαλαιώδη ποιήσωνται τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, industry and talent … (25d.1) Another thing is
διαλανθάνουσιν οὗ δ᾽ ἂν βουληθῶσι διαθέσθαι καὶ to be noticed besides Timaios’s above-
συνυποδεῖξαί τι τῶν κατὰ µέρος, τοιοῦτοι mentioned faults. Having settled down for
φαίνονται καὶ πάντως οἷος ῎Εφορος. (25g.1) ὅτι nearly fifty years in Athens (T 4; F 34) with the
οὔτε περὶ τῶν κατὰ πόλεµον συµβαινόντων works of earlier writers at his disposal, he
δυνατόν ἐστι γράψαι καλῶς τὸν µηδεµίαν thought himself well-qualified to write history,
ἐµπειρίαν ἔχοντα τῶν πολεµικῶν ἔργων οὔτε περὶ mistaken, as it seems to me … (25e.7) But to
τῶν ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις τὸν µὴ πεπειραµένον τῶν think that one can write history well relying on
τοιούτων πράξεων καὶ περιστάσεων. (2) λοιπὸν this mastery (of the material), as Timaios
οὐτ᾽ ἐµπείρως ὑπὸ τῶν βιβλιακῶν, οὐτ᾽ believed, is utterly foolish and very nearly like
ἐµφαντικῶς οὐδενὸς γραφοµένου, συµβαίνει τὴν someone who had seen the works of ancient
πραγµατείαν ἄπρακτον γίνεσθαι τοῖς painters and thought himself to be a capable
ἐντυγχάνουσιν ... (3) ἔτι δὲ περὶ τῶν πόλεων καὶ painter and master of the art … (25f.6) The
τόπων ὅταν ἐπιβάλωνται γράφειν τὰ κατὰ µέρος, same is the case with Theopompos ( BNJ 115 T
ὄντες ἀτριβεῖς τῆς τοιαύτης ἐµπειρίας, δῆλον ὡς 30), and especially with Timaios, about whom
ἀνάγκη συµβαίνειν τὸ παραπλήσιον, καὶ πολλὰ I am now speaking. (7) For where they give a
µὲν ἀξιόλογα παραλείπειν, περὶ πολλῶν δὲ summary account about these things, their
ποιεῖσθαι πολὺν λόγον οὐκ ἀξίων ὄντων, ὃ δὴ mistakes escape notice, but when they want to
συµβαίνει µάλιστα Τιµαίωι διὰ τὴν ἀορασίαν. set out and describe something in detail, these
(25h.1) ὅτι Τίµαιός φησιν ἐν τῆι τριακοστῆι καὶ writers are seen to be exactly like Ephoros.
τετάρτηι βίβλωι «πεντήκοντα συνεχῶς ἔτη (25g.1) It is neither possible for someone
διατρίψας ᾽Αθήνησι ξενιτεύων» ἁπάσης having no experience of the conduct of war to
ὁµολογουµένως ἄπειρος ἐγένετο πολεµικῆς write well about the things that happen in war,
χρείας, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς τῶν τόπων θέας. (2) λοιπὸν nor for someone with no experience of
ὅταν εἴς τι τῶν µερῶν τούτων ἐµπέσηι κατὰ τὴν political affairs and circumstances to write
ἱστορίαν, πολλὰ µὲν ἀγνοεῖ καὶ ψεύδεται, κἄν ποτε well about politics. (2) Since nothing written
δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπιψαύσηι, παραπλήσιός ἐστι by bookworms is written with experience or
τοῖς ζωγράφοις τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνασεσαγµένων vividness, it happens that their writings are of
θυλάκων ποιουµένοις τὰς ἀπογραφάς· (3) καὶ γὰρ no practical value to their readers … (3) Again,
ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἡ µὲν ἐκτὸς ἐνίοτε γραµµὴ σώζεται, when they try to write in detail about cities
τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐµφάσεως καὶ τῆς ἐναργείας τῶν and topography, bereft of direct experience of
ἀληθινῶν ζώων ἄπεστιν, ὅπερ ἴδιον ὑπάρχει τῆς these things, it is clearly necessary that the
ζωγραφικῆς τέχνης. τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ συµβαίνει καὶ περὶ same thing comes about, many things worthy
Τίµαιον καὶ καθόλου τοὺς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς of mention being omitted, and many things of
βιβλιακῆς ἕξεως ὁρµωµένους· (4) ἡ γὰρ ἔµφασις no account being treated at length. This
τῶν πραγµάτων αὐτοῖς ἄπεστι διὰ τὸ µόνον ἐκ τῆς indeed is characteristic of Timaios, on account
αὐτοπαθείας τοῦτο γίνεσθαι τῆς τῶν συγγραφέων, of his not having had first-hand experience.
ὅθεν οὐκ ἐντίκτουσιν ἀληθινοὺς ζήλους τοῖς (25h.1) As Timaios says in his thirty-fourth
ἀκούουσι οἱ µὴ δι᾽ αὐτῶν πεπορευµένοι τῶν book (F 34), ‘spending nearly fifty years in
πραγµάτων ... Athens as a resident alien’, he was
inexperienced, as widely acknowledged, of all
(25i.3) ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ νυνὶ λεγόµενον, καὶ the affairs of war, and also of autopsy of
ἐκφανέστατον γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἐπί τε τῶν places. (2) And so when he comes upon such
συµβουλευτικῶν καὶ παρακλητικῶν, ἔτι δὲ matters in his history, he is ignorant and
πρεσβευτικῶν λόγων, οἷς κέχρηται Τίµαιος. (4) commits errors in many respects, and
ὀλίγοι µὲν γὰρ καιροὶ πάντας ἐπιδέχονται whenever he comes near to the truth he is like
διαθέσθαι τοὺς ἐνόντας λόγους, οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι those painters who make sketches from stuffed
βραχεῖς καί τινας τῶν ὑπόντων ... (5) †καίρω(ι) bags. (3) For in their case outlines are
καὶ πρὸς πάντας διεξιέναι τοὺς ἐνόντας λόγους, ὃ sometimes preserved but vividness and clarity
ποιεῖ Τίµαιος πρὸς πᾶσαν ὑπόθεσιν εὑρεσιολογῶν, are absent, which is the proper quality of the
τελέως ἀνάληθες καὶ µειρακιῶδες καὶ διατριβικὸν graphic art. The same thing happens with
φαίνεται, καὶ πολλοῖς ἀποτυχίας αἴτιον ἤδη τοῦτο Timaios, and in general with everyone working
γέγονε καὶ καταφρονήσεως ... (25k.1) ἵνα δὲ καὶ from a bookish method. (4) The vividness of
περὶ ταῦτα βεβαιωσώµεθα τὴν ἀπόφασιν τὴν facts is absent in their work, since this can
ὑπὲρ Τιµαίου, καθάπερ καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀγνοίας, only come about from personal experience of
ἔτι δὲ τῆς ἑκουσίου ψευδογραφίας, βραχέα the author. Those, therefore, who have not
προοισόµεθα τῶν ὁµολογουµένων αὐτοῦ λόγων experienced events themselves do not
ἐπ᾽ ὀνόµατος. engender a real zeal in their readers …
(26c.1) λοιπὸν ἐκ τούτων διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς (25i.3) The speeches Timaios uses,
παραδοξολογίας οὐκ εἰς σύγκρισιν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς deliberative, exhortatory, and ambassadorial,
καταµώκησιν ἄγει καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ τὰς will make most clear the truth of what I have
πράξεις ὧν βούλεται προίστασθαι, καὶ σχεδὸν εἰς just said. (4) Few are the occasions which
τὸ παραπλήσιον ἐµπίπτει τοῖς περὶ τοὺς ἐν allow setting out all possible arguments; most
᾽Ακαδηµίαι λόγους τὸν προχειριστότατον λόγον allow only a few brief ones, which may occur
ἠσκηκόσιν. (2) καὶ γὰρ ἐκείων τινὲς βουλόµενοι to one ... (5) [Textual problem; the sense seems
περί τε τῶν προφανῶς καταληπτῶν εἶναι to require something like: ‘But without point
δοκούντων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀκαταλήπτων εἰς or occasion’], to give all possible arguments for
ἀπορίαν ἄγειν τοὺς προσδιαλεγοµένους, τοιαύταις everything, as Timaios does on every subject,
χρῶνται παραδοξολογίαις καὶ τοιαύτας εὐποροῦσι with his penchant for invention, appears as
πιθανότητας, ὥστε διαπορεῖν εἰ δυνατόν ἐστι τοὺς being absolutely untrue and childish play, and
ἐν ᾽Αθήναις ὄντας ὀσφραίνεσθαι τῶν ἑψοµένων ῶν this indeed has been for many the cause of
ἐν ᾽Εφέσωι ... (26d.1) τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ Τιµαίωι failure and contempt … (25k.1) In order that I
συµβέβηκε, περὶ τὴν ἱστορίαν καὶ τοῖς τούτου may confirm what I have said about Timaios,
ζηλωταῖς. παραδοξολόγος γὰρ ὢν καὶ φιλόνεικος aside from his errors and deliberate
περὶ τὸ προτεθέν, τοὺς µὲν πολλοὺς falsifications, I shall present some short
καταπέπληκται ἀλόγως, ἠνάγκασε δ᾽ αὑτῶι extracts from speeches attributed to him,
<προσέχειν> διὰ τὴν ἐπίφασιν τῆς ἀληθινολογίας, giving specifics (F 22; F 31; F 94).
τινὰς δὲ καὶ προσκέκληται καὶ µετ᾽ ἀποδείξεως
δοκεῖ πείσειν. (2) καὶ µάλιστα ταύτην ἐνείργασται (26c.1) The result is that because of this
τὴν δόξαν ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὰς ἀποικίας καὶ κτίσεις excessive penchant for paradox, he leads us
καὶ συγγενείας ἀποφάσεων. (3) ἐν γὰρ τούτοις not to critical evaluation, but rather to ridicule
τηλικαύτην ἐπίφασιν ποιεῖ διὰ τῆς ἀκριβολογίας of the men and deeds he is championing, and
καὶ τῆς πικρίας τῆς ἐπὶ τῶν ἐλέγχων, οἷς χρῆται he almost falls into the same manner of
κατὰ τῶν πέλας, ὥστε δοκεῖν κατὰ τοὺς ἄλλους speech as those in the Academy, practiced in
συγγραφέας ἅπαντας συγκεκοιµῆσθαι τοῖς their prefabricated speech. (2) For some of
πράγµασι καὶ κατεσχεδιακέναι τῆς οἰκουµένης, these philosophers, wanting to confound those
αὐτὸν δὲ µόνον ἐξητακέναι τὴν ἀκρίβειαν καὶ with whom they are arguing about the
διευκρινηκέναι τὰς ἐν ἑκάστοις ἱστορίας, ἐν οἷς comprehensible and incomprehensible, resort
πολλὰ µὲν ὑγιῶς λέγεται, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ψευδῶς. to these paradoxes and are so adept at
(4) οὐ µὴν ἀλλ᾽ οἱ πλείω χρόνον συντραφέντες inventing plausibilities that they wonder
αὐτοῦ τοῖς πρώτοις ὑποµνήµασιν, ἐν οἷς αἱ περὶ whether it is possible for those in Athens to
τῶν προειρηµένων εἰσὶ συντάξεις, ὅταν ἅπασαν smell eggs being cooked in Ephesos … (26d.1)
συνταξαµένωι τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας The same thing holds in respect to history for
ἀποπιστεύσωσι, κἄπειτά τις αὐτοῖς ἀποδεικνύηι Timaios and his admirers. For being addicted
τὸν Τίµαιον, ἐν οἷς πικρότατός ἐστι κατὰ τῶν to paradox and combative about the case at
πέλας, αὐτὸν ἔνοχον ὄντα, καθάπερ ἡµεῖς ἀρτίως hand he overawes most people by his
ἐπὶ τῶν Λοκρῶν καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς παραπαίοντα language, compelling them (to trust) his
συνεστήσαµεν, (5) δυσέριδες γίνονται καὶ authority by the superficial appearance of
φιλόνεικοι καὶ δυσµετάθετοι, καὶ σχεδὸν ὡς ἐπὸς truth, while in other cases he invites
εἰπεῖν οἱ φιλοπονώτατα προσεδρεύσαντες τοῖς consideration and seems likely to persuade
ὑποµνήµασιν αὐτοῦ τοῦτ᾽ ἀποφέρονται τὸ with his proofs. (2) He is most successful in
λυσιτελὲς ἐκ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως· (6) οἵ γε µὴν ταῖς bringing about this impression from his
δηµηγορίαις προσσχόντες αὐτοῦ καὶ καθόλου τοῖς statements about colonies, foundations of
διεξοδικοῖς λόγοις µειρακιώδεις καὶ διατριβικοὶ poleis and kinship relations among poleis. (3)
καὶ τελέως ἀναλήθεις γίνονται διὰ τὰς ἄρτι For in these things he makes a display through
ῥηθείσας αἰτίας. (27a.1) λοιπὸν δὲ τὸ πραγµατικὸν seeming accuracy of statement and vitriolic
αὐτῶι µέρος τῆς ἱστορίας ἐκ πάντων σύγκειται tone in which he confutes others so that one
τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων, ὧν τὰ πλεῖστα διεληλύθαµεν. would think that all other writers were asleep
(2) τὴν δ᾽ αἰτίαν τῆς ἁµαρτίας νῦν ἐροῦµεν, ἥτις and provided a dull account of events
οὐκ ἔνδοξος µὲν φανεῖται τοῖς πλείστοις, throughout the inhabited world, while he
ἀληθινωτάτη δ᾽ εὑρεθήσεται τῶν Τιµαίου alone had tested the accuracy of everything
κατηγορηµάτων. (3) δοκεῖ µὲν γὰρ καὶ τὴν and examined thoroughly the various
ἐµπειρικὴν περὶ ἕκαστα δύναµιν καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς historical accounts, in which there is much
πολυπραγµοσύνης ἕξιν παρεσκευάσθαι, καὶ that is valid, and much that is false. (4) But in
συλλήβδην φιλοπόνως προσεληλυθέναι πρὸς τὸ point of fact when those who by diligent study
γράφειν τὴν ἱστορίαν, (4) ἐν ἐνίοις δ᾽ οὐδεὶς οὐτ᾽ have made themselves familiar with the early
ἀπειρότερος οὐτ᾽ ἀφιλοπονώτερος φαίνεται part of his work, in which he deals with the
γεγονέναι τῶν ἐπ᾽ ὀνόµατος συγγραφέων. (27.1) subjects I have discussed (T 7), and have come
δῆλον δ᾽ ἔσται τὸ λεγόµενον ἐκ τούτων· δυεῖν γὰρ to depend upon his extreme professions of
ὄντων κατὰ φύσιν ὡσανεί τινων ὀργάνων ἡµῖν ... accuracy, and when afterwards someone
ἀκοῆς καὶ ὁράσεως ... (2) τούτων Τίµαιος τὴν ἡδίω proves to them that Timaios himself is guilty
µὲν ἥττω δὲ τῶν ὅλων, ὥρµησε πρὸς τὸ of those same faults he reproaches in others,
πολυπραγµονεῖν. (3) τῶν µὲν γὰρ διὰ τῆς ὁράσεως as we have just now established with regard to
εἰς τέλος ἀπέστη, τῶν δὲ διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς the Locrians and others (F 11, F 12); (5) then, I
ἀντεποιήσατο. καὶ ταύτης *** διὰ τῶν maintain, they become the most carping of
ὑποµνηµάτων, τοῦ δὲ περὶ τὰς ἀνακρίσεις critics, disposed to contest every statement,
ῥαθύµως ἀπεστράφη. (4) δι᾽ ἣν δ᾽ αἰτίαν ταύτην hard to elude, and in a word it is mainly with
ἔσχε τὴν αἵρεσιν εὐχερὲς καταµαθεῖν, ὅτι τὰ µὲν those who have given his work most careful
ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων δύναται πολυπραγµονεῖσθαι χωρὶς attention that the reading of it is profitable. (6)
κινδύνου καὶ κακοπαθείας, ἐάν τις αὐτὸ τοῦτο On the other hand, those who emulate his
προνοηθῆι µόνον, ὥστε λαβεῖν ἢ πόλιν ἔχουσαν practice with speeches and generally speaking
ὑποµνηµάτων πλῆθος ἢ βιβλιοθήκην που his more verbose passages become, for the
γειτνιῶσαν· (5) λοιπὸν κατακείµενον ἐρευνᾶν δὴ reasons stated, childish, scholastic, and quite
τὸ ζητούµενον καὶ συγκρίνειν τὰς τῶν untruthful. (27a.1) The systematic part of his
προγεγονότων συγγραφέων ἀγνοίας ἄνευ πάσης history, therefore, is full of all kinds of faults,
κακοπαθείας. (6) ἡ δὲ πολυπραγµοσύνη πολλῆς most of which I have described. (2) I shall now
µὲν προσδεῖται ταλαιπωρίας καὶ δαπάνης, µέγα examine the cause of his mistakes, a cause
δέ τι συµβάλλεται, καὶ µέγιστόν ἐστι µέρος τῆς which most will be reluctant to admit, but it
ἱστορίας. (7) δῆλον δὲ τουτ᾽ ἐστιν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν will be apparent that this is the truest
τὰς συντάξεις πραγµατευοµένων. ὁ µὲν γὰρ accusation to be brought against Timaios. (3)
῎Εφορός φησιν, εἰ δυνατὸν ἦν αὐτοὺς παρεῖναι He seems to me to have gained both practical
πᾶσι τοῖς πράγµασι, ταύτην δὴ διαφέρειν πολὺ experience and the habit of industriousness,
τῶν ἐµπειριῶν· (8) ὁ δὲ Θεόποµπος τοῦτον µὲν and in short to have approached the task of
ἄριστον ἐν τοῖς πολεµικοῖς τὸν πλείστοις κινδύνοις history-writing painstakingly, (4) but in some
παρατετευχότα ... (10) ἔτι δὲ τούτων matters no writer seems more inexperienced
ἐµφαντικώτερον ὁ ποιητὴς εἴρηκε περὶ τούτου τοῦ or more lazy. (27.1) What I have said is made
µέρους ... (28.1) δοκεῖ δέ µοι καὶ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας clear from the following; Nature, as it were, has
πρόσχηµα τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα ζητεῖν … (3) κἀγὼ δ᾽ ἂν given us two instruments: hearing and sight …
εἴποιµι, διότι τὰ τῆς ἱστορίας ἕξει τότε καλῶς, (2) Timaios conducts his research by the
ὅταν ἢ οἱ πραγµατικοὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν γράφειν sweeter but lesser road. (3) For he completely
ἐπιχειρήσωσι τὰς ἱστορίας ... (5) ἢ οἱ γράφειν avoids using his eyes and prefers using only his
ἐπιβαλλόµενοι τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγµάτων ἕξιν ears. Of the knowledge to be derived from
ἀναγκαίαν ἡγήσωνται πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν· hearing Timaios engages written accounts
πρότερον δ᾽ οὐκ ἔσται παῦλα τῆς τῶν [lacuna in text; sense is supplied], but he is a
ἱστοριογράφων ἀγνοίας. (6) ὧν Τίµαιος οὐδὲ τὴν stranger to interrogation of living witnesses. It
ἐλαχίστην πρόνοιαν θέµενος, ἀλλὰ καταβιώσας ἐν is an easy matter to learn why he takes this
ἑνὶ τόπωι ξενιτεύων καὶ σχεδὸν ὡς εἰ κατὰ approach. (4) It is because inquiries from
πρόθεσιν ἀπειπάµενος καὶ τὴν ἐνεργετικὴν τὴν books can be made without danger and
περὶ τὰς πολεµικὰς καὶ πολιτικὰς πράξεις καὶ τὴν hardship, provided that one takes care of only
ἐκ τῆς πλάνης καὶ θέας αὐτοπάθειαν, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ one thing, that he have access to a polis rich in
ὅπως ἐκφέρεται δόξαν ὡς ἕλκων τὴν τοῦ resources and to live near its library. (5) After
συγγραφέως προστασίαν. (7) καὶ διότι τοιοῦτός that one has only to conduct one’s research
ἐστιν, αὐτὸν ἀνθοµολογούµενον εὐχερὲς and find out the faults of earlier writers
παραστῆσαι τὸν Τίµαιον. without any discomfort. (6) Personal inquiry,
on the other hand, requires great work and
expense, but it is exceedingly valuable and is
the most important part of history. (7) This is
evident from the expressions used by
historians themselves. Ephoros ( BNJ 70 F 110),
for example, says that if it were possible to be
present at all events the knowledge gained
would be far superior to any other experiences.
(8) And Theopompos ( BNJ 115 F 342) says that
the man having the best knowledge in warfare
has himself been present at the greatest
number of battles … (10) Homer (Odyssey 1)
has spoken even more emphatically about
these matters … (28.1) It seems to me that the
dignity of history also calls for such a man …
(3) I would say that it will be well with history
when men of affairs undertake to write it … (5)
or when aspiring writers regard training in
actual affairs as its prerequisite. Until this
happens there will be no end of the errors of
historians. (6) Timaios never gave a moment’s
consideration to any of this, but while living as
an exile in a single place (T 4d), and though he
almost seems to have willfully renounced for
himself any active part in war or politics or any
personal experience of travel and autopsy, I
don’t know how he enjoys a reputation as a
leading author. (7) And that he is a man of this
sort can easily be shown from his own
testimony (F 7).
Commentary
These excerpts come from Polybios’s Book 12, which is largely devoted to condemnation of
Timaios. Polybios criticizes Timaios for his attacks on Aristotle, Theophrastos, Kallisthenes,
Ephoros, and Demochares, on the grounds that Timaios committed the same errors with
which he charged his predecessors. In the twelfth book Polybios would appear to be open to
charges of the sort of unfair fault-finding for which he castigated Timaios. Like Timaios,
Polybios placed a premium on truth in history-writing (cf. Polyb. 1.14.6-9, 12.12.1-3, 13.5.4-6,
16.17.9-10, 20.12.8, 34.4.2, with C.B. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius’s Histories (Berkeley
2004), 22 n. 30). Polybios was especially irritated by the inclusion of mythological fantastical,
and superstitious elements in Timaios’s historiography (see F 102b; Commentary to T 15a; cf. G.
Schepens, ‘Politics and Belief in Timaeus of Tauromenium’, Ancient Society 25 (1994), 249-78;
F.W. Walbank, ‘Supernatural Paraphernalia in Polybius’, in Ventures into Greek History, ed. by I.
Worthington (Oxford 1994), 28-42; and for earlier literature on the question of Timaios and
deisidaimonia, G. Schepens, ‘Polybius on Timaeus’ Account of Phalaris’ Bull: A Case of
DEISIDAIMONIA’, Ancient Society 9 (1978), 117-48, at 138 nn. 52-3). Polybios goes on to criticize
Timaios’s practice in recording the speeches of historical agents, which is of course one of the
most intractable problems in trying to understand the historiographic principles of ancient
Greek and Roman historians, stemming from Thucydides’ difficult statement on dealing with
speeches in his work (1.22, with E. Badian, ‘Thucydides on Rendering Speeches’, Athenaeum 80
(1992), 187-90; A. Tsakmakis, ‘Leaders, Crowds, and the Power of the Image: Political
Communication in Thucydides’, in Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, ed. by A. Rengakos & A.
Tsakmakis (Leiden 2006), 161-87; cf. J. Marincola, ‘Speeches in Classical Historiography’, in A
Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography 1, ed. by J. Marincola (Malden, Mass. 2007), 118-
32). The basic problem with Timaios for Polybios was inexperience in the kinds of things he
wrote about: warfare, politics (including reported speeches), and topography (cf. G. Schepens,
‘Polemic and Method in Polybius, Book XII,’ in Purposes of History. Studies in Greek
Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries B.C., ed. by E. De Keyser, G. Schepens, and H.
Verdin (Leuven 1990), 39-62; G. Schepens, L’autopsie dans la méthode des historiens grecs du V
siècle avant J.C. (Brussels 1980)). These are the prerequisites for the historian according to
Polybios, and Timaios, so he alleges, possessed none of them (cf. L. Pearson, ‘The Speeches in
Timaeus’ History’, AJP 107 (1986), 350-68).
BNJ 566 T 20
Source: Cicero, On the Orator 2.55-58

Work mentioned:
Cicero, M. Tullius, On the Orator, 2.55-58

... apud Graecos autem eloquentissimi ... but among the Greeks the most eloquent
homines remoti a causis forensibus cum ad men, removed from forensic cases, applied
ceteras res illustris tum ad historiam themselves to other great things and especially
scribendam maxime se applicaverunt ... to the writing of history … (brief
minimus natu horum omnium Timaeus, characterization of Herodotos, Thucydides,
quantum autem iudicare possum longe Philistos, Theopompos, Ephoros, Xenophon,
eruditissimus et rerum copia et sententiarum Kallisthenes) ... Timaios, the most recent of
varietate abundantissimus et ipsa these, as far as I am able to judge, was by far
compositione verborum non impolitus, the most learned in his supply of material and
magnam eloquentiam ad scribendum attulit, most abundant in the variety of his expression
sed nullum usum forensem.
and not without refinement in literary
composition; he brought great eloquence to
writing, but no experience in public speaking.
Commentary
Timaios enjoyed a great reputation as a prose stylist (cf. F 119c, T 9a, T 29, and F 138 for Cicero’s
familiarity with his work), and elsewhere Cicero praised Timaios’s account of the burning of
the temple of Ephesian Diana on the night on which Alexander was born (F 150a). It is likely
that other Roman writers not represented in Jacoby’s Fragmente, such as Vergil, Ovid, Varro,
and Cato, knew Timaios’s work directly, see L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West:
Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 54; for Cato, see L. Moretti, ‘Le origines di Catone,
Timeo ed Eratostene’, RFIC, n.s. 30 (1952), 289-302; generally, see H. Beck & U. Walter, Die
frühen römischen Historiker (Darmstadt 2001-04), passim. Pseudo-Longinus (T 23) gave a
mixed review: Timaios’s style was frigid, but he was a capable writer in other respects (cf. T 21:
Dionysios’s criticism of Timaios’s ‘tedious, cold, slack, and affected’ Isokratean style). Timaios’s
literary skills formed a part of Polybios’s attack against him. Polybios maintained that Timaios
covered over his faults by overpowering his readers with the force of his rhetorical skills in
composition (Polyb. 12.26d.1; cf. G. Schepens, ‘ENARGEIA und EMPHASIS in Polybius’
Geschichtstheorie’, Riv. Stor. Ant. 5 (1975), 185-200; A.D. Walker, ‘Enargeia in Greek
Historiography’, TAPA 123 (1993), 353-77; F.W. Walbank, ‘Profit or Amusement: Some Thoughts
on the Motives of Hellenistic Historians’, in Purposes of History. Studies in Greek Historiography
from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries B.C., ed. by E. De Keyser, G. Schepens, and H. Verdin (Leuven
1990), 253-66). Polybios had little sympathy for historians who paid too much attention to an
elegant style (cf. 3.31.11-13 for Polybios’s indifference to prose style, with P. Pédech, La méthode
historique de Polybe (Paris 1964), 33-34). He maintained that the historian’s primary concern
should be with the truth (see C.B. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius’s Histories (Berkeley
2004), 22 and n. 30), and he castigates Timaios for free invention in recounting speeches
(12.25b.1-4; cf. 12.25i.5-6, with K.S. Sacks, Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley 1981), 88 n.
139).
BNJ 566 T 21
Source: Cicero, Brutus 325

Work mentioned:
rhetoric, ancient - Library of Congress
Cicero, M. Tullius, Brutus, 325

... genera autem Asiaticae dictionis duo sunt: ... moreover there are two types of the Asiatic
unum sententiosum et argutum, sententiis style: the one sententious and studied, less
non tam gravibus et severis quam concinnis et characterized by gravity of thought than by the
venustis, qualis in historia Timaeus, in dicendo charm of balance and symmetry, as in history
autem pueris nobis Hierocles Alabandeus, writing Timaios, but in oratory Hierokles of
magis etiam Menecles frater eius fuit ... aliud Alabanda in the time of my youth, and even
… non tam sententiis frequentatum quam more so his brother Menekles … the other type
verbis volucre atque incitatum, quale est nunc is not so notable for ample sententious phrase
Asia tota .... as for swiftness and impetuosity, as is now the
style throughout Asia …
Commentary
For Timaios as prose stylist, see Commentary to T 20. Antonius mentions Hierokles and
Menekles of Alabanda as contemporary ‘Asiatic’ orators whom he had heard in Cicero’s De
Oratore (2.95), which records a dialogue which is supposed to have taken place in September
of 91 BC; cf. Strabo 14.2.13 (C655); 14.2.26 (C661). On the ‘Asiatica dictio’, see G.A. Kennedy, The
Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton 1972), 97-100; J.R. Dugan, Making a New Man:
Ciceronian Self-Fashioning in the Rhetorical Works (Oxford 2005), passim.
BNJ 566 T 22
Source: Dionysios of Halikarnassos, On Deinarchos 8

Work mentioned:
rhetoric, ancient - Library of Congress
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, On Deinarchos, 8

οἱ δ᾽ ᾽Ισοκράτην καὶ τὰ ᾽Ισοκράτους Those wanting to emulate Isokrates and the
ἀποτυπώσασθαι θελήσαντες ὕπτιοι καὶ ψυχροὶ Isokratean style are tedious, cold, slack, and
καὶ ἀσύστροφοι καὶ ἀναληθεῖς· οὗτοι δ᾽ εἰσὶν οἱ untruthful; these are Timaios, Psaon ( BNJ 78 T
περὶ Τίµαιον καὶ Ψάωνα καὶ Σωσιγένην. 2), and Sosigenes.
Commentary
For Timaios as prose stylist, see Commentary to T 20. Timaios was said (T 1) to have studied
under Philiskos of Miletos (ca. 400-325 BC). Philiskos in turn was supposed to have been a
student of Isokrates and the teacher of Neanthes of Kyzikos ( BNJ 496 F 9). But there are
serious chronological problems with this reconstruction, since Isokrates died in 338 BC, and
Neanthes wrote a (presumably posthumous) history of Attalos I, who died in 197 BC. Scholars
have attempted to resolve the problem by positing either an elder and younger Neanthes or an
elder and younger Philiskos (cf. F. Solmsen, ‘Philiskos (9)’, RE 19 (1938), cols. 2384-7; on
Neanthes, see G. Schepens, ‘Jacoby’s FGrHist: Problems, Methods, Prospects’, in Collecting
Fragments/Fragmente Sammeln, ed. by G.W. Most (Göttingen 1997), 144-72, at 158-9, with notes;
S. Shorn, Satyros aus Kallatis: Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar (Basel 2002), 160 and
n. 61). In any event, Philiskos was the link between Timaios and the school of Isokrates in the
tradition (cf. J. Engels, Commentary to FGrH IVA1 1013, 362-75). Psaon of Plataia ( BNJ 78) was a
Hellenistic historian whose work may have extended to Olympiad 140 (220-216 BC), where
Polybios began his detailed narrative. This Sosigenes is otherwise unknown (F. Jacoby,
‘Sosigenes (4)’, RE 3A (1929), col. 1153).
BNJ 566 T 23a
Source: Pseudo-Longinos, On the Sublime 4.1-2

Work mentioned:
Pseudo-Longinus, On the Sublime, 4.1-2

(1) ... τοῦ ψυχροῦ πλήρης ὁ Τίµαιος, ἀνὴρ τὰ µὲν (1) ... Timaios is full of frigidity, a man in other
ἄλλα ἱκανὸς καὶ πρὸς λόγων ἐνίοτε µέγεθος οὐκ respects capable and in magnitude of
ἄφορος, πολυίστωρ, ἐπινοητικός, πλὴν ἀλλοτρίων composition at times not barren, very learned,
µὲν ἐλεγκτικώτατος ἁµαρτηµάτων, ἀνεπαίσθητος and thoughtful, except for being exceedingly
δὲ ἰδίων, ὑπὸ δὲ ἔρωτος τοῦ ξένας νοήσεις ἀεὶ critical of others’ mistakes, while unaware of
κινεῖν πολλάκις ἐκπίπτων εἰς τὸ his own; and because of his love of forever
παιδαριωδέστατον. (2) παραθήσοµαι δὲ τἀνδρὸς introducing novel ideas he often falls into
ἓν ἢ δύο, ἐπειδὴ τὰ πλείω προέλαβεν ὁ Κεκίλιος ... childishness (cf. T 18). (2) I shall furnish one or
two examples (F 139; F 102a), since Caecilius
has covered most of them (F 85 Ofenloch) ...
Commentary
For criticism of Timaios’s style, see Commentary to T 20 and Biographical Essay. For the
stylistic flaw of ‘frigidity’ (to psuchron), see Pseudo-Longinus, On the Sublime, chapters 3-4,
with H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart 1990), 518-9 (sections
1076-7). Aristotle, Rhetoric, 3.3 (1405b-1406a), defines ‘frigidity’ as an excessive use of
compounds, strange words, inappropriate adjectives, and absurd metaphors; cf. D. A. Russell,
‘Longinus’: On the Sublime (Oxford 1964), 76 ad 4.1. For criticism of Timaios as an historian, see
T 1, T 11, T 17, T 19, T 20, and Biographical Essay. Caecilius of Calacte in Sicily was an important
Augustan rhetorician with wide-ranging literary interests (J. Brzoska, ‘Caecilius (2)’, RE 3
(1899), cols. 1174-88). He preferred the ‘Atticist’ to the ‘Asiatic’ style (see Commentary to T 21
above). His work seems to have been the inspiration for Pseudo-Longinus’s On the Sublime.
BNJ 566 T 23b
Source: Plutarch, Life of Nikias 1

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Nikias, 1

T 18.
Commentary
See Commentary to T 18.
BNJ 566 T 24
Source: Iosephos, Against Apion 1.16
Work mentioned:
Josephus, T. Flavius, Against Apion, 1.16

See T 17
Commentary
Later critics of Timaios: See Commentary to T 17.
BNJ 566 T 25

Work mentioned:

See T 16
Commentary
Antigraphai of Istros: See Commentary to T 16. Caesar’s Anticato, a reply to Cicero’s Cato
(Plutarch, Caesar 3.2), provides a famous, and tragically lost, example of the polemical genre
of the Antigraphē. For polemic in Greek historiography, see J. Marincola, Authority and
Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge 1997), passim.
BNJ 566 T 26
Work mentioned:

Πολέµων δ᾽ ἐν ᾱ τῶν Πρὸς Τίµαιον. Polemon in the first book of his Criticisms
Against Timaios.
Commentary
In the 2nd century BC Polemon of Ilion wrote a major critical work on Timaios’s
historiography (cf. F 24a, F 24b). Polemon’s Criticisms Against Timaios consisted in at least six
books (F 24a). The only fixed date for Polemon is provided by a proxeny decree in his honor
from Delphi (Syll.3 585, 114n.; SEG 32.568; A. Chaniotis, Historie und Historiker in den
griechischen Inschriften: Epigraphische Beiträge zur griechischen Historiographie (Stuttgart
1988), 306 (E13)), which dates to 177/76 BC. Polemon’s work will therefore most likely have
dated to the first half of the 2nd century BC (K. Deichgräber, ‘Polemon’, RE 21 (1952), cols. 1289-
320). See now Elizabeth Kosmetatou’s Commentary to BNJ 857A.
BNJ 566 T 27
Source: Strabo, Geography 14.1.22 (C640)

Work mentioned:
Source date: 1st century BC, 1st century BC-1st century AD 1st century
AD
Strabo, Geographica [Vide: Apollodorus et
Eratosthenes apud Strabonem], 14.1.22 (C640)
ἅπερ ἀγνοοῦντά φησιν ὁ ᾽Αρτεµίδωρος τὸν Artemidoros reports that Timaios of
Ταυροµενίτην Τίµαιον, καὶ ἄλλως βάσκανον ὄντα Tauromenion, being ignorant with respect to
καὶ συκοφάντην – διὸ καὶ ᾽Επιτίµαιον κληθῆναι – these things and otherwise slanderous and
λέγειν … sycophantic – for which reason he was called
‘Censurer’ (T 11) – says (F 150b) …
Commentary
Artemidoros of Ephesos ( BNJ 438) was active at the end of the 2nd century BC. He was
important enough to serve as an Ephesian ambassador to Rome on behalf of Ephesos’s claims
to the sacred revenues from the Selinusian lakes, for which service his hometown erected a
golden statue of him (Strabo 14.1.26 (C642)). Artemidoros wrote eleven geographical books in
Alexandria, which are frequently quoted by extant sources (cf. F 70, F 150b), particularly
Strabo. He appears to have traveled along the Mediterranean coasts to the west; for eastern
areas and Ethiopia he used Agatharchides ( BNJ 86), and the Alexander writers and
Megasthenes for India (H. Berger, ‘Artemidoros (27)’, RE 2 (1896), cols. 1329-30; on the new
papyrus fragment for Artemidoros and ancient Greek cartographical knowledge of Spain, see
P. Moret, ‘À propos du papyrus d’Artémidore et de la ‘plus ancienne carte d’Espagne’’, Mélanges
de la Casa de Velázquez 33.1 (2003), 350-54). For the nickname ‘Epitimaios’ and general
criticism of Timaios, see the Commentary to T 11.
BNJ 566 T 28
Source: Pseudo-Skymnos, Periegesis (Voyage around the Earth) for

Nicomedes 125-126
Work mentioned:
Pseudo-Skymnos, Periegesis (Voyage around

the Earth) for Nicomedes, 125-126
... (?) δὲ καὶ / Τίµαιον, ἄνδρα Σικελόν, ἐκ ... (in the enumeration of his sources) (?) and
Ταυροµενίου ... Timaios, a Sicilian, from Tauromenion …
Commentary
Lines 1-743 of Pseudo-Skymnos were preserved on pages 125-43 of the codex Paris. Gr. Suppl.
443 (D), which is now lost except for the illegible pg. 144. Two copies were made of the unicus
codex, d2 and d4 according to Diller. These preserve the extant Pseudo-Scymnus. Lines 119-25
are lacunose; lines 121-2 cannot be read. Of line 125, only the final two words are legible (de
kai). See M. Korenjak, Die Welt-Rundreise eines anonymen griechischen Autors (Hildesheim
2003), 19-21 for a concise account of the state of the text. For Pseudo-Scymnus, in addition to
Korenjak, see also D. Marcotte, Géographes grecs (Paris 2000). See also Commentaries to T 4a
and T 4b, and Biographical Essay.
BNJ 566 T 29
Source: Cicero, Letters to Atticus 6.1.18

Work mentioned:
Cicero, M. Tullius, Letters to Atticus, 6.1.18

... Timaeo tuo familiari ... ... Timaios your friend …
Commentary
For Dikaiarchos and Theophrastos as other familiares of Cicero and Atticus, see Cic. Ad Att.
2.16.3. See further T 9a, T 20, T 21, F 40, F 119c, F 130a, F 130 b, F 138, F 150a; Commentary to T 1,
T 20; cf. I.G. Taïphakos, ‘Cicero and the Sicilian Historiography, Timaeus’, Ciceroniana n.s. 4
(1980), 177-89.
BNJ 566 T 30
Source: M. Vitruvius Pollio, On Architecture 8.3.27

Work mentioned:
Vitruvius Pollio, M., On Architecture, 8.3.27

... cetera in libris Graecis scripta inveni, ... some of these things I have found written in
quorum … auctores Theophrastos, Timaeus, Greek books, the authorities for these … being
Posidonios, Hegesias (?), Herodotus, Aristides, Theophrastos, Timaios, Poseidonios, Hegesias
Metrodorus, qui magna vigilantia et infinito (?), Herodotos, Aristides, and Metrodoros.
studio locorum proprietates, aquarum virtutes, These men with much attention and infinite
ab inclinatione caelique regionum qualitates toil showed by their writings that the
ita esse distributas scriptis dedicaverunt. peculiarities of sites, the properties of waters,
and the characteristics of countries are
conditioned by the inclination of heaven.
Commentary
The Augustan architectural writer Vitruvius Pollio (or Mamurra) wrote a celebrated work on
architecture and engineering, De Architectura, in which he relied heavily on earlier Greek
writers. Book 8, from which this passage derives, concerned water supplies. The context of the
excerpt is a discussion of the regional and local causes of differing qualities of soils and spring-
water sources. Among this list we find the philosophers Theophrastos (mentioned elsewhere
by Vitruvius only at De Arch. 6, praef. 2) and Poseidonios of Apamea ( BNJ 87), as well as
Herodotos of Lykia, a Hippokratic writer who composed a work on figs (Athen. 3.75e). The
remaining authors can be considered as being in some sense historians: Hegesias of Magnesia
( BNJ 142), Metrodoros of Skepsis ( BNJ 184), and Aristeides of Miletos ( BNJ 286), who was
known for his bawdy Milesiaka. Ktesias of Knidos ( BNJ 688) wrote a geographical treatise and
would seem to have been more likely to have written about water sources than Hegesias of
Magnesia, whose surviving fragments reveal an ‘Asianist’ rhetorical writer; moreover, an
inattentive scribe could easily corrupt ‘Ktesias’ into ‘Hegesias’. But since all MSS agree in the
reading ‘Hegesias’, it is retained here. Conspicuous by its absence in this catalogue is the
Hippokratic treatise Airs, Waters, Places. This may be due to Vitruvius’s unfamiliarity with this
text, which is so celebrated among modern scholars: Hippokrates is mentioned only once in
De Arch. at 1.1.13. For Timaios’s interest in water sources, see F 41a, F 41b, F 41c on the spring at
Arethousa.
BNJ 566 T 31a
Source: Pliny the Elder, Natural History 1.4

Work mentioned:
Pliny (G. Plinius Secundus) Lexikon, Natural

History, 1.4
situs, gentes … ex auctoribus … externis Sites, peoples … from foreign authors …
Polybio … Agathocle, Timaeo Siculo, Myrsilo, Polybios … Agathokles, Timaios the Sicilian,
Alexandro Polyhistore … Myrsilos, Alexander Polyhistor …
Commentary
Commentary is restricted (T 31) to writers Jacoby included in the excerpts; it is only a partial
list from Pliny’s lengthy catalogue of Roman and ‘foreign’ (externi), i.e. Greek, authorities.
Aside from Timaios and Polybios, the authors in this excerpt are Agathokles of Kyzikos (?) (
BNJ 472), Myrsilos of Lesbos ( BNJ 477), and Alexander Polyhistor of Miletos ( BNJ 273).
Agathokles was probably a Hellenistic author, perhaps of the late 3rd century B.C.; see J.
Engel’s Commentary on Agathokles, BNJ 472, contra Schwartz (below), who dated him to the
5th or 4th century BC. Athenaios (14.649f; cf. 12.515a) once calls him Kyzikēnos, but elsewhere
he appears as Babylonios (Athen. 1.30a; 9.375f; Schol. Hes. Theog. 485). Most of his fragments
are preserved in Athenaios; he wrote a work on Kyzikos (cf. E. Schwartz, ‘Agathokles (24)’, RE 1
(1894), cols. 758-9). Myrsilos (or the variant Myrtilos) was from Methymna on Lesbos; he wrote
Lesbiaka in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphos (r. 283-246 BC). He also composed a Historika
Paradoxa; his work was used by Antigonos of Karystos (Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 378).
Alexander Polyhistor was born ca. 105 BC; his fragments are extensive. He composed tracts on
various places and works on the Jews, Delphi, Rome, mirabilia, and literary criticism. Enslaved
as a war-captive, he was freed by Sulla ca. 80 BC (Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 378). Pliny
distinguishes Timaios the historian in this passage by the designation Siculus from Timaeus
mathematicus (Naturalis Historia 1.5, 1.16; cf. 2.38; T 31e). On Pliny’s monumental work, see S.
Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History (Oxford 2003); and T.
Murphy, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia (Oxford 2004). 
BNJ 566 T 31b

Work mentioned:

History, 1.6
situs, gentes, … ex auctoribus … externis … sites, peoples … from foreign authors …
Agathocle, Polybio, Timaeo Siculo, Alexandro Agathokles, Polybios, Timaios the Sicilian,
Polyhistore … Alexandros Polyhistor ...
Commentary
See Commentary to T 31a.
BNJ 566 T 31c

Work mentioned:

History, 1.33
metallorum naturae … ex auctoribus … the nature of metals … from foreign authors
externis Theophrasto, Democrito, Juba, Theophrastos, Demokritos, Juba, Timaios the
Timaeo historico, <qui> de medicina metallica historian, who have written about medicinal
scripserunt Heraclide, Andrea … Pasitele qui metals, Herakleides, Andreas … Pasiteles, who
mirabilia opera scripsit … wrote works on marvels...
Commentary
Theophrastos’s comments on the nature of metals probably derived from his voluminous
writings on physics (D.L. 5.46, 48-49; cf. W.W. Fortenbaugh et al., Theophrastus of Eresus:
Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought, and Influence 1 (Leiden 1992), 276-435). Demokritos’s
writings on metals will probably have comprised part of his Physika, or perhaps they were to
be found in the curious work Peri tēs lithou (D.L. 9.46-49). Juba II of Mauretania ( BNJ 275)
received his kingdom as a client-ruler from Augustus in 25 BC. He was a polymath who wrote
widely on various subjects (F. Jacoby, ‘Iuba (2)’, RE 9 (1916), cols. 2384-95; see now D.W. Roller,
The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: Royal Scholarship on Rome’s African Frontier (New
York, 2003)). Writings of the 4th century BC Academician Herakleides of Pontos included
Physika (D.L. 5.87). Andreas (cf. Polyb. 5.81.5-6 for his untimely death in 217 BC) was a follower
of Herophilos and court physician of Ptolemy IV Philopator (ca. 244-205 BC). His attested
works include a pharmacopoeia and a tract on snakebites; perhaps these works concerned
medicinal properties of metals, as Pliny here attests for Timaios. Alternatively, Andreas may
have discussed golden wreaths in his Peri Stephanōn, a topic listed in the table of contents for
Pliny’s Book 33 (yet Pliny does not mention him in the brief discussion of golden coronae at
NH 33.38; see P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 1 (Oxford 1972), 370-1). Pasiteles, a
contemporary of Pompeius Magnus, was a Greek sculptor from southern Italy who obtained
Roman citizenship by the lex Plautia Papiria (89 BC). This scholar-artist wrote in five volumes
Marvelous Works of Art Throughout the World (Plin. NH 1.34, 36.39); he was highly esteemed
by Varro (Plin. NH 35.156). Perhaps discussion of technical and metallurgical aspects of his
work can account for his inclusion here (G. Lippold, ‘Pasiteles (2)’, RE 18 (1949), cols. 2087-9).
Pliny may have mentioned Timaios in this catalogue through consultation of the writings of
either Varro or Juba (Jacoby, FGrH 3a, Kommentar, 547).
BNJ 566 T 31d

Work mentioned:

History, 1.33
aeris metalla … ex auctoribus … externis … metals of copper … from foreign authors …
Pasitele qui mirabilia opera scripsit, Timaeo, Pasiteles, who wrote works on marvels,
qui de medicina metallica scripserunt Timaios, who wrote on medicinal metals,
Nymphodoro … Heraclide … Nymphodoros … Herakleides …
Commentary
Pasiteles and Herakleides of Pontos are discussed in the Commentary to T 31c. Nymphodoros
of Syracuse ( BNJ 572) wrote a Voyage Along the Coast of Asia, On Sicilian Marvels, and
perhaps On Strange Things in Sardinia (Athen. 6.265c-d; 13.588f-589a, 609e; Aelian, Natura
Animalium 16.34). He was working in the second half of the 4th century BC (R. Laqueur,
‘Nymphodoros (6)’, RE 17 (1937), cols. 1625-7).
BNJ 566 T 31e

Work mentioned:

History, 1.33
origo gemmarum … ex auctoribus … externis the origin of gems … from foreign authors …
… Juba rege … Metrodoro, Sotaco, Pythea, king Juba … Metrodoros, Sotakos, Pytheas,
Timaeo Siculo … Timaios the Sicilian …
Commentary
For Juba II of Mauretania ( BNJ 275), see Commentary to T 31c. Metrodoros of Skepsis ( BNJ
184) was born ca. 150 BC. He was an erstwhile friend of Mithridates VI of Pontos, who had him
executed after he turned to Tigranes (Plut. Lucullus 22). He seems to have held political views
hostile to Rome (Plin. NH 34.16). He was celebrated for his system of mnenomics (Cic.
Tusculanae disputations 1.24.59; Quintillian 10.6.4; Plin. NH 7.24.89). Various works are
attributed to Metrodoros, including studies on gymnastics, customs, geography, and Tigranes
(W. Kroll, ‘Metrodoros (23)’, RE 15 (1932), cols. 1481-2). Sotakos was a Greek author, probably of
the later 4th century BC, who wrote a work entitled Peri Lithōn, to which Pliny makes frequent
reference in Books 36-37 (E. Kind, ‘Sotakos’, RE 3A (1929), col. 1211). Pytheas of Massalia wrote a
work About the Ocean; he was renowned for his voyages of discovery, circumnavigating
Britain and reporting on the island of Thule (Norway or Iceland). His voyages probably fell in
the last quarter of the 4th century BC. He laid some of the foundations for later cartographers
(F. Gisinger, ‘Pytheas (1)’, RE 24 (1963), cols. 314-66); Pytheas’s fragments are collected in H.J.
Mette, Pytheas von Massalia (Berlin 1952); L’oceano/Pitea di Massalia: Introduzione, testo,
traduzione, e commento, ed. by S. Bianchetti (Pisa, 1998)). 
BNJ 566 F 1a
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 4.38.153D

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: Slavery - Library of Congress
ethnology - Library of Congress
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 4.38.153D

Τίµαιος δ᾽ ἐν τῆι πρώτηι τῶν ῾Ιστοριῶν καὶ τὰς In the first book of his Histories Timaios says
θεραπαίνας φησὶ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς µέχρι οὗ ἂν that the slave girls among them serve naked
αὐξηθῶσι γυµνὰς διακονεῖσθαι. until they grow up.
Commentary
Timaios’s direct remarks on the Etruscans are confined to few fragments (cf. F 1b, F 50, F 62;
see also T 7, F 89). He followed Herodotos (1.94) in accepting Etruscan provenance from Lydia
(F 62). In addition, frequent references to the Tyrrhenians in the appendix from Diodorus (F
164) may contain material from Timaios’s account of Etruscans. Timaios was clearly interested
in traditions concerning excessive luxury at Sybaris (F 9, F 47-51), which we are told grew
wealthy through trading contacts with Etruria. The comment of Strabo (5.4.3 (C242-43)) on
Etruscan truphē may well derive from Timaios (cf. Diod. 5.40.3-5; Alkimos, BNJ 560 F 3;
Theopompos, BNJ 115 F 204). On the theme of wealth and luxury in Timaios, cf. F 1b
(Etruscans); F 5 (Corinthians); F 26a and F 26c (Akragas; cf. D.L. 8.63, quoting Empedokles); F
26a (Exainetos of Akragas).
BNJ 566 F 1b

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: luxury - Library of Congress
Slavery - Library of Congress

παρὰ δὲ Τυρρηνοῖς ἐκτόπως τρυφήσασιν ἱστορεῖ Among the Tyrrhenians, who were
Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι ᾱ ὅτι αἱ θεράπαιναι γυµναὶ τοῖς extravagantly luxurious, Timaios records in his
ἀνδράσι διακονοῦνται. first book that the slave girls wait on men
naked.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 1a. 
BNJ 566 F 2
Source: Diogenes Laertios, Lives and Opinions of Eminent

Philosophers 8.66
Work mentioned:
Source date: 3rd century AD
Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers,

8.66
ὕστερον δ᾽ ὁ ᾽Εµπεδοκλῆς καὶ τὸ τῶν χιλίων (F 134) Afterwards, Empedokles broke up the
ἄθροισµα κατέλυσε συνεστὼς ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία, ὥστε assembly of the Thousand, three years after its
οὐ µόνον ἦν τῶν πλουσίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν τὰ establishment, which demonstrates that not
δηµοτικὰ φρονούντων. ὅ γέ τοι Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι only was he wealthy but that he also favored
πρώτηι καὶ δευτέραι (?) – πολλάκις γὰρ αὐτοῦ the popular cause. At all events Timaios in the
µνηµονεύει – φησὶν ἐναντίαν ἐσχηκέναι γνώµην first (?) and second (?) books – for he
αὐτὸν <ἔν> τε τῆι πολιτείαι < καὶ ἐν τῆι ποιήσει· mentions him several times – states that he
ὅπου µὲν γὰρ µέτριον καὶ ἐπιεικῆ> φαίνεσθαι, seems to have held opposite views when in
ὅπου δὲ ἀλαζόνα καὶ φίλαυτον [ἐν τῆι ποιήσει]· public life and when writing poetry. In some
φησὶ γοῦν «χαίρετ᾽, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὑµῖν θεὸς ἄµβροτος, passages he seems measured and seemly,
οὐκέτι θνητός, / πωλεῦµαι» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. καθ᾽ ὃν elsewhere (in his poetry) he seems boastful
δὲ χρόνον ἐπεδήµει ᾽Ολυµπίασιν, ἐπιστροφῆς and selfish. At any rate he says, ‘Greetings, I go
ἠξιοῦτο πλείονος, ὥστε µηδενὸς ἑτέρου µνείαν among you as an immortal god, no longer
γίγνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς ὁµιλίαις τοσαύτην ὅσην mortal’, and so on. At the time when he visited
᾽Εµπεδοκλέους. Olympia he demanded an unseemly
deference, with the result that no one was ever
so talked about in gatherings as was
Empedokles.
Commentary
Timaios displays great interest in sages and remarkable men: in addition to Empedokles (F 2, F
6, F 14, F 26b, F 30, F 134), we have fragments on Epimenides (F 4), Smindyrides the Sybarite (F
9), Pythagoras (F 13a, F 13b, F 14, F 16, F 17, F 131, F 132), and Socrates (F 15). This fragment
suggests that Timaios recounted Empedokles’ famous lectures at Olympia, just as he gave an
account of Gorgias’s reception at Athens (D-K 31 B 112). The ‘Council of 1000’ at Akragas was
established some time after the expulsion of Thrasydaios, son of Theron, in 472-471 BC (Diod.
11.53.1-5; cf. T.J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks. The History of Sicily and South Italy from the
Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (Oxford 1948), 413). Assuming that the Council was
set up hard upon Thrasydaios’s expulsion, Empedokles would have assisted in its dissolution
ca. 469/68 BC. Here Diogenes Laertios states that Empedokles preferred a populist
constitution (cf. F 134), but Diodorus (8.53.5) implies that Akragas had already enjoyed
reinstatement of its democracy after the expulsion of Thrasydaios. In any event, Akragas
assisted in the liberation of Syracuse from its tyrant Thrasyboulos in 466/65 BC (Diod. 11.68.1-7;
cf. 11.76.4 for Hieron of Syracuse in turn assisting in the expulsion of those holding land in
Akragas unlawfully, 460/59 BC). On the site, see J.A. de Waele, Acragas Graeca: Die historische
Topographie des griechischen Akragas auf Sizilien I, Historischer Teil (’s-Gravenhage 1971);
Agrigento e la Sicilia greca, ed. by L. Braccesi & E. De Miro (Rome 1992); for the Roman period,
see generally R.J.A. Wilson, Sicily under the Roman Empire: The Archaeology of a Roman
Province, 36 BC-AD 535 (Warminster 1990). The book numbers recorded here may be wrong. If
this passage belongs to Timaios’s historical narrative of events in the 460’s, it will most likely
have stood somewhere in Timaios’s Books 11-12.
BNJ 566 F 3

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: geography, ancient - Library of Congress
natural history - Library of Congress

4.5
(3.7) καθάπερ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ Λιβύην (3.7) Regarding Corsica as well he makes the
ἀπεσχεδίακεν, οὕτως καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν νῆσον same sort of random statements as in the case
τὴν προσαγορευοµένην Κύρνον. (8) καὶ γὰρ ὑπὲρ of Libya (F 81). (8) In the account he gives of it
ἐκείνης µνηµονεύων ἐν τῆι δευτέραι βύβλωι φησὶν in his second book he says that there are many
αἶγας ἀγρίας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ βοῦς ἀγρίους wild goats, sheep, and cattle in it, as well as
ὑπάρχειν ἐν αὐτῆι πολλούς, ἔτι δ᾽ ἐλάφους καὶ deer, hares, wolves, and certain other animals,
λαγὼς καὶ λύκους καί τινα τῶν ἄλλων ζώιων, καὶ and that men there spend all their time
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους περὶ ταῦτα διατρίβειν hunting those animals, this being their only
κυνηγετοῦντας καὶ τὴν ὅλην τοῦ βίου διαγωγὴν ἐν occupation. (9) The truth is that on this island
τούτοις ἔχειν. (9) κατὰ δὲ τὴν προειρηµένην νῆσον not only is there not a single wild goat or wild
οὐχ οἷον αἲξ ἄγριος ἢ βοῦς ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ λαγὼς οὐδὲ ox, but there are not even any hares, wolves,
λύκος οὐδ᾽ ἔλαφος οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο τῶν τοιούτων ζώιων deer, or similar animals, except for foxes,
οὐδέν ἐστι πλὴν ἀλωπέκων καὶ κυνίκλων καὶ rabbits, and wild sheep. (10) The rabbit when
προβάτων ἀγρίων. (10) ὁ δὲ κύνικλος πόρρωθεν seen from a distance looks like a small hare,
µὲν ὁρώµενος εἶναι δοκεῖ λαγὼς µικρός, ὅταν δ᾽ εἰς but whenever someone captures one, he sees
τὰς χεῖρας λάβηι τις, µεγάλην ἔχει διαφοράν … the great difference … it lives for the most part
γίνεται δὲ τὸ πλεῖον µέρος κατὰ γῆς. (4.1) δοκεῖ γε underground. (4.1) All animals on the island,
µὴν πάντ᾽ εἶναι τὰ ζῶια κατὰ τὴν νῆσον ἄγρια διὰ however, seem to be wild on account of this
τοιαύτην αἰτίαν· (2) οὐ δύνανται κατὰ τὰς νοµὰς reason. (2) Shepherds are not able to follow
συνακολουθεῖν οἱ ποιµαίνοντες τοῖς θρέµµασι διὰ their cattle as they graze, because the island is
τὸ σύνδενδρον καὶ κρηµνώδη καὶ τραχεῖαν εἶναι thickly wooded, rough, and precipitous, but
τὴν νῆσον· ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν βούλωνται συναθροῖσαι, when they want to gather the herds, they
κατὰ τοὺς εὐκαίρους τόπους ἐφιστάµενοι, τῆι station themselves at well-appointed places,
σάλπιγγι συγκαλοῦσι τὰ ζῶια, καὶ πάντα πρὸς τὴν and call them in by trumpet, all the animals
ἰδίαν ἀδιαπτώτως συντρέχει σάλπιγγα. (3) λοιπὸν without fail responding to their own trumpet
ὅταν τινὲς προσπλεύσαντες πρὸς τὴν νῆσον αἶγας call. (3) The result is that when people put in
ἢ βοῦς θεάσωνται νεµοµένας ἐρήµους, κἄπειτα on the island and see goats and oxen grazing
βουληθῶσι καταλαβεῖν, οὐ προσίεται τὰ ζῶια διὰ by themselves, and then try to catch them, the
τὴν ἀσυνήθειαν, ἀλλὰ φεύγει. (4) ὅταν δὲ καὶ animals will not come near on account of
συνιδὼν ὁ ποιµὴν τοὺς ἀποβαίνοντας σαλπίσηι, being unused to them, but flee. (4) When the
προτροπάδην ἅµα φέρεται καὶ συντρέχει πρὸς τὴν shepherd sees strangers disembarking he
σάλπιγγα· διὸ φαντασίαν ἀγρίων ποιεῖ· ὑπὲρ ὧν sounds his trumpet, and the herd sets off at
Τίµαιος κακῶς καὶ παρέργως ἱστορήσας once in response to the call. This creates the
ἐσχεδίασε. (5) τὸ δὲ τῆι σάλπιγγι πειθαρχεῖν οὐκ impression that they are wild. Timaios doing
ἐστι θαυµάσιον ... the work of the historian poorly and casually,
made this random statement. (5) It is not
surprising that the animals respond to the
trumpet call …
Commentary
Polybios’s criticism of Timaios’s account of Corsica may be unfair, in the event that Timaios
was describing Corsica in heroic, not in historical, times. In this case we should expect an
idyllic picture, which would not necessarily correspond to any historical reality (L. Pearson,
The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 71). In any event,
Diodorus, who may have drawn on Timaios for Corsica, presents an image of Corsican noble
savages (5.13.3-14.3; but cf. the savage Corsicans at Strabo 5.2.7 (C224)). On classical
representations of pastoral nomads generally, see B.D. Shaw, ‘Eaters of Flesh, Drinkers of Milk:
The Ancient Mediterranean Ideology of the Pastoral Nomad’, Anc. Soc. 13-14 (1982-1983), 5-31.
On ancient Corsica, see F. Nicosia (ed.), Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares Antiquae. An
International Journal of Archaeology III (Pisa 2005).
BNJ 566 F 4a

Philosophers 1.114
Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: mythology, greek - Library of Congress

1.114
φησὶ δὲ Δηµήτριός τινας ἱστορεῖν ὡς λάβοι παρὰ Demetrios says that some relate how he (scil.
νυµφῶν ἔδεσµά τι καὶ φυλάττοι ἐν χηλῆι βοός· Epimenides) received food from the Nymphs
προσφερόµενός τε κατ᾽ ὀλίγον µηδεµιᾶι and guarded it in a cow’s hoof; that he took
κενοῦσθαι ἀποκρίσει µηδὲ ὀφθῆναί ποτε ἐσθίων.
µέµνηται αὐτοῦ καὶ Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι δευτέραι.
small doses of this food, entirely absorbed, and
that he was never seen eating. Timaios
mentions (Epimenides) in his second book.
Commentary
Diogenes does not make it clear whether Timaios told this story as he relays it or whether he
believed it. Demetrios of Magnesia (cf. E. Schwartz, ‘Demetrios (80)’, RE 4 (1901), cols. 2814-7),
the friend of T. Pomponius Atticus, to whom Demetrios dedicated a work entitled Peri
Homonoias (Cic. Att. 8.11.7; cf. 9.9.2), transmitted this biographical notice on Epimenides of
Crete to Diogenes. Epimenides (Diogenes Laertios 1.109-115) was a legendary wonder-worker
who allegedly visited Athens ca. 500 BC (cf. Plato, Leges 642d); other traditions place him in
Athens about a century earlier (e.g. Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 1). For the context of this
fragment, see Epimenides, BNJ 457 T 1 (cf. O. Kern, ‘Epimenides (2)’, RE 6 (1909), cols. 173-8).
For Timaios’s interest in philosophers and sages, see Commentary to F 2.
BNJ 566 F 4b
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Nemean Odes 9.95a

Work mentioned:
Source date: various
Fragment subject: genealogy - Library of Congress
Scholia, 9.95a
ὅτι δὲ καὶ ὁ Γέλων τῶι Χροµίωι ἐχρῆτο ἑταίρωι, That Gelon had Chromios as a companion is
δῆλον πάλιν ἐξ ὧν φησι Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι <ῑ>β̄ clear again from what Timaios says in his
γράφων οὕτως· «ἐπιτρόπους δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς µετ᾽ eleventh book, writing thus: ‘He appointed,
ἐκεῖνον κατέστησεν ᾽Αριστόνουν καὶ Χρόµιον τοὺς after him, his relatives Aristonous and
κηδεστάς· τούτοις γὰρ ὁ Γέλων δέδωκε τὰς Chromios as guardians of the son; for Gelon
ἀδελφάς». gave his sisters in marriage to these men.
Commentary
Gelon and Chromios: See F 21.
BNJ 566 F 5
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 6.103.272.B

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 6.103.272.B

κἀν τῆι τρίτηι δὲ τῶν ῾Ιστοριῶν ὁ ᾽Επιτίµαιος ἔφη And in the third book of his Histories the
οὕτως εὐδαιµονῆσαι τὴν Κορινθίων πόλιν, ὡς ‘Censurer’ says that the polis of the
κτήσασθαι δούλων µυριάδας ἓξ καὶ Corinthians was so fortunate that it possessed
τεσσαράκοντα· δι᾽ ἃς ἡγοῦµαι καὶ τὴν Πυθίαν 460,000 slaves. On account of this I believe
αὐτοὺς κεκληκέναι χοινικοµέτρας. that the Pythia called them ‘measurers of slave
allowances’.
Commentary
This passage is a continuation of F 11b. The Pythian priestess would have called the
Corinthians ‘measurers of slave allowances’ because of the immense number of slaves at
Corinth needing to be fed. The choinix was the slave’s daily ration, about one and one-half
pints. While it would seem that Corinth’s population was already too great for its resources
before the foundations of Corcyra and Syracuse (cf. K.J. Beloch, Die Bevölkerung der griechisch-
römischen Welt (Leipzig 1886), 119-21), the figure of 460,000 slaves at any time in its history is
impossibly high. Athenaios goes on to report, on the authority of the Chronika of a certain
Ktesikles, fantastical slave numbers in Athens, supposedly based on a census taken by
Demetrios of Phaleron, probably in 311 BC: 21,000 Athenians; 10,000 metics, and 400,000
slaves (Athen. 272c). He also states, citing Aristotle’s Constitution of Aigina, that there were
470,000 slaves on the island of Aigina (Athen. 272d). These figures are incredible and might
suggest errors in textual transmission, but simple emendation of Athenaios’s text is not
possible (J.B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 B.C. (Oxford 1984), 165 n. 2).
Scholars agree that Athenaios’s slave number must be drastically reduced. Modern estimates
of the slave numbers for Athens in the classical period, for example, vary greatly, but many
historians favor a slave population on the order of 100,000. See the brief discussion of Y.
Garlan, Slavery in Ancient Greece (Ithaca 1988), 55-60, with references to earlier literature. For
the nickname ‘Epitimaios’, see Commentary to T 11.
BNJ 566 F 6

Philosophers 8.67
Work mentioned:

8.67
(67) ... περὶ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου διάφορός ἐστιν αὐτοῦ (67) ... There are differing accounts (of
λόγος ... (71) τούτοις δ᾽ ἐναντιοῦται Τίµαιος, ῥητῶςEmpedokles’) death ... (71) Timaios opposes
λέγων ὡς ἐξεχώρησεν εἰς Πελοπόννησον καὶ τὸ these accounts, saying expressly that he (scil.
σύνολον οὐκ ἐπανῆλθεν, ὅθεν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν Empedokles) went to the Peloponnesos and
τελευτὴν ἄδηλον εἶναι. πρὸς δὲ τὸν ῾Ηρακλείδην never returned. This is the reason Timaios
καὶ ἐξ ὀνόµατος ποιεῖται τὴν ἀντίρρησιν ἐν τῆι δ̄ gives for the fact that the manner of his death
(?)· Συρακόσιόν τε γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Πεισιάνακτα καὶ is unknown. He replies to Herakleides, whom
ἀγρὸν οὐκ ἔχειν ἐν ᾽Ακράγαντι, Παυσανίαν τε he mentions by name, in his (fourteenth?)
µνηµεῖον <ἂν> πεποιηκέναι τοῦ φίλου, τοιούτου book. Peisianax, he says, was a citizen of
διαδοθέντος λόγου, ἢ ἀγαλµάτιόν τι ἢ σηκὸν οἷα Syracuse and owned no land at Akragas.
θεοῦ· καὶ γὰρ πλούσιον εἶναι. «πως οὖν» φησίν Moreover, Pausanias, if such a story was
«εἰς τοὺς κρατῆρας ἥλατο, ὧν σύνεγγυς ὄντων known, would have set up a monument to his
οὐδὲ µνείαν ποτὲ ἐπεποίητο; τετελεύτηκεν οὖν ἐν friend, as to a god, in the form of a statue or
Πελοποννήσωι». (72) οὐδὲν δὲ παράδοξον τάφον shrine, for he was wealthy. ‘How did he come’,
αὐτοῦ µὴ φαίνεσθαι· µηδὲ γὰρ ἄλλων πολλῶν. adds Timaios, ‘to leap into the craters, which
τοιαῦτά τινα εἰπὼν ὁ Τίµαιος ἐπιφέρει· «ἀλλὰ διὰ he had never mentioned even once though
παντός ἐστιν ῾Ηρακλείδης τοιοῦτος they were not far away? He must therefore
παραδοξολόγος, καὶ ἐκ τῆς σελήνης πεπτωκέναι have died in the Peloponnesos. It is in no way
ἄνθρωπον λέγων». surprising that his tomb was not found; so
much is true of other men’. After saying these
things Timaios adds, ‘But Herakleides is
everywhere this kind of compiler of
absurdities, telling us, for instance, that a man
came down to earth from the moon’.
Commentary
Diogenes Laertios’s lengthy account of Empedokles (8.51-77) follows that of Pythagoras. The
4th century BC Academician Herakleides of Pontos (D.L. 8.67-68; F 76 Voss) relayed a story
that Empedokles gained fame after he revived a woman from a deathly trance, and that he
offered sacrifice in the field of Peisianax. That night his friend Pausanias said miraculous
things happened and that Empedokles disappeared, joining the gods. Diogenes reports variant
reports of Empedokles’ death, all of which were held to account for the fact that Empedokles’
grave could not be found in Sicily. Timaios found such stories childish and provided a more
rational explanation: Empedokles died in the Peloponnesos. For Empedokles’ political
activities, see Commentary to F 2 above; cf. A. Chitwood, ‘The Death of Empedocles’, AJP 107
(1986), 175-91; Chr. Mauduit, ‘Les miracles d’Empédocle ou La naissance d’un thaumaturge’,
BAGB 4 (1998), 289-309.
BNJ 566 F 7
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.28.8-28a.3

Work mentioned:

12.28.8-28a.3
(28.8) κατὰ γὰρ τὸ προοίµιον τῆς ἕκτης βίβλου (28.8) For in the preface to his sixth book he
φησί τινας ὑπολαµβάνειν διότι τινὸς µείζονος says that some people think that some greater
δεῖται φύσεως, καὶ φιλοπονίας καὶ παρασκευῆς τὸ skill, and hard work and preparation, are more
τῶν ἐπιδεικτικῶν λόγων γένος ἢ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας. the province of declamatory rather than
(9) ταύτας δὲ τὰς δόξας πρότερον µὲν ᾽Εφόρωι historical writing. (9) He says that Ephoros (
φησὶ προσπεσεῖν, οὐ δυνηθέντος δ᾽ ἱκανῶς ἐκείνου BNJ 70 F 111) disapproved of such opinions, but
πρὸς ταῦτα λέγοντας ἀπαντῆσαι, πειρᾶται since that writer was unable to give a
συγκρίνειν αὐτὸς ἐκ παραβολῆς τὴν ἱστορίαν τοῖς satisfactory answer to those who held them, he
ἐπιδεικτικοῖς λόγοις, πρᾶγµα ποιῶν πάντων himself tries to set up a comparison between
ἀτοπώτατον. (10) πρῶτον µὲν τὸ καταψεύσασθαι history and declamatory writing, a most
τοῦ συγγραφέως. ὁ γὰρ ῎Εφορος ... (11) κατὰ δέ surprising thing to do, (10) first of all because
τινα συντυχίαν εὐχαριστότατα καὶ πιθανώτατα his statement about Ephoros is false. For
περὶ τῆς συγκρίσεως εἴρηκε τῆς τῶν Ephoros … (11) it so happens that his remarks
ἱστοριογράφων καὶ λογογράφων. (12) ὁ δ᾽ ἵνα µὴ on the difference between history writers and
δόξηι ταὐτὰ λέγειν ᾽Εφόρωι, πρὸς τῶι speech writers are especially charming and
κατεψεῦσθαι ἐκείνου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν (ἅµα) convincing. (12) But Timaios, so that he may
κατέγν(ωκε· τὰ γὰρ παρ᾿) ἄλλων δεόντως not seem to be copying Ephoros, besides
κεχειρισµένα µακρῶς καὶ ἀσαφῶς καὶ τῶι παντὶ making a false statement about him, [supplied
χεῖρον ἐξηγούµενος οὐδένα τῶν ζώντων ὑπέλαβε from lacunose MS transmission, see
τοῦτο παρατηρήσειν. (28a.1) οὐ µὴν ἀλλὰ Commentary: has simultaneously condemned
βουλόµενος αὔξειν τὴν ἱστορίαν, πρῶτον µὲν all other historians. For dealing] with matters
τηλικαύτην εἶναί φησι διαφορὰν τῆς ἱστορίας πρὸς treated by others correctly at inordinate
τοὺς ἐπιδεικτικοὺς λόγους, ἡλίκην ἔχει τὰ κατ᾽ length, in a confused way, and in all respects
ἀλήθειαν ὠικοδοµηµένα καὶ κατεσκευασµένα τῶν worse, he thinks that not a single sentient
ἐν ταῖς σκηνογραφίαις φαινοµένων τόπων καὶ being will notice this. (28a.1) But rather
διαθέσεων. (2) δεύτερον αὐτὸ τὸ συναθροῖσαί φησι wanting to glorify history, he says that the
τὴν παρασκευὴν τὴν πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν µεῖζον difference between it and declamatory writing
ἔργον εἶναι τῆς ὅλης πραγµατείας τῆς περὶ τοὺς is as great as that between actual buildings
ἐπιδεικτικοὺς λόγους· (3) αὐτὸς γοῦν τηλικαύτην and furniture and the views and compositions
ὑποµεµένηκε δαπάνην καὶ κακοπάθειαν τοῦ in scene-paintings. (2) In the second place he
συναγαγεῖν τὰ παρὰ Τυρίων ὑποµνήµατα καὶ says that mere collection of material required
πολυπραγµονῆσαι τὰ Λιγύων ἔθη καὶ Κελτῶν, for history is a more serious undertaking than
ἅµα δὲ τούτοις ᾽Ιβήρων, ὥστε µηδ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸς the complete course of study in the art of
ἐλπίσαι µήτ᾽ ἂν ἑτέροις ἐξηγούµενος πιστευθῆναι declamatory speaking. (3) He himself, he
περὶ τούτων. claims, had incurred such expense and had
undergone such hardship in collecting
material on the Tyrians (cf. F 81) and in
inquiring into the manners and customs of the
Ligurians and Celts, and together with these
the Iberians, that he could not hope that his
own testimony or that of others would be
believed concerning them (28a.4–10: random
fault-finding of Polybios).
Commentary
The supplements provided at Polybios 12.28.12, are those of Büttner-Wobst, who in this
passage mainly followed the suggestions of two earlier editors, Heysius and Hultsch, of MS M
(Vaticanus 73), a 10th-century palimpsest. Polybios’s own historiographical pronouncements
echo the sentiments which he relays here of Timaios on the differences between historical and
declamatory writing. In a discussion of politeiai in Book 6, Polybios himself dismisses purely
abstract formulations of political theory that find no counterpart among existing states.
Polybios maintains that to compare such theoretical models with actual politeiai is like
comparing statues with living men. For this reason he refuses to discuss Plato’s ideal polity
(6.47.7-10). Polybios castigates Timaios for precisely this reason –Timaios lacked the practical
experience necessary for the writing of history, living as he did for fifty years in Athens among
his books (T 4b, T 4c).
BNJ 566 F 8a
Source: Photios, Lexikon, s.v. Καλλικύριοι ( Suda, s.v. Καλλικύριοι )

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: ethnology - Library of Congress
Photios, Lexikon (ed. Naber, Reitzenstein),

Καλλικύριοι
οἱ ἀντὶ τῶν Γεωµόρων ἐν Συρακούσαις γενόµενοι, The people opposed to the Geomoroi in
πολλοί τινες τὸ πλῆθος – δοῦλοι δ᾽ ἦσαν οὗτοι τῶν Syracuse, many in number – these men were
φυγάδων, ὡς Τίµαιος ἐν ς̄ –, ὅθεν τοὺς ὑπερβολῆι the slaves of fugitives, as Timaios says in his
πολλοὺς Καλλικυρίους ἔλεγον. ὠνοµάσθησαν δὲ sixth book – whence they called the many
ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰς ταὐτὸ συνελθεῖν παντοδαποὶ ὄντες, ὡς from their excess Kallikyrioi (‘Beautiful Lords’).
᾽Αριστοτέλης ἐν Συρακουσίων πολιτείαι, ὅµοιοι They were named from the fact that being a
τοῖς Λακεδαιµονίων Εἵλωσι καὶ παρὰ Θεσσαλοῖς mixed bunch they came together in the same
Πενέσταις καὶ παρὰ Κρησὶν Κλαρώταις. καὶ place, as Aristotle (says) in his Constitution of
παροιµία· Καλλικυρίων πλείους· τοῦτο ἐλέγετο, the Syracusans (F 586 Rose); (they were)
εἴποτε πλῆθος ἤθελον ἐµφῆναι· οἱ γὰρ Καλλικύριοι similar to the Helots among the
δοῦλοι ἦσαν, πλείους τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν, ὥστε καὶ Lakedaimonians and the Penestai among the
αὐτοὺς ἐξέβαλον. Thessalians and the Klarotai among the
Cretans. This was said, if ever the masses
wanted to become prominent. For the
Kallikyrioi were slaves, greater in number than
the masters themselves, with the result that
they threw them out.
Commentary
Herodotos (7.155) mentions the overthrow of the Gamoroi at Syracuse by the exiled democrats
and their slaves, the Kallyrians, in the context of his account of Gelon, tyrant of Gela. Gelon,
according to Herodotos, restored the Gamoroi (land-owners) from Kasmenai to Syracuse, but
thereafter seized control of Syracuse for himself. The events described in F 8a will have
probably occurred shortly before 485 BC, when Gelon seized Syracuse and transferred control
of Gela to his brother Hieron. For the possibility that this fragment refers to earlier events at
Syracuse of the 6th or even 7th century BC, see Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 549. The Killyrioi
(one of the several variant names) may have been Sikels. See also Hesychios, s.v. Killikyrioi;
Arist. F 544 Rose; Eustathios, ad Iliadem 2.584; Zenobios 4.54.
BNJ 566 F 8b
Source: Scholia ad Aeschinem, On the False Embassy 10

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: religion - Library of Congress
Scholia, 10
See F 29.
Commentary
Dream of the woman of Himera concerning Dionysios: See Commentary to F 29.
BNJ 566 F 9
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 12.58.541BC

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 12.58.541BC

περὶ δὲ Σµινδυρίδου τοῦ Συβαρίτου καὶ τῆς τούτου Concerning the Sybarite Smindyrides and his
τρυφῆς ἱστόρησεν ῾Ηρόδοτος ἐν τῆι ἕκτηι, †ὡς luxury Herodotos relates in his sixth book (127)
ἀποπλέων ἐπὶ τὴν µνηστείαν τῆς Κλεισθένους τοῦ that when he sailed away to ask for the hand in
Σικυωνίων τυράννου θυγατρὸς ᾽Αγαρίστης, φησίν marriage of Agariste, daughter of the tyrant of
«ἀπὸ µὲν ᾽Ιταλίης Σµινδυρίδης ὁ ῾Ιπποκράτεος Sikyon, Kleisthenes, ‘from Italy’, Herodotos
Συβαρίτης, ὃς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον δὴ χλιδῆς εἷς ἀνὴρ says, ‘came Smindyrides, son of Hippokrates of
ἀφίκετο»· εἵποντο γοῦν αὐτῶι χίλιοι µάγειροι καὶ Sybaris, who had reached the highest level of
ὀρνιθευταί. ἱστορεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι luxury possible for a man’. He was attended, at
ἑβδόµηι. any rate, by 1,000 cooks and fowlers. Timaios
also gives an account of him in his seventh
book.
Commentary
The story of Smindyrides of Sybaris, the son of Hippokrates, is relayed by Herodotos at 6.127.
Jacoby referred to F 9 as ‘verkürzt und in unordnung’; a sketch of Herodotos’s own meager
account. In fact Herodotos only provides the additional parenthetical remark that at this time
Sybaris was at the height of its luxury. Timaios is probably responsible for the additional detail
of Smindyrides’ cooks and fowlers – this touch would be in keeping with his interests in
traditions concerning excessive luxury at Sybaris, and Athenaios himself would certainly have
been drawn to such material. Timaios returns to the topic at F 47-51 (also from Athenaios).
Sybaris, an Achaean-Troezenian foundation of the later 8th century BC, grew wealthy through
control of Etruscan trade. Neighboring Kroton took advantage of civil unrest in rival Sybaris to
destroy it in 510 BC (Strabo 6.13 (C263); Hdt. 5.44-45; Diod. 12.9-10; Diod. 11.90 provides the date
of 510). Cf. Diod. 8.19, who gives a fuller account of ‘Mindyrides’ the Sybarite; Ath. 6.273b-c. On
the theme of wealth and luxury in Timaios, cf. F 1b (Etruscans); F 5 (Corinthians); F 26a
(Akragas).
BNJ 566 F 10
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 13.32.573CD

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: oracles, greek - Library of Congress
sacrifice - Library of Congress
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 13.32.573CD
νόµιµόν ἐστιν ἀρχαῖον ἐν Κορίνθωι, ὡς καὶ There was an ancient custom at Corinth, as
Χαµαιλέων ὁ ῾Ηρακλεώτης ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῶι Περὶ Chamaileon of Herakleia records in his book
Πινδάρου, ὅταν ἡ πόλις εὔχηται περὶ µεγάλων τῆι On Pindar (F 31 Wehrli), when the polis
᾽Αφροδίτηι, συµπαραλαµβάνεσθαι πρὸς τὴν beseeched Aphrodite in prayer concerning
ἱκετείαν τὰς ἑταίρας ὡς πλείστας, καὶ ταύτας great matters, to invite as many courtesans as
προσεύχεσθαι τῆι θεῶι καὶ ὕστερον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἱεροῖς possible to join in the entreaty, and these
παρεῖναι. καὶ ὅτε δὴ ἐπὶ τὴν ῾Ελλάδα τὴν women added their supplications to the
στρατείαν ἦγεν ὁ Πέρσης, ὡς καὶ Θεόποµπος goddess, and were later attendant upon the
ἱστορεῖ καὶ Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι ἑβδόµηι, αἱ Κορίνθιαι sacrifices. When the Persians campaigned
ἑταῖραι εὔξαντο ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ῾Ελλήνων σωτηρίας, against Hellas, as Theopompos and Timaios in
εἰς τὸν τῆς ᾽Αφροδίτης ἐλθοῦσαι νεών. διὸ καὶ his seventh book relate, the Corinthian
Σιµωνίδης … courtesans prayed for the salvation of Hellas,
entering the temple of Aphrodite. On account
of this Simonides also …
Commentary
Little is known about Chamaileon of Herakleia. He was a Peripatetic whose writings

apparently consisted mainly in literary history and popular philosophy (E. Wendling,
‘Chamaileon (1)’, RE 3 (1899), cols. 2103-4; F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 9 (Basel 1957), 45-
88). For Theopompos, see Commentary to T 15a; for this fragment, cf. BNJ 115 F 285.
Concerning temple prostitution at Corinth, Strabo 8.6.20 (C378) states that there were more
than 1,000 prostitutes dedicated to the temple of Aphrodite (cf. Paus. 2.5.1; F 5 on Corinthian
wealth). For Simonides, see the continuation of the passage from Athenaios at Theopompos,
BNJ 115 F 285; cf. F 104 Diehl. Athenaios (13.573d-e) states that the Corinthians set up in honor
of Aphrodite a bronze tablet (pinaka) preserved until his time, recording the names of the
prostitutes who made supplication on this occasion (Second Persian War). Plutarch Moralia
871a-b (On the Malice of Herodotos 9; cf. Paus. 2.5.1), mentions bronze statues (eikones) set up
in the temple of Aphrodite, for which Simonides wrote an epigram.
BNJ 566 F 11a
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 6.86.264CD

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 6.86.264CD
Τίµαιος δ᾽ ὁ Ταυροµενίτης ἐν τῆι ἐνάτηι τῶν Timaios of Tauromenion in the ninth book of
῾Ιστοριῶν «οὐκ ἦν» φησί «πάτριον τοῖς ῞Ελλησιν his Histories says, ‘It was not customary among
ὑπὸ ἀργυρωνήτων τὸ παλαιὸν διακονεῖσθαι», the Hellenes in ancient times to be served by
γράφων οὕτως· «καθόλου δὲ ἠιτιῶντο τὸν purchased slaves’, writing thus: ‘They entirely
᾽Αριστοτέλη διηµαρτηκέναι τῶν Λοκρικῶν ἐθῶν· censure Aristotle for being wrong about
οὐδὲ γὰρ κεκτῆσθαι νόµον εἶναι τοῖς Λοκροῖς, Locrian customs; for there was not a custom
ὁµοίως δὲ οὐδὲ Φωκεῦσιν, οὐτε θεραπαίνας οὐτε among the Locrians, and likewise not among
οἰκέτας † πλὴν τῶν ἐγγὺς χρόνων, ἀλλὰ πρώτηι the Phokians, to acquire slave-girls and female
τῆι Φιλοµήλου γυναικὶ τοῦ καταλαβόντος attendants (except in recent times), but two
Δελφοὺς δύο θεραπαίνας ἀκολουθῆσαι. female attendants first followed the wife of
παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ Μνάσωνα τὸν ᾽Αριστοτέλους Philomelos when he took Delphi. Likewise,
ἑταῖρον χιλίους οἰκέτας κτησάµενον, διαβληθῆναι Mnason, the companion of Aristotle, having
παρὰ τοῖς Φωκεῦσιν, ὡς τοσούτοις τῶν πολιτῶν acquired one thousand female slaves, was
τὴν ἀναγκαίαν τροφὴν ἀφηιρηµένον· εἰθίσθαι γὰρ castigated among the Phokians, among so
ἐν ταῖς οἰκειακαῖς διακονεῖν τοὺς νεωτέρους τοῖς many of whose citizens the necessary
πρεσβυτέροις». sustenance was taken away; for in their private
dwellings the young men were accustomed to
serve the elders’.
Commentary
The present fragments (F 11a and F 11b) form part of Timaios’s polemic against Aristotle in his
ninth book. F 11b is from a lengthy passage on slaves, in which Athenaios cites numerous
authorities. The passage from Timaios’s ninth book was part of an attack on Aristotle in
defense of the Locrians (see F 12). Aristotle’s account of the Epizephyrian Locrians was most
likely among his Constitutions, which would probably have included foundations (cf. Plut.
Mor. 1093c). Aristotle argued that the Italian Locrians were of servile origin; their ancestors
were slaves from Lokris who took their masters’ wives while they were away assisting the
Spartans during the Messenian war. The text is uncertain at Athenaios 6.264c. MSS AC read
plēn eggus tōn chronōn, which cannot be construed as it stands. Lumb’s reading of egguēi tōn
chronōn would mean something like, ‘except on a guarantee for an agreed time’. The text above
adopts Walbank’s emendation, which results in Timaios stating that among the Locrians and
Phokians it was not customary to possess male or female slaves except in recent times (F.W.
Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 338, suggesting either eggistōn
chronōn or tōn eggus chronōn). This provides a better transition to what follows. Timaios states
that slavery had come much later to the Greek world, with the first woman to have female
slave attendants being the wife of the mid-4th century BC Phokian commander Philomelos
(Theopompos in his twelfth book ( BNJ 115 F 122) famously stated that the Chians were the first
to purchase slaves). Timaios adds that Mnason with his 1,000 slaves was loathsome to the
Phokians because he deprived them of gainful employment (cf. F 5). This statement
undoubtedly formed part of Timaios’s attack on Aristotle, since he relays that Mnason was
Aristotle’s friend. Polybios sided with Aristotle. F 11a and F 11b should stand as Polybios 12.6.7-8,
which would help make sense of Polybios’s refutation of Timaios (12.6a.1-7.2). For Timaios to
mention Philomelos’s wife, Mnason’s slaves, and the 460,000 Corinthian slaves (F 5), all of
later times, does not however contradict his position on earlier times and Locrian origins, as
Polybios seems to allege. See further R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A.1 (1936), col. 1195.
BNJ 566 F 11b
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 6.103.272AB

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 6.103.272AB

Τίµαιος δ᾽ ὁ Ταυροµενίτης ἐκλαθόµενος αὑτοῦ – Timaios the Tauromenian having quite
ἐλέγχει δ᾽ αὐτὸν εἰς τοῦτο Πολύβιος ὁ forgotten himself – and Polybios the
Μεγαλοπολίτης διὰ τῆς δωδεκάτης τῶν ῾Ιστοριῶν Megalopolitan criticizes him on this count
– οὐκ εἶναι ἔφη σύνηθες τοῖς ῞Ελλησι δούλους throughout the twelfth book of his Histories
κτᾶσθαι, αὐτὸς εἰπὼν ὁ ᾽Επιτίµαιος …, [εἰπὼν (12.6.7) – he says that it was not customary for
γὰρ] ὅτι Μνάσων ὁ Φωκεὺς πλείους ἐκέκτητο the Hellenes to acquire (purchased) slaves, the
δούλους τῶν χιλίων. κἀν τῆι τρίτηι … ‘Censurer’ himself speaking (T 16) … saying
that Mnason the Phokian had acquired more
than one thousand slaves. And in the third
book …
Commentary
See Commentary to F 11a. For the nickname ‘Epitimaios’, see Commentary to T 11.
BNJ 566 F 12

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: autobiography - Library of Congress
chronology, historical - Library of Congress

11.5
(5.1) ἐµοὶ δὴ συµβαίνει καὶ παραβεβληκέναι (5.1) I have had the opportunity to visit Lokris
πλεονάκις εἰς τὴν τῶν Λοκρῶν πόλιν καὶ several times and to render important services
παρεσχῆσθαι χρείας αὐτοῖς ἀναγκαίας … (3) ἐξ ὧν to the Locrians … (3) In consequence … they
… ἡµᾶς ἠµείψαντο τοῖς τιµίοις καὶ φιλανθρώποις· awarded me with honors and favors. On
διόπερ ὀφείλω µᾶλλον εὐλογεῖν Λοκροὺς ἢ account of this I ought to speak well of the
τοὐναντίον. (4) ἀλλ᾽ ὅµως οὐκ ὤκνησα καὶ λέγειν Locrians rather than the reverse. (4) But
καὶ γράφειν ὅτι τὴν ὑπ᾽ ᾽Αριστοτέλους nevertheless I have not hesitated to affirm
παραδιδοµένην ἱστορίαν περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας orally and in writing that the account we have
ἀληθινωτέραν εἶναι συµβαίνει τῆς ὑπὸ Τιµαίου received from Aristotle about the foundation
λεγοµένης. (5) σύνοιδα γὰρ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις of the colony is more accurate than that of
ὁµολογοῦσιν ὅτι παραδόσιµος αὐτοῖς ἐστιν αὕτη Timaios. (5) For I understand that men agree
περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας ἡ φήµη παρὰ πατέρων, ἣν that the tradition concerning the colonization
᾽Αριστοτέλης εἴρηκεν, οὐ Τίµαιος· καὶ τούτων γε at Lokris is handed down from the fathers,
τοιαύτας ἔφερον ἀποδείξεις. (6) πρῶτον µὲν ὅτι which Aristotle has said (Aristotle F 541 Rose),
πάντα τὰ διὰ προγόνων ἔνδοξα παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ but not Timaios. And concerning this they
τῶν γυναικῶν, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐστιν, οἷον bring the following proofs. (6) First of all that
εὐθέως εὐγενεῖς παρά σφισι νοµίζεσθαι τοὺς ἀπὸ at Lokris all ancestral nobility stems from the
τῶν ἑκατὸν οἰκιῶν λεγοµένους· (7) ταύτας δ᾽ εἶναι women, not from the men, as for example
τὰς ἑκατὸν οἰκίας τὰς προκριθείσας ὑπὸ τῶν those who are said to be from the ‘hundred
Λοκρῶν πρὶν ἢ τὴν ἀποικίαν ἐξελθεῖν, ἐξ ὧν houses’. (7) These were those one hundred
ἔµελλον οἱ Λοκροὶ κατὰ τὸν χρησµὸν κληροῦν τὰς houses distinguished by the Locrians before
ἀποσταλησοµένας παρθένους εἰς ῎Ιλιον. (8) the setting out of the colony, the families from
τούτων δή τινας τῶν γυναικῶν συνεξᾶραι µετὰ τῆς which the Locrians, in accordance with the
ἀποικίας, ὧν τοὺς ἀπογόνους ἔτι νῦν εὐγενεῖς oracle, were to select by lot the virgins they
νοµίζεσθαι καὶ καλεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκατὸν had to send to Troy. (8) Some of these women
οἰκιῶν. (9) πάλιν ὑπὲρ τῆς φιαληφόρου παρ᾽ (scil. they had had intercourse with their
αὐτοῖς λεγοµένης τοιαύτη τις ἱστορία παραδέδοτο, slaves and fled with them while their
(10) διότι καθ᾽ ὃν καιρὸν τοὺς Σικελοὺς ἐκβάλοιεν husbands were away in the Messenian War)
τοὺς κατασχόντας τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῆς ᾽Ιταλίας, left with the colony, and it is their descendants
ὧν καὶ ταῖς θυσίαις προηγεῖτο τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων who are still considered noble and called ‘of
καὶ τῶν εὐγενεστάτων ὑπάρχων παῖς, αὐτοὶ καὶ the hundred houses’. (9) Again, concerning the
πλείω τῶν Σικελικῶν ἐθῶν παραλαβόντες, διὰ τὸ so-called ‘vessel-carrier’ this is the received
µηδὲν αὐτοῖς πάτριον ὑπάρχειν καὶ τοῦτο history. (10) When they expelled the Sikels
διαφυλάττοιεν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνων, (11) αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο who had held this site in Italy, at whose
διορθώσαιντο τὸ µὴ παῖδα ποιεῖν ἐξ αὑτῶν τὸν sacrifices the procession was led by a boy from
φιαληφόρον ἀλλὰ παρθένον διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν one of the most renowned and noble families,
γυναικῶν εὐγένειαν. (6.1) συνθῆκαι δὲ πρὸς µὲν the Locrians took over several of the Sikelian
τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ῾Ελλάδα Λοκροὺς οὐτ᾽ ἦσαν οὐτ᾽ rites. Since they had no inherited ritual of their
ἐλέγοντο παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς γεγονέναι, πρὸς µέντοι own, they retained among others this
Σικελοὺς πάντες εἶχον ἐν παραδόσει ... (6) ... particular one, (11) but made only this change
ταῦτα µὲν οὖν λέγεται παρὰ Λοκροῖς. (6a.1) ἐκ in it: they did not appoint one of their noble
τούτων ἄν τις συλλογιζόµενος ᾽Αριστοτέλει boys to be ‘vessel-carrier’, but one of their
πρόσχοι µᾶλλον ἢ Τιµαίωι· καὶ µὴν τὸ συνεχὲς maidens, because nobility among them was
τούτωι τελέως ἄτοπον. (2) τὸ γὰρ ὑπολαµβάνειν, derived from the women. (6.1) There were no
καθάπερ ἐκεῖνος ὑποδείκνυσιν, ὡς οὐκ εἰκὸς ἦν treaties with the Locrians in Hellas, nor were
τοὺς οἰκέτας τῶν Λακεδαιµονίοις συµµαχησάντων any ever said to have existed, but everybody
τὴν τῶν κυρίων εὐνοιαν ἀναφέρειν πρὸς τοὺς knew of the one with the Sikels … (6.2-5
ἐκείνων φίλους εὐηθες ... (6b.3) ἧι καὶ τὸ τοὺς treacherous treaty with the Sikels) (6) ... Such
᾽Αθηναίους πορθῆσαι τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν οὐδέν ἐστι is the account given by the Locrians. (6a.1)
σηµεῖον ψευδῆ λέγειν τὸν ᾽Αριστοτέλην·. (4) From these things one could conclude that we
εὐλόγου γὰρ ὄντος ἐκ τῶν προειρηµένων, εἰ καὶ should rely on Aristotle rather than Timaios.
δεκάκις ἦσαν οἰκέται, τοῦ προσπεποιῆσθαι τὴν And what follows in the latter is most peculiar.
τῶν Λακεδαιµονίων φιλίαν τοὺς ἐξάραντας ἐκ τῶν (2) For it is silly to suppose, as he suggests, that
Λοκρῶν καὶ κατασχόντας εἰς τὴν ᾽Ιταλίαν, it was improbable that the slaves of those who
εὔλογος γίνεται καὶ ἡ τῶν ᾽Αθηναίων ἀλλοτριότης had been allies of the Lakedaimonians should
ἡ πρὸς (αὐτοὺς) τοὺς προειρηµένους, οὐκ adopt the kindly disposition of their masters
ἐξεταζόντων <οὕτως> τὸ γένος ὡς τὴν προαίρεσιν. for the friends of those masters … (6a.3-6b.2;
(5) νὴ Δία ἀλλὰ πῶς αὐτοὶ µὲν ἐξαπέστελλον οἱ such slave relations were common in earlier
Λακεδαιµόνιοι τοὺς ἀκµάζοντας εἰς τὴν πατρίδα times, and with the Italian Locrians). (3) For
τεκνοποιίας χάριν, τοὺς δὲ Λοκροὺς τὸ this reason also the fact that the Athenians
παραπλήσιον οὐκ εἴων ποιεῖν … (9) διόπερ οἱ ravaged their land is no proof that Aristotle’s
Λοκροὶ µήτε ταῖς ἀραῖς ὄντες ἔνοχοι µήτε τοῖς statements are not correct. (4) For it follows
ὅρκοις <οἷς> ὤµοσαν οἱ Λακεδαιµόνιοι … τῆς µὲν from what I have said that even if they had
κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν ἐξαποστολῆς εὐλόγως οὐ been slaves ten times over these men who set
µετέσχον, (10) κατὰ δὲ µέρος τὰς ἐπανόδους sail from Lokris and landed in Italy would have
ποιούµενοι καὶ σπανίως ἔδοσαν ἀναστροφὴν ταῖς shown themselves to be friends of the
γυναιξὶ πρὸς οἰκέτας γενέσθαι συνηθεστέραν ἢ Lakedaimonians, and it is reasonable to
πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄνδρας, ταῖς δὲ παρθένοις καὶ suppose also that the Athenians would be
µᾶλλον· ὃ καὶ τῆς ἐξαναστάσεως αἴτιον γέγονεν ... hostile to all of these Locrians, not so much
(9.1) σκεψώµεθα δὴ καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Τιµαίου because of their ancestry as because of their
προαίρεσιν, καὶ τὰς ἀποφάσεις συγκρίνωµεν ἐκ political sympathies. (5) How again, I ask,
παραθέσεως, ἃς πεποίηται περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς could the Lakedaimonians who had once sent
ἀποικίας, ἵνα γνῶµεν πότερος ἄξιος ἔσται τῆς home those in the bloom of life to procreate
τοιαύτης κατηγορίας. (2) φησὶ τοιγαροῦν κατὰ have refused permission to the Locrians to do
τὴν αὐτὴν βίβλον, οὐκέτι κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν εἰκότα the same thing? ... (9) Therefore the Locrians,
λόγον χρώµενος τοῖς ἐλέγχοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθινῶς who were not subject to the same curse as the
αὐτὸς ἐπιβαλὼν εἰς τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ῾Ελλάδα Lakedaimonians, nor bound by an oath as they
Λοκρούς, ἐξετάζειν τὰ περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας. (3) τοὺς were … understandably did not imitate them
δὲ πρῶτον µὲν ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτῶι συνθήκας in a general message to their wives, (10) but
ἐγγράπτους, ἔτι καὶ νῦν διαµενούσας πρὸς τοὺς returning home singly and sporadically
ἐξαπεσταλµένους, αἷς ἐπιγεγράφθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν permitted their wives to become more familiar
τοιαύτην «ὡς γονεῦσι πρὸς τέκνα». (4) πρὸς δὲ with their slaves than with their original
τούτοις εἶναι δόγµατα, καθ᾽ ἃ πολιτείαν ὑπάρχειν husbands, and allowed their maidens still
ἑκατέροις παρ᾽ ἑκατέροις. καθόλου δὲ ἀκούοντας more leniency, which was the cause of the
τὴν ᾽Αριστοτέλους ἐξήγησιν περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας emigration … (7–8 Timaios’s specific and
θαυµάζειν τὴν ἰταµότητα τοῦ συγγραφέως. (5) general polemic against Aristotle and
µεταβὰς δὲ πάλιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐν ᾽Ιταλίαι Λοκρούς, Theophrastos; F 156) (9.1) Let us now consider
εὑρίσκειν ἀκολούθους καὶ τοὺς νόµους φησὶ τοὺς Timaios’s own deliberate statement and
παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ τοὺς ἐθισµοὺς οὐ τῆι τῶν οἰκετῶν compare his account with that of Aristotle
ῥαιδιουργίαι, τῆι δὲ τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀποικίαι. (6) concerning this same colony, so that we can
πάντως γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἀνδραποδισταῖς ἐπιτίµια find which of the two deserves such an
τετάχθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, ὁµοίως τοῖς µοιχοῖς, τοῖς accusation. (2) He tells us, then, in the same
δραπέταις, ὧν οὐδὲν ἂν ὑπάρχειν, εἰ συνήιδεισαν book, that he investigated the history of the
αὑτοῖς ἐκ τοιούτων πεφυκόσι. (10.1) πρῶτον δὴ colony, no longer applying the test of mere
διαπορήσαι τις ἂν πρὸς τίνας τῶν Λοκρῶν probability, but that he himself visited the
παραγενόµενος ἐπυνθάνετο περὶ τούτων ... (3) Locrians in Hellas. (3) He records first that
ἐπεὶ δὲ δύο ἔθνη Λοκρῶν ἐστι, πρὸς ποτέρους ἦλθε they showed him written treaties, still
…. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἡµῖν διασαφεῖται τούτων. (4) καίτοι preserved between them and the emigrants,
διότι τοῦτ᾽ ἴδιόν ἐστι Τιµαίου καὶ ταύτηι with the following phrase at the outset, ‘As
παρηµίλληται τοὺς ἄλλους συγγραφέας καὶ parents to children’. (4) In addition there were
καθόλου τῆιδέ πηι τῆς ἀποδοχῆς – λέγω δὲ κατὰ decrees which safeguarded mutual citizenship
τὴν ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς ἐπίφασιν between the states. When they heard
τῆς ἀκριβείας καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦτο τὸ µέρος Aristotle’s account of the colony they were
ἐπιµέλειαν – δοκῶ, πάντες γινώσκοµεν. (5) διὸ completely stunned by the writer’s
καὶ θαυµάζειν ἐστὶν ἄξιον, πῶς οὐτε τὸ τῆς recklessness. (5) Moving then to the Italian
πόλεως ὄνοµα, παρ᾽ οἶς εὗρεν, οὐτε <τὸν> τόπον, Locrians Timaios says he found their laws and
ἐν ὧι συµβαίνει τὴν συνθήκην ἀναγεγράφθαι, customs also were suitable not to a pack of
διεσάφησεν ἡµῖν οὐτε τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς slothful slaves but to a settlement of free men.
δείξαντας αὐτῶι τὴν ἀναγραφὴν καὶ πρὸς οὓς (6) For indeed there were punishments in
ἐποιεῖτο τὸν λόγον ... (6) ὁ δὲ πάντα ταῦτα their laws for kidnappers as well as for
παραλελοιπὼς δῆλός ἐστι συνειδὼς αὑτῶι κατὰ adulterers and fugitive slaves, which would not
πρόθεσιν ἐψευσµένωι. διότι γὰρ τῶν τοιούτων have been the case had they been aware that
ἐπιλαβόµενος οὐδὲν ἂν παρέλειπε Τίµαιος, ἀλλ᾽ they were descended from such men. (10.1) In
ἀπρίξ (τὸ δὴ λεγόµενον) ἀµφοῖν ταῖν χεροῖν the first place one is at a loss to know which of
ἐπέφυ, προφανὲς ἐκ τούτων· (7) ὁ γὰρ πρὸς τὴν the Locrians in Hellas he visited in order to
᾽Εχεκράτους πίστιν ἀπερεισάµενος ἐπ᾽ ὀνόµατος, make his inquiry … (3) But since there are two
πρὸς ὅν φησι περὶ τῶν ἐν ᾽Ιταλίαι Λοκρῶν sets of Locrians in Hellas, we ask to which he
ποιήσασθαι τοὺς λόγους, (8) καὶ παρ᾽ οὗ πυθέσθαι went … he gives no information on this. (4)
περὶ τούτων, καὶ προσεξειργασµένος, ἵνα µὴ φανῆι And yet it is Timaios’s special claim and the
τοῦ τυχόντος ἀκηκοώς, ὅτι συνέβαινε τὸν τούτου very thing in which he outdoes other authors
πατέρα πρεσβείας κατηξιῶσθαι πρότερον ὑπὸ and which is the main cause of his reputation
Διονυσίου, (9) ἦ πού γ᾽ ἂν οὗτος δηµοσίας – I mean to say his display of accuracy in
ἀναγραφῆς ἐπιλαβόµενος ἢ παραδοσίµου στήλης chronology and public records and the great
παρεσιώπησεν; ... (11.2) καὶ µὴν ὁ τὰς care he gives to these things – as I expect
ὀπισθοδόµους στήλας καὶ τὰς ἐν ταῖς φλιαῖς τῶν everyone knows. (5) So that it is surprising that
νεῶν προξενίας ἐξευρηκὼς Τίµαιός ἐστιν, (3) ὃν he does not supply the name of the polis
οὐθ᾽ ὑπάρχον τι τῶν τοιούτων ἀγνοεῖν οὐθ᾽ where he found the treaty or the exact place
εὑρόντα παραλιπεῖν πιστευτέον οὐτε ψευσαµένωι where it is inscribed, nor who the magistrates
συγγνώµην δοτέον οὐδαµῶς· (4) πικρὸς γὰρ were who showed him this document and
γεγονὼς καὶ ἀπαραίτητος ἐπιτιµητὴς τῶν πέλας with whom he spoke ... (6) That he fails to
εἰκότως ἂν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πλησίον αὐτὸς inform us on all these matters is a clear proof
ἀπαραιτήτου τυγχάνει κατηγορίας. (5) οὐ µὴν that he knew he was willfully lying. Had
ἀλλὰ προφανῶς ἐν τούτοις ἐψευσµένος, µεταβὰς Timaios possessed such information, he would
ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐν ᾽Ιταλίαι Λοκροὺς πρῶτον µέν φησι τήν not have withheld a word of it, but, as the
τε πολιτείαν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ φιλάνθρωπα τοῖς phrase is, would have held tightly onto it with
Λοκροῖς ἀµφοτέροις <ὑπάρχειν ὅµοια (?), τὸν δ᾽> both hands – this is patent from the following
᾽Αριστοτέλη καὶ Θεόφραστον κατεψεῦσθαι τῆς consideration. (7) Would the writer who
πόλεως. names Echekrates as his source, having
consulted him about the Italian Locrians (8)
and obtained his information from him, the
writer who, not to seem to have heard all of
this from someone of no importance, takes the
trouble to tell us that this Echekrates’ father
had formerly been deemed worthy of
appointment as an envoy by Dionysios – (9)
would such a writer, I ask, if he had obtained a
public record or commemorative inscription,
have been silent about it? ... (11.2) And indeed
it is Timaios who discovered inscriptions in
the back of buildings and lists of proxenoi on
the jambs of temples. (3) We cannot then
believe that he would have missed any thing of
this sort had it existed, or failed to mention it
if he had discovered it, nor can we in any way
forgive his mendacity. (4) Being himself a most
bitter and implacable critic of other writers, he
can expect to receive implacable criticism at
the hands of others. (5) Moreover, obviously
guilty of mendacity regarding this matter, he
moves on to the Italian Locrians and says that
he found in the first place the politeia and
culture of both these Locrians and the ones in
Hellas to be the same, but that Aristotle and
Theophrastos had falsely accused the Italian
polis.
Commentary
Polybios charges Timaios in this fragment with dishonesty about his research methodology
and failure to undertake the hardships required of the historian – standard Polybian
complaints against rival historians. Polybios’s personal connections with the Italian Locrians
can explain the detailed criticism of Timaios’s account. Polybios believed it to be particularly
devastating to Timaios’s credibility that Timaios did not specify which Locrians in Greece he
had visited. Paus. 3.3.1 may hint at the tradition of servile origins of the Italian Locrians. F.W.
Walbank (A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 331) suggests that this tradition
arose in an attempt to explain matrilineal customs among the Epizephyrian Locrians (see 333,
for scanty additional suggestions of matrilineal customs among the Locrians; archaeological
excavations at the site are suggestive in this context, especially the U-shaped stoa and the
extramural Mannella sanctuary, which show the prominence of Aphrodite and Persephone,
and the richly appointed women’s graves). The tradition on the servile origins of the western
Locrians may have gained ground as part of democratic propaganda in factional struggles at
the time of Dionysios II, which attempted to slander the aristocratic ‘Hundred Houses’.
Aristotle states that the Locrians’ polis fell when the nobility was allowed to make marriage
connections with whomever they liked (Politics 1307a38; the reference is to the marriage in 397
BC of Dionysios I and Doris, a Locrian noble woman, which produced Dionysios II). Generally,
Polybios sides with Aristotle and against Timaios on Locrian origins. Aristotle’s account of the
origins of the Epizephyrian Locrians was probably contained in his Consitutions, which are
likely to have included foundations (cf. Plut. Mor. 1093c, ktiseis kai politeiai; Chr. Sourvinou-
Inwood, ‘The Votum of 477/6 B.C. and the Foundation Legend of Locri Epizephyrii’, Classical
Quarterly 24 (1974), 186-98). For a wide-ranging and somewhat idiosyncratic study of the
Epizephyrian Locrian women, see James M. Redfield, The Locrian Maidens: Love and Death in
Greek Italy (Princeton 2003). Polybios’s primary motivation for writing Book 12, in the main an
extended attack on Timaios, would seem to have been in response to Timaios’s misstatements
about Africa, which is the subject at the opening of the book and becomes increasingly
important in the narration of Scipio Africanus’s career, rather than the history and customs of
the Italian Locrians (Walbank, Commentary on Polybius 2, 317). See Commentaries to T 17, T 19,
T 20, and F 7; Walbank, Commentary on Polybius 2, 330-63.
BNJ 566 F 13a
Source: Scholia (T) on Plato Phaedrus 279C

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 279C (T)

κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων· ἐπὶ τῶν εὖ µεταδότων. φασὶ The things of friends are common; concerning
δὲ λεχθῆναι πρῶτον τὴν παροιµίαν περὶ τὴν those sharing well. They say first there is a
Μεγάλην ῾Ελλάδα, καθ᾽ οὓς χρόνους ὁ Πυθαγόρας proverb around Magna Graecia, at which time
ἔπειθε τοὺς αὐτὴν κατοικοῦντας ἀδιανέµητα Pythagoras persuaded those living there to
πάντα κεκτῆσθαι. φησὶ γοῦν ὁ Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι θ̄ possess all things undivided. Timaios at any
οὕτω· «προσιόντων δ᾽ οὖν αὐτῶι τῶν νεωτέρων καὶ rate says in the ninth book the following:
βουλοµένων συνδιατρίβειν, οὐκ εὐθὺς ‘When new people came to him and desired to
συνεχώρησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔφη δεῖν καὶ τὰς οὐσίας κοινὰς live with him, he did not immediately agree,
εἶναι τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων». εἶτα µετὰ πολλὰ φησί· but he said that it was necessary also that
«καὶ δι᾽ ἐκείνους πρῶτον ῥηθῆναι κατὰ τὴν possessions of chance persons be common’.
᾽Ιταλίαν ὅτι κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων». ἐµνήσθη δὲ And then besides much else he says, ‘And on
ταύτης καὶ ᾽Αριστοτέλης ἐν τῶι θ̄ τῶν ᾽Ηθικῶν. account of these people it was first said
Κλέαρχος δέ φησιν ὑπὸ Χαλκιδέων τῶν ἐν Εὐβοίαι throughout Italy that ‘the things of friends are
πεµφθῆναι δῶρα εἰς Δελφοὺς ᾽Απόλλωνι καὶ common’’. And Aristotle also makes mention
᾽Αρτέµιδι· τῶν δὲ Δελφῶν µαντευοµένων, εἰ ἐξ of this in the ninth book of his Ethics (Ethica
ἴσης τὴν ἀνάθεσιν ποιήσωνται, ἔφησεν ὁ θεὸς κοινὰNicomachea 8.11.1159B31). Klearchos (F 72
τὰ τῶν φίλων. καὶ Μένανδρος ἐν ᾽Αδελφοῖς β̄ ... Wehrli) says that gifts were sent by the
Chalcidians in Euboia to Delphi for Apollo and
Artemis. And when the Delphian priests
interpreted, the god said that, if they made the
dedication from an equal share, ‘the things of
friends are common’. Also Menander in the
second Aldelphoi (PCG 6.2, F 13) …
Commentary
The present fragment is excerpted from D. L.’s account of Pythagoras (8.1-50). Timaios’s
interest in Pythagoras and Pythagoreans is well-attested among fragments from his ninth and
tenth books (F 13b, F 14, F 16, F 17, F 131, F 132). Pythagorean influence in southern Italy began
with Pythagoras’s travels from Samos to Kroton ca. 530 BC. Under a Pythagorean political
system Kroton gained supremacy among Achaian towns in Italy, but the Italian Pythagorean
communities were extinguished between 460 and 400 BC (cf. Polyb. 2.39, with F.W. Walbank,
A Historical Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957), 222-24). Since little is known about the
Pythagorean political communities, it is best to resist the idea, which would seem to be
encouraged by the present fragment, that they were organized along radically egalitarian
socio-economic lines, as Phaleas of Chalcedon advocated (Arist. Pol. 1266A31-67B21, with R.
Balot, ‘Aristotle’s Critique of Phaleas: Justice, Equality, and Pleonexia’, Hermes 129 (2001), 32-
44). Polybios (2.39.2-3), at least, implies that it was the wealthy aristocrats who perished when
the Pythagorean synedria were put down. For the Pythagoran ‘way of life’, cf. Pl. Rep. 600b. The
Pythagorean doctrines that friends should have all things in common and that friendship is
equality were among the best known proverbs of ancient Greek communistic political
thought. See D. Dawson, Cities of the Gods: Communistic Utopias in Greek Thought (Oxford
1992), 14-21; D.F. Harvey, ‘Two Kinds of Equality’, ClMed 26 (1965), 101-46.
BNJ 566 F 13b

Philosophers 8.10
Work mentioned:

8.10
εἶπέ τε πρῶτος, ὥς φησι Τίµαιος, «κοινὰ τὰ φίλων He (scil. Pythagoras) first said, as Timaios
εἶναι καὶ φιλίαν ἰσότητα». καὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ µαθηταὶ reports, ‘the things of friends are common and
κατετίθεντο τὰς οὐσίας εἰς ἓν ποιούµενοι, friendship is equality’. And his disciples made
πενταετίαν τε ἡσύχαζον, µόνων τῶν λόγων their possessions one, and lived in silence for
κατακούοντες καὶ οὐδέπω Πυθαγόραν ὁρῶντες, five years, listening to his discourses and not
εἰς ὃ δοκιµασθεῖεν· τοὐντεῦθεν δὲ ἐγίνοντο τῆς seeing him, until they passed his test, and from
οἰκίας αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς ὄψεως µετεῖχον. then on they were admitted to his house and
permitted to see him.
Commentary
Diogenes (8.15) goes on to state that down to the time of Philolaos (b. ca. 470 BC; cf. C.
Huffman, Philolaus of Croton (Cambridge 1993)), Pythagorean doctrines were secret, that
Pythagoras’s lectures were held at night, and that it was a great privilege to have actually seen
the master (cf. D. L. 8.55: lectures were open to all Pythagoreans until Empedokles included
Pythagorean ideas in his poetry). On Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, see further Commentary
to F 13a; cf. Ch. H. Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History (Indianapolis 2001),
5-62.
BNJ 566 F 14

Philosophers 8.54
Work mentioned:

8.54
ἀκοῦσαι δ᾽ αὐτὸν Πυθαγόρου Τίµαιος διὰ τῆς In the ninth book Timaios relates that he (scil.
ἐνάτης ἱστορεῖ, λέγων ὅτι καταγνωσθεὶς ἐπὶ Empedokles) was a pupil of Pythagoras,
λογοκλοπίαι τότε (καθὰ καὶ Πλάτων) τῶν λόγων stating that, having been convicted at that
ἐκωλύθη µετέχειν. µεµνῆσθαι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν time of stealing his lectures, he was, like Plato,
Πυθαγόρου λέγοντα «ἦν δέ τις ἐν κείνοισιν ἀνὴρ excluded from taking part in the discussions of
περιώσια εἰδώς, / ὃς δὴ µήκιστον πραπίδων the school. Furthermore, he remembers
ἐκτήσατο πλοῦτον». οἱ δὲ τοῦτο εἰς Παρµενίδην Pythagoras in saying (Vorsokr.5 31[21]B129),
αὐτὸν λέγειν ἀναφέροντα. ‘And there lived among them a man of
superhuman knowledge, who truly possessed
the greatest wealth of wisdom’. Others say that
it is to Parmenides that he is here referring.
Commentary
Empedokles was thought to have popularized secret Pythagorean doctrine in his poetry (D. L.
8.55); it was for this reason that he was excommunicated from Pythagorean society. On
Empedoclean doctrine, see G. Casertano, ‘Orfismo e pitagorismo in Empedocle?’, in Tra Orfeo e
Pitagora: Origini e incontri di culture nell’antichità, ed. by M. Tortorelli Ghidini, A. Storchi
Marino, and A. Visconti (Naples 2000), 195-232; Commentary to F 13a and F 13b; cf. Jacoby,
FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 552.
BNJ 566 F 15
Source: Cyril, Against Emperor Julian 6.208

Work mentioned:
Source date: 4th century AD 5th century AD
Cyril (Kyrillos of Alexandria), Contra

Julianum imperatorem (Spanheim E.), 6.208
Πορφύριος ἐν τῶι τρίτωι τῆς Φιλοσόφου ἱστορίας· Porphyrios of Tyre (F 213F Smith) in the third
... δηµιουργὸν γὰρ γενέσθαι τὸν Σωκράτην book of his history of philosophy …
πατρώιαι τέχνηι χρώµενον τῆι λατυπικῆι [Aristoxenos (F 51 Wehrli) records] that
<᾽Αριστόξενος ἱστορεῖ>· καὶ Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι ἐνάτηι Socrates was a day-laborer employed in his
λιθουργεῖν φησὶ µεµαθηκέναι Σωκράτην. εἰ δὲ ὁ inherited craft, stone-hewing. And Timaios in
µὲν διὰ δυσµένειαν <ἀν>αξιόπιστος, Τίµαιος δὲ his ninth book says that Socrates learned
διὰ ἡλικίαν – νεώτερος γάρ [ὁ ᾽Αριστόξενος] –, stone-working. If he is unworthy of trust on
Μενεδήµωι τῶι Πυρραίωι χρηστέον, Πλάτωνος account of his enmity, and Timaios on account
µὲν γεγονότι µαθητῆι, πρεσβυτέρωι δὲ γεγονότι of his age – for [Aristoxenos] was the younger
᾽Αριστοξένου, λέγοντι … ὅτι οὐκ ἐπαύετο – appeal must be made to Menedemos of
Σωκράτης οὐτε ὑπὲρ τοῦ πατρὸς ὡς λιθουργοῦ Pyrrha, having been a student of Plato, and
λαλῶν οὐτε ὑπὲρ τῆς µητρὸς ὡς µαίας. older than Aristoxenos, who says … that
Socrates did not stop from chattering under
the influence of his father as a stone-worker
nor his mother as a nurse.
Commentary
For a fuller text of this excerpt from Porphyry, see BNJ 260 F 8. Porphyry’s extant Life of
Pythagoras is an excerpt from his History of Philosophy. Aristoxenos of Tarentum was a
student in Athens of the Pythagorean Xenophilos and later of Aristotle. Passed over in favor of
Theophrastos as head of the Lyceum, he apparently vented his anger in attacks on Socrates,
Plato, and Aristotle (Suda, s.v. Aristoxenos; F 25-30, 33 Wehrli; K. von Jan, ‘Aristoxenos (7)’, RE 2
(1896), cols. 1057-65). Menedemos was passed over as head of the Academy in favor of
Xenokrates; he thereupon founded his own school, about which little is known (K. von Fritz,
‘Menedemos (8)’, RE 15 (1935), col. 788). Platonic dialogues will have made mention of Socrates
in connection with discussion of Pythagoras easy and natural. Duris of Samos also referred to
Socrates as a common laborer ( BNJ 76 F 78); and Timaios further displays his anti-banausic
prejudices against Agathokles (F 124c).
BNJ 566 F 16
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 4.56.163EF

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 4.56.163EF

Τίµαιος δ᾽ ὁ Ταυροµενίτης ἐν τῆι ἐνάτηι τῶν Timaios the Tauromenian in the ninth book of
῾Ιστοριῶν περὶ αὐτοῦ γράφει οὕτως· «Διοδώρου his Histories writes thus concerning him:
τοῦ τὸ γένος ᾽Ασπενδίου τὴν ἐξηλλαγµένην ‘Diodoros, an Aspendian by birth, introduced
εἰσαγαγόντος κατασκευὴν καὶ τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις an eccentric lifestyle, pretending he had close
πεπλησιακέναι προσποιηθέντος, πρὸς ὃν connections with Pythagoreans. To him
ἐπιστέλλων ὁ Στρατόνικος ἐκέλευσε τὸν Stratonikos sent a messenger, enjoining him to
ἀπαίροντα τὸ ῥηθὲν ἀπαγγεῖλαι «τῶι περὶ report his commands as he departed, “to that
θηροπέπλου µανίας ὕβρεώς τε περιστάσιµον / lackey of Pythagoras who crowds the Porch
στοὰν ἔχοντι Πυθαγόρου πελάται»». with those amazed at his beast-robed insanity
and insolence’’’.
Commentary
Diodoros of Aspendos, active in the 4th century BC, was one of the last followers of the old
Pythagorean doctrines, which had begun to admit philosophical elements of the Cynic school
(cf. D. L. 6.13; E. Wellmann, ‘Diodoros (40)’, RE 5 (1905), col. 705). For Diodoros’s Cynic
affectations, see the full text at Athenaios 4.163d-f.
BNJ 566 F 17

Philosophers 8.11
Work mentioned:

8.11
Τίµαιός τέ φησιν ἐν δεκάτωι ῾Ιστοριῶν λέγειν Timaios says in the tenth book of his Histories
αὐτὸν τὰς συνοικούσας ἀνδράσι θεῶν ἔχειν that (Pythagoras) said women living with men
ὀνόµατα, Κόρας, Νύµφας, εἶτα µητέρας <καὶ had divine names, being called Maidens,
µαίας> καλουµένας. Brides, mothers [and nurses].
Commentary
These same designations for females are made as part of Pythagoras’s address to the women in
the temple of Hera at Kroton at Iamblichos, Vita Pythagorae 54-57. Justin (M. Iunian(i)us
Iustinus)’s epitome of Pompeius Trogus (20.4.8-13) abbreviates what we find in Iamblichos;
both may well have used Timaios as their source.
BNJ 566 F 18

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: military history, ancient - Library of Congress
military history, ancient - Library of Congress
Scholia, 9.95a
βαθυκρήµνοισι δ᾽ ἀµφ᾽ ἀκταῖς ῾Ελώρου] περὶ Beside the steep and rugged banks of the
τοῦτον τὸν ποταµὸν συνέστη ῾Ιπποκράτει τῶι Heloros] a war arose for Hippokrates the
Γελώιων τυράννωι πρὸς Συρακοσίους πόλεµος, ὁ tyrant of Gela against the Syracusans around
δὲ Γέλων, <οὗ> οὗτος ἑταῖρος, ἱππάρχει τότε the rugged heights of Heloros hard upon this
῾Ιπποκράτει· ἐν δὴ τούτωι φησὶ τῶι πολέµωι εἰκὸς river, and Gelon, whose companion this (scil.
τὸν Χρόµιον ἐπιδείξασθαι πολλὰ ἔργα κατὰ τὴν Chromios) was, then served as cavalry
µάχην. περὶ δὲ τούτου τοῦ πολέµου Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι ῑ commander for Hippokrates. They say it seems
δεδήλωκε · «καθάπαξ γάρ» φησὶν ὁ Δίδυµος likely that in this war Chromios exhibited
«οὐδεµίαν ἄλλην µάχην ἔχοµεν εὑρεῖν περὶ τὸν many deeds in battle. Concerning this war
῞Ελωρον τῶν συνηκµακότων τῶι Χροµίωι Timaios has instructed in the tenth book: for
τυράννων, ὅτι µὴ σὺν ῾Ιπποκράτει τοῦ Γέλωνος Didymos explicitly says, ‘we are able to
πρὸς Συρακουσίους. ὅτι µὲν οὖν Γέλωνα ἱππαρχεῖν discover no other battle around the Heloros at
κατέστησεν ῾Ιπποκράτης», σαφὲς ὁ Τίµαιος the time of the tyrants flourishing along with
ποιήσει γράφων οὕτως· «῾Ιπποκράτης δὲ µετὰ τὴν Chromios, except for that of Gelon, with
Κλεάνδρου τελευτὴν ἅµα µὲν τοῦ Γέλωνος ἐν τῆι Hippokrates, against the Syracusans; therefore
τεταγµένηι µεµενηκότος, ἅµα δὲ τοῖς Γελώιοις Hippokrates appointed Gelon as cavalry
χαρίσασθαι βουλόµενος, µεταπεµψάµενος αὐτὸν commander’. Timaios makes this clear, writing
καὶ παρακαλέσας ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις, ἀπάντων τῶν thus: ‘Hippokrates after the death of
ἱππέων τὴν ἐπιµέλειαν ἐκείνωι παρέδωκεν». Kleandros, with Gelon remaining with the
troops, and desiring to make a good
impression with the people of Gela, sending
for him and inviting him to service, gave to
him the command of the entire cavalry’.
Commentary
See F 21. This Pindar scholiast is contained in the poorly-preserved MS B, Vat. 1332 (12th
century) and in MS D, Laur. 32, 52 (14th century): Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina, ed. by A.B.
Drachmann, vol. 1 (Leipzig 1903), praef. vi-viii; vol. 3 (Leipzig 1927), praef. vi. The 1st century BC
polymath and bibliophile Didymos also cites Timaios, along with Philistos, concerning Hieron
(F 96; cf. F 39b, F 93b, F 142a, F 145). Herodotos (7.154.3) states that mediators from Corinth
and Corcyra arranged a truce, helping Syracuse to arrange the surrender of Camarina to
Hippokrates in order to avoid subjection to him (cf. Thuc. 6.5.3; Philistos, BNJ 556 F 15). This
happened after Hippokrates had won the battle at the Heloros river in 492 BC against the
Syracusans. Hippokrates perished in the next year fighting against Sikels near Hybla.
Chromios, son of Agesidamos of Gela, had served well under Hippokrates at the battle of the
Heloros, and he married Gelon’s sister (B. Niese, ‘Chromios (8)’, RE 3 (1899), cols. 2453-4).
Herodotos, with no mention of Chromios (the dedicatee of Pindar’s Nemean Odes 1 and 9),
also reports Gelon’s great services to Hippokrates and his appointment as cavalry commander.
Chromios later was an important commander under Hieron I, tyrant at Syracuse (478-466 BC).
Pindar’s ninth Nemean ode celebrated Chromios’s chariot-race victory at the Sikyonian Pythia,
but it was performed at Sicilian Aitna, ca. 474 BC. At the time of performance, Aitna was
newly-founded, at Katane’s expense (P. Nem. 9.2; see Commentary to F 141 below). Chromios’s
participation in the Sikyonian games was likely to have been motivated by a desire to gain
international approval for Hieron’s forcible removal and resettling of the inhabitants of Ionian
Katane. Chromios’s chariot-race victory at Sikyon and its commemoration would have
strengthened his connections with Peloponnesian Dorians, who formed half of Aitna’s
population. Pindar’s choice to relay the story of Adrastos and the Seven against Thebes will
have had contemporaneous political resonances. By celebrating the transplantation of
Peloponnesian heroes and their cults, Pindar implicitly defended the land claims of the new
Dorian inhabitants at Aitna. See Thomas K. Hubbard, ‘Remaking Myth and Rewriting History:
Cult Tradition in Pindar’s Ninth Nemean’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 94 (1992), 77-
111. Additional note on Sicilian tyrants before Agathokles: Kleandros was predecessor of his
brother Hippokrates as tyrant of Gela (F 18), and he set up a tyranny in place of the ruling
oligarchy (Arist. Pol. 1316a37), ruling from sometime in the late 6th or early 5th century to ca.
492 BC. Hippokrates secured power at Gela after Kleandros’s assassination (cf. Hdt. 7.154). By
491 Hippokrates conquered most of eastern Sicily; his campaigns included an attack on
Syracuse (F 18) and the refounding of Camarina (F 19a, F 19b), all recounted in Timaios’s tenth
book. Insofar as Gela attained to primacy among Sikels and Sikeliots, Hippokrates’ empire
served as a prototype for the imperial Syracuse of Dionysios I and Dionysios II. Hippokrates’
victory over Syracuse occurred at the river Heloros, but he refrained from direct occupation of
Syracuse, largely because of Corinthian and Corcyraean diplomatic intervention. Hippokrates
perished in battle at Hybla against the Sikels of Mount Aitna ca. 491/90 BC (see T.J. Dunbabin,
The Western Greeks: The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek
Colonies to 480 B.C. (Oxford 1948), 376-409).
BNJ 566 F 19a
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 5.19a

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 5.19a
νέοικον ἕδραν εἶπε τὴν Καµάριναν ὁ Πίνδαρος. Pindar calls Camarina a new settlement.
σαφηνίζει Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι δεκάτηι. εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι οἱ Timaios makes this clear in his tenth book.
Καµαριναῖοι, <οἳ> ὑπὸ τοῦ Γέλωνος τυράννου These Camarinians, who were expelled by the
ἀνηιρέθησαν, εἶτα ὑπὸ Γελώων συνωικίσθησαν ἐπὶ tyrant Gelon, thereupon were settled by the
τῆς * ὀλυµπιάδος. ἡ δὲ ἅλωσις ἐγένετο κατὰ τὴν people of Gela in the (79th) Olympiad. The
Δαρείου τοῦ Πέρσου διάβασιν. seizure happened at the time of the crossing
of Darius the Persian.
Commentary
The battle at the Heloros river dates to 492 BC, and Hippokrates’ settlement of Camarina
occurred shortly thereafter, in 492/91. (T.J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks: The History of Sicily
and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 B.C. (Oxford 1948), 402, 486).
The rough synchronization with Darius’s crossing would have to relate to Hippokrates’
settlement and subsequent destruction (cf. Philistos, BNJ 556 F 15; cf. Schol. P. Olymp. 19c) –
both events would then have fallen within the same Olympiad (72nd), but it must be said that
the text of the scholion (both F 19a and F 19b, see below) is confused and probably corrupt (cf.
L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 130-31
and n. 29). Thucydides (6.5.3; but see A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, and K.J. Dover, A Historical
Commentary on Thucydides 4 (Oxford 1970), 219 ad loc.), states that Camarina was depopulated
by Gelon (484 BC) and settled for a third time by the people of Gela (461/60 BC; cf. Diod.
11.76.5). For Timaios’s chronologies, see Commentary to F 125.
BNJ 566 F 19b
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 5.19b

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 5.19b
† ῾Ιπποκράτης ὑπὸ τοῦ τῶν Γελώων τυράννου † Hippokrates was appointed by the tyrant of
ἀνηιρέθη, εἶτα ὑπὸ Γελώων συνωικίσθη ἡ Gela, and then Camarina was inhabited by
Καµάρινα κατὰ τὴν † µβ ὀλυµπιαδα, ὥς φησι people of Gela in the († 42nd) Olympiad, as
Τίµαιος· διὸ καὶ νέοικον εἶπε τὴν πόλιν. ἡ δὲ Timaios says. Accordingly he called the city
ἅλωσις αὐτῆς ἐγένετο κατὰ τὴν Δαρείου τοῦ newly-founded. Its destruction occurred at the
῾Υστάσπου στρατείαν. time of the campaign of Darius son of
Hydaspes.
Commentary
The scholiast’s notice on the refounding of Camarina by the Geloans in the 42nd Olympiad is
in error or the text is corrupt. There is a lacuna at the beginning after the lemma, following the
word ῾Ιπποκράτης (filled by the MSS DEHQ as above; τῶν om. C). The Olympiad date µβ (Ol.
42.4 = 608 BC) is clearly impossible. The variants κβ (Ol. 22.4 = 686 BC) (Laurent. 32, 35) and
πβ (Ol. 82.4 = 448 BC) (Horn p. 31 ex recc.) are also untenable. Camarina was resettled by the
people of Gela in 461/60 BC (see Commentary to F 19a); the correct Olympiad date, therefore,
is Ol. 79.3.
BNJ 566 F 19c
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 5.19c

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 5.19c
See BNJ 556 F 15.
Commentary
Philistos: See Commentary to F 19a.
BNJ 566 F 20
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Pythian Ode 2.2

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 2.2
Μεγαλοπόλιες ὦ Συράκοσαι, βαθυπολέµου Great city of Syracuse, seat of Ares plunged
τέµενος ῎Αρεος] τοῦτο εἴρηκε διὰ τὸ νεωστὶ deep in war]. He (scil. Pindar) says this on
Καρχηδονίους καὶ Λίβυας καὶ Τυρρηνοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν account of the recent facts that not only were
περὶ Γέλωνα καὶ ῾Ιέρωνα µὴ µόνον τῆι νήσωι the Carthaginians and Libyans and
ἐπιπλεύσαντας καθηιρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῖς Tyrrhenians, who were sailing against the
τὴν Καρχηδόνα γενέσθαι, ὥστε ὑπακούειν· τὸ island (scil. Sicily), recently put down by force
γοῦν ἀνθρωποθυτεῖν φησιν ὁ Θεόφραστος ἐν τῶι by those following Gelon and Hieron, but
Περὶ Τυρρηνῶν παύσασθαι αὐτούς, Γέλωνος Carthage also was subjected to them, with the
προστάξαντος. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐκέλευσεν αὐτοὺς result that they obeyed. At any rate
χρήµατα εἰσφέρειν, Τίµαιος διὰ τῆς ια ἀνέγραψεν. Theophrastos says in On the Tyrrhenians (F
586 Fortenbaugh) that they ceased practicing
human sacrifice, by Gelon’s ordinance. And
Timaios says in his eleventh book that he
commanded them to bring in tribute.
Commentary
Herodotos (7.165) gives a somewhat different catalogue of the non-Greek forces which came
against the Sicilian Greeks in 480 BC: Phoinikians, Libyans, Iberians, Ligurians, Eliscyes,
Sardinians, and Corsicans. According to him these forces came in response to an appeal of
Terillos of Himera, who had been expelled by Theron of Akragas; see conveniently the
summary in W.S. Barrett, ‘Pindar’s Twelfth Olympian and the Fall of the Deinomenidai’, JHS 93
(1973), 23-35, at 23-4. The historical narrative of Gelon’s victory against the Carthaginians at the
Himera river in 480 BC would most likely have fallen in Timaios’s eleventh book (cf. Diod.
11.20.1-22.6; Hdt. 7.165-67; R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), cols. 1083-5). For the idea
attributed to Theophrastos in his work on the Etruscans that Gelon compelled the
Carthaginians to give up human sacrifice, see also Plut. Mor. 175a (according to Diod. 20.14 the
practice was revived in 310 BC). Interestingly, Herodotos (1.166-67) states that the people of
Etruscan Caere sacrificed their war-captives after a naval battle against the Phokaians; and
Livy (7.15.10) records that the Etruscan Tarquinienses slew 307 Roman war captives in 359/58
BC (see L. Bonfante, ‘Human Sacrifice on an Etruscan Funerary Urn’, AJA 88.4 (1984), 531-9, for
an archaeological echo of Etruscan human sacrifice; for the practice among the Romans
themselves, see A.M. Eckstein, ‘Human Sacrifice and Fear of Military Disaster in Republican
Rome’, AJAH 7 (1982), 69-95). Perhaps it was in the context of a discussion of Etruscan human
sacrifice that Theophrastos mentioned Gelon’s prohibition against the Carthaginian practice
in his On the Tyrrhenians. Little can be said about the date (perhaps ca. 315 BC; cf. Plin. NH
3.57-58; 13.101; 15.1, 144) and nature of this work by Theophrastos: it is not listed as a separate
title in the catalogue of works at Diogenes Laertios 5.42-50. Perhaps it comprised a part of one
of the works listed there (e.g., D.L. 5.43: On Mankind; 5.45: On Customs; 5.47: On Laws; 5.50:
Two Books Concerning Politics); or perhaps it is related to the Historika Hypomnemata cited
by the scholiast to Apollonios Rhodios 4.834 (F 165 Wehrli; O. Regenbogen, RE 7 Suppl. Bnd.
(1940), col. 1540). According to Pliny (NH 3.57), Theophrastos was the first Greek author to
write carefully (diligentius) about Roman affairs. For Theophrastos’ interest in western lands,
see P.M. Fraser, ‘The World of Theophrastus’, in Greek Historiography, ed. by S. Hornblower
(Oxford 1994), 167-91, at 182-7. In any event, Gelon’s injunction to the Carthaginians against
human sacrifice would have been congenial to Timaios, who was ever eager to promote
Sicilian Greeks as promoters of Hellenism. Herodotos (7.166) synchronizes the battle of
Himera with the battle at Salamis, whereas Diodorus (11.24.1), perhaps following Timaios,
synchronizes it with Thermopylai. Himera thus became a signal example of the triumph of
Greeks over barbarians (cf. Simonides F 141 Bergk; Pind. Pyth. 1.75), which again would have
been congenial to Timaios’s practice of vaunting achievements of Sicilian Greeks. For the
terms between Gelon and the Carthaginians after the battle, see Diod. 11.26.2.
BNJ 566 F 21

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: genealogy - Library of Congress
Scholia, 9.95a
ὅτι δὲ καὶ ὁ Γέλων τῶι Χροµίωι ἐχρῆτο ἑταίρωι, (F 18) That Gelon had Chromios as a
δῆλον πάλιν ἐξ ὧν φησι Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι <ῑ>β̄ companion is clear again from what Timaios
γράφων οὕτως· «ἐπιτρόπους δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς µετ᾽ says in his eleventh book, writing thus: ‘He
ἐκεῖνον κατέστησεν ᾽Αριστόνουν καὶ Χρόµιον τοὺς appointed, after him, his relatives Aristonous
κηδεστάς· τούτοις γὰρ ὁ Γέλων δέδωκε τὰς and Chromios as guardians of the son; for
ἀδελφάς». Gelon gave his sisters in marriage to these
men.
Commentary
For the career of Chromios, see the Commentary to F 18. T.J. Dunbabin (The Western Greeks:
The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 B.C.
(Oxford 1948), 425) conjectures that he was Gelon’s admiral at the time of the battle at Himera;
perhaps his warships neutralized those of Hamilkar’s ally Anaxilas of Rhegion (cf. Schol. Pind.
Pyth. 1.146a; Paus. 6.19.7). Nothing else is known of this Aristonous, brother-in-law of Gelon (B.
Niese, ‘Aristonus (3)’, RE 2 (1896), col. 967; cf. genealogical stemma of the Deinomids at
Dunbabin, Western Greeks, 483).
BNJ 566 F 22
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.25k.2-26.8

Work mentioned:
symbouleutic oratory

12.25k.2-26.8
(25k.2) ὅτι τῶν δεδυναστευκότων ἐν Σικελίαι (25k.2) (T 19) Concerning those in power in
µετὰ Γέλωνα τὸν ἀρχαῖον πραγµατικωτάτους Sicily after Gelon the elder, we have accepted
ἄνδρας παρειλήφαµεν ῾Ερµοκράτην, Τιµολέοντα, the tradition from earlier writers that
Πύρρον τὸν ᾽Ηπειρώτην, οἷς ἥκιστ᾽ ἂν δέοι Hermokrates, Timoleon, and Pyrrhus the
περιάπτειν µειρακιώδεις καὶ διατριβικοὺς λόγους. Epeirote were the most capable, to whom one
(3) ὁ δέ φησιν ἐν τῆι †µιᾶι καὶ εἰκοστῆι βίβλωι, should least attribute puerile and idle
καθ᾽ ὃν καιρὸν Εὐρυµέδων παραγενόµενος εἰς speeches. (3) But Timaios in his twenty-first (?)
Σικελίαν παρεκάλει τὰς πόλεις εἰς τὸν κατὰ τῶν book says that when Eurymedon came to
Συρακουσίων πόλεµον, τότε τοὺς Γελώιους Sicily and was exhorting the poleis for war
κάµνοντας τῶι πολέµωι διαπέµψασθαι πρὸς τοὺς against Syracuse, the Geloans being worsted in
Καµαριναίους ὑπὲρ ἀνοχῶν. (4) τῶν δὲ προθύµως the war sent to Camarina asking for a truce. (4)
δεξαµένων, µετὰ ταῦτα πρεσβεύειν ἑκατέρους The Camarinians heartedly agreed, and
πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν συµµάχους καὶ παρακαλεῖν thereupon both poleis sent embassies to their
ἄνδρας ἐκπέµψαι πιστούς, οἵτινες εἰσελθόντες εἰς allies beseeching them to send trustworthy
Γέλαν βουλεύσονται περὶ διαλύσεως καὶ τῶν men to Gela to discuss peace terms and the
κοινῆι συµφερόντων. (5) παραγενοµένων δὲ τῶν general interests of all parties concerned. (5)
συνέδρων, καὶ τοῦ διαβουλίου προτεθέντος, When, on the arrival of these ambassadors, a
τοιούτοις τισὶ χρώµενον εἰσάγει λόγοις τὸν resolution was proposed in the council, he
῾Ερµοκράτην. (6) ἐπαινέσας γὰρ ὁ προειρηµένος (scil. Timaios) represents Hermokrates
ἀνὴρ τοὺς Γελώιους καὶ τοὺς Καµαριναίους, speaking somewhat as follows. (6) This man,
πρῶτον µὲν ὡς αὐτῶν ποιησάντων τὰς ἀνοχάς, after praising the Geloans and Camarinians,
δεύτερον ὅτι <τοῦ> τοὺς περὶ διαλύσεως γενέσθαι first of all for having made a truce, secondly for
λόγους αἴτιοι καθεστήκασι, τρίτον ὅτι προνοηθεῖεν being the originators of the negotiations, and
τοῦ µὴ βουλεύεσθαι τὰ (πλ)ήθη περὶ τῶν thirdly for making certain that peace terms
διαλύσεων ἀλλὰ τοὺς προεστῶτας τῶν were not discussed by the multitude but rather
πολιτευµάτων καὶ σαφῶς εἰδότας τίνα διαφορὰν ὁ by the leading men in the states who knew
πόλεµος ἔχει τῆς εἰρήνης· (7) µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δύο ἢ well the difference between war and peace; (7)
τρία λαβὼν ἐπιχειρήµατα πραγµατικά, λοιπὸν after this taking up two or three practical
οἴεται αὐτοὺς ἐπιστήσαντας µαθεῖν ἡλίκην ὁ commonplaces, he then says they must now
πόλεµος διαφορὰν ἔχει τῆς εἰρήνης, µικρῶι pay attention to him to learn the difference
πρότερον εἰρηκὼς ὅτι κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο χάριν ἔχει between war and peace, and this after having
τοῖς Γελώιοις, τὸ µὴ γίνεσθαι τοὺς λόγους ἐν (τοῖς just said that he was grateful to the Geloans for
πολλοῖς, ἀλλ᾽) ἐν συνεδρίωι καλῶς γινώσκοντι τὰς this very reason, namely that the discussion
τοιαύτας παρα(λλα)γάς. (8) ἐξ ὧν ὁ Τίµαιος οὐ was not held by the multitude but in a council
µόνον τῆς πραγµατικῆς ἂν δόξειεν ἀπολείπεσθαι knowing well such changes. (8) From this it
δυνάµεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς ἐπι seems that Timaios was not only wanting in
(χειρήσεων οὐκ ὀλίγων ἐλαττοῦσθαι) ... (26.1) ὅς practical sense, but did not even reach the
γε πρῶτον µὲν οἴεται δεῖν ἀναµνησθῆναι τοὺς standard in rhetorical exercises … (26.1) First
συνέδρους, διότι κοινωµένους τὸν ὄρθρον ἐν µὲν of all he thinks it necessary to remind the
τῶι πολέµωι διεγείρουσι σάλπιγγες, κατὰ δὲ τὴν councillors that men are awakened in the
εἰρήνην οἱ ὄρνιθες. (2) µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὸν morning in time of war by the trumpet and in
῾Ηρακλέα φησὶ τὸν µὲν ᾽Ολυµπίων ἀγῶνα θεῖναι peace by the crowing of roosters. (2) After this
καὶ τὴν ἐκεχειρίαν δεῖγµα ποιούµενον τῆς αὐτοῦ he tells them that Herakles established the
προαιρέσεως, ὅσοις δ᾽ ἐπολέµησε, τούτους πάντας Olympic games and armistice as proof of his
βεβλαφέναι κατὰ τὴν ἀνάγκην καὶ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, preference (for peace), and that he had
ἑκουσίως δὲ παραίτιον κακῶν οὐδενὶ γεγονέναι harmed all those he fought against under
τῶν ἀνθρώπων. (3) ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις παρὰ µὲν τῶι compulsion and by command, but that he had
ποιητῆι τὸν Δία παρεισάγεσθαι δυσαρεστούµενον been responsible for no evil to any man of his
τῶι ῎Αρει καὶ λέγοντα «ἔχθιστος δέ µοί ἐσσι θεῶν, own free will. (3) Next he says that Homer
οἳ ῎Ολυµπον ἔχουσιν· / αἰεὶ γάρ τοι ἔρις τε φίλη (Ilias 5.890-1) represents Zeus as being angry
πόλεµοί τε µάχαι τε». (4) ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ τὸν with Ares and saying, ‘You are most hateful to
φρονιµώτατον τῶν ἡρώων λέγειν «ἀφρήτωρ me of all the gods who inhabit Olympus;
ἀθέµιστος ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος, / ὃς πολέµου always for you strife and wars and battles are
ἔραται ἐπιδηµίου ὀκρυόεντος». (5) ὁµογνωµονεῖν delightful’; (4) that similarly the wisest of
δὲ τῶι ποιητῆι καὶ τὸν Εὐριπίδην ἐν οἷς φησιν heroes says (Il. 9. 63-4), ‘Brotherless, lawless,
«Εἰρήνα βαθύπλουτε, / καλλίστα µακάρων θεῶν, / and homeless is that man who delights in
ζῆλός µοι σέθεν, ὡς χρονίζεις. / δέδοικα δὲ µὴ πρὶν chilling war among the people’. (5) And he says
ὑπερβάλληι µε γῆρας, / πρὶν σὰν χαρίεσσαν that Euripides (TGrF F 453 Kannicht)
προσιδεῖν ὥραν / καὶ καλλιχόρους ἀοιδὰς / expresses the same opinion as Homer in these
φιλοστεφάνους τε κώµους». (6) ἔτι δὲ πρὸς verses: ‘Peace, loaded with riches, loveliest of
τούτοις ὁµοιότατον εἶναί φησι τὸν µὲν πόλεµον τῆι the blessed gods, I long for you, since you are
νόσωι, τὴν δ᾽ εἰρήνην τῆι ὑγιείαι· τὴν µὲν γὰρ καὶ away so long, I fear that old age will overtake
τοὺς κάµνοντας ἀναλαµβάνειν, ἐν ὧι δὲ καὶ τοὺς me before I look upon your pleasing features
ὑγιαίνοντας ἀπόλλυσθαι. (7) καὶ κατὰ µὲν τὴν once again, and your beautiful chorus singing
εἰρήνην τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ὑπὸ τῶν νέων songs, and your love-wreathed company’. (6)
θάπτεσθαι κατὰ φύσιν, ἐν δὲ τῶι πολέµωι In addition to this he has Hermokrates say that
τἀναντία. (8) τὸ δὲ µέγιστον, ἐν µὲν τῶι πολέµωι war is very much like illness and peace like
health, since peace restores sufferers and in
war even the healthy die. (7) And again in
µηδ᾽ ἄχρι τῶν τειχῶν εἶναι τὴν ἀσφάλειαν, κατὰ peace the old are buried by the young
δὲ τὴν εἰρήνην µέχρι τῶν τῆς χώρας ὅρων· καὶ according to nature’s order, but in war it is the
τούτοις ἕτερα παραπλήσια. opposite. (8) And the greatest thing: that in
war there is no security even up to the walls,
but in peace there is safety as far as the
borders. And he says a number of similar
things.
Commentary
For Timoleon, see Commentary to T 3b; for Pyrrhos, see T 9a, T 9b, T 19, F 36, with
Commentary to T 6a. Hermokrates, son of Hermon of Syracuse, rose to prominence at the
time of the conference at Gela in 424 BC. He fought in the Aegean against Athens between 412
and 410. Thucydides (4.59-64; cf. 6.33-34, 76-80) preserves the same speech treated by Timaios
and here criticized by Polybios, in which Hermokrates urged Sicilian unity. The text may
cautiously be emended at Polyb. 12.25k.3 to read the twelfth, rather than the twenty-first, book,
since Athenaios 6.250a (F 32) assigns events of Dionysios II to Book 22. Polybios 12.26a.1 has
Timoleon’s speech in this same book (21), and Polyb. 12.25.7 dates Timoleon to that book. But
Timaios must have dealt with the conference at Gela at length, including Hermokrates’
speech, in its proper place (following F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2
(Oxford 1967), 400 ad Polyb. 12.25k.3; cf. Jacoby, FGrH 3b, 544, 553). Eurymedon arrived in Sicily
to gain supporters for the Athenian cause in 424 BC (Thuc. 4.48.6). For Polybios’s
historiographic strictures on Timaios, and in particular his criticism of Timaios’s speeches, see
Commentary to T 19; L. Pearson, ‘The Speeches in Timaeus’ History’, AJP 107 (1986), 350-68. On
this fragment, see C. Bearzot, ‘Ermocrate δεδυναστευκὼς ἐν Σικελίᾳ in Timeo F 22’, in Italo-
Tusco-Romana: Festschrift für Luciana Aigner-Foresti zum 70. Geburtstag am 30. Juli 2006, ed. by
P. Amann, M. Pedrazzi, and H. Taeuber (Vienna 2006), 23-30.
BNJ 566 F 23

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: etymology - Library of Congress

Τίµαιος δ᾽ ἐν τῆι ιγ τῶν ῾Ιστοριῶν περὶ τοῦ Timaios in the thirteenth book of his Histories,
Σικελικοῦ πολιχνίου – λέγω δὲ τῶν ῾Υκκάρων – discussing the outpost in Sicily – I mean to say
διαλεγόµενος, προσαγορευθῆναί φησι τὸ Hykkaron – says that it was named on account
πολίχνιον διὰ τὸ τοὺς πρώτους τῶν ἀνθρώπων of the fact that the first men coming upon the
ἐλθόντας ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον ἰχθῦς εὑρεῖν τοὺς site discovered fish called hykkas, and these
καλουµένας ὕκας, καὶ τούτους ἐγκύους· δι᾽ οὓς were pregnant; thinking these an omen they
οἰωνισαµένους ῞Υκκαρον ὀνοµάσαι τὸ χωρίον. called the place Hykkaron.
Commentary
Timaios was fond of deriving false etymologies for non-Greek words. In 415 BC the Athenians
seized the small northern seaport of Hykkara. Athenian deserters bought some of the men
taken captive there and bribed their captains to allow these men to be their substitutes in the
fleet (Thuc. 6.62.3; 7.13.2). For Timaios’s description of the Athenian expedition, see F 98-102.
The hykkas fish was also called the ‘horse-fish’ or ‘thrush’, according to Antimachos of
Kolophon ap. Athenaios 7.305e. Presumably the founders interpreted the pregnant fish as a
good omen for their community’s future well-being and good fortune; hence the name
Hykkara.
BNJ 566 F 24a
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 13.54-55.588B-589A

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 13.54-55.588B-

589A
Λαίδος δὲ τῆς ἐξ ῾Υκκάρων – πόλις δ᾽ αὕτη In the sixth book of his Criticism Against
Σικελική, ἀφ᾽ ἧς αἰχµάλωτος γενοµένη ἧκεν εἰς Timaios Polemon speaks of Lais of Hykkara, a
Κόρινθον, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Πολέµων ἐν τῶι ἕκτωι τῶν Sicilian polis from which she was brought as a
πρὸς Τίµαιον – … Νυµφόδωρος δ᾽ ὁ Συρακόσιος ἐν captive to Corinth … Nymphodoros of
τῶι Περὶ τῶν ἐν Σικελίαι θαυµαζοµένων ἐξ Syracuse ( BNJ 572 F 1), in the book Wonders of
῾Υκκάρου φησὶν Σικελικοῦ φρουρίου εἶναι τὴν Sicily, says that Lais came from Hykkaron, a
Λαίδα. Στράττις δ᾽ ἐν Μακεδόσιν ἢ Παυσανίαι Sicilian outpost. But Strattis in The
Κορινθίαν αὐτὴν εἶναί φησιν διὰ τούτων· «εἰσὶν δὲ Makedonians or the Pausanias (PCG 7 F 27
πόθεν αἱ παῖδες αὗται καὶ τίνες; / – νυνὶ µὲν Kassel-Austin), says she was Corinthian, in
ἥκουσιν Μεγαρόθεν, εἰσὶ δε/ Κορίνθιαι· Λαὶς µὲν these lines: ‘Where do these girls come from,
ἡδὶ Μεγακλέους». Τίµαιος δ᾽ ἐν τῆι and who are they? They have come from
τρισκαιδεκάτηι τῶν ῾Ιστοριῶν ἐξ ῾Υκκάρων, καθὰ Megara just now, but they are Corinthian. First
καὶ Πολέµων εἴρηκεν, ἀναιρεθῆναι φάσκων αὐτὴν here is Megakles’ Lais’. But in the thirteenth
ὑπό τινων γυναικῶν ἐν Θετταλίαι, ἐρασθεῖσάν book of his Histories Timaios says that she was
τινος Παυσανίου Θετταλοῦ, κατὰ φθόνον καὶ from Hykkara, in agreement with Polemon,
δυσζηλίαν [ταῖς] ξυλίναις χελώναις τυπτοµένην ἐν who says she was killed by some women in
᾽Αφροδίτης ἱερῶι· διὸ καὶ τὸ τέµενος κληθῆναι Thessaly; she had fallen in love with a
᾽Ανοσίας ᾽Αφροδίτης. δείκνυσθαι δ᾽ αὐτῆς τάφον Thessalian named Pausanias, and because of
παρὰ τῶι Πηνειῶι σηµεῖον ἔχοντα ὑδρίαν λιθίνην envy and jealousy she was beaten to death
καὶ ἐπίγραµµα τόδε· «Τῆς δέ ποθ᾽ ἡ µεγάλαυχος with wooden stools in a temple of Aphrodite.
ἀνίκητός τε πρὸς ἀλκήν / ῾Ελλὰς ἐδουλώθη From this the precinct was called that of Sinful
κάλλεος ἰσοθέου / Λαίδος, ἤν ἐτέκνωσεν ῎Ερως, Aphrodite. Her tomb is shown by the Peneios
θρέψεν δὲ Κόρινθος· / κεῖται δ᾽ ἐν κλεινοῖς river, with a stone water jar and bearing this
Θετταλικοῖς πεδίοις». αὐτοσχεδιάζουσιν οὖν οἱ epigram: ‘There was a time when proud Hellas,
λέγοντες αὐτὴν ἐν Κορίνθωι τετάφθαι πρὸς τῶι invincible, was held captive by the divine
Κρανείωι. beauty of Lais here, whom Eros fathered and
Corinth nursed. Now she lies in the glorious
plains of Thessaly’. Therefore those who say
she is buried in Corinth by the Cornel Grove
are lying.
Commentary
For Polemon of Ilion (FGrH 857A), see Commentary to T 26. There were apparently at least
two renowned courtesans of the name of Lais, famed for their beauty and associated with
Corinth (F. Geyer, ‘Lais (1), (2)’, RE 12 (1925), cols. 513-6). Athenaios (13.588c) states that Lais was
the lover of Aristippos, Socrates’ associate, the orator Demosthenes Demosthenes, and
Diogenes the Cynic, which shows that he has hopelessly confused the two women (but cf.
Athenaios 13.574e, mentioning a Lais the younger). The elder Lais was the Corinthian consort
of Aristippos and Diogenes; the younger was said to have been captured by the Athenians
from Sicilian Hykarra and brought to Corinth. She later became the exorbitantly expensive
courtesan of Demosthenes (Gellius, Noctes Atticae 1.8.3-6). But chronological considerations
make the longevity of the younger Lais’s career difficult to accept, suggesting yet a third Lais.
Lais became a prototypical designation for the charming seductress. Well into the 4th century
BC Corinth continued to be famous for its prostitutes (cf. [Demosth.] In Near. 18-32; Strabo
8.6.20 (C378)). For historical contextualization of the life of the courtesan in ancient Greece,
see D. Hamel, Trying Neaira: The True Story of a Courtesan’s Scandalous Life in Ancient Greece
(New Haven 2003), 3-43.
BNJ 566 F 24b

Source: Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnika, s.v. Εὐκαρπία
Work mentioned:
Stephanos of Byzantium , Ethnica, Εὐκαρπία

... ἔστι καὶ Εὐκαρπία φρούριον Σικελίας, <ὡς ... And Eukarpia is a fortress of Sicily, as
Πολέµων> ἐν τοῖς <᾽Αντι>λεγοµένοις <πρὸς> Polemon (says) in his Criticism Against
Τίµαιον, καὶ γενέσθαι ἐν τούτωι Λαίδα τὴν ἐπὶ Timaios, and the courtesan Lais, celebrated for
κάλλει διαβεβοηµένην ἑταίραν, ἣν οἱ πολλοὶ her beauty, whom many call Korinthia, was in
Κορινθίαν φασί. this place.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 24a. Stephanos adduces Eukarpia as Lais’s birthplace; this Sicilian
outpost is not to be confused with Phrygian Eukarpia. For this entry, see s.v. Eukarpia in
Stephani Byzantii Ethnica 2, ed. by M. Billerbeck et al., (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010).
BNJ 566 F 24c

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 2.2
Μεγαλοπόλιες ὦ Συράκοσαι, βαθυπολέµου Great city of Syracuse, seat of Ares plunged
τέµενος ῎Αρεος] τοῦτο εἴρηκε διὰ τὸ νεωστὶ deep in war]. He (scil. Pindar) says this on
Καρχηδονίους καὶ Λίβυας καὶ Τυρρηνοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν account of the recent facts that not only were
περὶ Γέλωνα καὶ ῾Ιέρωνα µὴ µόνον τῆι νήσωι the Carthaginians and Libyans and
ἐπιπλεύσαντας καθηιρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῖς Tyrrhenians, who were sailing against the
τὴν Καρχηδόνα γενέσθαι, ὥστε ὑπακούειν· τὸ island (scil. Sicily), recently put down by force
γοῦν ἀνθρωποθυτεῖν φησιν ὁ Θεόφραστος ἐν τῶι by those following Gelon and Hieron, but
Περὶ Τυρρηνῶν παύσασθαι αὐτούς, Γέλωνος Carthage also was subjected to them, with the
προστάξαντος. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐκέλευσεν αὐτοὺς result that they obeyed. At any rate
χρήµατα εἰσφέρειν, Τίµαιος διὰ τῆς ια ἀνέγραψεν. Theophrastos says in On the Tyrrhenians (F 586
Fortenbaugh) that they ceased practicing
human sacrifice, by Gelon’s ordinance. And
Timaios says in his eleventh book that he
commanded them to bring in tribute.
Commentary
Gelon’s victory over Carthaginians 481/80 BC: see Commentary to F 20.
BNJ 566 F 25

Work mentioned:

(5) τέλος δὲ τῶν δυνάµεων ἀθροισθεισῶν εἰς (1–4: emboldened by their earlier success
Καρχηδόνα, συνήχθησαν αὐτοῖς οἱ πάντες σὺν Carthaginians prepare a new sea-borne attack
ἱππεῦσιν οὐ πολλῶι πλείους, ὡς µὲν Τίµαιος, τῶν on Sicily under the command of Hannibal and
δώδεκα µυριάδων, ὡς δ᾽ ῎Εφορος, τριάκοντα Himilko, Hannon’s son; catalogue of troops
µυριάδες. Καρχηδόνιοι µὲν οὖν τὰ πρὸς τὴν and enrollment of soldiers) (5) With the forces
διάβασιν ἑτοιµάζοντες τάς τε τριήρεις πάσας finally assembled at Carthage, the troop totals,
κατήρτιζον καὶ φορτηγὰ πλοῖα συνήγαγον πλείω along with the cavalry regiments, came to a
τῶν χιλίων. little more than 100,000, according to Timaios,
but 300,000, according to Ephoros. The
Carthaginians, preparing for the crossing to
Sicily, made ready all of their triremes, and
more than 1,000 transport vessels.
Commentary
This fragment relates to the Carthaginian invasion of Sicily in 406 BC. Where they can be
compared, Ephoros’s military manpower figures are usually inflated in relation to those of
Timaios, as in this passage (cf. F 103). For Ephoros’s figures, see BNJ 70 F 203. In any event,
Carthaginian naval preparations were greater than in the earlier expedition in 409 BC (see F
103, F 104), and the Carthaginian objective was ultimately Syracuse. Syracuse in turn sent
embassies throughout Sicily, to Italy, and even to Sparta; whereas Carthage intriguingly turned
to Athens, apparently with no success (cf. IG 13 123). The action of this campaign centered
around Akragas. A Syracusan force under the command of Daphnaios won an initial victory,
but failed to press its advantage. Akragas fell to Himilko after an eight-month siege (Diod.
13.91.1; cf. Xenophon, Hellenika 1.5.21, for the variant of a seven-month siege). Akragas revived
somewhat, as did much of Greek Sicily, in the time of Timoleon (see R.J.A. Talbert, Timoleon
and the Revival of Greek Sicily, 344-317 BC (Cambridge 1974), passim), but suffered mightily
during the First Punic War.
BNJ 566 F 26a
Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 13.81.3-82.6

Work mentioned:
Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 13.81.3-

82.6
(81.3) ᾽Ακραγαντῖνοι δέ, ὁµοροῦντες τῆι τῶν (81.3) But the Akragantines, because they were
Καρχηδονίων ἐπικρατείαι, διελάµβανον (ὅπερ ἧν) closest to the Carthaginian empire, took it for
ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς πρώτους ἥξειν τὸ τοῦ πολέµου βάρος· granted that which indeed happened, that the
ἔδοξεν οὖν αὐτοῖς τόν τε σῖτον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους burden of war would first fall on them. It
καρπούς, ἔτι δὲ τὰς κτήσεις ἁπάσας ἀπὸ τῆς therefore seemed best to them to gather not
χώρας κατακοµίζειν ἐντὸς τῶν τειχῶν. (4) κατ᾽ only their grain and other crops but also all
ἐκείνους δὲ τοὺς καιροὺς τήν τε πόλιν καὶ τὴν their possessions from the rural districts inside
χώραν τῶν ᾽Ακραγαντίνων συνέβαινεν their walls. (4) At this time, as it happened, the
εὐδαιµονίας ὑπάρχειν πλήρη, περὶ ἧς οὐκ polis and countryside of the Akragantines
ἀνάρµοστόν µοι φαίνεται διελθεῖν, καὶ γὰρ enjoyed great prosperity, which it does not
ἀµπελῶνες ** 1 τοῖς µεγέθεσι καὶ τῶι κάλλει seem to me inappropriate to describe. Their
διαφέροντες, καὶ τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς χώρας ἐλαίαις vineyards (were) superior in their great extent
κατάφυτον, ἐξ ἧς παµπληθῆ κοµιζόµενοι καρπὸν and beauty and the greater part of their
ἐπώλουν εἰς Καρχηδόνα· (5) οὐπω γὰρ κατ᾽ territory was planted in olive trees from which
ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους τῆς Λιβύης πεφυτευµένης, they gathered an abundant harvest, which
οἱ τὴν ᾽Ακραγαντίνην νεµόµενοι τὸν ἐκ τῆς Λιβύης they sold to the Carthaginians. (5) For since
ἀντιφορτιζόµενοι πλοῦτον, οὐσίας ἀπίστους τοῖς Libya was not yet planted in fruit trees, the
µεγέθεσιν ἐκέκτηντο. πολλὰ δὲ τοῦ πλούτου παρ᾽ Akragantines exchanged their produce for the
αὐτοῖς διαµένει σηµεῖα, περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἀνοίκειόν ἐστι wealth of Libya and became exceedingly
βραχέα διελθεῖν. (82.1) ἥ τε γὰρ τῶν ἱερῶν wealthy. Of this wealth there is still much
κατασκευὴ καὶ µάλιστα ὁ τοῦ Διὸς νεὼς ἐµφαίνει evidence among them, which will not be
τὴν µεγαλοπρέπειαν τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων· τῶν µὲν unfitting to describe here briefly. (82.1) The
γὰρ ἄλλων ἱερῶν τὰ µὲν κατεκαύθη, τὰ δὲ τελείως construction of sacred precincts, and
κατεσκάφη διὰ τὸ πολλάκις ἡλωκέναι τὴν πόλιν. especially the temple of Zeus, attests to the
τὸ δ᾽ οὖν ᾽Ολύµπιον µέλλον λαµβάνειν τὴν ὀροφὴν grand manner of the men at that time. Of the
ὁ πόλεµος ἐκώλυσεν, ἐξ οὗ τῆς πόλεως other sacred buildings some have been burnt
κατασκαφείσης οὐδέποτε ὕστερον ἴσχυσαν and others completely destroyed because of
᾽Ακραγαντῖνοι τέλος ἐπιθεῖναι τοῖς the frequency with which the polis has been
οἰκοδοµήµασιν. (2) ἔστι δὲ ὁ νεὼς ἔχων τὸ µὲν taken in war, but the completion of the temple
µῆκος πόδας τριακοσίους τεσσαράκοντα, τὸ δὲ of Zeus, about to receive its roof, was hindered
πλάτος ἑξήκοντα, τὸ δὲ ὕψος ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι χωρὶς by war. And after the war, since the polis had
τοῦ κρηπιδώµατος. µέγιστος δ᾽ ὢν τῶν ἐν Σικελίαι been completely ruined, never in subsequent
καὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς οὐκ ἀλόγως ἂν συγκρίνοιτο κατὰ τὸ years did the Akragantines find themselves in
µέγεθος τῆς ὑποστάσεως· καὶ γὰρ εἰ µὴ τέλος a position to finish their buildings. (2) The
λαβεῖν συνέβη τὴν ἐπιβολήν, ἥ γε προαίρεσις temple’s length is 340 feet, its width 60, and its
ὑπάρχει φανερά. (3) τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων ἢ µετὰ τοίχων height 120, not including the foundation. And
τοὺς νεὼς οἰκοδοµούντων ἢ κύκλωι κίοσι τοὺς since it is the largest temple in Sicily, it may
οἴκους περιλαµβανόντων, οὗτος ἑκατέρας τούτων not unreasonably be compared, regarding its
µετέχει τῶν ὑποστάσεων· συνωικοδοµοῦντο γὰρ sub-structure’s magnitude, with temples
τοῖς τοίχοις οἱ κίονες, ἔξωθεν µὲν στρογγύλοι, τὸ δ᾽ outside of Sicily. For even though unfinished,
ἐντὸς τοῦ νεὼ ἔχοντες τετράγωνον· καὶ τοῦ µὲν the conception of the undertaking is clear
ἐκτὸς µέρους ἐστὶν αὐτῶν ἡ περιφέρεια ποδῶν enough. (3) And although everyone else builds
εἴκοσι, καθ᾽ ἣν εἰς τὰ διαξύσµατα δύναται temples either with walls forming the sides or
ἀνθρώπινον ἐναρµόζεσθαι σῶµα, τὸ δ᾽ ἐντὸς with rows of columns, thereby enclosing their
ποδῶν δώδεκα. (4) τῶν δὲ στοῶν τὸ µέγεθος καὶ sanctuaries, this temple combines both of
τὸ ὕψος ἐξαίσιον ἐχουσῶν, ἐν µὲν τῶι πρὸς ἕω these plans. For the columns were built in with
µέρει τὴν γιγαντοµαχίαν ἐποιήσαντο γλυφαῖς καὶ the walls, the part extending outside of the
τῶι µεγέθει καὶ τῶι κάλλει διαφερούσαις, ἐν δὲ τῶι temple being rounded and that within square;
πρὸς δυσµὰς τὴν ἅλωσιν τῆς Τροίας, ἐν ἧι τῶν and the circumference of the outer part of the
ἡρώων ἕκαστον ἰδεῖν ἔστιν οἰκείως τῆς column which extends from the wall is 20 feet
περιστάσεως δεδηµιουργηµένον. (5) ἦν δὲ καὶ and a man’s body can be held within the
λίµνη κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ἐκτὸς τῆς πόλεως fluting, while that of the inner part is 12 feet.
χειροποίητος, ἔχουσα τὴν περίµετρον σταδίων (4) The porticoes were of enormous size and
ἑπτά, τὸ δὲ βάθος εἴκοσι πηχῶν· εἰς ἣν height, and in the east pediment they
ἐπαγοµένων ὑδάτων, ἐφιλοτέχνησαν πλῆθος portrayed the Gigantomachy in sculptures
ἰχθύων ἐν αὐτῆι ποιῆσαι παντοίων εἰς τὰς superior in size and beauty, and in the west the
δηµοσίας ἑστιάσεις· µεθ᾽ ὧν συνδιέτριβον κύκνοι sack of Troy, in which each one of the heroes
καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὀρνέων πολὺ πλῆθος, ὥστε can be seen represented in the appropriate
µεγάλην τέρψιν παρασκευάζειν τοῖς θεωµένοις. manner. (5) There was also an artificial pool at
(6) δηλοῖ δὲ τὴν τρυφὴν αὐτῶν καὶ ἡ πολυτέλεια that time outside of the polis, seven stades in
τῶν µνηµείων, ἄ τινα µὲν τοῖς ἀθληταῖς ἵπποις circumference and twenty cubits deep. They
κατεσκεύασαν, τινὰ δὲ τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν παρθένων καὶ conducted water into this and ingeniously
παίδων ἐν οἴκωι τρεφοµένοις ὀρνιθαρίοις, ἃ devised to produce a multitude of every kind
Τίµαιος ἑωρακέναι φησὶ ... (82.6) ... µέχρι τοῦ καθ᾽ of fish for public feasts. And swans dwelt
ἑαυτὸν βίου διαµένοντα. (7) καὶ κατὰ τὴν alongside the fish and a vast number of every
προτέραν δὲ ταύτης ὀλυµπιάδα, δευτέραν ἐπὶ ταῖς other kind of bird, so that gazing upon the
ἐνενήκοντα, νικήσαντος ᾽Εξαινέτου pool was a sheer delight. (6) And the
᾽Ακραγαντίνου, κατήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν πόλιν extravagant cost of the monuments they
ἐφ᾽ ἅρµατος, συνεπόµπευον δ᾽ αὐτῶι χωρὶς τῶν erected, some adorned with sculptured race-
ἄλλων συνωρίδες τριακόσιαι λευκῶν ἵππων, πᾶσαι horses and others with pet birds kept by girls
παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν ᾽Ακραγαντίνων. and boys in their homes, makes clear the
luxurious ways of the inhabitants. Timaios
καθόλου δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀγωγὰς εὐθὺς ἐκ παίδων says he saw these things …(82.6) ... (As Timaios
ἐποιοῦντο τρυφεράς, τὴν τ᾽ ἐσθῆτα µαλακὴν says he saw) in his own lifetime. (7) And in the
φοροῦντες καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν καὶ χρυσοφοροῦντες, Olympiad before this one, I mean the 92nd
ἔτι δὲ στλεγγίσι καὶ ληκύθοις ἀργυραῖς τε καὶ (412 BC), when Exainetos was victorious, he
χρυσαῖς χρώµενοι. was led into the polis in a chariot, and in the
procession there were, apart from the other
(83.1) ἦν δὲ τῶν ᾽Ακραγαντίνων σχεδὸν
2 things, 300 chariots drawn by white horses, all
πλουσιώτατος κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον Γελλίας , belonging to the Akragantines.
[ὃς] κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν ξενῶνας ἔχων πλείους, πρὸς
ταῖς πύλαις ἔταττεν οἰκέτας, οἷς παρηγγελµένον Generally they led a luxurious lifestyle from
ἦν ἄπαντας τοὺς ξένους καλεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίαι. πολλοὶ youth onward, wearing exceedingly fine
δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ᾽Ακραγαντίνων ἐποίουν τὸ clothing and gold ornaments, besides using
παραπλήσιον, ἀρχαικῶς καὶ φιλανθρώπως strigils and oil-flasks of silver and even gold.
ὁµιλοῦντες· διόπερ καὶ ᾽Εµπεδοκλῆς λέγει περὶ
αὐτῶν «ξείνων αἰδοῖοι λιµένες, κακότητος (83.1) Gellias was perhaps the wealthiest
ἄπειροι». (2) καὶ δή ποτε πεντακοσίων ἱππέων Akragantine at that time, he who had in his
παραγενοµένων ἐκ Γέλας, χειµερίου περιστάσεως mansion a large number of guest rooms, and
οὔσης, καθάπερ φησὶ Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι who used to station house-slaves in front of his
πεντεκαιδεκάτηι βίβλωι, πάντας αὐτὸς gates with instructions to invite every stranger
ὑπεδέξατο, καὶ παραχρῆµα πᾶσιν ἱµάτια καὶ to be his guest. There were also many other
χιτῶνας ἔνδοθεν προενέγκας ἔδωκεν. (3) καὶ Akragantines who did things of this sort,
Πολύκριτος ἐν ταῖς ῾Ιστορίαις ἐξηγεῖται περὶ τοῦ mingling with others in an old-fashioned and
κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν πιθεῶνος ... (84.1) οὐ µόνον δὲ philanthropic way. And so Empedocles
περὶ τὸν Γελλίαν συνέβαινεν εἶναι τοῦ πλούτου (Vorsokr. 5 31 [21] B 112) says of them, ‘Reverent
µεγαλοπρέπειαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ πολλοὺς ἄλλους harbors for strangers, knowing no evil’. (2) And
᾽Ακραγαντίνους. ᾽Αντισθένης γοῦν ὁ once indeed when 500 horsemen from Gela
ἐπικαλούµενος ῾Ρόδος, γάµους ἐπιτελῶν τῆς came there during a winter torrent, as Timaios
θυγατρός, εἱστίασε τοὺς πολίτας ἐπὶ τῶν says in his fifteenth book, Gellias entertained
στενωπῶν ὧν ὤικουν ἕκαστοι· καὶ ζεύγη τῆι all of them himself and immediately gave to
νύµφηι συνηκολούθησε πλείω τῶν ὀκτακοσίων, each outer and under clothes from his own
πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οὐ µόνον οἱ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν πόλιν supply. (3) And Polykritos ( BNJ 559 F 3)
ἱππεῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀστυγειτόνων πολλοὶ describes in his Histories the wine-cellar in the
κληθέντες ἐπὶ τὸν γάµον συµπροέπεµψαν τὴν house … (84.1) It was not only Gellias who had
νύµφην. (2) περιττότατον δέ φασι γενέσθαι τὸ such magnificent wealth, but many other
περὶ τὴν τοῦ φωτὸς κατασκευὴν· τούς τε γὰρ Akragantines besides. Antisthenes, at any rate,
βωµοὺς τοὺς ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἱεροῖς καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς who was called Rhodos, when celebrating his
στενωποῖς καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν ἐπλήρωσε ξύλων, daughter’s wedding, gave a party to all of the
καὶ τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν ἐργαστηρίων <ἔδωκε> σχίδακας citizens in the courtyards where they all lived.
καὶ κληµατίδας, παραγγείλας ὅταν ἀπὸ τῆς And more than 800 chariots followed the
ἀκροπόλεως ἀναφθῆι πῦρ, ἄπαντας ἐπιτελεῖν τὸ bride in procession. Furthermore, not only the
παραπλήσιον· (3) ὧν ποιησάντων τὸ προσταχθέν, men on horseback from the polis itself but
καθ᾽ ὃν καιρὸν ἤγετο ἡ νύµφη, προηγουµένων also many from surrounding poleis who had
πολλῶν τῶν τὰς δᾶιδας φερόντων, ἡ µὲν πόλις been invited to the wedding joined to escort
ἔγεµε φωτός, τὸ δὲ συνακολουθοῦν πλῆθος οὐκ the bride. (2) But most extraordinary of all,
ἐχώρουν αἱ δηµόσιαι κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς ὁδοί, πάντων they say, was the provision for lighting: altars
συµφιλοτιµουµένων τῆι τἀνδρὸς µεγαλοπρεπείαι· in all of the temples and those in the
κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον γὰρ τὸν χρόνον ᾽Ακραγαντῖνοι µὲν courtyards throughout the polis he had piled
ἦσαν πλείους τῶν δισµυρίων (?), σὺν δὲ τοῖς high with wood, and to shopkeepers he gave
κατοικοῦσι ξένοις οὐκ ἐλάττους τῶν εἴκοσι firewood and kindling wood with orders to
µυριάδων. (4) φασὶ δὲ τὸν ᾽Αντισθένην, ἐπειδὴ τὸν kindle their fires when a fire was lit on the
υἱὸν ἑώρα πολεµοῦντά τινα τῶν ἀγρογειτόνων acropolis. (3) And when they performed the
πένητα καὶ βιαζόµενον ἑαυτῶι τὸ ἀγρίδιον command, at the time the bride was brought
πωλῆσαι, µέχρι µέν τινος ἐπιπλήττειν, τῆς δ᾽ home, since there were many torch-bearers in
ἐπιθυµίας ἐπίτασιν λαµβανούσης, φῆσαι δεῖν µὴ the procession, the polis was filled with light,
σπεύδειν πῶς ἄπορον ποιήσηι τὸν γείτονα, ἀλλὰ and the main streets through which the
τοὐναντίον ὅπως πλούσιος ὑπάρχηι· οὕτως γὰρ procession was to pass could not hold the
αὐτὸν ἐπιθυµήσειν µὲν ἀγροῦ µείζονος, οὐ accompanying masses, everyone imitating the
δυνάµενον δὲ παρὰ τοῦ γείτονος προσαγοράσαι, man’s grand manner. At that time the
τὸν ὑπάρχοντα πωλήσειν. (5) διὰ δὲ τὸ µέγεθος Akragantines numbered more than 20,000,
τῆς κατὰ τὴν πόλιν εὐπορίας τοσαύτην συνέβαινε and with resident aliens included, not less
τρυφὴν εἶναι παρὰ τοῖς ᾽Ακραγαντίνοις, ὥστε µετ᾽ than 200,000. (4) They say Antisthenes once
ὀλίγον τῆς πολιορκίας γινοµένης ποιῆσαι saw his son arguing with a poor farmer, who
ψήφισµα περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς φυλακείοις was a neighbor, pressing him to sell his small
διανυκτερευόντων, ὅπως µή τις ἔχηι πλεῖον τύλης plot of land. For a while he merely scolded his
καὶ περιστρώµατος καὶ κωδίων καὶ δυεῖν son, but when the son’s cupidity grew, he said
προσκεφαλαίων. (6) τοιαύτης δὲ τῆς to him that he should not try his best to make
σκληροτάτης στρωµνῆς ὑπαρχούσης, ἔξεστι his neighbor poor, but rather to make him
λογίζεσθαι τὴν κατὰ τὸν λοιπὸν βίον τρυφήν. περὶ wealthy. For then the man would want more
µὲν οὖν τούτων οὐτε παραδραµεῖν ἠθελήσαµεν land, but finding himself unable to buy more
οὐτ᾽ ἐπὶ πλεῖον µακρολογεῖν, ἵνα µὴ τῶν land from a neighbor, he would sell what he
ἀναγκαιοτέρων ἀποπίπτωµεν. (85.1) οἱ δὲ had. (5) On account of the magnitude of
Καρχηδόνιοι τὰς δυνάµεις διαβιβάσαντες εἰς τὴν prosperity throughout the polis the
Σικελίαν ἀνέζευξαν ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν τῶν Akragantines came to live on such a luxurious
᾽Ακραγαντίνων, καὶ δύο παρεµβολὰς ἐποιήσαντο scale that shortly later, when the polis was
... under siege, they passed a decree about the
sentinels who spent nights at their posts, that
none of them should possess more than one
mattress, one blanket, one sheepskin, and two
pillows. (6) Since this was their most austere
bedding, one can imagine the degree of luxury
in the rest of their lives. I wanted neither to
pass these things by in silence nor to speak
about them at greater length, in order that I
not leave out more important matters. (85.1)
The Carthaginians, after transporting their
forces to Sicily, went against Akragas and made
two camps …
Commentary
For Akragras’s proverbial wealth, see Pindar, Pythian Ode 12.1-5; Polyb. 9.27.1-9; Diod. 13.90.3-5
(F 28a; cf. F 28c). For Timaios’s fascination with excessive luxury, see Commentary to F 1a. The
actual dimensions of the temple of Zeus in English feet are: length 361; width 173 1/2; height of
columns with capitals 62 1/2; diameter of columns at base 14. For an analysis of the
dimensions and architectural principles employed for the temple of Zeus at Akragas, see M.
Bell, ‘Stylobate and Roof in the Olympeion at Akragas’, AJA 84.3 (1980), 359-72.
Exainetos of Akragas won the stadion race in the 91st Olympiad = 416 BC (L. Moretti,
Olympionikai. I vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici (Roma 1958), no. 341) and repeated in the
92nd Olympiad = 412 BC (Moretti, Olympionikai, no. 346); cf. the luxurious display of
Antisthenes called ‘Rhodos’ of Akragas (G. Wissowa, ‘Antisthenes (6)’, RE 1 (1894), col. 2537), on
the occasion of his daughter’s wedding (Diod. 13.84.1-4).
For Gellias, who will have flourished in the latter half of the 5th century BC, see also Athenaios
1.4a, repeating the story of the 500 horsemen from Gela, but giving the name as ‘Tellias’
(Valerius Maximus 4.8 ext. 2 has Gillias, whom he represents as a model of the communally-
spirited man). ‘Tellias’ is a more commonly attested name; consequently Dindorf emended
Diodorus’s text accordingly. But Gellias is not unknown outside of this passage (cf. Polyb.
21.6.4). Diod. 13.90.2-3 describes the heroic death of Gellias following the Carthaginian capture
of the polis (B. Niese, ‘Gellias’, RE 7 (1912), cols. 990-1; cf. R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A.1 (1936),
cols. 1113-4). On Antisthenes, see G. Wissowa, ‘Antisthenes (6)’, RE 1 (1894), col. 2537. For
Timaios’s fascination with excessive luxury, see Commentary to F 1a.
BNJ 566 F 26b

Philosophers 8.51
Work mentioned:

8.51
᾽Εµπεδοκλῆς, ὥς φησιν ῾Ιππόβοτος, Μέτωνος ἦν Empedokles was, according to Hippobotos (F
υἱὸς τοῦ ᾽Εµπεδοκλέους ᾽Ακραγαντῖνος. τὸ δ᾽ 15 Gigante), the son of Meton and grandson of
αὐτὸ καὶ Τίµαιος ἐν τῆι πεντεκαιδεκάτηι τῶν Empedokles, and was a native of Akragas.
῾Ιστοριῶν, <προσιστορῶν> ἐπίσηµον ἄνδρα Timaios says the same thing in the fifteenth
γεγονέναι τὸν ᾽Εµπεδοκλέα τὸν πάππον τοῦ book of his Histories, and he adds that
ποιητοῦ. ἀλλὰ καὶ ῞Ερµιππος τὰ αὐτὰ τούτωι Empedokles, the poet’s grandfather, was a man
φησίν· of distinction. Hermippos (FGrHist Cont 1026 F
60) says the same thing as Timaios.
... ὁµοίως καὶ ῾Ηρακλείδης ἐν τῶν Περὶ νόσων, ὅτι
λαµπρᾶς ἦν οἰκίας, ἱπποτροφηκότος τοῦ πάππου. So, too, Herakleides, in his work On Diseases
λέγει δὲ καὶ ᾽Ερατοσθένης ἐν τοῖς ᾽Ολυµπιονίκαις (F 74 Voss), who says that he was of an
τὴν πρώτην καὶ ἑβδοµηκοστὴν ὀλυµπιάδα illustrious lineage, his grandfather having kept
νενικηκέναι τὸν τοῦ Μέτωνος πατέρα, µάρτυρι race-horses. Eratosthenes says also in his
χρώµενος ᾽Αριστοτέλει. Olympic Victories ( BNJ 241 F 7), on Aristotle’s
authority, that the father of Meton was a victor
in the 71st Olympiad (496 BC).
Commentary
See Commentary to F 2. For the shadowy figure of Hippobotos and a collection of his
fragments, see M. Gigante, ‘Frammenti di Ippoboto: Contributo alla storia della storiografia
filosofica’, in Omaggio a Piero Treves, ed. by A. Mastrocinque (Padova 1983), 151-93. For a
summary of modern scholarly positions on the relationship between Hippobotos’s Anagraphē
tōn Philosophōn and Diogenes’ Empedokles-life, see G. Schepens & E. Theys in FGrH IVA1 (33
n.12); for commentary on Hermippos of Smyrna’s views on Empedokles (FGrHist Cont 1026 F
60), see J. Bollansée in FGrH IVA3 (Leiden 1999), 450.
BNJ 566 F 26c
Source: Aelian, Historical Miscellany 12.29

Work mentioned:
Aelian (Claudius Aelianus), Varia Historia,

12.29
Πλάτων … ἰδὼν ᾽Ακραγαντίνους καὶ Plato … seeing that the Akragantines both
οἰκοδοµοῦντας πολυτελῶς καὶ ὁµοίως lived in extravagantly-built homes and dined
δειπνοῦντας, εἶπεν ὅτι ἄρα οἱ ᾽Ακραγαντῖνοι in luxury, said that the Akragantines built
οἰκοδοµοῦσι µὲν ὡς ἀεὶ βιωσόµενοι, δειπνοῦσι δὲ houses as if they live forever but ate as if they
ὡς αὐριον τεθνηξόµενοι λέγει δὲ Τίµαιος ὅτι καὶ would die tomorrow. And Timaios says that
ἀργυραῖς ληκύθοις καὶ στλεγγίσι ἐχρῶντο, καὶ they used silver strigils and oil-flasks, and had
ἐλεφαντίνας κλίνας εἶχον ὅλας. couches entirely of ivory.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 26a.
BNJ 566 F 27
Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 13.85.3-4

Work mentioned:

4
(85.3) ... συνεµάχει δ᾽ αὐτοῖς Δέξιππός τε ὁ (85.3) ... Fighting with them (scil. the
Λακεδαιµόνιος, προσφάτως ἐκ Γέλας παρὼν µετὰ Akragantines) was also Dexippos the
ξένων χιλίων πεντακοσίων. οὗτος γὰρ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον Lakedaimonian, who recently had arrived
τὸν χρόνον, ὡς Τίµαιός φησιν, ἐν Γέλαι διέτριβεν, there from Gela with 1,500 mercenary soldiers.
ἔχων ἀξίωµα διὰ τὴν πατρίδα· (4) διόπερ ἠξίωσαν This man was living at that time at Gela in
αὐτὸν οἱ ᾽Ακραγαντῖνοι µισθωσάµενον στρατιώτας high honor, on account of the reputation of his
ὡς πλείστους ἐλθεῖν εἰς ᾽Ακράγαντα. ἅµα δὲ native polis. (4) Consequently the
τούτοις ἐµισθώθησαν καὶ οἱ πρότερον ᾽Αννίβαι Akragantines invited him to recruit as many
συµµαχήσαντες Καµπανοί, περὶ ὀκτακοσίους mercenaries as possible and come to Akragas,
ὄντες· οὗτοι δὲ κατέσχον τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως and together with them Campanians were
λόφον, τὸν Ἀθήναιον µὲν ὀνοµαζόµενον, κατὰ δὲ hired who earlier had fought with Hannibal;
τῆς πόλεως εὐφυῶς κείµενον. these were some 800 in number. These forces
held the height above the polis, called the
Athenaion, well-placed over the city.
Commentary
This fragment concerns the actual Carthaginian siege of Akragas in 406 BC (Diod. 13.85-89).
After describing Dexippos’s forces and position, Diodorus does not mention him again in the
military action. The Carthaginian army was divided into two camps; one on the hills,
numbering some 40,000 and including Iberian and Libyan mercenaries, and one in proximity
to the city (13.85.1). A plague broke out among the Carthaginian army after the Carthaginians
desecrated Theron’s tomb; it carried off its aged commander Hannibal and led to a child
sacrifice to Moloch to appease its wrath (13.86.3; cf. Kleitarchos, BNJ 137 F 9). Timaios
apparently highlighted the civilized nature of Greek Sicily by emphasizing the barbaric
brutality of the Carthaginians (cf. Commentary to F 20). A relief force from Syracuse led by
Daphnaios enjoyed a victory, apparently over the Carthaginian camp in the hills, but it did not
press its advantage (13.86.4-87.2). The subsequent attempt to relieve Akragas failed, and after a
lengthy siege the city fell (13.88.1-91.1). Diodorus’s account leaves many unanswered questions
as to the complete reversal of Akragas’s fortunes after Daphnaios’s initial success, but he posits
the treachery of Dexippos, who was allegedly bribed with 15 talents, as part of the explanation
(13.87.5, 88.7; cf. 86.3-4, citing Timaios in stating that Dexippos dallied in Gela, enjoying the
luster of his Lakedaimonian reputation). Diodorus’s account does not allow for an
unproblematic reconstruction of the events surrounding the fall of Akragas (cf. R. Laqueur,
‘Timaios’, RE 6A.1 (1936), cols. 1116-9), suggesting that he became confused in combining
separate accounts of Ephoros and Timaios. See B. Niese, ‘Dexippos (3)’, RE 5 (1905), cols. 287-8.
BNJ 566 F 28a

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: classical antiquities - Library of Congress

6
(90.4) ... ἐν οἷς καὶ τὸν Φαλάριδος συνέβη (90.4) (After the capture of Akragas Himilko
κοµισθῆναι ταῦρον, τὴν δ᾽ ἄλλην ὠφέλειαν sends invaluable artwork to Carthage) …
ἐλαφυροπώλησεν. (5) τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ταῦρον ὁ among which, as it happened, was the bull of
Τίµαιος ἐν ταῖς ῾Ιστορίαις διαβεβαιωσάµενος µὴ Phalaris, and he (scil. Himilko) sold the rest of
γεγόνεναι τὸ σύνολον, ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς τύχης the confiscated property as booty. (5) In
ἠλέγχθη· Σκιπίων γὰρ ὕστερον ταύτης τῆς respect to this bull, Timaios, who maintains in
ἁλώσεως σχεδὸν ἑξήκοντα καὶ διακοσίοις ἔτεσιν his Histories that it never existed at all, has
ἐκπορθήσας Καρχηδόνα, τοῖς ᾽Ακραγαντίνοις been refuted by Fortune herself. For almost
µετὰ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν διαµεινάντων παρὰ τοῖς 260 years after (Akragas’s) capture, when
Καρχηδονίοις ἀποκατέστησε τὸν ταῦρον, ὃς καὶ Scipio sacked Carthage, he returned the bull to
τῶνδε τῶν ἱστοριῶν γραφοµένων ἦν ἐν the Akragantines, together with other spoils
᾽Ακράγαντι. (6) περὶ δὲ τούτου φιλοτιµότερον remaining in the Carthaginians’ possession;
εἰπεῖν προήχθην, διότι Τίµαιος ὁ τῶν πρό γε αὐτοῦ (the bull) was still in Akragas when this history
συγγραφέων πικρότατα κατηγορήσας ... αὐτὸς was being written. (6) I was brought to discuss
εὑρίσκεται σχεδιάζων ἐν οἷς µάλιστα ἑαυτὸν this with extraordinary personal engagement
ἀποπέφαγκεν ἀκριβολογούµενον. because Timaios, who most bitterly criticized
his predecessors (T 11) … himself is found
making things up in matters where he
pronounces himself most painstaking.
Commentary
Diodorus states in this fragment that the bull of Phalaris was extant in his time, and Cicero (In
Verrem 2.4.73) contrasted Scipio Aemilianus’s magnanimity in restoring the object to the
Akragantines with Verres’ enormities. Timaios maintained that the Akragantines threw
Phalaris’s original bronze bull into the sea after the tyrant’s death (F 28c), thus showing
Diodorus’s carelessness, since he states in the present fragment that Timaios denied the
existence of the bull of Phalaris. There is strong evidence that Diodorus has simply relied on
Polybios’s criticism and did not consult Timaios directly in this passage – Polybios (F 28b)
states that Timaios denied that Phalaris’s bull was in Akragas, which Diodorus has apparently
misread to mean that Timaios denied its very existence. The inclusion of F 28a as a genuine
Timaian fragment is therefore dubious (see G. Schepens, ‘Timaeus FGrHist 566 F28 Revisited:
Fragmenta or Testimonia?’, Simblos 2 (1997), 71-84). For the bull at Carthage, recovered by
Scipio Aemilianus in 146 BC, see also Diodorus 32.25; Pliny, HN 34.89. On Phalaris’s alleged
savagery, see Athenaios 9.396e (the tyrant devouring infants), and assembled references in G.
Schepens, ‘Polybius on Timaeus’ Account of Phalaris’ Bull: A Case of DEISIDAIMONIA’,
Ancient Society 9 (1978) 117-48, at 140 n. 61. See also R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), col.
1169. For the tradition on Phalaris, see S. Bianchetti, Falaride e Pseudofalaride: Storia e
Leggenda (Rome 1987).
BNJ 566 F 28b

Work mentioned:

12.25.1-5
(25.1) ὅτι περὶ τοῦ ταύρου τοῦ χαλκοῦ τοῦ παρὰ (25.1) There was a bronze bull made by
Φαλάριδος κατασκευασθέντος ἐν Ακράγαντι, εἰς Phalaris in Akragas, in which he enclosed men
ὃν ἐνεβίβαζεν ἀνθρώπους … (3) τούτου δὲ τοῦ … (3) This bull was taken from Akragas to
ταύρου κατὰ τὴν ἐπικράτειαν Καρχηδονίων Carthage during the Carthaginian domination,
µετενεχθέντος ἐξ ᾽Ακράγαντος εἰς Καρχηδόνα, καὶ and although the door at the shoulder-blade
τῆς θυρίδος διαµενούσης περὶ τὰς συνωµίας, δι᾽ ἧς joint, through which victims were lowered into
συνέβαινεν καθίεσθαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν τιµωρίαν, καὶ it, remains, and although another reason, for
ἑτέρας αἰτίας, δι᾽ ἣν ἐν Καρχηδόνι κατεσκευάσθη which this sort of bull should have been made
τοιοῦτος ταῦρος, οὐδαµῶς δυναµένης εὑρεθῆναι τὸ in Carthage, is wanting, (4) yet Timaios
παράπαν, (4) ὅµως Τίµαιος ἐπέβαλε καὶ τὴν attempts to demolish the common story and
κοινὴν φήµην ἀνασκευάζειν καὶ τὰς ἀποφάσεις to refute the statements of poets and authors,
τῶν ποιητῶν καὶ συγγραφέων ψευδοποιεῖν, saying that neither the bull that was in
φάσκων µήτ᾽ εἶναι τὸν ἐν Καρχηδόνι ταῦρον ἐξ Carthage came from Akragas, nor had there
᾽Ακράγαντος µήτε γεγονέναι τοιοῦτον ἐν τῆι ever been one in the aforementioned polis, (5)
προειρηµένηι πόλει. (5) καὶ πολλοὺς δή τινας εἰς making quite a lengthy disquisition on this
τοῦτο τὸ µέρος διατέθειται λόγους ... subject ...
Commentary
According to Polybios, Timaios maintained that there had never been a brazen bull in Akragas,
which appears to be in direct contradiction with the Pindar scholiast’s statement (F 28c). F.W.
Walbank (Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 381), attempted to resolve the
difficulty by suggesting that Polybios misunderstood and truncated Timaios. On his reading,
Timaios really said that there had been no brazen bull in Akragas at the time when Himilko
supposedly removed it (406 BC). Such a statement (before being truncated by Polybios) would
not have excluded the existence of a bull representing the river Gela at Akragas (F 28c). But a
serious objection can be raised against Walbank’s suggestion: the phrase ‘during the
Carthaginian domination’ cannot easily be reconciled, both logically and grammatically, with
the tense of the perfect infinitive gegonenai at Polyb. 12.25.4. P. Pédech (Polybe. Histoires. Livre
XII 9 (Paris 2003), 120-2), proposed that Timaios merely denied the existence of the bull at
Carthage, but accepted its existence at Akragas. On his reading, Carthage is ‘the
aforementioned polis’ at Polyb. 12.25.4. But this interpretation founders on the toiouton at
Polyb. 12.25.4, which must mean ‘such a one as just mentioned’. Timaios denied that the bull at
Carthage was the same as the one at Akragas, and therefore he cannot possibly mean, with
toiouton, that the bull at Carthage does not have the features of the bull at Akragas. In that
case, Timaios would have stated that there is a bull at Carthage (but not Phalaris’s bull) and
that there was no such bull at Carthage. G. Schepens (‘Polybius on Timaeus’ Account of
Phalaris’ Bull: A Case of DEISIDAIMONIA’, Ancient Society 9 (1978), 117-48; and ‘Timaeus
FGrHist 566 F28 Revisited: Fragmenta or Testimonia?’, Simblos 2 (1997), 71-84), has cogently
argued that Timaios did not deny the existence of Phalaris’s bull but contended that it had not
been in Akragas. Rather the tyrant’s machine of torture was located at Phalaris’s fortress at
Ecnomus (stated explicitly at Diodorus 19.108.1, most probably deriving from Timaios).
Support for the idea that Diodorus was using Timaios directly in this passage comes from the
etymology of Ecnomus as ‘lawless’: Agathokles was destined to suffer disaster for his
abominations at the cursed place where Phalaris had had his heinous bull (Diod. 19.108.1-2; for
Timaios’s penchant for etymologies, see F 23, F 42a, F 56a, F 63). After Phalaris fell from power,
the Akragantines threw the bull into the sea. Timaios attempted to refute the popular notion
that the bull at Akragas was Phalaris’s infamous contraption (it was rather a representation of
the river Gela (F 28c)) and the idea that the Carthaginians had removed the bull of Phalaris
from Akragas to Carthage in 406 BC. The Pindar scholiast (F 28c) is the only one of the three
fragments which has not distorted Timaios’s text, and it is the only one which is free of
polemical intentions. It is noteworthy that Polybios does not assume, as does Diodorus, that
Scipio’s restoration proves that the bull is that of Phalaris. He therefore adduces the proof of
the trapdoor in its shoulder. In fact, Polybios makes no mention of Scipio’s restoration, which
suggests that this passage in Book 12 was written before 150 BC and therefore before Scipio’s
sack of Carthage disclosed ‘Phalaris’s bull’. See F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on
Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 380-3.
BNJ 566 F 28c

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 1.185
τὸν δὲ ταύρωι χαλκέωι καυτῆρα νηλέα νόον ἐχθρὰ But in all lands hateful speech oppresses
Φάλαριν κατέχει παντᾶι φάτις] τὸν δὲ τοῦ ruthless-minded Phalaris, burner in the bronze
Φαλάριδος ταῦρον οἱ ᾽Ακραγαντῖνοι bull]: the Akragantines threw the bull of
κατεπόντωσαν, ὥς φησι Τίµαιος· τὸν γὰρ ἐν τῆι Phalaris into the sea, as Timaios says; the
πόλει δεικνύµενον µὴ εἶναι τοῦ Φαλάριδος, (bull) shown in the polis is not that of Phalaris,
καθάπερ ἡ πολλὴ κατέχει δόξα, ἀλλ᾽ εἰκόνα Γέλα as common opinion holds, but a likeness of
τοῦ ποταµοῦ. κατασκευάσαι δὲ αὐτόν φασι the river Gela. They say that Perilaos made it,
Περίλαον, καὶ πρῶτον ἐν αὐτῶι κατακαῆναι· and was first to be burnt in it. Kallimachos (F
Καλλίµαχος «πρῶτος ἐπεὶ τὸν ταῦρον ἐκαίνισεν, 46 Pfeiffer) says, ‘first he fashioned the bull, he
ὃς τὸν ὄλεθρον / εὗρε τὸν ἐν χαλκῶι καὶ πυρὶ who discovered it to be deadly in bronze and
γιγνόµενον». fire’. 
Commentary
The additional information about Perilaos may be from the Pindar scholiast, and not from
Timaios (but cf. Diodorus 32.25, who discusses Perilaos and may have been following Timaios).
Kallimachos’s lines are F 46 Pfeiffer.
BNJ 566 F 29
Source: Scholia on Aischinem , On the False Embassy 10

Work mentioned:
religion - Library of Congress
Scholia, 10
ἐνεχείρησε δ᾽ ἀπεικάζειν µε Διονυσίωι τῶι And he (scil. Demosthenes) attempted to
Σικελίας τυράννωι, καὶ ... παρεκελεύσαθ᾽ ὑµῖν compare me with Dionysios the Sicilian tyrant,
φυλάξασθαι, καὶ τὸ τῆς ἱερείας ἐνύπνιον τῆς ἐν and … urged you to watch out for me and
Σικελίαι διηγήσατο] περὶ τὴν γραφὴν ἡµάρτηται· described the dream of the priestess in Sicily];
δεῖ γὰρ γεγράφθαι ῾Ιµεραίας. Τίµαιος γὰρ ἐν τῆι the text is in error. For ‘Himeraia’ ought to have
<ῑ>ς̄ ἱστορεῖ γυναῖκά τινα τὸ γένος ῾Ιµεραίαν ἰδεῖν been written. For Timaios relates in his
ὄναρ ἀνιοῦσαν αὑτὴν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ πρός sixteenth book that a certain woman of
τινος ἄγεσθαι θεασοµένην τὰς τῶν θεῶν οἰκήσεις· Himera saw herself in a dream coming into
ἔνθα ἰδεῖν καὶ τὸν Δία καθεζόµενον ἐπὶ θρόνου, ὑφ᾽ heaven and being led by someone to look
οὗ ἐδέδετο πυρρός τις ἄνθρωπος καὶ µέγας ἀλύσει upon the abodes of the gods. And there she
καὶ κλοιῶι. ἐρέσθαι οὗν τὸν περιάγοντα ὅστις ἐστί, saw Zeus sitting upon his throne, beneath
τὸν δὲ εἰπεῖν ««ἀλάστωρ ἐστὶ τῆς Σικελίας καὶ which some ruddy, great man was bound by
᾽Ιταλίας, καὶ ἐάνπερ ἀφεθῆι, τὰς χώρας chain and collar. She asked the one leading
διαφθερεῖ». περιαναστᾶσαν δὲ χρόνωι ὕστερον him who he was, and he said, ‘He is the
ὑπαντῆσαι Διονυσίωι τῶι τυράννωι µετὰ τῶν scourge of Sicily and Italy, and if he is released,
δορυφόρων· ἰδοῦσαν δὲ ἀνακραγεῖν, ὡς οὗτος εἴη ὁ he will destroy the lands’. Arising from sleep a
τότε ἀλάστωρ δειχθείς· καὶ ἅµα ταῦτα λέγουσαν little while later she came upon the tyrant
περιπεσεῖν εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος ἐκλυθεῖσαν. µετὰ δὲ Dionysios with his spear-bearers. And looking
τρίµηνον οὐκέτι ὀφθῆναι τὴν γυναῖκα, ὑπὸ upon him she shrieked, as this man was the
Διονυσίου διαφθαρεῖσαν λάθρα. οὗτος ἱέρειάν scourge revealed then (in the dream). At the
φησιν εἶναι τὴν γυναῖκα, µηδενὸς τοῦτο same time as she was saying these things she
ἱστορήσαντος. fell fainting to the ground. And after three
months the girl was no longer seen, having
been done away with secretly by Dionysios.
This man (scil. Aischines) says that the woman
was a priestess, though no historian relates
this.
Commentary
For a similar miraculous tale relayed by Timaios concerning Dionysios, see F 105. Timaios will
not have been the first to narrate the tale; according to Tertullian (De Anima 46.6; F 133
Wehrli), Herakleides of Pontos relayed the story; cf. Valerius Maximus 1.7. ext. 6, quaedam non
obscuri generis femina. Demosthenes’ supposed comparison of Aischines and Dionysios does
not occur anywhere in Demosthenes’ corpus. Timaios as ‘tyrant-hater’ most likely employed
the dream as a counter to Philistos’s recorded dream predicting Dionysios’s great future
achievements ( BNJ 556 F 57a).
BNJ 566 F 30a

Philosophers 8.60
Work mentioned:

8.60
See F 22.
Commentary
For the book number, see Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 548 ad F 2; cf. L. Pearson, The Greek
Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 128 n. 17. Empedokles’
nickname was alternatively given as Alexanemos (Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. 29). For Timaios and
Empedokles, see Commentary to F 2.
BNJ 566 F 30b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.25k.2-26.8

Work mentioned:
symbouleutic oratory

12.25k.2-26.8
See F 22.
Commentary
Speech of Hermokrates: See Commentary to F 22.
BNJ 566 F 31a

Work mentioned:

ἐν γὰρ τῆι µιᾶι (?) καὶ εἰκοστῆι βίβλωι, καὶ ταύτης In the twenty-first (?) book, near the end, he
ἐπὶ τελευτῆι, λέγει κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Τιµολέοντος (scil. Timaios) says these things in the course
παράκλησιν ταῦτα, διότι «τῆς γῆς τῆς ὑπὸ τῶι of Timoleon’s address, namely that ‘The earth
κόσµωι κειµένης εἰς τρία µέρη διηιρηµένης, καὶ lying beneath the cosmos being divided into
τῆς µὲν ᾽Ασίας, τὴς δὲ Λιβύης, τῆς δ᾽ Εὐρώπης three parts named Asia, Africa, and Europe’.
προσαγορευοµένης».
Commentary
This excerpt forms part of Polybios’s scathing criticism of Timaios’s practice of recording
historical agents’ speeches. The historical event is a speech of Timoleon before his troops
before an engagement against Carthaginian forces in 340 BC. For the book number, see Jacoby,
FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 544-45; F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford
1967), 384 ad Polyb. 12.25.7). Diodoros mentions two of Timoleon’s speech before his troops
(16.78.2, 79.2). R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A.1 (1936), col. 1080, suggests that Polybios here
criticizes the pedantic inappropriateness of this remark in front of soldiers before battle,
which is consistent with Polybios’s criticisms of Timaios’s speeches at 12.25a-b, 25k-26
(Hermokrates), 26a (Timoleon); cf. F 22. For historians recording commanders’ speeches
before battle engagements, see C. Ehrhardt, ‘Speeches Before Battle?’, Historia 44 (1995), 120-1;
M.H. Hansen, ‘The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography’, Historia 42 (1993), 161-80; cf.
K.S. Sacks, Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley 1981), 79-95; Walbank, A Historical
Commentary 2, 384-5.
BNJ 566 F 31b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.26a.1-4

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: symbouleutic oratory

12.26a.1-4
(26a.1) τί δὲ πάλιν ὅταν ὁ Τιµολέων ἐν τῆι αὐτῆι (26a.1) (F 22) And again what shall we say
βίβλωι, παρακαλῶν τοὺς ῞Ελληνας πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ when in the same book Timoleon, exhorting
τοὺς Καρχηδονίους κίνδυνον, καὶ µόνον οὐκ ἤδη the Hellenes to engage in battle against the
µελλόντων συνάγειν εἰς τὰς χεῖρας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς Carthaginians, almost at the same instant as
πολλαπλασίοις οὖσι, πρῶτον µὲν ἀξιοῖ µὴ βλέπειν they are about to encounter an enemy
αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ὑπεναντίων ἀλλὰ πρὸς numerically superior, first bids them not to
τὴν ἀνανδρίαν; (2) «καὶ γὰρ τῆς Λιβύης ἁπάσης consider the numbers of their opponents but
συνεχῶς οἰκουµένης καὶ πληθυούσης ἀνθρώπων, their cowardice? (2) For he says, ‘Although all
ὅµως ἐν ταῖς παροιµίαις, ὅταν περὶ ἐρηµίας Libya is densely populated and full of men, yet
ἔµφασιν βουλώµεθα ποιῆσαι, λέγειν ἡµᾶς when we want to convey an impression of
ἐρηµότερα τῆς Λιβύης, οὐκ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρηµίαν solitude we use the proverbial phrase “more
φέροντας τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνανδρίαν τῶν desert than Libya”, not referring to its solitude
κατοικούντων. (3) καθόλου δέ» φησί «τίς ἂν but rather to the cowardice of its inhabitants’.
φοβηθείη τοὺς ἄνδρας, οἵτινες τῆς φύσεως τοῦτο (3) He goes on to say, ‘Generally, how can we
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δεδωκυίας ἴδιον παρὰ τὰ λοιπὰ fear men who, having been endowed by nature
τῶν ζώων, λέγω δὲ τὰς χεῖρας, ταύτας παρ᾽ ὅλον with hands in distinction from the other
τὸν βίον ἐντὸς τῶν χιτώνων ἔχοντες ἀπράκτους animals, keep them for their entire lives idle
περιφέρουσι; (4) τὸ δὲ µέγιστον, οἵ γε καὶ ὑπὸ τοῖς inside their tunics, (4) and above all wear
χιτωνίσκοις (φησί) περιζώµατα φοροῦσι, ἵνα µηδ᾽ drawers under their tunics so that they may
ὅταν ἀποθάνωσιν ἐν ταῖς µάχαις φανεροὶ γένωνται not even when perishing in battle be revealed
τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις». to their enemies?’.
Commentary
The sentiment of the words given to Timoleon in this excerpt is consistent with Timaios’s
penchant for vaunting Sicilian Greeks’ cultural superiority over barbarian Carthaginians (see
Commentary to F 20 and F 27; cf. P. Barceló, ‘The Perception of Carthage in Classical Greek
Historiography’, Acta Cl. 37 (1994), 1-14). For Timaios’s treatment of Timoleon’s speeches, see
Commentaries to T 19 and F 31a. For Timaios’s view of Libya, see F 81. For the unmanliness
(anandria) of Libyans, see Diod. 16.79.2, who is clearly following Timaios, since he repeats
(79.3) Timaios’s anecdote of the omen of the celery spring reported by Plutarch (F 118).
BNJ 566 F 32
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 6.56.250A-D

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 6.56.250A-D

Τίµαιος δ᾽ ἐν τῆι δευτέραι καὶ εἰκοστῆι τῶν Timaios says in the twenty-second book of his
῾Ιστοριῶν Δηµοκλέα φησὶ τὸν Διονυσίου τοῦ Histories in respect to Demokles, the parasite
νεωτέρου κόλακα, ἔθους ὄντος κατὰ Σικελίαν of Dionysios the younger, that throughout
θυσίας ποιεῖσθαι κατὰ τὰς οἰκίας ταῖς Νύµφαις Sicily it was customary to make sacrifices from
καὶ περὶ τὰ ἀγάλµατα παννυχίζειν µεθυσκοµένους house to house to the Nymphs and to
ὀρχεῖσθαί τε περὶ τὰς θεάς, ὁ Δηµοκλῆς ἐάσας τὰς celebrate night-long drunken revelries around
Νύµφας καὶ εἰπὼν οὐ δεῖν προσέχειν ἀψύχοις their statues, dancing around the goddesses.
θεοῖς, ἐλθὼν ὡρχεῖτο περὶ τὸν Διονύσιον. ἔπειτα But Demokles, disregarding the Nymphs, and
πρεσβεύσας ποτὲ µεθ᾽ ἑτέρων † ὡς τὸν Διονύσιον, declaring that men should not bother with
καὶ πάντων κοµιζοµένων ἐπὶ τριήρους, lifeless deities, went and danced around
κατηγορούµενος ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων, ὅτι στασιάζοι Dionysios. He later went on an embassy
κατὰ τὴν ἀποδηµίαν καὶ βλάπτοι [τοῦ Διονυσίου] [textual uncertainty], with everyone boarding
τὰς κοινὰς πράξεις, καὶ σφόδρα τοῦ Διονυσίου the triremes. He was charged by the others
ὀργισθέντος, ἔφησεν τὴν διαφορὰν γενέσθαι αὑτῶι with conspiracy during the voyage and
πρὸς τοὺς συµπρέσβεις, ὅτι µετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον harming Dionysios’s negotiations in the
ἐκεῖνοι µὲν τῶν Φρυνίχου καὶ Στησιχόρου, ἔτι δὲ common interest. Dionysios became irate, but
Πινδάρου † παιᾶνα † τῶν ναυτῶν τινες Demokles said that the argument between
ἀνειληφότες ἦιδον, αὐτὸς δὲ µετὰ τῶν βουλοµένων himself and the others on the embassy arose
τοὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ Διονυσίου πεποιηµένους from the fact that, after dinner, the others, in
διεπεραίνετο. καὶ τούτου σαφῆ τὸν ἔλεγχον company with [there are textual difficulties
παρέξειν ἐπηγγείλατο· τοὺς µὲν γὰρ αὑτοῦ here] some of the sailors, were in the practice
κατηγόρους οὐδὲ τὸν ἀριθµὸν τῶν ἀισµάτων of singing † paeans † of Phrynikos and
κατέχειν, αὐτὸς δ᾽ ἕτοιµος εἶναι πάντας ἐφεξῆς Stesichoros and even of Pindar, while he, along
ἄιδειν. λήξαντος δὲ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ Διονυσίου, with those who so desired, performed the
πάλιν ὁ Δηµοκλής ἔφη «χαρίσαιο δ᾽ ἂν µοί τι, paeans composed by Dionysios. And he
Διονύσιε, κελεύσας τινὶ τῶν ἐπισταµένων διδάξαι announced that he would give clear proof. His
µε τὸν πεποιηµένον εἰς τὸν ᾽Ασκληπιὸν παιᾶνα· accusers, on the one hand, could not even
ἀκούω γάρ σε πεπραγµατεῦσθαι περὶ τοῦτον». recall the number of his songs, while he was
παρακεκληµένων δέ ποτε τῶν φίλων ὑπὸ τοῦ ready to sing them all in their proper order.
Διονυσίου ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον, εἰσιὼν ὁ Διονύσιος εἰς After Dionysios was becalmed, he said, ‘I
τὸν οἶκον «γράµµατα ἡµῖν» ἔφη «ἄνδρες φίλοι, would be in your debt, Dionysios, if you would
ἐπέµφθη παρὰ τῶν ἡγεµόνων τῶν εἰς Νέαν πόλιν order some knowledgable person to teach me
ἀποσταλέντων»· καὶ ὁ Δηµοκλῆς ὑπολαβὼν [ἔφη] the paean composed in the honor of
«εὖ γε νὴ τοὺς θεοὺς ἐποίησαν» ἔφη «Διονύσιε»· Asklepios, for I hear you have made some
κἀκεῖνος προσβλὲψας αὐτῶι «τί δ᾽ οἶδας» ἔφη attempt at this’. At one time when some
«σύ, πότερα κατὰ γνώµην ἐστὶν ἢ τοὐναντίον ἃ friends had been called to table by Dionysios,
γεγράφασι;» καὶ ὁ Δηµοκλῆς «εὖ γε νὴ τοὺς θεοὺς Dionysios entered the room saying, ‘There are
ἐπιτετίµηκας» ἔφη «Διονύσιε». καὶ Σάτυρον δέ letters for us, friends, sent from the officers
τινα ἀναγράφει ὁ Τίµαιος κόλακα ἀµφοτέρων τῶν stationed at Neapolis’. At this point Demokles
Διονυσίων. interrupted saying, ‘Indeed, Dionysios, they
have done well by the gods!’. And (Dionysios)
looking at him responded, ‘How do you know
that what they have written is satisfactory or
not?’. And Demokles replied, ‘Indeed you have
honored the gods well with your rebuke,
Dionysios’. And Timaios writes that Satyros
was another of the parasites of both Dionysios
the elder and younger.
Commentary
Timaios’s stories of Dionysios II’s toadies is part of his general condemnation of tyrants. E.
Schwartz believed that the text is in error and that the subject of the present fragment must be
Dionysios I, on the grounds that Dionysios II did not write paeans and sent no embassies to
Neapolis (see F. Jacoby, FGrH 3b [Kommentar] (Leiden 1955), 556). But there is little reason to
view the first point as in any way compelling; as to the second, the fact that Dionysios II
founded two cities in Apulia may be taken as circumstantial evidence in favor of his reported
embassy to Neapolis (Diod. 16.5.3). Moreover, this fragment is embedded among other
anecdotes on the Dionysokolakes of both tyrants, and so the interpolation of ‘the younger’ (tou
neōterou) here is not surprising. In the end, it is unprofitable to attempt to make the
distinction between the Dionysii in this regard, since they seem to have often been conflated
in such stories. A case in point is the present Demokles, who is clearly the well-known
Damokles of the ‘Damokles’ sword’ legend, relayed by Cicero (Tusculanae Disputationes 5.61-
62), who, however, is referring to the tyranny of Dionysios I. Satyros is otherwise unknown.
BNJ 566 F 33
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 11.43.471F

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 11.43.471F

Τίµαιος δ᾽ ἐν τῆι ὀγδόηι καὶ εἰκοστῆι τῶν Timaios, in the twenty-eighth book of his
῾Ιστοριῶν θηρικλείαν καλεῖ τὴν κύλικα γράφων Histories, calls the kylix ‘therakleian’, writing
οὕτως· «Πολύξενός τις τῶν ἐκ Ταυροµενίου thus: ‘Polyxenos, one of those who had gone
µεθεστηκότων ταχθεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν πρεσβείαν ἕτερά τε over from Tauromenion, was assigned to the
δῶρα παρὰ τοῦ Νικοδήµου καὶ κύλικα θηρικλείαν embassy and came back with gifts from
λαβὼν ἐπανῆκεν». Nikodemos, taking among them a therakleian
kylix’.
Commentary
On the difficulties of establishing the correct book number for this passage (22 or 28?), see
Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 545. This fragment appears to refer to diplomatic negotiations
from Timoleon’s later years (340-337 BC). Nikodemos was the tyrant of Kentoripa, whom
Timoleon put down in 339/38 BC, following his victory over the Carthaginians (Diod. 16.82.1-4).
Polyxenos and those from Tauromenion were most likely enemies of Andromachos living in
exile. Therikles was a famous Corinthian potter of the 5th century BC (Kleanthes, F 591 von
Arnim). Theriklean kylixes are frequently mentioned by authors of the 4th and 3rd centuries
BC; they usually refer to drinking vessels, made of clay but sometimes also of wood. Those
mentioned in temple inventories were made of precious metals (S. I. Rotroff, ‘An Anonymous
Hero in the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 47.2 (1978), 196-209, at 200-1).
BNJ 566 F 34
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.25h.1
Work mentioned:

12.25h.1
ὅτι Τίµαιός φησιν ἐν τῆι τριακοστῆι καὶ τετάρτηι As Timaios says in the thirty-fourth book:
βίβλωι· «πεντήκοντα συνεχῶς ἔτη διατρίψας ‘Living abroad at Athens for fifty continuous
᾽Αθήνησι ξενιτεύων», ἁπάσης ὁµολογουµένως years’. He was, as all agree, ignorant of
ἄπειρος ἐγένετο πολεµικῆς χρείας, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς experience in war and also personal
τῶν τόπων θέας ... acquaintance with places …
Commentary
See Commentaries to T 4b and T 19 (Polyb. 12.25h.1).
BNJ 566 F 35a
Source: Suda, s.v. ὧι τὸ ἱερὸν πῦρ οὐκ ἔξεστι φυσῆσαι

Work mentioned:
Suda, Lexikon, ὧι τὸ ἱερὸν πῦρ οὐκ ἔξεστι

φυσῆσαι
Τίµαιον ἐν λη ἱστορεῖν, ὡς οἱ περὶ Δηµοκλείδην Timaios relates in the thirty-eighth book how
κατὰ Δηµοχάρους εἶπον, ὅτι µόνωι αὐτῶι πάντων those supporting Demokleides spoke against
᾽Αθηναίων οὐκ ἔξεστι τὸ ἱερὸν πῦρ φυσῆσαι, ὡς Demochares, saying that to him alone it was
not permitted to light the sacred fire, being a
µὴ καθαρεύοντι τοῖς ἄνω µέρεσιν. Δοῦρις δ᾽ ἐν τῆι person of sexual impurity. And Douris in the
δεκάτηι Πυθέαν κατὰ Δηµοσθένους τὸ ὅµοιον tenth book ( BNJ 76 F 8) (relates) that the
εἰπεῖν. Pythian priestess said the same thing about
Demosthenes.
Commentary
Demochares ( BNJ 75), Demosthenes’ nephew, was an Athenian statesman active from the
time of the expulsion of Cassander’s agents from Athens in 307 BC (cf. H. Swoboda,
‘Demochares (6)’, RE 4 (1901), cols. 2863-7; P.A. Brunt, Studies in Greek History and Thought
(Oxford 1993), 332-4; Chr. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D. Lucas Schneider
(Cambridge, Mass. 1997), 67-97 passim). After a period spent in exile, he returned to Athens in
the archonship of Diokles (in either 288/87 or 286/85 BC). Famous for his commitment to free
speech (cf. Seneca, L. Annaeus, De Ira 3.23.2), Demochares was the sponsor of an Athenian
decree in honor of Demosthenes in 280/79 BC. He published his speeches and some sort of
historical work (cf. Cic. Brut. 286, non tam historico quam oratorio genere). Timaios’s attack
against Demochares seems odd in light of the fact that both Timaios and Demochares were
hostile to tyrants (cf. BNJ 75 F 2). Timaios may have disapproved of Demochares’ radical
democratic politics at Athens and favored the regime of Demetrios of Phaleron; his criticism
of Demochares may have appeared only after the latter’s death sometime before 271/70 BC. On
the other hand, such an interpretation is problematic because Timaios praised Demosthenes,
the greatest proponent of parrhesia, and other orators of his time who had opposed divine
honors for Alexander (F 155). Perhaps Timaios strongly disagreed with Demochares’
assessment of Agathokles (cf. BNJ 75 F 5); this may be the reason for his biting criticism here
(Polybios’s discussion of Timaios’s slanders against Demochares leads directly to
consideration of Timaios’s charges of sexual enormities against Agathokles; cf. F 124b). This
interpretation is supported by Polyb. 12.23.8, discussing Timaios’s criticism of Demochares
alongside Aristotle, Theophrastos, Kallisthenes, and Ephoros, which suggests that Timaios
objected to Demochares as a writer and not as a statesman. For Timaios’s allegations of
Demochares’ sexual improprieties, see Commentary to F 35b.
BNJ 566 F 35b

Work mentioned:
14.1
(13.1) ὅτι Τίµαιός φησι Δηµοχάρην ἡταιρηκέναι (13.1) Timaios relates that the enormities of
µὲν τοῖς ἄνω µέρεσι τοῦ σώµατος, οὐκ εἶναι δ᾽ Demochares’ sexual impurity made him unfit
ἄξιον τὸ ἱερὸν πῦρ φυσᾶν, ὑπερβεβηκέναι δὲ τοῖς to light the sacred fire, and that in his practices
ἐπιτηδεύµασι τὰ Βότρυος ὑποµνήµατα καὶ τὰ he was more shameless than the writings of
Φιλαινίδος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀναισχυντογράφων. (2) Botrys, Philainis, and other obscene authors.
ταύτην δὲ τὴν λοιδορίαν καὶ τὰς ἐµφάσεις οὐχ οἷον (2) Not only would an educated person not
ἄν τις διέθετο πεπαιδευµένος ἀνήρ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τῶν make such reproaches and statements, but not
ἀπὸ τέγους [ἀπὸ τοῦ σώµατος] εἰργασµένων even any of the inmates of a brothel. (3) But so
οὐδείς. (3) ὁ δ᾽ ἵνα πιστὸς φανῆι κατὰ τὴν that he may get credit for his shameless
αἰσχρολογίαν καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ἀναισχυντίαν, καὶ accusations and other indecency, (Timaios)
προσκατέψευσται τἀνδρός, κωµικόν τινα µάρτυρα has made a further false charge against
προσεπισπασάµενος ἀνώνυµον ... (7) οὐ γὰρ ἂν Demochares, bringing in some comic poet,
᾽Αρχέδικος ὁ κωµωιδιογράφος ἔλεγε ταῦτα µόνος without naming him explicitly, as a witness …
περὶ Δηµοχάρους, ὡς Τίµαιός φησιν, (8) ἀλλὰ (4-6; the charges are unbelievable) ... (7) For
πολλοὶ µὲν ἂν τῶν ᾽Αντιπάτρου φίλων, καθ᾽ οὗ Archidikos (PCG 2, Archedicus F 4) the comic
πεπαρρησίασται ... πολλοὶ δὲ τῶν poet would not have been the only one saying
ἀντιπεπολιτευµένων, ὧν ἦν καὶ Δηµήτριος ὁ these things about Demochares, (8) but many
Φαληρεύς, (9) οὗ ᾽κεῖνος οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν of the friends of Antipater as well, against
πεποίηται κατηγορίαν ἐν ταῖς ῾Ιστορίαις ... (12) whom (Demochares) spoke … and many of his
ἀλλ᾽ ὅµως οὐτε Δηµήτριος οὐτ᾽ ἄλλος οὐδεὶς political adversaries, among whom was also
εἰρήκει περὶ Δηµοχάρους τοιοῦτον οὐδέν. (14.1) ἐξ Demetrios of Phaleron. (9) Demochares in his
ὧν ἐγὼ βεβαιοτέραν τὴν τῆς πατρίδος ἡγούµενος Histories ( BNJ 75 F 4) brings accusations
µαρτυρίαν ἢ τὴν Τιµαίου πικρίαν, θαρσῶν against (Demetrios) by no means trivial … (12)
ἀποφαίνοµαι, µηδενὶ τὸν Δηµοχάρους βίον ἔνοχον But neither Demetrios nor anyone else said
εἶναι τῶν τοιούτων κατηγορηµάτων ... anything of the kind about Demochares. (14.1)
From which, considering the testimony of
(Demochares’) country more trustworthy than
Timaios’s bitterness, I state confidently that
the life of Demochares was innocent of these
charges …
Commentary
For Botrys and Philainis, see F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford
1967), 356-7. The key to understanding Timaios’s allegations of Demochares’ sexual
debasement may be the reference to the New Comic poet Archidikos (G. Kaibel, ‘Archedikos
(2)’, RE 2 (1896), col. 441; cf. PCG 2, 532-6). To have been the passive partner in a male
homoerotic relationship was a familiar condemnatory charge in Attic Old Comedy (cf.
assembled passages in J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy
(New Haven 1975), 209-15), and for a man to have acted as a kinaidos, to have allowed himself
to be sexually penetrated, was grounds for the loss of Athenian citizenship rights (see D.M.
Halperin, ‘The Democratic Body: Prostitution and Citizenship in Classical Athens’, in One
Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love (New York 1989), 88-112, 180-
90; for prohibition from ritual ceremonies on behalf of the Athenian state for such behavior,
cf. Aischines 1.21). Timaios may therefore have found these allegations in Archidikos and
repeated them. On the other hand, Suda (s.v. ὧι τὸ ἱερὸν πῦρ οὐκ ἔξεστι φυσῆσαι; BNJ 76 F 8; cf. F
35a), states that Timaios recorded as his authority for the attack on Demochares a speech by a
certain Demokleides or one of his associates (hoi peri Demokleidēn). Such charges were again
common in political invective – known most famously in Aischines’ Against Timarchos (346
BC) and recorded by Douris ( BNJ 76 F 8) as a taunt against Demosthenes himself. For
Polybios’s condemnation of Timaios’s slanders, see also F 124b, with reference to Demochares.
BNJ 566 F 36
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.4b.1-4c.1

Work mentioned:

12.4b.1-4c.1
(4b.1) καὶ µὴν ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Πύρρου πάλιν φησὶ (4b.1) And indeed in his writings on Pyrrhos
τοὺς ῾Ρωµαίους ἔτι νῦν ὑπόµνηµα ποιουµένους τῆς again he says that the Romans even now have
κατὰ τὸ ῎Ιλιον ἀπωλείας, ἐν ἡµέραι τινὶ a memorial ceremony commemorating the
κατακοντίζειν ἵππον πολεµιστὴν πρὸ τῆς πόλεως taking of Troy, on which day they shoot down
ἐν τῶι Κάµπωι καλουµένωι, διὰ τὸ τῆς Τροίας τὴν a war-horse before the city in the so-called
ἅλωσιν διὰ τὸν ἵππον γενέσθαι τὸν δούριον Campus (scil. Martius), on account of the fact
προσαγορευόµενον, (2) πρᾶγµα πάντων that the sack of Troy happened because of the
παιδαριωδέστατον· οὕτω µὲν γὰρ δεήσει πάντας wooden horse. (2) This is a most childlike
τοὺς βαρβάρους λέγειν Τρώων ἀπογόνους statement. For in that case it would be
ὑπάρχειν· (3) σχεδὸν γὰρ πάντες, εἰ δὲ µή γ᾽ οἱ necessary to say that all of the barbarians were
πλείους, ὅταν ἢ πολεµεῖν µέλλωσιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἢ descendants of the Trojans, (3) since nearly all
διακινδυνεύειν πρός τινας ὁλοσχερῶς, ἵππωι of them, or at least the majority, when they are
προθύονται καὶ σφαγιάζονται, σηµειούµενοι τὸ about to go to war or are on the brink of a
µέλλον ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ζώου πτώσεως, (4c.1) ὁ δὲ decisive battle, offer and sacrifice a horse,
Τίµαιος περὶ τοῦτο τὸ µέρος τῆς ἀλογίας οὐ µόνον divining the issue from the way in which it
ἀπειρίαν, ἔτι δὲ µᾶλλον ὀψιµαθίαν δοκεῖ µοι falls. (4c.1) Timaios concerning this part of the
πολλὴν ἐπιφαίνειν, ὅς γε διότι θύουσιν ἵππον, irrational practice seems to me to display not
εὐθέως ὑπέλαβε τοῦτο ποιεῖν αὐτοὺς διὰ τὸ τὴν only ignorance but also poor education in
Τροίαν ἀπὸ ἵππου δοκεῖν ἑαλωκέναι. simply assuming that they sacrifice a horse
because Troy was supposed to have been taken
by means of a horse.
Commentary
For Timaios’s writings on Pyrrhos of Epeiros, see also T 6a, T 9a, T 9b, T 19. The present
fragment and F 59 demonstrate Timaios’s knowledge of the Roman myth of Trojan origins (on
which see G.K. Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome (Princeton 1969); E.S. Gruen, Culture and
National Identity in Republican Rome (Berkeley 1992), 6-51; cf. BNJ 560 F 4 for further early
Sicilian-Greek evidence of the Rome-Troy connection (Alkimos)). For the sacrifice of the
‘October Horse’ at Rome, see further Festus, Sextus Pompeius 178 M; Plut. Mor. 287a. For
Timaios on the foundation of Rome, see F 60. In his criticism of Timaios on the ‘October
Horse’, Polybios implies that the Romans are barbarians; the only passage in his work in which
he does so in his own narrative voice (see C.B. Champion, ‘Histories 12.4b.1-4c.1: An Overlooked
Key to Polybius’ Views on Rome’, Histos, vol. 4, on-line journal).
BNJ 566 F 37
Source: Scholia on Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika 4.965

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 4.965
Θρινακίης λειµῶνα, βοῶν τροφὸν ᾽Ηελίοιο] Meadow of Thrinakia, nurse of the cattle of
Τίµαιος † Θρινακίαν φησὶ καλεῖσθαι τὴν Σικελίαν, Helios] Timaios says that Sicily is called
ὅτι τρεῖς ἄκρας ἔχει· οἱ δὲ ἱστορικοὶ Θρίνακόν Thrinakia, because it has three summits. But
φασιν ἄρξαι τῆς Σικελίας ** Μύλας δὲ the historians say that Thrinakos ruled over
χερσόνησον Σικελίας, ἐν ἧι αἱ τοῦ ῾Ηλίου βόες Sicily and ** Mulas the peninsula of Sicily,
ἐνέµοντο. upon which the cattle of Helios grazed.
Commentary
Diodorus (5.2.1-2; cf. Thuc. 6.2.2; Strabo 6.2.1 (C265)), states that in ancient times Sicily was
called Trinakia because of its shape, then Sikania after the Sicanians, and finally Sikelia after
the Sikels (cf. Ephoros, BNJ 70 F 137b, stating that Iberian immigrants gave the name Trinakia
because of the island’s geographical features; Dion. Hal. 1.22.2, who says that Iberian
immigrants changed the name from Trinacia to Sicania after themselves). Diodorus’s
information on the ancient name Trinakia suggests that he may have relied upon Timaios’s
lost description of Sicily. In this passage, however, Apollonios’s scholiast reproduces Thrinakia,
which may be associated with the thrinax or trident of Poseidon and is the name of an island
in Homer (Od. 11.107, 12.127). If Thrinakia stood in Timaios, it may represent Timaios’s desire to
link the geography of Sicily with the venerable Homeric tradition. It is clear that Timaios
interpreted the name to mean ‘having three peaks’. Strabo (6.2.1 (C265)) provides evidence for
the variants Trinakria and Thrinakis, but believes the former was changed to the latter for the
sake of euphony. The rulers of Sicily in mythical times reported by ‘the historians’ were most
likely formed from place names, as is obvious for Thrinakos; see R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1
(1936), cols. 1180-1. ** Mulas defies further analysis.
BNJ 566 F 38

Work mentioned:

περὶ δὲ τῶν κατοικησάντων ἐν αὐτῆι πρώτων It is necessary to speak briefly about the
Σικανῶν, ἐπειδή τινες τῶν συγγραφέων Sicanians, who first inhabited the island (scil.
διαφωνοῦσιν, ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι συντόµως εἰπεῖν. Sicily), since historians’ accounts differ.
Φίλιστος µὲν γάρ φησιν ἐξ ᾽Ιβηρίας αὐτοὺς Philistos, for example, says that they colonized
ἀποικισθέντας κατοικῆσαι τὴν νῆσον, ἀπό τινος the island coming from Iberia, having been
Σικανοῦ ποταµοῦ κατ᾽ ᾽Ιβηρίαν ὄντος τετευχότας called after a certain river in Iberia bearing this
ταύτης τῆς προσηγορίας, Τίµαιος δὲ τὴν ἄγνοιαν name. But Timaios censures the ignorance of
τούτου τοῦ συγγραφέως ἐλέγξας, ἀκριβῶς this writer, painstakingly demonstrating that
ἀποφαίνεται τούτους αὐτόχθονας εἶναι. πολλὰς δ᾽ they were indigenous. And since many of his
αὐτοῦ φέροντος ἀποδείξεις τῆς τούτων pieces of evidence show this people’s
ἀρχαιότητος, οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἡγούµεθα περὶ antiquity, I do not think it is necessary to
τούτων διεξιέναι. recount them.
Commentary
Philistos ( BNJ 556 F 45) knew a tradition involving Iberian settlers of Sicily, who came to be
called Sicanians (Philistos’s source may have been Antiochos of Syracuse; cf. BNJ 555 T 3 and F
4); Ephoros ( BNJ 70 F 137b) also wrote of original Iberian colonists (cf. Dion. Hal. 1.22.2). See F
164 (Diod. 5.2.4, 6.1-5) for Timaios’s discussion of Sicanian autochthony. At 5.6.5 Diodorus
promises a fuller account of the Sicanians in the appropriate place, not preserved in the extant
text.
BNJ 566 F 39a
Source: Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnika, s.v. ᾽Αταβύριον (F 510

Billerbeck et al.)
Work mentioned:
etymology - Library of Congress
Stephanos of Byzantium , Ethnica, ᾽Αταβύριον

ὄρος ῾Ρόδου· ῾Ριανὸς ς̄ Μεσσηνιακῶν. τὸ ἐθνικὸν Mountain of Rhodes; Rhianos in the sixth
᾽Αταβύριος, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ᾽Αταβύριος Ζεὺς. ἔστι καὶ book of Messeniaka ( BNJ 265 F 41 = F 52
Σικελίας ᾽Αταβύριον, ὡς Τίµαιος. κέκληται δὲ τὰ Powell); the ethnic Atabyrios, from which
ὄρη ἀπό τινος Τελχῖνος ᾽Αταβυρίου. there is also Zeus Atabyrios. There is also an
Atabyrion of Sicily, as Timaios says. The
mountains are named after a certain Atabyrios
son of Telchines.
Commentary
For this entry, see s.v. Atabyrion in Stephani Byzantii Ethnica 1, ed. by M. Billerbeck et al. (Berlin
2006), 294-5. Polybios (9.27.7-8) knows of temples to Athena and Zeus Atabyrios in Akragas
and on Rhodes (for the Rhodian tradition on the Telchines, see Zeno, BNJ 523 F 1). The
description in Timaios may have fallen in Books 3-4 in an account of the foundation of
Akragas, which was supposed to have been established from Rhodes. Rhodes was said to have
been first inhabited by a people called Telchines (Diod. 5.55.1); in the present fragment we
have Atabyrios, after whom the Sicilian mountain was named, as a son of Telchines.
Alternatively, this fragment might have occurred in Timaios’s account of the Carthaginian
siege and sack of Akragas in 406 BC in Book 15 (see F 25, F 26, F 27; Commentary to F 25 and F
27); or perhaps in the narrative of the tyrant Phalaris (cf. F 28a, F 28b, F 28c with Commentary;
Polyainos, Stratagemata 5.1.1, who gives Phalaris as the builder of a temple to Zeus in Akragas).
BNJ 566 F 39b
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 7.160c (7.159g)

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 7.160c
Ζεῦ πάτερ, νώτοισιν ᾽Αταβυρίου µεδέων] Δίδυµος Father Zeus, guardian of the wide slopes of
δέ φησιν ἐν Σικελίαι εἶναι ὄρος ᾽Αταβύριον, ὡς Atabyrion] Didymos (p. 220 Schmidt) says in
Τίµαιός φησι. καλεῖται δὲ καὶ ὁ ᾽Αταβύριος. εἰσὶ Sikeliai that there is a mountain Atabyrion, as
δὲ καὶ βόες χαλκοῖ ἐπὶ τῶι ὄρει τῆς ῾Ρόδου ... Timaios relates. It is also called Atabyrios. And
there are bronze cattle upon the mountain of
Rhodes, etc.
Commentary
For the Alexandrian scholar Didymos’s citation of Timaios, see M.K. Lefkowitz, ‘The
Influential Fictions in the Scholia to Pindar’s Pythian 8’, CP 70 (1975), 173-85, at 180 n. 18. For
Sicilian ‘Atabyrion’ and its Rhodian antecedent, see the Commentary to F 39a.
BNJ 566 F 40
Source: Cicero, On the Commonwealth 3.43

Work mentioned:
Cicero, M. Tullius, On the Commonwealth,

3.43
urbs illa praeclara, quam ait Timaeus That famous city (scil. Syracuse), which
Graecarum maxumam, omnium autem esse Timaios says is the greatest of the Greek cities,
pulcherrimam. as well as the most beautiful.
Commentary
Cicero may have derived Timaios’s statement on the beauty of Syracusan topography from
Timaios’s description of the city’s foundation, most likely in Book 13. Noteworthy in this
context is a passage in Polybios in which the Achaian historian disdainfully remarks that
Timaios exaggerated the importance of Sicilian affairs, disparaging the achievements of
Timaios’s hero Timoleon, ‘who had sought fame in a mere tea-cup, as it were, Sicily’ (Polyb.
12.23.6-7). For Timaios’s magnification of Sicilian history, see Commentary to T 7.
BNJ 566 F 41a
Source: Kallimachos, Collection of Wonderful Tales 140

Work mentioned:
Source date: 3rd century BC
mythology, greek - Library of Congress
Kallimachos, Collection of Wonderful Tales,

140
᾽Αρέθουσαν δὲ τὴν ἐν Συρακούσαις, ὥσπερ οἱ Pindar concurs with what the rest say, namely
λοιποί φασιν καὶ Πίνδαρος, τὴν πηγὴν ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ that the Arethousa waters in Syracuse have
κατὰ τὴν ῎Ηλιδα ᾽Αλφειοῦ · διὸ καὶ ταῖς their source from the Alpheios river at Elis;
᾽Ολυµπικαῖς ἡµέραις, ὅταν ἐν τῶι ποταµῶι and accordingly during the Olympic games,
ἀποπλύνωσιν τῶν θυµάτων τὰς κοιλίας, οὐ whenever they wash the intestines of
καθαρὰν εἶναι τὴν ἐν τῆι Σικελίαι κρήνην, ἀλλὰ sacrificed animals in the river, the spring in
ῥεῖν ὄνθωι. φησὶν δὲ καὶ φιάλην ποτ᾽ εἰς τὸν Syracuse is not pure, but flows with
᾽Αλφειὸν ποταµὸν ἐµβληθεῖσαν ἐν ἐκείνηι excrement. And he says that a vessel once
φανῆναι. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἱστορεῖ καὶ Τίµαιος. thrown into the Alpheios river appeared in
that (water). Timaios also relates this story.
Commentary
What purports to be the Ἱστοριῶν παραδόξων συναγωγή of Antigonos of Karystos (Palatinus gr.
398 of the 10th century is the sole surviving MS transmitting the text) represents a collection
of excerpts from diverse sources assembled in the Byzantine era, perhaps under the emperor
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos (905-959). It consisted in four parts: (1) mirabilia de
animalibus, collected from various authors, including Antigonus’s own Περὶ ζῶν; (2) mirabilia
de animalibus, collected from Aristotle’s Historia animalium; (3) mirabilia de variis rebus,
collected from various authors; and, the probable source of the present fragment, (4) mirabilia
de aquis, derived from Kallimachos’s Thaumata (F 407 Pfeiffer). See Antigone de Caryste, ed. by
T. Dorandi (Paris 1999), xiv-xvii. Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 559, assembles ancient passages
on the sources of the spring of Syracusan Arethousa (this passage most likely formed part of
Timaios’s description of Syracusan topography, on which see Commentary to F 40). Strabo (F
41c), Polybios (F 41b), and Antigonos of Karystos cited Timaios’s account of the origins of the
spring of Arethousa being the Peloponnesian river Alpheios, passing beneath the sea from
Olympia. The tradition went back at least to Pindar (Nem. 1.1-2; cf. Strabo 6.2.4 (C270-C271); F
41c). Timaios’s contribution may well have been the proof: whenever it rained or during
festivals at Olympia, when the bellies of slaughtered oxen were washed in the Alpheios river,
the fountain of Arethousa became besmirched and cloudy; moreover, once a golden cup from
Olympia turned up in the Arethousan waters (F 41b and F 41c).
BNJ 566 F 41b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.4d.5-7

Work mentioned:

12.4d.5-7
(4d.5) φησὶ τοιγαροῦν τὴν ᾽Αρέθουσαν κρήνην (4d.5) And thereupon he says that the spring
τὴν ἐν ταῖς Συρακούσσαις ἔχειν τὰς πηγὰς ἐκ τοῦ of Arethousa in Syracuse holds its sources
κατὰ Πελοπόννησον διά τε τῆς ᾽Αρκαδίας καὶ διὰ from the river in the Peloponnesos flowing
τῆς ᾽Ολυµπίας ῥέοντος ποταµοῦ [᾽Αλφειοῦ]· (6) through Arcadia and Olympia (Alpheios). (6)
ἐκεῖνον γὰρ δύντα κατὰ γῆς <καὶ> He says that this river, diving beneath the
τετρακισχιλίους σταδίους ὑπὸ τὸ Σικελικὸν earth and traveling 4,000 stades under the
ἐνεχθέντα πέλαγος ἀναδύνειν ἐν ταῖς Sicilian sea, reappears at Syracuse. (7) This is
Συρακούσσαις. (7) γενέσθαι δὲ τοῦτο δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ clear, he says, by the fact that once after a
κατά τινα χρόνον οὐρανίων ὄµβρων ῥαγέντων heavy downpour at the time of the Olympic
κατὰ τὸν τῶν ᾽Ολυµπίων καιρόν, καὶ τοῦ ποταµοῦ games, when the river had flooded the
τοὺς κατὰ τὸ τέµενος ἐπικλύσαντος τόπους, ὄνθου sanctuary, the fountain of Arethousa threw up
τε πλῆθος ἀναβλύζειν τὴν ᾽Αρέθουσαν ἐκ τῶν a quantity of excrement from animals
κατὰ τὴν πανήγυριν θυοµένων βοῶν, καὶ φιάλην sacrificed at the festival, and they made off
χρυσῆν <ποτ᾽> ἀναβαλεῖν, ἣν ἐπιγνόντες εἶναι τῆς with a golden vessel, which they recognized as
ἑορτῆς ἀνείλοντο. coming from the festival.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 41c
Source: Strabo, Geography 6.2.4 (C270-C271)

Work mentioned:
AD
Strabo, Katasterismoi, 6.2.4 (C270-C271)

ἡ δ᾽ ᾽Ορτυγία συνάπτει γεφύραι πρὸς τὴν ἤπειρον Ortygia is linked by a bridge with the mainland
†οὖσα†3, κρήνην δ᾽ ἔχει τὴν ᾽Αρέθουσαν, ἐξιεῖσαν nearby, and has the fountain Arethousa,
ποταµὸν εὐθὺς εἰς τὴν θάλατταν. µυθεύουσι δὲ τὸν issuing in a river which empties straightaway
᾽Αλφειὸν εἶναι τοῦτον, ἀρχόµενον µὲν ἐκ τῆς into the sea. They tell the myth that the
Πελοποννήσου, διὰ δὲ τοῦ πελάγους ὑπὸ γῆς τὸ Arethousa river is the Alpheios, beginning in
ῥεῖθρον ἔχοντα µέχρι πρὸς τὴν ᾽Αρέθουσαν, εἶτ᾽ the Peloponnesos, flowing underground
ἐκδιδόντα ἐνθένδε πάλιν εἰς τὴν θάλατταν. through the sea as far as Arethousa, and from
τεκµηριοῦνται δὲ τοιούτοις τισί· καὶ γὰρ φιάλην there emptying again into the sea. They
τινὰ ἐκπεσοῦσαν εἰς τὸν ποταµὸν ἐνόµισαν ἐν adduce proofs such as the following. A certain
᾽Ολυµπίαι δεῦρο ἀνενεχθῆναι εἰς τὴν κρήνην, καὶ vessel, they think, was thrown out into the
θολοῦσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν ᾽Ολυµπίαι βουθυσιῶν· ὅ τε river at Olympia and was discharged into the
Πίνδαρος ἐπακολουθῶν τούτοις εἴρηκε τάδε fountain. And again, the fountain was
«ἄνπνευµα σεµνὸν ᾽Αλφεοῦ, κλεινᾶν befouled because of the ox-sacrifice at
Συρακουσσᾶν θάλος, ᾽Ορτυγία». συναποφαίνεται Olympia. Pindar (Nem. 1.1-2), following these
δὲ τῶι Πινδάρωι ταὐτὰ καὶ Τίµαιος ὁ συγγραφεύς. stories, says, ‘O sacred resting-place of
Alpheios, renowned offspring of Syracuse,
Ortygia’. And the writer Timaios declares the
same things as Pindar.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 41a. For the textual problem at the opening of F 41c, see the apparatus at
St. Radt, Strabons Geographika 2 (Göttingen 2003), 178 (line 25).
BNJ 566 F 41d
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.4c.2

Work mentioned:
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.4c.2

See T 19.
Commentary
Criticism of Timaios’s statements concerning Libya, Sardinia, and especially Italy: See
Commentary to T 19, and Commentary to F 42a (on the name ‘Italia’).
BNJ 566 F 42a

Source: Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 11.1.1
Work mentioned:
etymology - Library of Congress
Gellius, Aulus, Attic Nights, 11.1.1

Timaeus in historiis quas oratione Graeca de Timaios in the Histories, which he wrote in the
rebus populi Romani composuit et M. Varro in Greek language about the affairs of the Roman
Antiquitatibus rerum humanarum terram people, and Marcus Varro in his Human
Italiam de Graeco vocabulo appellatam Antiquities wrote that Italy took its name from
scripserunt, quoniam boves Graeca vetere a Greek word, as in the old Greek language
lingua italoe vocitati sunt, quorum in Italia oxen were called italoi. For in Italy there was
magna copia fuerit, bucetaque in ea terra an abundance of cattle, and the land gives rise
gigni, pascique solita sint complurima. to pastures and grazing is a frequent
occupation.
Commentary
The etymology of Italy from the word for oxen went back at least as far as Hellanikos, BNJ 4 F
111; cf. Festus p. 106 M; Hesykios, s.v. Italia; Antiochos of Syracuse, BNJ 555 F 2, F 3, F 4 derived
the name of the land from a mythological Oinotrian eponymous king. Varro’s account (F 42b)
follows Hellanikos in the story of Herakles pursuing a bull named Italus from Sicily over to
Italy. On the name’s origins, see A. Mastrocinque, ‛ Italia ’ , BNP 6 (Leiden, 2005) , 994.
BNJ 566 F 42b
Source: M. Terentius Varro, On Agriculture 2.5.3

Work mentioned:
Varro, M. Terentius, On Agriculture, 2.5.3
nam bos in pecuaria maxima debet esse For the ox in large herds ought to be of the
auctoritate, praesertim in Italia, quae a bubus greatest authority, especially in Italy, which is
nomen habere sit existimata. Graecia enim thought to have its name from oxen. Indeed
antiqua, ut scribit Timaeus, tauros vocabat ancient Greek, as Timaios writes, called bulls
italos, a quorum multitudine et pulchritudine italos, from whose abundance and beauty and
et fetu vitulorum Italiam dixerunt. alii bringing forth of bull-calves they called (the
scripserunt quod ex Sicilia Hercules land) Italy. Others have written that Hercules
persecutus sit eo nobilem taurum qui pursued a noble bull called italus from Sicily to
diceretur italus. this place.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 43a
Source: Pseudo-Antigonos of Karystos, Collection of Wonderful

Tales 1-2
Work mentioned:
Antigonos, Collection of Wonderful Tales

[Vide: Callimachus apud Antigonum], 1-2
(1) Τίµαιος ὁ τὰς Σικελικὰς ἱστορίας συγγεγραφὼς (1) Timaios the writer of Sicilian history, in the
ἐν †῾Ρηγίωι† φησὶ τοὺς Λοκροὺς καὶ τοὺς section on †Rhegion† concerning the Locrians
῾Ρηγίνους ὁρίζοντος ῞Αληκος καλουµένου and Rheginians, whose border is the river
ποταµοῦ, τῶν τεττίγων τοὺς µὲν ἐν τῆι Λοκρικῆι called Halex, says that in Lokris the cicadas
ἄιδειν, τοὺς δὲ ἐν τῆι ῾Ρηγίνων ἀφώνους εἶναι. sing, but those of Rhegion are voiceless. But a
λέγεται δέ τούτου µυθωδέστερον· ἀφικοµένων γὰρ more mythological account is told. For when
εἰς Δελφοὺς κιθαρωιδῶν ᾽Αρίστωνος µὲν ἐκ the kithara bards came to Delphi, Ariston from
῾Ρηγίου, παρὰ δὲ Λοκρῶν Εὐνόµου, καὶ περὶ τοῦ Rhegion and Eunomos from Lokris, they came
κλήρου πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς εἰς ἀντιλογίαν ἐλθόντων, ὁ into a dispute about the casting of lots, and
µὲν οὐκ ὤιετο δεῖν ἐλαττοῦσθαι, τῆς ὅλης (Ariston) thought he must not be worsted,
῾Ρηγίνων ἀποικίας ἐκ Δελφῶν καὶ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ since his entire colony of Rhegion was from
γεγενηµένης, ὁ δὲ κατέτρεχεν ὅτι τὸ παράπαν Delphi and the god, but Eunomos countered
οὐδὲ κιθαρωιδεῖν καθήκει, παρ᾽ οἷς οὐδ᾽ οἱ that it was not fitting to play the kithara at all,
τέττιγες ἄιδουσιν. εὐηµερήσαντος [γ᾽] οὖν τοῦ for those whose cicadas do not sing. At any
῾Ρηγίνου ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι, ἐνίκησεν Εὔνοµος ὁ Λοκρὸς rate while the Rheginian performed well in the
παρὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἄιδοντος αὐτοῦ µεταξὺ contest, Eunomos the Locrian prevailed for
τέττιξ ἐπὶ τὴν λύραν ἐπιπτὰς ἦιδεν, ἡ δὲ this reason: while he was performing a cicada
πανήγυρις ἀνεβόησεν ... ἐπὶ τῶι γεγονότι καὶ lighted upon his kithara and sang, and the
ἐκέλευσεν ἐᾶν. (2) καὶ ἄλλο δὲ παρὰ τοῖς assembled audience shouted out ... at the
῾Ρηγίνοις τοιοῦτον ὡς µυθικὸν ἱστορεῖται, ὅτι happening and commanded the concession of
῾Ηρακλῆς ἔν τινι τόπωι τῆς χώρας κατακοιµηθεὶς victory. (2) And another myth among the
καὶ ἐνοχλούµενος ὑπὸ τῶν τεττίγων ηὐξατο Rheginians is told: namely that Herakles fell
αὐτοὺς ἀφώνους γενέσθαι. asleep in a certain part of the land and being
annoyed by the cicadas prayed that they
become voiceless.
Commentary
Jacoby determined that ῾Ρηγίωι was corrupt and suggested the emendation ἐν ἐνάτωι (cf. F 12).
The story is also preserved in Photios’s epitome of the late Hellenistic mythographer Konon (
BNJ 26 F 1). Paus. 6.6.4 briefly mentions the marvel of the cicadas of Lokris and Rhegion in his
account of the legendary Locrian boxer Euthymos. The part of the story involving Herakles
may be Antigonus’s own contribution. The rationalizing account of Strabo (F 43b) may be
from Timaios (cf. Timaios’s rationalization of the absence of a tomb of Empedokles in Akragas
(F 6)).
BNJ 566 F 43b

Work mentioned:
AD
Strabo, Katasterismoi, 6.1.9 (C260)

τοῦ δὲ ῞Αληκος ποταµοῦ τοῦ διορίζοντος τὴν The Halex river, marking the boundary of the
῾Ρηγίνην ἀπὸ τῆς Λοκρίδος βαθεῖαν φάραγγα Rheginian and Locrian territory, issues from a
διεξιόντος, ἴδιόν τι συµβαίνει τὸ περὶ τοὺς deep ravine. And a peculiar thing happens
τέττιγας· οἱ µὲν γὰρ ἐν τῆι τῶν Λοκρῶν περαίαι there in connection with the cicadas.
φθέγγονται, τοῖς δ᾽ ἀφώνοις εἶναι συµβαίνει. τὸ δ᾽ Although those on the Locrian bank sing, the
αἴτιον εἰκάζουσιν, ὅτι τοῖς µὲν παλίνσκιόν ἐστι τὸ others are voiceless. As for the cause, it is
χωρίον, ὥστ᾽ ἐνδρόσους ὄντας µὴ διαστέλλειν τοὺς believed that on the latter side the region is so
ὑµένας, τοὺς δ᾽ ἡλιαζοµένους ξηροὺς καὶ densely shaded that the cicadas, wet with dew,
κερατώδεις ἔχειν, ὥστ᾽ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εὐφυῶς cannot expand their membranes, while those
ἐκπέµπεσθαι τὸν φθόγγον. ἐδείκνυτο δ᾽ ἀνδριὰς ἐν on the sunny side have dry and horn-like
Λοκροῖς Εὐνόµου τοῦ κιθαρωιδοῦ, τέττιγα ἐπὶ τὴν membranes and consequently easily sing. And
κιθάραν καθήµενον ἔχων. φησὶ δὲ Τίµαιος, Πυθίοις in Lokris they used to show a statue of
ποτὲ ἀγωνιζοµένους τοῦτόν τε καὶ ᾽Αρίστωνα Eunomos, the kitharist, with a cicada seated
῾Ρηγῖνον ἐρίσαι περὶ τοῦ κλήρου· τὸν µὲν δὴ on his kithara. Timaios says that at the Pythian
᾽Αρίστωνα δεῖσθαι τῶν Δελφῶν ἑαυτῶι games Eunomos and Ariston of Rhegion were
συµπράττειν. ἱεροὺς γὰρ εἶναι τοῦ θεοῦ τοὺς contesting and quarreled about the casting of
προγόνους αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀποικίαν ἐνθένδε lots. Ariston implored the Delphians to help
ἐστάλθαι. τοῦ δ᾽ Εὐνόµου φήσαντος ἀρχὴν µηδὲ him, since his ancestors belonged to the god
µετεῖναι ἐκείνοις τῶν περὶ φωνὴν ἀγωνισµάτων, (see Strabo 6.1.1 (C257)), and the colony had
παρ᾽ οἷς καὶ οἱ τέττιγες εἶεν ἄφωνοι, τὰ been sent out from there. And although
εὐφθογγότατα τῶν ζώιων, ὅµως εὐδοκιµεῖν µηδὲν Eunomos said that Rhegion had no right to
ἧττον τὸν ᾽Αρίστωνα καὶ ἐν ἐλπίδι τὴν νίκην ἔχειν, participate in the vocal contests, since among
νικῆσαι µέντοι τὸν Εὐνοµον καὶ ἀναθεῖναι τὴν them even the cicadas, sweetest-voiced of all
λεχθεῖσαν εἰκόνα ἐν τῆι πατρίδι, ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὸν living things, were voiceless, Ariston
ἀγῶνα µιᾶς τῶν χορδῶν ῥαγείσης, ἐπιπτὰς τέττιξ nevertheless was well-regarded and hoped for
ἐκπληρώσειε τὸν φθόγγον. victory. And yet Eunomos won and set up the
aforementioned statue in his native land,
because during the competition, when one of
his chords broke, a cicada lighted upon his
kithara and supplied the missing sound.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 44
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 12.22.522A

Work mentioned:
biography-to 500 - Library of Congress
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 12.22.522A

καὶ Κροτωνιᾶται δ᾽, ὥς φησι Τίµαιος, µετὰ το And the people of Kroton, as Timaios says,
ἐξελεῖν Συβαρίτας ἐξώκειλαν εἰς τρυφήν, ὥστε after the destruction of Sybaris drifted into
καὶ τὸν ἄρχοντα αὐτῶν περιιέναι κατὰ τὴν πόλιν luxury, so that their ruler went around the
ἁλουργίδα ἠµφιεσµένον καὶ ἐστεφανωµένον polis in a purple robe, crowned with a golden
χρυσῶι στεφάνωι, ὑποδεδεµένον λευκὰς crown, and wearing white boots. But others
κρηπῖδας. οἳ δὲ οὐ διὰ τρυφήν φασι τοῦτο say that this happened not on account of
γεγονέναι, ἀλλὰ διὰ Δηµοκήδη τὸν ἰατρὸν ... luxury, but rather on account of the physician
Demokedes …
Commentary
It is difficult to determine whether the account of Krotoniate truphē occurred in connection

with Timaios’s discussion of Pythagoras’s activities in Kroton (cf. Justin 20.4.5; Iamblichos, De
vita Pythagorica 255). The connecting passage in Athenaios between F 44 and F 45 may well
come from Timaios as well: an account of Demokedes and Krotoniate luxury would invite
elaboration on the famous Krotoniate physician, best known from Herodotos’s account of his
adventures and treatment of the Persian queen Atossa (Hdt. 3.125-37; cf. E. Wellman,
‘Demokedes’, RE 5 (1905), col. 132, with further ancient sources). For Kroton, see Commentary
to F 13a; on Sybaris, see Commentary to F 9. For Timaios on luxury, see Commentary to F 1a.
BNJ 566 F 45
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 12.22.522C

Work mentioned:
sports - Library of Congress
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 12.22.522C
ὕστερον δὲ καὶ οἱ Κροτωνιᾶται, φησὶν ὁ Τίµαιος, Later, however, the people of Kroton, as
ἐπεχείρησαν τὴν ᾽Ολυµπικὴν πανήγυριν Timaios says, tried to abolish the Olympic
καταλῦσαι, τῶι αὐτῶι χρόνωι προθέντες festival by establishing at the same time games
ἀργυρικὸν σφόδρα πλούσιον ἀγῶνα. οἳ δὲ with exceedingly rich silver prizes. But others
Συβαρίτας τοῦτο ποιῆσαι λέγουσιν. say that it was the Sybarites who did this.
Commentary
In Diodorus’s fragments from Book 8 (8.18-20, from the Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis), which
can be traced to Timaios and which are concerned with western Greek affairs, we find the
same sort of attention to detail as in F 44 and F 45 on Kroton.
BNJ 566 F 46

Work mentioned:

134
Τίµαιον δὲ τῶν ἐν ᾽Ιταλίαι ποταµῶν ἱστορεῖν Timaios relates of the rivers in Italy that the
Κρᾶθιν ξανθίζειν τὰς τρίχας. Krathis makes the hair tawny.
Commentary
The alleged lightening effect of bathing in the Krathis river was already known to Euripides
(Troiades 220-29; cf. Nymphodoros of Syracuse, BNJ 572 F 11, for whom see Commentary to T
31d; Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.315-16; Strabo 6.1.13 (C263); Plin. NH 31.10.14). Herodotos (1.145; cf.
Strabo 8.7.4 (C386)), states that the Krathis river in Italian Calabria took its name from the
river of the same name in Achaia (E. Honigmann, ‘Krathis (1)’, RE 11 (1922), col. 1646). In the
ancient paradoxographical tradition, others claimed the same effect for the Xanthos-
Skamandros river of the Troad (Schol. Eur. Troad. 228).
BNJ 566 F 47

Work mentioned:

καὶ πολλοὶ εἰς τὰς κατασκευαζοµένας ἀµεθύστους And many add cabbage-seed to preparations
προσλαµβάνουσι τὸ τῆς κράµβης σπέρµα. καὶ ἐν against drunkenness. And whenever cabbage
ὧι δ᾽ ἂν ἀµπελῶνι κράµβαι φύωνται, ἀµαυρότερος grows in the vineyard the wine becomes
ὁ οἶνος γίνεται. διὸ καὶ Συβαρῖται, φησὶ Τίµαιος, darker. And so the Sybarites, as Timaios says,
πρὸ τοῦ πίνειν κράµβας ἤσθιον. used to eat cabbages before drinking.
Commentary
For the opulent decadence of Sybaris and Timaios’s interest in excessive luxury, see
Commentary to F 1a and F 9; cf. Commentary to F 44. The close correspondence of Diod. 8.18-
19 and F 9 (Ath. 12.58 (541B-C)) demonstrates that Timaios’s account of Sybarite luxury and
decadence in F 47-50 occurred in his Book 7.
BNJ 566 F 48

Work mentioned:

ἱστορεῖ δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν Τίµαιος, ὅτι ἀνὴρ Συβαρίτης Concerning them (scil. the Sybarites) Timaios
εἰς ἀγρόν ποτε πορευόµενος, ἔφη ἰδὼν τοὺς relates that once a Sybarite man, going into the
ἐργάτας σκάπτοντας αὐτὸς ῥῆγµα λαβεῖν· πρὸς ὃν country, saw farmers digging; he said that the
ἀποκρίνασθαί τινα τῶν ἀκουσάντων «αὐτὸς δὲ σοῦ sight gave him a rupture. One who heard him
διηγουµένου ἀκούων πεπονεκέναι τὴν πλευράν». replied, ‘Listening to you has given me a pain
in the side’.
Commentary
For the opulent decadence of Sybaris and Timaios’s interest in excessive luxury, see
Commentary to F 47.
BNJ 566 F 49
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 12.16.518E-F

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 12.16.518E-F

ἐπιχωριάζειν δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς διὰ τὴν τρυφὴν Another custom among them, arising from
ἀνθρωπάρια µικρὰ καὶ τοὺς †σκοπαίους, ὥς φησιν their luxury, was to keep dwarves and †owl-
ὁ Τίµαιος, τοὺς καλουµένους παρά τισι faced men, as Timaios says, the men called
στίλπωνας, καὶ κυνάρια Μελιταῖα, ἅπερ αὐτοῖς among some people stilpones; also Melitaian
καὶ ἕπεσθαι εἰς τὰ γυµνάσια. lap-dogs, which followed them even into the
gymnasia.
Commentary
Printed here is the σκοπαίους of MSS E and C (MS A has σκπαίους). G. Kaibel, Athenaeus
Dipnosophistae 3 (Stuttgart: Teubner repr. 1962), xi, was at a loss as to how to translate
σκοπαίους (ne nunc quidem scio quid faciam), but he emended στίλπωνας to σπάδωνας,
believing that both terms, which occur only here in Athenaios, referred to eunuchs. Kaibel’s
bold emendation has no manuscript authority, and skōpaioi is more likely to refer to ‘owl-
faced’ men (skōpes). The keeping of freakish individuals seems to have been somewhat
fashionable in antiquity, especially among the Roman emperors (cf. R. Garland, In the Eye of
the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Greco-Roman World (Ithaca 1995), 45-58), a
practice which Augustus flatly rejected (Suet. Aug. 83). For the opulent decadence of Sybaris
and Timaios’s interest in excessive luxury, see Commentary to F 47.
BNJ 566 F 50
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 12.17-18.519B-520C

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 12.17-18.519B-520C

(17) ἐφόρουν δ᾽ οἱ Συβαρῖται καὶ ἱµάτια Μιλησίων (17) The Sybarites also wore clothes made of
ἐρίων πεποιηµένα, ἀφ᾽ ὧν δὴ καὶ αἱ φιλίαι ταῖς Milesian wool; and from these things indeed
πόλεσιν ἐγένοντο, ὡς ὁ Τίµαιος ἱστορεῖ· ἠγάπων friendships arose among poleis, as Timaios
γὰρ τῶν µὲν ἐξ ᾽Ιταλίας Τυρρηνούς, τῶν δ᾽ ἔξωθεν records. Of the peoples in Italy they admired
τοὺς ῎Ιωνας, ὅτι τρυφῆι προσεῖχον. οἱ δ᾽ ἱππεῖς the Etruscans, while among the peoples to the
τῶν Συβαριτῶν, ὑπὲρ τοὺς πεντακισχιλίους ὄντες, east they liked the Ionians, because both were
ἐπόµπευον ἔχοντες κροκωτοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς θώραξιν, devoted to luxury. The Sybarite cavalry, more
καὶ τοῦ θέρους οἱ νεώτεροι αὐτῶν εἰς τὰ τῶν than 5,000 in number, paraded with saffron-
Νυµφῶν ἄντρα τῶν Λουσιάδων ἀποδηµοῦντες colored coats over their breastplates, and in
διετέλουν µετὰ πάσης τρυφῆς. οἱ δ᾽ εὔποροι summertime their young men journeyed to
αὐτῶν ὁπότε εἰς ἀγρὸν παραβάλλοιεν, καίπερ ἐπὶ the grottoes of the Nymphs on the Lousias
ζευγῶν πορευόµενοι, τὴν ἡµερησίαν πορείαν ἐν river, spending their time in all kinds of luxury.
τρισὶν ἡµέραις διήνυον. ἦσαν δέ τινες αὐτοῖς καὶ Whenever the rich among them went into the
τῶν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς φερουσῶν ὁδῶν κατάστεγοι. country, even though they traveled in
τοῖς δὲ πλείστοις αὐτῶν ὑπάρχουσιν οἰνῶνες ἐγγὺς carriages, they took three days to complete a
τῆς θαλάσσης, εἰς οὓς δι᾽ ὀχετῶν τῶν οἴνων ἐκ τῶν one-day journey. Furthermore, some of their
ἀγρῶν ἀφειµένων, τὸν µὲν ἔξω τῆς χώρας roads leading into the country were roofed
πιπράσκεσθαι, τὸν δὲ εἰς τὴν πόλιν τοῖς πλοίοις over. Most of them have wine-cellars near the
διακοµίζεσθαι. ποιοῦνται δὲ καὶ δηµοσίαι πολλὰς sea, into which the wines are sent through
καὶ πυκνὰς ἑστιάσεις, καὶ τοὺς λαµπρῶς pipes from their country-homes. Part of it is
φιλοτιµηθέντας χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις τιµῶσι, καὶ sold outside the country; part of it is carried by
τούτους ἀνακηρύττουσιν ἐν ταῖς δηµοσίαις θυσίαις boat into the polis. They also celebrate many
καὶ τοῖς ἀγῶσιν, προσκηρύττοντες οὐκ εὔνοιαν public banquets frequently, and they present
ἀλλὰ τὴν εἰς τὰ δεῖπνα χορηγίαν· ἐν οἷς the men who have striven brilliantly for
στεφανοῦσθαι καὶ τῶν µαγείρων τοὺς ἄριστα τὰ honors with golden crowns. And they publish
παρατεθέντα διασκευάσαντας. παρὰ Συβαρίταις their names at state sacrifices and games,
δ᾽ εὑρέθησαν καὶ πύελοι, ἐν αἷς κατακείµενοι proclaiming not so much their high-
ἐπυριῶντο· πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ ἀµίδας ἐξεῦρον, ἃς mindedness as their service in providing
εἰσέφερον εἰς τὰ συµπόσια. καταγελῶντες δὲ τῶν feasts. On these occasions they even crown the
ἀποδηµούντων ἐκ τῶν πατρίδων, αὐτοὶ cooks who have most skillfully prepared the
ἐσεµνύνοντο ἐπὶ τῶι γεγηρακέναι ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν dishes served. The Sybarites also devised tubs
ποταµῶν γεφύραις. (18) δοκεῖ δὲ †µετὰ τῆς in which they lay and enjoyed hot baths. They
εὐδαιµονίας αὐτῶν εἶναι, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς χώρας, too were the first to invent chamber pots,
ἀλιµένου τῆς θαλάσσης παρηκούσης, καὶ τῶν which they carried to their drinking parties.
καρπῶν σχεδὸν ἁπάντων ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν Ridiculing those traveling from abroad, they
καταναλισκοµένων†· ὅ τε τῆς πόλεως τόπος καὶ ὁ took pride in growing old at the bridges of
παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ χρησµὸς συµπαροξῦναι πάντας their two rivers. (18) It seems that their
ἐκτρυφῆσαι καὶ ποιῆσαι ζῆσαι ὑπὲρ τὸ µέτρον country was an important reason for their
ἐκλελυµένως. ἡ δὲ πόλις αὐτῶν ἐν κοίλωι κειµένη prosperity, since the sea stretching beside it
τοῦ µὲν θέρους ἕωθέν τε καὶ πρὸς ἑσπέραν ψῦχος gives no harbor, and practically all produce is
ὑπερβάλλον ἔχει, τὸ δὲ µέσον τῆς ἡµέρας καῦµα consumed by the inhabitants. And besides the
ἀνύποιστον, ὥστε τοὺς πλείστους αὐτῶν situation of their polis, the oracle coming from
ὑπειληφέναι πρὸς ὑγίειαν διαφέρειν τοὺς πότους the god seems to have assisted in driving them
(?)· ὅθεν καὶ ῥηθῆναι, ὅτι τὸν βουλόµενον ἐν all to excessive luxury, and to have caused
Συβάρει µὴ πρὸ µοίρας ἀποθανεῖν οὐτε δυόµενον them to adopt a lifestyle of indulgence beyond
οὐτε ἀνίσχοντα τὸν ἥλιον ὁρᾶν δεῖ. ἔπεµψαν δέ measure. Their polis lying in a hollow, it in
ποτε καὶ εἰς θεοῦ τοὺς χρησοµένους, ὧν ἦν εἷς summertime enjoys great coolness in the
῎Αµυρις, πυνθανόµενοι µέχρι τίνος morning and evening; but at midday it
εὐδαιµονήσουσι· καὶ ἡ Πυθία ἔφη «Εὐδαίµων, endures unbearable heat. And so morning and
<Συβαρῖτα, πανευδαίµων> σὺ µὲν αἰεί / ἐν evening, but at noon the heat is unbearable, so
θαλίηισιν ἔσηι, τιµῶν γένος αἰὲν ἐόντων. / εὖτ᾽ ἂν that most of them thought that drinking
δὲ πρότερον θνητὸν θεοῦ ἄνδρα σεβίσσηις, / contributed to health. From this it was said
τηνίκα σοι πόλεµός τε καὶ ἔµφυλος στάσις ἥξει». that anyone in Sybaris who did not want to die
τούτων ἀκούσαντες ἔδοξαν λέγειν αὐτοῖς τὸν θεὸν before the allotted time must not look upon
ὡς οὐδέποτε παύσοιντο τρυφῶντες· οὐδέποτε γὰρ the rising or setting sun. They once sent men,
τιµήσειν ἄνθρωπον µᾶλλον θεοῦ. ἐγένετ᾽ οὖν one of whom was Amyris, to the temple of the
αὐτοῖς τῆς τύχης ἡ µεταβολή, ἐπεί τις τῶν god to consult the oracle, because they wanted
οἰκετῶν τινα µαστιγῶν καὶ τοῦτον καταφυγόντα to learn how long they should enjoy prosperity.
εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ πάλιν ἐµαστίγου· ὡς δὲ τὸ τελευταῖον The Pythian priestess answered, ‘Happy,
κατέδραµεν ἐπὶ τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ µνήµατα, [Sybarite, all happy] you will forever be in
ἀφῆκεν αἰδεσθείς. [[ἐξαναλώθησαν δὲ abundance, while honoring the race that is
φιλοτιµούµενοι πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς τρυφαῖς, καὶ ἡ πόλις immortal. But when you hold a mortal in awe
δὲ πρὸς ἁπάσας τὰς ἄλλας ἡµιλλᾶτο περὶ rather than a god, then war and civil strife will
τρυφῆς]]. εἶτα µετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ γινοµένων αὐτοῖς come upon you’. Hearing this they concluded
σηµείων πολλῶν †καὶ ἀπωλείας, περὶ ἧς οὐκέτ᾽ that the god meant they would never cease to
ἐπείγει λέγειν, διεφθάρησαν. live in luxury, since they did not think they
would ever honor a human being more than a
god. But the change of fortune occurred when
a man was flogging one of his slaves. He
continued flogging him after the slave had fled
for refuge to the sanctuaries. But when finally
the slave ran to the tomb of his master’s father,
the master let him go out of reverence. [[And
they were exhausted by impassioned
competition in self-indulgence, and the entire
community also contended with all others
concerning luxury.]] And not long afterwards,
then, when many signs †of their impending
ruin came to them, about which it is
unnecessary to speak, they were destroyed.
Commentary
In this fragment, Timaios gives an argument based on climatic determinism in order to

explain Sybarite collective character of the sort best known in ancient Greek thought from the
Hippokratic treatise Airs, Waters, Places. On the saffron-colored cloaks of the Sybarite cavalry
as a sign of overindulgent luxury, cf. Ath. 5.197-98. For the opulent decadence of Sybaris and
Timaios’s interest in excessive luxury, see Commentary to F 47.
BNJ 566 F 51

Work mentioned:

καὶ οἱ τὴν Σῖριν δὲ κατοικοῦντες – ἣν πρῶτοι And the men who colonized Siris – first
κατέσχον οἱ ἀπὸ Τροίας ἐλθόντες, ὕστερον δ᾽ ὑπὸ occupied by the refugees from Troy, later by
Κολοφωνίων **, ὥς φησι Τίµαιος καὶ the Kolophonians **, as Timaios and Aristotle
᾽Αριστοτέλης – εἰς τρυφὴν ἐξώκειλαν οὐχ ἧσσον (F 557 Rose) say – drifted into luxury no less
Συβαριτῶν. καὶ γὰρ ἰδίως παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς than the Sybarites. It was their custom to wear
ἐπεχωρίασεν φορεῖν ἀνθινοὺς χιτῶνας, οὓς brightly-colored chitons, which they secured
ἐζώννυντο µίτραις πολυτελέσιν, καὶ ἐκαλοῦντο διὰ with expensive sashes, and for this reason they
τοῦτο ὑπὸ τῶν περιοίκων µιτροχίτωνες, ἐπεὶ were called by neighbors ‘sash-chitons’, since
῞Οµηρος τοὺς ἀζώστους ἀµιτροχίτωνας καλεῖ· καὶ Homer calls men without belts ‘non-sash-
᾽Αρχίλοχος δ᾽ ὁ ποιητὴς ὑπερτεθαύµακε τὴν tunics’. And Archilochos (F 18 Diehl) the poet
χώραν τῶν Σιριτῶν διὰ τὴν εὐδαιµονίαν. greatly admired the country of the Sirites on
account of its prosperity.
Commentary
F 51 and F 52 are important because they demonstrate that Timaios connected the foundation
of a south Italian Greek state with the Trojan War (cf. Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 489 on
Antiochos of Syracuse). Strabo (6.1.14 (C264)) states that there once was a Trojan city named
Siris. Strabo continues that later Ionians, fleeing from the Lydians, took over the city; he also
records variant traditions of Rhodian and joint Tarantine-Thurian foundations (the Tarantine-
Thurian story refers to the involvement of a Lakedaimonian exile, Kleandridas; cf. Hdt. 8.62.3).
For Siris’s Colophonian origin, cf. Strabo 6.1.4 (C264). According to Boiotian legend, Siris,
eponym of the polis, figured in the tale of Melanippe. Melanippe supplanted Siris as the wife
of Metabos or Metapontios (obviously the eponymous founder of nearby Metapontum).
Timaios followed some form of this legend (see F 52), which seems to have been known in
southern Italy as early as Euripides; perhaps even as early as Archilochos (F 496 N2; cf. T.J.
Dunbabin, The Western Greeks. The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the
Greek Colonies to 480 B.C. (Oxford 1948), 33 and n. 2). Lykophron, the Lykophron scholiast (ad
984), and Justin (20.2) provide additional material on Siris’s origins. Timaios probably
recounted the mythical prehistory of Siris, located in the plain between Taras and Sybaris, at
the point when the polis first came into his historical account; most likely in the narration of
the wars between 530 and 520 BC, during which the allied states of Kroton, Sybaris, and
Metapontum destroyed Siris. This would also have provided the opportunity for Timaios to
describe Sirite truphē (cf. Commentary to F 9 on Sybaris). For Aristotle on Siris, see F 584 Rose;
Homer, Il. 2.419; Archilochos, F 18 Diehl.
BNJ 566 F 52
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 12.25.523DE

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 12.25.523DE
ὠνοµάσθη δ᾽ ἡ Σῖρις, ὡς µὲν Τίµαιός φησιν καὶ Siris was named, as Timaios says and Euripides
Εὐριπίδης ἐν Δηµώτιδι [ἢ] Μελανίππηι, ἀπὸ too in Demotis or Melanippe (TGrF (45) iib
γυναικός τινος Σίριδος, ὡς δ᾽ ᾽Αρχίλοχος ἀπὸ Kannicht), after a woman Siris; but according
ποταµοῦ. to Archilochos after the name of a river.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 51.
BNJ 566 F 53
Source: Ioannes Tzetzes, Commentary on Lykophron, Alexandra

615
Work mentioned:
Scholia, 615
κολοσσοβάµων] ἁλούσης τῆς ᾽Ιλίου Διοµήδης ἀντὶ With colossal stride] When Troy had been
τοῦ ἕρµατος ἐκ τοῦ τείχους τῶν Τρώων λίθους εἰς sacked Diomedes threw stones from the walls
τὴν ναῦν ἐβάλετο. παραγενόµενος δὲ εἰς τὸ of Troy for ballast into his ship. Coming to
῎Αργος καὶ ἐλαθεὶς ὑπὸ Αἰγιαλείας τῆς γαµετῆς, Argos and escaping the clutches of his wife
παρεγένετο εἰς ᾽Ιταλίαν. εὑρὼν δὲ τηνικαῦτα τὸν Aigialeia, he arrived in Italy. And then finding
ἐν τῆι Σκυθίαι δράκοντα λυµαινόµενον τὴν the dragon of Skythia (scil. Kolchis) terrorizing
Φαιακίδα διέφθειρε τοῦτον, τὴν τοῦ Γλαύκου Phaiakis (scil. Kerkyra) he slew it, holding the
χρυσῆν ἀσπίδα κατέχων, νοµίσαντος τοῦ golden shield of Glaukos, the dragon taking it
δράκοντος τὸ χρυσοῦν δέρας εἶναι τοῦ κριοῦ. to be the golden fleece of the ram. Greatly
τιµηθεὶς δ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτωι σφόδρα, ἀνδριάντα honored for this, preparing a statue, he erected
κατασκευάσας, ἱδρύσατο ἐκ τῶν λίθων τῶν ἐκ τῆς it out of the stones from Troy. Timaios relates
᾽Ιλίου. ἱστορεῖ δὲ τοῦτο Τίµαιος καὶ Λύκος ἐν τῶι this as well as Lykos in his third book ( BNJ 570
τρίτωι. ὕστερον δὲ ἀνελὼν ὁ Δαῦνος αὐτόν, ἔρριψε F 3). Later Daunos destroyed him, and cast out
καὶ τοὺς ἀνδριάντας εἰς θάλασσαν· οὗτοι δὲ his likenesses into the sea. But these, holding
ἀνεχόµενοι τὰ κύµατα, πάλιν ἐξήρχοντο πρὸς τὰς up the waves, dictated their rhythms. And the
βάσεις αὐτῶν. καὶ ἡ µὲν ἱστορία τοιαύτη. story is such as this.
Commentary
The Lykophron scholia are well preserved, primarily in Marcianus 476 (11th century) and
Neapolitanus, Bibl. Nat., ii D 4 (13th century); cf. S. West, ‘Notes on the Text of Lycophron’, CQ
33 (1983), 114-35. As Jacoby noted, the excerpts relating to the Daunians (Apulia) in F 53-56 are
significant because they demonstrate that Timaios did not restrict himself to Greek
mythology, but rather engaged with non-Greek ethnographies (based either on autopsy or
written sources). Lykos of Rhegion ( BNJ 570) was a contemporary of Timaios; he wrote
histories of Sicily and Libya. On the possibility that the mention of Lykos in the Lykophron
scholiast indicates that Timaios had engaged in polemic against Lykos in relation to
Diomedes’ wanderings, see Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 598 n. 5. For Diomedes’ adventures
in Lykophron, see Alex. 592-632. Lykophron’s account of Diomedes is cast in erudite
Hellenistic poetic allusion; for the context of the story, see Commentary to F 55. For Timiaos’s
interest in connecting Greek mythology with the west, see Commentary to T 7.
BNJ 566 F 54
Source: Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 2.29-30

Work mentioned:
Pollux, Iulius (Ioulios Polydeukes),

Onomasticon, 2.29-30
(29) ... ἐκαλεῖτο δέ τις καὶ ῾Εκτόρειος κόµη, περὶ (29) ... And some hair is even called
ἧς φησιν ᾽Αναξίλας «τὴν ῾Εκτόρειον τὴν ἐφίµερον Hektoreios, concerning which Anaxilas (PCG 2,
κόµην». (30) Τίµαιος δὲ τὴν κουρὰν ταύτην Anaxilas F 37) says, ‘the Hektoreian [is] the
προεστάλθαι µὲν δεῖν περὶ τὸ µέτωπον λέγει, τῶι delightful lock’. (30) And Timaios says that this
δὲ τραχήλωι περικεχύσθαι. lock of hair must be made to come forth
around the face, and flow down around the
neck.
Commentary
Anaxilas of Rhegion (Kassel-Austin, PCG 2.279-98) was a writer of the Middle Comedy. He
lampooned Plato in three of his plays, Botrylion, Kirke, and Rich Women (D.L. 3.28), which has
led scholars to put his floruit in the mid-4th century BC. See H.-G. Nesselrath, Die attische
Komödie: Ihre Stellung in der antiken Literaturkritik und Literaturgeschichte (Berlin 1990), 199-
200. For the ‘Hektoreian’ coiffure, see Hesych., s.v. Hektoreioi komai; Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 1133.
BNJ 566 F 55

1137
Work mentioned:
Scholia, 1137
σηκὸν δέ µοι τεύξουσι Δαυνίων ἄκροι / Σάλπης For me the Daunian leaders will build a shrine
παρ᾽ ὄχθαις ... / κόραι δὲ παρθένειον ἐκφυγεῖν by Salpa’s banks … And maidens, when they
ζυγὸν / ὅταν θέλωσι, νυµφίους ἀρνούµεναι / τοὺς wish to avoid the marriage yoke and ignore the
῾Εκτορείοις ἠγλαισµένους κόµαις / … ἐµὸν pleas of suitors glorying in their golden locks,
περιπτύξουσιν ὠλέναις βρέτας, / ἄλκαρ µέγιστον like Hektor, … will grasp my statue in their
κτώµεναι νυµφευµάτων / ᾽Ερινύων ἐσθῆτα καὶ embrace, and they will gain certain protection
ῥέθους βαφάς, / πεπασµέναι θρόνοισι from nuptial rites. Like Furies, robed in black,
φαρµακτηρίοις. / κείναις ἐγὼ δηναιὸν ἄφθιτος θεὰ and on their cheeks a hue from the juice of
/ ῥαβδηφόροις γυναιξὶν αὐθηδήσοµαι] ὁ δὲ magic herbs; yes, by these women bearing
Τίµαιός φησιν, ὅτι ῞Ελληνες ἐπειδὰν ἀπαντήσωσι Furies’ rods, Immortal Goddess, I shall be
ταῖς Δαυνίαις ὑπεσταλµέναις µὲν ἐσθῆτα φαιάν, called] Timaios says that when the Hellenes
ἐζωσµέναις δὲ ταινίαις πλατείαις, ὑποδεδεµέναις encountered the Daunian women shrinking in
δὲ τὰ κοῖλα τῶν ὑποδηµάτων, ἐχούσαις δὲ ἐν ταῖς mourning clothing, seated with broad fillets,
χερσὶ ῥάβδον, ὑπαληλιµµέναις δὲ τὸ πρόσωπον wearing half-boots, holding in their hands a
καθάπερ πυρρῶι τινι χρώµατι, τῶν Ποινῶν ἔννοιαν staff, with their faces anointed as if with some
λαµβάνουσι τῶν τραγικῶν. red coloring, they took thought of the tragic
Avengers.
Commentary
For Daunian women in black robes, cf. Thaum. Ak. 109; for Daunian women and ‘Hektoreian’
locks, see Hesych., s.v. Hektoreioi komai. For mourning rituals in ancient Greece, still well
worth consulting is M. Alexiou, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition 2 (Lanham, MD 2002);
original edition published in 1974 by the Cambridge University Press. Timaios brought
Diomedes and his followers to Apulia, where they were horror-stricken by the sight of the
Daunian women. Diomedes helped Daunos defeat his enemies, but was ultimately cheated of
the prize for his services, and proceeded to pronounce a curse on the land. He swore that it
would never bear fruit until his descendants should till it; swearing that the stones he set up,
which were taken from Ilion, should not be removed. Once removed, they would fly back into
position (cf. F 53; Schol. Lyc. Alex. 592; Lyk. Alex. 619-29; F 129). On the legend of Diomedes in
Apulia, see P.M. Fraser, ‘The World of Theophrastus’, in Greek Historiography, ed. by S.
Hornblower (Oxford 1994), 167-91, at 182-4; on the Diomedes cult in the western
Mediterranean, see I. Malkin, The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity (Berkeley
1998), 234-57.
BNJ 566 F 56a

1050
Work mentioned:
Scholia, 1050
ὁ δ᾽ Αὐσονείων ἄγχι Κάλχαντος τάφων, / δυοῖν One in Ausonia near to Kalchas’s tomb, an
ὁµαίµοιν ἅτερος, ψευδηρίων / ξένην ἐπ᾽ ὀστέοισιν empty tomb, one of the twin brothers will bear
ὀγχήσει κόνιν. / δοραῖς δὲ µήλων τύµβον the foreign dust heaped on his bones. And
ἐγκοιµωµένοις / χρήσει καθ᾽ ὕπνον πᾶσι νηµερτῆ whoever reposes on sheepskins on his grave, to
φάτιν. / νόσων δ᾽ ἀκεστὴς Δαυνίοις κληθήσεται, / him in dreams he prophesies truly. He will be
ὅταν καθικµαίνοντες ᾽Αλθαίνου ῥοαῖς / ἀρωγὸν called by Daunians a healer whenever they
αὐδήσωσιν ᾽Ηπίου γόνον / αὐτοῖσι καὶ ποίµναισι bathe in Althainos’s flowing streams, and pray
πρευµενῆ µολεῖν] εἰώθασιν οἱ Δαύνιοι ἐν µηλωταῖς for the succoring son of Epios to come with
καθεύδειν ἐν τῶι τάφωι τοῦ Ποδαλειρίου καὶ καθ᾽ kind intention to man and flocks] The
ὕπνους λαµβάνειν χρησµοὺς ἐξ αὐτοῦ. εἰώθασι δὲ Daunians were accustomed to sleep in
καὶ ἐν τῶι πλησίον ποταµῶι ᾽Αλθαίνωι sheepskins in the tomb of Podaleirios and
ἀπολούεσθαι, καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ τὰ θρέµµατα αὐτῶν, through dreams to take prophecy from him.
καὶ ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸν Ποδαλείριον, καὶ ὑγιάζεσθαι, And they also were accustomed to wash
ὅθεν καὶ ὁ ποταµὸς ἔσχε τὴν ὀνοµασίαν, ὡς themselves in the nearby Althainos river, both
ἀλθαίνων κατὰ Τίµαιον καὶ θεραπεύων τῶν themselves and their livestock, and to call
λουοµένων ἁπάντων ζώων. upon Podaleirios, and to be healed, whence
the river also took the name, as healing,
according to Timaios, and fostering all living
things bathing (in it).
Commentary
The Lykophron scholiast cites Timaios here only in connection with the etymology of the river
Althainos, but he was certainly the source of the entire description of the Daunians’ use of the
river for medicinal bathing and the tomb of Podaleirios. Podaleirios and his brother Machaon,
sons of Asklepios, came from Thessay to Troy, where they served as physicians for the Greek
army (Hom. Il. 2.730-33). For the Daunian herōon of Podaleirios (there was another nearby of
Kalchas), see Strabo 6.3.9 (C284); Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 1047; evidence for these cults
summarized in M.H. Hansen & Th. Heine Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis
(Oxford 2004), 323.
BNJ 566 F 56b
Source: Etymologicum Genuinum 320.1 ( Etymologicum Magnum

63.3)
Work mentioned:
Etymologicum Genuinum (M.: Miller E.,

Mélanges; R.: Reitzenstein R., Geschichte)
[Vide: Lexicon rhetoricum & Orosius apud
Etymo1ogicum Genuinum], 320.1
῎Αλθαινος· ποταµὸς ᾽Ιταλίας, ὅν φησιν Althainos: river of Italy, which Timaios says
ὀνοµασθῆναι Τίµαιος διὰ τὸ ἀλθαίνειν τὰ was named on account of its healing of the
τραύµατα τῶν ἐν αὐτῶι λουοµένων. οὕτως ῏Ωρος. wounds of those who bathed in it. Thus Horos.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 57

Work mentioned:

152
τὴν δὲ ἐν τοῖς Σαρµάταις λίµνην ῾Ηρακλείδην Herakleides writes that no birds pass over the
γράφειν ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶν ὀρνίθων ὑπεραίρειν, τὸ δὲ mere among the Sarmatians (F 128b Wehrli),
προσελθὸν ὑπὸ τῆς ὀσµῆς τελευτᾶν· ὃ δὴ καὶ περὶ and what does approach it dies from the foul
τὴν ᾽Αορνῖτιν δοκεῖ γίγνεσθαι, καὶ κατίσχυκεν ἡ smell. This indeed seems to happen around
φήµη παρὰ τοῖς πλείστοις. ὁ δὲ Τίµαιος τοῦτο µὲν the Aornitis, and the story holds sway among
ψεῦδος ἡγεῖται εἶναι· τὰ πλεῖστα γὰρ κατατυχεῖν many people. But Timaios believes this to be
τῶν εἰθισµένων παρ᾽ αὐτῆι διαιτᾶσθαι. ἐκεῖνο false. For most things thrive, once accustomed
µέντοι λέγει, διότι «συνδένδρων τόπων to live by it. In respect to that point indeed he
ἐπικειµένων αὐτῆι, καὶ πολλῶν κλάδων καὶ says that ‘With thickly-wooded places lying
φύλλων διὰ τὰ πνεύµατα τῶν µὲν κατακλωµένων, near to it, and many young shoots and foliage,
τῶν δὲ ἀποσειοµένων, οὐδέν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆι on account of the breezes, beaten down and
ἐφεστηκός, ἀλλὰ διαµένειν καθαράν». shaken loose, there is nothing to see standing
by it, but it remains pure’.
Commentary
For Herakleides on the Sarmatian mere, see F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 7 (Basle 1953),
F 128b. This fragment may suggest Timaios’s autopsy (contra T.S. Brown, Timaeus of
Tauromenium (Berkeley 1958), 29), a historiographic virtue which Polybios of course was
reluctant to grant to him (Polyb. 12.27; see Commentary to T 19; but cf. T 10 and F 12). Its
position in Timaios’s text was probably as part of an excursus from the treatment of Aitna (cf.
Jaboby’s Commentary to F 5-6). By Strabo’s time, the dense foliage around Lake Avernus had
been cleared away for building purposes at Baiae (5.4.5 (C244)). For Timaios and Herakleides,
see Commentary to F 6.
BNJ 566 F 58a

Work mentioned:
AD

καὶ Τίµαιος δὲ περὶ τῶν Πιθηκουσσῶν φησιν ὑπὸ And Timaios says that many marvels about
τῶν παλαιῶν πολλὰ παραδοξολογεῖσθαι, µικρὸν Pithekoussai are told by the ancients, and that
δὲ πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ᾽Επωµέα λόφον ἐν µέσηι τῆι only a little before his own day the hill called
νήσωι τιναγέντα ὑπὸ σεισµῶν ἀναβαλεῖν πῦρ, καὶ Epomea in the middle of the island, when
τὸ µεταξὺ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς θαλάττης ἐξῶσαι [πάλιν] shaken by earthquake, spawned fire and
ἐπὶ τὸ πέλαγος, τὸ δ᾽ ἐκτεφρωθὲν τῆς γῆς shoved the part between it and the sea back to
µετεωρισµὸν λαβὸν κατασκῆψαι πάλιν the open sea; and the part of the land that had
τυφωνοειδῶς εἰς τὴν νῆσον, καὶ ἐπὶ τρεῖς τὴν been burnt to ashes, upon being lifted up into
θάλατταν ἀναχωρῆσαι σταδίους, ἀναχωρήσασαν the air, crashed down again against the island
δὲ µετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ ὑποστρέψαι καὶ τῆι παλιρροίαι like a whirlwind; and the sea retreated three
κατακλύσαι τὴν νῆσον, καὶ γενέσθαι σβέσιν τοῦ ἐν stadia, but shortly thereafter turned back and
αὐτῆι πυρός· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἤχου τοὺς ἐν τῆι ἠπείρωι with its reverse current flooded the island;
φυγεῖν ἐκ τῆς παραλίας εἰς τὴν <ἄνω> and, consequently, the fire on the island was
Καµπανίαν. quenched, but the noise was such that on the
mainland people fled from the coast into
Campania.
Commentary
Pliny (NH 2.89.203), records ancient seismic and volcanic activity at Mount Epopos, which first
threw up great flames and was then leveled with the plain. The entire account in Pliny may
have derived more immediately from Poseidonios; cf. Schol. Pind. Pyth. 1.34a (perhaps from
Timaios). Poseidonios may also have been consulted for this passage from Timaios in Strabo
(5.4.9 (C247-48)), which recounts the history of Pithekoussai in connection with Hiero I’s
attempt to colonize the area around the bay of Naples, in particular the island of Ischia (cf. F.
Sbordone, ‘Timeo, Strabone, e il Golfo di Napoli’, Studi classici in onore di Q. Cataudella II
(Catania 1972), 409-16). Hiero’s activities in this area would have provided the context for
Timaios’s digression on ‘the many marvels about Pithekoussai’, though it is uncertain whether
he relayed the tradition of Odysseus’s visit (cf. Lykophr. Alex. 688-93). The extent of Timaios’s
contribution to stories of the ‘Ape-Islands’ (Pithekoussai), two islands on the coast of
Campania, cannot be determined with any precision. For the earliest evidence for Greek
colonization at Pithekoussai, see I. Malkin, The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity
(Berkeley 1998), 62-93.
BNJ 566 F 58b

Work mentioned:

Antiquities, 1.6.1
See T 9b.
Commentary
Timaios on Rome: See Commentary to T 9b.
BNJ 566 F 59

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: asylum, right of - Library of Congress

Antiquities, 1.67.4
σχήµατος δὲ καὶ µορφῆς αὐτῶν πέρι Τίµαιος µὲν ὁ Concerning their figure and appearance (scil.
συγγραφεὺς ὧδε ἀποφαίνεται· κηρύκεια σιδηρᾶ the Penates), the writer Timaios sets forth that
καὶ χαλκᾶ καὶ κέραµον Τρωικὸν εἶναι τὰ ἐν τοῖς holy objects preserved in the sanctuary at
ἀδύτοις τοῖς ἐν Λαουινίωι κείµενα ἱερά, πυθέσθαι Lavinium are iron and bronze heralds’ wands
δὲ αὐτὸς ταῦτα παρὰ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων. and a Trojan ceramic vessel; he says he learned
this from the inhabitants.
Commentary
Some of Timaios’s Sicilian Greek predecessors undoubtedly had already written on the
mythological foundation of Rome and the Gallic catastrophe, simply through transmission
from their contacts with states in Magna Graecia. But on the basis of our evidence, Timaios
represents a turning point in Greek interest in Rome (but cf. Commentary to T 9c). Timaios
was concerned to establish Rome’s foundation date (F 60, synchronized with the foundation
of Carthage; cf. F 82), and the present fragment provides a tantalizing glimpse of Timaios’s
probable connection of Roman foundations and the fall of Troy (n.b. the fragment explicitly
names Lavinium, not Rome). Strabo (5.3.5 (C232); cf. Plin. NH 3.5.56), writes of a settlement of
Ardea before Aeneas’s time, founded by Danaë, mother of Perseus, and he relays a story about
the area around Ardea: it was destroyed by the Samnites, but traces remained of ancient cities,
famous because Aeneas visited them; they preserved sacred rituals from that time. Timaios
may have been the source. But anything beyond clues such as this can only be conjectural,
including questions of the nature of Timaios’s account of Aeneas and Rome and whether or
not he had anything to say about the native Italic traditions on Alba Longa and Romulus and
Remus (on which, see T.P. Wiseman, Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge 1995)). For Timaios’s
connection of Rome and the Trojan saga, cf. F 36.
BNJ 566 F 60

Work mentioned:

Antiquities, 1.74.1
τὸν δὲ τελευταῖον γενόµενον τῆς ῾Ρώµης οἰκισµὸν Timaios of Sicily says (on what principle I do
ἢ κτίσιν ἢ ὅτι δήποτε χρὴ καλεῖν Τίµαιος µὲν ὁ not know) that the last settlement or founding
Σικελιώτης οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅτωι κανόνι χρησάµενος ἅµα of the city, or whatever we ought to call it, was
Καρχηδόνι κτιζοµένηι γενέσθαι φησὶν ὀγδόωι καὶ coincident with the founding of Carthage; that
τριακοστῶι πρότερον ἔτει τῆς πρώτης is, in the thirty-eighth year before the first
ὀλυµπιάδος. Olympiad.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 59. Timaios’s leading interest was most likely to have been the
foundation of Carthage, and he synchronized the foundation of Rome with its foundation, and
not vice versa (cf. F 82 on Theiossa-Elissa-Deido). Timaios’s synchronization for the two
foundations is equivalent to 814/13 BC (which itself creates chronological difficulties with his
statement on the foundation of Corcyra at F 80, because the tradition placed Corcyra’s
founding at least 100 years earlier). This is in contradiction with his statement that the Trojan
War took place around 1200 BC, and hence the implied foundation of Rome shortly thereafter
(F 125). For Timaios’s chronologies, see Commentary to F 125. For Timaios’s fondness for
coincidences, see F 105 (the simultaneous death of Euripides and birth of Dionysios’s tyranny),
F 106 (the Carthaginians’ profanation of the Apollo at Gela and Alexander’s capture of Tyre),
and F 150a (the birth of Alexander on the day of the burning of the temple of Artemis at
Ephesos).
BNJ 566 F 61
Source: Pliny the Elder, Natural History 33.42-43

Work mentioned:

History, 33.42-43
(42) ... populus Romanus ne argento quidem (42) ... The Roman people did not even use
signato ante Pyrrhum regem devictum usus est silver coinage until after King Pyrrhos was
… (43) … Servius rex primus signavit aes; antea defeated … (43) ... Servius was the first king to
rudi usos Romae Timaeus tradit. signatum est stamp bronze coinage; Timaios relates that
nota pecudum, unde et pecunia appellata. earlier they used unworked metal at Rome.
maximus census CXX assium fuit illo rege; et Coinage was stamped with the image of flocks,
ideo haec prima classis. argentum signatum whence it was called pecunia. The highest
anno urbis CCCCLXXXV, Q. Ogulnio C. Fabio property assessment under that king was 1,200
cos., quinque annis ante primum Punicum as-pieces. Silver was first coined in the 485th
bellum. year of the city, during the consulships of Q.
Ogulnius and C. Fabius, five years before the
First Punic War (269 BC).
Commentary
If the connection between Pyrrhos and Servius in Pliny is from Timaios, we have a good
indication that this fragment derived from Timaios’s monograph on Pyrrhos. Timaios’s
discussion of the nature of Roman currency before the time of King Servius Tullius provides
further evidence for his interest in Roman origins (cf. F 59 and F 60). For the tradition on
Servius and the introduction of Roman stamped coinage, see Plin. NH 18.12, 33.43; Cassiodorus,
Variae 7.32.4; Charisius, Institutiones grammaticae 105 Keil, with R. Thomsen, King Servius
Tullius: A Historical Synthesis (Copenhagen 1980), 203). If we are to attribute any historical
value to Timaios’s statement on Servius, it is best to assume that Pliny’s aes represents a pound
of bronze, and not an actual stamped coinage. Q. Ogulnius Gallus and C. Fabius Pictor were
consuls in 269 BC (MRR 1.199), which provides the date for the first silver coinage. This raises
further problems, however, since coin hoards show Roman silver coinage in the context of the
war with Pyrrhos. One solution is to assume that the earliest Roman silver coinage was struck
outside of Rome and that Timaios/Pliny refer to the date that Roman silver coinage was first
struck in Rome. But the problem remains of determining which Roman silver issue is meant;
Pliny seems to assume the Roman denarius. See M.H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage 1
(Cambridge 1974), 35-7. Cf. Timaios’s interest in the early talent (F 143a).
BNJ 566 F 62a
Source: Tertullian, On the Spectacles 5

Work mentioned:
Tertullian (Q. Septimius Florens

Tertullianus), On the Spectacles, 5
Lydos ex Asia transvenas in Etruria consedisse Timaios relates that the Lydians, coming over
Timaeus refert duce Tyrrheno, qui fratri suo from Asia, settled in Etruria with Tyrrhenos as
cesserat regni contentione; exstant auctores their leader, who had yielded to his brother in
multi. a struggle for kingship; many authors survive
(relaying this).
Commentary
There were several Greek accounts of Etruscan origins, the most important of which can only
be indicated here. Timaios follows the tradition attested in Herodotos (1.94) that the Etruscans
were immigrants from Lydia, followers of Tyrrhenos (cf. Strabo 5.2.2 (C219)). Dionysios of
Halikarnassos (1.25-30) preserves a rival tradition that the Etruscans were autochthonous to
Italy. Hellanikos, BNJ 4 F 4 (D.H. 1.28.3) stated that the Etruscans were earlier Pelasgians, who
took the name Tyrrhenians after they migrated to Italy. For Etruscan origins of various Roman
political and social institutions, see Diod. 5.40.1-2; cf. M. Pallottino, The Etruscans (New York
1975), 46-73.
BNJ 566 F 62b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.4c.2

Work mentioned:
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.4c.2

See T 19.
Commentary
Timaios on Libyans, Sardinians, and Italians: See Commentary to T 7.

BNJ 566 F 63

Work mentioned:

History, 3.85
Sardiniam ipsam Timaeus Sandaliotim Timaios has called Sardinia itself Sandaliotis
appellavit ab effigie soleae, Myrsilus Ichnusam from its similarity to the sole of a shoe, and
a similitudine vestigii. Myrsilos calls it Ichnusa, from its resemblance
to a footprint.
Commentary
Timaios may have given both the names Sandaliotis and Ichnusa, perhaps also adding the
name Sardo as a third alternative, derived from Sardos, a son of Herakles, who supposedly led
a band of Libyan colonists to the island (cf. Paus. 10.17.2). In either of the first two instances,
the etymology would have to do with the similarity in shape between the island and the
human foot: ichnos (human footprint; cf. Gell. NA 13.30.5 (= Sallust, Historiae 2, F 2
McGushin)) and sandaliotis (‘sandal-shaped’). For Sandaliotis, cf. Solin. 4.1 (= Sall. Hist. 2, F 3
McGushin). Pausanias (10.17.3-7) recounts successive waves of Greek and non-Greek
(including Trojan) immigrants. His account of Sardinian pre-history may owe something to
Timaios. For Myrsilos, see BNJ 477 F 11.
BNJ 566 F 64
Source: Scholia on Plato, Respublica 337A

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 337A
Σαρδάνιον· παροιµία ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπ᾽ ὀλέθρωι τῶι Bitter: proverb on those laughing at their own
σφῶν αὐτῶν γελώντων. οἱ γὰρ τὴν Σαρδὼ ruin. For those colonizing Sardinia, as Timaios
κατοικοῦντες, ὥς φησι Τίµαιος, ἐπειδὰν αὐτοῖς says, when their parents grow old, and they
ἀπογηράσκωσιν οἱ γονεῖς, καὶ νοµίσωσιν ἱκανὸν consider that they have lived a sufficient
βεβιωκέναι χρόνον, ἄγουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον length of time, lead them to a place where
ἐν ὧι µέλλουσι θάψαι, κἀκεῖ λάκκους ὀρύξαντες they will bury them, and there, digging pits
ἐπ᾽ ἄκρων χειλῶν τοὺς µέλλοντας ἀποθνήσκειν along the highest ridges, place those about to
καθίζουσιν, ἔπειτα ἕκαστος αὐτῶν σχίζαν ἔχων die; and thereupon each of them wielding a
τύπτει τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα, καὶ εἰς τοὺς λάκκους stick strikes his father, and shoves him into the
περιωθεῖ· τοὺς δὲ πρεσβύτας χαίροντας ἐπὶ τὸν pits; and the elders rejoice at being on the
θάνατον παραγίνεσθαι ὡς εὐδαίµονας, καὶ µετὰ threshold of death, and die with laughter and
γέλωτος καὶ εὐθυµίας ἀπόλλυσθαι. ἐπεὶ οὖν γελᾶν good cheer. When then there is laughter, but in
µὲν συνέβαινεν, οὐ πάνυ δὲ ὁ γέλως ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῶι no way connected with some good thing,
τινι ἐγίνετο, παρὰ τοῖς ῞Ελλησι τὴν προκειµένην among the Hellenes the aforementioned
ῥηθῆναι παροιµίαν. proverb is spoken.
Commentary
On Timaios, this proverb, and the name of Sardina, see also Zenob. 5.85; Phot. Sud., s.v.
Σαρδάνιος γέλως; Eust. Hom. Od. 20.302; Tzetz. Lykophr. Alex. 796. Consensual killing and
euthanasia are elsewhere attested (see, e.g., Strabo 10.5.6 (C486), on the law at Ceos ordering
those over the age of sixty to drink hemlock; Pompon. 3.37, on the Hyperboreans), but aside
from the Stoics and with a few other exceptions (e.g., Demokritos, DK B 160), Greeks and
Romans abhorred such practices; see R. Garland, The Greek Way of Life: From Conception to Old
Age (Ithaca 1990), 284-5.
On Corsica: See Polybios 12.3.7 (= F 3) and the Commentary to F 3.
BNJ 566 F 65

Work mentioned:
AD
Fragment subject: chronology, historical - Library of Congress

τινὲς δὲ µετὰ τὴν ἐκ Τροίας ἄφοδον τὰς Γυµνησίας (Rhodian foundations in the west) Some say
νήσους ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν κτισθῆναι λέγουσιν, ὧν τὴν that the Gymnesian islands were founded by
µείζω φησὶ Τίµαιος µεγίστην εἶναι µετὰ τὰς ἑπτά them after their departure from Troy, and
– Σαρδώ, Σικελίαν, Κύπρον, Κρήτην, Εὔβοιαν, Timaios says that the larger of these is the
Κύρνον, Λέσβον –, οὐ τἀληθῆ λέγων· πολὺ γὰρ largest of all islands after the seven – Sardinia,
ἄλλαι µείζους. φασὶ δὲ τοὺς γυµνήτας ὑπὸ Sicily, Cyprus, Crete, Euboia, Kyrnos, and
Φοινίκων βαλεαρίδας λέγεσθαι †δι δ† τὰς Lesbos – but he is incorrect. For many other
Γυµνησίας Βαλεαρίδας λεχθῆναι. islands are larger. They say that ‘gymnetes’ are
called ‘balearides’ by Phoenicians, and on
account of this the Gymnesian islands are
called Balearides.
Commentary
For the crux at the end of this excerpt, I have followed Radt’s emendation (διότι codd.). Two
islands without individual names appear in the Diodorus excerpt (F 164) as the ‘greater’ and
the ‘lesser’ (Diod. 5.17.1; cf. Strabo 3.5.1 (C167) on the two Gymnasiai). Timaios said that the
islands were colonized by Boiotians (F 66). Strabo’s account may conflate Timaios (note that
the listing of Sardinia, Sicily, Cyprus, Crete, Euboia, Kyrnos, and Lesbos in that order was in
Timaios, which is confirmed by Diod. 5.17.1, showing Timaios as common source for Strabo
and Diodorus) and a Rhodian source, since Strabo has Rhodian, not Boiotian, colonists of the
Balearic islands. Artemidoros of Ephesos may also be one of Strabo’s sources on these isalnds.
Comparison of Lykophron’s description of the islands and Diod. 5.17-18 demonstrates that
Timaios recorded the customs of the islanders, including the training of small boys as slingers
(cf. Diod. 19.109.1-3; Strabo 3.5.1 (C168); Commentary to F 66). Strabo’s interest in the islands
would have been aroused by Q. Caecilius Metellus Baliarcus’s conquest of the islands in 121 BC
(MRR 1.521). See E. Hübner, ‘Baliares’, RE 2 (1896), cols. 2823-7. In the military sphere, the
Baleares were renowned as mercenary slingers; see W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War, Part
5 (Berkeley 1991), 1-67 passim.
BNJ 566 F 66

633
Work mentioned:
Scholia, 633
οἱ δ᾽ ἀµφικλύστους χοιράδας Γυµνησίας / And fleece-clad crabs by sea will reach the
σισυρνοδῦται καρκίνοι πεπλωκότες / ἄχλαινον wave-washed Gymnesian reefs, and there live
ἀµπρεύσουσι νήλιποι βίον, / τριπλαῖς δικώλοις out their lives with neither cloaks nor shoes,
σφενδόναις ὡπλισµένοι. / ὧν αἱ τεκοῦσαι τὴν armed with three slings of double thong each.
ἑκηβόλον τέχνην / ἄδορπα παιδεύσουσι νηπίους The skillful use of these, to shoot from afar, the
γονάς· / οὐ γάρ τις αὐτῶν ψίσεται πύρνον γνάθωι, mothers teach their children before they eat;
/ πρὶν ἂν κρατήσηι ναστὸν εὐστόχωι λίθωι / ὑπὲρ for none of them may taste wheaten bread
τράφηκος σῆµα κείµενον σκοποῦ. / καὶ τοὶ µὲν before with well-aimed stone he wins the
ἀκτὰς ἐµβατήσονται λεπράς / ᾽Ιβηροβοσκοὺς piece when placed on a post serving as a
ἄγχι Ταρτησοῦ πύλης, / ῎Αρνης παλαιᾶς γέννα, target. And these men will set foot on rugged
Τεµµίκων πρόµοι] Τίµαιος δέ φησιν εἰς ταύτας τὰς cliffs that rear Iberians, near to Tartessos’s gate;
νήσους ἐλθεῖν τινας τῶν Βοιωτῶν, ἅστινας νήσους they are descended from old Arne, chiefs of
Χοιράδας εἶπεν. Φιλτέας δὲ ἐν τρίτηι Ναξιακῶν the Temmikes] And Timaios says that some of
Βαλιαρίδας φησὶν αὐτὰς ὕστερον ὀνοµασθῆναι. ἃς the Boiotians came to these islands, which
νήσους ῞Ελληνες µὲν καὶ ῾Ρωµαῖοι κοινῶς islands (scil. Lykophron) calls Choradai. And
Γυµνησίας φασίν, ῎Ιβηρες δὲ Βαλερίας ἤτοι Philteas says in the third book of Naxian
ὑγιεινάς. ἕτεροι δὲ Γυµνασίας οὕτως αὐτάς φασι Affairs ( BNJ 498 F 1) that they later were
κληθῆναι, ὅτι οἱ περισωθέντες τῶν ῾Ελλήνων named Baliarides … which islands the
ἐκεῖσε γυµνοὶ ἐξήχθησαν, καὶ συνοικήσαντες Hellenes and Romans commonly call
γυναιξὶν οὕτω καὶ τὰς νήσους καὶ τοὺς παῖδας Gymnesiai, but the Iberians Balearidai or
ἐκάλεσαν. healthful (islands). But others say that they
were so called because Greek survivors were
discharged there naked, and cohabiting with
native women so named both the islands and
their children.
Commentary
The translation of the Lykophron passage is that of G. W. Mooney (1921), with modifications.
There were various explanations for the names ‘Balearidai’ and ‘Gymnasiai’. One tradition
derived the name Balearidai from Phoenicians, with a supposed Phoenician word, baliareis,
being equivalent to the Greek word sphendonētai (Eust. Dion. Per. 457; cf. F 65; Strabo 3.5.1
(C168)). Diodorus (5.17.1), probably derived from Timaios, states, in agreement with the
Lykophron scholiast, that the Greeks called the islands ‘Gymnasiai’ on account of the fact that
the inhabitants went about naked in the hot summer months, but the Romans called them
‘Baliarides’ from the fact that these islanders were the most skilled men in the world at hurling
(ballein) stones with slings (cf. Livy, Periochae 60; Serv. Verg. Georg. 1.309; Polyb. 3.33.11). The
epitome of Livy adds an alternative etymology from Balius, a companion left behind there by
Herakles (cf. Diod. 5.17.4; Commentary to F 67). For Timaios’s interest in Herakles’ wanderings,
see Commentary to T 15a. The mysterious Philteas of Naxos ( BNJ 498 F 1), wrote a local history
of Naxos in at least three books (see R. Laqueur, ‘Philteas’, RE 20 (1941), col. 203).
BNJ 566 F 67

Work mentioned:

History, 4.120
ab eo latere quo Hispaniam spectat (Gades) On the side facing Iberia at a remove of about
passibus fere C̄ altera insula est, longa M̄ one hundred yards is another island one mile
passus, M̄ lata, in qua prius oppidum Gadium long and one mile wide, on which the town of
fuit. vocatur ab Ephoro et Philistide Erythea, a Cadiz was earlier situated. It is called Erythea
Timaeo et Sileno Aphrodisias, ab indigenis by Ephoros ( BNJ 70 F 129) and Philistos ( BNJ
Junonis. maiorem Timaeus Cotinusam ab oleis 11 F 3), and Timaios and Silenos ( BNJ 175 F 7)
vocitatam ait, nostri Tarteson appellant, Poeni call it Aphrodisias, but it is called the isle of
Gadir, ita Punica lingua saepem significante. Juno by the native inhabitants. Timaios says
Erythea dicta est, quoniam Tyri aborigines that the larger island is known as Cotusina,
earum orti ab Erythro mari ferebantur. in hac from its olive-oil, but our people call it
Geryones habitasse a quibusdam existimatur, Tartessos and the Carthaginians Gadir, which
cuius armenta Hercules abduxerit; sunt qui in the Carthaginian language is a fence. It was
aliam esse eam et contra Lusitaniam called Erythea because the original ancestors
arbitrentur, eodemque nomine quandam ibi of the Carthaginians, the Tyrians, were said to
appellant. have come from the Red Sea. It is believed by
certain people that Geryones lived on it,
whose cattle Hercules carried off. There are
those who think that this was another island,
lying off Lusitania, and that they called an
island there by the same name.
Commentary
It is unclear as to whether the mention of Erytheia, Tartessos, and Gadeira stems from
Timaios; at any rate the Diodorus excerpt (F 164; Diod. 5.20.2) mentions in passing only
Gadeira and its temple of Herakles. Timaios most likely discussed this either in a purely
periegetic section of his work or in connection with his discussion of Herakles and the
Argonauts (see F 85; Commentary to T 15a). All that is clear is that Timaios called two of the
Iberian islands Aphrodisias and Cotusina.
For Timaios on (Tyros), Ligurians, and Celts, see Polybios 12.28a.3 (F 7) and Commentary to F
7.
BNJ 566 F 68

Work mentioned:

2.16.13-15
(16.13) τἄλλα δὲ τὰ περὶ τὸν ποταµὸν τοῦτον (16.6-12: the course of the Po river) (16.13) The
ἱστορούµενα παρὰ τοῖς ῞Ελλησι, λέγω δὴ τὰ περὶ other stories told by the Hellenes about this
Φαέθοντα καὶ τὴν ἐκείνου πτῶσιν, ἔτι τε τὰ river, I mean to say concerning Phaethon and
δάκρυα τῶν αἰγείρων καὶ τοὺς µελανειµόνας τοὺς his fall, and weeping polar trees and the black
περὶ τὸν ποταµὸν οἰκοῦντας, οὕς φασι τὰς ἐσθῆτας clothing of the dwellers near the river, who,
εἰσέτι νῦν φορεῖν τοιαύτας ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ they say, still dress in this way in mourning for
Φαέθοντα πένθους, (14) καὶ πᾶσαν δὴ τὴν Phaethon, (14) and all similar tragic material,
τραγικὴν … ὕλην ἐπὶ µὲν τοῦ παρόντος we may pass by for now … (15) I shall, however,
ὑπερθησόµεθα ... (15) µεταλαβόντες δὲ καιρὸν on a suitable occasion make proper mention
ἁρµόττοντα ποιησόµεθα τὴν καθήκουσαν µνήµην, of all this, especially since Timaios has
καὶ µάλιστα διὰ τὴν Τιµαίου περὶ τοὺς demonstrated such ignorance about the
προειρηµένους τόπους ἄγνοιαν. region.
Commentary
This excerpt is Polybios’s brief mention of the story of Phaethon and the inappropriate uses of
myth in historical writing (cf. Strabo 5.1.19 (C215); G. Türk, ‘Phaethon’, RE 19 (1938), cols. 1508-
15); it is embedded in his account of the Po river and river valley (2.16.6-17.12). Polybios (2.16.6)
states that the Po is the river Eridanos (cf. Hdt. 3.115; Strabo 5.1.9 (C215), 9.1.19 (C397); Plin. NH
37.31-33, citing as authorities Aischylos, Philoxenos, Euripides, Nikander, Satyros, and
Apollonios), celebrated by the poets. Polybios may have reverted to Timaios’s treatment of the
region in a lost section of Book 12. For Polybios’s distinction between tragedy and history, see
assembled references at F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957),
180 ad 2.16.13-15; cf. K.S. Sacks, Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley 1981) 144-70. See
generally R. Rutherford, ‘Tragedy and History’, in A Companion to Greek and Roman
Historiography 2, ed. by J. Marincola (Malden, Mass. 2007), 504-14.
BNJ 566 F 69
Source: Etymologicum Magnum 220.5

Work mentioned:
Etymologicum Magnum (Gaisford T.) [Vide:

Lexicon rhetoricum & Photius apud
Etymologicum Magnum], 220.5
Γαλατία· χώρα· ὠνοµάσθη, ὥς φησι Τίµαιος, ἀπὸ Galatia: country; named, as Timaios says, from
Γαλάτου, Κύκλωπος καὶ Γαλατείας υἱοῦ. Galatos, son of Kyklops and Galateia.
Commentary
Timaios relays a tradition which had the brutish Kyklops Polyphemos as the sire of Galatos,
eponym of the Gauls/Galatians, thus giving a mythological charter to the Greek and Roman
representations of Gauls as rapacious and uncivilized barbarians. This tradition is reflected in
Appianus, Illyrian Wars 2; cf. M. Sasel Kos, Appian and Illyricum (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej
Slovenije, 2005). Timaios wrote ethnographies of Ligurians, Celts, and Iberians (F 7). On the
Galatians, see S. Mitchell, ‘The Galatians: Representation and Reality’, in A. Erskine (ed.), A
Companion to the Hellenistic World (Oxford 2003), 280-93; G. Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grèce
et les Sôtéria de Delphes (Brussels 1977), esp. 126-205.
BNJ 566 F 70

Work mentioned:
AD

περὶ δὲ τῶν τοῦ ῾Ροδανοῦ στοµάτων Πολύβιος µὲν Concerning the mouths of the Rhone river,
ἐπιτιµᾶι Τιµαίωι, φήσας εἶναι µὴ πεντάστοµον, Polybios chastises Timaios, saying that there
ἀλλὰ δίστοµον· ᾽Αρτεµίδωρος δὲ τρίστοµον λέγει. are not five mouths, but two; Artemidoros says
there are three.
Commentary
Strabo’s statement is included in modern editions of Polybios as 34.10.5. The late 2nd-century
BC periegetic author Artemidoros of Ephesos ( BNJ 438) wrote eleven geographical books and
was an important intermediary source between Agatharchides of Knidos and Strabo (cf. H.
Berger, ‘Artemidoros (27)’, RE 2 (1896), cols. 1329-30). Ptolemy (Geographia 2.10.2) was in
agreement with Polybios that the Rhone river had two mouths. For Artemidoros’s idea that
there were three, cf. Plin. NH 3.33. Avienus, Postumius Rufius Festus (Ora maritima 688) was in
agreement with Timaios that the Rhone river had five mouths (cf. Diod. 5.25.4), while
Apollonios Rhodios (Argonautika 4.634; cf. Strabo 4.1.8 (C184)), maintained that there were
seven.
BNJ 566 F 71
Nicomedes 209
Work mentioned:

the Earth) for Nicomedes, 209
Μασσαλία δ᾽ ἐστ᾽ ἐχοµένη, / πόλις µεγίστη, Massalia is next, the greatest polis, a colony of
Φωκαέων ἀποικία· / ἐν τῆι Λιγυστικῆι δὲ ταύτην the Phokaians; they founded this (polis) in
ἔκτισαν / πρὸ τῆς µάχης τῆς ἐν Σαλαµῖνι Liguria 120 years, as they say, before the battle
γενοµένης / ἔτεσιν πρότερον, ὥς φασιν, ἑκατὸν at Salamis. Timaios thus relates the
εἴκοσι· / Τίµαιος οὕτως ἱστορεῖ δὲ τὴν κτίσιν. foundation.
Commentary
The foundation of Massalia, then, would have occurred in 600/599 BC (see H.G. Wackernagel,
‘Massalia (1)’, RE 14 (1930), cols. 2130-52). Timaios may also have included the Olympiad dating,
which Pseudo-Scymnus left out (for Timaios’s chronologies, see Commentary to F 125).
Timaios most likely discussed the foundation of Massalia in the larger context of his treatment
of Ligurians, Celts, and Iberians (F 7). F 70 demonstrates that Timaios had his information on
the number of mouths of the Rhone river from written sources, i.e. the earliest periegetic
writers. It therefore advises caution against the ready assumption that Timaios knew Massalia
from personal autopsy (for Polybios’s charge that Timaios did not travel to see the places he
wrote about, see Polyb. 12.27; Commentary to T 19; but cf. T 10 and F 12). It is an open question
as to whether Timaios knew of Aristotle’s Constitution of Massalia (Ath. 13.576a; F 549 Rose).
Massalian trade dominated the coast from Nikaia to Emporion and spread Greek influences in
Gaul and eastern Iberia. Massalia was famous for the stability of its aristocratic constitution
(Strabo 4.1.5 (C179); Cic. Pro Flacco 63), and it maintained a treasury at Delphi. Historians have
often seen Massalia’s early relationship of amicitia with the Roman Republic and Massalian
fears about Carthaginian advances into the upper Iberian peninsula as prime causal factors in
the outbreak of the Hannibalic War (see e.g. N.J. de Witt, ‘Massilia and Rome’, TAPA 71 (1940),
605-10). The presence of Massalian colonies in southeastern Iberia will not have facilitated
cordial Massalian-Carthaginian relations (see D. Hoyos, Hannibal’s Dynasty: Power and Politics
in the Western Mediterranean, 247-183 B.C. (London 2003), 64 and n. 12, 226).
BNJ 566 F 72
Source: Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnika, s.v. Μασσαλία

Work mentioned:
Stephanos of Byzantium , Ethnica, Μασσαλία

πόλις τῆς Λιγυστικῆς κατὰ τὴν Κελτικήν, ἄποικος A polis of Liguria over against the Celtic land,
Φωκαέων · ῾Εκαταῖος Εὐρώπηι. Τίµαιος δέ φησιν, a colony of the Phokaians. Hekataios in
ὅτι προσπλέων ὁ <τῶν ἀποίκων Φωκαέων> Europa. And Timaios says that the captain (of
κυβερνήτης καὶ ἰδὼν <ἐκεῖ> ἁλιέα κελεῦσαι the Phokaian colonists) sailing forth and
µάσσαι τὸ ἀπόγειον σχοινίον· µάσσαι γὰρ τὸ δῆσαί seeing there good fishing issued a command to
φασιν Αἰολεῖς· ἀπὸ γοῦν τοῦ ἁλιέως καὶ τοῦ tie the mooring cable. For the Aiolians say
µάσσαι ὠνόµασται. massai for ‘to tie’ or ‘to bind’. At any rate it
(scil. Massalia) is named from ‘fishing’ and
‘tying’ or ‘binding’.
Commentary
Hekataios of Miletos ( BNJ 1), son of Hegesandros, was the most influential of the early Ionian
logographers (for his political activities at the time of the Ionian rebellion against the Persian
empire in the early 5th century BC, see Hdt. 5.36 and 125-6). Hekataios’s systematic geography
or periegesis consisted in two books, Europa and Asia; for his writings on Ligurians and Celts in
his Europa, see BNJ 1 F 53-58. Timaios imagined that a Phokaian steersman’s command to a
fisherman on shore was māssai halieu (‘make fast, fisherman’), employing an otherwise
unattested Aiolian verb. For Timaios’s penchant for deriving etymologies, see F 23, F 42a, F
56a, and F 63 with Commentaries.
BNJ 566 F 73
Source: Aetios of Antioch, On the Doctrines of Philosophers

(Excerpts by Stobaios) 3.17.6.383 (ed. Diels H., Doxographi
Graeci)
Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: etiology - Library of Congress
Aetios of Antioch, On the Doctrines of

Philosophers (Excerpts by Stobaios) (ed. Diels
H., Doxographi Graeci), 3.17.6.383
Τίµαιος ὁ Ταυροµενίτης τοὺς ἐµβάλλοντας In respect to the rivers rushing into the
ποταµοὺς εἰς τὴν ᾽Ατλαντικὴν διὰ τῆς Κελτικῆς Atlantic Ocean through the Celtic hill-country,
ὀρεινῆς αἰτιᾶται, προωθοῦντας µὲν ταῖς ἐφόδοις, Timaios the Tauromenian alleges as the cause
ὑφέλκοντας δὲ ταῖς ἀναπαύλαις. (of ebb and flood) that they push forward in
agitated states and draw away at times of
repose.
Commentary
It is uncertain as to whether Timaios discussed the ebb and flow of Iberian rivers, since we
possess almost nothing of his description of Spain and even less of his account of Celtic lands
(but cf. F 164 (Diod. 5.22.3) on the flood- and ebb-tides of the islands lying between Britain and
Europe). Jacoby believed that Timaios’s theory on tides at Diod. 5.22.3 was derived from
Pytheas (cf. F 75a and F 75b). L. Pearson (The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His
Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 70) connects Timaios’s interest in rivers flowing through Gaul to
the Atlantic and tides with his inquiries into the voyage of the Argonauts.
BNJ 566 F 74

Work mentioned:
History, 4.104
ultima omnium quae memorantur Tyle, in qua The most remote of all which are recorded is
solstitio nullas esse noctes indicavimus, cancri Thule, in which as we have indicated there are
signum sole transeunte, nullosque contra per no nights in midsummer when the sun passes
brumam dies … Timaeus historicus a Britannia through the sign of the Crab; and on the other
introrsus sex dierum navigatione abesse dicit hand there are no days in midwinter … The
insulam Ictim, in qua candidum plumbum historian Timaios says there is an island Ictis
proveniat; ad eam Britannos vitilibus navigiis lying six days’ voyage from Britain where tin is
corio circumsutis navigare. sunt qui et alias found, and to which the Britons cross in boats
prodant, Scandias, Dumnam, Bergos of osier covered with stitched hides. There are
maximamque omnium Berricen, ex qua in those who speak of other islands, Scandiae,
Tylen navigetur. Dumna, Bergos, and largest of all Berrice, from
which begins the crossing to Thule.
Commentary
Pliny, undoubtedly working from intermediary sources, has conflated the citation of Timaios
concerning the island named Ictis (probably St. Michael’s Mount, an island in Mount’s Bay of
Cornwall) with an excerpt from the late 4th-century BC Massiliote navigator Pytheas, as
scholars have long recognized (cf. F. Ginsinger, ‘Pytheas (1)’, RE 24 (1963), cols. 314-66;
L’oceano/Pitea di Massalia: Introduzione, testo, traduzione, e commento, ed. by S. Bianchetti
(Pisa, 1998)). Timaios’s description of the working of tin is most certainly reflected in Diodorus
5.22.1-4 (F 164).
BNJ 566 F 75a

Work mentioned:

History, 4.94
… transgressisque Ripaeos montes litus oceani … crossing the Ripaean mountains to the left
septentrionalis in laeva, donec perveniatur along the shore of the ocean (we reach) Cadiz.
Gadis, legendum. insulae complures sine In this direction a number of islands are
nominibus eo situ traduntur, ex quibus ante reported with no names, but among these
Scythiam quae appellatur Baunonia unam there is one lying off Scythia named Baunonia,
abesse diei cursu, in quam veris tempore a day’s voyage from the coast, on the strand of
fluctibus electrum eiciatur, Timaeus prodidit. which in springtime amber is deposited, (as)
Timaios reports.
Commentary
The oldest Greek periegetic and geographical writers knew of tin and amber as products of the
farthest northern regions (cf. Hdt. 3.115). A fairly accurate knowledge of their provenance,
manufacture, and qualities will have dated at least from the time of Pytheas. F 75b suggests
that Timaios followed Pytheas’s account closely, and perhaps even cited him (cf. T 31e and
Jacoby’s Commentary to F 68 (571)).
BNJ 566 F 75b

Work mentioned:

History, 37.35
(35) ... Pytheas Guionibus, Germaniae genti, (35) ... Pytheas writes of an estuary of the
accoli aestuarium oceani Metuonidis nomine ocean named Metuonis, which extends for
spatio stadiorum sex milium; ab hoc diei 6,000 stadia (ca. 750 mi.; ca. 1205 km.), the
navigatione abesse insulam Abalum; illo per shores of which are inhabited by a German
ver fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris tribe, the Guiones. From here it is a day’s
purgamentum; incolas pro ligno ad ignem uti voyage to the island Abdalus, to which, he
eo proximisque Teutonis vendere. (36) huic et states, (amber), an excretion of solidified
Timaeus credidit, sed insulam Basiliam (?) brine, is carried in springtime by currents. The
vocavit ... inhabitants use it as fuel in place of wood and
sell it to the neighboring Teutones. (36) And
Timaios believes this account, but he calls the
island Basilia ...
Commentary
This fragment demonstrates Timaios’s reliance on Pytheas’s account. The ancient controversy
about the river Eridanos and amber (Hdt. 3.115; cf. Hesiod, Theogeny 338; Aiskylos apud Plin.
NH 37.32; Strabo 5.1.9 (C215)), may have drawn Timaios’s interest. Diodorus’s mention (5.23.1)
of an island named Basilia as the only source of amber strongly suggests that in this passage
he was using Timaios directly. There is, however, evidence for textual corruption that leaves
the question of the names which Pytheas and Timaios attributed to this island a non liquet. A
concise summary of the problem in J.O. Thomson, CR n.s. 5.2 (1955), 226-7; cf. O.A.W. Dilke,
‘Geographical Perceptions of the North in Pomponius Mela and Ptolemy’, Arctic 37.4 (1984),
347-51. In any event, Diodorus goes on to tell the story of Phaethon, which was also in
Timaios’s history, as we know from Polybios’s censure of its inclusion in Timaios’s work as
inappropriate for history (F 68; Polyb. 2.16.13). Timaios’s account of these regions may have
been connected with his interest in the voyage of the Argonauts (see F 84-88; Commentary to
T 15a).
BNJ 566 F 76
Source: Photios, Lexikon, s.v. Αἷµον

Work mentioned:
Photios, Lexikon (ed. Naber, Reitzenstein),

Αἷµον
τὸ ὄρος οὐδετέρως ῾Εκαταῖος διὰ παντὸς καὶ (Synag. Lex. 634 versio codicis B
Διονύσιος καὶ ῾Ελλάνικος ἐν ᾱ ᾽Ατθίδος καὶ Τίµαιος Cunningham): Haimon: ‘the mountain on
καὶ Εὐδοξος. neither side’; Hecataeus ( BNJ 1 F 167)
especially and Dionysios ( BNJ 687 F 3) and
Hellanikos ( BNJ 4 F 41) in the first book of
Atthis and Timaios and Eudoxos (F 346
Lasserre).
Commentary
This lemma from the 9th-century polymath Photios’s Lexicon derives from the Sunagōgē
lexeōn chrēsimōn (Σ), composed in the late 8th or early 9th century, with a substantial body of
material (especially Atticist) added later. It is also known as Lexicum Bachmannianum (Ba.)
and Lexicum Bekkeri VI (Bk.VI). One version (Σʹʹʹʹ) is the source of the glosses of Photios’s
Lexicon; see Synagoge, ed. by I.C. Cunningham (SGLG Band 10) (Berlin 2003), 13-61.The present
lemma is equivalent to Hekataios, BNJ 1 F 167 and Hellanikos, BNJ 4 F 41. Jacoby identified the
present Dionysios with Dionysios the Milesian ( BNJ 687 F 3), a contemporary of Hecataeus (
BNJ 687 T 2), who may have written on the Argonauts and made mention of the Haimos
mountain (cf. Herodotos 4.49; Strabo 7.5.1 (C313)) in connection with their voyage (see F 87
with Commentary). It must be noted, however, that Dionysios Skytobrachion ( BNJ 32), whom
a papyrus fragment (PHib. 2.186) suggests lived and wrote no later than the mid-3rd century
BC, is more certainly known to have written Argonautika (see J.S. Rusten, Dionysius
Scytobrachion, Papyrologica Coloniensis, Band 10 (Opladen 1982)). Since Timaios wrote about
the Haimos mountain and the wedding of Jason and Medea in Corcyra (F 87), the present
reference to Timaios’s discussion of the mountain may be connected with his account of the
Argonauts as well (see F 84-88; Commentary to T 15a). Perhaps Timaios discussed this in a
rejection of the Argonauts’ supposed voyage up the Danube and down its presumed Adriatic
branch. The likeliest candidates for the Eudoxos mentioned in this lemma are the comic poet
and son of Agathokles (D.L. 8.90), the 3rd-century BC Rhodian historian ( BNJ 79), or, less
likely, the 2nd-century navigator from Kyzikos, who served under Ptolemy III Euergetes and his
wife and successor Cleopatra (F. Jacoby, ‘Eudoxos (6)’, RE 6 (1909), 929-30).
BNJ 566 F 77

Nicomedes 405
Work mentioned:

the Earth) for Nicomedes, 405
ἑξῆς δὲ µεγάλη χερρόνησος ῾Υλλική, / πρὸς τὴν Next is the great peninsula Hyllike, situated
Πελοπόννησόν τι ἐξισουµένη. / πόλεις δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῆι somewhat towards the Peloponnesos. They say
φασι πέντε καὶ δέκα / ῞Υλλους κατοικεῖν, ὄντας that the Hylleis colonized fifteen poleis in it,
῞Ελληνας γένει· / τὸν ῾Ηρακλέους γὰρ ῞Υλλον being of Hellenic origin. For they took Hyllos,
οἰκιστὴν λαβεῖν. / ἐκβαρβαρωθῆναι δὲ τούτους son of Herakles, as colony-leader. They relate
τῶι χρόνωι / τοῖς ἔθεσιν ἱστοροῦσι τοῖς τῶν that in time these people were barbarized by
πλησίον, / ὥς φασι Τίµαιος τε καὶ ᾽Ερατοσθένης. / the practices of their neighbors, as Timaios
νῆσος κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς δ᾽ ἔστιν ῎Ισσα λεγοµένη, / and Eratosthenes say. The island nearby them
Συρακοσίων ἔχουσα τὴν ἀποικίαν. is called Issa, bearing a colony of Syracusans.
Commentary
In combination with F 69, F 77 and F 78 would appear to confirm Timaios as an important

source for mytho-historical accounts concerning Galatians and Illyrians. But there are some
caveats: the notice on Issa is not directly connected with Timaios in the present fragment; it
could well stem from Theopompos, Pseudo-Scymnus’s main source for the Adriatic; Diodorus
(15.13-14), narrating the imperialist designs of Dionysios I of Syracuse under the year 385/84
BC, and relying on the accounts of Timaios and Ephoros for the history of Dionysios (cf. F 108),
writes of a polis named Lissos. For Pseudo-Scymnus, see D. Marcotte, Géographes grecs (Paris
2000); M. Korenjak, Die Welt-Rundreise eines anonymen griechischen Autors (Hildesheim 2003).
For Timaios’s interest in Herakles, see Commentary to T 15a.
BNJ 566 F 78
Source: Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnika, s.v. ᾽Αργυρῖνοι

Work mentioned:
Stephanos of Byzantium , Ethnica, ᾽Αργυρῖνοι

ἔθνος ᾽Ηπειρωτικόν, ὡς Τίµαιος καὶ Θέων καὶ Epeirote ethnic group, as Timaios and Theon
Λυκόφρων «εἰς ᾽Αργυρίνους καὶ Κεραυνίων and Lykophron, ‘towards the Argurians and
νάπας». the glens of the Ceraunians’.
Commentary
For Lykophron, see Alex. 1017; Theon is the 1st-century BC Alexandrian Homeric scholar, who
wrote commentaries on the chief Alexandrian poets. Stephanos of Byzantion, citing the ninth
book of Philistos’s Sikelika ( BNJ 556 F 35), lists a polis named Agyros, whose precise
whereabouts are unknown (W. Tomaschek, ‘Agyrinoi’, RE 2 (1896), col. 801). See s.v. Argyriner
in Stephani Byzantii Ethnica 1, ed. by M. Billerbeck et al. (Berlin 2006), 244-45.
BNJ 566 F 79
Source: Scholia on Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika 4.982-992g

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 4.982-992g
ἡ νῆσος ἡ Κέρκυρα· αὕτη πρότερον Σχερία The island is Corcyra. Earlier it was called
ἐκαλεῖτο. ἀποδίδωσι δὲ τὴν αἰτίαν ᾽Αριστοτέλης Scheria. Aristotle gives the origin of the name
ἐν τῆι Κερκυραίων πολιτείαι· φησὶ γὰρ τὴν in his Constitution of Corcyra (F 512 Rose). He
Δήµητρα φοβουµένην, µὴ οἱ ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου says that Demeter, fearing that the rivers
ἐρχόµενοι ποταµοὶ ἤπειρον αὐτὴν ποιήσωσι, issuing from the mainland might join it to the
δεηθῆναι Ποσειδῶνος ἀποστρέψαι τὰ τῶν mainland, beseeched Poseidon to divert their
ποταµῶν ῥεύµατα· ἐπισχεθέντων οὖν τούτων ἀντὶ courses. Since these indeed were checked over
Δρεπάνης Σχερίαν ὀνοµασθῆναι. <Δρεπάνη δὲ against Drepana it was named Scheria. And
ἐκαλεῖτο> διὰ τὸ τὴν Δήµητρα αἰτησαµένην Drepana was so called on account of Demeter
δρέπανον παρ᾽ ῾Ηφαίστου τοὺς Τιτᾶνας διδάξαι seeking a sickle from Hephaistos to teach the
θερίζειν, εἶτα αὐτὸ κρύψαι εἰς τὸ παραθαλάσσιον Titans to reap the harvest, and thereupon hid
µέρος τῆς νήσου· προσκλυζούσης δὲ τῆς θαλάσσης it on the seaward side of the island. And with
ἐξοµοιωθῆναι τὴν θέσιν τῆς γῆς δρεπάνηι. Τίµαιος the sea rolling up the disposition of the land
δέ φησιν ὧι ἐξέτεµεν [τοῦ Οὐρανοῦ ἢ] τοῦ Κρόνου came to resemble the sickle. And Timaios says
τὰ αἰδοῖα ὁ Ζεύς, τοῦτο κεκρύφθαι [φασίν]. (h) that here Zeus cut off the genitals of Ouranos
Μάκριν δὲ ἀπὸ Μάκριδος τῆς Διονύσου τροφοῦ, or Kronos; (they say) this (scil. the sickle) was
Κέρκυραν δὲ ἀπὸ Κερκύρας τῆς ᾽Ασωποῦ hidden; (h) (and they say that) Makris (was
θυγατρός. named) from Makris the nursling of Dionysos,
Kerkyra from Kerkyra the daughter of Asopos.
Commentary
The present fragment is yet another example of Timaios’s interest in myth, on which see
Commentary to T 15a. The Homeric Scheria is the island of the Phaeacians (cf. Od. 5.34-35). It
has frequently been identified in ancient and modern times with Corcyra-Corfu (cf.
Hellanikos, BNJ 4 F 77; Thuc. 1.25.4; and Thuc. 3.70.4 for a sacred temenos to Zeus and
Alkinoos). Apollonios Rhodios (4.982-92) says that Corcyra was called Drepana because Zeus’s
sickle, used to castrate Kronos, was buried there. Aristotle (F 512-513 Rose) apparently followed
an alternate tradition, according to which Demeter buried the sickle, used to teach the Titans
agriculture, on the seaward side of the island. The sea eventually formed the coast so that the
island took on the shape of a sickle. Timaios insisted that Zeus’s sickle was buried there,
another apparent illustration of Timaios’s polemical stance towards Aristotle (see F 11a with
Commentary). For the colonization of Corcyra, see conveniently I. Malkin, The Returns of
Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity (Berkeley 1998), 74-81.
BNJ 566 F 80
Source: Scholia on Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika 4.1216

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 4.1216
Τίµαιος δέ φησι µετὰ ἔτη ἑξακόσια (?) τῶν And Timaios says that after six hundred years
Τρωικῶν Χερσικράτη, ἀπόγονον τῶν Βακχιαδῶν, (?) from the Trojan War Chersikrates,
κατωικηκέναι τὴν νῆσον. Κόλχοι δὲ διαβάντες εἰς descendant of the Bacchiads, colonized the
τὴν πλησίον νῆσον καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα εἰς τὰ island. And the Colchians crossing over to the
Κεραύνια ὄρη ὁρµήσαντες εἴς τε τοὺς ῎Αβαντας nearest island and after this to the Ceraunian
καὶ Νεσταίους καὶ ᾽Ωρικὸν ἀπωκίσθησαν. ἔστι δὲ mountains, setting upon the Abantes and
ὁ τὴν ἀποικίαν ἀγαγὼν τῶν Βακχιαδῶν Nestaioi, founded Orikos. And the one of the
Χερσικράτης, ἀποστερούµενος τῶν τιµῶν ὑπὸ Bacchiads leading the colony was Chersikrates,
Κορινθίων. who was stripped of honors by the
Corinthians.
Commentary
This fragment presents problems for our understanding of Timaios’s chronological reckoning
(cf. Commentary to F 125). It probably belongs in Timaios’s history of colonial foundations in
the western Mediterranean in Book 3, among which the foundation of Syracuse would most
likely also have been found. Since Timaios reckoned the fall of Troy to have taken place in
1194/93 BC (F 125), his date for the foundation of Corcyra would be 594/93 BC. But the great
wave of Greek foundations in Sicily occurred from the last third of the 8th to the mid-7th
centuries BC (T.J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks. The History of Sicily and South Italy from the
Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (Oxford 1948), 436). Moreover, a well-attested
ancient tradition synchronized the foundation dates of the Corinthian colonies of Syracuse
and Corcyra. Thucydides gives a series of dates relative to the foundation of Syracuse, which
can be used to yield a date for Syracuse’s foundation in 733/32 or 732/31 BC. Timaios’s dating of
the foundation of Corcyra, therefore, cannot be correct; Jacoby suggested a corruption in
textual transmission. For Chersikrates, see Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 573 and n. 408.
BNJ 566 F 81a

Work mentioned:

6
(3.1) τὴν µὲν τῆς χώρας ἀρετὴν πᾶς ἄν τις (3.1) Anyone would marvel at the richness of
θαυµάσειε, (2) τὸν δὲ Τίµαιον εἴποι τις ἄν οὐ µόνον the country, (2) and one could say that
ἀνιστόρητον γεγονέναι περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην, Timaios was not only unacquainted with
ἀλλὰ καὶ παιδαριώδη καὶ τελέως ἀσυλλόγιστον Africa but that he was childish and entirely
καὶ ταῖς ἀρχαίαις φήµαις ἀκµὴν ἐνδεδεµένον, ἃς deficient in judgment, and was still fettered by
παρειλήφαµεν, ὡς ἀµµώδους πάσης καὶ ξηρᾶς καὶ the ancient story that the entirety of Africa is
ἀκάρπου †ὑπαρχούσης τῆς Λιβύης. (3) ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς sandy, dry, and unproductive. (3) The same
λόγος καὶ περὶ τῶν ζώιων ... (6) περὶ ὧν οὐδὲν holds regarding the animals … (6) Timaios had
ἱστορήσας Τίµαιος ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες τἀναντία τοῖς no information on this subject and seems
κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν ὑπάρχουσιν ἐξηγεῖται. determined to tell the exact opposite of the
facts (F 3 on Corsica follows).
Commentary
For Timaios’s geographical research and Polybios’s criticism of it, see Commentary to T 7. It is
uncertain whether Timaios tried to give an account of the geography of the world, but since
he has Timoleon speak of the three parts of the oikoumenē as Asia, Libya, and Europe (F 31a),
it is certain that Timaios accepted the traditional terminology. For Libya, cf. F 26a (Diod.
13.81.4-5), and K. Zimmermann, Libyen: Das Land südlich des Mittelmeers im Weltbild der
Griechen (Munich 1999); G. Ottone, Libyka: Testimonianze e frammenti (Tivoli 2002).
BNJ 566 F 81b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.28a.3

Work mentioned:

12.28a.3
See F 7.
Commentary
The reading of ‘Tyrians’ is supported by Timaios’s interest in the Tyrian foundation of

Carthage (F 82; cf. F 7), but it is uncertain from which work of Timaios the account in F 82
derives (cf. Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Commentary, pg. 574); Timaios would have likely consulted τὰ
παρὰ Τυρίων ὑποµνήµατα for the foundation of Carthage (F 60). From this circumstantial
evidence Boissevain’s reading of ‘Tyrians’ in MS M is to be tentatively accepted rather than
Büttner-Wobst’s ‘Kyrnians’. Whether the hypomnemata constituted an on-going chronicle or
merely citations of records by Timaios cannot be determined with certainty. See F.W.
Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 411-2.
BNJ 566 F 82
Source: Anonymi Paradoxographi, De mulieribus 6.215 (ed.
Westermann)
Work mentioned:
Anonymus-Anonymi, 6.215
Θειοσσώ. ταύτην φησὶ Τίµαιος κατὰ µὲν τὴν Theiosso: Timaios says this was what Elissa
Φοινίκων γλώσσαν ᾽Ελίσσαν καλεῖσθαι, ἀδελφὴν was called in Phoenician – she being the sister
δὲ εἶναι Πυγµαλίωνος τοῦ Τυρίων βασιλέως, ὑφ᾽ of Pygmalion, king of Tyre. And he says that
ἧς φησι τὴν Καρχηδόνα τὴν ἐν Λιβύηι κτισθῆναι· she founded Carthage in Libya. When her
τοῦ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ Πυγµαλίωνος husband was killed by Pygmalion, she put her
ἀναιρεθέντος, ἐνθεµένη τὰ χρήµατα εἰς σκάφας possessions on shipboard and fled with some
µετά τινων πολιτῶν ἔφευγε, καὶ πολλὰ of the citizens, coming to Libya after great
κακοπαθήσασα τῆι Λιβύηι προσηνέχθη, καὶ ὑπὸ hardship. Because of her extensive wanderings
τῶν Λιβύων διὰ τὴν πολλὴν αὐτῆς πλάνην Δειδὼ she was called Deido by the locals, that is, by
προσηγορεύθη ἐπιχωρίως. κτίσασα δὲ τὴν the Libyans. When she founded the
προειρηµένην πόλιν, τοῦ τῶν Λιβύων βασιλέως aforementioned city, the king of Libya desired
θέλοντος αὐτὴν γῆµαι, αὐτὴ µὲν ἀντέλεγεν, ὑπὸ her as wife, but she refused him. She was,
δὲ τῶν πολιτῶν συναναγκαζοµένη, σκηψαµένη however, pressured by her citizens. On a
τελετήν τινα πρὸς ἀνάλυσιν ὅρκων ἐπιτελέσειν, pretext of performing a ritual to free her from
πυρὰν µεγίστην ἐγγὺς τοῦ οἴκου κατασκευάσασα her oaths (not to marry), she constructed a
καὶ ἅψασα, ἀπὸ τοῦ δώµατος αὑτὴν εἰς τὴν πυρὰν large pyre by her house; when it had been
ἔρριψεν. lighted, she threw herself from her abode onto
the pyre.
Commentary
The author, date, purpose, and even genre of the Anonymous, De Mulieribus, which tells the
stories of fourteen independent women who were powerful in their political communities, are
unresolved; see conveniently D. Gera, Warrior Women: The Anonymous Tractatus de Mulieribus
(Leiden 1997). See F 60 on the foundation of Carthage. Later sources round out the story of
Dido: e.g. Justin. 18.4-6; Vergil, Aeneid 1.335-68 and Book 4 passim; App. Lib. 1. Timaios was
clearly interested in the Carthaginian queen’s alternative names, differentiating between the
Phoenician name ‘Theiosso’ and the Libyan name ‘D(e)ido’, for which he provided an
etymology. Timaios must also have derived the name of Carthage from the eponymous
Karchedon, which he most likely will have found in Philistos ( BNJ 556 F 47).
BNJ 566 F 83
Source: Parthenios, Erotic Sufferings 29.1-2

Work mentioned:
Parthenios, Narrationes amatoriae, 29.1-2

Περὶ Δάφνιδος. ἱστορεῖ Τίµαιος Σικελικοῖς. ἐν On Daphnis. Timaios relates in Sikelika. In
Σικελίαι δὲ Δάφνις ῾Ερµοῦ παῖς ἐγένετο, σύριγγι Sicily Daphnis was the child of Hermes,
†δή τε δεξιῶς χρήσασθαι καὶ τὴν ἰδέαν ἐκπρεπής. outstanding at playing the shepherd’s pipe and
οὗτος εἰς µὲν τὸν πολὺν ὅµιλον ἀνδρῶν οὐ κατήιει, in physical beauty. He did not go among large
βουκολῶν δὲ κατὰ τὴν Αἴτνην χείµατος τε καὶ crowds of men, but tended livestock below Mt.
θέρους ἠγραύλει. τούτου λέγουσιν ᾽Εχεναίδα Aitna during the winter and lived out in the
νύµφην ἐρασθεῖσαν, παρακελεύσασθαι αὐτῶι open during summertime. They say the nymph
γυναικὶ µὴ πλησιάζειν· µὴ πειθοµένου γὰρ αὐτοῦ, Echenais fell in love with him, but upon being
συµβήσεσθαι τὰς ὄψεις ἀποβαλεῖν. (2) ὁ δὲ χρόνον summoned he would not approach her. He
µέν τινα καρτερῶς ἀντεῖχεν, καίπερ οὐκ ὀλίγων was stripped of his sight on account of his
ἐπιµαινοµένων αὐτῶι, ὕστερον δὲ µία τῶν κατὰ disobedience. (2) He for some time strongly
τὴν Σικελίαν βασιλίδων οἴνωι πολλῶι δηλησαµένη resisted, although there were not a few who
αὐτόν, ἤγαγεν εἰς ἐπιθυµίαν αὐτῆι µιγῆναι· καὶ were enamored of him. But later one of the
οὕτως ἐκ τοῦδε ὁµοίως Θαµύραι τῶι Θραικὶ δι᾽ princesses in Sicily mischievously plied him
ἀφροσύνην ἐπεπήρωτο. with much wine and seduced him. And a
similar fate (scil. blindness) befell the Thracian
bard Thamyris on account of his folly.
Commentary
This excerpt from Timaios is brief, since Parthenios was only interested in the love story (for
Parthenios, see J.L. Lightfoot, Parthenius of Nicaea: The Poetical Fragments and the Erotica
Pathemata (Oxford 1999)). Timaios’s version represented a well-known folktale motif, but it is
to be distinguished from the tale of Daphnis’s death propagated by Theokritos (cf. Diod. 4.84;
Serv. Dan. and Philargyrios ad Verg. Buc 5.20; Aelianus, Varia Historia 10.18). According to
Aelian, poetry dealing with this theme originated with Stesichoros. In the Diodorus passage,
Timaios is probably not the only source, as the indefinite legousi at Diod. 4.84.4 would seem to
suggest. Alternatively, Diodorus could have taken the reference to indefinite predecessors
directly from Timaios. For criticism of this sort of mytho-history in Timaios, see T 15a with
Commentary and T 15b; cf. Commentary to T 19, F 68. For Thamyris, see V. Gebhard, ‘Thamyris
(1)’, RE 5A (1934), cols. 1236-45; for Daphnis, G. Knaack, ‘Daphnis (1)’, RE 4 (1901), cols. 2141-6.
BNJ 566 F 84
Source: Scholia on Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika 2.399-401a

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 2.399-401a
ἔνθα δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἠπείροιο Κυταιίδος, ἠδ᾽ ᾽Αµαραντῶν / And here at the Kytaian headland and the
τηλόθεν ἐξ ὀρέων πεδίοιό τε Κιρκαίοιο / Φᾶσις Amarantine mountains far away and the
δινήεις εὐρὺν ῥόον εἰς ἅλα βάλλει] Κίρκαιον δὲ Kirkaian plain, the eddying Phasis moves its
τόπος ἐστὶ τῆς Κολχίδος ἀπὸ Κίρκης τῆς Αἰήτου broad stream to the sea] Kirkaion is a place of
ἀδελφῆς ἢ πεδίον. οὐ δύναται δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑτέρας Kolchis (named) from Kirke the sister of Aietes
Κίρκης ὠνοµάσθαι· ἐγένοντο γὰρ Κίρκαι δύο, περὶ or (it is) the plain. It cannot be named after
ὧν ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐροῦµεν. καὶ Τίµαιος δέ φησι the other Kirke. For there were two females
πεδίον ἐν Κόλχοις εἶναι Κίρκαιον. named Kirke, concerning whom we shall
inquire in the following. And Timaios says that
a plain in Kolchis is (called) Kirkaion.
Commentary
F 84-88 concern adventures of the Argonauts; for Timaios’s treatment of the myth, see
Commentary to T 15a and F 76. Timaios traced the Argonauts’ return voyage from Kolchis (F
84) to Corcyra (F 87 and F 88). The Argonauts sailed to the origins of the Tanais river, then
dragging the Argo overland, they entered an unnamed river leading to the northern ocean.
Sailing with the land on their left, they passed near to Gades. Entering the Mediterranean sea,
they navigated through the straits of Messana. They thereupon entered the Adriatic sea (F 85).
The identification of Kirkeion as Kirke’s island was known to Theophrastos (Historia
Plantantarum 5.8.3; cf. Plin. NH 7.15; Hes. Theog. 1011-16). Strabo 5.3.6 (C232) reports ‘proofs’
that it was Kirke’s island: a sanctuary of Kirke, an altar of Athena, and Odysseus’s cup (E.
Bethe, ‘Kirke’, RE 11 (1922), cols. 501-5).
BNJ 566 F 85

Work mentioned:
Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 4.56.3-8

(3) οὐκ ὀλίγοι γὰρ τῶν τε ἀρχαίων συγγραφέων (3) Not a few of the ancient writers and those
καὶ τῶν µεταγενεστέρων, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Τίµαιος, who followed them, among whom is Timaios,
φασὶ τοὺς ᾽Αργοναύτας µετὰ τὴν τοῦ δέρους say that the Argonauts, after stealing the
ἁρπαγὴν πυθοµένους ὑπ᾽ Αἰήτου προκατειλῆφθαι fleece, learning that the mouth of Pontos had
ναυσὶ τὸ στόµα τοῦ Πόντου, πρᾶξιν ἐπιτελέσασθαι been blocked by Aietes’ ships, performed an
παράδοξον καὶ µνήµης ἀξίαν· ἀναπλεύσαντας γὰρ amazing feat worthy of mention. They sailed
αὐτοὺς διὰ Τανάιδος ποταµοῦ ἐπὶ τὰς πηγάς, καὶ up the Tanais river as far as its origins, and at a
κατὰ τόπον τινὰ τὴν ναῦν διελκύσαντας, καθ᾽ certain place they dragged the ship overland,
ἑτέρου πάλιν ποταµοῦ τὴν ῥύσιν ἔχοντος εἰς τὸν and following in turn another river which
᾽Ωκεανὸν καταπλεῦσαι πρὸς τὴν θάλατταν, ἀπὸ flows into the ocean, they sailed down it into
δὲ τῶν ἄρκτων ἐπὶ τὴν δύσιν κοµισθῆναι, τὴν γῆν the sea. Then they struck a course from the
ἔχοντας ἐξ εὐωνύµων, καὶ πλησίον γενοµένους north to the west, keeping the land on their
Γαδείρων εἰς τὴν καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς θάλατταν εἰσπλεῦσαι. left, and when they approached Gadeira
(4) ἀποδείξεις δὲ τούτων φέρουσι, δεικνύντες τοὺς (Cadiz) they sailed into our sea. (4) And
παρὰ τὸν ὠκεανὸν κατοικοῦντας Κελτοὺς writers bring proofs of these things, offering
σεβοµένους µάλιστα τῶν θεῶν τοὺς Διοσκόρους· that the Celts who live by the ocean venerate
παραδόσιµον γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ἐκ παλαιῶν the Dioscuri above the other gods, since they
χρόνων τὴν τούτων τῶν θεῶν παρουσίαν ἐκ τοῦ have an ancient tradition that these gods
ὠκεανοῦ γεγενηµένην. εἶναι δὲ καὶ τὴν παρὰ τὸν appeared among them coming from the sea.
ὡκεανὸν χώραν οὐκ ὀλίγας ἔχουσαν προσηγορίας Moreover, the land around the ocean has, they
ἀπό τε τῶν ᾽Αργοναυτῶν καὶ τῶν Διοσκόρων. (5) say, not a few names derived from the
παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐντὸς Γαδείρων ἤπειρον Argonauts and the Dioscuri. (5) And likewise
ἔχειν ἐµφανῆ σηµεῖα τῆς τούτων ἀνακοµιδῆς· περὶ the continent this side of Gadeira holds visible
µὲν γὰρ τὴν Τυρρηνίαν καταπλεύσαντας αὐτοὺς signs of the Argonauts’ journey. So, for
εἰς νῆσον τὴν ὀνοµαζοµένην Αἰθάλειαν, τὸν ἐν example, as they sailed around the Tyrrhenian
αὐτῆι λιµένα, κάλλιστον ὄντα τῶν ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς sea, when they put in at an island called
τόποις, ᾽Αργῶιον ἀπὸ τῆς νεὼς προσαγορεῦσαι, Aithaleia, they named its harbor, fairest in the
καὶ µέχρι τῶνδε τῶν χρόνων διαµένειν αὐτοῦ τὴν region, Argoion after their ship, and the name
προσηγορίαν. (6) παραπλησίως δὲ τοῖς εἰρηµένοις has remained up until the present. (6) In like
κατὰ µὲν τὴν Τυρρηνίαν ἀπὸ σταδίων ὀκτακοσίων manner to what we have just said a harbor in
τῆς ῾Ρώµης ὀνοµάσαι λιµένα Τελαµῶνα, κατὰ δὲ Etruria 800 stades from Rome was named by
Φορµίας τῆς ᾽Ιταλίας Αἰήτην τὸν νῦν Καιήτην them Telamon, and also at Phormia in Italy
προσαγορευόµενον. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὑπ᾽ ἀνέµων the harbor Aietes, which is now known as
αὐτοὺς ἐκριφέντας εἰς τὰς Σύρτεις, καὶ µαθόντας Kaietes. Moreover, when they were driven by
παρὰ Τρίτωνος, τοῦ τότε βασιλεύοντος τῆς winds to the Syrteis and had learned from
Λιβύης, τὴν ἰδιότητα τῆς θαλάττης, καὶ τὸν Triton, king of Libya at that time, of the
κίνδυνον ἐκφυγόντας, δωρήσασθαι χαλκοῦν peculiar nature of the sea there, upon escaping
τρίποδα τὸν ἀρχαίοις µὲν κεχαραγµένον safely they presented him with the bronze
γράµµασι, µέχρι δὲ τῶν νεωτέρων χρόνων tripod which was inscribed with ancient
διαµείναντα παρὰ τοῖς Εὐεσπερίταις. (7) οὐ letters and stood until relatively recent times
παραλειπτέον δ᾽ ἡµῖν ἀνεξέλεγκτον τὴν ἱστορίαν among the people of Euhesperides. (7) We
τῶν ἀποφηναµένων τοὺς ᾽Αργοναύτας ἀνὰ τὸν must not let go without critical comment
῎Ιστρον πλεύσαντας µέχρι τῶν πηγῶν those who say that the Argonauts sailed up the
κατενεχθῆναι διὰ τῆς ἀντιπροσώπου ῥύσεως πρὸς Ister river as far as its origins and then by its
τὸν ᾽Αδριατικὸν κόλπον. (8) τούτους γὰρ ὁ χρόνος arm flowing in the opposite direction
ἤλεγξεν ὑπολαβόντας τὸν ἐν τῶι Πόντωι πλείοσι descended to the Adriatic Gulf. (8) For time
στόµασιν ἐξερευγόµενον ῎Ιστρον καὶ τὸν εἰς τὸν has refuted those who assumed that the Ister
᾽Αδρίαν ἐκβάλλοντα τὴν ῥύσιν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν emptying by several mouths into Pontos and
αὐτῶν τόπων· ῾Ρωµαίων γὰρ καταπολεµησάντων the Ister issuing into the Adriatic flow from the
τὸ τῶν ῎Ιστρων ἔθνος, εὑρέθη τὰς πηγὰς ἔχων ὁ same regions. In point of fact, when the
ποταµὸς ἀπὸ τετταράκοντα (?) σταδίων τῆς Romans conquered the Istrians, it was found
θαλάττης. ἀλλὰ γὰρ τοῖς συγγραφεῦσιν αἰτίαν τῆς that the latter river has its origins only forty
πλάνης φασὶ γενέσθαι τὴν ὁµωνυµίαν τῶν stades (?) from the sea. But the cause of the
ποταµῶν. error on the part of the historians was, they
say, the identical name of the two rivers.
Commentary
For the Argonauts’ basic itinerary according to Timaios, see Commentary to F 84. It is likely
that this entire excerpt in Diodorus (except for the reference to the Romans at its end) is from
Timaios (Diodorus’s phrase ‘not a few of the ancient writers and those who followed them’,
could very well have been taken directly from Timaios). Timaios mentioned the Haimos (F 76)
and the marriage of Jason and Medea in Corcyra (F 87); he is likely to have discussed the
voyage up the Danube and then down its supposed Adriatic extension. But Diodorus’s
refutation is probably not from Timaios; perhaps Poseidonios is the source here. It is also
probably the case that Timaios relayed that the Colchians reached Istria in their chase after
Jason and Medea and founded new sites in the region rather than returning to Kolchis in
failure. The story is well-attested, which would seem to provide further support for Timaios’s
wide influence (see L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors
(Atlanta 1987), 63 n. 41 for references). Timaios may even have brought the Argonauts to Sicily
(Pearson, Greek Historians of the West, 63 and n. 43). The tradition on the Argonauts’ return
journey, embracing the Danube, central Europe, and Italy, may also have owed much to
Timagetos, author of a work On Harbors, used extensively by Apollonios Rhodios and widely
quoted in the scholia (F. Gisinger, ‘Timagetos’, RE 6A (1937), cols. 1071-3). Timaios’s
contribution to the tradition reflects his desire to emphasize the cultural credentials of the
western Greeks (see Commentary to T 7).
BNJ 566 F 86
Source: Scholia on Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika 4.786-787

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 4.786-787
Πλαγκταὶ πέτραι ἐν τῶι Πορθµῶι εἰσιν, ὡς There are wandering rocks in the Bosporos, as
Τίµαιος καὶ Πεισίστρατος ὁ Λιπαραῖος. Timaios and Peisistratos the Liparaian (say) (
BNJ 574 F 1).
Commentary
This brief fragment further attests to Timaios’s penchant for shifting mythological stories
westwards (see, e.g., F 51, F 53, F 77, F 79, F 83, with L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West:
Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 53-90). On his reckoning, the Planctae or
Symplegades were to be found in the straits of Messana; the fellow Sicilian Peisistratos of
Lipara concurred ( BNJ 574 F 1).
BNJ 566 F 87
Source: Scholia on Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika 4.1153-1154

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 4.1153-1154
κεῖνο καὶ εἰσέτι νῦν ἱερὸν κληίζεται ἄντρον / That is to this day called the sacred cave of
Μηδείης, ὅτι τούσγε σὺν ἀλλήλοισιν ἔµιξαν / Medea, where they (scil. the Nymphs) spread
τεινάµεναι ἑανοὺς εὐώδεας] τὸ Μάκριδος, ὃ νῦν the fine and fragrant linen and brought these
ἱερὸν Μηδείας καλεῖται. Τιµαίου λέγοντος ἐν two together] that of Makris, which now is
Κερκύραι τοὺς γάµους ἀχθῆναι, Διονύσιος ὁ called the holy place of Medea. While Timaios
Μιλήσιος ἐν β̄ τῶν ᾽Αργοναυτῶν ἐν Βυζαντίωι says that the marriage was consummated in
φησίν, Αντίµαχος δὲ ἐν Λύδηι ἐν Κόλχοις πλησίον Corcyra, Dionysios the Milesian in the second
τοῦ ποταµοῦ µιγῆναι. book of Argonauts says it was in Byzantion,
and Antimachos says they coupled in Lyde in
Kolchis hard by the river.
Commentary
According to the scholiast, Dionysios the Milesian, a contemporary of Hecataeus ( BNJ 687 T
2), wrote on the Argonauts. Alternatively, the Dionysios referred to here, pace the Apollonios
scholiast, may have been Dionysios Skytobrachion, who wrote rationalizing accounts of
mythological stories and Argonautika in particular, probably in the mid-3rd century BC; see
Commentary to F 76 above. Antimachos of Colophon, Greek poet and scholar fl. ca. 400 BC,
wrote a narrative elegy in at least two books entitled Lyde, named after his deceased wife or
mistress (cf. F 64 Wyss; M. Fantuzzi and M. A. Stöllner, ‛ Antimachus ’ , BNP 1 (Leiden, 2002) ,
753-55). Timaios’s modification of the story demonstrates how bold he could be in transferring
mythological stories to western Greek topographies. He was able to corroborate his version by
pointing to the sacrifices celebrating the marriage of Jason and Medea still held in Corcyra in
his time (F 88).
BNJ 566 F 88
Source: Scholia on Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika 4.1217-1219b

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: sacrifice - Library of Congress
Scholia, 4.1217-1219b
Μοιράων δ᾽ ἔτι κεῖσε θύη ἐπέτεια δέχονται / καὶ And still the altars which Medea built at the
νυµφέων Νοµίοιο καθ᾽ ἱερὸν ᾽Απόλλωνος / βωµοί, sacred place of Apollo, god of shepherds,
τοὺς Μήδεια καθίσσατο. πολλὰ δ᾽ ἰοῦσιν / receive annual sacrifices in honor of the Fates
᾽Αλκίνοος Μινύαις ξεινήια, πολλὰ δ᾽ ὄπασσεν / and the Nymphs. And when the Minyae
᾽Αρήτη] Τίµαιος περὶ τῆς θυσίας ἱστορεῖ, ἔτι καὶ departed Alkinoos and Arete bestowed many
νῦν λέγων ἄγεσθαι κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν, Μηδείας gifts of friendship] Concerning the sacrifice
πρῶτον θυσάσης ἐν τῶι ᾽Απόλλωνος ἱερῶι. καὶ Timaios relates that even to this day it is
βωµοὺς δέ φησι µνηµεῖα τῶν γάµων ἱδρύσασθαι performed annually, with Medea being the
σύνεγγυς µὲν τῆς θαλάσσης, οὐ µακρὰν δὲ τῆς first to sacrifice at the holy place of Apollo.
πόλεως · ὀνοµάζουσι δὲ τὸν µὲν Νυµφῶν, τὸν δὲ And he says that altars and memorials of the
Νηρείδων. marriage were set up near the sea, and not far
from the polis. And they call him (Apollo) ‘of
the Nymphs’, and ‘of the Nereids’.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 89

Work mentioned:
Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 4.21.1-7

(21.1) ῾Ηρακλῆς δὲ διελθὼν τήν τε τῶν Λιγύων καὶ (21.1) After Herakles traveled through Ligurian
τὴν τῶν Τυρρηνῶν χώραν, καταντήσας πρὸς τὸν and Tyrrhenian lands, he stopped and
Τίβεριν ποταµὸν κατεστρατοπέδευσεν οὗ νῦν ἡ encamped at the Tiber river, where Rome now
῾Ρώµη ἐστίν ... (5) ὁ δ᾽ οὖν ῾Ηρακλῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ stands ... (5) Herakles then moved on from the
Τιβέρεως ἀναζεύξας καὶ διεξιὼν τὴν παράλιον τῆς Tiber, and as he came down the coast of what
νῦν ᾽Ιταλίας ὀνοµαζοµένης, κατήντησεν εἰς τὸ is now Italy, he arrived in the Kymaian plain.
Κυµαῖον πεδίον, ἐν ὧι µυθολογοῦσιν ἄνδρας Here the mythographers relate that there were
γενέσθαι ταῖς τε ῥώµαις προέχοντας καὶ ἐπὶ men of exceptional strength who were known
παρανοµίαι διωνοµασµένους, οὓς ὀνοµάζεσθαι for their lawlessness and were called Giants.
γίγαντας. ὠνοµάσθαι δὲ καὶ τὸ πεδίον τοῦτο This plain was called Phlegraian from the
Φλεγραῖον ἀπὸ τοῦ λόφου τοῦ τὸ παλαιὸν mountain which in ancient times spewed
ἐκφυσῶντος ἄπλατον πῦρ παραπλησίως τῆι κατὰ forth a huge fire, as Aitna did in Sicily. This
τὴν Σικελίαν Αἴτνηι· καλεῖται δὲ νῦν ὁ τόπος place is now called Vesuvius and shows many
Οὐεσούιος, ἔχων πολλὰ σηµεῖα τοῦ κεκαῦσθαι signs of the fire, which once raged in those
κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχαίους χρόνους. (6) τοὺς δ᾽ οὖν ancient days. (6) The Giants, to resume,
γίγαντας πυθοµένους τὴν ῾Ηρακλέους παρουσίαν, learned that Herakles was near, and they
ἀθροισθῆναι πάντας καὶ παρατάξασθαι τῶι gathered in full force and stationed themselves
προειρηµένωι· θαυµαστῆς δὲ γενοµένης µάχης ... for battle against him. The ensuing struggle
φασὶ τὸν ῾Ηρακλέα, συµµαχούντων αὐτῶι τῶν was incredible … they say that Herakles,
θεῶν, κρατῆσαι τῆι µάχηι καὶ τοὺς πλείστους assisted by the gods, got the better of it, slew
ἀνελόντα τὴν χώραν ἐξηµερῶσαι. (7) many of the Giants, and brought the land
µυθολογοῦνται δ᾽ οἱ γίγαντες γηγενεῖς γεγονέναι under cultivation. (7) The mythographers
διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ κατὰ τὸ σῶµα µεγέθους. record that the Giants were the sons of Earth
καὶ περὶ µὲν τῶν ἐν Φλέγραι φονευθέντων because of their physical enormity. Regarding
γιγάντων τοιαῦτα µυθολογοῦσί τινες, οἷς καὶ the Giants, then, who were slain in Phlegra,
Τίµαιος ὁ συγγραφεὺς ἠκολούθησεν. this is the account of certain mythographers,
whom the historian Timaios also has followed.
Commentary
Diodorus’s comments on Herakles’ western adventures, in which he mentions Timaios as an

authority (cf. F 90), do not warrant the assumption that Timaios was necessarily in a wider
sense the main source for Diodorus’s account of Herakles in Book 4, nor more particularly for
Herakles’ journey from Spain to Sicily, in which Diodorus’s work is tied to Herakles’ Libyan
sojourn (Diod. 4.18.2). Herakles’ struggle against the Giants had of course other locations in
Greek myth, most famously at Mt. Olympus (for a survey of Herakles’ Labors (Praxeis) and
incidental Labors (Parerga) in art, see T.H. Carpenter, Art and Myth in Ancient Greece (London
1991), 117-34). Jacoby suggested that F 89 may belong in the same context as F 57 and F 58 (Lake
Avernus and Pithekoussai). Little more can be said about F 89 than that it indicates that
Timaios decided to locate the struggle between Herakles and the Giants in Campania. Strabo
(6.3.5 (C281); cf. Lykophr. Alex. 978; Mir. Ausc. 97), reports that some of the Giants escaped the
battle with Herakles, but later died and sank into the ground on the east coast between Bari
and Brindisium. The place was called Leuternia (after the name of Leuternioi for the Giants),
known for its spring of foul-smelling water. This material is probably Timaian, as was
Diodorus’s account (4.22.1-2) of Herakles blocking off Avernus from the sea and making a
causeway for the cattle of Geryon, since both Lykophron (Alex. 697) and Strabo 5.4.6 (C245)
mention the causeway.
BNJ 566 F 90
Work mentioned:

ὁ δ᾽ ῾Ηρακλῆς καταντήσας ἐπὶ τὸν Πορθµὸν κατὰ Herakles, upon arriving at the strait at the sea’s
τὸ στενώτατον τῆς θαλάττης, τὰς µὲν βοῦς narrowest breadth, brought the cattle over to
ἐπεραίωσεν εἰς τὴν Σικελίαν, αὐτὸς δὲ ταύρου Sicily, but he himself took hold of the horn of a
κέρως λαβόµενος διενήξατο τὸν πόρον, ὄντος τοῦ bull and swam across the passage, the distance
διαστήµατος σταδίων τριῶν καὶ δέκα, ὡς Τίµαιός being some thirteen stades, as Timaios says.
φησιν.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 91
Source: Scholia (A) on Homer, Iliad 18.486

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 18.486 (A)

τὰς µὲν κατηστερισµένας ἐν τῶι µετώπωι τοῦ The women placed among the stars on the
ταύρου ῾Υάδας φασὶν εἰρῆσθαι, τὰς δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς forehead of the bull, they say, have been
ἡµιτόµου πλευρᾶς Πληιάδας καλεῖσθαι. ῎Ατλαντοςnamed the Hyades (‘Rainers’), and the ones
γὰρ τοῦ ᾽Ιαπετοῦ καὶ Αἴθρας τῆς ᾽Ωκεανοῦ, καθά upon the half-cut side are called the Pleiades.
φησιν Τίµαιος, θυγατέρες δώδεκα καὶ υἱὸς ῞Υας. There were twelve daughters and a son, Hyas,
τοῦτον ἐν Λιβύηι κυνηγετοῦντα ὄφις κτείνει· καὶ αἱ of Atlas son of Iapetos and Aithra daughter of
µὲν ε̄ τὸν ἀδελφὸν θρηνοῦσαι ἀπόλλυνται, τὰς δὲ Okeanos, according to Timaios. A snake killed
λοιπὰς δι᾽ οἶκτον καταστερίσας Ζεὺς ῾Υάδας Hyas when he was hunting in Libya. And the
ἐπωνόµασεν ἐπωνυµίαι τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ· αἱ δὲ πλείουςfive mourning their brother perished, whom
ζ ̄ βραδέως µέν, πλὴν ἀποθανοῦσαι Πληιάδες Zeus hereafter placed among the stars on
εἴρηνται. account of their grief, and he named them
Hyades, after their brother. The majority of
seven, over much time, except for those
perishing, have been called Pleiades.
Commentary
The snake, rather than the more customary lion or boar, may represent an adaptation to a
Libyan setting. Because of the centrality of Atlas in this fragment, it would more likely have
been located in Timaios’s description of Libya rather than in his historical narrative of
Agathokles’ career (cf. F 81 above). The detailed account of the story of Phaethon forms an
obvious mythological parallel to this fragment in Timaian historiography (F 68). Musaios
(Vorsokr., 5th ed., 2[67] B 18) and Ovid (Fasti 5.163-82) also gave the parental pair of Atlas and
Aithra. For Pherekydes, see BNJ 3 F 90.
BNJ 566 F 92
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 2.15a

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 2.15a
Θήρωνα … ἔρεισµ᾽ ᾽Ακράγαντος, εὐωνύµων τε Theron … bulwark of Akragas, finest upholder
πατέρων ἄωτον ὀρθόπολιν· καµόντες οἳ πολλὰ of the city of noble ancestors, who suffered
θυµῶι ἱερὸν ἔσχον οἴκηµα ποταµοῦ] οἱ πρόγονοι much to win their sacred home by the river]
τοῦ Θήρωνος ἔσχον τὴν ᾽Ακράγαντα· οἴκηµα γὰρ The ancestors of Theron held Akragas; the
ποταµοῦ τοῦ ᾽Ακράγαντος, καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὁµοίως dwelling by the river Akragas and the polis are
καλεῖσθαι. οἱ δὲ ᾽Ακραγαντῖνοι Γελώιων εἰσὶν named the same. The Akragantines are
ἄποικοι, ὥστε τὸ «πατέρων ἄωτον» λέγει ἐπὶ τῶν colonists from Gela, so that he (scil. Pindar)
Θήρωνος προγόνων, οἳ οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἰς τήν Γέλαν says ‘finest of ancestors’ for the ancestors of
µετῆραν, ἀλλὰ εὐθὺς ἀπὸ ῾Ρόδου εἰς τὴν Theron, who did not move simply to Gela, but
᾽Ακράγαντα. καὶ τοῦτο ἐξ αὐτοῦ Πινδάρου rather went straight from Rhodes to Akragas.
σαφηνίζεται, ὡς καὶ Τίµαιός φησι. And this is made clear by Pindar himself, as
Timaios also says.
Commentary
This fragment is of special interest because it shows Timaios’s use of the poet Pindar as an
authority in historical argumentation. Theron of Akragas (r. ca. 489-473/72 BC) stemmed from
the Emmenid family of Rhodes. He was likely allied with Gelon, his future son-in-law and
future tyrant of Syracuse, in a war against Phoenician settlers in western Sicily sometime
before 485 BC. Theron’s capture of Himera and expulsion of its ruler Terillos instigated
Hamilkar’s Sicilian invasion of 480. Theron and Gelon combined to defeat Hamilkar’s forces at
Himera. After Gelon’s death in 478/77, Theron and Hieron I, Gelon’s brother and successor as
tyrant of Syracuse, narrowly avoided armed conflict; the reconciliation, with the help of the
poet Simonides (F 93b), was sealed with Hieron’s marriage to Theron’s niece (Theron in turn
married the daughter of Polyzelos, Hieron’s brother; cf. F 93a). Theron repopulated Himera,
and with Carthaginian spoils embellished Agrakas with magnificent public works projects.
Pindar and Simonides were Theron’s guests at Akragas (cf. Pind. Ol. 2-3). The scholiast on
Pindar Ol. 2.16 records variant traditions on the original colonization of Akragas (cf. Artemon,
BNJ 569 F 1; see also Hdt. 7.153; Thuc. 6.4). The tradition that Akragas was colonized from Gela
was well-established; Timaios insisted (along with Pindar), however, that Theron’s ancestors
had come directly from Rhodes. It is regrettable that we do not possess more of Timaios on the
great Sicilian tyrants of the early 5th century BC. He undoubtedly struggled to reconcile
patriotic pride in their victories over the Carthaginians as a counterweight to the mainland
Greeks’ victories over the Persians (on Timaios’s desire to vaunt the achievements of the
Sicilian Greeks, see Commentary to T 7) and his inveterate hatred of tyranny (see
Commentary to T 3b, T 13, F 29, F 32, and F 35a).
BNJ 566 F 93a
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 2 inscr. 58.12

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 2 inscr. 58.12
γέγραπται Θήρωνι ᾽Ακραγαντίνωι ἅρµατι It was inscribed for Theron of Akragas whose
νικήσαντι τὴν ος ὀλυµπιάδα· ἦν δὲ ὁ Θήρων τὸ racing chariot won at the 76th Olympiad (476
ἀνέκαθεν ἀπὸ Οἰδίποδος. ἐκήδευσε δὲ Γέλωνι τῶι BC). Theron was descended from Oedipus. He
τυράννωι, δοὺς αὐτῶι τὴν θυγατέρα Δηµαρέτην, allied himself in marriage to Gelon the tyrant,
ἀφ᾽ ἧς καὶ τὸ Δηµαρέτειον ὠνοµάσθη νόµισµα. καὶ giving to him as bride his daughter Demarete,
αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θήρων τὴν Πολυζήλου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ from whom the coin also is called
῾Ιέρωνος θυγατέρα ἔγηµε, καθ᾽ ἅ φησι Τίµαιος. Demareteion. And Theron himself married the
daughter of Polyzelos the brother of Hieron,
according to Timaios.
Commentary
F 93a demonstrates that one tradition had Theron as a descendant of Oedipus (for Theron’s
Rhodian ancestry, see F 92 with Commentary), and that a coin issue was struck in the name of
Theron’s daughter Demarete. For Timaios’s treatment of Theron, Gelon, and Hieron I, see
Commentaries to F 92 and F 93b.
BNJ 566 F 93b
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 2.29d

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 2.29d
ζητεῖται, δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν εὐξάµενος τῶι Θήρωνι τὰ He sought and prayed for the best things for
κάλλιστα, κατάπαυσιν τῶν πραχθέντων δεινῶν Theron, beseeching Zeus for a cessation of the
αἰτεῖται τὸν Δία. καὶ ὁ µὲν ᾽Αρίσταρχός φησι διὰ terrible things that had been done. And
τὸ κεκµηκέναι τοὺς τοῦ Θήρωνος πατέρας κατὰ Aristarchos says (this) on account of the
τὴν ῾Ρόδον, τῶν πραγµάτων στασιαζοµένων, καὶ ancestors of Theron having been hard-pressed
οὕτω τὴν µετοικίαν εἰς τὴν Σικελίαν στειλαµένων, at Rhodes, in conditions of civil strife, and
ὁ δὲ Δίδυµος τὸ ἀκριβέστερον τῆς ἱστορίας undertaking the colonization in Sicily, but
ἐκτίθεται, µάρτυρα Τίµαιον τὸν συντάξαντα τὰ Didymos (p. 215 Schmidt) lays out the more
περὶ τῆς Σικελίας προφερόµενος. ἡ δὲ ἱστορία accurate history, surpassing Timaios the writer
οὕτως ἔχει· Θήρων ὁ τῶν ᾽Ακραγαντίνων βασιλεὺς on Sicilian matters. The history is as follows.
Γέλωνι τῶι ῾Ιέρωνος ἀδελφῶι ἐπικηδεύσας γάµωι Theron the king of the Akragantines, making
συνάπτει τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θυγατέρα Δηµαρέτην, ἀφ᾽ ἧς an alliance by marriage with Gelon the brother
καὶ τὸ Δηµαρέτειον νόµισµα ἐν Σικελίαι. τοῦ δὲ of Hieron, gave his daughter Demarete, from
Γέλωνος τελευτᾶν τὸν βίον µέλλοντος, Πολύζηλος whom there is also the name of the coin
ὁ ἀδελφὸς τὴν στρατηγίαν καὶ τὴν γαµετὴν τοῦ Demareteion in Sicily. When Gelon was on the
ἀδελφοῦ διαδέχεται κατὰ τὰς Γέλωνος verge of death, Polyzelos his brother received
προστάξεις, ὥστε τὸ Θήρωνος εἰς Γέλωνα κῆδος power and the marriage according to the
εἰς τὸν Πολύζηλον µετατεθεῖσθαι. λαµπρῶι δὲ instructions of Gelon, so that the gift of
αὐτῶι καὶ περιβλέπτωι τυγχάνοντι κατὰ τὴν Theron was transferred from Gelon to
Σικελίαν, ῾Ιέρων φθονήσας ὁ ἀδελφὸς καὶ Polyzelos. But his brother Hieron envied him,
πρόφασιν σκηψάµενος τὸν πρὸς Συβαρίτας as he was doing exceedingly well in Sicily, and
πόλεµον, ἀπελαύνει τῆς πατρίδος· ἀλλὰ καὶ finding the war against the Sybarites as a
τοῦτον κατώρθωσε τὸν πόλεµον ὁ Πολύζηλος. ὁ δὲ pretext, he kept him at a distance from the
µὴ φέρων γυµνότερον αὐτοῦ κατηγορεῖν, ἐπειρᾶτο country. But Polyzelos put things to right even
νεωτερισµοῦ, καὶ οὕτω τὸν Θήρωνα, in this war. And not being defenseless he
ὑπεραγανακτήσαντα θυγατρὸς ἅµα καὶ γαµβροῦ, accused him, and fomented revolution, and
συρρῆξαι πρὸς ῾Ιέρωνα πόλεµον παρὰ Γέλαι τῶι thus Theron, angered on behalf of his
Σικελιωτικῶι ποταµῶι, οὗ Καλλίµαχος µέµνηται daughter and son-in-law, brought about a war
«οἶδα Γέλα ποταµοῦ κεφαλῆι ἐπικείµενον ἄστυ». against Hieron by the Sicilian river Gela, which
µή γε µὴν εἰς βλάβην µήδε εἰς τέλος προχωρῆσαι Kallimachos (F 43, 48 Pfeiffer) mentions, ‘I
τὸν πόλεµον· φασὶ γὰρ τότε Σιµωνίδην τὸν know the city lying at the head of the river
λυρικὸν περιτυχόντα διαλῦσαι τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τὴν Gela’. But at any rate the war proceeded
ἔχθραν. τούτοις οἰκείως τοῖς φθάσασιν εὔχεσθαι neither to the destruction of one of the parties
τῶι Διί φησι τὸν Πίνδαρον ὁ Δίδυµος, ὥστε λοιπὸν nor to a decisive conclusion. They say that
αὐτοῖς εἰρηναῖον εἶναι τὸν βίον. then Simonides the lyre-player, who happened
to be present, softened the hatred between the
kings. Didymos says that Pindar prayed to Zeus
on their behalf, who were taking action before
it was too late, with the result that they lived
out the rest of their days in peace.
Commentary
The present fragment should be read in conjunction with the Pindar scholiast in A (at Ol.
2.29b Drachmann). The 1st-century BC polymath Didymos (p. 215 Schmidt; see also the edition
of A. Ludwich, Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik nach den Fragmenten des Didymos (Leipzig
1884-85; repr. Hildesheim 1971)) abridged Timaios’s account, while the scholiast may have had
an imperfect understanding of the events recounted. Nevertheless, the sequence of the major
political events after Gelon’s death are well-established. The evidence for Timaios’s treatment
of relations between Hieron and Polyzelos provided by this fragment suggests that his
narrative in its main lines was in agreement with Diodorus’s account (Diod. 11.48.3-5).
Timaios’s version can be reconstructed as follows. When Gelon died, he wanted Hieron to
succeed him in Syracuse and Polyzelos to be ‘general’; that is, ruler of Gela, and to take
Demarete as his wife (F 93a). Hieron, however, feared Polyzelos’s military capabilities and
popularity. He therefore sent Polyzelos to war against Sybaris, hoping he would perish on
campaign. When that plan failed, Hieron attempted, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Polyzelos.
Theron was infuriated by Hieron’s treachery against his son-in-law and daughter, and war
between Theron and Hieron was narrowly avoided through the agency of Simonides (F 93b).
But Diodorus does not mention Demarete (F 93a), and he has Polyzelos sent by Hieron to
defend the Sybarites against Kroton. In his account, Polyzelos refused the command and took
refuge with Hieron. These discrepancies with Timaios’s version cannot be resolved (though
the ending of the story is the same in Timaios and Diodorus), and they suggest that Diodorus
relied on the account of Ephoros for these events.
BNJ 566 F 94
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.26b.1-5

Work mentioned:

12.26b.1-5
(1) ὅτι Γέλωνος ἐπαγγελλοµένου τοῖς ῞Ελλησι (1) When Gelon promised to send to the aid of
δισµυρίοις πεζοῖς, διακοσίαις δὲ ναυσὶ the Greeks 20,000 infantry and 200 warships,
καταφράκτοις βοηθήσειν, ἐὰν αὐτῶι τῆς if they would grant him high command either
ἡγεµονίας [ἢ τῆς ἡγεµονίας] ἢ τῆς κατὰ γῆν ἢ τῆς on land or sea, they say that the Greek
κατὰ θάλατταν παραχωρήσωσι, φασὶ τοὺς representatives in council at Corinth gave a
προκαθηµένους ἐν Κορίνθωι τῶν ῾Ελλήνων good diplomatic answer to Gelon’s envoys. (2)
πραγµατικώτατον ἀπόκριµα δοῦναι τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ They ordered Gelon with his forces to come as
Γέλωνος πρεσβευταῖς· (2) ἐκέλευον γὰρ ὡς an auxiliary, but as for the command actual
ἐπίκουρον ἔρχεσθαι τὸν Γέλωνα µετὰ τῶν circumstances would necessarily invest the
δυνάµεων, τὴν δ᾽ ἡγεµονίαν ἀνάγκηι τὰ πράγµατα most capable. (3) This was in no way
περιθήσειν τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν ἀνδρῶν. (3) τοῦτο δ᾽ characteristic of men putting all their hope in
<οὐκ> ἐστι τῶν καταφευγόντων ἐπὶ τὰς Syracuse, but rather of men relying upon
Συρακουσίων ἐλπίδας, ἀλλὰ πιστευόντων αὑτοῖς themselves and inviting anyone who wished to
καὶ προκαλουµένων τὸν βουλόµενον εἰς τὸν τῆς do so to join the contest and win valor’s prize.
ἀνδρείας ἀγῶνα καὶ τὸν περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς (4) But Timaios, in commenting on all of this,
στέφανον. (4) ἀλλ᾽ ὅµως Τίµαιος εἰς ἕκαστα τῶν is so long-winded and so obviously anxious to
προειρηµένων τοσούτους ἐντείνει λόγους καὶ demonstrate that Sicily was more important
τοσαύτην ποιεῖται σπουδὴν περὶ τοῦ τὴν µὲν than all the rest of Greece – the events
Σικελίαν µεγαλοµερεστέραν ποιῆσαι τῆς occurring in Sicily being so much more
συµπάσης ῾Ελλάδος, τὰς δὲ ἐν αὐτῆι πράξεις magnificent and noble than anywhere else in
ἐπιφανεστέρας καὶ καλλίους τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην the world, the wisest of men distinguished for
οἰκουµένην, τῶν δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν τῶν µὲν σοφίαι sagacity coming from Sicily and most capable
διενηνοχότων σοφωτάτους τοὺς ἐν Σικελίαι, τῶν and wonderful leaders being those from
δὲ πραγµατικῶν ἡγεµονικωτάτους καὶ θειοτάτους Syracuse – (5) that no boy in a rhetorical
τοὺς ἐκ Συρακουσσῶν, (5) ὥστε µὴ καταλιπεῖν school who is set to compose a eulogy of
ὑπερβολὴν τοῖς µειρακίοις τοῖς ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς Thersites or a condemnation of Penelope or
καὶ τοῖς τόποις πρὸς τὰς παραδόξους anything else of the kind could surpass him in
ἐπιχειρήσεις, ὅταν ἢ Θερσίτου λέγειν ἐγκώµιον ἢ the paradoxes he raises.
Πηνελόπης προθῶνται ψόγον ἤ τινος ἑτέρου τῶν
τοιούτων.
Commentary
In this passage Polybios castigates Timaios for vaunting the achievements of Sicilian Greeks
(cf. Commentary to T 7). Herodotos (7.153, 157; cf. Ephoros, BNJ 70 F 186) states that the
mainland Greeks sent envoys to Sicily requesting aid against Xerxes’ invasion. Timaios’s
version has the initiative come from Sicily, with envoys sent to Corinth. Jacoby (FGrH 3b, 580),
pointing out that the pro-Sicilian version of Herodotos (7.165) knows nothing of such a
tradition, was probably right in suggesting that the variant was Timaios’s invention. The
military-strength numbers (20,000 infantry and 200 ships) are also in Herodotos (7.158.4), who
adds 2,000 horse, 2,000 archers, 2,000 slingers, and 2,000 light horse. See F.W. Walbank, A
Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 404.
BNJ 566 F 95
Source: Ioannes Tzetzes, Chiliades 4.132.269-281 (ed. Leone)

Work mentioned:
Tzetzes, Ioannes, Chiliades, 4.132.269-281
Leone
Γέλωνα Συρακούσιον καθ᾽ ὕπνους δὲ βοῶντα / A dog recognized that Gelon the Syracusan,
(κεραυνοβλὴς γὰρ ἔδοξεν ὀνείροις γεγονέναι) / ὁ who was shouting out in sleep (for he seemed
κύων θορυβούµενον ἀµέτρως γνοὺς ἐκεῖνον, / in his dreams to have been struck by
καθυλακτῶν οὐκ ἔληξεν, ἕως ἐγείρει τοῦτον. / lightning), was unusually disturbed, and (the
τοῦτον ἐξέσωσέ ποτε καὶ λύκος ἐκ θανάτου· / dog) would not leave off howling, until he
σχολῆι προσκαθηµένου γὰρ ἔτι παιδίου ὄντος, / roused him from sleep. And a wolf once saved
λύκος ἐλθὼν ἀφήρπαξε τὴν δέλτον τὴν ἐκείνου· / him from death. For when he was still a child
τοῦ δὲ δραµόντος πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν λύκον καὶ τὴν sitting in school, a wolf coming by snatched
δέλτον, / κατασεισθεῖσα ἡ σχολὴ βαθρόθεν his writing tablet, and he ran out after the wolf
καταπίπτει, / καὶ σύµπαντας ἀπέκτεινε παῖδας itself and the writing tablet. The school shaken
σὺν διδασκάλωι. / τῶν παίδων δὲ τὸν ἀριθµὸν οἱ by an earthquake collapsed from its
συγγραφεῖς βοῶσι, / Τίµαιοι, Διονύσιοι, Διόδωροι foundations, and killed all the children along
καὶ Δίων, / πλείω τελοῦντα ἑκατόν· τὸ δ᾽ ἀκριβὲς with their teacher. The writers, the Timaioses,
οὐκ οἶδα. Dionysioses, Diodoroses, Dion(s), have
sensationalized the number of children at
more than one hundred. I do not know the
accurate (figure).
Commentary
Johannes Tzetzes’ note (12th century) on Gelon’s thaumata is printed in editions of Diodorus
as Diod. 10.29. Tzetzes lists here intermediary sources (Diodorus, Dionysios, and Dio), but
elsewhere (F 53, F 55, F 65a, F 66, F 98, F 146b; Chil. 10.827 Leone) he implies that he knew
Timaios’s work directly. Aelian (NA 6.62; VH 1.13) records both stories concerning Gelon, the
lightning strike and canine intervention (cf. Philistos, BNJ 556 F 48; Plin. NH 8.144) and the
wolf, the earthquake, and the averted disaster of the collapsed schoolhouse. Justin (23.4.9) has
the wolf story, but he presents it in connection with Hieron II. Compare the prophetic dream
warning the Syracusans how much they would suffer under the tyranny of Dionysios (F 29).
Timaios seems to have relaxed his harsh judgment of tyrants in his treatment of Gelon, the
hero of the battle of the Himera.
BNJ 566 F 96
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 6.158a-c

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 6.158a-c
῾Ιέρων καθαρῶι σκάπτωι διέπων] (a) ἱερωσύνην Hieron held discourse with the holy scepter]
<εἶχεν> ὁ ῾Ιέρων Δήµητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διὸς (a) Hieron held the priesthood of Demeter and
Αἰτναίου ἐν Σικελίαι ἐκ διαδοχῆς <Τη>λίνου τοῦ Kore and Aitnian Zeus in Sicily from the
προγόνου αὐτῶν … (c) ὁ δὲ Δίδυµος· διὰ τὸν succession of Telines his ancestor … (c) And
῾Ιέρωνα, ἐπεὶ ἄνωθεν ἐκ προγόνων ἱεροφάντης Didymos (p. 219 Schmidt) (relays) that Pindar
τῶν θεῶν ἀποδέδεικται, τὰ προκείµενά φησιν ὁ says the preceding on account of Hieron, since
Πίνδαρος. καὶ παρατίθεται τὰ Φιλίστου καὶ τὰ he came forth from his ancestors from on high
Τιµαίου. as hierophant of the gods; (as) also the
writings of Philistos ( BNJ 556 F 49) and
Timaios explain.
Commentary
In Schol. Pind. Ol. 6.158a, Boeckh supplied εἶχεν and <Τη>λίνου, followed here. For Philistos, cf.
BNJ 556 F 49. For Gelon’s ancestor Telines (from the island of Telos lying off Triopium) and the
foundation of Gela, see Hdt. 7.153; cf. Schol. Pindar Pyth. 2.27b Drachmann. According to
Herodotos’s version, an ancestor of Gelon’s [Deinomenes I?], was among the settling party of
the Lindians from Rhodes under the leadership of Antiphemos. Telines (probably the son of
Deinomenes I) obtained the priesthood of Demeter and Persephone after he helped restore
exiles from Gela, who had taken refuge in the nearby city of Maktorion, by supernatural
agency. For this act he demanded that his descendants always be hierophants of the
goddesses. This fragment most certainly alludes to Timaios’s treatment of the story. The
Chronicle of Lindos ( BNJ 532 F 3 ch. 28) refers to Deinomenes I (Gelon’s great-great
grandfather) as one of the original colonists of Gela.
BNJ 566 F 97
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Pythian Ode 1.112a

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 1.112a
Δεινοµένης δὲ υἱὸς ῾Ιέρωνος ἐκ τῆς Νικοκλέους Deinomenes was the son of Hieron and the
τοῦ Συρακουσίου θυγατρὸς κατὰ Φίλιστον καὶ daughter of Nikokles the Syracusan, according
Τίµαιον· ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ᾽Αναξιλάου θυγατρὸς καὶ τῆς to Philistos and Timaios. With the daughter of
Θήρωνος ἀνεψιᾶς οὐκ ἐπαιδοποίησεν ὁ ῾Ιέρων, Anaxilaos and cousin of Theron Hieron did
προγαµήσας ταύτην. ὅθεν ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ παῖς not have children, having married this woman
ὁµώνυµος τῶι πάππωι· Δεινοµένης γὰρ πατὴρ at an earlier time. Whence the son had the
῾Ιέρωνος. same name as the grandfather, for
Deinomenes was the father of Hieron.
Commentary
For Philistos’s treatment of the Deinomenids, see BNJ 556 F 50. Philistos of Syracuse (ca. 430-
356 BC) was one of Timaios’s important predecessors in Sicilian Greek historiography. His
favorable views on Greek tyrants (cf. Plut. Dion 36.3; BNJ 556 T 23a) were diametrically
opposed to the freedom-loving Timaios (cf. L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West:
Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 19-30). In both F 96 and the present fragment
Philistos and Timaios are cited together, which suggests that in both passages Timaios
followed the account he found in Philistos (supported by the mention of the daughter of
Nikokles the Syracusan in this passage). For Deinomenid genealogy, see T.J. Dunbabin, The
Western Greeks. The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to
480 BC (Oxford 1948), 483.
BNJ 566 F 98

732
Work mentioned:
Scholia, 732
φησὶ Τίµαιος Διότιµον τὸν ᾽Αθηναίων ναύαρχον Timaios says that Diotimos the admiral of the
παραγενόµενον εἰς Νεάπολιν, κατὰ χρησµὸν θῦσαι Athenians, when he was at Neapolis, on the
τῆι Παρθενόπηι καὶ δρόµον ποιῆσαι λαµπάδος· διὸ instruction of an oracle, sacrificed to
καὶ µέχρι τοῦ νῦν τῆς λαµπάδος ἀγῶνα <ἐτησίως> Parthenope and celebrated a torch-race. And
τελεῖσθαι παρὰ τοῖς Νεαπολίταις. to this day there is the celebration of the torch-
race among the Neapolitans.
Commentary
Lykophron (Alex. 732-36) wrote that the leader of the whole Mopsonian fleet (scil. Diotimos;
Mopsops was an old Athenian hero; cf. Alex. 1340), would establish a torch race for his sailors
in honor of the siren Parthenope (cf. Strabo 5.4.7 (C246)). According to Greek mythology,
Parthenope was cast up nearby Neapolis, which was sometimes called after her. Diotimos, son
of Strombichos, was one of the three admirals in command of ten Athenian triremes sent out
to assist Corcyra in 433 BC, in accordance with the Athenian-Corcyraian defensive alliance
(Thuc. 1.45). The present passage probably refers to this event, but the Athenians’ renewal of
their treaty with Rhegion and Leontini in 433/32 BC (IG 2 1.51/2) provides another possible
historical context.
BNJ 566 F 99
Source: Cornelius Nepos, Alcibiades 11.1-6

Work mentioned:
Cornelius Nepos, Alcibiades, 11.1-6

(1) hunc infamatum a plerisque tres gravissimi (1) Three historians of the greatest authority
historici summis laudibus extulerunt: have extolled with highest praise this man (sc.
Thucydides, qui eiusdem aetatis fuit, Alkibiades), who is infamous in the eyes of
Theopompus post aliquanto natus, et Timaeus, many. Thucydides, who was a contemporary;
qui quidem duo maledicentissimi nescio quo Theopompos ( BNJ 115 F 288), who was born a
modo in illo uno laudando consentiunt. (2) little later; and Timaeus; the two latter, though
namque ea quae supra scripsimus de eo much addicted to censure, somehow were in
praedicarunt atque hoc amplius: cum Athenis, agreement in their praise of that man; (2) for
splendidissima civitate, natus esset, omnes they have related of him what we have stated
splendore ac dignitate superasse vitae; (3) above, and this as well, that though he was
postquam inde expulsus Thebas venerit, adeo born in Athens, the most splendid of cities, he
studiis eorum inservisse, ut nemo eum labore surpassed all the Athenians in splendor and
corporisque viribus posset aequiperare magnificence of living; (3) that when, on being
(omnes enim Boeotii magis firmitati corporis exiled from his homeland, he went to Thebes,
quam ingenii acumini inserviunt); (4) eundem he so devoted himself to the pursuits of the
apud Lacedaemonios, quorum moribus Thebans that no man could match him in
summa virtus in patientia ponebatur, sic laborious exercises and bodily vigor, (for all
duritiae se dedisse, ut parsimonia victus atque the Bœotians cultivate bodily strength more
cultus omnes Lacedaemonios vinceret. fuisse than mental acumen); (4) that when he was
apud Thracas, homines vinolentos rebusque among the Lakedaimonians, in whose
veneriis deditos: hos quoque in his rebus estimation the highest virtue is placed in
antecessisse. (5) venisse ad Persas, apud quos endurance, he so resigned himself to a harsh
summa laus esset fortiter venari, luxuriose existence that he surpassed all the
vivere: horum sic imitatum consuetudinem, ut Lakedaimonians in the frugality of his diet and
illi ipsi eum in his maxime admirarentur. (6) living; that when he was among the Thracians,
quibus rebus effecisse ut apud quoscumque who are hard drinkers and given to lewdness,
esset, princeps poneretur habereturque he surpassed them also in these practices; (5)
carissimus. that when he came to the Persians, among
whom it was the chief praise to hunt bravely
and live luxuriously, he so imitated their mode
of life that they themselves greatly admired
him in these things; (6) and that by such
behavior, he brought it about that, with
whatever people he was, he was regarded as a
leading man and held in the highest esteem.
Commentary
F 98-102 represent the meager remains of Timaios’s treatment of the Athenian expedition to
Sicily (415-413 BC). It is understandable that so little of Timaios’s account has survived, since
he would have followed in their main lines the accounts of Thucydides and Philistos of
Syracuse (but cf. F 101 for Timaios’s independence in his narration of the deaths of
Demosthenes and Nikias; T 18 (Timaios’s pedantic rivalries with Thucydides and Philistos)).
T.S. Brown (Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley 1958), 66 and n. 86) suggested that Cornelius
Nepos employed a Peripateic biography of Alkibiades and owed the references to
Theopompos and Timaios to that biography. In any event, Nepos’s statement in F 99,
concerning Timaios’s high praises of Alkibiades, should be approached with caution, since
Thucydides, who also gave high praise to Alkibiades according to this fragment, judged the
Athenian statesman in equivocal terms, at best (Thuc. 6.12.2-13.1 (Nicias); 6.15.2-4). Whatever
Timaios did have to say about Alkibiades’ personal traits was most likely his own contribution,
embellishing the brief assessments he found in Thucydides and Philistos (cf. Timaios’s
unsavory portrait of the Spartan commander Gylippos recorded by Plutarch in his Nicias and
Timoleon (F 100a, F 100b, F 100c); Plutarch (Nicias 19.5) mentions only Timaios in connection
with this anecdotal material, adding Thucydides (cf. H.D. Westlake, Individuals in Thucydides
(Cambridge 1968), 277-89) and the eyewitness Philistos ( BNJ 556 F 56) only in relation to the
account of Nikias’s negotiations and hostilities with Gylippos and the Syracusans). For
Timaios’s attempts to enliven his account of the Athenian expedition to Sicily with colorful
individuals, see F 24a and F 24b on the courtesan Lais.
BNJ 566 F 100a
Source: Plutarch, Life of Nikias 19.5

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Nikias, 19.5

Τίµαιος δὲ καὶ τοὺς Σικελιώτας φησὶν ἐν µηδενὶ Timaios says that the Sicilians also made no
λόγωι ποιεῖσθαι τὸν Γύλιππον, ὕστερον µὲν account of Gylippos; later on, indeed, they
αἰσχροκέρδειαν αὐτοῦ καὶ µικρολογίαν came to know his shameful greed and
καταγνόντας, ὡς δὲ πρῶτον ὤφθη, σκώπτοντας penuriousness; but as soon as they set eyes
εἰς τὸν τρίβωνα καὶ τὴν κόµην. εἶτα µέντοι φησὶν upon him they jeered at his cloak and his long
αὐτός, ὅτι τῶι Γυλίππωι φανέντι καθάπερ γλαυκὶ hair. Then, however, Timaios himself says that
πολλοὶ προσέπτησαν ἑτοίµως στρατευόµενοι. as soon as Gylippos showed himself, like an
owl among birds, many flocked to him, ready
to campaign.
Commentary
Gylippos was sent out from Sparta to Sicily in 414 BC to command Syracusan forces against the
Athenians. The beleaguered Syracusans’ flagging resolve was restored by his arrival, and an
early victory under Gylippos’s command enabled the Syracusans to build a counter-wall which
prevented an Athenian land blockade. Gylippos was Lysander’s subordinate officer in 405, but
he stole 300 talents from the booty resulting from the Aegospotami campaign and, upon being
charged with the crime, fled into exile. F 100-101 further demonstrate Timaios’s Sicilian
patriotism: Gylippos the Lakedaimonian serves as an objectionable foil to one of Timaios’s
heroes of Sicilian independence, Hermokrates son of Hermon (F 22; cf. Thuc. 6.32.3-34.9, 72.2;
Jacoby FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 582, who sought to diminish the degree of Timaios’s patriotic
bias, arguing that Timaios strove to emulate Thucydides’ objective authorial stance). Plutarch
notes that the second part of Timaios’s statement in this fragment holds the greater truth,
because in the staff and cloak of Gylippos men recognized the symbols of Spartan majesty. He
goes on to cite Thucydides and Philistos in arguing that Gylippos was the deliverer of the
Sicilians from Athenian aggression (see B. Niese, ‘Gylippos (1)’, RE 7 (1912), cols. 1967-9).
BNJ 566 F 100b

Work mentioned:

(1) ἐκκλησίας δὲ πανδήµου Συρακουσίων καὶ τῶν (1) There being an assembly of all the
συµµάχων γενοµένης, Εὐρυκλῆς ὁ δηµαγωγὸς Syracusans and their allies, Eurykles the
ἔγραψε ... (2) … τῶν δ᾽ ᾽Αθηναίων τοὺς µὲν demagogue brought a motion ... (2) ... that
οἰκέτας ἀποδόσθαι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους συµµάχους, servants of the Athenians and their allies be
αὐτοὺς δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Σικελίας φρουρεῖν sold into slavery, while the freemen and the
ἐµβαλόντας εἰς τὰς λατοµίας πλὴν τῶν Sicilian Greeks who had joined them be cast
στρατηγῶν, ἐκείνους δ᾽ ἀποκτεῖναι. (3) ταῦτα into the stone quarries for watch – all except
προσδεχοµένων τῶν Συρακουσίων, ῾Ερµοκράτης the generals, who should be put to death. (3)
µὲν εἰπὼν ὅτι τοῦ νικᾶν κρεῖττόν ἐστι τὸ καλῶς These propositions were adopted by the
χρῆσθαι τῆι νίκηι, οὐ µετρίως ἐθορυβήθη, Syracusans. When Hermokrates objected that
Γύλιππον δὲ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς τῶν ᾽Αθηναίων there was something better than victory, that is
ἐξαιτούµενον ζῶντας ἀγαγεῖν Λακεδαιµονίοις, to use victory nobly, he was met with
ὑβρίζοντες ἤδη τοῖς εὐτυχήµασιν κακῶς ἔλεγον, tumultuous disapproval; and when Gylippos
ἄλλως τε καὶ παρὰ τὸν πόλεµον αὐτοῦ τὴν asked for the Athenian generals as his prize, in
τραχύτητα καὶ τὸ Λακωνικὸν τῆς ἐπιστασίας οὐ order that he might take them alive to the
ῥαιδίως ἐνηνοχότες· (4) ὡς δὲ Τίµαιός φησι, καὶ Lakedaimonians, the Syracusans, insolent in
µικρολογίαν τινὰ καὶ πλεονεξίαν κατεγνωκότες, their good fortunes, abused him. They were
ἀρρώστηµα πατρῶιον ἐφ᾽ ὧι καὶ Κλεανδρίδης ὁ the more ready to do this because, all through
πατὴρ αὐτοῦ δώρων ἁλοὺς ἔφυγε, καὶ οὗτος αὐτὸς the war, they had found it hard to put up with
ἀπὸ τῶν χιλίων ταλάντων, ἃ Λύσανδρος ἔπεµψεν his harshness and the Lakonian style with
which he exercised his authority. (4) Timaios
says, moreover, that they denounced his
εἰς Σπάρτην, ὑφελόµενος τριάκοντα καὶ κρύψας exceeding penuriousness and avarice – an
ὑπὸ τὸν ὄροφον τῆς οἰκίας, εἶτα µηνυθεὶς αἴσχιστα inherited infirmity, it would seem, since his
πάντων ἐξέπεσεν. father, Kleandridas, was convicted of bribery
and had to go into exile. And Gylippos himself,
for taking thirty talents from the thousand
which Lysander had sent to Sparta, and hiding
them in the roof of his house, after being
brought to account, was banished in the
deepest disgrace.
Commentary
Timaios discussed the fates of the Athenian generals Demosthenes and Nicias in a way that
redounded to the credit of the Syracusan statesman Hermokrates, and at the expense of the
Spartan Gylippos. Both opposed the death sentence passed against these men by the
Syracusan assembly (so Thuc. 7.86.2, but cf. the version at Diod. 13.28.1-33.6, in which Gylippos
advocates the death penalty; Diodorus may have gotten the speech from Ephoros, who in turn
may have taken it from Philistos). Gylippos was discredited by both Spartan reputation and his
personal behavior; Hermokrates backed up his noble sentiment with noble behavior, sending
a message to the Athenian commanders and allowing them to avoid the indignity of execution
by preemptive suicide (F 101).
BNJ 566 F 100c
Source: Plutarch, Life of Timoleon 41.4

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Timoleon, 41.4

Τίµαιος δὲ καὶ Γύλιππον ἀκλεῶς φησι καὶ ἀτίµως Timaios says that the Syracusans sent Gylippos
ἀποπέµψαι Συρακοσίους, φιλοπλουτίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ away in shameful dishonor, charging him with
ἀπληστίαν ἐν τῆι στρατηγίαι κατεγνωκότας. greed of gain and insatiability in his
command.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 100a and F 100b.
BNJ 566 F 101
Source: Plutarch, Life of Nikias 28.5

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Nikias, 28.5

Δηµοσθένην δὲ καὶ Νικίαν ἀποθανεῖν Τίµαιος οὐ Timaios denies that Demosthenes and Nikias
φησιν ὑπὸ Συρακουσίων κελευσθέντας, ὡς were put to death by orders of the Syracusans,
Φίλιστος ἔγραψε καὶ Θουκυδίδης, ἀλλ᾽ as Philistos ( BNJ 556 F 55) and Thucydides
῾Ερµοκράτους πέµψαντος ἔτι τῆς ἐκκλησίας (7.86.2) state; rather, Hermokrates sent word to
συνεστώσης, καὶ δι᾽ ἑνὸς τῶν φυλάκων παρέντος them of the assembly’s decision while it was
αὐτοὺς δι᾽ αὑτῶν ἀποθανεῖν· τὰ µέντοι σώµατα yet in session, and with one of the guards
πρὸς ταῖς πύλαις ἐκβληθέντα κεῖσθαι φανερὰ τοῖς present they committed suicide. Their bodies,
δεοµένοις τοῦ θεάµατος. he says, were thrown out by the gates, and lay
there in plain sight of all who craved the sight.
Commentary
The present fragment is important because it demonstrates that Timaios could take an
independent line from Thucydides and Philistos in his account of the Peloponnesian War (cf.
T 18).
BNJ 566 F 102a
Source: Pseudo-Longinos, On the Sublime 4.3

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: symbouleutic oratory
Pseudo-Longinus, On the Sublime, 4.3

τοῖς δὲ ᾽Αθηναίοις ἁλοῦσιν περὶ Σικελίαν τίνα And he calls out to the Athenians captured in
τρόπον ἐπιφωνεῖ; ὅτι «εἰς τὸν ῾Ερµῆν Sicily somewhat as follows: ‘Having
ἀσεβήσαντες καὶ περικόψαντες αὐτοῦ τὰ dishonored Hermes and mutilated his statues,
ἀγάλµατα, διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἔδωκαν δίκην, οὐχ ἥκιστα δι᾽ on account of this they have paid the penalty,
ἕνα ἄνδρα, ὃς ἀπὸ τοῦ παρανοµηθέντος διὰ not least on account of one man, who
πατέρων ἦν, ῾Ερµοκράτη τὸν ῞Ερµωνος». inherited the outrage through his ancestors,
Hermokrates son of Hermon’.
Commentary
T.S. Brown (Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley 1958), 66), wrote of Timaios’s ‘tiresome play on
words’ in reference to this passage (which he erroneously gave as F 102b). Hermes supposedly
punished the Athenians through the agency of Hermokrates. For criticism of such literary
devices in history writing, see Commentary to T 15a, T 19, and T 20, with F.W. Walbank,
‘Timaios’ Views of the Past’, in Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections
(Cambridge 2002), 165-77; cf. D.A. Russell, ‘Longinus’: On the Sublime (Oxford 1964), 77 ad 4.3.
BNJ 566 F 102b

Work mentioned:

(2) πολλαχοῦ δ᾽ ὑπορρέων εἰς τὸν Ξέναρχον, (2) Indeed, he often lapses unawares into the
ὥσπερ ὅταν λέγηι τοῖς ᾽Αθηναίοις οἰωνὸν manner of Xenarchos, as when he says he
ἡγήσασθαι (?) γεγονέναι τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς νίκης ἔχοντα thinks it was a bad omen for the Athenians
τοὔνοµα στρατηγὸν ἀντειπόντα πρὸς τὴν that Nikias, whose name was derived from
στρατηγίαν· καὶ τῆι περικοπῆι τῶν ῾Ερµῶν victory, declined at first to head the
προσηµαίνειν αὐτοῖς τὸ δαιµόνιον, ὡς ὑφ᾽ expedition; also that, by the mutilation of the
῾Ερµοκράτους τοῦ ῞Ερµωνος πλεῖστα πείσονται Hermai, the divine being indicated to them in
παρὰ τὸν πόλεµον· (3) ἔτι δ᾽ εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν advance that by the hands of Hermokrates the
῾Ηρακλέα τοῖς µὲν Συρακουσίοις βοηθεῖν διὰ τὴν son of Hermon they were to suffer most of
Κόρην, παρ᾽ ἧς ἔλαβε τὸν Κέρβερον, ὀργίζεσθαι δὲ their reverses during the war; (3) and, further,
τοῖς ᾽Αθηναίοις, ὅτι τοὺς Αἰγεστέας, ἀπογόνους that it was fitting that Herakles should aid the
ὄντας Τρώων, ἔσωιζον, αὐτὸς δ᾽ ὑπὸ Λαοµέδοντος Syracusans, for the sake of their goddess Kore
ἀδικηθεὶς ἀνάστατον ἐποίησε τὴν πόλιν. who delivered Kerberos into his hands, but
should be angry with the Athenians because
they were trying to succour the Egestaians,
although they were descendants of the
Trojans, whose city he had once destroyed
because of the wrong done him by Laomedon
their king.
Commentary
For ἡγήσασθαι at Plut. Nik. 1.2 Madvig read ἥττης (see Jacoby’s app. crit. ad loc.). Plutarch
repeats the story of Hermokrates/Hermes found in Ps.-Longinus (F 102a). On Xenarchos, see
Commentary to T 18. F 102b provides another example of mythological explanations for
historical events in Timaios’s historiography (see Commentary to T 19 above). On Demeter and
Kore, cf. F 79, F 96, and F 164.
BNJ 566 F 103

Work mentioned:

εἶχε δὲ τοὺς σύµπαντας ᾽Αννίβας, ὡς µὲν ῎Εφορος In all Hannibal had, as Ephoros relates,
ἀνέγραψε, πεζῶν µυριάδας εἴκοσι, ἱππεῖς δὲ 200,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry, but
τετρακισχιλίους, ὡς δὲ Τίµαιός φησιν, οὐ πολλῶι according to Timaios, he had not many more
πλείους τῶν δέκα µυριάδων. than 100,000 men.
Commentary
In 409 BC, at the invitation of Egesta, the Carthaginian commander Hannibal attacked and
captured Selinus. According to Diodorus (13.54.1-2), he collected mercenaries from Iberia and
Libya, and set out with sixty warships and some fifteen hundred transport vessels. The present
fragment provides a catalogue of his forces upon landing at Lilybaion. Timaios seems to have
made it a practice of downsizing Ephoros’s military manpower figures, as here and in his
account of the later Carthaginian campaign against Sicily in 406 BC (cf. F 25 (Diod. 13.80.5); F
104 (Diod. 13.60.5); F 107 (Diod. 13.109)). For Ephoros’s figures, see BNJ 70 F 201. Both Ephoros’s
and Timaios’s figures in F 103 are impossibly high (Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 583).
BNJ 566 F 104

Work mentioned:

λαµπρῶς δ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀγωνιζοµένων, οἱ βάρβαροι ... (Hannibal attacks Himera; counter-attack of
πρὸς φυγὴν ἐτράπησαν· τούτων δ᾽ οὐδενὶ κόσµωι the Himeraians) And (the Himeraians) fought
φευγόντων πρὸς τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν λόφων brilliantly … the barbarians took to flight. They
στρατοπεδεύοντας, ἐπηκολούθουν ἀλλήλοις fled in disorder towards their encampment in
παρακελευόµενοι µηδένα ζωγρεῖν, καὶ πλείους the hills, and (the Himeraians) pressed hard
ἀνεῖλον τῶν ἑξακισχιλίων, ὡς Τίµαιος, ὡς δ᾽ upon them, crying out to each other not to
῎Εφορός φησι, δισµυρίων. take anyone alive. And they slew more than
6,000 of them, according to Timaios, but more
than 20,000 according to Ephoros.
Commentary
After destroying the walls of Selinus, Hannibal set out against Himera (409 BC). Diodorus
states that Hannibal had a special desire to raze Himera to the ground, in retaliation for the
defeat there of his grandfather at the hands of Gelon in 480 BC. After the gallant sortie of the
Himeraians recounted in this fragment, Hannibal remarshalled his forces and put the
Himeraian resistance to flight, slaying the 3,000 men who tried to oppose the Carthaginian
army (Diod. 13.59.4-60.7). For Ephoros’s figures, see BNJ 70 F 202.
BNJ 566 F 105
Source: Plutarch, Table Talk (Symposiaka) (Moralia) 8.1.1.717C

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Table Talk

(Symposiaka), 8.1.1.717C
οἷον ἦν τὸ περὶ τῆς Εὐριπίδου γενέσεως καὶ Similar was the story of the birth and death of
τελευτῆς, γενοµένου µὲν ἡµέραι, καθ᾽ ἣν οἱ Euripides, who was born on the day the
῞Ελληνες ἐναυµάχουν ἐν Σαλαµῖνι πρὸς τὸν Hellenes fought the naval battle at Salamis
Μῆδον, ἀποθανόντος δὲ καθ᾽ ἣν † ἐγεννήθη against the Mede, and died on the day when
Διονύσιος ὁ πρεσβύτερος τῶν ἐν Σικελίαι Dionysios, elder of the two Sicilian tyrants,
τυράννων, ἅµα τῆς Τύχης, ὡς Τίµαιος ἔφη, τὸν came to power. Simultaneously, as Timaios
µιµητὴν ἐξαγούσης τῶν τραγικῶν παθῶν καὶ τὸν says, Fortune took from the stage a man who
ἀγωνιστὴν ἐπεισαγούσης. imitated tragic events and brought on to it a
man who acted a tragic part.
Commentary
The synchronism will have stemmed from Timaios’s treatment of Sicilian affairs of the late 5th
century BC (cf. Commentary to T 10 above). For fantastical elements (such as this paradoxical
synchronism; cf. F 106) in Timaian historiography, see Commentaries to T 15a and T 19a.
Timaios set Dionysios’s rise to power in 406/05 BC (Dionysios’s rise is described in Diod. 13.91-
96, 108-112). On the chronological problems involved with Dionysios’s seizure of power at
Syracuse, see Commentary to F 110. Jacoby’s uncertain Greek text is reprinted here, but the
translation follows the emendation of most editors of Plutarch’s text (reading kath’ hēn
turannos egennēthē Dionusios). Euripides’s death fell in early 407/06 BC (Marm. Par. A 63).
Tyche was a goddess of growing importance during Timaios’s lifetime, and she of course
played a predominant role in Polybios’s historiography.
BNJ 566 F 106

Work mentioned:
art, ancient - Library of Congress

5
(4) ἐχόντων δὲ τῶν Γελώιων ἐκτὸς τῆς πόλεως (After the destruction of Akragas Himilko
᾽Απόλλωνος ἀνδριάντα χαλκοῦν σφόδρα µέγαν, marches against Gela) (4) The Geloans had a
συλήσαντες αὐτὸν ἀπέστειλαν εἰς τὴν Τύρον. colossal bronze statue of Apollo outside their
τοῦτον µὲν οἱ Γελῶιοι κατὰ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ χρησµὸν polis. The Carthaginians seized it and sent it to
ἀνέθηκαν, οἱ δὲ Τύριοι καθ᾽ ὃν καιρὸν ὕστερον ὑπ᾽ Tyre. The Geloans had set up the statue in
᾽Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος ἐπολιορκοῦντο, accordance with an oracular pronouncement
καθύβριζον ὡς συναγωνιζόνεµον τοῖς πολεµίοις. from the god; and the Tyrians later, when
᾽Αλεξάνδρου δ᾽ ἑλόντος τὴν πόλιν, ὡς Τίµαιός besieged by Alexander of Macedonia, treated
φησι, κατὰ τὴν ὁµώνυµον ἡµέραν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν the god disrespectfully because he was fighting
ὥραν ἐν ἧι Καρχηδόνιοι τὸν ᾽Απόλλωνα περὶ for the enemy. But when Alexander took the
Γέλαν ἐσύλησαν, συνέβη τιµηθῆναι θυσίαις καὶ polis, as Timaios says, on the day with the
προσόδοις ταῖς µεγίσταις τῶν ῾Ελλήνων ὡς αἴτιον same name and at the same hour on which the
γεγενηµένον τῆς ἁλώσεως. (5) ταῦτα µὲν οὖν Carthaginians had seized the Apollo of Gela, it
καίπερ ἐν ἄλλοις πραχθέντα χρόνοις, οὐκ happened that the god was honored by the
ἀνεπιτήδειον ἡγησάµεθα παρ᾽ ἄλληλα θεῖναι διὰ Hellenes with the greatest sacrifices and
τὸ παράδοξον. processions, as having been the cause of its
capture. (5) Even though these events
happened at different times, I have thought it
not inappropriate to bring them together
because of their paradoxical nature.
Commentary
F 106 and F 107 concern the second Carthaginian invasion of Sicily in 406 BC (cf. F 25-28, with
R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), col. 1120, but it is uncertain whether these fragments were
in Book 16 and should be read together with the present fragment). About two and a half years
elapsed between the Carthaginian invasion of 409 BC (F 103) and this invasion, which targeted
Akragas and Syracuse. Syracuse desperately sent out embassies throughout Sicily, to Italy, and
to Sparta in search of assistance. A fragmentary epigraphic text suggests that Carthage
responded by seeking an alliance of some sort with Athens (IG 13 123: ML no. 92). The outcome
of the Carthaginian overture to Athens is unknown, but we possess an Athenian honorary
decree for Dionysios I which dates to 393 BC (IG 22 18; C.L. Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs. Art
and Politics in Ancient Athens (Oxford 1995), no. 16 (plate 9)). In any event, the Carthaginian
commander Himilko besieged Akragas for seven or eight months, after which the city fell and
the Carthaginians acquired enormous booty. At this time Dionysios I rose to power in Syracuse
in the aftermath of Hermokrates’ death (cf. F 110 with Commentary; R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE
6A1 (1936), cols. 1125-6), and a revitalized Syracusan military organization and its allies began
to turn the tide of the war against the Carthaginians (see D.M. Lewis, ‘Sicily, 413-368 BC’, in
CAH 2 6 (Cambridge 1994), 120-55, esp. 130-44). Some version of the tale of Alexander, the siege
of Tyre, and the statue of Apollo from Gela which the Carthaginians had sent to Tyre was
relayed by Kleitarchos ( BNJ 137): Diod. 17.41.8; Q. Curt. 4.3.21-22; Plut. Alex. 24.3, with L.
Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 175 and
n. 71. It is not possible to determine whether Timaios drew upon Kleitarchos for the story or
the reverse.
BNJ 566 F 107

Work mentioned:

2
(1) Διονύσιος δ᾽ ὁ τῶν Συρακοσίων τύραννος (1) Dionysios, the tyrant of the Syracusans,
µεταπεµψάµενος παρὰ τῶν ἐξ ᾽Ιταλίας ῾Ελλήνων sending for aid from the Hellenes in Italy, led
βοήθειαν, ἐξῆγε καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων συµµάχων out his allied force. He also enlisted the
δύναµιν· ἐπέλεξε δὲ καὶ τῶν Συρακοσίων τοὺς majority of the Syracusans who were of
πλείστους τῶν ἐν ἡλικίαι, καὶ τοὺς µισθοφόρους military age, and he enrolled mercenary
κατέλεξεν εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον. (2) εἶχε δὲ τοὺς soldiers in his army. (2) All together he had,
ἅπαντας, ὡς µέν τινες, πεντακισµυρίους, ὡς δὲ according to some writers, 50,000 men; but as
Τίµαιος ἀνέγραψε, πεζοὺς µὲν τρισµυρίους, ἱππεῖς Timaios records, 30,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry,
δὲ χιλίους, ναῦς δὲ καταφράκτους πεντήκοντα. and 50 decked ships.
Commentary
Timaios reduced Ephoros’s military manpower figures of Dionysios’s forces (cf. Commentary
to F 103). Diodorus appears to have followed Timaios as his main source on the rise of
Dionysios I and his responses to Carthaginian aggressions in 406 BC; Timaios in turn probably
relied on Philistos of Syracuse, who was a member of Dionysios’s advisory staff (cf. Diod.
13.111.1). For the events of 408-406 BC, see D.M. Lewis, ‘Sicily, 413-368 BC’, in CAH 2 6
(Cambridge 1994), 130-4.
BNJ 566 F 108

Work mentioned:

6
(5) καὶ πέρας ἤθροισαν πεζῶν µὲν ὑπὲρ τὰς (5) Finally, they collected more than 300,000
τριάκοντα µυριάδας, ἱππεῖς δὲ τετρακισχιλίους infantry, 4,000 cavalry in addition to the
χωρὶς τῶν ἁρµάτων (ταῦτα δ᾽ ἦσαν τετρακόσια), chariots (numbering 400), 400 warships, and
ναῦς δὲ µακρὰς µὲν τετρακοσίας, τὰς δὲ τὸν σῖτον more than 600 other transports, for food, war
καὶ τὰ µηχανήµατα καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν engines, and supplies. So Ephoros records. (6)
παρακοµιζούσας πλείους τῶν ἑξακοσίων, καθάπερ But Timaios says that the troops carried over
φησὶν ῎Εφορος. (6) Τίµαιος µὲν γὰρ τὰς ἐκ τῆς from Libya were no more than 100,000, and he
Λιβύης περαιωθείσας δυνάµεις οὐ πλείω φησὶν states that an additional 30,000 were enlisted
εἶναι δέκα µυριάδων, καὶ πρὸς ταύταις ἑτέρας in Sicily.
τρεῖς ἀποφαίνεται κατὰ Σικελίαν
στρατολογηθείσας.
Commentary
This is the only passage in Diodoros’s Book 14 in which he cites either Timaios or Ephoros. In
397/96 BC, Dionysios I set out from Syracuse with his reformed army and occupied
Carthaginian domains in Sicily, centering his offensive on the captured Carthaginian
stronghold of Motya. The present fragment concerns the Carthaginians’ response to
Dionysios’s increasing power and encroachment upon what they perceived as a hard-won
Carthaginian sphere of influence in Sicily. Himilko, although losing many ships to Dionysios’s
ally Leptines, gathered mercenaries from Iberia and Libya and landed at Panormos, recovering
Eryx and Motya. For Timaios’s practice of adjusting the military manpower figures he found in
Ephoros ( BNJ 70 F 204), see Commentary to F 103.
BNJ 566 F 109
Source: Plutarch, Life of Dion 6.2-3

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Dion, 6.2-3

(6) ἐπεὶ δὲ νοσῶν ἔδοξεν ὁ Διονύσιος ἀβιώτως (6) When Dionysios was ill and seemed to be
ἔχειν, ἐπεχείρησεν αὐτῶι διαλέγεσθαι περὶ τῶν ἐκ on the verge of death, Dion attempted to
τῆς ᾽Αριστοµάχης τέκνων ὁ Δίων. (3) οἱ δ᾽ ἰατροὶ converse with him in the interests of his
τῶι µέλλοντι τὴν ἀρχὴν διαδέχεσθαι χαριζόµενοι, children by Aristomache. (3) But the
καιρὸν οὐ παρέσχον· ὡς δὲ Τίµαιός φησι, καὶ physicians, wishing to gain favor with the heir
φάρµακον ὑπνωτικὸν αἰτοῦντι δόντες ἀφείλοντο apparent, disallowed it. Moreover, according to
τὴν αἴσθησιν αὐτοῦ, θανάτωι συνάψαντες τὸν Timaios, when the sick man asked for a
ὕπνον. sleeping aid, they administered one that both
made him insensible and caused death to
follow sleep.
Commentary
For Dionysios’s death in 367/66 BC, see B. Caven, Dionysius I, War-Lord of Sicily (New Haven
1990), 211-12; cf. the detailed discussion for the duration of Dionysios’s reign in Commentary to
F 110 below). Evidence for the second half of Dionysios’s tyranny at Syracuse is shadowy, and
Diodorus’s brief and uneven treatment of Sicilian history between 386/85 and 362/61 BC in
Book 15 leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, Diodorus does not provide the context for
this passage in Plutarch, which he would have had before him in the works of both Timaios
(cf. F 112) and Ephoros, who devoted his last two books to Sicilian history from 386/85 BC
onwards. What F 109 reflects is a tradition that Dionysios’s physicians were strong supporters
of Dionysios II, Dionysios I’s son by his Locrian wife Doris (cf. Nep. Dion. 2.4-5).
BNJ 566 F 110

Work mentioned:

12.4a.3-4
(3) ᾽Εφόρου δὲ † πάλιν ὅταν καταψεύδηται, (3) And † again he unfairly blames Ephoros for
φάσκων λέγειν αὐτὸν ὅτι Διονύσιος ὁ πρεσβύτερος saying that Dionysios the Elder came to the
παρελάµβανεν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐτῶν εἴκοσι τριῶν throne at the age of twenty-three, reigned
ὑπάρχων, δυναστεῦσαι δὲ τετταράκοντα καὶ δύο, forty-two years, and died at sixty-three. (4)
µεταλλάξαι δὲ τὸν βίον προσλαβὼν τοῖς ἑξήκοντα Surely no one would attribute to the historian
τρία. (4) τοῦτο γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴπειεν δή που τοῦ a blunder that was obviously the scribe’s.
συγγραφέως εἶναι τὸ διατύπωµα, τοῦ δὲ γραφέως
ὁµολογουµένως.
Commentary
At Polyb. 12.4a.3 Büttner-Wobst unnecessarily emended ᾽Εφόρου δὲ πάλιν ἄγνοιαν

καταψεύδηται; but correction is needed, since ᾽Εφόρου is the object of κατηγορεῖ from section 2;
see F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 325 ad loc. Jacoby
warned against too readily accepting Polybios’s reasoning (scribal error) for the chronological
difficulties presented by Ephoros’s reckoning of Dionysios I’s reign (Jacoby criticized K.-J.
Beloch, Gr. Gesch.2 2.2, 258-59; 3.2, 735 as well for minimizing the problem). The textual
problem is the figure tettarakonta kai duo for Dionysios’s reign. Beloch (Gr. Gesch. 2.2, 259)
suggested that Ephoros’s copyist mistakenly wrote this in place of the correct duoin deonta,
but as Jacoby (Marmor Parium, 184) pointed out, this would necessitate altering eikosi triōn to
eikosi pente, clearly an impossible emendation. The unavoidable conclusion is that an error
was introduced, either by the scribe or by Ephoros himself. A well-established ancient
tradition stated that Dionysios’s tyranny lasted for 38 years (Diod. 13.96.4; 15.73.5; Cic. Tusc.
5.57; De natura deorum 3.81; Val. Max. 9.13 ext. 4; Helladios ap. Phot. Bibl. 279, pg. 530 a 30
Bekker), with Ephoros apparently as the lone dissenter (a forty-year reign, as discussed below).
But the problem of dating Dionysios’s reign arose from uncertainties about its inception. Both
Ephoros and Timaios (Cic. Tusc. 5.57) agreed that Dionysios was 63 years old at his death. If we
assume that the kai duo was an erroneous insertion on the part of either Ephoros or his scribe,
then Ephoros may have believed that Dionysios died in 368/67 BC at the age of 63, and that he
seized power at the age of 23, which would then be 408/07 BC (hence a forty-year reign). The
Parian marble (A 62 and A 74), will have followed Ephoros in assigning Dionysios’s seizure of
power in 408/07. Timaios agreed with Ephoros on the length of Dionysios’s life (63 years), but
he made him seize power at the age of 25 (hence probably in 406/05, which we find in Diod.
13.96.4 (cf. Diod. 13.80.1: archonship of Kallias at Athens) and in Dion. Hal. Rom. Ant. 7.1.5 (also
mentioning Kallias’s archonship)). The date of 406/05 probably came from Philistos. But in F
105 Timaios synchronized Dionysios’s seizure of power with Euripides’ death, which fell in
407/06, apparently forcing the chronology for the sake of the synchronism. For a list of
Timaios’s fantastic synchronisms, see R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), cols. 1199-1200.
BNJ 566 F 111

Work mentioned:

τὸν δ᾽ αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπὶ τοῦ Διονυσίου τοῦ In the same manner (he says his nature
τυράννου κλινοκοσµοῦντος καὶ τὰς τῶν revealed itself) in Dionysios the tyrant
ὑφασµάτων ἰδιότητας καὶ ποικιλίας showing his effeminate tastes by his interest in
ἐξεργαζοµένου συνεχῶς (scil. λέγει διαφαίνειν τὴν bed-hangings and continual study given over
ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν). to the varieties and peculiarities of different
woven work.
Commentary
The present fragment is a prime example of the sort of writing that left Timaios open to the
charges of being a gossip-monger and mean-spirited (T 1). The tradition on Dionysios I’s
luxurious habits was conflicted (for Dionysios as temperate ruler, see assembled sources at
F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 380 ad loc.).
BNJ 566 F 112

Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 5.40.206E
Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 5.40.206E

Τίµαιος δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆι πυρᾶι τῆι κατασκευασθείσηι Timaios (marvels) at the funeral pyre prepared
Διονυσίωι τῶι Σικελίας τυράννωι (scil. for Dionysios the tyrant.
θαυµάζεται).
Commentary
Timaios’s interest in funeral pyres is confirmed by his remarks on Dido (F 82). Philistos, BNJ
556 F 28 and BNJ 556 F 40b also noted the magnificence of Dionysios’s burial. Timaios could
not have been an eyewitness; he must have relied on the reports of earlier writers, but he may
have seen the burial mound.
BNJ 566 F 113

Work mentioned:

(4) ἐκ τούτων ὑποψίας πρῶτον, εἶτα καὶ (4) As a result, Dionysios became suspicious at
φανερωτέρας ὀργῆς καὶ διαφορᾶς γενοµένης, first, and later more openly angry and hostile,
ἐκοµίσθη τις ἐπιστολὴ κρύφα πρὸς Διονύσιον, ἣν at which point a certain letter was secretly
ἐγεγράφει Δίων πρὸς τοὺς Καρχηδονίων carried to him, which Dion had written to the
ἐπιµελητάς, κελεύων ὅταν Διονυσίωι περὶ τῆς Carthaginian authorities, urging them,
εἰρήνης διαλέγωνται, µὴ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ποιήσασθαι whenever they should discuss peace-terms
τὴν ἔντευξιν, ὡς πάντα θησοµένους ἀµεταπτώτως with Dionysios, not to open discussions
δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. (5) ταύτην ἀναγνοὺς Διονύσιος without including him, since he would assist
Φιλίστωι, καὶ µετ᾽ ἐκείνου βουλευσάµενος, ὥς them in arranging matters securely. (5)
φησι Τίµαιος, ὑπῆλθε τὸν Δίωνα πεπλασµέναις Dionysios read this letter to Philistos, and after
διαλύσεσι. (6) καὶ µέτρια σκηψάµενος, consulting with him, as Timaios records,
διαλάττεσθαί τε φήσας, µόνον τ᾽ ἀπαγαγὼν ὑπὸ fooled Dion with a show of false friendship. (6)
τὴν ἀκρόπολιν πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν, ἔδειξε τὴν That is, after modest protests and pronouncing
ἐπιστολὴν, καὶ κατηγόρησεν ὡς συνισταµένου reconciliation, he led him off alone beneath
µετὰ Καρχηδονίων ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. (7) ἀπολογεῖσθαι δὲ the acropolis down to the sea, and then
βουλοµένου τοῦ Δίωνος, οὐκ ἀνασχόµενος, ἀλλ᾽ showed him the letter and charged him with
εὐθὺς ὡς εἶχεν ἐνθέµενος εἰς ἀκάτιον, προσέταξε conspiracy with the Carthaginians against
τοῖς ναύταις κοµίζοντας αὐτὸν ἐκθεῖναι περὶ τὴν him. (7) When Dion tried to defend himself he
᾽Ιταλίαν. would not allow it, but at once put him, just as
he was, on a small boat, commanding the
sailors to deposit him in Italy.
Commentary
Philistos ( BNJ 556) was clearly Timaios’s source for this passage. Philistos was Dionysios’s
confidant, he had commanded the fort at Ortygia for a long time, and a rumor had it that he
had had Dionysios’s mother as a mistress (Plut. Dion 11.5). The date of the crisis was 366 BC.
On Philistos’s career, see Commentary to T 18. In Dionysios’s later years, however, the men in
the greatest positions of power at court were Dionysios’s eldest son, the later Dionysios II, and
his chief adviser Dion, son of Hipparinos, who was Dionysios I’s own brother-in-law and son-
in-law. The present fragment concerns the dynastic crisis arising between Dionysios II and
Dion after the death of Dionysios I (see also Nep. Dion 2.4-5; Plut. Dion 6.2).
BNJ 566 F 114

Work mentioned:

(2) κήρυκες δὲ παρὰ τοῦ Διονυσίου κατέβαινον (2) Heralds came down from Dionysios
ἐπιστολὰς πρὸς Δίωνα παρὰ τῶν οἰκείων bringing letters to Dion from the women in his
γυναικῶν κοµίζοντες. µία δ᾽ ἦν ἔξωθεν household. One of these had inscribed on the
ἐπιγεγραµµένη «τῶι πατρὶ παρ’ ‘Ιππαρίνου»· outside, ‘To his father, from Hipparinos’. For
τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν ὄνοµα τῶι Δίωνος υἱῶι. (3) καίτοι this was the name of Dion’s son. (3) And yet
φησὶ Τίµαιος ᾽Αρεταῖον αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς µητρὸς Timaios says he was named Aretaios, after his
᾽Αρέτης καλεῖσθαι· Τιµωνίδηι δὲ µᾶλλον, ὡς mother Arete. But on this point, I think,
οἴοµαι, περί γε τούτων πιστευτέον … Timonides ( BNJ 561 F 1) is to be trusted …
Commentary
Dion was the son of Dionysios I’s supporter Hipparinos and brother of Dionysios’s second
wife, Aristomache (Plut. Dion 3.3-4.1; Diod. 14.44.5-45.1). The accession of Dionysios II
(Dionysios’s son by the Locrian woman Doris, whom he had married at the time of his
marriage to Aristomache), exacerbated a struggle between the friends of Dion, who had been
Dionysios I’s close adviser, and those who were Dion’s enemies at court. Dion was exiled after
his correspondence with the Carthaginians (in which he claimed that a treaty could only be
brokered through him) was intercepted by Dionysios II’s agents in 366 BC, but he returned to
Syracuse in 357. While Dionysios II was on campaign with his fleet in Italy, Dion was able to
occupy Syracuse except for Ortygia, which was held by Dionysios’s garrison troops (see H. D.
Westlake, ‘Dion and Timoleon’, in CAH 2 6 (Cambridge 1994), 693-722, esp. 695-706). The
present fragment concerns Dionysios’s overture to Dion when he found himself in a position
of weakness after a failed attempt to regain control of Syracuse. Timonides of Leukas
accompanied Dion to Sicily and fought at his side (Plut. Dion 22.6; 30.10; 35.4; cf. BNJ 561 F 1 for
the controversy over the name of Dion’s son by Arete), and he dedicated his work to
Speusippos, Plato’s nephew who succeeded him as head of the Academy (Plut. Dion 35.4; D.L.
4.5, with W. Capelle, ‘Timonides’, RE, vol. 2.6A (Stuttgart 1937), cols. 1305-6).
BNJ 566 F 115

Work mentioned:

(6) ἔτι δὲ µᾶλλον ἐφυβρίζων ὁ Τίµαιος ἐκ τοῦ (6) Timaios, expounding upon these outrages,
σκέλους φησὶ τοῦ χωλοῦ τὰ παιδάρια τὸν νεκρὸν says that the boys tied a rope to the lame leg of
ἐφαψάµενα τοῦ Φιλίστου σύρειν διὰ τῆς πόλεως, Philistos’s corpse and dragged the body
χλευαζόµενον ὑπὸ τῶν Συρακοσίων πάντων, through the polis, while all of the Syracusans
ὁρώντων τοῦ σκέλους ἑλκόµενον τὸν εἰπόντα µὴ reviled him, watching the man drawn by the
δεῖν ἐκ τυραννίδος φεύγειν Διονύσιον ἵππωι ταχεῖ leg who had said to Dionysios that he must not
χρώµενον, ἀλλὰ τοῦ σκέλους ἑλκόµενον. (7) καίτοι flee from his tyranny on a swift horse, but wait
τοῦτο Φίλιστος ὡς ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου λεχθέν, οὐχ ὑφ᾽ until he was dragged from it by the leg. (7) And
αὑτοῦ, πρὸς Διονύσιον ἐξήγγελκεν. yet Philistos ( BNJ 556 F 59) had stated clearly
that this was said to Dionysios by someone
else, and not by himself.
Commentary
This fragment follows Timonides, BNJ 561 F 2 (on whom see preceding entry) and is identical
with Philistos, BNJ 556 F 59; for its continuation, see F 154. Philistos failed to intercept Dion’s
invasion in 357/56 BC (cf. BNJ 556 T 9a, 556 T 9b, 556 T 9c), and died fighting against the
insurgent Syracusans, perhaps by suicide. For his career, see Commentary to T 18. At the time
of the revolt of the Syracusans in 404 BC, Dionysios I was in the direst of straits. One of his
advisers, Polyxenos, urged him to flee the city on horseback. Philistos, according to Timaios,
wryly responded that it was unfitting to leave a tyranny on horseback; one should rather be
dragged from it by the leg. The story is also to be found at Diod. 14.8.5.
BNJ 566 F 116

Work mentioned:

(5) βαρέως φέρων ὁ Τιµολέων καὶ συµφορὰν (5) Timoleon was greatly distressed and
ποιούµενος ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἐκείνου κακίαν, considering his brother’s evil nature to be his
ἐπεχείρησε µὲν αὐτῶι διαλέγεσθαι … (6) own misfortune, he tried to reason with him …
ἀπωσαµένου δ᾽ ἐκείνου καὶ καταφρονήσαντος, (6) but when his brother scornfully rejected
οὕτω παραλαβὼν τῶν µὲν οἰκείων Αἰσχύλον, his approaches, he took Aischylos, the brother
ἀδελφὸν ὄντα τῆς Τιµοφάνους γυναικός, τῶν δὲ of Timophanes’ wife, and a friend who was a
φίλων τὸν µάντιν, ὃν Σάτυρον µὲν Θεόποµπος, seer named Satyros, according to Theopompos
῎Εφορος δὲ καὶ Τίµαιος ᾽Ορθαγόραν ἐνοµάζουσιν, ( BNJ 115 F 334), but Orthagoras, according to
καὶ διαλιπὼν ἡµέρας ὀλίγας, αὖθις ἀνέβη πρὸς τὸν Ephoros ( BNJ 70 F 221) and Timaios, and after
ἀδελφόν· (7) καὶ περιστάντες αὐτὸν οἱ τρεῖς, a few days he again approached his brother. (7)
καθικέτευον ἀλλὰ νῦν γε χρησάµενον λογισµῶι The three men surrounded him and beseeched
µεταβαλέσθαι. (8) τοῦ δὲ Τιµοφάνους πρῶτον µὲν him to listen to reason and change his mind.
αὐτῶν καταγελῶντος, ἔπειτα δὲ πρὸς ὀργὴν (8) At first Timophanes mocked them, and
ἐκφεροµένου καὶ χαλεπαίνοντος, ὁ µὲν Τιµολέων then he violently lost his temper. At this point
ἀποχωρήσας µικρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ συγκαλυψάµενος Timoleon covered his head with his clothes
εἱστήκει δακρύων, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ τὰ ξίφη σπασάµενοι and wept, while the other two men, drawing
ταχὺ διαφθείρουσι αὐτόν. their swords, slew him.
Commentary
For Timoleon’s career and Timaios’s assessement, see Commentary to T 3b. Ephoros and
Theopompos described the murder of Timophanes, Timoleon’s brother and tyrant at Corinth,
differently (see Diod. 16.65.4). According to them, Timoleon took a soothsayer with him to
confront Timophanes and slew the tyrant with his own hands when he refused to listen to
reason. Timaios softened the deed by having others commit the murder (cf. Nep. Timol. 1.4),
and he maintained that the ‘best citizens’ approved it, while only those who were ‘unable to
live under democratic government’ condemned it (Plut. Timol. 5.1-2). On the problem of
Satyros/Orthagoras, see R.J.A. Talbert, Timoleon and the Revival of Greek Sicily, 344-317 BC
(Cambridge 1974), 195. On Timoleon’s career, see now B. Smarczyk, Timoleon und die
Neugründung von Syrakus (Göttingen 2003).
BNJ 566 F 117

Work mentioned:
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.4a.2

ἐν αἷς Θεοπόµπου µὲν κατηγορεῖ, διότι Διονυσίου In his account he accuses Theopompos for
ποιησαµένου τὴν ἀνακοµιδὴν ἐκ Σικελίας εἰς stating that Dionysios was taken by merchant
Κόρινθον ἐν µακρᾶι νηί, Θεόποµπός φησιν ἐν ship from Sicily to Corinth, whereas he
στρογγύληι παραγενέσθαι τὸν Διονύσιον. actually traveled in a warship.
Commentary
The present fragment is also printed as Theopompos, BNJ 115 F 341. Dionysios II surrendered
the citadel of Syracuse to Timoleon shortly after the latter’s appearance in Sicily in 345/44 BC;
according to Plutarch (Timol. 16.2-3), within 50 days of his arrival; according to Diodorus
(16.70.1), in mid-to-late summer 343. Diodorus (16.70.3) also records that Dionysios was sent to
Corinth in a single small merchant ship. He may have taken this statement from Timaios,
rather than directly from Theopompos (Plutarch, Timol. 13.8 has simply ‘in a single ship’).
Timaios may have exaggerated Dionysios’s downfall by having him travel in a lowly merchant
ship for rhetorical antithesis; alternatively, Timaios may have turned the merchant ship into a
warship to emphasize Timoleon’s generosity. Non liquet.
BNJ 566 F 118
Source: Plutarch, Table Talk (Symposiaka) (Moralia) 5.3.2.676D

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Table Talk

(Symposiaka), 5.3.2.676D
ἱστορεῖ δὲ καὶ Τίµαιος ὁ συγγραφεύς, ὅτι The historian Timaios records that when they
Κορινθίοις ὁπηνίκα µαχούµενοι πρὸς were fighting against the Carthaginians for
Καρχηδονίους ἐβάδιζον ὑπὲρ τῆς Σικελίας, Sicily, the Corinthians suddenly saw some
ἐνέβαλον ἡµίονοι σέλινα κοµίζοντες· οἰωνισαµένων asses carrying celery. Most of the troops
δὲ τῶν πολλῶν τὸ σύµβολον ὡς οὐ χρηστόν, ὅτι regarded this as ominous, because celery is
δοκεῖ τὸ σέλινον ἐπικήδειον εἶναι, καὶ τοὺς thought to symbolize mourning, and we say of
ἐπισφαλῶς νοσοῦντας δεῖσθαι τοῦ σελίνου φαµέν, those who are critically sick ‘a sprig of celery is
ἄλλως θ᾽ ὁ Τιµολέων ἐθάρρυνεν αὐτοὺς καὶ all you can now give to them’. Timoleon,
ἀνεµίµνησκε τῶν ᾽Ισθµοῖ σελίνων, οἷς
ἀναστέφουσι Κορίνθιοι τοὺς νικῶντας.
however, encouraged his men by reminding
them that celery is used as the symbol for
victory at the Isthmian Games.
Commentary
Timoleon’s forces fought a showdown battle with the Carthaginians at the Krimisos (Belice)
river in northwestern Sicily in 341 BC. In this battle the Carthaginian army sent to Sicily was
annihilated, and Timoleon’s revival of Greek Sicily can be said to have begun from this point;
see R.J.A. Talbert, Timoleon and the Revival of Greek Sicily, 344-317 BC (Cambridge 1974), 78-86.
Timaios’s anecdote on Timoleon’s interpretation of the celery transport redounds to the credit
of his hero, the Corinthian liberator of Sicily, casting him as a shrewd and resourceful political
master of the moment in the tradition of Themistokles’ famous representation of the Pythia
Aristonike’s ‘wooden wall’ oracle (Hdt. 7.140-44, with J.A.S. Evans, ‘The Oracle of the ‘Wooden
Wall’’, CQ 78 (1982), 24-9).
BNJ 566 F 119a

Work mentioned:

12.23.4-7
(4) ἐκεῖνος µὲν οὖν ἀποθεοῦν ᾽Αλέξανδρον (4) That man (scil. Kallisthenes) wished to
ἐβουλήθη, Τίµαιος δὲ µείζω ποιεῖ Τιµολέοντα τῶν deify Alexander, whereas Timaios exalts
ἐπιφανεστάτων θεῶν· (5) καὶ Καλλισθένης µὲν Timoleon above the most renowned gods; (5)
ἄνδρα τοιοῦτον, ὃν πάντες µεγαλοφυέστερον ἢ and Kallisthenes (praised) that man (scil.
κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον γεγονέναι τῆι ψυχῆι συγχωροῦσιν, Alexander), universally acknowledged to have
(6) οὗτος δὲ Τιµολέοντα τὸν οὐχ οἷον δόξαντά τι had greater than human gifts, (6) but (Timaios
πεπραχέναι µεγαλεῖον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐπιβαλόµενον, praises) Timoleon, a man not known for doing
µίαν δὲ τῶι βίωι γραµµὴν διανύσαντα, καὶ ταύτην or even attempting anything great, who made
οὐδὲ σπουδαίαν τρόπον τινὰ πρὸς τὸ µέγεθος τῆς only one move in his life, insignificant when
οἰκουµένης, λέγω δὲ τὴν ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος εἰς compared with the size of the world: from
Συρακούσσας. (7) ἀλλά µοι δοκεῖ πεισθῆναι Corinth to Syracuse! (7) I think Timaios
Τίµαιος ὡς, ἂν Τιµολέων, πεφιλοδοξηκὼς ἐν αὐτῆι believed that if Timoleon could seem
Σικελίαι, καθάπερ ἐν ὀξυβάφωι, σύγκριτος φανῆι comparable to the most illustrious heroes by
τοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτοις τῶν ἡρώων, κἂν αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ seeking glory in Sicily alone, as in a vinegar-
᾽Ιταλίας µόνον καὶ Σικελίας πραγµατευόµενος saucer, then Timaios himself, by writing only
εἰκότως παραβολῆς ἀξιωθῆναι τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς about Italy and Sicily, would properly deserve
οἰκουµένης καὶ τῶν καθόλου πράξεων comparison with the writers of comprehensive
πεποιηµένοις τὰς συντάξεις. world history.
Commentary
Kallisthenes may have flattered Alexander in order to convince the king to rebuild his native
polis of Olynthos, destroyed by Philip II in 347 BC (cf. Plut. Alex. 53.1-2). Epiphanes is used of
gods, and the phrase tōn epiphanestatōn theōn occurs regularly in epigraphic texts (e.g., IG
5.1.1179; 14.716, 717). We cannot be certain that Timaios employed this sort of language in his
account of Timoleon, but a passage in Plutarch (Timol. 16.5-12) is suggestive: Timoleon was a
holy man who came as a divine avenger to Sicily (cf. T 13, F 119b and Commentary to T 3b for
Timaios’s partiality for Timoleon).
BNJ 566 F 119b

Work mentioned:

(1) πολλῶν γοῦν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ῾Ελλήνων µεγάλων (1) At any rate, even though great Hellenes
γενοµένων καὶ µεγάλα κατεργασαµένων, ὧν καὶ lived and performed great deeds in his day,
Τιµόθεος ἦν καὶ ᾽Αγησίλαος καὶ Πελοπίδας καὶ ὁ men such as Timotheos, Agesilaos, Pelopidas,
µάλιστα ζηλωθεὶς ὑπὸ Τιµολέοντος and Epaminondas, whom Timoleon most
᾽Επαµεινώνδας, αἱ µὲν ἐκείνων πράξεις βίαι τινὶ emulated, still their shining deeds were
καὶ πόνωι τὸ λαµπρὸν ἐξενηνόχασι µεµειγµένον, compromised somewhat by a certain amount
ὥστε καὶ µέµψιν ἐνίαις ἐπιγίνεσθαι καὶ µετάνοιαν· of violence and toil, so that blame and mixed
(2) τῶν δὲ Τιµολέοντος ἔργων, ἔξω λόγου θεµένοις opinion sometimes followed them. (2) But the
τὴν περὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀνάγκην, οὐδέν ἐστιν ὧι µὴ achievements of Timoleon, aside from the
unavoidable action taken against his brother
τὰ τοῦ Σοφοκλέους, ὥς φησι Τίµαιος, ἐπιφωνεῖν (F 116), were, as Timaios says, suitable for the
ἔπρεπεν· «ὦ θεοί, τίς ἆρα Κύπρις ἢ τίς ῞Ιµερος / words of Sophokles (TGrF 874 Radt), ‘Gods,
τοῦδε ξυνήψατο;» what Kypris or Love attended upon him?’.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 119c
Source: Cicero, Letters to Friends 5.12.7

Work mentioned:
Cicero, M. Tullius, Letters to Friends, 5.12.7

… si in tua scripta pervenero … ingenium mihi And so I find in your writing … literary skill in
... suppeditatum fuerit tuum, sicut Timoleonti my interest … as was given to Timoleon by
a Timaeo aut ab Herodoto Themistocli. Timaios and Themistokles by Herodotos.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 120

Work mentioned:
ὁ δ᾽ ᾽Αγαθοκλῆς γνοὺς αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν, πρὸς Agathokles, understanding his plan, sent to
µὲν τοὺς φυγάδας διεπέµπετο, κατηγορῶν τοῦ the exiles and accused Deinokrates of
Δεινοκράτους ὡς διακωλύοντος αὐτοῦ τυχεῖν preventing them from attaining their
αὐτοὺς τῆς αὐτονοµίας, πρὸς δὲ Καρχηδονίους autonomy, and he sent envoys to the
πρεσβευτὰς ἀποστείλας, συνέθετο τὴν εἰρήνην Carthaginians and came to terms with them
ἐφ᾽ οἷς τὰς πόλεις κοµίσασθαι τοὺς Φοίνικας on the understanding that the Phoenicians
πάσας τὰς πρότερον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοὺς γεγενηµένας· should regain all poleis formerly subject to
ἀντὶ δὲ τούτων ἔλαβε παρὰ Καρχηδονίων χρυσίον them. In return he received from the
µὲν εἰς ἀργυρίου λόγον τριακοσίων ταλάντων (ὡς Carthaginians gold equivalent to three
δὲ Τίµαιός φησιν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα), σίτου δὲ hundred talents of silver (or, as Timaios says,
µηδίµνων εἴκοσι µυριάδας. one hundred and fifty), and 200,000 measures
of grain (approx. 5,500 tons).
Commentary
Soon after the death of Timoleon in 337 BC, civil unrest broke out in Sicilian Greek cities, and
particularly in Syracuse, where Timoleon had established a moderate democracy. By 330 BC
the Syracusan oligarchic leaders Sosostratos and Herakleides had succeeded in setting up a
rule of 600 men in Syracuse and in sending the self-professed democrat Agathokles into exile.
But the many impoverished, relative newcomers to Syracuse, as well as the Sikels, made the
oligarchs’ hold on the city tenuous, and Agathokles was able to exploit the oligarchs’ military
failure at Rhegion ca. 322 BC and subsequent banishment to reestablish himself at Syracuse.
The exiled oligarchs turned to the Carthaginians for support, and Agathokles suffered exile
from Syracuse once again after the Corinthian strategos Akestorides temporarily settled the
stasis between oligarchs and democrats there. Agathokles now found himself opposed to both
Syracusans and Carthaginians, but he was able to effect some sort of understanding with the
Carthaginian commander Hamilkar, to exploit the unpopularity of the oligarchic regime in
Syracuse, and to return to the city. Agathokles conducted a bloody purge of the 600 and
established himself (through a bogus election in the Assembly) as tyrant of Syracuse ca. 316/15.
The activities of the surviving Syracusan exiled oligarchs, based in Messana and Akragas and
aided by the Carthaginians, shaped Sicilian events for the next decade. Deinokrates emerged
as the leader of the refugees against Agathokles in the years after 314. Agathokles returned to
Sicily from his spectacular but ultimately unsuccessful African campaigns (310-307) when a
resurgent Akragas, championing the freedom of the Sicilian Greeks from both Agathokles and
the Carthaginians, threatened his Sicilian interests. Although Agathokles’ generals Leptines
and Demophilos defeated the Akragantine threat, Agathokles’ position became increasingly
desperate, and he was forced to come to terms with the Carthaginians in 306 on the terms
presented in F 120 in order to confront the problem of Deinokrates and the exiles, whom he
would defeat at Torgion in the following year (F 121). See also Commentary to T 12.
BNJ 566 F 121

Work mentioned:

6
(4) τῶν δὲ φυγάδων οἱ µὲν ἱππεῖς ἅπαντες ἀπὸ (4) Of the exiles, all of the cavalry survived and
τῆς φυγῆς διεσώθησαν εἰς ῎Αµβικας χωρίον, τῶν arrived safely in Ambika, but of the infantry,
δὲ πεζῶν ἔνιοι µὲν νυκτὸς ἐπιγενοµένης although some escaped as night fell, the
διέδρασαν, οἱ δὲ πλείους καταλαβόµενοι λόφον .... majority after seizing a hill ... came to terms
διελύσαντο πρὸς ᾽Αγαθοκλέα. (5) λαβόντων οὖν with Agathokles. (5) Now when they had been
αὐτῶν πίστεις καὶ καταβάντων ἀπό τινος ἐρυµνοῦ given pledges of good faith and had come
λόφου, τὰ µὲν ὅπλα παρείλετο, τὴν δὲ δύναµιν down from their defensive position,
περιστήσας ἅπαντας κατηκόντισεν, ὄντας περὶ Agathokles made ready at arms. Then,
ἑπτακισχιλίους, ὡς Τίµαιός φησιν, ὡς δ᾽ ἔνιοι stationing his forces all around them, he slew
γράφουσιν, εἰς τετρακισχιλίους. (6) ἀεὶ γὰρ ὁ them to a man. Their number was around
τύραννος οὗτος πίστεως µὲν καὶ τῶν ὅρκων seven thousand, according to Timaios, but
κατεφρόνει, τὴν δ᾽ ἰδίαν ἰσχὺν οὐκ ἐκ τῆς περὶ some others give the figure of some four
αὐτὸν δυνάµεως ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ὑποτεταγµένων thousand. (6) This tyrant indeed always
ἀσθενείας περιεποιεῖτο, πλεῖον δεδοικὼς τοὺς disdained pledges of good faith and oaths; he
συµµάχους ἢ τοὺς πολεµίους. secured his own power not by military power
but rather by the weakness of his subjects,
fearing his allies more than his enemies.
Commentary
Timaios most likely has exaggerated Agathokles’ brutality in the aftermath of Torgion. It is
more likely that Agathokles executed his most recalcitrant opponents, allowing the remaining
refugees to return home (cf. K. Meister, CAH 7.12(Cambridge 1984), 404).
BNJ 566 F 122

Work mentioned:

ὁ µέντοι Τίµαιος, ὡς φωρίου τινὸς ἐφαπτόµενος, Timaios, however, as if laying hold of some
οὐδὲ τοῦτο Ξενοφῶντι τὸ ψυχρὸν κατέλιπεν· φησὶ convicting proof, did not leave behind this
γοῦν ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾽Αγαθοκλέους καὶ τὸ τὴν ἀνεψιὰν coldness found in Xenophon. At any rate he
ἑτέρωι δεδοµένην ἐκ τῶν ἀνακαλυπτηρίων even attributes the saying to Agathokles, who
ἁρπάσαντα ἀπελθεῖν, «ὃ τίς ἂν ἐποίησεν ἐν departed from the festival of unveiling, seizing
ὀφθαλµοῖς κόρας, µὴ πόρνας ἔχων;» his niece, having been given to another, ‘He
who would have made maidens before his
eyes, does he not have prostitutes?’.
Commentary
For ‘frigidity’ as a term in ancient literary criticism, see D.A. Russell, ‘Longinus’: On the Sublime
(Oxford 1964), 76 ad 4.1. The saying recorded in Xenophon (Resp. Lac. 3.5; cf. Plut. Mor. 528e),
refers to the chastity of young Spartan males as a result of Lykourgos’s reforms. The Greek
word for pupils is korai, so that the play on words is lost in translation. The idea seems to be
that once maidens have been seen by male eyes, their chastity has already been in some way
compromised. For the idea that shame resides in the eyes, see Arist. Rhet. 1384a36. Later
commentators, such as Longinus and Stobaios, Ioannes, quote this with opthalmois (‘in the
eyes’), which we find here, in place of Xenophon’s thalamois (‘in the bridal chamber’).
Translation is therefore difficult, but it is clear that F 122 refers to Agathokles’ sexual excesses.
Timaios also charged that Agathokles owed his rapid rise to the office of Syracusan chiliarch to
the fact that he had been the strategos Damos’s lover, and that Agathokles enriched himself by
marrying Damos’s widow, whom he had seduced before Damos’s death (Diod. 19.3.1-3; Justin
22.1.8-13).
BNJ 566 F 123a

Work mentioned:

᾽Αγαθοκλῆς µὲν πλείστους καὶ ποικιλωτάτους Agathokles committed many and most varied
φόνους ἐπιτελεσάµενος κατὰ τὴν δυναστείαν, καὶ murders during his reign, and because he
τῆι κατὰ τῶν ὁµοφύλων ὠµότητι προσθεὶς καὶ τὴν added impiety towards the gods to his cruelty
εἰς θεοὺς ἀσέβειαν, πρέπουσαν ἔσχε τῆι towards his own people, the manner of his
παρανοµίαι τὴν τοῦ βίου καταστροφήν, death was fitting for his lawless life. He lived
δυναστεύσας µὲν ἔτη δύο τῶν τριάκοντα λείποντα, for seventy-two years and ruled for twenty-
βιώσας δὲ δύο πρὸς τοῖς ἑβδοµήκοντα ἔτη, καθὼς eight, as Timaios the Syracusan, Kallias,
Τίµαιος ὁ Συρακόσιος συγγράφει, καὶ Καλλίας καὶ another Syracusan ( BNJ 564 T 2), author of
αὐτὸς Συρακόσιος … καὶ ῎Αντανδρος … καὶ αὐτὸς twenty-eight books, and Antandros ( BNJ 565 T
συγγραφεύς. 5), brother of Agathokles, who was himself a
historian, write.
Commentary
Agathokles was born in 361 BC at Thermai in Sicily. His father Karkinos was an exile from
Rhegion who received Syracusan citizenship from Timoleon in 343/42; he made his fortune
from ownership of a large pottery factory (cf. R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), cols. 1163-4).
In 319/18 Agathokles was made ‘strategos with absolute power in the Sicilian cities’ (Marm. Par.
BNJ 239 B 12); as a result of a military takeover in 316 Agathokles was granted ‘the generalship
with absolute power and the care of the city’ (Diod. 19.5.4-9, 9.4; see Commentary to F 120); in
305 Agathokles, in emulation of the Diodochi, named himself king (Diod. 20.54.1). He was
assassinated in 289/88. Timaios (as well as Kallias and Antandros) therefore calculated the
length of Agathokles’ reign from the time of the military coup at Syracuse in 316. Kallias of
Syracuse lived at Agathokles’ court and wrote a history of his reign in 22 books (cf. BNJ 564 T 1
and BNJ 564 T 2; BNJ 564 F 6). Antandros was Agathokles’ brother, left in charge at Syracuse
during Agathokles’ African campaign; he wrote a history ( BNJ 565 T 5). See Commentary to T
12.
BNJ 566 F 123b
Source: Pseudo-Lucian, Octogenerians (Makrobioi, Long-livers) 10

Work mentioned:
Pseudo-Lucian, ,
᾽Αγαθοκλῆς δὲ ὸ Σικελίας τύραννος ἐτῶν † Agathokles the Sicilian tyrant died at the age
ἐνενήκοντα πέντε τελευτᾶι, καθάπερ Δηµοχάρης of ninety-five, as Demochares and Timaios
καὶ Τίµαιος ἱστοροῦσιν. relate.
Commentary
Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes, was supposed to have written on Agathokles ( BNJ
75 F 5, with H. Swoboda, ‘Demochares (6)’, RE 4 (1901), cols. 2863-7). Assuming this to be true,
Demochares account of the Syracusan tyrant may have been the source of Timaios’s hostility
(T 19, F 35a and F 35b, with Commentary to F 35a). The age of Agathokles at his death has been
corrupted in F 123b (cf. F 123a).
BNJ 566 F 124a

Work mentioned:

... ὥστε τὴν µὲν Τιµαίου τοῦ συγγραφέως πικρίαν, … so that the bitterness of Timaios the
ἧι κέχρηται κατ᾽ ᾽Αγαθοκλέους τοῦ Σικελίας historian, which he uses against Agathokles
δυνάστου, καίπερ ἀνυπέρβλητον εἶναι δοκοῦσαν, the dynast of Sicily, although it seems to be
ὅµως λόγον ἔχειν – ὡς γὰρ κατ᾽ ἐχθροῦ καὶ somewhat overblown, nevertheless has some
πονηροῦ καὶ τυράννου διατίθεται τὴν κατηγορίαν. justification – for he accuses him as hateful,
base, and as a tyrant.
Commentary
Timaios’s bitter attack on Agathokles is bound up with his own political misfortunes (see
Commentaries to T 4a and T 5; Biographical Essay). For Timaios’s hatred of Agathokles, see T
12 and Diod. 21.17.1; Polyb. 12.15.1-12 (F 124b); 15.35.1-7.
BNJ 566 F 124b

Work mentioned:

12.15.1-10
(1) καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ ταῖς κατ᾽ ᾽Αγαθοκλέους ἔγωγε (1) And I, for one, cannot approve of his abuse
λοιδορίαις, εἰ καὶ πάντων γέγονεν ἀσεβέστατος, of Agathokles either, even if he was the most
εὐδοκῶ. (2) λέγω δὲ τούτοις, ἐν οἷς ἐπὶ impious of men. (2) I mean that passage at the
καταστροφῆι τῆς ὅλης ἱστορίας φησὶ γεγονέναι very end of his history in which he says that
τὸν ᾽Αγαθοκλέα κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἡλικίαν κοινὸν Agathokles was a common whore in his early
πόρνον, ἕτοιµον τοῖς ἀκρατεστάτοις, κολοιόν, youth, available to the most abandoned
τριόρχην, πάντων τῶν βουλοµένων τοὺς ὄπισθεν lechers, a jackdaw and a buzzard, offering his
ἔµπροσθεν γεγονότα. (3) πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, ὅτ᾽ backside to whoever wanted it. (3) He adds
ἀπέθανε, τὴν γυναῖκά φησι κατακλαιοµένην αὐτὸν that when Agathokles died, his mourning wife
οὕτω θρηνεῖν· «τί δ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ σέ; τί δ᾽ οὐκ ἐµὲ σύ» lamented, ‘What have I not done to you, or you
(4) ἐν γὰρ τούτοις πάλιν οὐ µόνον ἄν τις to me?’ (4) In answer to this, one would not
ἐπιφθέγξαιτο τὰ καὶ περὶ Δηµοχάρους, ἀλλὰ καὶ only repeat what we have said about
τὴν ὑπερβολὴν θαυµάσειε τῆς πικρίας. (5) ὅτι γὰρ Demochares (F 35), but also express
ἐκ φύσεως ἀνάγκη µεγάλα προτερήµατα astonishment at the excess of Timaios’s
γεγονέναι περὶ τὸν ᾽Αγαθοκλέα, τοῦτο δῆλόν bitterness. (5) That Agathokles must have had
ἐστιν ἐξ αὐτῶν ὧν ὁ Τίµαιος ἀποφαίνεται. (6) εἰ great natural advantages is clear from what
γὰρ εἰς τὰς Συρακούσας παρεγενήθη, φεύγων τὸν Timaios himself says about him; (6) for if he
τροχόν, τὸν καπνόν, τὸν πηλόν, περί τε τὴν came to Syracuse in flight from the potter’s
ἡλικίαν (7) ὀκτωκαίδεκα γεγονώς, καὶ µετά τινα wheel and the smoke and the clay at about the
χρόνον ὁρµηθεὶς ἀπὸ τοιαύτης ὑποθέσεως, κύριος (7) age of eighteen, and in a short time grew
µὲν ἐγεννήθη πάσης Σικελίας, µεγίστους δὲ from such a beginning to be lord of all Sicily –
κινδύνους περιέστησε Καρχηδονίους, τέλος causing grave dangers to the Carthaginians,
ἐγγηράσας τῆι δυναστείαι κατέστρεψε τὸν βίον growing old in power, and finally dying with
βασιλεὺς προσαγορευόµενος, (8) ἆρ᾽ οὐκ ἀνάγκη the title of king – (8) must not this Agathokles
µέγα τι γεγονέναι χρῆµα καὶ θαυµάσιον τὸν have been a great wonder, with many gifts and
᾽Αγαθοκλέα ... (10) ὁ δὲ πᾶς ἐσκοτισµένος ὑπὸ τῆς abilities in public affairs? ... (10) But Timaios,
ἰδίας πικρίας, τὰ µὲν ἐλαττώµατα δυσµενικῶς καὶ blinded by his own ill-will, has recorded for us
µετ᾽ αὐξήσεως ἡµῖν ἐξήγγελκε, τὰ δὲ the failings of Agathokles with hostility and
καθορθώµατα συλλήβδην παραλέλοιπε. exaggeration, and omitted completely his good
qualities.
Commentary
See Commentaries to F 35a and F 35b for Demochares. Polybios concedes the point on
Agathokles at 8.10.12. The wife of Agathokles is presumably Theoxene, his third wife and the
daughter or stepdaughter of Ptolemy I Soter. Agathokles sent her back to Egypt with his two
sons to secure their safety shortly before his death (Justin 23.2.1). For the story of Agathokles as
a potter, see Diod. 20.63.4; Caecilius of Caleacte, BNJ 183 F 2. For Timaios’s hatred of
Agathokles, see T 12 and Diod. 21.17.1; Polyb. 15.35.1-7; cf. Commentaries to T 4a and T 5, F 122;
Biographical Essay.
BNJ 566 F 124c

Work mentioned:

ὁ δ᾽ ᾽Αγαθοκλῆς, ὡς ὁ Τίµαιος ἐπισκώπτων φησί, Agathokles, as Timaios disparagingly says, was
κεραµεὺς ὑπάρχων καὶ καταλιπὼν τὸν τροχὸν a potter and, leaving the wheel and clay and
<καὶ τὸν> πηλὸν καὶ τὸν καπνόν, ἧκε νέος ὢν εἰς smoke, came to Syracuse as a young man.
τὰς Συρακούσσας.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 124b.
BNJ 566 F 124d

Work mentioned:
Diodoros of Sicily, Histories, 21.17.1-3

(1) ... φυγαδευθεὶς γὰρ ὑπ᾽ ᾽Αγαθοκλέους ἐκ τῆς (T 12) (1) ... For having been exiled from Sicily
Σικελίας ζῶντα µὲν ἀµύνασθαι τὸν δυνάστην οὐκ by Agathokles, and not being able to retaliate
ἴσχυσε, τελευτήσαντα δὲ διὰ τῆς ἱστορίας as long as the dynast lived, after his death
ἐβλασφήµησεν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. (2) καθόλου γὰρ (Timaios) defamed him through his historical
ταῖς προυπαρχούσαις τῶι βασιλεῖ τούτωι κακίαις writings for all time. (2) For generally the
ἄλλα πολλὰ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ προσθεὶς ὁ συγγραφεύς, historian adds other bad qualities of his own
τὰς µὲν εὐηµερίας ἀφαιρούµενος αὐτοῦ, τὰς δὲ invention to those the king did in fact possess.
ἀποτεύξεις, οὐ τὰς δι᾽ αὐτὸν µόνον γενοµένας He deprives him of his successes, leaving his
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς διὰ τύχην, µεταφέρων εἰς τὸν µηδὲν failures, not only those for which the king was
ἐξαµαρτόντα. γενοµένου δὲ ὁµολογουµένως αὐτοῦ responsible, but also those brought about by
στρατηγικοῦ µὲν κατὰ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν, δραστικοῦ δὲ misfortune, transferring to his failings affairs
καὶ τεθαρρηκότος κατὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς κινδύνοις in which he made no mistake. And even
εὐτολµίαν, οὐ διαλείπει παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν ἱστορίαν though most people agree that the king was an
ἀποκαλῶν αὐτὸν ἄνανδρον καὶ δειλόν. καίτοι γε astute strategist, and that in battle he was
τίς οὐκ οἶδεν, ὅτι τῶν πώποτε δυναστευσάντων energetic and confident, (Timaios) throughout
οὐδεὶς ἐλάττοσιν ἀφορµαῖς χρησάµενος µείζω his history continually calls him unmanly and
βασιλείαν περιεποιήσατο ... (3) θαυµάσαι δ᾽ ἄν τις a coward. Yet who does not know that of all
τοῦ συγγραφέως τὴν εὐχέρειαν· παρ᾽ ὅλην γὰρ men who ever came to power, there is no one
τὴν γραφὴν ἐγκωµιάζων τὴν τῶν Συρακοσίων who acquired a greater kingdom with fewer
ἀνδρείαν, τὸν τούτων κρατήσαντα δειλίαι φησὶ resources? ... (3) One may well wonder at the
διενηνοχέναι τοὺς ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους ... διόπερ cavalier attitude of the historian. Throughout
τὰς ἐσχάτας τῆς συντάξεως πέντε βίβλους τοῦ his history he praises the people of Syracuse
συγγραφέως τούτου, καθ᾽ ἃς περιείληφε τὰς for their courage, but says that the man who
᾽Αγαθοκλέους πράξεις, οὐκ ἄν τις δικαίως ruled them exceeds all other men in cowardice
ἀποδέξαιτο. … As a result one should not rightly accept the
last five books of this writer's work, in which
he relates the deeds of Agathokles (T 8).
Commentary
Diodorus’s criticisms of Timaios’s unjust harshness towards Agathokles echoes the complaints
of Polybios (F 124b). Timaios’s bitter attack on Agathokles is bound up with his own political
misfortunes (see Commentaries to T 4a and T 5; Biographical Essay). For Timaios’s hatred of
Agathokles, see T 12 and Diod. 21.17.1; Polyb. 12.15.1-12 (F 124b); 15.35.1-7.
BNJ 566 F 125
Source: Censorinus, On the Date of Birth 21.2-3

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: history, ancient - Library of Congress
Censorinus [Vide: Anonymi historici], On the

Date of Birth, 21.2-3
(2) hinc ad olympiadem primam paulo plus (2) From this time (i.e. from the Trojan War) to
CCCC, quos solos, quamvis mythici temporis the first Olympiad was a little more than four
postremos, tamen quia a memoria scriptorum hundred years, which alone, although later
proximos quidam certius definire voluerunt, than mythical times, nevertheless because
(3) et quidem Sosibius scripsit esse CCCXCV, they are nearest to the memory of writers,
Eratosthenes autem septem et quadringentos, certain authors have wanted to define more
Timaeus CCCCXVII, Eretes DXIII. precisely. (3) And indeed Sosibios ( BNJ 595 T
1) wrote that it was three hundred and ninety-
five years, Eratosthenes ( BNJ 241 F 1c) however
records four hundred and seven, Timaios four
hundred and seventeen, Eretes ( BNJ 242 F 1)
five hundred and thirteen.
Commentary
Censorinus wrote De Die Natali for Q. Caerellius on his birthday in 283 AD; it contains diverse
material, relying heavily on Varro and to a lesser extent on Suetonius. Concerning Timaios’s
chronological reckoning, Polybios (T 10) says that Timaios compared the Athenian archon list
with the Spartan king list, the record of Argive priestesses, and the list of Olympic champions,
and he states that Timaios boasted of the precision of his chronology (cf. Diod. 5.1.3). Timaios
either compared dates in these lists for discrete historical events, or he may have compiled a
comprehensive chronological table. Suda’s mention of a work entitled Chronological
Handbook (T 1, with Jacoby FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 538), would seem to suggest the latter. On
the other hand, the evidence of the fragments suggests that Timaios did not engage in serious
chronological research, but rather was primarily interested in challenging the authority of
rival historians in reckoning dates (L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and
His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 47). For Timaios’s chronologies, see also F 60, F 71, and F 80
with Commentaries, and F 164 (Diod. 5.9.2). Timaios placed the Trojan War 417 years before
the first Olympiad (776 BC), yielding a date of 1194/93 BC (cf. F 80 above). He evidently
reckoned from the start of the war, whereas Eratosthenes counted from the fall of Troy. For the
Spartan scholar Sosibios, probably of the mid-3rd century BC, see BNJ 595 F 1; for Eratosthenes,
BNJ 241 F 1c. Virtually nothing is known of Eretes ( BNJ 242), who may have been a
chronographer of the early Hellenistic period; he is mentioned only by Censorinus (Jacoby,
FGrH 2B (1962), 715).
BNJ 566 F 126
Source: Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies (Stromata) 1.21.139.4

Work mentioned:

Miscellanies (ed. Stählin), 1.21.139.4
ἀπὸ τούτου ἐπὶ Εὐαίνετον ἄρχοντα, ἐφ᾽ οὗ φασιν From this time (scil. the return of the
᾽Αλέξανδρον εἰς τὴν ᾽Ασίαν διαβῆναι, ὡς µὲν Herakleidai) to the archonship of Euainetos
Φανίας ἔτη ἑπτακόσια δεκαπέντε· ὡς δὲ ῎Εφορος (335/34 BC), during which they say that
ἑπτακόσια τριάκοντα πέντε· ὡς δὲ Τίµαιος καὶ Alexander crossed over to Asia, according to
Κλείταρχος ὀκτακόσια εἴκοσι· ὡς δὲ ᾽Ερατοσθένης Phanias (FGrH Continued 1012 F 9; F 19 Wehrli)
ἑπτακόσια ἑβδοµήκοντα [τέσσαρα]· ὡς δὲ Δοῦρις was seven hundred and fifteen years;
ἀπὸ Τροίας ἁλώσεως ἐπὶ τὴν ᾽Αλεξάνδρου εἰς according to Ephoros ( BNJ 70 F 223) seven
᾽Ασίαν διάβασιν ἔτη χίλια. hundred and thirty-five; according to Timaios
and Kleitarchos ( BNJ 137 F 7) eight hundred
and twenty; according to Eratosthenes ( BNJ
241 F 1d) seven hundred and seventy (four);
according to Douris ( BNJ 76 F 41) from the
sack of Troy to Alexander’s crossing into Asia
was one thousand years.
Commentary
Timaios used the Trojan War as an epochal date (F 80), and, like the time of that conflict (cf.
Commentary to F 125), the dating of the return of the Herakleidai caused considerable
scholarly debate. The fullest accounts of the myth of the Herakleidai are in Diod. 4.57-58 and
Apollod. 2.8. According to Herodotos (9.26.3-5), after the death of Hyllos, son of Herakles,
fighting in single combat against Echemos, king of Tegea, the Herakleidai pledged not to
return to the Peloponnesos for a hundred years. But Diodorus 4.58.5, perhaps following
Timaios, writes of a fifty-year interval. Timaios’s 820 years from the time of the return of the
Herakleidai until Alexander’s crossing to Asia in 335/34 BC gives a date of 1155/54 BC for the
mythic event. Timaios may have foreshortened his chronology in reaction to Douris of Samos’s
1000-year interval between the sack of Troy and Alexander’s crossing. In support of this
conjecture is the fact that Clement cites Timaios elsewhere, but not Douris; his reference to
Douris may therefore have been taken directly from a chronological polemic against Douris in
Timaios’s history (L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors
(Atlanta 1987), 47 n. 38). In any event, Douris’s calculation for the sack of Troy would place
that event in 1335/34 BC; Timaios’s date was 1194/93 BC (F 80). This gives for Timaios a roughly
forty-year interval between the Trojan War and the return of the Herakleidai, whereas
Thucydides (1.12) reflects a tradition, which goes back at least to the 5th century BC, of an
eighty-year interval. Additional chronological uncertainty arises from the question as to
whether Timaios’s Trojan War dating refers to the commencement of the war (of ten-years’
duration according to tradition) or to the sack of Ilion (cf. Commentary to F 125). For
Ephoros’s calculation, see BNJ 70 F 223; for Kleitarchos’s, BNJ 137 F 7; for Eratosthenes, BNJ 241
F 1d; for Douris, BNJ 76 F 41. Phanias or Phainias was a Peripatetic polymath of the later 4th
century BC from Eresos on Lesbos. He wrote a Prytaneis of Eresos, which included general
Greek history; his chronology was based on the magistrates of Eresos (R. Laqueur, ‘Phainias’,
RE 19 (1938), cols. 1565-1; see J. Engels’ commentary in FGrH IVA1, 311-6).
BNJ 566 F 127
Source: Plutarch, Life of Lykourgos 1.1-3

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Lycurgus, 1.1-3

(1) περὶ Λυκούργου … καθόλου µὲν οὐδὲν ἔστιν (1) Concerning Lykourgos … in general nothing
εἰπεῖν ἀναµφισβήτητον … ἥκιστα δ᾽ οἱ χρόνοι, can be said that is undisputed … least of all the
καθ᾽ οὓς γέγονεν ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁµολογοῦνται. (2) οἱ µὲν time in which he lived. (2) Some state that he
γὰρ ᾽Ιφίτωι συνακµάσαι καὶ συνδιαθεῖναι τὴν lived in the days of Iphitos, with whom he is
᾽Ολυµπιακὴν ἐκεχειρίαν λέγουσιν αὐτόν, ὧν ἐστι supposed to have established the Olympic
καὶ ᾽Αριστοτέλης ὁ φιλόσοφος, τεκµήριον truce. Aristotle the philosopher is of this
προφέρων τὸν ᾽Ολυµπίασι δίσκον, ἐν ὧι τοὐνοµα persuasion, and he adduces as proof the discus
τοῦ Λυκούργου διασώιζεται καταγεγραµµένον· at Olympia inscribed with the name of
(3) οἱ δὲ ταῖς διαδοχαῖς τῶν ἐν Σπάρτηι Lykourgos. (3) But those who reckon time by
βεβασιλευκότων ἀναλεγόµενοι τὸν χρόνον. ὥσπερ the kingly successions at Sparta, like
᾽Ερατοσθένης καὶ ᾽Απολλόδωρος, οὐκ ὀλίγοις Eratosthenes and Apollodoros, prove that
ἔτεσι πρεσβύτερον ἀποφαίνουσι τῆς πρώτης Lykourgos lived many years before the first
ὀλυµπιάδος. Τίµαιος δ᾽ ὑπονοεῖ, δυεῖν ἐν Σπάρτηι Olympiad. And Timaios posits that there were
γεγονότων Λυκούργων οὐ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον, two men named Lykourgos at Sparta who lived
τῶι ἑτέρωι τὰς ἀµφοῖν πράξεις διὰ τὴν δόξαν at different times, and that their achievements
ἀνακεῖσθαι· καὶ τόν γε πρεσβύτερον οὐ πόρρω τῶν were conflated into one and the same man,
῾Οµήρου γεγονέναι χρόνων (ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ κατ᾽ ὄψιν because of the one’s greater renown. And he
ἐντυχεῖν ῾Οµήρωι). thinks the elder one lived not far distant from
Homer’s time (some even say that he met
Homer).
Commentary
Lykourgos was according to Spartan tradition the founder of the Spartan constitution.
Lykourgos figured prominently in Greek political writers’ discussions of the miktē, or ‘mixed
constitution’, best known from Polybios’s Book Six (see K. von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed
Constitution in Antiquity: A Critical Analysis of Polybius’ Political Ideas (New York 1954); W.
Nippel, Mischverfassungstheorie und Verfassungsrealität in Antike und früher Neuzeit (Stuttgart
1980)). Timaios probably knew the tradition that Lykourgos had introduced Homeric poetry
into Sparta, and he may therefore have surmised from this that the two men met. He may have
known the tradition that associated Lykourgos and Iphitos with the founding of the Olympic
games (776 BC), as we know from Hieronymos of Rhodes (F 33 W), which in turn may derive
from Aristotle. On the other hand, Timaios probably knew that Lykourgos supposedly had
been the guardian of the early Agiad king Leobotas, whom the Spartan King Lists, ultimately
deriving from Hecataeus, would have placed ca. 1010 BC (D.W. Prakken, ‘Herodotus and
Spartan King Lists’, TAPA 71 (1940), 460-72, at 471). It would be characteristic of Timaios to have
proposed the radical innovation of positing two Spartans named Lykourgos to solve the
chronological crux (cf. U. Kahrstedt, ‘Lykurgos (7)’, RE 13 (1927), cols. 2442-5). For Aristotle’s
evidence of the discus at Olympia, see F 533 R3; cf. Paus. 5.20.1. For Eratosthenes, see BNJ 241 F
2; for Apollodoros, BNJ 244 F 64.
BNJ 566 F 128
Source: Plutarch, Life of Lykourgos 31.7

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Lycurgus, 31.7

τελευτῆσαι δ᾽ αὐτὸν (scil. Λυκοῦργον) οἱ µὲν ἐν Some say that (Lykourgos) died in Kirra;
Κίρραι λέγουσιν, ᾽Απολλόθεµις δ᾽ εἰς ῏Ηλιν Apollothemis says that he was brought to Elis;
κοµισθέντα, Τίµαιος δὲ καὶ ᾽Αριστόξενος ἐν Timaios and Aristoxenos that he lived out his
Κρήτηι καταβιώσαντα. life in Crete.
Commentary
Timaios followed the Spartan rather than the Delphian tradition on Lykourgos. Herodotos
(1.65.4) preserves a tradition that Lykourgos derived his laws from Crete, and he adds that this
is what the Spartans themselves claimed. Timaios’s assertion that Lykourgos lived out his life
in Crete may represent an inference from the supposed provenance of the Lycurgan
constitution. A rival tradition stated that the Lycurgan constitution came from Delphi (Hdt.
1.65.4; Xen. Lac. 8.5; Pl. Leg. 1.632d). Timaios may have explicitly endorsed the Cretan version
of Lykourgos’s constitution, which would shed further light on the pains Polybios takes in
refuting it (Polyb. 6.45.1-47.6, with U. Kahrstedt, “Lykourgos (7)’, RE 13 (1927), cols. 2442-5).
Apollothemis is attested only in this fragment (E. Schwartz, ‘Apollothemis’, RE 2 (1896), col.
166). Aristoxenos of Tarentum (b. ca. 370 BC) was best known for his musical works; his note
on Lykourgos may have come from his treatise on Political Nomoi (Athen. 14.648d).
BNJ 566 F 129

Work mentioned:
AD

Τίµαιον δὲ ψεύσασθαί φησιν ὁ Δηµήτριος Demetrios charges that Timaios falsifies when
ἱστοροῦντα ἐκ τῶν λίθων τῶν ἐξ ᾽Ιλίου Περίανδρον he says that Periander fortified the Achilleion
ἐπιτειχίσαι τὸ ᾽Αχίλλειον τοῖς ᾽Αθηναίοις, against the Athenians with stones from Ilion,
βοηθοῦντα τοῖς περὶ Πιττακόν· ἐπιτειχισθῆναι µὲν to assist the army of Pittakos. He says this
γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν Μιτυληναίων τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῶι place was indeed fortified by the Mytilenians
Σιγείωι, οὐ µὴν ἐκ λίθων τοιούτων, οὐδ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ against Sigeion, but not with such stones, and
Περιάνδρου. πῶς γὰρ ἂν αἱρεθῆναι διαιτητὴν τὸν not by Periander. How could the foe of the
προσπολεµοῦντα; Athenians have been chosen as arbiter?
Commentary
A tradition stated that Periander (r. ca. 627-587 BC) aided Pittakos of Mytilene against the
Athenians. Herodotos (5.95) states that Periander reconciled the Mytilenaeans and the
Athenians, who had entrusted him with third-party mediation concerning their dispute over
Sigeion (Herodotos was certainly one of Demetrios of Skepsis’s sources). Jacoby believed it
unlikely that F 129 is from an excursus on the Seven Sages of Greece, but rather from the
history of Corinth and perhaps from the third book of the Histories (cf. F 5, F 80, F 145). It is
unfortunate that no clues exist for Timaios’s sources for the Lelantine War and the foreign
policy of the Cypselids. No special value can be assigned to Timaios’s mention of the stones
from Ilion, which figure in his account of the mythological settlements in the west (F 53).
BNJ 566 F 130a
Source: Cicero, On Laws 2.15

Work mentioned:
Cicero, M. Tullius, On Laws, 2.15

quid, quod Zaleucum istum negat ullum fuisse What do you think of Timaios denying that
Timaeus? – at <ait> Theophrastus, auctor Zaleukos existed? But Theophrastos affirms it,
haud deterior mea quidem sententia and he is just as reliable an authority, in my
(meliorem multi nominant), commemorant view (many think he is a better authority). And
vero ipsius cives, nostri clientes, Locri. in fact my clients the Locrians still recall
Zaleukos.
Commentary
Timaios’s reflections on Zaleukos must certainly have formed part of his excursus on the
Locrians, which presumedly arose in his Pythagorean history in Book 9 (see Jacoby, FGrH 3b,
550, Commentary to F 11, F 12). Zaleukos was called a Pythagorean by Aristoxenos (cf. D.L.
8.16), and Diodorus (12.20.1) explicitly says that he was Pythagoras’s student (another tradition
connected the lawgiver Zaleukos, like Lykourgos, with Crete (cf. Commentary to F 128)).
Timaios would appear to have denied Zaleukos’s existence, but this short fragment may simply
be part of Timaios’s polemic against those who emphasized Zaleukos’s role at Locri. Timaios
argued against Aristotle that the original Locrian settlers were free men of aristocratic lineage;
his argument could eschew a sage reformer, who would fit better into Aristotle’s version of
half-hellenized former slaves as original colonists. For Timaios’s polemic against Aristotle
concerning Locrian origins, see Polyb. 12.5.1-16.14, with F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary
on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 330-53. For Theophrastos on Zaleukos and the Locrians, cf. Polyb.
12.11.5; perhaps Athen. 10.429a-b; D.L. 5.45 (On Legislators in three books).
BNJ 566 F 130b
Source: Cicero, Letters to Atticus 6.1.18

Work mentioned:
Cicero, M. Tullius, Letters to Atticus, 6.1.18

quis Zaleucum leges Locris scripsisse non Who has not stated that Zaleukos wrote the
dixit? num igitur iacet Theophrastus, si id a laws of Lokris? Therefore Theophrastos does
Timaeo, tuo familiari, reprehensum est? not lie low in esteem, if he is castigated on
account of this by your friend Timaios, does
he?
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 131
Source: Porphyrios of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 4 ( Jerome, Against

Jovinianus 1.42 )
Work mentioned:
Source date: 3rd century AD 4th century AD
Porphyrios of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras, 4

(4) ... Τίµαιος δ᾽ ἱστορεῖ τὴν Πυθαγόρου θυγατέρα (4) ... Timaios records that Pythagoras’s
καὶ παρθένον οὖσαν ἡγεῖσθαι τῶν παρθένων ἐν daughter was esteemed as a maiden among
Κρότωνι, καὶ γυναῖκα τῶν γυναικῶν· τὴν δ᾽ οἰκίαν maidens, and as a woman among women in
Δήµητρος ἱερὸν ποιῆσαι τοὺς Κροτωνιάτας, τὸν δὲ Kroton. The Krotoniates made her house a
στενωπὸν καλεῖν µουσεῖον. (5) Λύκος δ᾽ ἐν τῆι temple to Demeter, and they called the
τετάρτηι τῶν ῾Ιστοριῶν … neighboring lane the Mouseion. (5) And Lykos
in the fourth book of his Histories …
Commentary
Principal extant biographies of Pythagoras are those of Diogenes Laertios (8.1-50), Porphyry,
and Iamblichos. Along with F 13a, F 13b, F 14, F 16, F 17, and F 132, the present fragment
demonstrates that Timaios was an important source for Hellenistic biographies of Pythagoras.
What Timaios reports here on Kroton is attributed to Metapontum by Iamblichos (Vit. Pyth.
170). Confusion arose in the biographical tradition concerning whether Pythagoras’s activities
were to be placed in Kroton or Metapontum; Pythagoras was said to have left Kroton for
Metapontum as a result of ‘democratic’ uprisings, which resulted in violence against and
ultimately the destruction of the Pythagorean communities (cf. Polyb. 2.39.1-2, with W.
Burkert, ‘Craft vs. Sect: The Problem of Orphics and Pythagoreans’, in B.F. Meyer & E.P. Sanders
(eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: Self-Definition in the Greco-Roman World
(Philadelphia 1982), 1-22). Pythagoras’s daughter was named Damo (D.L. 8.42; cf. F 17 on
naming women). Both Pythagoras’s wife and daughter were renowned for their wisdom (D.L.
8.42; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. 4; cf. Vit. Pyth. 19). For Lykos of Rhegion, see BNJ 570 F 15.
BNJ 566 F 132
Source: Scholia on Euripides, Hecuba 131

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 131
κοπίδας δὲ τὰς τῶν λόγων τέχνας ἄλλοι τε καὶ ὁ Other writers (maintain) the arts of rhetoric
Τίµαιος οὕτως γράφων· «ὥστε καὶ φαίνεσθαι µὴ are ‘choppers’, and Timaios writes thus, ‘so that
τὸν Πυθαγόραν εὑρ<ετὴν γεν>όµενον τῶν it even appears that Pythagoras was not the
ἀληθινῶν κοπίδων µηδὲ τὸν ὑφ᾽ ῾Ηρακλείτου inventor of “true choppers”, nor the one
κατηγορούµενον, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν <τὸν> ῾Ηράκλειτον accused by Heraklitos, but Heraklitos himself
εἶναι τὸν ἀλαζονευόµενον». was the one making false pretensions.
Commentary
F 132 provides the only evidence of Timaios’s assessment of Pythagoras, either as a

philosopher or as a statesman; his defense of Pythagoras against charges that he invented
sophistic arguments (kolpides; cf. Demosthenes on Phokion at Plut. Phoc. 5.4) does not take us
very far. The textual transmission of F 132 is problematic; it is clear that Timaios defended
Pythagoras against charges brought by Heraclitus (see D-K 22 [12] B 81, with L. Pearson, The
Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 113-8).
BNJ 566 F 133
Source: Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies (Stromata) 1.64.2

Work mentioned:

Miscellanies, 1.64.2
τῆς δὲ ᾽Ελεατικῆς ἀγωγῆς Ξενοφάνης ὁ Xenophanes of Colophon started the Eleatic
Κολοφώνιος κατάρχει, ὅν φησι Τίµαιος κατὰ games, whom Timaios places in the time of
῾Ιέρωνα τὸν Σικελίας δυνάστην καὶ ᾽Επίχαρµον Hieron the dynast of Sicily and the poet
τὸν ποιητὴν γεγονέναι, ᾽Απολλόδωρος δὲ κατὰ Epicharmos, but Apollodoros ( BNJ 244 F 68c)
τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ὀλυµπιάδα γενόµενον places him in the fiftieth Olympiad (580-577
παρατετακέναι ἄχρι τῶν Δαρείου τε καὶ Κύρου BC) up until the times of Darius and Cyrus.
χρόνων.
Commentary
For Timaios’s treatment of Hieron and the Deinomenids, see F 95 and F 96. Epicharmos was a
Sicilian comic poet, probably of the early 5th century BC. For the tradition linking Epicharmos
with Xenophanes of Colophon, see Aristotle, Metaphysics 1010a5, with the edition of
Epicharmos of A. Olivieri, Frammenti della commedia greca e del mimo nella Sicilia e nella
Magna Grecia (Naples 1930), 105 (no. 259). A tradition stated that Epicharmos was a
Pythagorean (cf. Plut. Num. 8.9), which might ultimately derive from Timaios, given his
interest in the philosopher (F 13a, F 13b, F 14, F 16, F 17, F 131 and F 132). For Xenophanes’
emigration from Colophon to Elea, see D.L. 9.18; cf. DK 21 B 8. For Apollodoros’s dating, see BNJ
244 F 68c.
BNJ 566 F 134

Philosophers 8.63-64
Work mentioned:

8.63-64
(63) ... φησὶ δ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ᾽Αριστοτέλης ἐλεύθερον (63) ... Aristotle also asserts that he (scil.
γεγονέναι καὶ πάσης ἀρχῆς ἀλλότριον, εἴ γε τὴν Empedokles) was a defender of freedom and
Βασιλείαν αὐτῶι διδοµένην παρηιτήσατο, averse to all forms of domination; as Xanthos (
καθάπερ Ξάνθος ἐν τοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγει, τὴν BNJ 765 F 1 = FGrH Continued 1001 F 1) relates
λιτότητα δηλονότι πλέον ἀγαπήσας. (64) τὰ δ᾽ in his account of him, if kingship were offered
αὐτὰ καὶ Τίµαιος εἴρηκε, τὴν αἰτίαν ἅµα to him, he would decline on the grounds that
παρατιθέµενος τοῦ δηµοτικὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνδρα. he preferred a frugal existence. Timaios has
φησὶ γὰρ ὅτι κληθεὶς ὑπό τινος τῶν ἀρχόντων, ὡς said the same, at the same time stating the
προβαίνοντος τοῦ δείπνου τὸ ποτὸν οὐκ reason for Empedokles favoring a demotic
εἰσεφέρετο, τῶν [δ᾽] ἄλλων ἡσυχαζόντων, form of government; namely, that when called
µισοπονήρως διατιθεὶς ἐκέλευσεν εἰσφέρειν· ὁ δὲ to dinner with one of the magistrates, after the
κεκληκὼς ἀναµένειν ἔφη τὸν τῆς βουλῆς dinner had been going on for some time
ὑπηρέτην. ὡς δὲ παρεγένετο, ἐγενήθη without any wine being served, and though
συµποσίαρχος, τοῦ κεκληκότος δηλονότι the other guests kept quiet, he indignantly
καταστήσαντος, καὶ ὑπεγράφετο τυραννίδος ordered wine to be brought. The host then
ἀρχήν· ἐκέλευσε γὰρ ἢ πίνειν ἢ καταχεῖσθαι τῆς confessed that he was waiting for the servant
κεφαλῆς. τότε µὲν οὖν ὁ ᾽Εµπεδοκλῆς ἡσύχασε, of the Council to appear. When he came he
τῆι δ᾽ ὑστεραίαι εἰσαγαγὼν εἰς δικαστήριον, was appointed master of revels, clearly by the
ἀπέκτεινε καταδικάσας ἀµφοτέρους, τόν τε host’s arrangement, whose plan of making
κλήτορα καὶ τὸν συµποσίαρχον. ἀρχὴ µὲν οὖν himself tyrant was poorly concealed, for he
αὐτῶι τῆς πολιτείας ἥδε. ordered the guests either to drink wine or pour
it over their heads. For the moment
Empedokles was silent, but on the next day he
brought both the host and the master of revels
to justice, securing their condemnation and
execution. This, then, was the beginning of his
political career.
Commentary
For Timaios’s interest in Empedokles, see also F2, F 6, F 14, F 26b, F 30, with Commentary to F
2. Xanthos of Lydia (FGrH Continued 1001 (= 765)), a contemporary of Thucydides (D.H. Thuc.
5), wrote Lydiaka in four books on the origins and history of the Lydians. His On Empedocles
and Magika (Clem. Alex. Strom. 3.11.1) are not well-attested and are of doubtful historicity. See
the full commentary (with bibliography) of G. Schepens & E. Theys in FGrH IVA1, 30-9.
BNJ 566 F 135

Work mentioned:

µὴ γὰρ δὴ πειθώµεθα Τιµαίωι λέγοντι ὡς φυγὼν Let us not believe Timaios when he says that
ὤκησεν ἐν ᾽Ιταλίαι. he (scil. Thucydides) lived in Italy as an exile.
Commentary
F 135 and F 136 attest to Timiaos’s local patriotism, as he brings the famous Athenian historian
as an exile to the west and says that he was buried there (see Commentary to T 7). Oddly,
Markellinos rejects the idea that Thucydides lived as an exile in Italy, but he is willing to
countenance the possibility that the historian was buried there.
BNJ 566 F 136

Work mentioned:

τὸ δ᾽ ἐν ᾽Ιταλίαι Τίµαιον αὐτὸν καὶ ἄλλους λέγειν The fact that Timaios says (Thucydides) and
κεῖσθαι µὴ καὶ σφόδρα καταγέλαστον ἦι. other men lie buried in Italy is by no means
absurd.
Commentary
For Thucydides’ burial site, see Marcellin. Vit. Thuc. 16-17 (grave in Athens), derived from the
Peri Akropoleōs of Polemon of Ilion (FGrH 857A); for Polemon, see Commentary to T 26.
BNJ 566 F 137
Source: Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Commentaries on the Attic

Orators, Lysias 3
Work mentioned:
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Lysias, 3

ἥψατο δὲ καὶ τῶν ᾽Αθήνησι ῥητόρων ἡ ποιητική τε The poetical and metaphorical expression of
καὶ τροπικὴ φράσις, ὡς µὲν Τίµαιός φησι, Γοργίου Gorgias, as Timaios states, captured the
ἄρξαντος ἡνίκ᾽ ᾽Αθήναζε πρεσβεύων attention of Athenian rhetors when he came
κατεπλήξατο τοὺς ἀκούοντας τῆι δηµηγορίαι, ὡς as an ambassador to Athens and astounded
δὲ τἀληθὲς ἔχει, τὸ καὶ παλαιότερον αἰεί τι the Athenian auditors. But to tell the truth,
θαυµαζοµένη· Θουκυδίδης γοῦν … ἔν τε τῶι this style in earlier times had a continuous
ἐπιταφίωι καὶ ἐν ταῖς δηµηγορίαις ποιητικῆι following. Thucydides at any rate … used
κατασκευῆι χρησάµενος … artificial expression in his Funeral Oration and
in deliberative speeches …
Commentary
F 137 merely reveals that Timaios discussed Gorgias’s arrival in Athens in 427 BC and the
sensation it caused there; it cannot be used as evidence that Timaios had anything to say
about rhetorical technique, undue concern with which was one of Polybios’s charges against
him (Polyb. 12.26.d.1; cf. T 19 and Commentary to T 20). The existence of a rhetorical handbook
in 68 books reported in Suda is unlikely (see Commentary to T 1).
BNJ 566 F 138
Source: Cicero, Brutus 63

Work mentioned:
Cicero, M. Tullius, Brutus, 63

est enim Atticus (Lysias), quoniam certe Lysias Lysias indeed is Athenian, since
Athenis est et natus et mortuus et functus certainly he was born and died and performed
omni civium munere, quamquam Timaeus all the duties of citizenship in Athens,
eum quasi Licinia et Mucia lege repetit although Timaios has recalled him to Syracuse
Syracusas. as if under the strictures of the Licinian and
Mucian law.
Commentary
Lysias, son of Kephalos (cf. Pl. Resp. 328b-31d), was a Syracusan who settled at Piraeus on the
invitation of Pericles (Lys. 12.4; Pl. Resp. 328b). As a privileged metoikos at Athens, he had the
same military and financial obligations as Athenian citizens (Lys. 12.20), and his wealthy
family held substantial properties in Attika (Lys. 12.18). At the age of fifteen, Lysias joined the
Athenian-led colonial foundation at Thurii in southern Italy (D.H. Lys. 1; Plut. Mor. 835d).
Lysias and his brother Polemarchos attained citizenship there, which had been denied to
them on the basis of Pericles’ citizenship law of 451/50 BC (cf. C. Patterson, Pericles’ Citizenship
Law of 451-50 B.C. (New York 1981); A. L. Boegehold, ‘Perikles’ Citizenship Law of 451-50 BC’, in
A. L. Boegehold & A. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology (Baltimore 1994), 57-
66), passed close to the time of Lysias’s birth. The lex Licinia et Mucia of 95 BC was a Roman
statute which annulled the Roman citizenship for those who had assumed it illegally (it was
not concerned with the bodily expulsion of resident aliens from Rome); it provoked many of
the Italian socii, and it was likely one of the main causes of the Italic or Marsic War (91-87 BC);
for sources, see G. Rotondi, Leges Publicae Populi Romani (repr. Hildesheim 1962), 659/95 (pg.
335); Broughton, MRR 2.11; for brief discussion, see A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman
Citizenship, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1973), 111, 140. Cicero’s comment provides further evidence for
Timaios’s emphasis on famous individuals from Greek settlements in the west.
BNJ 566 F 139

Work mentioned:

ἐπαινῶν ᾽Αλέξανδρον τὸν µέγαν ὃς τὴν ᾽Ασίαν (T 23) Praising Alexander the Great he (scil.
ὅλην φησιν ἐν ἐλάττοσι παρέλαβεν <ἔτεσιν> ἢ Timaios) says, ‘He who conquered all Asia in
ὅσοις τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ πρὸς Πέρσας πολέµου less years than the number Isokrates needed to
πανηγυρικὸν λόγον ᾽Ισοκράτης ἔγραψεν. write his Panegyricus about issues of the
Persian War’.
Commentary
Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 590, believed that F 139 probably formed part of an excursus on
rhetoricians. For Timaios’s relationship to the Isokratean style, see Jacoby, FGrH 3b,
Kommentar, 534. Timaios’s high regard for Alexander’s achievement is one of the rare
instances in which Polybios seems to have been in complete agreement with the Sicilian
historian (see Polyb. 8.10.7-12; cf. 3.59.3-5, with F.W. Walbank, ‘Polybius and Macedonia’, in
Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections (Cambridge 2002), 91-106).
BNJ 566 F 140

Work mentioned:

«οἱ δὲ λεγόµενοι Λακωνισταί» φησὶν ὁ Τίµαιος «ἐν ‘The so-called Lakonistai’, Timaios says, ‘sang
τετραγώνοις χοροῖς ἦιδον». καθόλου δὲ διάφορος in rectangular choruses’. Generally speaking,
ἦν ἡ µουσικὴ παρὰ τοῖς ῞Ελλησι, τῶν µὲν the Athenians highly prized Dionysiac and
᾽Αθηναίων τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς χοροὺς καὶ τοὺς circular choruses; the Syracusans the iambic
κυκλίους προτιµώντων, Συρακουσίων δὲ τοὺς ones; the others something different.
ἰαµβιστάς, ἄλλων δ᾽ ἄλλο τι.
Commentary
How much of F 140 belongs to Timaios is uncertain, despite the mention of the Syracusans
near the excerpt’s end. But an excerpt on Greek music is not unlikely; as Jacoby noted (FGrH
3b, Kommentar, 590), it had become almost de rigueur for historians from the 4th century BC
onwards; cf. Polybios’s excursus on flute-playing in Arkadia (4.20.1-21.12, with F.W. Walbank, A
Historical Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957), 465-6).
BNJ 566 F 141
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Pythian Ode 2 inscr.

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 2 inscr.
γέγραπται µὲν ῾Ιέρωνι ἅρµατι νικήσαντι, ἄδηλον It has been written on the occasion of Hieron’s
δὲ εἰς ποῖον ἀγῶνα· διεστασίασται γὰρ οὐ µετρίως chariot victory, but for which contest is not
τοῖς πρὸ ἡµῶν. οἱ µὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ ὅλως ἐπίνικον clear. There has been a great deal of
αὐτὸν εἶναί φασι· Τίµαιος δὲ θυσιαστικήν, contention among earlier writers. There are
Καλλίµαχος Νεµεακήν, ᾽Αµµώνιος καὶ those who even say it was not unambiguously
Καλλίστρατος ᾽Ολυµπιακήν, ἔνιοι Πυθικήν, ὡς a victory song. Timaios says it was for a festival
᾽Απολλώνιος ὁ εἰδογράφος, ἔνιοι δὲ of sacrifice, Kallimachos (F 450 Pfeiffer) a
Παναθηναικήν. composition for the Nemean games,
Ammonios and Kallistratos for the Olympic
games, some say the Pythian, as Apollodoros
the pictorial artist; some say it was for the
Panathenaic festival.
Commentary
The occasion of Pindar’s second Pythian ode has bedeviled scholars, ancient and modern.
Scholiasts proposed Olympia, Nemea, Athens, and Delphi as the performance site; modern
scholars have suggested that it was performed at Thebes or Syracuse. The poem’s one
historical allusion (18-20) may be a reference to Hieron’s assistance to the western Locrians
against Anaxilas of Rhegion in 477 BC, which would provide a terminus ante quem.
Concerning Timaios’s attitude towards Hieron, R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), col. 1088,
suggested that he ended up regarding Hieron as a typical tyrant (for Timaios as a ‘tyrant-hater’,
see L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987),
129-30, 174-81, 183-84); but Timaios may have been responsible for the ambivalent statement
that Hieron, wishing to be a polis-founder instead of a tyrant, renamed Katane after he had
destroyed it, and proclaimed himself as the founder of the new Aitna (F 142a, with T.S. Brown,
Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley 1958), 64-5; R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), col. 1093).
Aitna’s new foundation probably took place in 476 BC. It was a colony of 10,000 Dorians, half
from Syracuse and half from the Peloponnesos (Diod. 11.49.1).
BNJ 566 F 142a
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Nemean Odes 1 inscr.

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 1 inscr.
γέγραπται ὁ ἐπίνικος Χροµίωι Αἰτναίωι. ῾Ιέρων The epinician has been written for Aitnian
γὰρ οἰκιστὴς ἀντὶ τυράννου βουλόµενος εἶναι, Chromios. For Hieron, wanting to be a founder
Κατάνην ἐξελών, Αἴτνην µετωνόµασε τὴν πόλιν, rather than a tyrant, seizing Katane, renamed
ἑαυτὸν οἰκιστὴν προσαγορεύσας, καὶ ἐν ταῖς the polis Aitna, proclaiming himself the
ἀναρρήσεσιν ἔν τισι τῶν ἀγώνων Αἰτναῖον ἑαυτὸν founder, and in public proclamations of the
ἀνεῖπε. ταὐτὸν δέ, φησιν ὁ Δίδυµος, εἰκὸς παθεῖν games styled himself the Aitnian. Didymos (p.
καὶ τὸν Χρόµιον, ἑταίρωι κεχρηµένον αὐτῶι. 229 Schmidt) says it is likely that Chromios
Τίµαιος δὲ τὸν ἐπίνικον ᾽Ολυµπικὸν εἶναι τοῦτον, experienced the same thing, consulting the
ἁµαρτάνων· ὁ γὰρ Πίνδαρος ἄντικρυς Νεµεακὸν same companion. But Timaios errs in calling
εῖναί φησιν. the victory occasion an Olympian one, for
Pindar openly says it is Nemean.
Commentary
Hieron’s seizure of Katane and foundation of Aitna occurred in 476/75 BC (cf. Diod. 11.49). It is
noteworthy that Hieron’s priesthood of Demeter and Kore was associated with Zeus Aitnaios
(cf. Pind. Ol. 6.95-96; Diodorus’s mentioning of a temple of Demeter and Kore at or near Aitna
(Diod. 11.26.7, attributed by Diodorus, perhaps erroneously, to Gelon) may refer to Hieron’s
temple to the goddesses at Aitna-Katane; see T.J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks. The History of
Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (Oxford 1948), 180
n.3). This association may indicate Hiero’s conscious intention to identify himself with the
king of the Olympian deities. On Katane/Aitna, see G. Nenci & G. Vallet (eds.), Bibliografia
topografica della colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche 8 (Pisa and Rome 1990),
286-303; cf. B. Gentili (ed.), Catania Antica: Atti del Convegno della S.I.S.A.C. (Pisa 1996).
Chromios was a friend and companion of Gelon, and he was a well-known competitor in the
athletic festivals. He was a son of Agesidamos of Gela; he fought alongside Hippokrates at the
battle of the Heloros river (492 BC); he married Gelon’s sister (see Commentary to F 18). As
Jacoby noted (FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 590), it is uncertain whether errors in interpretation of
the type and occasion of Pindar’s odes were characteristic of Timaios specifically or his times
in general; see B. Niese, ‘Chromios (8)’, RE 3 (1899), cols. 2453-4.
BNJ 566 F 142b
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Nemean Odes 25a

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 25a
θαµὰ δὴ καὶ ᾽Ολυµπιάδων] … ἔστι δὲ ὁ λόγος τῶι often also indeed of the Olympics] … the
Πινδάρωι οὐ περὶ τοῦ Χροµίου µόνου ἀλλὰ καὶ account here in Pindar does not concern
περὶ τοῦ παντὸς λαοῦ, οἳ πολλὰς ἔσχον νίκας Chromios alone but also the entire people,
᾽Ολυµπικάς. ἐντεῦθεν ἵσως πλανηθεὶς ὁ Τίµαιος who held many Olympic victories. Thereupon
᾽Ολυµπικὸν τὸν ἐπίνικον ὠιήθη εἶναι. in like manner Timaios, having been misled,
thought the victory occasion was Olympian.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 143a

Source: Scholia on Homer, Iliad 23.269
Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: economics - Library of Congress
Scholia, 23.269
δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα] πῶς τῶι τετάρτωι µεῖζον Two talents of gold] How does he place the
πάντων τίθησιν; φησὶν οὖν ᾽Αριστοτέλης οὐκ εἶναι fourth part greater than the whole? Aristotle at
τὸ τάλαντον ὡρισµένον τότε τοῖς παλαιοῖς ... νῦν δὲany rate says that the talent was not divided
ρ̄κ̄ δραχµὰς ἔχει τὸ τάλαντον, τὸ δὲ παλαιὸν ὁ µὲν then among the ancients … but now the talent
Πολέµαρχος δ̄ δραχµῶν, Θεόφραστος δὲ ῑδ,̄ holds one hundred twenty drachmae; but in
Τίµαιος δὲ κ̄δ̄ . olden times Polemarchos gives four drachmae,
Theophrastos fourteen, and Timaios twenty-
four.
Commentary
On the Attic-Euboic standard (sometimes erroneously assigned to Solon’s reforms; cf. Arist.
Ath. Pol. 10.1-2; Plut. Sol. 15.2-4 = Androtion, BNJ 324 F 34), which tended to replace the heavier
Aiginetic standard (associated with Pheidon of Argos), the drachma was 4.31 gr., and the talent
was 25.86 kg. It is commonly assumed that 6,000 dr. were equivalent to 1t. Such an
assumption, however, presents insuperable metrological difficulties in trying to understand
the present fragment. Some of the interpretative problems can be resolved by recalling that
coin weight and stathmic weight were not the same thing. Coins were always minted
underweight (5% in classical Athens). Moreover, coinage and weights used the same terms,
but with different connotations.
It is best to begin with the passage from the Iliad in question. In the Homeric poems,
commodities are valued in oxen. Il. 23.269 records two talents of gold as fourth prize in the
chariot races held in commemoration of Patroklos. For the chariot races at Patroclus’s funeral
games, the first prize was a woman skilled in useful arts and a three-legged cauldron of
twenty-three measures capacity. Second prize was a six-year old mare, unbroken, in foal to a
he-ass. Third prize was a cauldron never put above a flame, holding four measures. In other
words, two talents of gold are of somewhat less value than a large copper cauldron. From the
prizes for the wrestling contests we learn that a skilled woman was worth four oxen; from the
running prizes that a talent of gold was worth less than two fattened oxen. Aristotle assumed
that the Homeric gold talent was relatively light (cf. Pollux, Onom. 9.55; Eustath. Il. 4.725.4-13);
it may in this context have been merely a reasonable amount of gold for someone to carry off
in his hands (cf. Hdt. 6.125, Croesus’s gift to Alkmeōn).
Clearly the fourth prize cannot refer to a weight of gold. The talent of gold did not represent a
talent of weight but rather a talent of value (earlier scholars argued that Hellenistic writers
equated the Homeric talent with the gold Daric; see e.g. F. Hultsch, Griechische und römische
Metrologie (Berlin 1862), 104 with n. 4). The 120 dr. in the present fragment is best understood
not in terms of price ratios, but rather by the fact that the talent had 30 stathmic or weight
staters. If we can posit that the stathmic stater was parallel to the coin tertradrachm, then it
should have four stathmic drachms, making 120 for the talent.
While the observations above can only be speculative, other evidence would seem to point in
the same direction. The idea of a talent of value in the archaic period in Athens, for example,
is an intractable problem (cf. T. Figueira, Excursions in Epichoric History: Aiginetan Essays
(Lanham, Maryland 1993), 61-86). But currency of Philip II and Alexander the Great had 5
kryshoi or gold staters = 1 talent of 100 drachmae (6,500 grains of coined silver; on a bimetallic
ratio of 10:1, the talent therefore represented 650 grains of gold). This level of magnitude,
based on talent value and not on talent weight, makes F 143a and F 143b comprehensible.
Various authors speculated on values of the talent/drachma ratios in the most ancient times.
These figures can only have been the result of the wildest speculation, since even in the
historical period the ancient Greeks never attained to anything like a unified system of
weights or currency standards (see T. Figueira, The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the
Athenian Empire (Philadelphia 1998), 511-7, 521-7). It must be stressed that the commentary
offered here is highly speculative. Polemarchos may be the 1st-century AD grammarian; see C.
Wendel, ‘Polemarchos (3)’, RE 21 (1952), cols. 1258-9. Cf. Timaios’s interest in early Roman
coinage (F 61).
BNJ 566 F 143b
Source: Scholia (B) on Homer, Iliad 23.269B

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: economics - Library of Congress
Scholia, 23.269B
… εἶχε δὲ ποτὲ µὲν ἑκατὸν δραχµάς, ποτὲ δὲ ... At one time it possessed one hundred
πεντήκοντα, ποτὲ δὲ λ̄, ποτὲ εἰκοσιτέσσαρας, ποτὲ drachmae, and at another fifty, and at another
δ,̄ ὥς φησι Τίµαιος, καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον µίαν. thirty, at one time twenty-four, and then
finally, as Timaios says, one.
Commentary
BNJ 566 F 144
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 13.79.602F

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: sexuality - Library of Congress
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 13.79.602F

** τοῦ παιδεραστεῖν παρὰ πρώτων Κρητῶν εἰς Pederasty came to the Hellenes from the first
τοὺς ῞Ελληνας παρελθόντος, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Τίµαιος. practitioners the Cretans, as Timaios relates.
Commentary
According to Athenaios (13.602f-603a), others maintained (ἄλλοι δέ φασι) that Laios initiated
same-sex love relationships among males when he was the guest of Pelops, falling in love with
the latter’s son Chrysippos, whom he abducted in his chariot and carried off to Thebes. This
may have been raised as a common belief by Timaios only in order to refute it. The tradition of
Dorian origins of pederasty in Crete assumed that the practice was an outgrowth of initiation
rites, and that adult males kidnapped adolescents. For ancient Greek socio-sexual systems and
ideologies, see J.K. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (London 1978); D.M. Halperin, One Hundred
Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love (London 1990); J.J. Winkler, The
Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Classical Antiquity (London 1990);
D.M. Halperin, J.J. Winkler, and F.I. Zeitlin (eds.), Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic
Experience in the Ancient Greek World (Princeton 1990).
BNJ 566 F 145
Source: Scholia on Pindar, Olympian Ode 13.29b

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 13.29b
τίς γὰρ ἱππείοις ἐν ἔντεσσιν µέτρα ἢ θεῶν ναοῖσιν For who added the bit to the horses’ gear or set
οἰωνῶν βασιλέα δίδυµον ἐπέθηκε;] … τινὲς δὲ τὸ the eagle, king of birds, above the temple
ἀέτωµα λέγουσιν, ὥς φησι Δίδυµος, pediment?] … some say it is the gable, as does
παρατιθέµενος Τίµαιον λέγοντα «καὶ τοῦτο ἐν Didymos (p. 225 Schmidt), marshalling
ταῖς οἰκοδοµίαις αὐτῶν εὕρηµα», ταύτην ἀποδοὺς Timaios, who says ‘and this is an invention in
τὴν ἐξήγησιν τῶν προκειµένων. (the Corinthians)’ house-building’, offering
this explanation of the preceding lines.
Commentary
Timaios may have had an excursus on Corinth in his third book (cf. Commentary to F 129). His
particular interest in Corinth (see F 5; cf. F 24a, F 24b, F 80, F 129), will have derived from the
facts that Corinth was the mother-city of the colonial foundation at Syracuse in Sicily and that
it was the hometown of his hero Timoleon (cf. T 13, and Biographical Essay).
BNJ 566 F 146a
Source: Scholia on Lykophron, Alexandra 1155

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: asylum, right of - Library of Congress
Scholia, 1155
Τίµαιος ἱστορεῖ οτι αἱ παραγενόµεναι παρθένοι Timaios relates that the attending maidens
ἐδούλευον ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τῆς ᾽Αθηνᾶς, β̄ οὖσαι. εἰ δέ were slaves in the sanctuary of Athena, being
τις ἀποθάνοι, ἑτέραν παραγίνεσθαι ἀντ᾽ αὐτῆς· two in number. If one of them should die,
ἐκείνην δὲ οὐ θάπτεσθαι παρὰ τῶν Τρώων, ἀλλὰ another took her place. The deceased was not
καίεσθαι ἀγρίοις ξύλοις, καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῆς buried by the Trojans, but rather cremated,
ῥίπτεσθαι εἰς θάλασσαν. burned with wild timber, and her bones cast
into the sea.
Commentary
This short excerpt from the Locrian excursus, perhaps in Book 9, is expanded in F 146b,
although clearly in the latter fragment we do not have Timaios only, but Tzetztes’ reworking of
the Timaian material as well (Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 591).
BNJ 566 F 146b
Source: Scholia on Lykophron, Alexandra 1141

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 1141
Αἴαντος τοῦ Λοκροῦ περὶ τὰς Γυραίας With Ajax the Locrian having been
ναυαγήσαντος καὶ ταφέντος ἐν Τρέµοντι χώραι τῆςshipwrecked against the Gyraian rocks and
Δήλου, ὁ Λοκροὶ µόλις σωθέντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν buried in the Tremontian country of Delos, the
οἰκείαν. φθορὰ δὲ καὶ λοιµὸς µετὰ τρίτον ἔτος ἔσχε Locrians, who had scarcely been saved,
τὴν Λοκρίδα διὰ τὴν εἰς Κασάνδραν ἀθέµιτον returned home. After three years death and
πρᾶξιν τοῦ Αἴαντος. ἔχρησε δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἱλάσκεσθαι plague held Lokris, on account of Ajax’s
τὴν θεὰν ᾽Αθηνᾶν τὴν ἐν ᾽Ιλίωι ἐπ᾽ ἔτη ᾱ̲, β̄ sacrilegious act against Kassandra. The god
παρθένους πέµποντας κλήρωι καὶ λαχήσει. desired that the goddess Athena in Ilion be
πεµποµένας δὲ αὐτὰς προυπαντῶντες οἱ Τρῶες εἰ propitiated for one thousand years, with two
κατέσχον, ἀνήιρουν, καὶ καίοντες ἀκάρποις καὶ maidens being sent (each year) by lot and
ἀγρίοις ξύλοις τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Τράρωνος ὄρους destiny. The Trojans, rushing forth to meet
τῆς Τροίας τὴν σποδὸν εἰς θάλασσαν ἔρριπτον· καὶ them, if they should seize the maidens who
πάλιν οἱ Λοκροὶ ἑτέρας ἔστελλον. εἰ δέ τινες were sent, murdered them, and burning their
ἐκφύγοιεν, ἀνελθοῦσαι λάθρα εἰς τὸ τῆς ᾽Αθηνᾶς bones with wild barren timber scattered their
ἱερόν, ἔσαιρον αὐτὸ καὶ ἔραινον, τῆι δὲ θεῶι οὐ ashes from the Trojan hill of Traron into the
προσήρχοντο οὐτε τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐξήρχοντο, εἰ µὴ sea. And the Locrians sent others to replace
νύκτωρ. ἦσαν δὲ κεκαρµέναι, µονοχίτωνες καὶ them. But if some of them escaped, going up
ἀνυπόδητοι. πρῶται δὲ τῶν Λοκρίδων παρθένων secretly into the sanctuary of Athena, they
Περίβοια. καὶ Κλεοπάτρα ἀφίκοντο. καὶ πρῶτον swept and watered it, but they did not
µὲν τὰς παρθένους, εἶτα τὰ βρέφη ἐνιαύσια µετὰ approach the goddess nor did they go out from
τῶν τροφῶν αὐτῶν ἔπεµπον οἱ Λοκροί· χιλίων δ᾽ the sanctuary, unless it was night. They were
ἐτῶν παρελθόντων, µετὰ τὸν Φωκικὸν πόλεµον, shorn, wearing a single garment and no shoes.
ἐπαύσαντο τῆς τοιαύτης θυσίας [[ὥς φησι Τίµαιος Periboia and Cleopatra were the first of the
ὁ Σικελός]]. µέµνηται δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ ὁ Locrian maidens to arrive. And at first the
Κυρηναῖος Καλλίµιχος. Locrians sent virgins, but later they sent year-
old infants with their nurses. When a
thousand years had passed, after the Phokian
war, they stopped performing this sacrifice, as
Timaios the Sicilian says. And Kallimachos (F
35 Pfeiffer) the Cyrenean makes mention of
the story.
Commentary
For the relationship between Johannes Tzetzes’ work and Timaios and the question of
intermediary sources, see Commentary to F 95 above. Polybios (12.5.7) wrote of the ‘hundred
families’, which included women who were among the original colonists at Locri. These
families, according to an oracle, were supposed to select girls by lot to be sent to Athena’s
temple at Ilion. The Locrians believed they were bound by custom to obey an oracle they
received in a time of disease and famine in the aftermath of the Trojan War. According to the
oracle, they were being punished for Ajax’s enormities against Cassandra. For this tradition,
see also Lyk. Al. 1141-71; Kallimachos F 35 Pfeiffer; Apoll. Bib. Epit. 6.20-22; Ael. F. 67 H; cf.
Strabo 13.1.40 (C600); Plut. Mor. 557d, with A. Momigliano, ‘The Locrian Maidens and the Date
of Lycophron’s Alexandra’, CQ 39 (1945), 49-53.
BNJ 566 F 147
Source: Censorinus, On the Date of Birth 2.3

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: sacrifice - Library of Congress
Censorinus [Vide: Anonymi historici], On the

Date of Birth, 2.3
denique Deli ad Apollinis Genitoris aram, ut Finally, as Timaios is the authority, no one
Timaeus auctor est, nemo hostiam caedit. slays a sacrificial victim upon the altar of the
Father Delian Apollo.
Commentary
F 147 will have come from the excursus on Pythagoras; Timaios’s interest in Pythagoras and
Pythagoreans is well-attested among fragments from his ninth and tenth books (cf. F 13a, F 13b,
F 14, F 16, F 17, F 131, F 132, with Commentary to F 131). Both Timaios and Aristoxenos of
Tauromenion are likely to have described Pythagoras’s visit to Delos before he went on to Italy
(cf. Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 592); Aristoxenos in his On Pythagoras and His School had
told of Pythagoras attending to and then burying his (supposed) teacher Pherekydes in Delos
(D.L. 1.118). The fragment most certainly belongs to a context in which Timaios discussed the
Pythagorean prohibition on killing living things (cf. Cic. Nat.D. 3.88, with L. Pearson, The Greek
Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 116).
BNJ 566 F 148
Source: Zenobios, Proverbs (Epitome of Lucius of Tarrha and

Didymos of Alexandria) 1.31
Work mentioned:
Zenobios, Epitome of the Collections of

Proverbs by Lucius of Tarrha and Didymos of
Alexandria, 1.31
Ἁρπαγὰ τὰ Κιννάρου· ταύτης µὲν µέµνηται The spoils of Kinnaros. Kallimachos has
Καλλίµαχος ἐν άµβοις. Τίµαιος δὲ ἔφη, ὅτι mentioned this in his Iambi. But Timaios says
Κίνναρος ἐγένετο πορνοβοσκὸς Σελινούσιος · that Kinnaros was a Selinuntine brothel-
Πλουσιώτατος γοὖν ἐκ τῆς ἐργασίας γενόµενος, keeper; becoming exceedingly rich from his
ζῶν µὲν ἐπηγγέλλετο τὴν οὐσίαν ἱερὰν τ’ ᾽Αφροδίτ business, while alive he gave orders to leave his
καταλεῖψαι, τελευτῶν δὲ τὰ ὄντα προθηκεν εἰς property as sacred to Aphrodite, but in dying
ἁρπαγήν. he gave his wealth over to greedy heirs.
Commentary
In the time of Hadrian, the sophist Zenobios made an epitome in three books of the collected
proverbs of Didymos and Lucillus of Tarrhaeus (Corpus Paroemiographorum). Timaios was
interested in the proper use of wealth; for example, he admired Gellias of Akragas, who
magnanimously entertained 500 unexpected guests (F 26a; Diod. 13.83). Kinnaros provided a
negative object lesson – a disreputable, hypocritical, and miserly character. This story may
have occurred in Timaios’s description of the Carthaginian sack of Selinus in 409 BC (F 103).
For Kallimachos, see F 201 Pfeiffer.
BNJ 566 F 149
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 2.5.37B-D

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: etiology - Library of Congress
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 2.5.37B-D

Τίµαιος δὲ ὁ Ταυροµενίτης ἐν ᾽Ακράγαντι οἰκίαν Timaios the Tauromenian says that in Akragas
τινά φησι καλεῖσθαι τριήρη ἐξ αἰτίας τοιαύτης. there is a house called the ‘trireme’ for the
νεανίσκους τινὰς ἐν αὐτῆι µεθυσκοµένους ἐς following reason. Some young men were
τοσοῦτον ἐλθεῖν µανίας, ἐκθερµανθέντας ὑπὸ τῆς drinking there, and they became so wild in
µέθης, ὡς νοµίζειν µὲν ἐπὶ τριήρους πλεῖν, their intoxication they thought they were
χειµάζεσθαι δὲ χαλεπῶς κατὰ τὴν θάλασσαν· καὶ sailing in a trireme, having a difficult time in a
τοσοῦτον ἔκφρονας γενέσθαι, ὡς τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς stormy sea. In the end they so completely lost
οἰκίας πάντα σκεύη καὶ στρώµατα ῥίπτειν ὡς εἰς their senses that they threw out all of the
τὴν θάλασσαν, τὴν ναῦν διὰ τὸν χειµῶνα furniture and bedding, as though upon the
ἀποφορτίζεσθαι δόξαν αὐτοῖς λέγειν τὸν water, believing the admiral had commanded
κυβερνήτην. συναθροιζοµένων οὖν πολλῶν καὶ τὰ them to lighten the ship in the furious storm.
ῥιπτόµενα διαρπαζόντων, οὐδ᾽ ὣς παύεσθαι τῆς Many people gathered around and started
µανίας τοὺς νεανίσκους. καὶ τῆι ἐπιούσηι τῶν carrying away the jetsam, but this did not stop
ἡµερῶν παραγενοµένων τῶν στρατηγῶν ἐπὶ τὴν the young men from their madness. The next
οἰκίαν, ἐγκληθέντες οἱ νεανίσκοι ἔτι ναυτιῶντες day the generals appeared at the house, and
ἀπεκρίναντο πυνθανοµένων τῶν ἀρχόντων, ὑπὸ the young men, still somewhat inebriated,
χειµῶνος ἐνοχλούµενοι ἠναγκάσθαι answered the generals’ questions, stating that
ἀποφορτίσασθαι [τῆι θαλάσσηι] τὰ περιττὰ τῶν hard pressed by the storm they had been
φορτίων. θαυµαζόντων δὲ τῶν στρατηγῶν τὴν forced to throw superfluous cargo overboard.
ἔκπληξιν τῶν ἀνδρῶν, εἷς τῶν νεανίσκων, καίτοι When the authorities were dumbstruck at
δοκῶν τῶν ἄλλων πρεσβεύειν κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν, their folly, one of the young men, who seemed
«ἐγὼ δ᾽» ἔφη «ἄνδρες Τρίτωνες, ὑπὸ τοῦ δέους to be the oldest, said ‘Ye Tritons, I was so
καταβαλὼν ἐµαυτὸν ὑπὸ τοὺς θαλάµους ὡς ἔνι scared I threw myself in the women’s quarters
µάλιστα κατωτάτω ἐκείµην». συγγνόντες οὖν τῆι and stayed there’. The authorities, as a result,
αὐτῶν ἐκστάσει, ἐπιτιµήσαντες µὴ πλείονος οἴνου forgave their delirium, but sentenced them
ἐµφορεῖσθαι, ἀφῆκαν· καὶ οἳ χάριν ἔχειν never to drink again excessively, and let them
ὁµολογήσαντες, «ἂν λιµένος» ἔφη «τύχωµεν go. And readily agreeing they were grateful, ‘If’,
ἀπαλλαγέντες τοσούτου κλύδωνος, Σωτῆρας ὑµᾶς he said, ‘we ever get to port in this dreadful
ἐπιφανεῖς µετὰ τῶν θαλασσίων δαιµόνων ἐν τῆι storm, we shall erect altars to you in our
πατρίδι ἱδρυσόµεθα, ὡς αἰσίως ἡµῖν ἐπιφανέντας». country, as visible Saviors, alongside the sea
ἐντεῦθεν ἡ οἰκία τριήρης ἐκλήθη. gods, because you appeared to us at such an
opportune time. And so the house was called
the ‘trireme’.
Commentary
This anecdotal story of rambunctious Akragantine youth probably belongs in the same
context as the discussion of Akragantine wealth and luxury (F 26). For Timaios’s treatment of
Akragas and its opulence, see L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His
Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 158-63.
BNJ 566 F 150a
Source: Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 2.69

Work mentioned:
Cicero, M. Tullius, On the Nature of the Gods,
2.69
concinneque, ut multa, Timaeus, qui cum in And aptly, as in many ways, Timaios adds to
historia dixisset, qua nocte natus Alexander the account of the burning of the temple of
esset, eadem Dianae Ephesiae templum Ephesian Diana on the night on which
deflagravisse, adiunxit minime id esse Alexander was born, stating that this is
mirandum, quod Diana, cum in partu unsurprising, since Diana was away from
Olympiadis adesse voluisset, afuisset domo. home, desiring to be present for the labor of
Olympias.
Commentary
This tradition ‘proved’ that the Archaic Artemisium of Ephesos was destroyed on the same day
as Alexander’s birth (both events occurred in 356 BC); Alexander was said to have been born
on the sixth day of Hekatombaion (July), perhaps his birth was moved back two or three
months in order to make it coincide with the destruction of the temple (Plut. Alex. 3.3). The
idea is that the temple was unguarded because the goddess was presumably serving as
Olympias’s midwife. Plutarch attributed this witticism to Hegesias of Magnesia (Alex. 3.3-4;
BNJ 142 F 3), whose chronological relationship to Timaios cannot be determined. Plutarch
adds that all the Magi at Ephesos lamented because the temple’s burning indicated that on
that day misfortune and disaster for Asia had been born.
BNJ 566 F 150b

Work mentioned:
AD
temples - Library of Congress

τὸν δὲ νεὼν τῆς ᾽Αρτέµιδος πρῶτος µὲν Regarding the temple of Artemis, its first
Χερσίφρων ἠρχιτεκτόνησεν, εἶτ᾽ ἄλλος ἐποίησε architect was Chersiphron; and someone else
µείζω· ὡς δὲ τοῦτον ῾Ηρόστρατός τις ἐνέπρησεν, made it larger. But when it was set on fire by a
ἄλλον ἀµείνω κατεσκεύασαν, συνενέγκαντες τὸν certain Herostratos, the citizens put up
τῶν γυναικῶν κόσµον καὶ τὰς ἰδίας οὐσίας, another and better one, having collected the
διαθέµενοι δὲ καὶ τοὺς προτέρους κίονας. τούτων women’s jewelry and their own belongings,
δὲ µαρτύριά ἐστι τὰ γενηθέντα τότε ψηφίσµατα, and also having sold the pillars of the earlier
ἅπερ ἀγνοοῦντά φησιν ὁ ᾽Αρτεµίδωρος τὸν temple. Decrees of the time corroborate these
Ταυροµενίτην Τίµαιον, καὶ ἄλλως βάσκανον ὄντα facts. Artemidoros says that Timaios the
καὶ συκοφάντην – διὸ καὶ ᾽Επιτίµαιον κληθῆναι – Tauromenian, not knowing these decrees and
λέγειν, ὡς ἐκ τῶν Περσικῶν παρακαταθηκῶν in any event being an envious and slanderous
ἐποιήσαντο τοῦ ἱεροῦ τὴν ἐπισκευήν· οὐτε δὲ man (for which reason he was also called
ὑπάρξαι παρακαταθήκας τότε, εἴ τε ὑπῆρξαν, Epitimaios (T 11), says that they exacted the
συνεµπεπρῆσθαι τῶι ναῶι· µετὰ δὲ τὴν ἔµπρησιν means for the temple’s restoration from the
τῆς ὀροφῆς ἠφανισµένης, ἐν ὑπαίθρωι τῶι σηκῶι treasures entrusted to them by the Persians.
τίνα ἂν ἐθελῆσαι παρακαταθήκην κειµένην ἔχειν; But there were no treasures at that time
᾽Αλέξανδρον δὴ τοῖς ᾽Εφεσίοις ὑποσχέσθαι τὰ deposited in their care, and, even if there had
γεγονότα καὶ τὰ µέλλοντα ἀναλώµατα, ἐφ᾽ ὧι τε been, they would have been burned along with
τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν αὐτὸν ἔχειν, τοὺς δὲ µὴ ἐθελῆσαι, the temple. And after the fire, when the roof
πολὺ µᾶλλον οὐκ ἂν ἐθελήσαντας ἐξ ἱεροσυλίας was destroyed, who could have wished to keep
καὶ ἀποστερήσεως φιλοδοξεῖν ... treasure lying in a sacred enclosure open to
the sky? Artemidoros adds that Alexander
promised the Ephesians that he would pay all
expenses, both past and future, on the
condition that the inscription credit him for
this, but they were not willing, just as they
would have been far more unwilling to obtain
glory from sacrilege and defilement of the
temple …
Commentary
For the transmission of the story of Herostratos and the burning of Artemis’s temple, see
Jacoby, FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 592; for the legend connecting this event with Alexander’s birth,
see Commentary to F 150a. For Timaios’s pride in utilizing decrees and public documents, see
T 10; cf. Polybios’s castigation of Philinos for not knowing the public records of Romano-
Carthaginian treaties on the Capitoline hill (Polyb. 3.26.1-4; cf. F.W. Walbank, A Historical
Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957), 336-56). For the nickname ‘Epitimaios’ and Timaios’s
reputation as a severe critic, see further T 11, T 16, T 17, T 18, T 19, T 23, T 27, F 5, F 12 c. 11.4, 99.
Artemidoros’s addition to the story was motivated by local patriotism; cf. Commentary to T 27
and F 70.
BNJ 566 F 151

Work mentioned:

12.11.8-12.2
(11.8) ὅτι Τίµαιός φησι µέγιστον ἁµάρτηµα περὶ (11.8) Timaios says that history’s worst vice is
τὴν ἱστορίαν εἶναι τὸ ψεῦδος· διὸ καὶ παραινεῖ mendacity. And so he advises those whom he
τούτοις, οὓς ἂν ἐξελέγξηι διεψευσµένους ἐν τοῖς convicts of falsehood in their works to find
συγγράµµασιν, ἕτερόν τι ζητεῖν ὄνοµα τοῖς another name in their writings, and to call
βιβλίοις, πάντα δὲ µᾶλλον ἢ καλεῖν ἱστορίαν. (12.1) them anything other than history. (12.1)
καθάπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν κανόνων, κἂν ἐλάττων ἦι Timaios says that just as a rule defective in
τῶι µήκει κἂν τῶι πλάτει ταπεινότερος, µετέχηι length and breadth but possessing the
δὲ τῆς τοῦ κανόνος ἰδιότητος, κανόνα φησὶ δεῖν essential quality of a rule must still be called a
προσαγορεύειν ὅµως, ὅταν <δὲ> τῆς εὐθείας καὶ rule, but having no approach to straightness or
τῆς πρὸς ταύτην οἰκειότητος <µὴ> ἐγγίζηι, πάντα any quality close to it, must be called anything
µᾶλλον δεῖν ἢ κανόνα καλεῖν, (2) τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον other than a rule, (2) so in historical writings,
καὶ τῶν συγγραµµάτων ὅσα µὲν ἂν ἢ κατὰ τὴν when they are defective in style, treatment, or
λέξιν ἢ κατὰ τὸν χειρισµὸν ἢ κατ᾽ ἄλλο τι any other particular quality but still strive for
διαµαρτάνηται τῶν ἰδίων µερῶν, ἀντέχηται δὲ τῆς the truth, they may be styled histories; but
ἀληθείας, προσίεσθαί φησι τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας ὄνοµα when they depart from truth they no longer
τὰς βίβλους, ὅταν δὲ ταύτης παραπέσηι, µηκέτι have any claim to the name.
καλεῖσθαι δεῖν ἱστορίαν.
Commentary
Timaios’s comparison of correct historiographical method and the carpenter’s rule is
consistent with his statements on the great efforts he made to consult official documents; see
T 10 with Commentary. Polybios of course goes on to censure Timaios for this very failing (cf. T
19), and he devotes the bulk of Book 12 to condemning Timaios as a historian. For Polybios’s
statements on commitment to truth as the bedrock of historical writing, see Polyb. 1.14.6-9;
12.12.1-3; 13.5.4-6; 16.17.9-10; 20.12.8; 34.4.2, with F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on
Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957), 10-16.
BNJ 566 F 152a

Work mentioned:

12.24.1-3
(1) ... φησὶ γὰρ τοὺς ποιητὰς καὶ συγγραφέας διὰ (1) ... For he says that poets and authors show
τῶν ὑπεράνω πλεονασµῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑποµνήµασι their real natures in their writings by dwelling
διαφαίνειν τὰς ἑαυτῶν φύσεις, (2) λέγων τὸν µὲν excessively on certain matters, maintaining
ποιητὴν ἐκ τοῦ δαιτρεύειν πολλαχοῦ τῆς that the poet (scil. Homer) is constantly
ποιήσεως, ὡς ἂν εἰ γαστρίµαργον παρεµφαίνειν, feasting his heroes, suggesting gluttony, and
τὸν δ᾽ ᾽Αριστοτέλην, ὀψαρτεύοντα πλεονάκις ἐν Aristotle (F 156) often gives recipes in his
τοῖς συγγράµµασιν ὀψοφάγον εἶναι καὶ λίχνον. (3) writings, suggesting an epicure and gourmand.
τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπὶ τοῦ Διονυσίου … In the same way Dionysios (F 111) …
Commentary
For Timaios’s attack on Aristotle, see F 156; for the criticism of Dionysios, see F 111. For
Polybios’s criticism of Timaios for his attacks on Aristotle, Theophrastos, Kallisthenes, Ephoros
and Demochares, on the grounds that Timaios committed the same errors with which he
charged his predecessors, see Commentary to T 19.
BNJ 566 F 152b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.25d

Work mentioned:
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.25d

See T 19
Commentary
Timaios’s zeal for historical literature: See Commentary to T 19.
BNJ 566 F 152c
Source: Polybios, Histories 12, 28-28a

Work mentioned:
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12, 28-

28a
See F 7.
Commentary
History and Epideictic Writing: See Commentary to F 7.
BNJ 566 F 152d

Work mentioned:

12.25a.5
See T 19
Commentary
Treatment of speeches: See Commentary to T 19.
BNJ 566 F 153a

Work mentioned:

... πολλὰ δὲ καὶ Τίµαιος ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις περὶ τῶν Timaios in his Histories freely abused these
προειρηµένων καὶ περὶ ἄλλων βεβλασφήµηκεν. (Athens, Sparta, Thebes?) and others besides.
Commentary
Josephus is commenting on those authors who have besmirched the reputations of the most
illustrious cities. He mentions Theopompos’s attacks on Athens, Polykrates’ slanders against
Sparta (cf. BNJ 588 F 1; Ath. 4.139d), and the author of the Tripolitikos’s abuses of Thebes (cf.
Paus. 6.18.3 on Anaximenes of Lampsakos’s ( BNJ 72) aspersions against Athenians,
Lakedaimonians, and Thebans). Timaios is unlikely to have overtly criticized Athens, in light
of his long sojourn there (see Commentary to T 4a, T 4b, with T.S. Brown, Timaeus of
Tauromenium (Berkeley 1958), 2-3). He discussed the Spartan lawgiver Lykourgos in neutral
terms (F 127, F 128), but he was critical of the Spartan commander Gylippos (F 100a, F 100b, F
100c). But these are remarks on individuals, not states (the phrase to Lakōnikon at Plut. Nik.
28.3 may be from Timaios). Timaios does not expressly comment on Thebes in the extant
fragments (but cf. F 99, on Alkibiades’ travels to Thebes). Thebes and Athens were targets for
Polybios’s censure (6.43.1-44.9).
BNJ 566 F 153b

Work mentioned:

See T 17.
Commentary
Criticism of earlier authors of Σικελικά (Antiochos, Philistos, Kallias): See Commentary to T 17.
BNJ 566 F 153c
Source: Plutarch, Life of Nikias 1

Work mentioned:
Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Nikias, 1

See T 18.
Commentary
Criticism of Thucydides and Philistos: See Commentary to T 18.
BNJ 566 F 154a

Work mentioned:

(1) ἀλλὰ Τίµαιος οὐκ ἄδικον λαβὼν πρόφασιν τὴν (1) But Timaios, taking a not unjust excuse for
ὑπὲρ τῆς τυραννίδος τοῦ Φιλίστου σπουδὴν καὶ his animosity in the enthusiasm and fidelity
πίστιν, ἐµπίµπλαται τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ βλασφηµιῶν, Philistos exhibited in support of the tyranny,
ὧι τοὺς µὲν ἀδικηθέντας τότε συγγνωστόν ἐστιν gluts himself with slanders against him. Those
ἴσως ἄχρι τῆς εἰς ἀναίσθητον ὀργῆς χαλεποὺς wronged by Philistos while he was alive
γενέσθαι, (2) τοὺς δ᾽ ὕστερον συγγράφοντας τὰ perhaps may be pardoned for carrying their
πεπραγµένα, καὶ τῶι µὲν βίωι µὴ λυπηθέντας hatred to the extent of abusing his lifeless
αὐτοῦ, τῶι δὲ λόγωι χρωµένους, ἡ δόξα body; (2) but those who write later, and who
παραιτεῖται µὴ µεθ᾽ ὕβρεως µηδὲ µετὰ were not harmed by his life, but avail
βωµολοχίας ὀνειδίζειν τὰς συµφοράς, ὧν οὐδὲν themselves of his work, for these his
ἀπέχει καὶ τὸν ἄριστον ἀνδρῶν ἐκ τύχης reputation demands that they not reproach
µετασχεῖν. him in insolent and abusive language, for
misfortunes which may beset the best of men.
Commentary
For Timaios’s hatred of and polemic against Philistos of Syracuse ( BNJ 556), see
Commentaries to T 17 and T 18, F 29, F 97, F 113, and F 115.
BNJ 566 F 154b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.23

Work mentioned:
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.23
Se T 17, T 19, F 7.
Commentary
Criticism of Ephoros. For Timaios’s polemics against earlier historians, see Commentaries to T
17, T 19, and F 7.
BNJ 566 F 154c

Work mentioned:
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.4a.2

F 117
Commentary
Criticism of Theopompos: See Commentary to F 117.
BNJ 566 F 155a
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.12b.2-3

Work mentioned:
12.12b.2-3
(2) ἐκεῖνος γὰρ κόλακα µὲν εἶναί φησι τὸν (2) He calls Kallisthenes a flatterer, who writes
Καλλισθένην τοιαῦτα γράφοντα, καὶ πλεῖστον in a similar manner, and charges that he is far
ἀπέχειν φιλοσοφίας, κόραξί τε προσέχοντα καὶ from being a philosopher, giving attention as
κορυβαντιώσαις γυναιξί, δικαίως δ᾽ αὐτὸν ὑπ᾽ he does to crows and frenzied women. He
᾽Αλεξάνδρου τετευχέναι τιµωρίας διεφθαρκότα approves of Alexander’s punishing him, since
τὴν ἐκείνου ψυχὴν καθ᾽ ὅσον οἷός τ᾽ ἦν. (3) καὶ he had corrupted his mind as far as he could.
Δηµοσθένην µὲν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ῥήτορας τοὺς (3) He praises Demosthenes and the other
κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν ἀκµάσαντας ἐπαινεῖ, καί orators flourishing at the time, saying they
φησι τῆς ῾Ελλάδος ἀξίους γεγονέναι, διότι ταῖς were worthy of Hellas because they opposed
᾽Αλεξάνδρου τιµαῖς ταῖς ἰσοθέοις ἀντέλεγον, τὸν conferring divine honors upon Alexander,
δὲ φιλόσοφον αἰγίδα καὶ κεραυνὸν <περι>τιθέντα while the philosopher who invested a human
θνητῆι φύσει δικαίως αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιµονίου being with aegis and thunderbolt was justly
τετευχέναι τούτων ὧν ἔτυχεν. chastised by the divine with the fate that
overcame him.
Commentary
For Timaios’s attacks against Kallisthenes, see T 19, F 119a, with Commentaries. For Timaios on
Demosthenes (and Demochares), see Commentary to F 35a.
BNJ 566 F 155b
Source: Polybios, Histories 12.13-15

Work mentioned:
Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.13-

15
See F 35a and F 35b.
Commentary
Criticism of Demochares: See Commentary to F 35a and F 35b.
BNJ 566 F 155c

Work mentioned:

See T 18.
Commentary
Attack on Plato: See Commentary to T 18.
BNJ 566 F 156

Work mentioned:

4
(1) ... ἀπεχθείαι καὶ πικρίαι κατὰ τῶν πέλας οἵαι (1) … such animosity and bitter temper against
κέχρηται Τίµαιος κατὰ ᾽Αριστοτέλους. (2) φησὶ one’s fellows as Timaios (exhibits) against
γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶναι θρασύν, εὐχερῆ, προπετῆ, πρὸς δὲ Aristotle. (2) He charges that he is arrogant,
τούτοις κατατετολµηκέναι τῆς τῶν Λοκρῶν reckless, and strong-willed, and adds that he
πόλεως, εἰπόντα τὴν ἀποικίαν αὐτῶν εἶναι had the audacity to attack the polis of the
δραπετῶν, οἰκετῶν, µοιχῶν, ἀνδραποδιστῶν. (3) Locrians by maintaining that the colony was
καὶ ταῦτα λέγειν αὐτόν φησιν οὕτως ἀξιοπίστως, comprised of fugitive slaves, lackeys,
ὥστε δοκεῖν ἕνα τῶν ἐστρατηγηκότων ὑπάρχειν adulterers, and kidnappers. (3) And he says
καὶ τοὺς Πέρσας ἐν ταῖς Κιλικίαις πύλαις ἄρτι that all this is relayed with such an assumption
παρατάξει νενικηκότα διὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάµεως, of trustworthiness that one would think he is
(4) ἀλλ᾽ οὐ σοφιστὴν ὀψιµαθῆ καὶ µισητὸν one of those back from campaign who had just
ὑπάρχοντα καὶ τὸ πολυτίµητον ἰατρεῖον ἀρτίως by his own power defeated the Persians in a
ἀποκεκλεικότα· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις εἰς πᾶσαν αὐλὴν battle at the Kilikian gates, (4) but not for what
καὶ σκηνὴν ἐµπεπηδηκότα · πρὸς δὲ he is, a pedantic and hateful sophist who had
γαστρίµαργον, ὀψαρτυτήν, ἐπὶ στόµα φερόµενον just locked up his precious surgeon's shop.
ἐν πᾶσι. Besides this he says he had forced his way into
every court and stage, being a glutton and
epicure pandering to his mouth in everything.
Commentary
For Timaios’s attacks against Aristotle, see T 18 and T 19, F 11a with Commentary (Locrians; cf.
Commentary to F 130a), F 11b. For the nickname ‘Epitimaios’, see Commentary to T 11.
BNJ 566 F 157
Source: Polybios, Histories 405-406

Work mentioned:
Scholia, 405-406
... µάτην οὖν λέγουσιν οἱ περὶ Τίµαιον ῾Ησιόδωι ... The followers of Timaios therefore idly say
τὸν ᾽Αριστοτέλην πειθόµενον µετὰ τὴν τῆς that Aristotle, being persuaded by the example
γυναικὸς τελευτὴν ῾Ερπυλλίδι συνεῖναι τῆι of Hesiod, after the death of his wife cohabited
θεραπαίνηι, ἐξ ἧς αὐτὸν σχεῖν υἱόν. with Herpyllis his handmaid, with whom he
had a son.
Commentary
See references in Commentary to F 156. For the biographical tradition on Aristotle, see I.
Düring, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Gothenburg 1957; repr. New York 1987).
For criticism of Theophrastos, see Polybios 12.23.8 (T 19) and Commentary to T 19.
BNJ 566 F 158a
Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 10.49.437b

Work mentioned:
Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 10.49.437b

Τίµαιος δέ φησι, ὡς «Διονύσιος ὁ τύραννος τῆι τῶν Timaios says, ‘Dionysios the tyrant at the Feast
Χοῶν ἑορτῆι τῶι πρώτωι ἐκπιόντι χοᾶ ἆθλον of the Pitchers offered a golden crown as a
ἔθηκε στέφανον χρυσοῦν», καὶ ὅτι «πρῶτος ἐξέπιε prize to the man who first quaffed his pitcher;
Ξενοκράτης ὁ φιλόσοφος, καὶ λαβὼν τὸν χρυσοῦν and the first to do so was the philosopher
στέφανον καὶ ἀναλύων τῶι ῾Ερµῆι τῶι ὶδρυµένωι Xenokrates, who took the golden crown, and
ἐπὶ τῆς αὐλῆς ἐπέθηκεν, ὧι περ εἰώθει καὶ τοὺς as he left the party he placed it on the statue of
ἀνθινοὺς ἑκάστοτε ἐπιτιθέναι στεφάνους, ἑσπέρας Hermes which was located in the court, and
ἀπαλλασσόµενος ὡς αὑτόν»· καὶ ἐπὶ τούτωι on which he used to place crowns of flowers
ἐθαυµάσθη. whenever he went home in the evening’. And
for this he was admired.
Commentary
Plutarch (Dion 7.1-4) says that Dionysios II’s friends gained power by gratifying the tyrant’s
desires, giving Dionysios every sort of chance for self-indulgence. But they hoped that he
would counter Dion’s influence. Xenokrates was Plato’s student and head of the Academy from
339 to 314 BC. For Plato and the Academy and connections with Syracusan rulers, see P.A.
Brunt, Studies in Greek History and Thought (Oxford 1993), 314-30. The fragment is an example
of the topos of hybristic king and sage philosopher.
BNJ 566 F 158b
Source: Philodemos, History of Academic Philosophers (P. Herc.

1021) VIII (IV) pp. 138-139 (ed. Dorandi)
Work mentioned:
Philodemos, Herculanean Index of Academic

Philosophers (ed. Mekler), col. 8, 11; p. 43
Τί[µαιος δὲ] | τοῦτον [..]ΛEΓ[.].[......|.]Ε[..]  And Timaios (blames) this man ... and some
AIKE[- - -]|20 ἥττων ΑΙΓΑΣ[- - -| - - -|...] authors write concerning him that ... and ...
γράφ[ου]σι δέ τι[νες | περὶ α]ὐτοῦ [δ]ιότι happened during ... to hear ... around the
<<Υ[....|.....]ΤΕΝ[.]ΝΗΝ[.......|25..]Υ[...] celebration ... for the revelers. One hundred
golden pitchers were brought in for one
καὶ Δ[..]ΠΑ[.......]|ΓΕς− hundred drinkers by the slave attendants, and
one full pitcher of wine was placed before
ΝΥΠ[...]ςΝ[.......]|ΕΝΟΥΔΙ ΞΨ[..]ΙΑΝ
each of the guests, and a great and beautiful
[.......]|ΡΗ γενέσθαι καθ’.[.....]|ΗΝ αριον golden crown was placed in the middle of the
room upon a tripod, and he (scil. Dionysios)
[..........|30..]ΑΝ.ἀκοῦσαι δ’ ΟΥ[...|.....]Α περὶ τὴν said he would give it to the first to drink off the
ἑορτ[ὴν.| Τ[...]ΛΟΣ[- - -]| ΤςΙ wine. Xenokrates being victorious took it and
ΔΙΑΙΤς[..]ΑΙΤΟ[.]ΜΗ[....|..]  placed it on Hermes, as was his custom to do
ΤΗΝΑΓς[.].ΑΣ[.....]Σ ἐπὶ]|35 δ[η]µο[ῦ]ντας. with flowers. When this act became known he
ἑκατ[ὸ]ν δὲ [γε]|νοµέ<ν>ων τῶν π[ινόν]των | was admired all the more, he who showing
[ἑκ]ατὸν χόες εἰσ[ηνέ]χ{σ}θη|σ[α]ν χρυσο τῶ̣ ι contempt for gold made such a decision on the
πότωι [ὑ]πὸ [τ]ῶ[ν] παίδων, καὶ παρατεθέντος|40 spot.
ἑνὸς ἑκάστωι πλήρο[υς] οἴνου|καὶ χρυσοῦ
στεφά[νου] µεγ[ά]λου τ[ε] | [[τε]] καὶ καλοῦ
τεθέντος εἰς | τὸ µέσον ἐπὶ τριποδίου, τῶι | πρώτωι
π[ιό]ντι τὸν οἶν[ον]|45 δώσειν ἔφη·
καὶ νικήσας [ε]νοκράτης ἔλα[βε]ν αὐ[τὸν
κἀ]||πὶ τὸν ῾Ερµῆν ἀπέθετο, κα|θάπερ εἰώθει τοὺς

[ἀ]νθι|νούς. διαδοθείσης δὲ [τ]ῆς | πράξεως
ἐθαυµάσθ[η] µᾶλ|5λον ὁ τὸ χρυσίον ὑπ[ερι]δὼν |
τοῦ τοσαῦτα παρεσκ[ε]υακ[ό]|τος αὐθηµερόν.
Commentary
See Commentary to F 158a. For the Philodemos papyrus, the text of T. Dorandi, Storia dei
filosofi: Platone e l’Academia (Naples 1991) now supersedes the older edition of S. Mekler
(Berlin 1902).
BNJ 566 F 158c

Philosophers 8.71
Work mentioned:

8.71
See F 6.
Commentary
Criticism of Herakleides Pontikos: See Commentary to F 6.
BNJ 566 F 159
Source: Aelian, Historical Miscellany 4.7

Work mentioned:
Aelian (Claudius Aelianus), Historical

Miscellany, 4.7
Λακεδαιµόνιοι γοῦν Παυσανίαν µηδίσαντα οὐ The Lakedaimonians not only starved
µόνον λιµῶι ἀπέκτειναν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὸν νεκρὸν Pausanias to death for having medized, but
ἐξέβαλον αὐτοῦ ἐκτὸς τῶν ὅρων, φησὶν they cast his body outside the boundaries of
᾽Επιτιµίδης. the polis, as Epitimides reports.
Commentary
F 159 is doubtfully included here as a fragment of Timaios: Timaios is not explicitly

mentioned; indeed he is mentioned only once in Aelian’s Historical Miscellany (12.29; F 26c).
Jacoby (FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 592-93 ad F 159-163; he regarded F 151-161 as particularly
‘Zweifelhaftes’), admits that the attribution of these fragments to Timaios is highly uncertain;
he did not discuss F 159 in particular (but cf. ‘dem Historiker gehören am ehesten F 162/63’). In
any event, Aelian alludes in this passage to the bizarre story of the Spartan king Pausanias, son
of Kleombrotos of the Agiad line, the self-proclaimed hero of Plataia (479 BC), whose
subsequent medizing and alleged socio-economic revolutionary schemes led to his
condemnation and taking refuge from the Spartan ephors in the sanctuary of the Goddess of
the Bronze House on the Spartan acropolis, where he starved to death. Later, however, the
Spartan authorities, obeying instructions from the Delphic oracle, attempted to absolve the
Spartan community of pollution for these events by relocating his remains in the sanctuary,
erecting a statue and hero-shrine in his honor (see Thuc. 1.95, 128-35; cf. Hdt. 5.32; 8.3; 9
passim). Epitimides is not otherwise known.
BNJ 566 F 160
Source: Aelian, On the Nature of Animals 17.15

Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: animals - Library of Congress
Aelian (Claudius Aelianus), On the Nature of

Animals, 17.15
Τίµαιος δὲ καὶ ῾Ηρακλείδης καὶ Νεοκλῆς ὁ ἰατρὸς Timaios and Herakleides and Neokles the
λέγουσι τοὺς φρύνους δύο ἥπατα ἔχειν, καὶ τὸ µὲν physician say that toads have two livers, and
ἀποκτείνειν, τὸ δὲ ἐκείνου πεφυκέναι ἀντίπαλον · that one of them is deadly, and that the other
σώζειν γάρ. is by nature its opposite, for it brings health.
Commentary
F 160 is one of the two citations of Timaios in Aelian (the other is VH 12.29). The Herakleides
cited here is probably the 1st-century BC Tarentine physician, one of the great empirical
physicians of the ancient world (cf. Gal. 9.775; D.L. 5.94; H. Gossen, ‘Herakleides (54)’, RE 8
(1913), cols. 493-6). Neokles is known only from this fragment, unless we are to identify him
with the Krotoniate physician mentioned by Athenaios (2.57f); see K. Deichgräber, ‘Neokles
(7)’, RE 16 (1935), col. 2422). For marvelous and paradoxical elements in Timaios’s
historiography, see Commentary to T 15a.
BNJ 566 F 161
Source: Pseudo-Plutarch, Opinions of the Philosophers 5.18.428.1

(H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci)
Work mentioned:
Fragment subject: childbirth - Library of Congress
Pseudo-Plutarch, Opinions of the

Philosophers (H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci),
5.18.428.1
Τίµαιος δ᾽ οὐδὲ δέκα µῆνάς φησιν, ἐννέα δὲ Timaios says that not nine but ten months are
νοµίζεσθαι παρὰ τὰς ἐπισχέσεις τῶν µηνιαίων † reckoned throughout the time in which
τὰ πρὸ τῆς συλλήψεως. οὕτω καὶ τὰ ἑπτάµηνα menses has stopped …† before the pregnancy.
νοµίζεσθαι, οὐκ ὄντα ἑπτάµηνα· † ἔγνω τε γὰρ καὶ Thus also seventh months are reckoned, not
µετὰ τὴν σύλληψιν πόσαι καθάρσεως. actually being seven months. † For he knew
how many there are of purification after the
pregnancy.
Commentary
Timaios’s calculation of the term of pregnancy conforms to the common opinion of classical
authors, as summarized by Aulus Gellius (NA 3.16): ‘Both physicians and philosophers of
distinction have investigated the duration of the period of gestation in man. The general
opinion, now accepted as correct, is that after the womb of a woman has conceived the seed,
the child is born rarely in the seventh month, never in the eighth, often in the ninth, more
often in the tenth in number; and that the end of the tenth month, not its beginning, is the
extreme limit of human gestation’ (cf. NA 3.20, the authority of Hippokrates).
BNJ 566 F 162

Work mentioned:

12.12a.1-3
(1) ὅτι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀθετούντων τὰς ὁµολογίας (1) There is this proverb concerning treaty-
προφερόµεθα ταύτην τὴν παροιµίαν Λοκροὶ τὰς breakers, ‘the Locrians and the pact’, and †
συνθήκας. τοῦτο δέ † τις ἐξιστόρηκεν, ὅτι καὶ someone has related that, as both authors and
παρὰ τοῖς συγγραφεῦσι καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις others agree, (2) at the time of the invasion of
ἀνθρώποις ὁµολογούµενόν ἐστι, (2) διότι κατὰ τὴν the Herakleidai the Locrians promised the
τῶν ῾Ηρακλειδῶν ἔφοδον συνθεµένων τῶν Λοκρῶν Peloponnesians to raise war signals if the
τοῖς Πελοποννησίοις πολεµίους πυρσοὺς αἴρειν, Herakleidai attempted a crossing at Rhion,
ἐὰν συµβῆι τοὺς ῾Ηρακλείδας µὴ κατὰ τὸν ἰσθµὸν choosing not to pass by the Isthmus, in order
ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ῾Ρίον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν διάβασιν, χάριν that due warning could be issued and
τοῦ προαισθανοµένους φυλάξασθαι τὴν ἔφοδον preventative measure taken. (3) But the
αὐτῶν. (3) οὐ ποιησάντων δὲ τῶν Λοκρῶν τοῦτο, Locrians did not do this, but on the contrary
πᾶν δὲ τοὐναντίον φιλίους ἀράντων πυρσούς, ὅτε they raised friendly signals when the
παρῆσαν, τοὺς µὲν ῾Ηρακλείδας συνέβη µετ᾽ Herakleidai arrived, with the result that they
ἀσφαλείας χρῆσθαι τῆι διαβάσει, τοὺς δὲ safely made the crossing, and the
Πελοποννησίους κατολιγωρήσαντας µαθεῖν Peloponnesians were betrayed in this way and
παραδεξαµένους εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν τοὺς ὑπεναντίους, failed to take any precaution, before they were
παρασπονδηθέντας ὑπὸ τῶν Λοκρῶν. awake to the fact that their enemies had
entered their territory.
Commentary
The story of the ‘Locrian oath’, like the tale of the Trojan horse, was a proverbial example of
perfidy and treachery. Polybios (12.6.1-6) relays an early treaty struck between the Locrians and
the Sikels. When, Polybios states, the Locrians first arrived in Sicily they found Sikels in the
region they were later to inhabit. The Sikels were fearful of the Locrians, and they made a pact
with them that the two peoples should remain friends as long as they walked upon the same
earth and had heads on their shoulders. But before taking the oath the Locrians had put some
earth into the soles of their shoes and concealed heads of garlic on their shoulders, beneath
their dress. In this way they swore the oath, only later to remove the earth and garlic, which
technically freed them from their pledge and allowed them to expel the Sikels. For variants on
the story, see F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 337.
BNJ 566 F 163
Source: Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnika, s.v. Χάλκεια

Work mentioned:
Stephanos of Byzantium , Ethnica, Χάλκεια

πόλις Λιβύης· ὁ Πολυίστωρ ἐν Λιβυκῶν γ̄ «ὡς Polis of Libya. Polyhistor records in the third
Δηµοσθένης, ὧι µεµφόµενος Πολύβιος ἐν τῶι ιβ book of his Libyka ( BNJ 273 F 46) ‘as
ὧδε γράφει· ἀγνοεῖ δὲ µεγάλως καὶ περὶ τῶν Demosthenes, whom Polybios blames in his
χαλκείων· οὐδὲ γὰρ πόλις ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ twelfth book (1.5), writing thus, “he is
χαλκουργεῖα». exceedingly ignorant of bronze-working; for it
is not a polis but rather a copper-mine”’.
Commentary
Alexander Polyhistor of Milesia ( BNJ 273) was a 1st-century BC polymath and ethnographer,
who wrote thaumata and compiled geographical books; he also wrote on the history of
philosophy and on place-names. The reading ‘Demosthenes’ is doubtful. It is possible that the
author in question is Demosthenes of Bithynia, an epic poet. But he cannot be dated securely
and there is no evidence that he ever wrote anything on Libya. In any event, epic poets are not
typical Polybian targets of criticism (Polybios was an admirer and defender of Homer).
Various alternatives have been suggested. Of these, Timosthenes is the most plausible. This
man was Ptolemy Philadelphos’s admiral who wrote on African geography (see Strabo 2.1
(C92); 9.3 (C421), for Timosthenes’ On Harbors). The copper-mines may be those in
Mauretania mentioned by Ptolemy (4.2.5) and Strabo (17.11 (C830)). See F.W. Walbank, A
Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967), 318-19.
BNJ 566 F 164
Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 5.2.1-23.5

Work mentioned:

23.5
(2.1) ... [[καὶ ταύτην τὴν βίβλον ἐπιγράφοντες (2.1) ... [[And since I have called this book
Νησιωτικήν, ἀκολούθως τῆι γραφῆι περὶ πρώτης ‘Islands’, in accordance with this title I shall
τῆς Σικελίας ἐροῦµεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ κρατίστη τῶν first write about Sicily, since it is the strongest
νήσων ἐστὶ καὶ τῆι παλαιότητι τῶν of the islands and has primacy in respect of
µυθολογουµένων πεπρώτευκεν]]. (2) ἡ γὰρ νῆσος the antiquity of its mythology]]. (2) In
τὸ παλαιὸν ἀπὸ µὲν τοῦ σχήµατος Τρινακρία antiquity the island was called Trinakria, from
κληθεῖσα, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν κατοικησάντων αὐτὴν its shape, then Sikania after the Sicanians, who
Σικανῶν Σικανία προσαγορευθεῖσα, τελευταῖον δὲ colonized it, finally it has been given the name
ἀπὸ Σικελῶν τῶν ἐκ τῆς ᾽Ιταλίας πανδηµεὶ of Sicily after the Sikeli who crossed over en
περαιωθέντων ὠνόµασται Σικελία. ἔστι δ᾽ αὐτῆς ἡ masse from Italy. Its circumference is about
περίµετρος σταδίων ὡς τετρακισχιλίων 4,360 stades; for of its three sides, that
τριακοσίων ἑξήκοντα· τῶν γὰρ τριῶν πλευρῶν ἡ extending from Pelorias to Lilybaeum is 1,700
µὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Πελωριάδος ἐπὶ τὸ Λιλύβαιον stades, that from Lilybaeum to Pachynos in the
ὑπάρχει σταδίων χιλίων ἑπτακοσίων, ἡ δ᾽ ἀπὸ territory of Syracuse is 1,500, and the
Λιλυβαίου µέχρι Παχύνου τῆς Συρακοσίας χώρας remaining side is 1,140 stades. (3) The Sikeliotai
σταδίων χιλίων καὶ πεντακοσίων, ἡ δ᾽ living on the island have received the tradition
ἀπολειποµένη σταδίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν from their ancestors, being transmitted from
τεσσαράκοντα. (3) οἱ ταύτην οὖν κατοικοῦντες earliest times successively from one
Σικελιῶται παρειλήφασι παρὰ τῶν προγόνων, ἀεὶ generation to the next, that the island is sacred
τῆς φήµης ἐξ αἰῶνος παραδεδοµένης τοῖς to Demeter and Kore. On the other hand, there
ἐκγόνοις, ἱερὰν ὑπάρχειν τὴν νῆσον Δήµητρος καὶ are certain poets who relay the myth that at
Κόρης· ἔνιοι δὲ τῶν ποιητῶν µυθολογοῦσι κατὰ the marriage of Pluto and Persephone Zeus
τὸν τοῦ Πλούτωνος καὶ Φερσεφόνης γάµον ὑπὸ gave the island as a wedding gift to the bride.
Διὸς ἀνακάλυπτρα τῆι νύµφηι δεδόσθαι ταύτην (4) The leading authorities among the
τὴν νῆσον. (4) τοὺς δὲ κατοικοῦντας αὐτὴν τὸ historians state that the Sicanians, ancient
παλαιὸν Σικανοὺς αὐτόχθονας εἷναί φασιν οἱ inhabitants of Sicily, were indigenous, and also
νοµιµώτατοι τῶν συγγραφέων, καὶ τάς τε that the goddesses I have mentioned made
προειρηµένας θεὰς ἐν ταύτηι τῆι νήσωι πρώτως their first appearance on this island, and that it
φανῆναι, καὶ τὸν τοῦ σίτου καρπὸν ταύτην πρώτην was the first, because of the soil’s fertility to
ἀνεῖναι διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν τῆς χώρας, περὶ ὧν καὶ τὸν produce grain, facts which the most renowned
ἐπιφανέστατον τῶν ποιητῶν µαρτυρεῖν λέγοντα of the poets also attests to when he (Hom., Od.
«ἀλλὰ τά γ᾽ ἄσπαρτα καὶ ἀνήροτα πάντα φύονται 9.107-9) writes, ‘But there all these things grow
/ πυροὶ καὶ κριθαὶ ἠδ᾽ ἄµπελοι, αἵ τε φέρουσιν / for them unsown/and even untilled, yes, both
οἶνον ἐριστάφυλον, καί σφιν Διὸς ὄµβρος ἀέξει»· wheat and barley/and vines, yielding such
ἔν τε γὰρ τῶι Λεοντίνωι πεδίωι καὶ κατὰ πολλοὺς wine as fine grapes give/and rain of Zeus gives
ἄλλους τόπους τῆς Σικελίας µέχρι τοῦ νῦν φύεσθαι them increase’. In the Leontine plain, indeed,
τοὺς ἀγρίους ὀνοµαζοµένους πυρούς. (5) καθόλου as we are told, and throughout many other
δὲ [πρὸ τῆς εὑρέσεως τοῦ σίτου] ζητουµένου κατὰ parts of Sicily the so-called wild wheat grows
ποίαν τῆς οἰκουµένης γῆς πρῶτον ἐφάνησαν οἱ even to this day. (5) In general terms, [before
προειρηµένοι καρποί, εἰκός ἐστιν ἀποδίδοσθαι τὸ the grain was discovered], if one were to ask
πρωτεῖον τῆι κρατίστηι χώραι· καὶ τὰς θεὰς δὲ τὰς the question, what kind of land it was of the
εὑρούσας ἀκολούθως τοῖς εἰρηµένοις ὁρᾶν ἐστι inhabited earth where the fruits I have
µάλιστα τιµωµένας παρὰ τοῖς Σικελιώταις. (3.1) mentioned appeared first, the honored
καὶ τῆς ἁρπαγῆς τῆς κατὰ τὴν Κόρην ἐν ταύτηι designation may reasonably be given to the
γενοµένης, ἀπόδειξιν εἶναι λέγουσι φανερωτάτην, richest land. And in accordance with what I
ὅτι τὰς διατριβὰς αἱ θεαὶ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν νῆσον have stated, we may also observe that the
ἐποιοῦντο διὰ τὸ στέργεσθαι µάλιστα παρ᾽ αὐταῖς goddesses who made this discovery are those
ταύτην. (2) γενέσθαι δὲ µυθολογοῦσι τὴν ἁρπαγὴν who receive the highest honors among the
τῆς Κόρης ἐν τοῖς λειµῶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ῎Ενναν. Sikeliotai.
ἔστι δ᾽ ὁ τόπος οὗτος πλησίον µὲν τῆς πόλεως, ἴοις
δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄνθεσι παντοδαποῖς ἐκπρεπὴς (3.1) Again, people say that the fact that the
καὶ τῆς θεᾶς ἄξιος. διὰ δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν φυοµένων rape of Kore happened in Sicily is the most
ἀνθῶν εὐωδίαν λέγεται τοὺς κυνηγεῖν εἰωθότας evident proof that the goddesses made this
κύνας µὴ δύνασθαι στιβεύειν, ἐµποδιζοµένους τὴν island their favorite place of repose because it
φυσικὴν αἴσθησιν. ἔστι δ᾽ ὁ προειρηµένος † was cherished by them above all other places.
λειµὼν ἄνωθεν µὲν ὁµαλὸς καὶ παντελῶς εὔυδρος, (2) And the myth relates that the rape of Kore
κύκλωι δὲ ὑψηλὸς καὶ πανταχόθεν κρηµνοῖς happened in the meadows of the land of Enna.
ἀπότοµος· δοκεῖ δ᾽ ἐν µέσωι κεῖσθαι τῆς ὅλης The actual spot is near the polis, a place of
νήσου, διὸ καὶ Σικελίας ὀµφαλὸς ὑπό τινων striking beauty with its violets and every other
προσαγορεύεται. (3) ἔχει δὲ [καὶ πλησίον] ἄλση type of flower, worthy of the goddess. And it is
καὶ λειµῶνας καὶ περὶ ταῦτα ἕλη, καὶ <πλησίον> said that because of the sweet fragrance of the
σπήλαιον εὐµέγεθες, ἔχον χάσµα κατάγειον πρὸς flowers growing there, trained hunting dogs
τὴν ἄρκτον νενευκός, δι᾽ οὗ µυθολογοῦσι τὸν cannot hold the trail, because their natural
Πλούτωνα µεθ᾽ ἅρµατος ἐπελθόντα ποιήσασθαι sense of smell is confounded. And the †
τὴν ἁρπαγὴν τῆς Κόρης. τὰ δὲ ἴα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων meadow I have mentioned is level in the
ἀνθῶν τὰ παρεχόµενα τὴν εὐωδίαν παραδόξως δι᾽ center and well watered throughout, but on its
ὅλου τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ παραµένειν θάλλοντα καὶ τὴν periphery it rises and then falls with
ὅλην πρόσοψιν ἀνθηρὰν καὶ ἐπιτερπῆ precipitous cliffs all around. And it is
παρεχόµενα. (4) µυθολογοῦσι δὲ µετὰ τῆς Κόρης conceived of as lying in the exact center of the
τὰς τῆς ὁµοίας παρθενίας ἠξιωµένας ᾽Αθηνᾶν τε island, for which reason some writers call it
καὶ ῎Αρτεµιν συντρεφοµένας συνάγειν µετ᾽ αὐτῆς the navel of Sicily. (3) There are also sacred
τὰ ἄνθη καὶ κατασκευάζειν κοινῆι τῶι πατρὶ Διὶ groves [nearby], surrounded by marshy flats,
τὸν πέπλον. διὰ δὲ τὰς µετ᾽ ἀλλήλων διατριβάς τε and <nearby> a large grotto containing a
καὶ ὁµιλίας ἁπάσας στέρξαι τὴν νῆσον ταύτην chasm which leads down into the earth and
µάλιστα, καὶ λαχεῖν ἑκάστην αὐτῶν χώραν· τὴν opens to the north. The myth relates that
µὲν ᾽Αθηνᾶν ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὸν ῾Ιµέραν µέρεσιν, ἐν through it Pluto came driving with his chariot
οἷς τὰς µὲν Νύµφας χαριζοµένας ᾽Αθηνᾶι τὰς τῶν and committed the rape of Kore. And the
θερµῶν ὑδάτων ἀνεῖναι πηγὰς κατὰ τὴν violets, we are told, and the other flowers
῾Ηρακλέους παρουσίαν, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐγχωρίους πόλιν supplying the sweet odors amazingly continue
αὐτῆι καθιερῶσαι καὶ χώραν τὴν ὀνοµαζοµένην to bloom throughout the year, so that the
µέχρι τοῦ νῦν ᾽Αθήναιον· (5) τὴν δ᾽ ῎Αρτεµιν τὴν entire aspect of the place is one of flowers and
ἐν ταῖς Συρακούσαις νῆσον λαβεῖν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν joyfulness. (4) And both Athena and Artemis,
τὴν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνης ᾽Ορτυγίαν ὑπό τε τῶν χρησµῶν as the myth has it, who made the same choice
καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὀνοµασθεῖσαν. ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ of virginity as had Kore and were raised
κατὰ τὴν νῆσον ταύτην ἀνεῖναι τὰς Νύµφας together with her, joined with her in gathering
ταύτας χαριζοµένας τῆι ᾽Αρτέµιδι µεγίστην flowers, and together they all wove the robe for
πηγὴν τὴν ὀνοµαζοµένην ᾽Αρέθουσαν. (6) ταύτην their father Zeus. And on account of the times
δ᾽ [[οὐ µόνον κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχαίους χρόνους]] ἔχειν spent together and all their gatherings they
µεγάλους καὶ πολλούς ἰχθύας, [[ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ loved this island the most, and each one took a
τὴν ἡµετέραν ἡλικίαν διαµένειν συµβαίνει part of it as her own, with Athena receiving
τούτους]], ἱεροὺς ὄντας καὶ ἀθίκτους ἀνθρώποις· hers in the region of Himera, where the
ἐξ ὧν πολλάκις τινῶν κατὰ τὰς πολεµικὰς Nymphs, in order to please her, caused the
περιστάσεις φαγόντων, παραδόξως ἐπεσήµηνε τὸ springs of warm water to flow forth when
θεῖον, καὶ µεγάλαις συµφοραῖς περιέβαλε τοὺς Herakles visited the island, and the
τολµήσαντας προσενέγκασθαι [[περὶ ὧν ἀκριβῶς inhabitants consecrated a polis to her and a
ἀναγράψοµεν ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις χρόνοις]]. (4.1) plot of land which to this day is called
ὁµοίως δὲ ταῖς προειρηµέναις δυσὶ θεαῖς καὶ τὴν Athena’s. (5) Artemis obtained from the gods
Κόρην λαχεῖν τοὺς περὶ τὴν ῎Ενναν λειµῶνας, the island at Syracuse named after her, by both
πηγὴν δὲ µεγάλην αὐτῆι καθιερωθῆναι ἐν τῆι oracles and by men, Ortygia. Here the Nymphs
Συρακοσίαι τὴν ὀνοµαζοµένην Κυάνην. (2) τὸν similarly, to please Artemis, made a great
γὰρ Πλούτωνα µυθολογοῦσι τὴν ἁρπαγὴν fountain gush forth that was called Arethousa.
ποιησάµενον ἀποκοµίσαι τὴν Κόρην ἐφ᾽ ἅρµατος (6) This fountain [[not only in ancient times]]
πλησίον τῶν Συρακουσῶν, καὶ τὴν γῆν contained large fish in great numbers, [[but in
ἀναρρήξαντα αὐτὸν µὲν µετὰ τῆς ἁρπαγείσης our own time we still find these fish there]],
δῦναι καθ᾽ ῞Αιδου, πηγὴν δ᾽ ἀνεῖναι τὴν thought to be holy and not to be touched by
ὀνοµαζοµένην Κυάνην, πρὸς ἧι κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν οἱ men. On many occasions, when certain men
Συρακόσιοι πανήγυριν ἐπιφανῆ συντελοῦσι· καὶ have eaten them in the trying times of war, the
θύουσιν οἱ µὲν ἰδιῶται τὰ ἐλάττω τῶν ἱερείων, divinity has shown a striking sign, and has
δηµοσίαι δὲ ταύρους βυθίζουσιν ἐν τῆι λίµνηι, inflicted great sufferings upon those who
ταύτην τὴν θυσίαν καταδείξαντος ῾Ηρακλέους dared to take them for food. [[Of these matters
καθ᾽ ὃν καιρὸν τὰς Γηρυόνου βοῦς ἐλαύνων I shall give a detailed account in connection
περιῆλθε πᾶσαν Σικελίαν. (3) µετὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς with the appropriate period of time]].
Κόρης ἁρπαγὴν µυθολογοῦσι τὴν Δήµητραν µὴ
δυναµένην εὑρεῖν τὴν θυγατέρα, λαµπάδας ἐκ τῶν (4.1) Like the two goddesses whom I have
κατὰ τὴν Αἴτνην κρατήρων ἀναψαµένην ἐπελθεῖν mentioned, Kore received as her portion the
ἐπὶ πολλὰ µέρη τῆς οἰκουµένης, τῶν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων meadows around Enna; but a great fountain
τοὺς µάλιστ᾽ αὐτὴν προσδεξαµένους εὐεργετῆσαι, was made sacred to her in the territory of
τὸν τῶν πυρῶν καρπὸν ἀντιδωρησαµένην. [[(4) Syracuse and given the name Kyane. (2) For
φιλανθρωπότατα δὲ τῶν ᾽Αθηναίων the myth-writers say that it was near Syracuse
ὑποδεξαµένων τὴν θεόν, πρώτοις τούτοις µετὰ that Pluto raped Kore and carried her off in his
τοὺς Σικελιώτας δωρήσασθαι τὸν τῶν πυρῶν chariot, and that after splitting open the earth
καρπόν· ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὁ δῆµος οὗτος περιττότερον τῶν he himself descended into Hades, taking with
ἄλλων ἐτίµησε τὴν θεὸν θυσίαις τ᾽ ἐπιφανεστάταις him the bride whom he had seized, and that
καὶ τοῖς ἐν ᾽Ελευσῖνι µυστηρίοις, ἃ διὰ τὴν he caused the fountain named Kyane to gush
ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἀρχαιότητος καὶ ἁγνείας ἐγένετο forth, near which the Syracusans hold a
πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις περιβόητα. παρὰ δὲ τῶν renowned annual festival; and private
᾽Αθηναίων πολλοὶ µεταλαβόντες τῆς ἐκ τοῦ σίτου individuals offer lesser victims, but when the
φιλανθρωπίας, καὶ τοῖς πλησιοχώροις ceremony is on behalf of the community, bulls
µεταδιδόντες τοῦ σπέρµατος, ἐπλήρωσαν πᾶσαν are plunged into the pool, this way of sacrifice
τὴν οἰκουµένην ]]. (5) οἱ δὲ κατὰ τὴν Σικελίαν διὰ having been commanded by Herakles when he
τὴν τῆς Δήµητρος καὶ Κόρης πρὸς αὐτοὺς traversed all of Sicily, while driving off the
οἰκειότητα πρῶτοι τῆς εὑρέσεως τοῦ σίτου cattle of Geryon. (3) After Kore’s rape, as the
µεταλαβόντες, ἑκατέραι τῶν θεῶν κατέδειξαν myth relates, Demeter, unable to find her
θυσίας καὶ πανηγύρεις, ἐπωνύµους αὐταῖς daughter, kindled torches in the craters of Mt.
ποιήσαντες καὶ τῶι χρόνωι διασηµήσαντες τὰς Aitna and went to many parts of the inhabited
δοθείσας δωρεάς. (6) τῆς µὲν γὰρ Κόρης τὴν world, and she conferred the greatest
καταγωγὴν ἐποιήσαντο περὶ τὸν καιρὸν ἐν ὧι τὸν benefactions when men received her
τοῦ σίτου καρπὸν τελεσιουργεῖσθαι συνέβαινε, καὶ favorably, rewarding them with the gift of
ταύτην τὴν θυσίαν καὶ πανήγυριν µετὰ τοσαύτης agriculture. [[(4) And because a more kindly
ἁγνείας καὶ σπουδῆς ἐπιτελοῦσιν ὅσης εἰκός ἐστι welcome was extended to her by the
τοὺς τῆι κρατίστηι δωρεᾶι προκριθέντας τῶν Athenians than by anyone else, they were the
ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων ἀποδιδόναι τὰς χάριτας. (7) τῆς first after the Sikeliotai to be given the fruit of
δὲ Δήµητρος τὸν καιρὸν τῆς θυσίας προέκριναν ἐν the wheat. In return for this gift the Athenian
ὧι τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁ σπόρος τοῦ σίτου λαµβάνει. ἐπὶ δ᾽ citizens in assembly honored the goddess
ἡµέρας δέκα πανήγυριν ἄγουσιν ἐπώνυµον τῆς above all others with the establishment of
θεοῦ ταύτης, τῆι τε λαµπρότητι τῆς παρασκευῆς both the most renowned sacrifices and the
µεγαλοπρεπεστάτην καὶ τῆι διασκευῆι µιµούµενοι Mysteries at Eleusis, which because of their
τὸν ἀρχαῖον βίον. ἔθος δ᾽ ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἐν ταύταις great antiquity and sanctity, have become the
ταῖς ἡµέραις αἰσχρολογεῖν κατὰ τὰς πρὸς most famous among humankind. From the
Athenians many peoples received a share of
ἀλλήλους ὁµιλίας διὰ τὸ τὴν θεὸν ἐπὶ τῆι τῆς the gracious gift of agriculture, and they in
Κόρης ἁρπαγῆι λυπουµένην γελάσαι διὰ τὴν their turn, sharing this gift with their
αἰσχρολογίαν. neighbors, so caused all of the inhabited world
to abound in it]]. (5) And the Sikeliotai,
(5.1) περὶ δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴν Κόρην ἁρπαγῆς ὅτι because of their close relationship with
γέγονεν ὡς προειρήκαµεν, πολλοὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων Demeter and Kore, being the first to share in
συγγραφέων καὶ ποιητῶν µεµαρτυρήκασι. the gift of agriculture after its discovery,
Καρκίνος µὲν γὰρ ὁ τῶν τραγωιδιῶν ποιητής, established sacrifices and festivals, which they
πλεονάκις ἐν ταῖς Συρακούσαις named after the goddesses, and by the time
παρεπιδεδηµηκώς, καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐγχωρίων chosen for these they acknowledged the gifts
τεθεαµένος σπουδὴν <τὴν> περὶ τὰς θυσίας καὶ conferred upon them. (6) For example, for
πανηγύρεις τῆς τε Δήµητρος καὶ Κόρης, Kore they instituted the celebration of her
κατεχώρισεν ἐν τοῖς ποιήµασι τούσδε τοὺς return at about the time when the fruit of the
στίχους· «λέγουσι Δήµητρός ποτ᾽ ἄρρητον κόρην / grain was found to mature, and they celebrate
Πλούτωνα κρυφίοις ἁρπάσαι βουλεύµασι, / δῦναί this sacrifice and festival with such strict
τε γαίας εἰς µελαµφαεῖς µυχούς. / πόθωι δὲ observance and enthusiasm as we should
µητέρ᾽ ἠφανισµένης κόρης / µαστῆρ᾽ ἐπελθεῖν expect those men to show who are giving
πᾶσαν ἐν κύκλωι χθόνα· / καὶ γῆν µὲν Αἰτναίοισι thanks for having been chosen before all
Σικελίαν πάγοις / πυρὸς γέµουσαν ῥεύµασιν mankind for the greatest possible gift. (7) But
δυσεµβόλοις / πᾶσαν στενάξαι, πένθεσιν δὲ in Demeter’s case they preferred that time for
παρθένου / σίτων ἄµοιρον διοτρεφὲς φθίνειν γένος. sacrifice when the grain is first sown, and for
/ ὅθεν θεὰς τιµῶσιν ἐς τὰ νῦν ἔτι». (2) οὐκ ἄξιον δὲ ten days they hold a festival bearing the name
παραλιπεῖν τῆς θεοῦ ταύτης τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς of this goddess, which is most magnificent
εἰς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εὐεργεσίας. χωρὶς γὰρ τῆς because of their brilliant preparations, while
εὑρέσεως τοῦ σίτου τήν τε κατεργασίαν αὐτοῦ in its observance they imitate the ancient
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐδίδαξε, καὶ νόµους εἰσηγήσατο manner of living. It is customary during these
καθ᾽ οὓς δικαιοπραγεῖν εἰθίσθησαν, δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν days to use coarse language in their
φασὶν αὐτὴν θεσµοφόρον ἐπονοµασθῆναι. (3) interactions with one another, the reason
τούτων δὲ τῶν εὑρηµάτων οὐκ ἄν τις ἑτέραν being that by such coarseness the goddess,
εὐεργεσίαν εὕροι µείζονα· καὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ although grieving at the rape of Kore, burst
καλῶς ζῆν περιέχουσι. [[περὶ µὲν οὖν τῶν into laughter.
µυθολογουµένων παρὰ τοῖς Σικελιώταις
ἀρκεσθησόµεθα τοῖς ῥηθεῖσιν.]] (5.1) Many old historians and poets relay the
rape of Kore as I have described it. Karkinos
(6.1) περὶ δὲ τῶν κατοικησάντων ἐν αὐτῆι πρώτων the tragedian, for example, who frequently
Σικανῶν [[ἐπειδή τινες τῶν συγγραφέων visited Syracuse and observed the zeal which
διαφωνοῦσιν, ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι συντόµως εἰπεῖν]]. the inhabitants displayed in the sacrifices and
Φίλιστος [[µὲν γάρ]] φησιν ἐξ ᾽Ιβηρίας αὐτοὺς festivals for both Demeter and Kore, has
ἀποικισθέντας κατοικῆσαι τὴν νῆσον, ἀπό τινος written the following verses (TGrF 1, 70
Σικανοῦ ποταµοῦ κατ᾽ ᾽Ιβηρίαν ὄντος τετευχότας Carcinus II, F 5): ‘Demeter’s daughter, whom
ταύτης τῆς προσηγορίας· Τίµαιος δὲ τὴν ἄγνοιαν none may name / by secret schemes Pluto
τούτου τοῦ συγγραφέως ἐλέγξας, ἀκριβῶς stole. / And then he fell into earth’s depths
ἀποφαίνεται τούτους αὐτόχθονας εἶναι. [[πολλὰς whose light / is darkness. Longing for the girl
δ᾽ αὐτοῦ φέροντος ἀποδείξεις τῆς τούτων who disappeared / her mother searched and
ἀρχαιότητος, οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἡγούµεθα περὶ visited all lands /in turn. And Sicily’s land by
τούτων διεξιέναι]]. (2) οἱ δ᾽ οὖν Σικανοὶ τὸ Aitna’s crags / was filled with fiery streams
παλαιὸν κωµηδὸν ὤικουν, ἐπὶ τῶν ὀχυροτάτων which were unapproachable / and groaned
λόφων τὰς πόλεις κατασκευάζοντες διὰ τοὺς throughout its length in grief. / Over the
ληιστάς· οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν ὑπὸ µίαν ἡγεµονίαν maiden now the people, beloved / of Zeus,
βασιλέως τεταγµένοι, κατὰ πόλιν δὲ ἑκάστην εἷς were dying without grain. / And so they honor
ἦν ὁ δυναστεύων. (3) καὶ τὸ µὲν πρῶτον ἅπασαν these goddesses even now’. (2) But I should not
τὴν νῆσον κατώικουν, καὶ τὴν χώραν ἐργαζόµενοι forget to mention the great benefaction which
τὰς τροφὰς εἶχον· ὕστερον δὲ τῆς Αἴτνης ἐν Demeter bestowed upon mankind. In addition
πλείοσι τόποις ἀναφυσήµατα πυρὸς ἀνείσης, καὶ to the fact that she discovered grain, she also
πολλοῦ κατὰ τὴν χώραν ῥύακος ἐκχυθέντος, taught mankind how to prepare it as food and
συνέβη φθαρῆναι τῆς γῆς ἐπὶ πολὺν τόπον. ἐπ᾽ introduced laws of obedience through which
ἔτη δὲ πλείω τοῦ πυρὸς ἐπινεµοµένου πολλὴν men became accustomed to practice justice.
χώραν, φοβηθέντες τὰ µὲν πρὸς ἕω κεκλιµένα τῆς This, they say, is why she is called
Σικελίας ἐξέλιπον, εἰς δὲ τὰ πρὸς δυσµὰς νεύοντα Thesmophoros. (3) Certainly one could not
µετώικησαν. τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον πολλαῖς γενεαῖς find a greater benefaction than her discoveries,
ὕστερον ἐκ τῆς ᾽Ιταλίας τὸ τῶν Σικελῶν ἔθνος since they encompass both living and living
πανδηµεὶ περαιωθὲν εἰς τὴν Σικελίαν, τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν with honor. [[However, as for the myths
Σικανῶν ἐκλειφθεῖσαν χώραν κατώικησαν. (4) ἀεὶ current among the Sikeliotai, I am satisfied
δὲ τῆι πλεονεξίαι προβαινόντων τῶν Σικελῶν καὶ with what I have said.]]
τὴν ὅµορον πορθούντων, ἐγένοντο πόλεµοι
πλεονάκις αὐτοῖς πρὸς τοὺς Σικανούς, ἕως (6.1) [[I must now briefly write]] about the
συνθήκας ποιησάµενοι συµφώνους ὅρους ἔθεντο Sicanians who were the first inhabitants of
τῆς χώρας [[περὶ ὧν τὰ κατὰ µέρος ἐν τοῖς Sicily, [[in view of the fact that certain
οἰκείοις χρόνοις ἀναγράψοµεν]]. (5) ὕσταται δ᾽ historians are not in agreement about this
ἀποικίαι τῶν ῾Ελλήνων ἐγένοντο κατὰ τὴν people]]. [[For example]], Philistos ( BNJ 556 F
Σικελίαν ἀξιόλογοι, καὶ πόλεις παρὰ θάλατταν 43) says that they came and settled the island
ἐκτίσθησαν. ἀναµιγνύµενοι δ᾽ ἀλλήλοις καὶ διὰ τὸ from Iberia, having received their name from a
πλῆθος τῶν καταπλεόντων ῾Ελλήνων τήν τε certain river in Iberia named Sikanos, but
διάλεκτον αὐτῶν ἔµαθον, καὶ ταῖς ἀγωγαῖς Timaios adduces proof of this historian’s
συντραφέντες τὸ τελευταῖον τὴν βάρβαρον ignorance and correctly states that they were
διάλεκτον ἅµα καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν ἠλλάξαντο, indigenous. [[And since he offers many proofs
Σικελιῶται προσαγορευθέντες. of the antiquity of this people, I don’t see any
need to recount them]]. (2) The Sicanians,
(7.1) [[ἡµεῖς δὲ περὶ τούτων ἀρκούντως εἰρηκότες then, originally made their homes in villages,
µεταβιβάσοµεν τὸν λόγον ἐπὶ]] τὰς νήσους τὰς building their settlements on the strongest
ὀνοµαζοµένας Αἰολίδας. αὗται δ᾽ εἰσὶ τὸν µὲν hills as a defense against pirates. They had yet
ἀριθµὸν ἑπτά, προσηγορίας δ᾽ ἔχουσι ταύτας· to be brought under the single hegemony of a
Στρογγύλη καὶ Εὐώνυµος, ἔτι δὲ Διδύµη καὶ king, but there was one dynast in each of the
Φοινικώδης καὶ ᾽Ερικώδης, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ῾Ιερὰ settlements. (3) And in the beginning they
῾Ηφαίστου καὶ Λιπάρα, καθ᾽ ἣν ὁµώνυµος πόλις made their homes in every part of the island
καθίδρυται. (2) κεῖνται δ᾽ αὗται µεταξὺ Σικελίας and worked the land; but later, when Aitna
καὶ ᾽Ιταλίας ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας ἀπὸ Πορθµοῦ [καὶ τῆς erupted in an increasing number of places and
πρὸς ἕω] πρὸς δύσιν· ἀπέχουσι δὲ τῆς Σικελίας ὡς a great torrent of lava gushed forth over the
ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα σταδίους, καὶ τὸ µέγεθός εἰσιν land, a great swath of the country lay in ruins.
ἀλλήλαις παραπλήσιαι· ἡ δὲ µεγίστη αὐτῶν ἐστι And because the fire kept consuming a large
τὴν περίµετρον σταδίων ὡς ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα. part of the land over a number of years, they
(3) αὗται δὲ πᾶσαι πυρὸς ἐσχήκασιν left the eastern parts of the island in fear and
ἀναφυσήµατα µεγάλα, ὧν κρατῆρες οἱ went to the western parts. And last of all, after
γεγενηµένοι καὶ τὰ στόµια µέχρι τοῦ νῦν εἰσι many generations, the Sikeli crossed over en
φανερά· ἐν δὲ τῆι Στρογγύληι καὶ τῆι ῾Ιερᾶι µέχρι masse from Italy to Sicily and established
τοῦ νῦν ἐκ τῶν χασµάτων ἐκπίπτει πνεύµατος themselves in the land the Sicanians had left.
µεγέθος καὶ βρόµος ἐξαίσιος· ἐκφυσᾶται δὲ καὶ (4) And because the Sikeli grew increasingly
ἅµµος καὶ λίθων διαπύρων πλῆθος, καθάπερ ἔστιν greedy and kept ravaging bordering lands,
ὁρᾶν καὶ περὶ τὴν Αἴτνην γινόµενον. (4) λέγουσι frequent wars arose between them and the
γάρ τινες ἐκ τούτων τῶν νὴσων ὑπονόµους εἶναι Sicanians, until eventually they struck
κατὰ γῆς µέχρι τῆς Αἴτνης καὶ τοῖς ἐπ᾽ ἀµφότερα covenants and established boundaries, upon
στοµίοις συνηµµένους· διὸ καὶ κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον which they had agreed, for their territory.
ἐναλλὰξ κάεσθαι τοὺς ἐν ταύταις ταῖς νήσοις Regarding the Sicanians I shall give a detailed
κρατῆρας τῶν κατὰ τὴν Αἴτνην. (5) φασὶ δὲ τὰς account at the appropriate time. (5) The
Αἰόλου νήσους τὸ µὲν παλαιὸν ἐρήµους γεγονέναι, Hellenic colonies – renowned as they were –
µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὸν ὀνοµαζόµενον Λίπαρον, were the last to be founded in Sicily, and their
Αὔσονος ὄντα τοῦ βασιλέως υἱόν, ὑπὸ τῶν poleis were founded by the sea. All the
ἀδελφῶν καταστασιασθῆναι, κυριεύσαντα δὲ νεῶν inhabitants mingled together, and because the
µακρῶν καὶ στρατιωτῶν ἐκ τῆς ᾽Ιταλίας φυγεῖν Hellenes came in large numbers, the
εἰς τὴν ἀπὸ τούτου Λιπάραν ὀνοµασθεῖσαν· ἐν indigenous peoples learned their language,
ταύτηι δὲ τὴν ἐπώνυµον αὑτοῦ πόλιν κτίσαι, καὶ and then, having been brought up according to
τὰς ἄλλας νήσους τὰς προειρηµένας γεωργῆσαι. Hellenic customs, they in the end lost their
(6) τούτου δὲ γεγηρακότος, Αἰόλον τὸν ῾Ιππότου barbarian speech as well as their name, all of
µετά τινων παραβαλόντα εἰς τὴν Λιπάραν τήν τε them being called Sikeliotai.
τοῦ Λιπάρου θυγατέρα γῆµαι Κυάνην· καὶ τοὺς
λαοὺς κοινῆι µετὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων πολιτεύεσθαι (7.1) [[But since I have dwelt upon these
ποιήσας, ἐβασίλευσε τῆς νήσου. τῶι δὲ Λιπάρωι matters long enough]], I shall turn my
τῆς ᾽Ιταλίας ἐπιθυµοῦντι, συγκατεσκεύασεν attention to the islands known as the Aiolidai.
αὐτῶι τοὺς περὶ τὸ Σύρρεντον τόπους, ὅπου There are seven of these, named as follows:
βασιλεύσας καὶ µεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς τυχὼν Strongyle, Euonymos, Didyme, Phoinikodes,
ἐτελεύτησε, ταφεὶς δὲ µεγαλοπρεπῶς τιµῶν Erikodes, Hiera Hephaistou, and Lipara, where
ἔτυχεν ἡρωικῶν παρὰ τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις. (7) ὁ δ᾽ there is a polis of the same name. (2) They lie
Αἰόλος οὗτός ἐστι, πρὸς ὃν µυθολογοῦσι τὸν between Sicily and Italy in a straight line from
᾽Οδυσσέα κατὰ τὴν πλάνην ἀφικέσθαι. γενέσθαι the strait, extending from east to west. They
δ᾽ αὐτόν φασιν εὐσεβῆ καὶ δίκαιον, ἔτι δὲ καὶ πρὸς are about 150 stades from Sicily and are all
τοὺς ξένους φιλάνθρωπον· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὴν τῶν about the same size, with the largest being
ἱστίων χρείαν τοῖς ναυτικοῖς ἐπεισηγήσασθαι· καὶ about 150 stades in circumference. (3) They all
ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς προσηµασίας παρατετηρηκότα have suffered great volcanic eruptions, and the
προλέγειν τοὺς ἐγχωρίους ἀνέµους εὐστόχως, ἐξ craters and chasms from this can be seen
οὗ ταµίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι τῶν ἀνέµων ὁ µῦθος today. On Strongyle and Hiera even now great
ἀνέδειξε. διὰ δὲ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς εὐσεβείας exhalations with enormous roaring spew forth
φίλον τῶν θεῶν ὀνοµασθῆναι. (8.1) τοῦ δ᾽ Αἰόλου from the open chasms, and sand and a
υἱοὺς γενέσθαι τὸν ἀριθµὸν ἕξ· ᾽Αστύοχον καὶ multitude of red-hot stones are thrown forth,
Ξοῦθον καὶ ᾽Ανδροκλέα, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις as one can see happening on Aitna. (4) The
Φεραίµονα καὶ ᾽Ιόκαστον καὶ ᾽Αγάθυρνον. πάντας reason is, some say, that passages lead beneath
δὲ τούτους διά τε τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς δόξαν καὶ τὰς the earth from these islands to Aitna and are
<ἰδίας > ἀρετὰς ἀποδοχῆς µεγάλης τυχεῖν. τούτων connected to the chasms at both ends of them,
δ᾽ ᾽Ιόκαστος µὲν τῆς ᾽Ιταλίας ἀντεχόµενος, and this is why the craters on these islands
ἐβασίλευσε τῆς παραλίας µέχρι τῶν κατὰ τὸ usually alternate in activity with those of
῾Ρήγιον τόπων, Φεραίµων δὲ καὶ ᾽Ανδροκλῆς Aitna. (5) They say that the islands of Aiolos
ἐδυνάστευσαν τῆς Σικελίας ἀπὸ Πορθµοῦ µέχρι were uninhabited in the earliest times, but
τῶν κατὰ τὸ Λιλύβαιον τόπων. (2) ταύτης δὲ τῆς that later Liparos, as he was called, son of
χώρας τὰ µὲν πρὸς ἕω κεκλιµένα µέρη κατώικουν Auson the king, was overcome by his brothers
Σικελοί, τὰ δὲ πρὸς δυσµὰς Σικανοί· ταῦτα δὲ τὰ who had rebelled against him, and gaining
ἔθνη πρὸς ἄλληλα διεφέροντο, τοῖς δ᾽ Αἰόλου control of some ships of war and some soldiers
παισὶ τοῖς προειρηµένοις ἑκουσίως ὑπήκουον διά fled from Italy to the island, which was called
τε τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς Αἰόλου διαβεβοηµένην Lipara after him. Here he founded the polis
εὐσέβειαν καὶ διὰ τὴν αὐτῶν ἐκείνων ἐπιείκειαν. which bears his name and brought under
ἐβασίλευσε δὲ καὶ Ξοῦθος τῆς περὶ τοὺς cultivation the other islands I have mentioned
Λεοντίνους χώρας, ἥτις ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου µέχρι τοῦ νῦν earlier. (6) And when Liparos had already
χρόνου Ξουθία προσαγορεύεται. ᾽Αγάθυρνος δὲ grown old, Aiolos, son of Hippotes, came to
βασιλεύσας τῆς νῦν ὀνοµαζοµένης ᾽Αγαθυρνίτιδος Lipara with some companions and married
χώρας, ἔκτισε πόλιν τὴν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κληθεῖσαν Kyane, daughter of Liparos. And after he had
᾽Αγάθυρνον. ᾽Αστύοχος δὲ τῆς Λιπάρας ἔσχε τὴν brought the people together into one political
ἡγεµονίαν. (3) πάντες δ᾽ οὗτοι µιµησάµενοι τὴν community with the native inhabitants he
τοῦ πατρὸς εὐσέβειάν τε καὶ δικαιοσύνην µεγάλης became king of the island. To Liparos, who had
ἐτύγχανον ἀποδοχῆς. ἐπὶ πολλὰς δὲ γενεὰς τῶν a desire for Italy, Aiolos gave assistance in
ἐκγόνων διαδεχοµένων τὰς δυναστείας, τὸ securing for him the area around Surrentum,
τελευταῖον οἱ ἀπ᾽ Αἰόλου γεγονότες βασιλεῖς where he became king, and after gaining a
κατὰ τὴν Σικελίαν διελύθησαν. (9.1) µετὰ δὲ great reputation, finished his life. After having
ταῦτα οἱ µὲν Σικελοὶ τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν ἀνδρῶν τὰς received a magnificent funeral he received
ἡγεµονίας ἐνεχείριζον, οἱ δὲ Σικανοὶ περὶ τῆς honors equal to heroes from the native
δυναστείας διαφερόµενοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους inhabitants. (7) This is the Aiolos to whom, the
ἐπολέµουν ἐπὶ πολλοὺς χρόνους. (2) µετὰ δὲ myth relates, Odysseus came in his
ταῦτα πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ὕστερον, πάλιν τῶν νήσων wanderings. They say that he was a pious man,
ἐξερηµουµένων ἀεὶ καὶ µᾶλλον, Κνίδιοί τινες καὶ just and benevolent as well in his dealings
῾Ρόδιοι δυσαρεστήσαντες τῆι βαρύτητι τῶν κατὰ with strangers. Moreover, he introduced sea-
τὴν ᾽Ασίαν βασιλέων, ἔγνωσαν ἀποικίαν farers to the use of sails and had learned, by
ἐκπέµπειν. διόπερ προστησάµενοι σφῶν αὐτῶν long observing volcanic signs, to predict
ἡγεµόνα Πένταθλον τὸν Κνίδιον, ὃς ἦν ἀναφέρων accurately the local winds, this being the
τὸ γένος εἰς ῾Ιππότην τὸν ἀφ᾽ ῾Ηρακλέους
γεγονότα, κατὰ τὴν ὀλυµπιάδα τὴν πεντηκοστὴν,
ἣν ἐνίκα στάδιον ᾽Επιτελίδας Λάκων – οἱ δ᾽ οὖν reason why the myth has referred to him as
περὶ τὸν Πένταθλον πλεύσαντες τῆς Σικελίας εἰς ‘keeper of the winds’. And because of his pious
τοὺς κατὰ τὸ Λιλύβαιον τόπους, κατέλαβον nature he was called a friend of the gods.
᾽Εγεσταίους καὶ Σελινουντίους διαπολεµοῦντας
πρὸς ἀλλήλους. (3) πεισθέντες δὲ τοῖς (8.1) Six sons were born to Aiolos: Astyochos,
Σελινουντίοις συµµαχεῖν, πολλοὺς ἀπέβαλον κατὰ Xuthos, Androkles, and in addition to these
τὴν µάχην, ἐν οἷς ἦν καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Πένταθλος· Pheraimon, Iokastos, and Agathyrnos. Every
διόπερ οἱ περιλειφθέντες ἐπειδὴ one of them was held in high honor both
κατεπολεµήθησαν οἱ Σελινούντιοι, διέγνωσαν because of their father’s fame and because of
ἀπιέναι πάλιν ἐπ᾽ οἴκου. ἑλόµενοι δ᾽ ἡγεµόνας their own deeds. Of them Iokastos stayed in
τοὺς οἰκείους τοῦ Πεντάθλου Γόργον καὶ Θέστορα Italy and was king of the coast as far as the
καὶ ᾽Επιθερσίδην, ἀπέπλεον διὰ τοῦ Τυρρηνικοῦ region around Rhegion, but Pheraimon and
πελάγους. (4) προσπλευσάντων δ᾽ αὐτῶν τῆι Androkles were rulers of Sicily from the strait
Λιπάραι, καὶ φιλόφρονος ἀποδοχῆς τυχόντων, to the region around Lilybaeum. (2) The Sikeli
ἐπείσθησαν κοινῆι µετὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων κατοικῆσαι inhabited this part of the country to the east;
τὴν Λιπάραν, ὄντων τῶν ἀπ᾽ Αἰόλου the Sicanians to the west. These two peoples
περιλελειµµένων ὡς πεντακοσίων. ὕστερον δὲ τῶν fought one another, but they gave their
Τυρρηνῶν ληιστευόντων τὰ κατὰ θάλατταν, obedience willingly to the sons of Aiolos I have
πολεµούµενοι κατεσκευάσαντο ναυτικόν· καὶ mentioned, both because of Aiolos’s far-famed
διελόµενοι σφᾶς αὐτούς, οἱ µὲν ἐγεώργουν τὰς piety, and because of the just ways of the sons
νήσους κοινὰς ποιήσαντες, οἱ δὲ πρὸς τοὺς themselves. Xuthos was king of the land
ληιστὰς ἀντετάττοντο· καὶ τὰς οὐσίας δὲ κοινὰς around Leontini, which is known after him as
ποιησάµενοι καὶ ζῶντες κατὰ συσσίτια, Xuthia to the present day. Agathyrnos,
διετέλεσαν ἐπί τινας χρόνους κοινωνικῶς βιοῦντες. becoming king of the land now called
(5) ὕστερον δὲ τὴν µὲν Λιπάραν, καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ ἡ Agathyrnitis, established a polis named after
πόλις ἦν, διενείµαντο, τὰς δ᾽ ἄλλας ἐγεώργουν him Agathyrnos; and Astyochos ruled over
κοινῆι. τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον πάσας τὰς νήσους εἰς Lipara. (3) All followed their father’s example
εἴκοσι ἔτη διελόµενοι, πάλιν κληρουχοῦσιν, ὅταν ὁ of piety and justice, and so were accorded
χρόνος οὗτος διέλθηι. µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πολλαῖς great approbation. Their descendants
ναυµαχίαις ἐνίκησαν <τοὺς> Τυρρηνούς, καὶ ἀπὸ succeeded to the rule for many generations,
τῶν λαφύρων πλεονάκις ἀξιολόγους δεκάτας but finally the Aiolid kings were overthrown
ἀνέθεσαν εἰς Δελφούς. (10.1) λείπεται δ᾽ ἡµῖν περὶ throughout Sicily.
τῆς τῶν Λιπαραίων πόλεως τὰς αἰτίας ἀποδοῦναι,
δι᾽ ἃς ἐν τοῖς ὕστερον χρόνοις ἔλαβεν αὔξησιν οὐ (9.1) After this the Sikeli selected the ablest
men for leadership, but the Sicanians
µόνον πρὸς εὐδαιµονίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς δόξαν.
quarreled over the overlordship and fought
αὕτη γὰρ λιµέσι τε καλοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως
one another for a long time. (2) But many
κεκόσµηται καὶ θερµοῖς ὕδασι τοῖς
διαβεβοηµένοις· οὐ µόνον γὰρ πρὸς ὑγίειαν τῶν years later, when the islands again were
becoming increasingly depopulated, certain
νοσούντων τὰ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν λουτρὰ πολλὰ
men of Knidos and Rhodes, being aggrieved at
συµβάλλεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐκ τῶν θερµῶν
the rough treatment given to them by the
ὑδάτων ἰδιότητα παρέχεται τέρψιν καὶ ἀπόλαυσιν
rulers in Asia, determined to send out a colony.
οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν· διόπερ πολλοὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν
Consequently, having chosen Pentathlos of
Σικελίαν ὑπὸ νόσων ἰδιοτρόπων ἐνοχλούµενοι
καταντῶσιν εἰς αὐτήν, καὶ τοῖς λουτροῖς χρώµενοι Knidos as their leader, who was descended
παραδόξως ὑγιεῖς καθίστανται. (2) ἔχει δ᾽ ἡ νῆσος from Hippotes, a descendant of Herakles, in
αὕτη τὰ διαβεβοηµένα µέταλλα τῆς στυπτηρίας, the time of the 50th Olympiad (580 BC) (that
ἐξ ἧς λαµβάνουσιν οἱ Λιπαραῖοι [[καὶ ῾Ρωµαῖοι]] in which Epitelidas of Sparta won the stadion),
µεγάλας προσόδους. οὐδαµοῦ γὰρ τῆς οἰκουµένης these settlers under Pentathlos’s leadership
τῆς στυπτηρίας γινοµένης, καὶ πολλὴν χρείαν sailed from [a base in?] Sicily to the area
παρεχοµένης, εἰκότως µονοπώλιον ἔχοντες καὶ around Lilybaeum, where they found the
τὰς τιµὰς ἀναβιβάζοντες, πλῆθος χρηµάτων Egestaians and Selinuntines warring with one
λαµβάνουσιν ἄπιστον· ἐν µόνηι γὰρ τῆι νήσωι another. (3) Being won over to the side of the
Μήλωι φύεται µικρά τις στυπτηρία, µὴ δυναµένη Selinuntines, they suffered heavy losses in
διαρκεῖν πολλαῖς πόλεσιν. (3) ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ νῆσος battle, with Pentathlos himself perishing. As a
τῶν Λιπαραίων µικρὰ µὲν τὸ µέγεθος, result the survivors, since the Selinuntines had
καρποφόρος δὲ ἱκανῶς καὶ τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων been defeated in the war, decided to return to
τρυφὴν ἔχουσα διαφερόντως· καὶ γὰρ ἰχθύων their homes. Choosing for their leaders Gorgos
παντοδαπῶν παρέχεται πλῆθος τοῖς κατοικοῦσι, and Thestor and Epithersides, who were
καὶ τῶν ἀκροδρύων τὰ µάλιστα δυνάµενα relatives of Pentathlos, they sailed away
παρέχεσθαι τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀπολαύσεως ἡδονήν. [[καὶ through the Tyrrhenian sea. (4) But when they
περὶ µὲν Λιπάρας καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοῦ Αἰόλου stopped at Lipara and were kindly received,
νήσων καλουµένων ἀρκεσθησόµεθα τοῖς they were persuaded to make common cause
ῥηθεῖσιν]]. with the Liparaians in forming a single
community there, since of Aiolos’s colony
(11.1) µετὰ δὲ τὴν Λιπάραν εἰς τὸ πρὸς δυσµὰς there were only about 500 men remaining.
µέρος νῆσός ἐστι πελαγία, µικρὰ µὲν τὸ µέγεθος, Later, because they were being harried at sea
ἔρηµος δὲ καὶ διά τινα περιπέτειαν ᾽Οστεώδης by Tyrrhenian pirates, they fitted out a fleet,
ὀνοµαζοµένη· καθ᾽ ὃν γὰρ καιρὸν Καρχηδόνιοι dividing themselves into two bodies. One of
πρὸς Συρακοσίους διαπολεµοῦντες πολλοὺς καὶ these took over the care of the islands, making
µεγάλους πολέµους, δυνάµεις εἶχον ἀξιολόγους it common property of the community; the
πεζικάς τε καὶ ναυτικάς, περὶ δὲ τούτους τοὺς other set out to fight the pirates. They made
καιροὺς µισθοφόρων ὄντων παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς πολλῶν their possessions and their lives communal for
καὶ παντοδαπῶν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, οὗτοι δὲ ταραχώδεις a considerable time, living in syssitia. (5) Still
ὄντες καὶ πολλὰς καὶ µεγάλας στάσεις εἰωθότες later, they divided among themselves the
ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ µάλιστα ὅταν τοὺς µισθοὺς island of Lipara, where their city was, but they
εὐκαίρως µὴ λαµβάνωσιν, ἐχρήσαντο καὶ τότε τῆι cultivated the islands in common. And in the
συνήθει ῥαιδιουργίαι τε καὶ τόλµηι. (2) ὄντες γὰρ final stage they apportioned all the islands
τὸν ἀριθµὸν ὡς ἑξακισχίλιοι, καὶ τοὺς µισθοὺς οὐκ among themselves for a twenty-year period,
ἀπολαµβάνοντες, τὸ µὲν πρῶτον συντρέχοντες and then they cast lots for them again at the
κατεβόων τῶν στρατηγῶν, ἐκείνων δ᾽ end of every twenty-years. After establishing
ἀπορουµένων [χρήµασι] καὶ πολλάκις this organization, they defeated the
ἀναβαλλοµένων τὰς ἀποδόσεις, ἠπείλουν τοῖς Tyrrhenians in many sea battles, and from
ὅπλοις ἀµυνεῖσθαι τοὺς Καρχηδονίους, καὶ τὰς their war loot they frequently made notable
χεῖρας προσέφερον τοῖς ἡγεµόσι. (3) τῆς δὲ dedications of a tithe, which they sent to
γερουσίας ἐγκαλούσης, καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς ἀεὶ Delphi. (10.1) I must now, regarding the polis of
µᾶλλον ἐκκαοµένης, ἡ µὲν γερουσία τοῖς Lipara, explain why at later times it attained
στρατηγοῖς ἐν ἀπορρήτοις προσέταξεν ἀφανίσαι not only prosperity, but even renown. The
πάντας τοὺς ἐγκαλουµένους· οἱ δὲ λαβόντες τὰς polis is adorned by nature with excellent
ἐντολάς, καὶ τοὺς µισθοφόρους ἐµβιβάσαντες εἰς harbors and warm-water springs, whose fame
τὰς ναῦς, ἐξέπλευσαν ὡς ἐπί τινα πολεµικὴν is widespread. Not only do the waters have
χρείαν. προσπλεύσαντες δὲ τῆι προειρηµήνηι healing powers for the sick, but they also, as is
νήσωι, καὶ πάντας τοὺς µισθοφόρους the nature of warm-water springs, give
ἀποβιβάσαντες εἰς αὐτήν, ἀπέπλευσαν extraordinary pleasure and enjoyment. As a
καταλιπόντες ἐν αὐτῆι τοὺς ἐγκαλουµένους. (4) οἱ result many people from all over Sicily
δὲ µισθοφόροι περιαλγεῖς ὄντες τῆι περιστάσει, suffering from certain illnesses come to the
καὶ µὴ δυνάµενοι τοὺς Καρχηδονίους ἀµύνασθαι, polis and in an incredible manner regain their
λιµῶι διεφθάρησαν. ἐν νήσωι δὲ µικρᾶι τοσούτων health by bathing. (2) And this island contains
αἰχµαλώτων τελευτησάντων, συνέβη τὸν τόπον the famous alumen mines, from which the
ὀλίγον ὄντα πληρωθῆναι τῶν ὀστῶν· ἀφ᾽ ἧς αἰτίας Liparaians [[and Romans]] derive great
ἡ νῆσος ἔτυχε ταύτης τῆς προσηγορίας. οἱ µὲν οὖν profits. Since alumen is found nowhere else in
µισθοφόροι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον παρανοµηθέντες the inhabited world and has great utilitarian
τῆς µεγίστης συµφορᾶς ἔτυχον, ἐνδείαι τροφῆς value, it is reasonable that they should get
διαφθαρέντες. unheard of wealth from it, because they have a
monopoly and can raise prices at will. Only on
(12.1) [[ἡµεῖς δ᾽ ἐπεὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς Αἰολίδας νήσους the island of Melos is there another deposit,
διήλθοµεν, ἐν µέρει τὰς ἐκ θατέρου µέρους νήσους but it is small and cannot serve many poleis.
κειµένας ἀναγραφῆς ἀξιώσοµεν.]] τῆς γὰρ (3) The island Lipara is also small in extent but
Σικελίας ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ µεσηµβρίαν µέρους νῆσοι very fertile so as to support human luxury; for
τρεῖς πρόκεινται πελάγιαι, καὶ τούτων ἑκάστη it supplies its inhabitants with much fish of
πόλιν ἔχει καὶ λιµένας δυναµένους τοῖς every kind and has an abundant supply of fruit
χειµαζοµένοις σκάφεσι παρέχεσθαι τὴν trees, which offer great pleasure. [[Regarding
ἀσφάλειαν. (2) καὶ πρώτη µέν ἐστιν ἡ Lipara and the other Aiolic islands, I have now
προσαγορευοµένη Μελίτη, τῶν Συρακουσῶν said enough]].
ἀπέχουσα σταδίους ὡς ὀκτακοσίους· καὶ λιµένας
µὲν ἔχει πολλοὺς καὶ διαφόρους ταῖς εὐχρηστίαις, (11.1) Beyond Lipara to the west there is an
τοὺς δὲ κατοικοῦντας ταῖς οὐσίαις εὐδαίµονας· island in the open sea, small and deserted,
τεχνίτας τε γὰρ ἔχει πανταδαποὺς ταῖς ἐργασίαις, called Osteodes because of the following
κρατίστους δὲ τοὺς ὀθόνια ποιοῦντας τῆι τε bizarre happening. When the Carthaginians
λεπτότητι καὶ τῆι µαλακότητι διαπρεπῆ, τάς τε were waging many great wars with the
οἰκήσεις ἀξιολόγους <καὶ> κατεσκευασµένας Syracusans they had considerable land and sea
φιλοτίµως γείσσοις καὶ θεµελίοις καὶ κονιάµασι forces, and at this time they had many
περιττοτέροις. (3) ἔστι δ᾽ ἡ νῆσος αὕτη Φοινίκων mercenary forces drawn from many lands.
ἄποικος, οἳ ταῖς ἐµπορίαις διατείνοντες µέχρι τοῦ Such troops always are unruly and typically
κατὰ τὴν δύσιν ὠκεανοῦ καταφυγὴν εἶχον ταύτην, bring about many and serious mutinies,
εὐλίµενον οὖσαν καὶ κειµένην πελαγίαν· δι᾽ ἣν especially if they do not receive their pay on
αἰτίαν οἱ κατοικοῦντες αὐτὴν εὐχρηστούµενοι time, and at the time of which I am speaking
κατὰ πολλὰ διὰ τοὺς ἐµπόρους ταχὺ τοῖς τε βίοις they practiced their usual deceit and audacity.
ἀνέδραµον καὶ ταῖς δόξαις ηὐξήθησαν. (4) µετὰ δὲ (2) They were about 6,000 and they had not
ταύτην τὴν νῆσόν ἐστιν ἑτέρα, τὴν µὲν received their pay. At first they gathered
προσηγορίαν ἔχουσα Γαῦλος, πελαγία δὲ καὶ together and inveighed against the generals,
λιµέσιν εὐκαίροις κεκοσµηµένη, Φοινίκων and since the general had no money and
ἄποικος. (5) ἑξῆς δ᾽ ἐστὶ Κέρκινα, πρὸς τὴν repeatedly put them off, they threatened to
Λιβύην νενευκυῖα, πόλιν ἕχουσα σύµµετρον καὶ take up arms and take vengeance on the
λιµένας εὐχρηστοτάτους οὐ µόνον τοῖς ἐµπόροις, Carthaginians, even committing acts of
ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῖς µακραῖς ναυσὶν εὐθετοῦντας. [[ἐπεὶ violence against the generals. (3) Even though
δὲ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν µεσηµβρίαν νήσων the Carthaginian Senate admonished them,
εἰρήκαµεν, ἐπάνιµεν πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰς ἑξῆς τῆι the conflict was only exacerbated, and then
Λιπάραι νήσους τὰς κειµένας κατὰ τὸ Τυρρηνικὸν the Senate secretly ordered the generals to kill
καλούµενον πέλαγος.]] all the malcontents. The generals, in
obedience to the order, put the mercenaries on
(13.1) τῆς γὰρ Τυρρηνίας κατὰ τὴν ὀνοµαζοµένην ships and sailed off as if on some mission. And
πόλιν Ποπλώνιον νῆσός ἐστιν, ἣν ὀνοµάζουσιν stopping at the island I am talking about they
Αἰθάλειαν. αὕτη δὲ τῆς [Λιπάρας] παραλίας disembarked all the mercenaries and sailed
ἀπέχουσα σταδίους ὡς ἐκατόν, τὴν µὲν away, leaving them on the island. (4) The
προσηγορίαν εἴληφεν ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τοῦ κατ᾽ mercenaries, being deeply distressed at their
αὐτὴν αἰθάλου. πέτραν γὰρ ἔχει πολλὴν σιδηρῖτιν, predicament and yet incapable of taking
ἣν τέµνουσιν ἐπὶ τὴν χωνείαν καὶ κατασκευὴν τοῦ revenge on the Carthaginians, starved to
σιδήρου, πολλὴν ἔχοντες τοῦ µετάλλου δαψίλειαν. death. And because it was a tiny island and so
οἱ γὰρ ταῖς ἐργασίαις προσεδρεύοντες κόπτουσι many men confined there died, it happened
τὴν πέτραν, καὶ τοὺς τµηθέντας λίθους κάουσιν ἔν that, being so small, it was filled with their
τισιν φιλοτέχνοις καµίνοις· ἐν δὲ ταύταις τῶι bones. This is the reason the island has this
πλήθει τοῦ πυρὸς τήκοντες τοὺς λίθους, name. In this manner, then, the mercenaries,
καταµερίζουσιν εἰς µεγέθη σύµµετρα, guilty of the crime I have described, suffered
παραπλήσια ταῖς ἰδέαις µεγάλοις σπόγγοις. (2) the greatest misfortune, perishing from
ταῦτα συναγοράζοντες ἔµποροι καὶ hunger.
µεταβαλλόµενοι κοµίζουσιν εἴς τε Δικαιάρχειαν
καὶ εἰς τἄλλα ἐµπόρια. ταῦτα δὲ τὰ φορτία τινὲς (12.1) [[But since I have dealt with the Aiolides,
ὠνούµενοι, καὶ τεχνιτῶν χαλκέων πλῆθος I think it is suitable to mention the islands
ἀθροίζοντες, κατεργάζονται, καὶ ποιοῦσι σιδήρου lying on the other side of Sicily]]. To the south
πλάσµατα παντοδαπά. τούτων δὲ τὰ µὲν εἰς of Sicily three islands lie in the sea, and each
†ὀρνέων τύπους χαλκεύουσι, τὰ δὲ πρὸς δικελλῶν one possesses a polis and harbors offering
καὶ δρεπάνων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐργαλείων εὐθέτους safety to ships tossed in storm. (2) The first is
τύπους φιλοτεχνοῦσιν· ὧν κοµιζοµένων ὑπὸ τῶν that called Melite, lying about 800 stades from
ἐµπόρων εἰς πάντα τόπον, πολλὰ µέρη τῆς Syracuse, possessing many harbors with great
οἰκουµένης µεταλαµβάνει τῆς ἐκ τούτων advantages. Its inhabitants are fortunate in
εὐχρηστίας. (3) µετὰ δὲ τὴν Αἰθάλειαν νῆσός ἐστιν their possessions; for it has artisans skilled in
ἀπέχουσα µὲν ταύτης ὡς τριακοσίους σταδίους, almost all crafts, the most important being
ὀνοµάζεται δὲ ὑπὸ µὲν τῶν ῾Ελλήνων Κύρνος, ὑπὸ linen-weaving, their product being remarkably
δὲ [[τῶν ῾Ρωµαίων καὶ]] τῶν ἐγχωρίων Κόρσικα. sheer and soft. The houses on the island are
αὕτη δ᾽ ἡ νῆσος εὐπροσόρµιστος οὖσα, κάλλιστον noteworthy, ambitiously fitted out with
ἔχει λιµένα τὸν ὀνοµαζόµενον Συρακόσιον. cornices and finished in stucco with unusual
ὑπάρχουσι δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῆι καὶ πόλεις ἀξιόλογοι δύο· workmanship. (3) The Phoenicians colonized
καὶ τούτων ἡ µὲν Κάλαρις, ἡ δὲ Νίκαια this place, finding it a safe retreat as they
προσαγορεύεται. (4) τούτων δὲ τὴν µὲν Κάλαριν extended their commercial influence to the
Φωκαεῖς ἔκτισαν, καὶ χρόνον τινὰ κατοικήσαντες western ocean. This is because it is well
ὑπὸ Τυρρηνῶν ἐξεβλήθησαν ἐκ τῆς νήσου· τὴν δὲ supplied with harbors and is located out in the
Νίκαιαν ἔκτισαν Τυρρηνοὶ θαλαττοκρατοῦντες, open sea. This is why the island’s inhabitants,
καὶ τὰς κατὰ τὴν Τυρρηνίαν κειµένας νήσους since they are assisted in manifold ways
ἰδιοποιούµενοι. ἐπὶ δέ τινας χρόνους τῶν ἐν τῆι through sea-merchants, rose rapidly in lifestyle
Κύρνωι πόλεων κυριεύοντες, ἐλάµβανον παρὰ τῶν and fame. (4) There is a second island after
ἐγχωρίων φόρους ῥητίνην καὶ κηρὸν καὶ µέλι, this one which is called Gaulos, lying out in
φυοµένων τούτων δαψιλῶς ἐν τῆι νήσωι. (5) τὰ δ᾽ the open sea and adorned with well-appointed
ἀνδράποδα τὰ Κύρνια διαφέρειν δοκεῖ τῶν ἄλλων harbors; it is a Phoenician colony. (5) Next to
δούλων εἰς τὰς κατὰ τὸν βίον χρείας, φυσικῶς this is Kerkina, which lies opposite Libya; it
ταύτης τῆς ἰδιότητος παρακολουθούσης. (5a) ἡ δ᾽ has a modest polis and most useful harbors,
ὅλη νῆσος εὐµεγέθης οὖσα, πολλὴν τῆς χώρας able to accommodate not only commercial
ὀρεινὴν ἔχει, πεπυκασµένην δρυµοῖς συνεχέσι καὶ vessels but also warships. [[Now that I have
ποταµοῖς διαρρεοµένην µικροῖς. treated the islands lying to the south of Sicily, I
shall turn back to those following upon Lipara;
(14.1) οἱ δ᾽ ἐγχώριοι τροφαῖς µὲν χρῶνται γάλακτι these are in the sea called Tyrrhenian]].
καὶ µέλιτι καὶ κρέασι, δαψιλῶς πάντα ταῦτα
παρεχοµένης τῆς χώρας, τὰ δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλους (13.1) Off the Tyrrhenian polis Popolonion
βιοῦσιν ἐπιεικῶς καὶ δικαίως παρὰ πάντας σχεδὸν there is an island called Aithaleia. It (scil.
τοὺς ἄλλους βαρβάρους· τά τε γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Lipara) is 100 stades from the coast and got its
ὀρεινὴν ἐν τοῖς δένδρεσιν εὑρισκόµενα κηρία τῶν name from the smoke which gathers so thickly
πρώτων εὑρισκόντων ἐστί, µηδενὸς around it. For the island possesses a great
ἀµφισβητοῦντος, τά τε πρόβατα σηµείοις quantity of iron ore, which they quarry in
διειληµµένα, κἂν µηδεὶς φυλάττηι, σώιζεται τοῖς order to smelt it into iron, and they have a
κεκτηµένοις, ἔν τε ταῖς ἄλλαις ταῖς ἐν τῶι βίωι great abundance of it. For those who work the
κατὰ µέρος οἰκονοµίαις θαυµαστῶς προτιµῶσι τὸ ore crush the rock and burn the lumps broken
δικαιοπραγεῖν. (2) παραδοξότατον δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ παρ᾽ off in certain ingenious furnaces. In these they
αὐτοῖς γινόµενον κατὰ τὰς τῶν τέκνων γενέσεις· smelt the lumps with a great fire, forming
ὅταν γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ τέκηι, ταύτης µὲν οὐδεµία them into moderate-sized pieces having the
γίνεται περὶ τὴν λοχείαν ἐπιµέλεια, ὁ δ᾽ ἀνὴρ appearance of large sponges. (2) Merchants
αὐτῆς ἀναπεσὼν ὡς νοσῶν λοχεύεται τακτὰς buy these in exchange either for money or
ἡµέρας, ὡς τοῦ σώµατος αὐτῶι κακοπαθοῦντος. goods and take them to Dikaiarchia or to other
(3) φύεται δὲ κατὰ τὴν νῆσον ταύτην καὶ πύξος trading posts, where there are men who
πλείστη καὶ διάφορος, δι᾽ ἣν καὶ τὸ µέλι τὸ purchase such cargoes and who, with the help
γινόµενον ἐν ταύτηι παντελῶς γίνεται πικρόν. (4) of many metal artisans whom they have
κατοικοῦσι δ᾽ αὐτὴν βάρβαροι, τὴν διάλεκτον gathered, work it further and manufacture iron
ἔχοντες ἐξηλλαγµένην καὶ δυσκατανόητον· τὸν δ᾽ objects of every kind. Some of these are
ἀριθµὸν ὑπάρχουσιν ὑπὲρ τοὺς τρισµυρίους. worked into the shape of †armor, and others
are cleverly made into shapes well suited for
two-pronged forks and sickles and other tools
of this sort; the merchants then bring these to
(15.1) ἐχοµένη δὲ ταύτης ἐστὶ νῆσος ἡ every region and consequently many parts of
προσαγορευοµένη Σαρδώ, τῶι µὲν µεγέθει the inhabited world share in the utility which
παραπλήσιος τῆι Σικελίαι, κατοικουµένη δ᾽ ὑπὸ comes from them. (3) There is an island after
βαρβάρων τῶν ὀνοµαζοµένων ᾽Ιολαείων, οὓς Aithaleia, which is about 300 stades away,
νοµίζουσιν ἀπογόνους εἶναι τῶν µετὰ ᾽Ιολάου καὶ called Kyrnos by the Hellenes, and [[by the
τῶν Θεσπιαδῶν κατοικησάντων. κατὰ γὰρ τοὺς Romans and]] those who live there Corsica.
χρόνους ἐν οἷς ῾Ηρακλῆς τοὺς διαβεβοηµένους This island is easy of access; it has an excellent
ἄθλους ἐτέλει, παίδων ὄντων αὐτῶι πολλῶν ἐκ harbor called Syrakosion. There also are two
τῶν Θεσπίου θυγατέρων, τούτους ῾Ηρακλῆς κατά notable poleis on it: Kalaris and Nikaia. (4)
τινα χρησµὸν ἐξαπέστειλεν εἰς Σαρδώ, καὶ µετ᾽ Kalaris is a Phokaian settlement. The
αὐτῶν δύναµιν ἀξιόλογον ῾Ελλήνων τε καὶ Phokaians lived there until driven out by the
βαρβάρων ἐπὶ τὴν ἀποικίαν. (2) ταύτης δὲ Tyrrhenians. Nikaia was a Tyrrhenian
προεστηκὼς ᾽Ιόλαος ὁ ἀδελφιδοῦς ῾Ηρακλέους foundation. The Tyrrhenians established it
<καὶ τὴν νῆσον> καταλαβόµενος, ὤικισεν ἐν αὐτῆι when they were dominant on the sea and were
πόλεις ἀξίολόγους. καὶ τὴν χώραν taking possession of the islands lying off
κατακληρουχήσας, τοὺς µὲν λαοὺς Tyrrhenia. They controlled the poleis of
προσηγόρευσεν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ᾽Ιολαείους, Kyrnos for a long time and took from them as
κατεσκεύασε δὲ καὶ γυµνάσια καὶ θεῶν ναοὺς καὶ tribute resin, wax, and honey, since these were
τἄλλα πάντα τὰ πρὸς βίον ἀνθρώπων εὐδαίµονα, abundant on the island. (5) Slaves from Kyrnos
ὧν ὑποµνήµατα µέχρι τῶνδε τῶν καιρῶν διαµένει· are thought to be naturally superior to all
τὰ µὲν γὰρ κάλλιστα πεδία τὴν προσηγορίαν ἀπ᾽ others for every service human life demands.
ἐκείνου λαβόντα ᾽Ιολάεια καλεῖται, τὸ δὲ πλῆθος (5a) And the whole island, which is large, has
µέχρι τοῦ νῦν φυλάττει τὴν ἀπὸ ᾽Ιολάου mountainous land for much of its extent,
προσηγορίαν. (3) τοῦ δὲ περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας thickly covered with forests throughout and
χρησµοῦ περιέχοντος ὅτι τοῖς τῆς ἀποικίας ταύτης traversed by small rivers.
κοινωνήσασι διαµενεῖ τὰ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἅπαντα
τὸν αἰῶνα, συνέβη τὸν χρησµὸν παραδόξως µέχρι (14.1) The inhabitants of Kyrnos consume milk,
τοῦ νῦν αὐτονοµίαν τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις ἀσάλευτον honey, and meat, all of which are plentiful on
φυλάξαι· (4) Καρχηδόνιοί τε γὰρ ἐπὶ πλέον the island, and live with honor and justice
ἰσχύσαντες καὶ τῆς νήσου κρατήσαντες, οὐκ among themselves, in this regard excelling all
ἠδυνήθησαν τοὺς προκατασχόντας τὴν νῆσον other barbarians. And honeycomb, for
καταδουλώσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ µὲν ᾽Ιολάειοι example, which may be found on the trees on
καταφυγόντες εἰς τὴν ὀρεινὴν καὶ καταγείους the mountainside, is the property of the first
οἰκήσεις κατασκευάσαντες, ἔτρεφον πολλὰς man who finds it, with no one contesting his
ἀγέλας βοσκηµάτων, ὧν παρεχοµένων δαψιλεῖς claim. Their cattle are branded, and they are
τροφάς, ἠρκοῦντο προσφερόµενοι γάλα καὶ τυρὸν kept safe for their owners, even though there
καὶ κρέα· καὶ τῆς µὲν πεδιάδος γῆς ἐκχωρήσαντες may be no one guarding them. And in all their
τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἐργασίας κακοπάθειαν ἐξέκλιναν, τὴν other ways of living, it is amazing how they
δ᾽ ὀρεινὴν νεµόµενοι καὶ βίον ἔχοντες ἄµοιρον esteem righteousness above all. (2) But the
κακοπαθείας ταῖς προειρηµέναις τροφαῖς most astonishing thing that happens among
διετέλεσαν χρώµενοι. (5) τῶν δὲ Καρχηδονίων them concerns the birth of their children.
πολλάκις ἀξιολόγοις δυνάµεσι στρατευσάντων ἐπ᾽ When the wife is about to give birth no one
αὐτούς, διὰ τὰς δυσχωρίας καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς pays attention to the actual delivery, but the
καταγείοις δυστραπέλειαν διέµειναν ἀδούλωτοι· husband takes to bed as though sick and feigns
[[τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον ῾Ρωµαίων ἐπικρατούντων καὶ labor for a specified number of days. (3) Box-
πολλάκις ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς στρατευσάντων διὰ ταύτας wood also grows on this island in great
τὰς αἰτίας ἀχείρωτοι πολεµίαι δυνάµει abundance and is of excellent quality. It is
διέµειναν]]. (6) οὐ µὴν ἀλλὰ [[κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχαίους because of the box-wood that the honey on
χρόνους]] ᾽Ιόλαος µὲν συγκατασκευάσας τὰ κατὰ the island is completely bitter. (4) Barbarians
τὴν ἀποικίαν ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ῾Ελλάδα, οἱ δὲ live on the island whose language is different
Θεσπιάδαι τῆς νήσου προεστῶτες ἐπὶ πολλὰς from others and almost unintelligible; they
γενεάς, τὸ τελευταῖον ἐξέπεσον εἰς τὴν ᾽Ιταλίαν, number more than 30,000.
καὶ κατώικησαν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Κύµην τόποις, τὸ δ᾽
ἄλλο πλῆθος ἐκβαρβαρωθὲν καὶ προστησάµενον (15.1) An island called Sardinia adjoins Kyrnos.
ἐκ τῶν ἐγχωρίων τοὺς ἀρίστους ἡγεµόνας, It is about equal to Sicily in size and is
διεφύλαξε τὴν ἐλευθερίαν µέχρι τῶν καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς inhabited by barbarians called Iolaeioi, who
χρόνων. (16.1) [[ἡµεῖς δ᾽ ἀρκούντως εἰρηκότες are thought to be the descendants of men who
περὶ τῆς Σαρδόνος διέξιµεν περὶ τῶν ἑξῆς settled there along with Iolaos and the
κειµένων νήσων]]. µετὰ [[γὰρ]] τὰς προειρηµένας Thespiadai ... When Herakles was performing
νῆσός ἐστιν ὀνοµαζοµένη µὲν Πιτυοῦσσα, τὴν δὲ his famous labors he begat many sons by the
προσηγορίαν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν κατ᾽ daughters of Thespios, and these Herakles sent
αὐτὴν φυοµένων πιτύων. πελαγία δ᾽ οὖσα to Sardinia, conforming to a certain oracle,
διέστηκεν ἀπὸ µὲν ῾Ηρακλέους στηλῶν πλοῦν sending with them a considerable force of
ἡµερῶν τριῶν καὶ τῶν ἴσων νυκτῶν, ἀπὸ δὲ Λιβύης Hellenes and barbarians, in order to found a
ἡµέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἀπὸ δ᾽ ᾽Ιβηρίας µιᾶς ἡµέρας. colony. (2) Iolaos, nephew of Herakles, led the
(2) κατὰ δὲ τὸ µέγεθος παραπλήσιός ἐστι expedition, and taking possession of the island
Κορκύραι. κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀρετὴν οὖσα µετρία, τὴν he established renowned poleis, and after he
µὲν ἀµπελόφυτον χώραν ὀλίγην ἔχει, τὰς δ᾽ had apportioned the land in allotments, he
ἐλαίας ἐµπεφυτευµένας ἐν τοῖς κοτίνοις· τῶν δὲ named the people of the colony after himself,
φυοµένων ἐν αὐτῆι καλλιστεύειν φασὶ τὴν Iolaeioi. He also built gymnasia and temples to
µαλακότητα τῶν ἐρίων. διειληµµένη δὲ πεδίοις the gods and all else contributing to human
ἀξιολόγοις καὶ γεωλόφοις, πόλιν ἔχει τὴν happiness, with memorials of this remaining
ὀνοµαζοµένην ῎Ερεσον, ἄποικον Καρχηδονίων. (3) to the present day. Since the fairest plains
ἔχει δὲ καὶ λιµένας ἀξιολόγους καὶ τειχῶν there get their name from him and are called
κατασκευὰς εὐµεγέθεις καὶ οἰκιῶν πλῆθος εὖ ‘Iolaiea’, all the people preserve the present
κατεσκευασµένων. κατοικοῦσι δ᾽ αὐτὴν βάρβαροι name which they took from Iolaos. (3) The
παντοδαποί, πλεῖστοι δὲ Φοίνικες. ὁ δ᾽ ἀποικισµὸς oracle concerning the colony also promised
αὐτῆς γέγονεν ὕστερον ἔτεσιν ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα that the participants in the undertaking
τῆς κατὰ τὴν Καρχηδόνα κτίσεως. should always be free, and it has indeed
happened that the oracle, contrary to
(17.1) ἄλλαι δ᾽ ὑπάρχουσι νῆσοι κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῆς expectation, has preserved their autonomy to
᾽Ιβηρίας, ὑπὸ µὲν τῶν ῾Ελλήνων ὀνοµαζόµεναι this day. (4) And so the Carthaginians, even
Γυµνησίαι διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας γυµνοὺς τῆς though their power was widespread and they
ἐσθῆτος βιοῦν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ θέρους ὥραν, ὑπὸ δὲ subdued the island, were unable to enslave its
τῶν ἐγχωρίων [[καὶ τῶν ῾Ρωµαίων]] former possessors, but the Iolaeioi fled for
προσαγορευθῆναι Βαλιαρίδας ἀπὸ τοῦ βάλλειν safety to the island's mountains and there
ταῖς σφενδόναις λίθους µεγάλους κάλλιστα τῶν constructed underground abodes, and in this
ἀπάντων ἀνθρώπων. τούτων δ᾽ ἡ µείζω µεγίστη place they raised many flocks and herds which
πασῶν ἐστι µετὰ τὰς ἐπτὰ νήσους – Σικελίαν, gave them abundant food, with the result that
Σαρδώ, Κύπρον, Κρήτην, Εὔβοιαν, Κύρνον, they were able to sustain themselves with milk
Λέσβον –, ἀπέχει δὲ τῆς ᾽Ιβηρίας πλοῦν and cheese and meat. And since they had
ἡµερήσιον· ἡ δ᾽ ἐλάττων κέκλιται µὲν πρὸς τὴν given up the plain country, they avoided
ἕω, τρέφει δὲ κτήνη πολλὰ καὶ παντοδαπά, arduous labor, but traversed the mountainous
µάλιστα δ᾽ ἡµιόνους µεγάλους µὲν τοῖς part of the island and led an easy life, in that
ἀναστήµασιν, ὑπεράγοντας δὲ ταῖς ῥώµαις. (2) they continued to use the food as I have
ἀµφότεραι δ᾽ αἱ νῆσοι χώραν ἔχουσιν ἀγαθὴν mentioned. (5) And although the
καρποφόρον, καὶ πλῆθος τῶν κατοικούντων ὑπὲρ Carthaginians warred against them, often with
τοὺς τρισµυρίους. τῶν δὲ πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν considerable armies, yet due to the country's
γεννηµάτων οἶνον µὲν ὁλοσχερῶς οὐ φέρουσι· διὸ rugged nature and the difficulty of access to
καὶ πάντες εἰσὶν ὑπερβολῆι πρὸς τὸν οἶνον their underground abodes the people
εὐκατάφοροι διὰ τὸ σπανίζειν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς· ἐλαίου remained free. [[Finally, when the Romans
δὲ παντελῶς σπανίζοντες, κατασκευάζουσιν ἐκ conquered the island and frequently made war
τῆς σχίνου, καὶ µιγνύντες ὑείωι στέατι τὰ σώµατα on them, they again remained free for the
αὐτῶν ἀλείφουσι τούτωι. (3) µάλιστα δὲ τῶν reasons mentioned]]. (6) [[In the early
ἁπάντων ὄντες φιλογύναιοι, προτιµῶσιν αὐτὰς ἐπὶ times]], however, Iolaos, after assisting in the
τοσοῦτον, ὥστε ὅταν τινὲς γυναῖκες ὑπὸ τῶν colony’s foundation, returned to Hellas, but
προσπλεόντων ληιστῶν ἁλῶσιν, ἁντὶ µιᾶς the Thespiadai were the leading men on the
γυναικὸς τρεῖς ἢ τέτταρας ἄνδρας διδόντες island for many generations, until they were
λυτροῦνται. (3a) οἰκοῦσι δ᾽ ὑπὸ ταῖς κοιλάσι finally driven out into Italy, where they settled
πέτραις, καὶ παρὰ τοὺς κρηµνοὺς ὀρύγµατα down in the area of Kyme. The large numbers
κατασκευάζοντες καὶ καθόλου πολλοὺς τόπους of colonists left behind became barbarized,
ὑπονόµους ποιοῦντες, ἐν τούτοις βιοῦσιν, ἅµα τὴν and selecting the best men from among the
ἐξ αὐτῶν σκέπην καὶ ἀσφάλειαν θηρώµενοι. (4) natives as leaders, they have preserved their
ἀργυρῶι δὲ καὶ χρυσῶι νοµίσµατι τὸ παράπαν οὐ freedom down to the present day.
χρῶνται, καὶ καθόλου ταῦτα εἰσάγειν εἰς τὴν
νῆσον κωλύουσιν· αἰτίαν δὲ ταύτην ἐπιφέρουσιν, (16.1) [[But now that I have dealt sufficiently
ὅτι τὸ παλαιὸν ῾Ηρακλῆς ἐστράτευσεν ἐπὶ with Sardinia, I shall discuss the islands in the
Γηρυόνην, ὄντα Χρυσάορος µὲν υἱόν, πλεῖστον δὲ order in which they lie]]. After those I have
κεκτηµένον ἄργυρόν τε καὶ χρυσόν· ἵν᾽ οὖν discussed there is first an island called
ἀνεπιβούλευτον ἔχωσι τὴν κτῆσιν, ἀνεπιµικτὸν Pityoussa, named from the multitude of pine
ἑαυτοῖς ἐποίησαν τὸν ἐξ ἀργύρου τε καὶ χρυσοῦ trees which grow all over there. It is located
πλοῦτον· διόπερ ἀκολούθως ταύτηι τῆι κρίσει out in the open sea and is a voyage of three
κατὰ τὰς γεγενηµένας [[πάλαι ποτὲ]] στρατείας days and three nights from the Pillars of
παρὰ Καρχηδονίοις τοὺς µισθοὺς οὐκ ἀπεκόµιζον Herakles, one day and one night from Libya,
εἰς τὰς πατρίδας, ἀλλ᾽ ὠνούµενοι γυναῖκας καὶ and one day from Iberia. (2) In size it is
οἶνον ἅπαντα τὸν µισθὸν εἰς ταῦτα κατεχώριζον. roughly the same as Corcyra. The island is not
exceptionally fertile, having little land suitable
for viticulture, but it has olive trees which are
engrafted on the wild olive. Of all the island’s
(18.1) παράδοξον δέ τι καὶ κατὰ τοὺς γάµους products, they say, the wool is best in quality.
νόµιµον παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐστιν· ἐν γὰρ ταῖς κατὰ τοὺς The island is broken at intervals by notable
γάµους εὐχωίαις οἰκείων τε καὶ φίλων κατὰ τὴν plains and highlands and has the name of
ἡλικίαν ὁ πρῶτος ἀεὶ καὶ ὁ δεύτερος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ Eresos, a Carthaginian colony. (3) It also has
κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς µίσγονται ταῖς νύµφαις ἀνὰ µέρος, excellent harbors, large walls, and many well-
ἐσχάτου τοῦ νυµφίου τυγχάνοντος ταύτης τῆς made houses. Its inhabitants are barbarians of
τιµῆς. (2) ἴδιον δέ τι ποιοῦσι καὶ παντελῶς every ethnic group, but the majority are
ἐξηλλαγµένον περὶ τὰς τῶν τετελευτηκότων Phoenicians. The foundation date of the
ταφάς· συγκόψαντες γὰρ ξύλοις τὰ µέλη τοῦ colony is 160 years after the establishment of
σώµατος εἰς ἀγγεῖον ἐµβάλλουσι, καὶ λίθους Carthage.
δαψιλεῖς ἐπιτιθέασιν. (3) ὁπλισµὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς
τρεῖς σφενδόναι· καὶ τούτων µίαν µὲν περὶ τὴν (17.1) There are other islands opposite Iberia,
κεφαλὴν ἔχουσιν, ἄλλην δὲ περὶ τὴν γαστέρα, called Gymnasiai by the Hellenes because the
τρίτην δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς χερσί. κατὰ δὲ τὰς πολεµικὰς inhabitants go about naked in summer, but
χρείας βάλλουσι λίθους πολὺ µείζους τῶν ἄλλων which the inhabitants [[and the Romans]] call
οὕτως εὐτόνως, ὥστε δοκεῖν τὸ βληθὲν ἀπό τινος Baliarides, because these people are the most
καταπέλτου φέρεσθαι· διὸ καὶ κατὰ τὰς skilled as slingers of large stones. The largest of
τειχοµαχίας ἐν ταῖς προσβολαῖς τύπτοντες τοὺς these is largest of all islands after the seven,
ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπάλξεων ἐφεστῶτας Sicily, Sardinia, Cyprus, Crete, Euboia, Kyrnos,
κατατραυµατίζουσιν, ἐν δὲ ταῖς παρατάξεσι τούς and Lesbos; and it lies a day’s journey from
τε θυρεοὺς καὶ τὰ κράνη καὶ πᾶν σκεπαστήριον Iberia. The smaller is more to the east and has
ὃπλον συντρίβουσι. (4) κατὰ δὲ τὴν εὐστοχίαν great herds and flocks of all kinds of animals,
οὕτως ἀκριβεῖς εἰσιν, ὥστε κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον µὴ especially of mules, which are quite tall and
ἁµαρτάνειν τοῦ προκειµένου σκοποῦ. αἴτιαι δὲ exceedingly strong. (2) Both islands have good
τούτων αἱ συνεχεῖς ἐκ παίδων µελέται, καθ᾽ ἃς fruit-producing lands, and populations
ὑπὸ τῶν µητέρων ἀναγκάζονται παῖδες ὄντες exceeding 30,000. But concerning their foods
συνεχῶς σφενδονᾶν· προκειµένου γὰρ σκοποῦ they produce absolutely no wine, so that the
κατά τι ξύλον ἠρτηµένου ἄρτου, οὐ πρότερον natives are addicted to it because of its scarcity
δίδοται τῶι µελετῶντι φαγεῖν, ἕως ἂν τυχὼν τοῦ among them. And they also are without olive
ἄρτου συγχωρούµενον λάβηι παρὰ τῆς µητρὸς oil and so prepare an oil from the mastich tree,
καταφαγεῖν τοῦτον. (19.1) [[ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ τῶν ἐντὸς which they blend with pig fat, and with this
῾Ηρακλείων στηλῶν κειµένων νήσων they anoint themselves. (3) The Baliares are
διεληλύθαµεν, περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν ὠκεανὸν οὐσῶν among all men fond of women and value them
διέξιµεν]]. κατὰ γὰρ τὴν Λιβύην κεῖται µὲν so highly above everything else that, when
πελαγία νῆσος ἀξιόλογος [µὲν] τῶι µεγέθει, marauding pirates seize any of their women
κειµένη δὲ κατὰ τὸν ὠκεανόν, ἀπέχει [δὲ] πλοῦν and carry them off, they will give three and
ἀπὸ τῆς Λιβύης ἡµερῶν πλειόνων, κεκλιµένη πρὸς even four men in order to ransom them back.
τὴν δύσιν. (2) ἔχει δὲ χώραν καρποφόρον, πολλὴν (3a) They construct their living quarters under
µὲν ὀρεινήν, οὐκ ὀλίγην δὲ πεδιάδα κάλλει hollow rocks, or they dig holes along the faces
διαφέρουσαν· διαρρεοµένη γὰρ ποταµοῖς πλωτοῖς, of jagged crags, generally placing a large part
ἐκ τούτων ἀρδεύεται. καὶ πολλοὺς µὲν ἔχει of them underground. In these they spend
παραδείσους καταφύτους παντοίοις δένδρεσι, their time, considering the shelter and the
παµπληθεῖς δὲ κηπείας διειληµµένας ὕδασι safety these kinds of dwellings provide. (4)
γλυκέσιν· ἐπαύλεις τε πολυτελεῖς ταῖς They do not use coined silver and gold, and its
κατασκευαῖς ὑπάρχουσιν ἐν αὐτῆι, καὶ κατὰ τὰς importation is generally prohibited on the
κηπείας κατεσκευασµένα κωθωνιστήρια τὴν island. They say the reason for this is that long
διάθεσιν ἀνθηρὰν ἔχοντα, ἐν οἷς οἱ κατοικοῦντες ago Herakles made an expedition against
κατὰ τὴν θερινὴν ὥραν ἐνδιατρίβουσι, δαψιλῶς Geryon, son of Chrysaor, who possessed a
τῆς χώρας χορηγούσης τὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν great deal of gold and silver. And so that their
καὶ τρυφήν. (3) ἥ τε ὀρεινὴ δρυµοὺς ἔχει πυκνοὺς possessions would be unlikely to stimulate
καὶ µεγάλους, καὶ δένδρα παντοδαπὰ καρποφόρα, anyone’s cupidity, they have rejected gold and
καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι διαίτας [ἔχοντα] silver among themselves. As a result, when
συναγκείας καὶ πηγὰς πολλάς. καθόλου δ᾽ ἡ νῆσος they [[long ago]] served in the campaigns of
αὕτη κατάρρυτός ἐστι ναµατιαίοις καὶ γλυκέσι the Carthaginians, they did not bring back pay
ὕδασι, δι᾽ ὧν οὐ µόνον ἀπόλαυσις ἐπιτερπὴς to their native land but spent it all on the
γίνεται τοῖς ἐµβιοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῆι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς purchase of women and wine.
ὑγίειαν σωµάτων καὶ ῥώµην συµβάλλεται. (4)
κυνήγιά τε δαψιλῆ παντοίων ζώιων καὶ θηρίων (18.1) The Baliares also have a remarkable
ὑπάρχει, καὶ τούτων ἐν ταῖς εὐωχίαις custom regarding marriage. During their
εὐποροῦντες, οὐδὲν ἐλλιπὲς ἔχουσι τῶν πρὸς wedding celebrations relatives and friends
τρυφὴν καὶ πολυτέλειαν ἀνηκόντων· καὶ γὰρ take turns in lying with the bride, from oldest
ἰχθύων ἔχει πλῆθος ἡ προσκλύζουσα τῆι νήσωι to youngest, and the last one to enjoy this
θάλαττα διὰ τὸ φύσει τὸν ὠκεανὸν πανταχῆι privilege becomes the bridegroom. (2) Their
πλήθειν παντοδαπῶν ἰχθύων. (5) καθόλου δ᾽ ἡ ritual in burying the dead is also peculiar and
νῆσος αὕτη τὸν περικείµενον ἀέρα παντελῶς completely bizarre. They dismember the body
εκρατον ἔχουσα, τὸ πλέον µέρος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ with wooden knives, and then they place the
φέρει πλῆθος ἀκροδρύων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν pieces into a jar, placing heavy stones on it. (3)
ὡραίων, ὥστε δοκεῖν αὐτὴν ὡσεὶ θεῶν τινων, οὐκ They use three slings in combat; of these they
ἀνθρώπων ὑπάρχειν ἐµβιωτήριον διὰ τὴν have one around their heads, another around
ὑπερβολὴν τῆς εὐδαιµονίας. (20.1) κατὰ µὲν οὖν the belly, and the third they hold in their
τοὺς παλαιοὺς χρόνους ἀνεύρετος ἦν διὰ τὸν ἀπὸ hands. In warfare they hurl larger projectiles
τῆς ὅλης οἰκουµένης ἐκτοπισµόν, ὕστερον δ᾽ than other peoples, and they do so with such
εὑρεθῆναι διὰ τοιαύτας αἰτίας. Φοίνικες ἐκ force that the missile seems to be shot from a
παλαιῶν χρόνων συνεχῶς πλέοντες κατ᾽ catapult. Consequently, in besieging walled
ἐµπορίαν, πολλὰς µὲν κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην ἀποικίας cities, they hit and disable defenders on the
ἐποιήσαντο, οὐκ ὀλίγας δὲ καὶ τῆς Εὐρώπης ἐν walls, and in pitched battles they crush shields,
τοῖς πρὸς δύσιν κεκλιµένοις µέρεσι. τῶν δ᾽ helmets, and any protective armor. (4) They
ἐπιβολῶν αὐτοῖς κατὰ νοῦν προχωρουσῶν, are such accurate marksmen that in most
πλούτους µεγάλους ἤθροισαν, καὶ τὴν ἐκτὸς cases they never miss their target. This is due
῾Ηρακλειῶν στηλῶν ἐπεβάλοντο πλεῖν, ἣν to their constant training from childhood,
ὠκεανὸν ὀνοµάζουσι. (2) καὶ πρῶτον µὲν ἐπ᾽ when their mothers compel them as young
αὐτοῦ τοῦ κατὰ τὰς στήλας πόρου πόλιν ἔκτισαν boys to use the sling continuously. A piece of
ἐπὶ τῆς Εὐρώπης, ἣν οὖσαν χερρόνησον bread on a stake is placed before them, and
προσηγόρευσαν Γάδειρα, ἐν ἧι τά τε ἄλλα the trainee cannot eat until he has hit the
κατεσκεύασαν οἰκείως τοῖς τόποις καὶ ναὸν bread, whereupon with his mother's
῾Ηρακλέους πολυτελῆ, καὶ θυσίας κατέδειξαν permission he takes it and devours it. (19.1)
µεγαλοπρεπεῖς τοῖς τῶν Φοινίκων ἔθεσι [[But now that I have written about the islands
διοικουµένας. τὸ δ᾽ ἱερὸν συνέβη τοῦτο καὶ τότε lying within the Pillars of Herakles, I shall
καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νεωτέρους χρόνους τιµᾶσθαι discuss those which lie in the ocean]]. Out in
περιττότερον [[µέχρι τῆς καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς ἡλικίας. the deep off Libya there is a large island, it lies
πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν ῾Ρωµαίων ...]] (3) οἱ δ᾽ οὖν a number of days’ voyage on the ocean from
Φοίνικες διὰ τὰς προειρηµένας αἰτίας ἐρευνῶντες Libya to the west. (2) It is fertile, a great deal of
τὴν ἐκτὸς τῶν στηλῶν παραλίαν, καὶ παρὰ τὴν it is mountainous and it possesses a
Λιβύην πλέοντες, ὑπ᾽ ἀνέµων µεγάλων considerable level plain of surpassing beauty.
ἀπηνέχθησαν ἐπὶ πολὺν πλοῦν δι᾽ ὠκεανοῦ· Navigable rivers flowing through it are used for
χειµασθέντες δὲ ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡµέρας irrigation. It has many parks in which trees of
προσηνέχθησαν τῆι προειρηµένηι νήσωι, καὶ τὴν all kinds have been planted, and great
εὐδαιµονίαν αὐτῆς καὶ φύσιν κατοπτεύσαντες multitudes of gardens cut by streams of sweet
ἅπασι γνώριµον ἐποίησαν. (4) διὸ καὶ Τυρρηνῶν water. There are also expensive private villas
θαλαττοκρατούντων καὶ πέµπειν εἰς αὐτὴν on it, and banquet halls are located
ἀποικίαν ἐπιβαλλοµένων, διεκώλυσαν αὐτοὺς throughout the gardens in settings of flowers.
Καρχηδόνιοι, ἅµα µὲν εὐλαβούµενοι µὴ διὰ τὴν Here the inhabitants while away their
ἀρετὴν τῆς νήσου πολλοὶ τῶν ἐκ τῆς Καρχηδόνος summers, since the land supplies everything
εἰς ἐκείνην µεταστῶσιν, ἅµα δὲ πρὸς τὰ παράλογα contributing to enjoyment and luxury in
τῆς Τύχης κατασκευαζόµενοι καταφυγήν, εἴ τι abundance. (3) Dense thickets cover the
περὶ τὴν Καρχηδόνα ὁλοσχερὲς πταῖσµα mountains; these are of great extent and have
συµβαίνοι· δυνήσεσθαι γὰρ αὐτοὺς fruit trees of all kinds, and its glens and many
θαλαττοκρατοῦντας ἀπᾶραι πανοικίους εἰς springs offer an invitation to men to live in the
ἀγνοουµένην ὑπὸ τῶν ὑπερεχόντων νῆσον. mountainous part of the island. In short, this
island is supplied with sweet-water springs,
(21.1) [[… µεταβιβάσοµεν τὸν λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν which is not only enjoyable for those using
Εὐρώπην]]. κατὰ γὰρ τὴν Γαλατίαν τὴν them to spend their lives there, but also
παρωκεανῖτιν κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῶν ῾Ερκυνίων contributes to bodily health and vigor. (4)
ὀνοµαζοµένων δρυµῶν – ὀρῶν µέγιστα γὰρ There also is excellent hunting of every sort of
ὑπάρχειν παρειλήφαµεν τῶν κατὰ τὴν Εὐρώπην – game, and the inhabitants, well supplied with
νῆσοι πολλαὶ κατὰ τὸν ὠκεανὸν ὑπάρχουσιν, ὧν the game at their banquets, want nothing
ἐστι µεγίστη ἡ Πρεττανικὴ καλουµένη. (2) αὕτη pertaining to luxury and extravagance. Indeed,
δὲ τὸ µὲν παλαιὸν ἀνεπίµικτος ἐγένετο ξενικαῖς the sea washing up on the shore of this island
δυνάµεσιν· οὐτε γὰρ Διόνυσον οὐθ᾽ ῾Ηρακλέα contains a multitude of fish, since the ocean
παρειλήφαµεν οὐτε τῶν ἄλλων ἡρώων ἤ δυναστῶν here naturally abounds in fish of every sort. (5)
ἐστρατευµένον ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν, [[καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς δὲ Γάιος Generally, the island’s climate is so moderate
Καῖσαρ ... περὶ δὲ τῆς νήσου καὶ τοῦ φυοµένου that it yields an abundance of tree-ripened
κατ᾽ αὐτὴν καττιτέρου νῦν διέξιµεν]]. (3) αὕτη fruit and other seasonal fruits for most of the
γὰρ τῶι σχήµατι τρίγωνος οὖσα, παραπλησίως τῆι year, so that it would seem that the island,
Σικελίαι τὰς πλευρὰς οὐκ ἰσοκώλους ἔχει. because of its extraordinary fertility, were an
παρεκτεινούσης δ᾽ αὐτῆς παρὰ τὴν Εὐρώπην abode of gods and not men.
λοξῆς, τὸ µὲν ἐλάχιστον ἀπὸ τῆς ἠπείρου
διεστηκὸς ἀκρωτήριον, ὃ καλοῦσι Κάντιον, φασὶν
ἀπέχειν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς σταδίους ὡς ἑκατόν, καθ᾽ ὃν
τόπον ἡ θάλαττα ποιεῖται τὸν ἔκρουν· τὸ δ᾽ ἕτερον (20.1) In olden times the island was
ἀκρωτήριον τὸ καλούµενον Βελέριον ἀπέχειν undiscovered because of its great remove from
λέγεται τῆς ἠπείρου πλοῦν ἡµερῶν τεττάρων· τὸ the inhabited world, but later it was
δ᾽ ὑπολειπόµενον ἀνήκειν µὲν ἱστοροῦσιν εἰς τὸ discovered for the following reason. The
πέλαγος, ὀνοµάζεσθαι δ᾽ ῎Ορκαν. (4) τῶν δὲ Phoenicians, having made commercial voyages
πλευρῶν τὴν µὲν ἐλαχίστην εἶναι σταδίων from ancient times, founded many colonies
ἑπτακισχιλίων πεντακοσίων, παρήκουσαν παρὰ throughout Libya and several others in
τὴν Εὐρώπην, τὴν δευτέραν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ πορθµοῦ western parts of Europe. And since these
πρὸς τὴν κορυφὴν ἀνήκουσαν σταδίων µυρίων undertakings turned out well for them, they
πεντακισχιλίων, τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν σταδίων became extremely wealthy and attempted to
δισµυρίων, ὥστε τὴν πᾶσαν εἶναι τῆς νήσου journey beyond the Pillars of Herakles into the
περιφορὰν σταδίων τετρακισµυρίων δισχιλίων sea men call Ocean. (2) And, first of all, they
πεντακοσίων. (5) κατοικεῖν δέ φασι τὴν founded a polis on European shores on the
Πρεττανικὴν αὐτόχθονα γένη καὶ τὸν παλαιὸν strait itself by the Pillars, naming it Gadeira,
βίον ταῖς ἀγωγαῖς διατηροῦντα· ἄρµασι µὲν γὰρ since the land there formed a peninsula. In the
κατὰ τοὺς πολέµους χρῶνται, καθάπερ οἱ παλαιοὶ polis, they built many works fitted to the
τῶν ῾Ελλήνων ἥρωες ἐν τῶι Τρωικῶι πολέµωι nature of the region, and among these was an
κεχρῆσθαι παραδέδονται· καὶ τὰς οἰκήσεις expensive temple to Herakles, instituting
εὐτελεῖς ἔχουσιν, ἐκ τῶν καλάµων ἢ ξύλων κατὰ magnificent sacrifices conducted in
τὸ πλεῖστον συγκειµένας· τήν τε συναγωγὴν τῶν Phoenician fashion. And this temple has been
σιτικῶν καρπῶν ποιοῦνται τοὺς στάχυς αὐτοὺς honored beyond normal measure, both in
ἀποτέµνοντες καὶ θησαυρίζοντες εἰς τὰς antiquity and in more recent times [[almost
καταστέγους οἰκήσεις, ἐκ δὲ τούτων τοὺς down to our own day. Also many Romans ...]]
παλαιοὺς στάχυς καθ᾽ ἡµέραν τίλλειν, καὶ (3) The Phoenicians, therefore, while exploring
κατεργαζοµένους ἔχειν τὴν τροφήν. (6) τοῖς δ᾽ the coast beyond the Pillars for the stated
ἤθεσιν ἁπλοῦς εἷναι καὶ πολὺ κεχωρισµένους τῆς reasons and sailing along the Libyan shore,
τῶν νῦν ἀνθρώπων ἀγχινοίας καὶ πονηρίας· τάς τε were driven by strong winds a great way out
διαίτας εὐτελεῖς ἔχειν, καὶ τῆς ἐκ τοῦ πλούτου into the ocean. After being tossed by storms
γεννωµένης τρυφῆς πολὺ διαλλάττοντας. εἶναι δὲ for several days, they were brought ashore on
καὶ πολυάνθρωπον τὴν νῆσον· καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος the island I have mentioned, and when they
ἔχειν διάθεσιν παντελῶς κατεψυγµένην, ὡς ἂν ὑπ᾽ had realized its blessings and nature, they
αὐτὴν τὴν ἄρκτον κειµένην. βασιλεῖς δὲ καὶ made it known to all. (4) Consequently, the
δυνάστας πολλοὺς ἔχειν, καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους κατὰ Tyrrhenians, in the days when they mastered
τὸ πλεῖστον εἰρηνικῶς διακεῖσθαι. the sea, tried to send out a colony to it. But the
Carthaginians prevented them, in part because
(22.1) [[ἀλλὰ περὶ µὲν τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὴν νοµίµων they feared that many Carthaginians would go
καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἰδιωµάτων τὰ κατὰ µέρος there because of the island’s excellences, and
ἀναγράψοµεν, ὅταν ἐπὶ τὴν Καίσαρος … in part because they wanted a place of refuge
στρατείαν … παραγενηθῶµεν, νῦν δὲ περὶ τοῦ in times of misfortune, in the event that some
κατ᾽ αὐτὴν φυοµένου καττιτέρου διέξιµεν]]. τῆς incalculable disaster should befall Carthage.
γὰρ Βρεττανικῆς κατὰ τὸ ἀκρωτήριον τὸ For they thought that, because they controlled
καλούµενον Βελέριον οἱ κατοικοῦντες φιλόξενοί τε
διαφερόντως εἰσὶ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν ξένων ἐµπόρων
ἐπιµιξίαν ἐξηµερωµένοι τὰς ἀγωγάς. οὗτοι τὸν the sea, they would thus be able to move,
κασσίτερον κατασκευάζουσι, φιλοτέχνως households and all else, to an island unknown
ἐργαζόµενοι τὴν φέρουσαν αὐτὸν γῆν. (2) αὕτη δὲ to their conquerors.
πετρώδης οὖσα διαφυὰς ἔχει γεώδεις, ἐν αἷς τὸν
πόρον κατεργαζόµενοι καὶ τήξαντες καθαίρουσιν. (21.1) [[I shall now turn to discuss Europe]].
ἀποτυποῦντες δ᾽ εἰς ἀστραγάλων ῥυθµοὺς Opposite that part of Gaul lying on the ocean
κοµίζουσιν εἴς τινα νῆσον προκειµένην µὲν τῆς and directly across from the so-called
Βρεττανικῆς, ὀνοµαζοµένην δὲ ῎Ικτιν· κατὰ γὰρ Hercynian forest, the largest of any known
τὰς ἀµπώτεις ἀναξηραινοµένου τοῦ µεταξὺ τόπου from the tradition, there are many islands out
ταῖς ἁµάξαις εἰς ταύτην κοµίζουσι δαψιλῆ τὸν in the ocean, the largest of which is known as
κασσίτερον. (3) ἴδιον δέ τι συµβαίνει περὶ τὰς Britain. (2) This island in antiquity was not
πλησίον νήσους τὰς µεταξὺ κειµένας τῆς τε visited by foreign troops. For neither Dionysos
Εὐρώπης καὶ τῆς Βρεττανικῆς· κατὰ µὲν γὰρ τὰς nor Herakles nor any other hero or leader are
πληµµυρίδας τοῦ µεταξὺ πόρου πληρουµένου said to have campaigned against it. [[In our
νῆσοι φαίνονται, κατὰ δὲ τὰς ἀµπώτεις time, however, Gaius Caesar ... for now I shall
ἀπορρεούσης τῆς θαλάττης καὶ πολὺν τόπον discuss the island and the tin discovered in
ἀναξηραινούσης, θεωροῦνται χερρόνησοι. (4) it]]. (3) Britain in shape is a triangle, much like
ἐντεῦθεν δ᾽ οἱ ἔµποροι παρὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων Sicily, but its sides are unequal. The island
ὠνοῦνται, καὶ διακοµίζουσιν εἰς τὴν Γαλατίαν· τὸ extends obliquely along the European coast,
δὲ τελευταῖον πεζῆι διὰ τῆς Γαλατίας πορευθέντες and the point where it is closest to the
ἡµέρας ὡς τριάκοντα, κατάγουσι ἐπὶ τῶν ἴππων mainland, they say, is the promontory men call
τὰ φορτία πρὸς τὴν ἐκβολὴν τοῦ ῾Ροδανοῦ Kantion, about 100 stades from the land,
ποταµοῦ. where the sea has an outlet; whereas the
second promontory, called Belerion, is said to
(23.1) [[περὶ µὲν οὖν τοῦ καττιτέρου τοῖς ῥηθεῖσιν be a four days’ voyage from the mainland, and
ἀρκεσθησόµεθα, περὶ δὲ τοῦ καλουµένου the last, the writers say, extends out into the
ἠλέκτρου νῦν διέξιµεν]]. τῆς Σκυθίας τῆς ὑπὲρ open sea, being called Orka. (4) Of the sides of
τὴν Γαλατίαν κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ νῆσός ἐστι πελαγία Britain the shortest, extending along Europe, is
κατὰ τὸν ὠκεανὸν ἡ προσαγορευοµένη Βασίλεια. 7,500 stades; the second, from the strait to the
εἰς ταύτην ὁ κλύδων ἐκβάλλει δαψιλὲς τὸ tip, is 15,000 stades, and the last is 20,000
καλούµενον ἤλεκτρον, οὐδαµοῦ δὲ τῆς οἰκουµένης stades. The island’s entire circuit, then, is
φαινόµενον. περὶ δὲ τούτου πολλοὶ τῶν παλαιῶν about 42,500 stades. (5) And Britain, they say,
ἀνέγραψαν µύθους παντελῶς ἀπιστουµένους καὶ is populated by autochthonous tribes
διὰ τῶν ἀποτελεσµάτων ἐλεγχοµένους. (2) πολλοὶ preserving their ancient manner of life. For
γὰρ τῶν τε ποιητῶν καὶ τῶν συγγραφέων φασὶ instance, they use chariots in warfare, just as
Φαέθοντα τὸν ῾Ηλίου µὲν υἱόν, παῖδα δὲ τὴν the ancient Hellenic heroes in the Trojan War,
ἡλικίαν ὄντα, πεῖσαι τὸν πατέρα, µίαν ἡµέραν and their abodes are modest, mostly built out
παραχωρῆσαι τοῦ τεθρίππου· συγχωρηθέντος δ᾽ of reeds or logs. The way they harvest grain is
αὐτῶι τούτου, τὸυ µὲν Φαέθοντα ἐλαύνοντα τὸ to cut off no more than the heads and
τέθριππον µὴ δύνασθαι κρατεῖν τῶν ἡνιῶν, τοὺς δ᾽ stockpile them in roofed granges, and then
ἵππους καταφρονήσαντας τοῦ παιδὸς ἐξενεχθῆναι daily they pick out ripened heads and grind
τοῦ συνήθους δρόµου· καὶ τὸ µὲν πρῶτον κατὰ τὸν them, getting their sustenance in this way. (6)
οὐρανὸν πλανωµένους ἐκπυρῶσαι τοῦτον καὶ In their ethical behavior, they are simple and
ποιῆσαι τὸν νῦν γαλαξίαν καλούµενον κύκλον, far from the shrewdness and vice common
µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πολλὴν τῆς οἰκουµένης among present-day people. They live modestly,
ἐπιφλέξαντας, οὐκ ὀλίγην κατακάειν χώραν. (3) since they are removed from the luxury which
διὸ καὶ τοῦ Διὸς ἀγανακτήσαντος ἐπὶ τοῖς comes from wealth. The island is densely
γεγενηµένοις, κεραυνῶσαι µὲν τὸν Φαέθοντα, populated, and its climate is very bracing, as
ἀποκαταστῆσαι δὲ τὸν ῞Ηλιον ἐπὶ τὴν συνήθη one would expect, since it actually lies
πορείαν. τοῦ δὲ Φαέθοντος πεσόντος πρὸς τὰς beneath the Great Bear. Many kings and
ἐκβολὰς τοῦ νῦν καλουµένου Πάδου ποταµοῦ, τὸ dynasts rule over it, who for the most part live
δὲ παλαιὸν ᾽Ηριδανοῦ προσαγορευοµένου, at peace with one another.
θρηνῆσαι µὲν τὰς ἀδελφὰς αὐτοῦ τὴν τελευτὴν
φιλοτιµότατα, διὰ δὲ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς λύπης (22.1) [[But I shall provide a detailed account
[ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως] µετασχηµατισθῆναι τὴν φύσιν, of Britain and its other peculiar features when
γενοµένας αἰγείρους. (4) ταύτας δὲ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν I come to Caesar’s campaign ... and for now I
κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ὥραν δάκρυον ἀφιέναι, καὶ τοῦτο shall discuss the island’s tin]]. The Britons who
πηγνύµενον ἀποτελεῖν τὸ καλούµενον ἤλεκτρον, live around the promontory known as Belerion
λαµπρότητι µὲν τῶν ὁµοφυῶν διαφέρον, are especially friendly to foreigners and have
ἐπιχωριάζον δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς τῶν νέων τελευταῖς κατὰ adopted civilized ways because of their
τὸ τούτων πένθος. (5) διηµαρτηκότων δὲ πάντων interactions with merchants of other peoples.
τῶν τὸν µῦθον τοῦτον πεπλακότων καὶ διὰ τῶν They work the tin, treating the tin bed in a
ἀποτελεσµάτων ἐν τοῖς ὕστερον χρόνοις clever way. (2) This rock-like bed contains
ἐλεγχοµένων, προσεκτέον ταῖς ἀληθιναῖς earthy seams in which the workers quarry the
ἱστορίαις· τὸ γὰρ ἤλεκτρον συνάγεται µὲν ἐν τῆι ore. This they then melt down and purify. Then
προειρηµένηι νήσωι, κοµίζεται δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν they fashion the tin into pieces the size of
ἐγχωρίων πρὸς τὴν ἀντιπέρας ἤπειρον, δι᾽ ἧς knuckle bones and bring it to the island lying
φέρεται πρὸς τοὺς καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς τόπους, καθότι off Britain called Iktis. At ebb tide the space
προείρηται [περὶ τούτων]. lying between this island and the mainland
becomes dry and they are then able to take
large quantities of tin over to the island on
wagons. (3) Incidentally, an odd feature of the
neighboring islands lying between Europe and
Britain is that at flood-tide the passages
between them and the mainland are full and
they seem to be islands, but at ebb tide the sea
withdraws, leaving dry land, and they seem to
be peninsulas. (4) On the island of Iktis
merchants buy the natives’ tin and take it from
there across the strait to Galatia. Finally, after a
thirty-days’ journey on foot, they convey their
wares on horseback to the mouth of the Rhone
river.
(23.1) [[I have said enough about the tin of
Britain, and I shall now discuss electron
(amber)]]. Straight across from the part of
Scythia lying above Galatia there is an island
called Basileia. Here the waves of the sea cast
up large amounts of electron, which is found
nowhere else in the inhabited world. Many
ancient writers have said fabulous things
about it, which are incredible and which have
in fact been refuted by later events. (2) For
many poets and historians write that
Phaethon, son of Helios, while still a boy,
persuaded his father to yield to him his four-
horse chariot for a day. And when Helios gave
way to his request Phaethon, driving the
chariot, could not control the reins, and the
horses, paying the youth no heed, left their
accustomed course. At first they wandered up
near the heavens, burning them and creating
what is now called the Milky Way, and after
that they brought the burning rays to many
parts of the earth and scorched a considerable
part of the land. (3) And so Zeus, indignant at
this, struck Phaethon with a thunderbolt and
set the sun back in its usual course. And
Phaethon fell to the earth at the mouths of the
river now known as the Padus, which in
antiquity was called the Eridanos, and his
sisters competed in lamenting his death and
by their excess underwent a metamorphosis,
becoming poplar trees. (4) And these poplar
trees, at the same season every year, cry tears,
and these tears, when hardened, form what
men call electron, which in its brilliance is
superior to all else of the same nature and
commonly is used in grieving the death of
young people. (5) But since the creators of this
fictitious story are all mistaken, and have been
proven wrong by what has happened later, we
must attend to the truthful accounts. For the
fact is that electron is collected on the island I
have mentioned and is brought by the natives
to the opposite continent, and that it is carried
through the continent to the regions we know,
as I have stated.
Commentary
This lengthy excerpt was included by Jacoby in section 6: Anhang; it contains Timaian
material, but cannot be considered as a proper fragment. Its subject matter is predominantly
geographical and ethnographical; see generally J. Engels, ‘Geography and History,’ in A
Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, ed. by J. Marincola (Malden, Mass. 2007), 541-
52 and literature cited there; and for ancient ethnography, K.-E. Müller, Geschichte der antiken
Ethnographie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung (Wiesbaden 1972-1980). On the geography of
Sicily in particular, see Polyb. 1.42.1-7, with F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius
1 (Oxford 1957), 104-5. On barbarization and Hellenization among indigenous peoples of Sicily
and the west, a theme running throughout this excerpt, cf. G.W. Bowersock, ‘The Barbarism of
the Greeks’, HSCP 97 (1995), 3-14. The discussion of the rival claims of Sicilians and Athenians
as to being the discoverers, with Demeter’s grace, of agriculture (Diod. 5.4.4-5) may reflect a
conflict in Timaios’s allegiances, since he was a Sicilian Greek who spent most of his life in
Athens (T 4b, T 4c, T 4e, T 19, F 34). But, as discussed below, the idea that Timaios composed
this particular passage can only be conjecture. We find ample aetiological mythologies here
(certainly one of Timaios’s penchants), as in the story of the fountain of Arethousa, Hades’
rape of Kore or Persephone, and Herakles and the cattle of Geryon; there are also rationalizing
accounts of myth, as in the origin of the reference to Aiolos as ‘keeper of the winds’ (Diod.
5.7.7), another characteristic practice of Timaios (see, e.g., F 6 on Empedokles’ tomb; F 42b on
voiceless cicadas). The theme of the fecklessness of the Carthaginian mercenaries in Sicily
(Diod. 5.11.1-4) echoes Polybios’s description of Carthaginian mercenaries in the so-called
‘Truceless War’ (Polyb. 1.66-88, with A.M. Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius
(Berkeley 1995), 125-9 for Polybios’s views on mercenaries). Timaios’s history stopped at 264 BC
at the latest (T 6a, T 6b), so that Timaios cannot have been Polybios’s source for the ‘Truceless
War’, but Timaios’s treatment of Carthaginian mercenaries could conceivably have influenced
Polybios’s account of them.
Jacoby (FGrH 3b, Kommentar, 593) had no doubt that F 164 was an almost purely Timaian
extract from Diodoros’s Book 5 (‘der ganze Abschnitt ein so reines Exzerpt aus T. ist’). He
believed that Diod. 5.1-23 was from Timaios; 5.24 from Poseidonios (for whom see I.G. Kidd et
al., Posidonius 4 (Cambridge 1999)). An exception, as Jacoby was forced to admit, is Diodoros’s
description of Britain near the end of this excerpt (Diod. 5.21.1-22.4). The mention of the
Hercynian forest, which lay deep within Germania (Diod. 5.21.1), would have been of no aid in
orienting the islands to be described (the best description of it is in Casear’s Bellum Gallicum,
6.25-28); and on chronological grounds the mention of Julius Caesar (Diod. 5.21.2; cf. 22.1)
makes Poseidonios’s authorship highly unlikely (since publication of Books 1-7 of Caesar’s BC
may have occurred early in 51 BC, about the time of Poseidonios’s death); mention of Caesar
here of course makes Timaios’s authorship impossible. Here, then, we most likely have
Diodorus. Other passages in the excerpt, however, would seem to suggest Timaios’s
authorship, such as the remarks on the amazing healing powers of the warm-water springs of
Lipara (Diod. 5.10.1; cf. F 56a and F 56b on the healing powers of the Althainos river in Apulia;
and F 46 on the strange power of the Krathis river in Calabria); or dating the foundation of the
Carthaginian colony of Eresos on the island of Pithekoussai 160 years after the founding of
Carthage (cf. F 60, F 82); or the discussion of Phaethon and the chariot of the sun (F 68); or the
interest in metals and mines which is found throughout this excerpt (cf. T 31c, T 31d, T 31e; on
the alumen mines in Lipara at Diod. 5.10.2, see Plin. NH 35.52). As Timaios’s compatriot,
Diodorus undoubtedly found passages in Timaios which vaunted Sicily to his liking, such as
the story that Sicily first received the gift of agriculture from Demeter, before Athens (5.4.4-6);
or the statement that Aiolos, king of Lipara, introduced the use of sails (5.7.5; on Timaios’s
desire to vaunt the achievements of the Sicilian Greeks, see Commentary to T 7). But whether
such passages are Timaian or from Diodorus himself ultimately cannot be determined.
Moreover, Diodorus cites Timaios as his authority only once in this lengthy extract (5.6.1,
correcting Philistos on Sicanian provenance). There is without question a great deal of
Timaian material here, but we cannot share Jacoby’s confidence about the whole of F 164
(with the exception of Diod. 5.24); and it is included here as a Timaian ‘fragment’ tentatively.
Biographical Essay
Timaios (ca. 356-260 BC), son of Andromachos (T 1, T 3a, T 3b, T 13), of Sicilian Tauromenion
(mod. Taormina), was the most important Greek historian of the western Mediterranean
before Polybios. He was a man with wide-ranging interests (cf. T 7, T 19, T 30, T 31a, T 31b for
Timaios’s geographical interests; T 31c, T 31d, T 31e for his interest in medicinal metals and the
origins of gems). He was born into a position of wealth and privilege. His father refounded
Tauromenion in 358 BC, and was a supporter of Timoleon, the Corinthian adventurer and
dynast at Syracuse. Andromachos settled Tauromenion with Naxians who had been expelled
from their homes by Dionysios II of Syracuse (T 3a). He maintained control at Tauromenion
through moderate rule and Timoleon’s support, and he continued in power there after
Timoleon liberated Sicily (T 3b, T 13). Timaios may have been officially banished from his
native land when he was around forty years old, but it is likely that he left his hometown
considerably earlier (cf. T 4a, with Commentary). The official banishment probably occurred
in the context of Agathokles’ capture of Tauromenion in 316. Timaios clearly opposed and
detested Agathokles (F 124d). As Timaios stated in his 34th book, he spent some fifty years in
Athens, where he wrote his historical works (T 4b, T 4c, T 4e, T 19, F 34). In Athens he studied
rhetoric under Isocrates’ pupil Philiskos of Miletos (T 1, with Commentaries to T 1 and T 4a),
had contacts with Peripatetics, and most likely returned to Sicily under Hieron II. He was
believed to have lived on to the age of ninety-six (T 5).
Timaios’s historical work comprised thirty-eight books (F 35a, cf. T 6a with Commentary, T 8).
He was renowned as a great prose stylist (T 20, with Commentary, T 21). The last five books
were considerably detailed, treating in depth the time of Agathokles (T 8). Timaios’s main
work, apart from the monograph on Pyrrhos (T 9a, T 9b, T 19, F 36), concluded either with the
death of Pyrrhos in 272 BC or before the Romans crossed over into Sicily in 264 BC. The latter
is almost a certainty (Commentary to T 6a).
Polybios praised Timaios’s chronologies and his research (Polyb. 12.10.4; cf. T 20, T 23, T 30).
But Timaios also received biting and at times unfair criticisms from Polybios, who devoted an
entire book (12) to discrediting him and pointing out Timaios’s own unfair criticisms of other
historians; many other scholars, such as the Cyrenean (or Makedonian) Istros the
Callimachean ( BNJ 334), Polemon of Ilion (FGrH 857A), Artemidoros of Ephesos ( BNJ 438),
Philodemos of Gadara, Diodorus, Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Caecilius of Calacte ( BNJ 183),
Josephus, Plutarch, and Clement of Alexandria, also found fault with Timaios’s work (cf. T 1, T
11, T 15a, T 15b, T 16, T 17, T 18, T 19, T 22, T 23, T 26, T 27, F 28a). Polemon wrote a work titled
Criticism Against Timaios in at least six books (T 26, F 24a, F 24b). The number of his critics
attests to the wide influence he had on subsequent historians and the large readership he
enjoyed (cf. R. Laqueur, ‘Timaios’, RE 6A1 (1936), cols. 1202-3).
Despite Polybios’s castigations, Timaios took pains to work out chronological relationships
and appears to have consulted non-literary sources (T 10, T 11, T 12, T 30, F 7, F 12). On the other
hand, Timiaos relied on rationalizing myths and etymological explanations (L. Pearson, The
Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta 1987), 53-90), and his
history writing was stamped by his rhetorical training (cf. J. Marincola, Greek Historians, New
Surveys in the Classics, no. 21, Greece and Rome (Oxford, 2001), 111-2). Timaios made ample use
of speeches in his history, which of course is one of the stumbling blocks in the modern
understanding of ancient Greek historiographic principles (L. Pearson, ‘The Speeches in
Timaeus’ History’, AJP 107 (1986), 350-68; cf. F.W. Walbank, ‘Speeches in Greek Historians’, in
Selected Papers. Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography (Cambridge, 1985),
242-61). These characteristics of his writing drew Polybios’s scathing critique, but charges of
uncaring ignorance and deliberate falsification certainly went too far (T 19; cf. Diod. 13.90).
Polybios’s principal criticisms of Timaios were twofold: (1) since he was not a man of affairs,
with extensive experience of politics, war, and travel, he did not possess the necessary
qualifications for history-writing, and (2) he valued too highly niceties of composition and an
elegant prose style, at the expense of painstaking research and accurate reconstruction of
historical events (see K.S. Sacks, Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley, 1981), passim; C.B.
Champion, ‘The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybios and the Speech of Agelaus at
Naupactus’, TAPA 127 (1997), 111-28). Timaios’s historical research included colonial
foundations and genealogies (T 7, T 10, F 12, F 19a, F 19b). Polybios conceded Timaios’
importance as an historian, as is clear in his decision to begin his historical work at the point
where Timaios ended his (T 6a, T 6b).
Once Timaios reached the 5th century BC and later times, his history’s main theme was the
struggle of the Sicilian Greeks for freedom – against both the Carthaginians as a formidable
external threat and against the rule of tyrants in the Sicilian Greek cities. Timaios’s views on
the latter were deeply colored by his personal experiences, exhibited by the extremes of his
sympathetic treatment of Timoleon and his impassioned hatred of Agathokles. The most
compelling questions about Timaios’s work, however, are the degree to which he regarded the
rising power of Rome as friend or foe, and how he understood the significance of the Roman
Republic for the history of the Mediterranean world as a whole. Certainly he cannot have
shared the same ideas on these questions as we find in Polybios, who justified his own work by
pointing out that it answered the question as to how and under what sort of governmental
system Rome had come to conquer the known world in the space of less than fifty-three years
(1.1.5; cf. 1.2.7, 4.1; 3.1.4-5, 1.9-10, 2.6-7, 3.9, 4.2-3, 118.9-10; 6.2.3-4; 8.2.3-4; 39.8.7-8). The statement
of Aulus Gellius (N.A. 11.1), therefore, that Timaios wrote a Roman history in Greek is clearly a
gross exaggeration: Timaeus in historiis, quas oratione Graeca de rebus populi Romani
composuit (but this may refer to the monograph on Pyrrhos). However, it is clear from
Dionysios that Timaios discussed Rome in two separate works (T 9b). Moreover, Timaios was
concerned about the etymology of ‘Italia’ (F 42a, F 42b), and his interest in early Rome is
revealed by his discussion of the nature of Roman currency before the time of King Servius
Tullius (F 61), the question of Trojan origins (F 59), the account of the ‘October Horse’ (F 36),
and the synchronization of the foundation dates of Carthage and Rome (F 60), which itself
suggests that Timaios had some idea of the monumentality of the coming struggle between
the two Mediterranean superpowers. In addition, Timaios’s composition of a separate
monograph on Pyrrhos could only have had the wars against Rome as its centerpiece. Finally,
Timaios’s choice for the terminal point of his history, 264 BC (T 6a, T 6b), may indicate that he
appreciated what the fateful Roman decision to cross to Sicily under arms would mean for the
western Greeks. A. Momigliano (‘Athens in the Third Century BC and the Discovery of Rome
in the Histories of Timaeus of Tauromenium’, in Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography
(Middletown, Conn. 1987), 37-66), for one, believed that Timaios was the first writer to show
the importance of Rome to the Greek world (cf. Pearson, Greek Historians of the West, 50-51 for
a more skeptical view). Perhaps it is best to modify Momigliano’s formulation somewhat:
Timaios may well have been the first writer to see clearly the importance to the western
Greeks of the victor of the great Sicilian war, whether it be Rome or Carthage, which he could
not have divined; on this, see F.W. Walbank, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World.Essays
and Reflections (Cambridge 2002), 172-6.
Bibliography
T.S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley, 1958)
R. Laqueur, ‛Timaios (3)’ , RE 6A1 ( 1936 ) , cols. 1076-203
M.A. Levi, ‛La critica di Polibio a Timeo’ , Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di
Augusto Rostagni (Turin, 1963) , 195-202
K. Meister, Die sizilische Geschichte bei Diodor von dem Anfangen bis zum Tod des Agathokles
Diss. Erlangen (Munich, 1967)
K. Meister, Historische Kritik bei Polybios (Wiesbaden, 1975)
K. Meister, ‛The Role of Timaeus in Greek Historiography’ , SCI 10 ( 1989-1990 ) , 55-65
A. Momigliano, ‛Athens in the Third Century BC and the Discovery of Rome in the Histories of
Timaeus of Tauromenium’ , Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Middletown, Conn.,
1987) , 37-66
L. Pearson, ‛Myth and Archaeologia in Italy and Sicily - Timaeus and His Predecessors’ , YCS 24
( 1975 ) , 171-95
L. Pearson, ‛The Speeches in Timaeus’ History’ , AJP 107 ( 1986 ) , 350-68
L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors (Atlanta, 1987)
G. Schepens, ‛Polemic and Methodology in Polybius’ Book XII’ , Purposes of History: Studies in
Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries BC, H. Verdin, G. Schepens and E. de
Keyser (eds), (Leuven, 1990) , 39-61
G. Schepens, ‛Politics and Belief in Timaeus of Tauromenium’ , Ancient Society 25 ( 1994 ) , 249-
78
R. Vattuone, Sapienza d’Occidente: Il pensiero storico di Timeo di Tauromenio (Bologna, 1991)
R. Vattuone, ‛Timeo di Tauromenio’ , Storici Greci d’Occidente, R. Vattuone (ed.), (Bologna,

2002) , 177-232
R. Vattuone, ‛Timeo, Polibio e la storiografia greca d’occidente’ , The Shadow of Polybius:

Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek Historiography, G. Schepens and J. Bollansée (eds),
(Leuven, 2005) , 89-122
R. Vattuone, ‛Western Greek Historiography’ , A Companion to Greek and Roman

Historiography, J. Marincola (ed.), (Malden, Mass., 2007) , 189-99
F.W. Walbank, ‛Timaeus’ Views on the Past’ , Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays
and Reflections (Cambridge, 2002) , 165-77
F.W. Walbank, ‛The Two-Way Shadow: Polybius among the Fragments’ , The Shadow of
Polybius: Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek Historiography, G. Schepens and J.
Bollansée (eds), (Leuven, 2005) , 1-18
Th. Wiedemann, ‛Rhetoric in Polybius’ , Purposes of History: Studies in Greek Historiography

from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries BC, H. Verdin, G. Schepens and E. de Keyser (eds), (Leuven,
1990) , 289-300
Notes
1. ἀµπελῶνες <ἦσαν> vel <ὑπῆρχον> add. Reiske
2. Τελλίας Dindorf
3. fort. delendum
Champion, Craige B. (Syracuse University)
Cite this page
Champion, Craige B., “Timaios (566)”, in: Brill’s New Jacoby, General Editor: Ian Worthington (Macquarie University). Consulted online on 18 February
2019 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a566>
First published online: 2016

Timaios (566) - Brill Reference

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Timaios (566) - Brill Reference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BrillOnline.

BrillOnline Reference Works

Brill’s New Jacoby

This entry was prepared by Craige Champion and

About this Historian T 1 : Suda, Lexikon, Τίµαιος

Source: Suda, s.v. Τίµαιος

Suda, Lexikon, Τίµαιος

Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 21.16.5

Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 16.7.1

Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 16.7.1

Source: Plutarch, Life of Timoleon 10.6-8

Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Timoleon, 10.6-8

Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 21.17.1

Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 21.17.1

Source: Polybios, Histories 12.25h.1

Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst),

Source: Polybios, Histories 12.25d.1

Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst),

See Commentary to T 4a, T 4b, and Biographical Essay.

Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 12.28.6

Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 12.28.6

See Commentary to T 4a, T 4b, and Biographical Essay.

Source: Plutarch, On Exile 14.605C

Plutarch (Ploutarchos), On Exile, 14.605C

See Commentary to T 4a, T 4b, and Biographical Essay.

Source: Pseudo-Lucian, Octogenerians (Makrobioi, Long-livers) 22

Source: Polybios, Histories 1.5.1

Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 1.5.1

Source: Polybios, Histories 39.8.4-5

Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst),

Source: Polybios, Histories 12.26d.4

Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst),

Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 21.17.3

Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 21.17.3

Source: Cicero, Letters to Friends 5.12.2

Cicero, M. Tullius, Epistulae ad Familiares,

Source: Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities 1.6.1

Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman

Source: Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 11.1.1

Gellius, Aulus, Attic Nights, 11.1.1

Source: Polybios, Histories 12.11.1-2

Polybios, Histories (ed. Büttner-Wobst), 12.11.1-

Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 5.1.3

Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 5.1.3

Source: Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library 21.17.1

Diodoros of Sicily, Historical Library, 21.17.1

Source: Markellinos, Life of Thucydides 27

Markellinos, Life of Thucydides, 27

Source: Agatharchides, On the Red Sea 64

Agatharchides, On the Red Sea, 64

BNJ 566 T 15a

Source: Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies (Stromata) 1.1.2

Clement of Alexandria (T. Flavius Clemens),

Source: Philodemos, On Poems 5 col. 5.22 (ed. Jensen)

Philodemos, On Poems, 5 col. 5.22 Jensen

See Commentary to T 15a.

Source: Athenaios, Deipnosophists 6.103.272B

Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 6.103.272B

Source: Iosephos, Against Apion 1.16-17

Josephus, T. Flavius, Against Apion, 1.16-17

Source: Plutarch, Life of Nikias 1.1-4

Plutarch (Ploutarchos), Nikias, 1.1-4

Source: Polybios, Histories 12.3.1-28.7

See Commentary to T 4a, T 4b, and Biographical Essay.  

See Commentary to F 1a. 