UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN HISTORY

VOLUME LXXV

NICOLAUS OF DAMASCUS

BY

BEN ZION WACHOLDER

U N I V E R S I T Y OF C A L I F O R N I A PRESS B E R K E L E Y A N D LOS A N G E L E S

1962

U n iv e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c a t i o n s in H i s t o r y

A d v is o r y E d ito r s : R . N. B u r r , B r a in e r d D y e r , W. T. J a c k s o n , D. S. L a n d e s , J . R . L e v e n s o n , J . W. O lm s t e a d

Volume 75

Submitted June 5, 1961 Issued November 8,1962

Price, $3.00

U n iv e r sit y o f C a l if o r n ia P ress B e r k el e y a n d L o s A n g eles

C a l if o r n ia

oC a m b r id g e U n iv e r sit y P ress

L o n d o n , E n g l a n d

1 9 6 2 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTED IN TH E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dedicated to the memory of Sarah Hendil, my sister, Pinhas Shelomoh, my father,

Feiga, my mother, Aharon, my brother, Shifra, my sister, who, together with the entire Jewish

community of Ozarow, Poland, were carried away to an extermination camp,

October, 1942.

PREFACEA se r v a n t of Herod, a favorite of Augustus, a tutor to the children of Antony and Cleopatra, Nicolaus of Damascus was one of the most important of the numerous court historians who flourished during the Augustan age. Among the princes and client kings who ruled the East by the grace of Rome, only the record of Herod, king of Judaea, is known. For this we are indebted to Nicolaus, Herods scribe and aide, who wrote a detailed account of his patrons reign. Parts of this account are preserved in the writings of Josephus. Other quotations from Nicolaus works are found in the writings of various ancient and medieval authors. These remnants fill more than one hundred printed pages in Felix Jacobys collection of Greek historical fragments.

Some fragments from Nicolaus biography of Augustus, his masters master, remain. The bulk of the fragments, however, come from Nicolaus Histories, a history of the world, of which the account of Herod was but part. The fragments of Nicolaus Autobiography afford a glimpse into his personality. Remnants of Nicolaus semianthropological and semihistorical Collection of Remarkable Customs are also extant as are his commentaries on Aristotles works.

My own interest in Nicolaus arises from the significance of his writings for the study of Jewish and Hellenistic cultures. In this monograph an attempt is made to place Nicolaus against the background of his age and to evaluate his contribution to the preservation of ancient sources. The sources which furnish the fragments are analyzed first because they reveal the extent of his influence in the Greek historical tradition. Sources not considered in the standard collections of Mueller and Jacoby are included. Chapter Two deals with Nicolaus life and works as they reflect the cosmopolitan outlook among the scholars of his day. Nicolaus Autobiography, the subject of Chapter Three, is of special interest, for it is the first such work written in Greek. The next chapter reconstructs Nicolaus treatment of Jewish history as it was available to Josephus. A discussion of trends in first century B.C. Greek historiography concludes the study.

Although I am reluctant to go against his wishes, I feel obliged to acknowledge my debt and express my gratitude to Professor Truesdell S. Brown for his inspiration and guidance. I am indebted to Professors Jonas C. Greenfield, Elias Bickerman, and Herbert B. Hoffleit for making many valuable suggestions. The editorial assistance of Frederick

[vi i ]

Prefaceviii

Clayton of the University of California Press is highly appreciated. To the Hebrew Union College and especially to Dean Alfred Gottschalk of the California School I am grateful for aid and encouragement. The credit for making this study feasible belongs to my wife.

B. Z. W.

CONTENTS

I. The Tradition............................................................................. 1

II. Life and W o rk s .............................................................................. 14

III. A utobiography.............................................................................. 37

IV. Jewish H i s to r y .............................................................................. 52

V. Myth and H i s to r y ......................................................................... 65

A p p e n d ix .............................................................................................81

N o te s ...................................................................................................... 89

B ib lio g ra p h y ......................................................................................133

I n d e x .................................................................................................... 145

C h a p t e r I

THE TRADITION

A l t h o u g h he is a relatively minor historian, the tradition that surrounds Nicolaus of Damascus is rich and many-sided. Curiously, it is a variety of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) that attests to the widespread influence of Nicolaus.1 Both Plutarch, who cites the Damascene only one other time, and Athenaeus, who quotes him frequently, tell that Augustus, pleased by the beauty and taste of the dates that Nicolaus used to send him, named them nicolai.2 Grown in Judaea generally, but mostly on the plain of Jericho, these dates, popularized by Augustus, became a well-known delicacy and an important Palestinian export.8 Perhaps Nicolaus, who, it is said, had compiled a work called On Plants, was aware of the exportable nature of the fruit and shrewdly called Augustus attention to it.4 Plutarch must have regarded the nicolai date as a desirable delicacy, for he, with his wonted embellishments, explains why this date was named after the Damascene: the shape and color of the fruit reminded Augustus of Nicolaus sweet personality and radiant pink cheeks.5 I t is not often that tradition tells the shape of a historians face.

More important is the fact that, in Damascus, Nicolaus memory was cherished as late as the seventh century. Sophronius of Damascus, the patriarch of Jerusalem during the Moslem invasion of Palestine, traced the ancestry of a certain seventh-century Damascene magistrate to Nicolaus. Nicolaus, said Sophronius, was the ancestor of twelve generations of famous Nicolauses. . . who gloried in philosophy.7 Sophronius statement concerning Nicolaus descendants gains in significance in the light of an extant Syriac manuscript containing fragments from Nicolaus philosophical works that are in the University of Cambridge Library.8 Nicolaus philosophical writings were among the first to be translated into Semitic tongues when Greek learning gained the ascendancy in the Orient.9 The Syriac translations were made by Hunayn ibn Ishak (809/10-876), and his son Ishak (died in 913) rendered Nicolaus philosophical works into Arabic. In 1952, A. J. Arberry discovered an Arabic manuscript, dated June 18, 1232, containing the commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics, as well as Nicolaus summaries of the Aristotelian work.10

The Syriac fragments, as indicated by the published table of contents, consists of Nicolaus summaries of Aristotles works, chiefly the Physics. Intrinsically, they are of no great importance. They do, how

[ 1 ]

Nicolaus of Damascus2

ever, provide further confirmation of Nicolaus contribution to the philosophical tradition of the East. Averroes mentioned him several times, and other Arabic authors cited him frequently.11

The De plantis by Nicolaus, now incorporated into Aristotles corpus, is a good example of the unpredictable fate which awaited some ancient treatises. The importance of this work is that in it the theory of the bisexuality of plants was first propounded. Diogenes Laertius ascribed the authorship of a work entitled On Plants, consisting of two books, to Aristotle.12 However, it was not available to the Aristotelian commentators of antiquity. For Alexander of Aphrodisias (third centurya .d . ) , a highly learned and industrious man, affirmed that he possessed a copy of De ,plantis by Theophrastus, but none by Aristotle.18 Neither does the Greek tradition know of a work by Nicolaus of the same title, though his other philosophical works are cited. Nevertheless, during the Middle Ages Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew versions of De plantis enjoyed great popularity. The Arabic translation was used by Alfred of Sareshen to produce a Latin text, now available in 150 manuscripts, that he dedicated to Roger Bacon (printed by Gregorius de Gregoriis, in Geneva, 1496). In the sixteenth century, one more translation from Alfreds Latin text into the Greek created a sensation by the discovery of Aristotles lost treatise, thus restoring the reputation of De plantis sufficiently for modern editors to print it as part of the Stagirites works.

Until recently, however, the problem of the history of the translations of De plantis, as well as of its authorship, remained unsolved. The barbaric Greek text, with its incomprehensible and confusing prose, belied Aristotelian authorship. On the basis of the testimony of Alfredus Magnus, who wrote a commentary on it, E. H. F. Meyer published De plantis in 1841, ascribing it exclusively to Nicolaus.14 German scholars, generally, accepted Meyers identification, but some denied it or regarded the evidence as inconclusive.15

In 1923, P. M. Bouyges discovered in the Library of Yeni Djami, of Istanbul, a copy of the Arabic version of De plantis that has helped unravel the puzzle of its authorship. The title page of this Arabic version, also quoted by Hajji Khalifa, reads: The book of Plants by Aristotle, the commentary by Nicolaus, translated by Ishak ibn Hunayn, with the corrections of Thabit ibn Kurra (died circa 900).16 The testimony of the manuscript is strengthened, as Lulofs has shown, by the Syriac fragments of Nicolaus philosophical works, mentioned above, which contain a leaf of De plantis. I t is now certain that the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek translations are based on the Arabic, itself a rendition from the Syriac. According to Lulofs, the Hebrew version, a translation

3The Tradition

made by Kalonymos ben Kalonymos of Arles in 1314, available in manuscript form, is the most useful to restore lacunae in the Arabic text.17 The original Greek version, however, is still missing. But as has hitherto been suspected, all available versions of De plantis, not only the Latin and the Greek, contain meaningless and irrelevant interpolations. Thus the villain who adulterated the text must have antedated the Arabic translation. For the citations of Bar Hebraeus, in his Candelabrum Sanctorum, written in Syriac, reveal the same inferiorities as the Arabic text.18 That the villain was a Syriac scribe can be further shown by the Cambridge Syriac manuscript of Nicolaus works, which likewise contains incomprehensible interpolations. There is no longer reason to doubt that De plantis, in its present form, must be credited to Nicolaus, though both Aristotles and Theophrastus share in it remains a subject for further study.

Nicolaus place in the Greek philosophical tradition is more difficult to assess. Both Plutarch and Athenaeus, though they cite nothing but his historical works, referred to him as a philosopher first and as a historian second.19 Porphyry and Simplicius did quote from his philosophical works and seem to have regarded him as an important interpreter of Aristotle.30 Stobaeus, likewise, gives a long extract from Nico laus.a Yet these fragments, like those in Syriac, appear to be mere summaries of Aristotle, and they do not reveal independent thought. The Suda dubbed Nicolaus a Peripatetic or (and?) a Platonist.22 The Syriac fragments, incidentally, refer to him as a rhetorician, but the Greek fragments do not.28 Nor is Diogenes Laertius more helpful when he cites Nicolaus as an opponent of Epicureanism.24 Be that as it may, Nicolaus contribution to the popularization of Aristotle and Theophrastus cannot be questioned.

The tradition of Nicolaus historical writings is more fully attested. The first author known to have cited Nicolaus was his contemporary, Strabo. In his Geography, Strabo said that Nicolaus, while in Antioch, had met one of the Indian ambassadors dispatched to Augustus, a man who later burned himself alive to preclude possible adversity.25 Mueller, Dindorf and Jacoby place this citation among the remnants of Nicolaus Histories. Mueller and Jacoby do so with some hesitancy, for the nature of the fragment is such that it could as well have come from Nicolaus A utob iographyBut as the Autobiography was written late in Nicolaus life, there appears to be no reason to assume that Strabo made use of that work.27 This fragment does raise the question whether Strabo excerpted Nicolaus without citing him. Josephus, in his account of Jewish Hellenistic history, several times cited both Nicolaus and

Nicolaus of Damascus4

Strabos historical works for the same quotations.28 But the dates of publication of Strabos Historica Hypomnemata and Nicolaus Histories would seem to preclude the use of either by the other.29 It may be that both quoted some other source, perhaps Timagenes, as Jacoby suggests.80

Strabos praise, in his Geography, of the Judaean dates may indicate that he was aware of the fact, mentioned above, that Nicolaus popularized these fruits by presenting them to Augustus.81 Strabo may have heard about the dates from Nicolaus writings, or from the man himself, when both were guests of Augustus. Strabos brief but favorable account of Herod may be cited as additional evidence that he made use of his fellow Syrians Histories Strabo, too, made Herod a native Jew. But Strabos account of Herod, like most of his information dealing with the Jews, is so filled with error that one hesitates to assume that he received his information from a primary source. According to Strabo, Herod seized the office of high priest from Hyrcanus; Herod, and not Augustus, divided the kingdom among the kings sons.88 A somewhat better case for Strabos use of Nicolaus, it has been suggested, could be made from the parallel accounts given by both Strabo and Josephus (Nicolaus) with respect to the Roman extermination of Zenodorus brigands, who were pillaging Damascus.84 But here, again, the evidence is not conclusive. These reports, being common knowledge, do not necessarily emanate from the same source.85

Plutarch, like Strabo, quoted Nicolaus only once. Plutarch corrected Nicolaus statement, repeated by Valerius Maximus, to the effect that Porcia killed herself by inhaling fire upon hearing of the death of Brutus.86 For literary history, this citation is of crucial importance. Leo has pointed out that the biographical form immortalized by Plutarch had already been worked out by Nicolaus in his Life of Augustus.91 Recently, Steidle has credited Nicolaus with exerting a strong influence on Suetonius.88 A. Gercke attributed Plutarchs description of Mithri- dates gluttony to Nicolaus.89 We also have Plutarchs testimony on Nicolaus reputation as a Peripatetic philosopher.40 But evidence that Plutarch borrowed from Nicolaus extensively, without citing him, is lacking, although, as expected, Plutarchs description of Caesar sometimes parallels that of the Damascene.41 The best procedure, then, as far as both Strabo and Plutarch are concerned, is to limit the discussion to those fragments directly credited to Nicolaus.

With Josephus, the matter is very different. Here the tradition of Nicolaus is both comprehensive and complex. Jacobys collection contains fourteen fragments of Nicolaus work which are cited by Josephus, as well as two long speeches, in the appendix, that Josephus attributed

5The Tradition

to Nicolaus without citing a specific work.42 Seven out of the fifteen testimonies referring to the life and works of Nicolaus that were collected by Jacoby also come from Josephus.43 Josephus, moreover, is the only ancient author to furnish us with a critique of Nicolaus history, at least as far as the latter work dealt with the life of Herod.44

But aside from the direct citations from Nicolaus, there is no doubt that Josephus quoted from Nicolaus without acknowledging his source. Regardless of ones view of Josephus literary activities, it is difficult to exaggerate his importance. Josephus works afford us the only connected history of the Jews from the Persian period to the beginning of the Christian era. During the Renaissance, and as late as the eighteenth century, Josephus was one of the most popular ancient authors throughout Christendom, and one of the most widely translated. Whis- tons rendition of Josephus had a respectable place on the Puritans bookshelf, at the side of the Bible. In the nineteenth century, however, German scholars began to probe the reliability of the tradition preserved by Josephus.46 For the first half of the Antiquities, the historical books of the Bible afforded a control. For most of the Bellum, he was an eye witness. Despite the occasional novelistic additions, his account was usually based on a single source, as may be seen from his paraphrase of the Biblical and apocryphal books.4* For the Hellenistic and the Herodian periods, the original sources were lost. That Nicolaus was the unacknowledged author paraphrased by Josephus became the subject of many learned essays.47 A brief review of these findings is perhaps not wholly out of place in a discussion of Josephus indebtedness to Nicolaus.

Destinon, who laid the groundwork for all subsequent analyses of Josephus sources, was the first to recognize the importance of Nicolaus.48 Books fourteen to seventeen of the Antiquities, Destinon maintained, were based directly on Nicolaus, and twelve to fourteen on an anonymous author who had gathered his material from Strabo and Nicolaus.40 As for the sources of the first book of the Bellum, Josephus had utilized the same authorities as he did later for the Antiquities. Discrepancies between the two works of J osephus led Destinon to the absurd conclusion that when Josephus was writing his Antiquities he did not have before him Josephus earlier work; at any rate, he did not consult it.60 Bloch, who had published his study just prior to Destinons, granted that Josephus made use of Nicolaus for the account of Herod, but he denied that the Damascene was the major source. Herods memoirs, Jewish sources, and other authorities no longer extant were available to Josephus.58 Subsequent scholars, however, have ignored Blochs thesis.

Nicolaus of Damascus6

Buechler, writing before the turn of the last century, credited Nicolaus as Josephus source for the Hellenistic period.58 And Schuerer, whose work has retained its importance, accepted Nicolaus as Josephus source for both the Hellenistic and the Herodian history.

In the twentieth century Josephus reputation has declined further, while that of Nicolaus has risen. The outstanding principle of modern German scholarship has been the distinction between Josephus sources for the Bellum and those for the A n tiq u itie sGustav Hoelscher maintains that Josephus preserved Nicolaus history in the Bellum, but that in the Antiquities he utilized a middle source which had falsified Nicolaus account.56 Walter Otto is the major proponent of the thesis that Josephus did not use Nicolaus directly.67 As has been pointed out already, Destinon had assumed an anonymous source for books twelve to fourteen of the Antiquities. Otto has extended this assumption further by assuming two anonymous historians, one friendly to Herod, whom Josephus paraphrased in his Bellum and the fourteenth book of the Antiquities, and the other critical of, if not inimical to, Herod, utilized in the fifteenth book of the Antiquities and onward. Both, Otto maintains, had Nicolaus as their source.68 Laqueur appears to be the only critic to hold that Josephus had a mind of his own. Nicolaus was the primary source for the Bellum, Laqueur says; but with the passage of years Josephus became more nationalistic, and as a result took a more critical view of the later Hasmonaeans and of Herod, whom he held responsible for the loss of Jewish independence. Josephus therefore deliberately altered the account of Nicolaus he had copied faithfully in the Bellum

This somewhat sketchy review of the secondary literature should make evident the complexity of the issue. Josephus raises as many questions as he solves. Ralph Marcus, the translator of the later volumes of Josephus for the Loeb Classical Library, was prevented by death from carrying out the promise to treat the subject anew.00 Abraham Schalit, whose recent work on Herod is based on Ottos contributions, also promises to review the evidence of Josephus sources once again.81 Although these scholars differ as to the details, they agree that the tradition preserved in Josephus must be credited largely to Nicolaus. In the present monograph, however, where Nicolaus is the main subject, Josephus dependence on the Damascene becomes more intelligible in the context of Nicolaus treatment of Jewish history in general, which is discussed at length in chapter four.

Athenaeus of Naucratis, who lived in the second or third century, was another writer who was impressed by Nicolaus historical and phil

7The Tradition

osophical works.82 The author of the Deipnosophistae cited Nicolaus twelve times and is our authority that Nicolaus Histories had contained one hundred and forty-four books.68 Athenaeus constantly referred to Nicolaus as the Peripatetic, a title also used by Plutarch.84 The fragments from the Histories cited in Athenaeus, some of them direct quotations, are especially valuable because they come from books not otherwise preserved.86 But the quality of these excerpts is rather low, for as usual in Athenaeus, the context is often missing, his quotations from Nicolaus dealing primarily in the debaucheries which debased the Eastern courts and the Roman aristocracy.68

Nicolaus historical works continued to be read from the fourth century onward, although he was chiefly known as a philosophical author. Porphyry, and later Simplicius, as mentioned above, indicate that Nicolaus was an important figure for the Neo-Platonists; as he was for Julian the Apostate.67 Joannes Stobaeus, in the fifth century, gives a long quotation from Nicolaus concerning his views on the soul.68 More important, however, are Stobaeus summaries of Nicolaus Collection of Remarkable Customs.90 No other fragment of this work has survived, but it was perhaps used by Isigonus (a younger contemporary of Nicolaus?) and Aelian, the third century author of Varia Historia.TO Posterity is indebted to Stobaeus for the twenty-two fragments of the Collection, which fill seven pages in Jacobys Fragmented1 The popularity of this anthropological and historical lore during the Middle Ages may be seen by Photius long critique of the Collection of Remarkable Customs.n

The early church historians, however, appear to have made little use of Nicolaus. The single citation in Eusebius comes from Josephus, but the fifth century ecclesiastical historian Socrates did cite Nicolaus directly once.78 Stephanus of Byzantium, the fifth or sixth century lexicographer, also appears to have been an exception. From Stephanus we have eighteen fragments, all apparently from the first five books of the Histories, and of a geographical nature.74 The length of Nicolaus major work made it useful to lexicographers and etymologists such as the authors of the Homeric and Strabonic scholia and of the Etymo- logicum magnum.7B The exact dates of these medieval works are hard to determine, but they do indicate that men such as Johannes Tzetzes, who lived in the twelfth century, still found Nicolaus a useful source.76 But Nicolaus accounts of the Jews, being part of a general history, could not compete with the accounts of Josephus, whose works became standard among church historians.

From Photius, the ninth century anthologist, and from the tenth

Nicolaus of Damascus8

century author or authors of the Suda, we infer that Nicolaus works continued to be read.77 But some misinformation crept in. The date palm that Augustus had named nicolaus, Photius and the Suda claim instead to be a cake.78 More serious errors are Photius reference to the Histories as , , and the statement in the Suda that the work contained eighty books instead of the known one hundred and forty- four.79 This is often cited as evidence that Photius knew only the early books of Nicolaus history.80 For this there is no proof, for Photius appears to speak of the mythological aspects of Nicolaus works.81 Whether the incorrect number of books given in the Suda is a scribal error or a slip of memory, the authors knew Nicolaus works firsthand, as a fragment from the Histories and as two long quotations from his Autobiography show.82

Although these remnants indicate that Nicolaus works were still known, the number of fragments they yield is pitifully small. Worse still, these references are very brief and are often quoted out of context. Fortunately, most of the remnants of Nicolaus works have come down through the Excerpta Historica, written under the aegis of the Byzantine emperor, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (912-959).88 Constantines remarkably wide literary activities extended to history. He ordered the abridgment of classical and postclassical historians in fifty- three volumes, four of which have survived. Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius, among the major historians, and Diodorus, Josephus, Appian, and Arrian, among the minor, were included. The Constantine excerpts from Nicolaus fill eighty-eight pages in Jacobys collection and contain sixty-six fragments.84 They summarize the first seven books of the Histories, important parts of the Life of Augustus, and the Autobiography 185

It is also possible to evaluate the quality of these fragments, as we know something of the method of the Constantine excerptors. They had little interest in history; rather their concern was with moral lessons. They divided the lessons into rubrics under which they filed excerpts from the historians. The selections were made on the basis of the moral edification evident to the excerptors, rather than on the context of the subject matter. These fragments are particularly valuable because the materials were copied with hardly any alteration of the text.88 Nevertheless, sometimes the context is missing, and there are frequent deletions, omitted because they did not suit the excerptors purposes, that resulted in incomprehensible passages.87 The extant fragments from Nicolaus are divided almost equally between the Excerpta De virtutibus

9The Tradition

et vitiis and Excerpta De insidiis, and parts of the same subject may begin under the one and continue under the other.

It has been argued that Constantine, like Photius, knew only the first seven books of Nicolaus history.88 This argument would gain in force if more than a few volumes of the Excerpta Historica had survived, for in Constantines abridgments there are constant references to other quotations from Nicolaus, excerpts now lost.80 Moreover, the fact that the fragment in Constantines De thematibus comes from the eighteenth book of the Histories, as attested by the manuscripts, finally disposes of that claim.90 There is no proof, as we have noted, that Photius saw only the Assyriaca. The fact that Constantine still had before him both Nicolaus Augustan Vita and the Autobiography seems to suggest that at the end of the tenth century Nicolaus historical works were still extant, perhaps in their entirety.91 Moreover, the learned Byzantine emperor in his own essays quoted from Nicolaus works.9 Constantine, it is claimed, modeled the life of his grandfather, Basil, after the Damascenes encomium of Augustus.08 Whatever one may think of the Byzantine taste in historical literature, there is no reason to question the popularity of Nicolaus writings in the tenth century.

Though the Greek writings in which Nicolaus is cited have been known, and the fragments scientifically edited, a possible medieval source has hitherto remained neglected. I t is the so-called Yosiphon,94 a Hebrew history of the Second Commonwealth that begins with the table of nations and the Daniel legends, and ends with the destruction of the Temple in a .d . 70, but also incorporates the Alexander romance and legendary Roman history. The author of this work masqueraded under the name of Joseph ben Gurion Ha-Kohen, a slight variation of Joseph ben Matithiahu Ha-Kohen, commonly known as Flavius Josephus.95 Opinion is divided as to the date of the Yosiphon, but a convincing case has been made that it was written in the middle of the tenth century.00 Soon thereafter, at any rate, this work was frequently cited, and Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopian versions appeared.97 Unfortunately, as often happens to popular works, many additions and alterations were made. The work has never been edited scientifically, and until now no systematic analysis of the authors various sources has been undertaken. In addition to the works of Josephus and the anonymous Hegesippus, a Christian fourth-century free version of the Bellum, the author of Yosiphon obviously made use of many other sources.98 Trieber, writing at the end of the last century, attempted to show, on the basis of the authors use of Greek terms, that Yosiphon

Nicolaus of Damascus10

has preserved historical sources no longer available.00 Wellhausens view, however, that the work was based on Latin sources only is the accepted view.100

In a discussion of the tradition of Nicolaus the Yosiphon is an important source.101 The author of this medieval work not only frequently cites Nicolaus, he also often refers to him in flattering terms. And in summarizing the contents of his work, the author of Yosiphon cites his authorities: The account which I have related in the first books I have followed as I have found it recorded in the writings of reliable authors, such as Nicolaus, the reliable scribe from the region of Damascus, and I saw it [him?],102 and such as Strabo the Cappadocian and Titus [Livy] the Latin author, Thugatet the Jerusalemite [?], and Porphyry the Roman, and many other writers; also as I have heard and learned [through the oral tradition] of generation after generation of my sacred ancestors, the high priests and scribes who have taught the Torah.108 The authors apparent claim that he had met Nicolaus, like his boast that he had lived in the times of Julius Caesar as well as Titus, offers the reader an inkling of the fabrications contained in Yosiphon.10* Introducing his version of the Alexander romance he writes: Thus says Joseph ben Gurion Ha-Kohen to his readers: King Alexander having been awful and formidable above all the kings of the earthhis might and power being knownI shall tell some stories of the history of his birth. My account of him follows as I have found it in the writings of Strabo the Cappadocian and Nicolaus the Damascene and Titus the Latin author and as I have found it recorded in the History of Alexander, written by the Egyptian magicians and wise men.105 The same authorities are cited at the conclusion of Yosiphons version of the Alexander romance.106 If nothing else, these statements indicate that in the eyes of one medieval Hebrew scribe Nicolaus was a famous and reliable historian of antiquity.107 None of the other ancient authors cited are given such flattering epithets.

There is no doubt that Yosiphon made use of the medieval Alexander romance, the so-called Pseudo-Callisthenes, a work which had its origin in Ptolemaic Egypt. The author of the Yosiphon, like the other medieval writers, cites the Egyptian magicians as his source.108 Whether the other authorities quoted in the Yosiphon contained elements of the Alexander romance is another matter. Livy certainly alluded to it.100 Strabos account of Alexander has been lost, but there is no reason to assume that he followed the legends subsequently incorporated into Pseudo-Callisthenes; at least there is no reference to them in his Geography. Nicolaus certainly gave an account of Alexander, but there

11The Tradition

is nothing to indicate the nature of his treatment. It might be justified, then, to consider the Yosiphon claim wholly as one more medieval fabrication, written in the pseudohistoriographic tradition of the Scriptores historiae Augustae, Pseudo-Plutarch, or Malalas.110

But before dismissing the claims altogether, it is advisable to analyze the other citations from Nicolaus in Yosiphon. After relating that Hyrcanus I removed three thousand talents of a hidden treasure of King Davids, the author concludes: And Joseph ben Gurion said: For this I have found evidence in other writers of reliable books. And Nicolaus the Damascene has also attested to what I have said.1 Twice, Josephus mentions the entrance of Hyrcanus I into the Davidic sepulcher, without giving his source.112 But Nicolaus failure to record Herods search for gold in the Davidic graves serves as Josephus opening wedge in his attack against the Damascenes pro-Herod account.113 Nicolaus, according to Josephus, did mention that Herod had built a monument in front of the shrine, without telling that the reason for the construction had been to appease the deity for his violation of that sacred place.114 Did Nicolaus, then, also mention, as Yosiphon claims, Hyrcanus search for treasure in King Davids sepulcher? Or is Yosi- phon9s reference to Nicolaus a mere fabrication based on Josephus critique of the Damascene? It is evident that Josephus attack on Nicolaus will be strengthened if it can be assumed that the latter did record Hyrcanus entrance into the Davidic shrine. For if Nicolaus gave an account of Hyrcanus search for treasure, and failed to do the same in regard to Herod, there would be clear evidence of pro-Herod bias.

The treatment of Herod in Yosiphon is more favorable to the king than the account in either the Bellum or the Antiquities. Certainly the author of Yosiphon disputes Josephus estimate of Nicolaus: This [the marriage of Antipater, Herods father, to Cyprus the Idumaean] is the reason why the historians who preceded me maintained that Antipater was an Idumaean. But Nicolaus, the reliable historian, said that he was a Jew. And the truth is that he was one of the nobles of Judah, one of these Jews who had returned from Babylonia to Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah ben Hacaliah and Ezra the priest, the scribe.115 Yosiphons reference to the historians who preceded me is obviously a reply to Josephus refutation of Nicolaus claim that Herods ancestry was Jewish rather than Idumaean.116 It is also proof that Yosiphons laudatory treatment of Herod was a conscious correction of Josephus.117 Many of the favorable passages found in the Bellum and the Antiquities are repeated by Yosiphon; those unfavorable to

Nicolaus of Damascus12

Herod are either glossed over or rewritten in such a way as to be flattering to Herod.118 The Yosiphon reproduces Herods own version of his condemnation of Hyrcanus II, as quoted in the Antiquities Like Nicolaus, the Yosiphon claims that Mariamnes sons were actually guilty of conspiring against their father.130 Again, like Nicolaus, Yosiphon then proceeds to charge their half-brother, Antipater, with having plotted his brothers death, despite their innocence.1

As to the question of whether or not Yosiphon9s sources are primary, we are confronted with three possibilities: (a) The author of Yosiphon did not know Nicolaus work firsthand, but, like modern historians, guessed that Josephus had made use of Nicolaus and therefore attributed the favorable statements concerning Herod to him; (b) it was mere guesswork without any basis; or (c) he had before him Nicolaus history or a work essentially like it. Possibility a must be dismissed, for it assumes not merely a fabrication of which the author of Yosiphon was quite capable, but also a critical analysis of which he was incapable. Possibility 6 is more likely, but cannot be accepted. For had he been engaging in mere guesswork, the anonymous author would have stumbled by quoting Nicolaus on topics not covered by him.128 We must accept possibility c, then, as the least objectionable.

The assumption that the writer was acquainted with Nicolaus history, independently of Josephus, would explain his laudatory treatment of Herod in face of the unanimous anti-Herodian tradition among both Jews and Christians.123 Yosiphon even deviates strongly from Hegesippus, a work it generally follows. Yosiphon cites non-Jewish authors who attested that Herod was beloved by God but, it is implied, maligned by Jewish historians.124 There is no doubt that Yosiphon refers here primarily to Nicolaus when citing non-Jewish historians. We may perhaps also assume that Yosiphon9s citations of Nicolaus in regard to the Alexander romance, cited above, were based on the Damascenes treatment of Alexander.125 This does not necessarily mean that Yosiphon9s Alexander romance was taken bodily from Nicolaus. But it does mean that the author was acquainted with Nicolaus Histories as a whole, not merely with his treatment of the reign of Herod.

If the date of Yosiphon is, as generally assumed, the middle of the tenth century, it would coincide with the time when the Constantine excerptors wrote their summaries of Nicolaus works. Flusser points out that Yosiphon was written in southern Italy, then under Byzantine rule.128 But Flusser continues to cling to the view that the author of Yosiphon has no knowledge of Greek.127 This assumption has complicated the analysis of the sources of Yosiphon, for it necessitated Latin

13The Tradition

translations not only of Josephus but also of the apocryphal literature.8 Triebers argument that Yosiphon did know Greek has never been answered in detail.128 The fact that Greek was spoken among certain groups in southern Italy makes it likely that the author of Yosiphon, who was proficient in many European tongues, had also at least a smattering of Greek.180 It is difficult to argue that the author of Yosiphon cited from Nicolaus history, then available, without having access to it.m And there is no need to assume that the Hebrew author made use of a Latin version of Nicolaus, though this is not impossible.

Despite the linguistic problem, there is reason to believe that Yosiphons fragments from Nicolaus may contain some authentic material. This may be seen from the fact that a number of citations in this work have, on the whole, a sound basis.1*2 His quotations from Josephus and Hegesippus conform with our texts of those authors.138 We can also be certain that he made use of Livy and Strabo, or rather, medieval versions of those authors.184 It may be no coincidence, then, that after Yosiphon9s account of Herods death, where Nicolaus ceased his work, the unknown author follows Hegesippus closely. If the Yosiphon description of the Herodian rule were a mere rehash of Josephus, we would expect him to continue with a paraphrase of Josephus works.185

If we may rely on this, the significance of Yosiphon as a historical source must be upgraded. The Hebrew author undoubtedly recaptures the manner and spirit of Nicolaus treatment of Herod. But how much specific new information this work furnishes is another matter. Yosiphon did not generally follow his sources closely, so that it is difficult to say how much of the new information found there was taken from Nicolaus and how much was a product of his fertile imagination. Bits of information not found elsewhere, such as the exact date of Pompeys entrance into Jerusalem, or the identification of Pollio with Hillel, may or may not be based on Nicolaus.6 The lack of a critical edition of Yosiphon, as noted, complicates the matter further.

The fragments from Nicolaus Histories to be found in Yosiphon make it likely that the Constantine excerptors also had available the later parts of that work. The influence of Nicolaus seems to have been much wider than is now generally assumed. Jacobys statement that Nicolaus history was not widely read needs modification.187 If one recalls the popularity of Nicolaus philosophical works among the Syrians and the Arabs, it is quite possible, though unverifiable, that his historical works exercised a far stronger influence in the East than the recorded tradition would have us believe.

C h a p t e r II

LIFE AND WORKS

O ur knowledge of the life of Nicolaus is based upon remnants of his Autobiography/ the account of Herod in Josephus,2 and scattered references in secondary sources.8 Unfortunately, the period covered by Josephus, from 14 to 4 B.C., is also the time dealt with in the surviving fragments of the Autobiography. Thus, except for his ancestry and education, as recorded in the Suda/ we are poorly informed about his life until Nicolaus fiftieth birthday.5 As Josephus on Nicolaus is derived from Nicolaus himself,8 the information concerning his life is based on primary evidence. But the reliability of this evidence is another matter. Autobiography, in the first century B.C., had not as yet assumed the false modesty of later days, and Nicolaus was not a modest man.7 He was not averse to tailoring facts to please his patrons, Herod and Augustus, and because of this there is no reason to assume that he would have been reluctant to do the same on his own behalf.8

Concerning his parents, we must rely upon Nicolaus own testimony. Antipater, his father, and Stratonice, his mother, their son said, were among the most prominent citizens of Damascus. Antipater was a man of independent means who did not have to worry about increasing his wealth. A skillful orator, he never made use of his forensic talents except for just causes. Chosen often to arbitrate disputes among the citizens of Damascus, his decisions were always just and were praised by all. He was trusted to serve on foreign missions, and he was appointed to perform various tasks within Damascus. Philanthropia, benevolence, was Antipaters slogan. Antipater was equally fair to the gods. Before his death, he ordered a burnt offering to Zeus, on behalf of his two sons, Nicolaus and Ptolemy.10 The account of the virtues of Antipater is worth recording, not so much for what it tells us of the nature of the father as for what it reveals of the values maintained by the son.11

Antipater and Stratonice, Nicolaus parents, were pagans. But whether they were Greeks or Syrians in origin is a debatable point. Laqueur argues that only fullblooded Greeks could have occupied positions of power in a Greek polish Laqueur weakens his arguments when he uses this assumption to point out why their son became Herods aide: according to Laqueur, Nicolaus, a proud Greek, was pleased to see Judaea, the ancient enemy of Damascus, ruled by a foreigner.13 On the contrary, it must be remembered that Nicolaus claimed that Herod was

[ 1 4 ]

15Life and Works

not an Idumaean, but a direct descendant of the aristocratic Babylonian Jews.14 In defense of Laqueur, it must be said that this is consistent with his view that the statement attributed to Nicolaus was fabrication by Josephus.15 However, there is no reason to question that Nicolaus did indeed want his readers to believe that Herod was a native Jew and not an Idumaean.

The generalization that the high position of Nicolaus parents suggests Greek descent is also subject to doubt. As Tcherikover has pointed out, it is not correct to assume that the poleis founded in the East necessarily consisted of Macedonian or Greek settlers. In many towns, as in the Phoenician cities of Tyre, Sidon, Arados, and Byblos, the native population was granted a constitution and given autonomy, becoming Greek cities.16 Some citizens of Jerusalem, for example, clamored to receive the benefits of a polis when they appealed to Antiochus IV for a Greek charter.17 Damascus was renamed by the Diadochi Demetrias, but there is reason to believe that the native population remained in charge of the city as they had been before Alexander. Nevertheless, the Hellenistic culture made deep inroads in these Oriental towns. Greek learning and customs became, like those of the French in medieval England, symbols of wealth and power. In the countryside, however, only the native Syriac was spoken, and even in the cities we hear of some Greeks who were bilingual. Meleager of Gadara, a contemporary Greek poet, paraded his knowledge of Aramaic and Phoenician.

A passage in Nicolaus may echo the fact that the author considered himself more a Syrian than a Greek: He never deemed it necessary to consider himself a citizen of any city except his own, laughing at those Sophists who acquired high honors by calling themselves Athenians or Rhodians since they were ashamed of the obscurity of their native places. Some of them denied the place of their birth, claiming instead that they were born in cities bearing Hellenic names, showing thereby clearly their distress with their own ancestry.19 This passage could mean that Nicolaus was merely castigating those Greeks who thought that birth in a Greek town added prestige to their names. A more plausible reading of the text, though not certain, appears to disclose that Nicolaus was criticizing two kinds of braggarts: those who assumed Rhodian or Athenian citizenship, and some who disowned their barbarian ancestry. Instances of either group are known from antiquity. Posidonius of Apamea, the renowned historian and philosopher (circa 135-51/50) ," and Theodoras of Gadara, a rhetorician and contemporary of Nicolaus, became citizens of Rhodes.21 Apion of Oasis, polymath of the first century a .d ., was accused by Josephus of being ashamed of his

Nicolaus of Damascus16

Egyptian descent because he falsely claimed to have been born in Alexandria.28 It is perhaps implied that Nicolaus, however, was proud of his Syrian ancestors, and that as far as he was concerned a Greek pedigree was nothing to boast of. Even in history one may detect his patriotic feelings when he describes the ancient rulers of Damascus.28 The evidence is not conclusive, but it tends to favor the argument that the Antipater family was conscious of its Semitic origin, a fact that, subsequently, may have influenced both Nicolaus and his brother Ptolemys decision to enter into Herods service. I t is possible that the family of Antipater was bilingual, speaking both Greek and the native Syriac.

Antipaters rise to prominence in Damascus was due to his own endeavors. Sophronius of Damascus says that Nicolaus was the first on his family to achieve fame, but that the family continued to flourish, producing philosophers and prominent men.2* Nicolaus silence concerning his ancestry earlier than his parents tends to confirm this view.25 Despite the sons lavish praise of his father, Antipaters exact position in Damascus is not known. This is unfortunate. One would like to know more precisely the nature of the services, both internal and external, which Antipater performed. I t would be of interest to learn whether he was among those Damascene magistrates who greeted Pompey upon his arrival in Damascus in 63 B.C.28 What is known is that another Antipater, Herods father, carried lavish gifts for Pompey as the head of the Judaean faction supporting the Hasmonaean king Hyrcanus.27 It is tempting to speculate that the Damascene Antipater, though unrelated, gave a helping hand to the successful mission of his Idumaean namesake.28 Such a hypothesis would go far to explain why both of Antipaters sons, Nicolaus and Ptolemy, subsequently entered Herods service. The two Antipaters had one thing in common at least: by means of their wealth and political talent they made their way into the ruling circles of their respective countries.

Nicolaus was born in Damascus circa 64 B.C.,29 a date that looms large in the annals of the East. Pompeys conquest of the Seleucid Empire in that year created a bridge between East and West. Nicolaus is a symbol of this new generation under Roman power. In common with other men of letters of this period, such as Diodorus of Sicily, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Juba of Mauretania, and Strabo of Amasea, Nicolaus intellectual horizon encompassed both the East and West. Specialized scholarship practiced by the Alexandrian school was now being replaced by synthetic learning. The broadening of the horizons did not necessarily bring about superior scholarship. Although the division

17Life and Works

between Greek and barbarian became blurred, in the ecumenical state,80 the price for this new unity was the loss of intellectual freedom.

The cosmopolitan ideal is expressed well, if tritely, by Nicolaus. He compares education to a long journey. The road of life is long and the goal distant. One must map the major as well as the minor stations, the places to visit briefly, and where to settle for a while.81 Such similes woud not have fitted a man who was expected to spend the rest of his days in his fathers cottage.

Nicolaus account of his own education is of interest, not only in that it sheds light on his future development but also in that it represents the educational ideal of the times.83 Writing for publication meant not so much the presentation of facts, but rather an expression of ideals. Nevertheless, there is no reason to question Nicolaus statement that Antipater, his wealthy father, gave him a good Greek education: grammar and the whole of the poetic art, taught by his father, followed by rhetoric and music and mathematics.88 Philosophy was the ultimate goal.84 The education was essentially pragmatic. His father taught him to speak persuasively; the theory of rhetoric was not neglected. Nicolaus no doubt was aware of the advances in the science of rhetoric made by Theodoras of Gadara, a fellow Syrian, who preferred to be known as a Rhodian. I t has already been noted that the Syriac fragments, unlike the Greek, refer to Nicolaus as a rhetorician, instead of a Peripatetic, perhaps the more apt description.85 The study of grammar, by which the ancients meant both philology and literature, proved equally useful. Nicolaus tells that he composed tragedies and comedies.86 None of these dramatic works have survived, but they appear to have influenced his historical writings.87

Historically, Nicolaus account of his education is of considerable interest. It is one of the most detailed accounts we possess of education in the Hellenistic period. Varro is the first writer known to have described the liberal arts, mentioning nine, which became during the medieval period the trivium and quadrivium.88 But from Nicolaus we learn of their actual practice during the Hellenistic period. Essentially, the system had been inspired by the Sophists.88 In contrast to the Platonic concept of an educational system geared totally to philosophy, to the Jewish concept of Torah, or to the subsequent Christian emphasis upon theology, the education of Nicolaus was basically a preparation for life in a world as it was, rather than as it should have been.

Philosophy, for Nicolaus, was the queen of the sciences. Nicolaus studied the entire philosophy and described himself as a dedicated Aristotelian.40 These phrases are tautological, for Nicolaus was a Peri

Nicolaus of Damascus18

patetic and first century b .c . Peripateticism meant a return to Aristotelian and Theophrastan studies.41 Some modern writers, such as Misch and Laqueur, condemn Nicolaus for his lack of original thought.42 This outright condemnation is not justified. Although there were exceptions among the Aristotelians,4* most members of the school in this period imposed upon themselves the task of popularizing the Masters teachings, rather than of undertaking new investigations. The rediscovery of Aristotle, during the first half of the century, produced a new school, emanating from Rhodes, that took upon itself the defense of the Stagirite against any attack.44 Nicolaus belonged to that school, and the repetition of Aristotelian phrases, as well as his paraphrasing of Aristotles works, may not have sounded as hackneyed and pedestrian to his contemporaries as it does to modern students of Aristotle.45

Nicolaus spent some years in Alexandria and Rome;46 in Rhodes he stayed long enough to express his admiration for an epitaph composed by Pisander of Rhodes, a writer on Heracles.47 Alexandria, Rome, and Rhodes were the centers of learning to which scholars and philosophers of all schools flocked. But his travels were by no means restricted to these metropolitan centers; he also visited Antioch, Ionia, Chios, Byzantium, and Troy.48 Nicolaus fondness for travel is especially evident from his visit to Troy. While traveling in the company of Herod, he left the kings party at Amisus to make a pilgrimage to Ilium.4 There is no record that Nicolaus ever visited Athens. But in 1 2 b .c . he must have accompanied Herod when Herod went to preside over the Olympic games.60 Possibly then, or on some other occasion, Nicolaus had an opportunity to go to Athens. And as Herods ambassador, Nicolaus probably made other journeys not recorded.

These extensive travels gave Nicolaus an opportunity to meet fellow writers and philosophers. As a favorite of Augustus, and as a renowned Peripatetic author, he found that few doors were closed to him. He condemned the Epicureans and the Sophists who attempted to climb the social ladder by claiming Greek birth. It is possible that these attacks merely echoed views fashionable in Nicolaus time, but considering his wide travels and prominent patrons, it is more likely that such views indicate that he had a wide acquaintance with the learned men of his day.53 Except for Theodoras of Gadara, a fellow rhetorician and historian, as noted, it is impossible to identify those at whom Nicolaus was pointing his accusing finger. Apparently, Strabo and Nicolaus were personally acquainted. Citing Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo does not identify him further, showing thereby, it would seem, that he was quoting a well-known personage.53 Nicolaus contacts with his fellow Peri

19Life and Works

patetics are difficult to document. He probably met Xenarchus and Athenaeus, both of Seleucia and both Peripatetics who taught in Alexandria and Rome.5* It is unlikely that Nicolaus studied under Andro- nicus, the Rhodian editor of Aristotles works, but he may have known Andronicus chief pupil, Boethus, and the latters brother Diodorus of Sidon.55

Scattered references from diverse sources would seem to indicate that there was a feeling of class consciousness among scholars of this period. Nicolaus statement that he shunned the company of the wealthy, his constant reiteration of the value of study, seem to reflect more than mere devotion to Aristotelian studies.58 The company of kings was alluring, but what really counted was intercourse with fellow scholars. Strabo, it may be noted, in a way reflects the same attitude when he frequently appends the names of men of letters to his geographic descriptions.57 And, incidentally, the existence of a scribal class in Jerusalem is well attested.58 Kings and princes, by their generous patronage, recognized the status of this scholarly class.

Nicolaus, then, was but part of an international class of scholars at home anywhere. Wide travels broadened their outlook and gave them experience in dealing with mundane affairs. Clearly, this was not an age of cloistered scholarship. Greek being the literary tongue, it was an age when language constituted no barrier, when scholars were not tied to particular locations, when the distinction between the man of letters and the man of affairs was blurred, and when one could still show considerable skill in such varied fields of endeavor as oratory and historiography, diplomacy and Aristotelian philosophy.

This is not to say that the age was a creative one for Greek letters. Much as one admires the Geography of Strabo, it still sounds much like a commentary on Homer and a defense of ancient geographers. The freshness of thought evident in Livy and Vergil is absent. Nicolaus undoubtedly reflects the feelings of the Peripatetics when he says that there was nothing which was unknown to Aristotle, that only the limitations of time made it impossible for him to write down everything.58 Nicolaus own contribution, he says, was to append to his paraphrase of Aristotle the material added by Theophrastus and other Peripatetics.60

As already noted, the fifteenth or sixteenth century Syriac manuscript offers a better concept of Nicolaus philosophical works than has been hitherto known. In the Greek, the bare titles have survived: a paraphrase of the Metaphysics (exact title unknown) ;61 On the Godsf2 On the Ideals of Actionf* On the Soul;w On the Philosophy of Aristotle;65 On the Heavens; On the First Philosophy.66 In the Syriac, however,

Nicolaus of Damascus20

excerpts of Nicolaus paraphrase of Aristotle have been preserved. The extant Syriac manuscript is mutilated and incomplete,67 but fragments from thirteen books, listed consecutively, show that Nicolaus paraphrase incorporated a substantial part, if not all, of Aristotles works. The first three books of Nicolaus dealt with Aristotles Physics and Metaphysics. One book described the concept of matter, giving a commentary on Aristotles Physicsf6 the second book dealt with Aristotles metaphysics, divided into three topics, contemplation, actual things, and divine logos,69 and the third book continued with metaphysical problems, mathematics, and the elements.70 The fourth book discussed De caelo;71 the fifth book, De generatione et corruptionef2 a fragment of the sixth book, De fallacia, gave the reason why the seas are salty;78 the seventh book paraphrased the fourth book of the De fallacia and added a discussion of birth, death, and animals.74 The contents of the eighth book are missing. The ninth dealt with the forms of animals;75 the tenth, De animaf6 books eleven and twelve described aspects of Aristotles works, but their precise subjects are unclear;77 book thirteen gives an excerpt from Nicolaus On the Philosophy of Aristotle, mentioned above.78 We also have from Nicolaus summaries of Aristotles third book of De sensu and of De motu animalium.70 Finally, the Syriac fragments preserve, as we have mentioned, remnants of the De plantis, now found in the published Arabic translation of that work.80

The study of Nicolaus summaries of Aristotle is still in its preliminary stage. Nevertheless, as Lulofs has shown, some facts of the nature and method of Nicolaus works emerge.81 Nicolaus had summarized most of Aristotle, not merely certain works, as has hitherto been thought. Moreover, Nicolaus compendium of Aristotle incorporated the views of Theophrastus and the Peripatetic school. There is no evidence that Nicolaus was influenced by either the Stoic or the Neo-Platonic school. The quality of Nicolaus compendium appears to have been rather low, nevertheless; though Aristotles conclusions are given, the arguments are not. Nicolaus cannot be blamed for the interpolations made by an ignorant Syriac scribe, but he was responsible for intermingling various Aristotelian treatises. Thus, in the Syriac fragments, while he was summarizing the first book of the Physics he injected irrelevant quotations from the fourth book of the Metaphysics. The admixture of extraneous material, then, was not confined to De plantis. And it is apparent that Nicolaus made enough changes in the Aristotelian material to make his compendium of Aristotle essentially an independent work.82 This analysis lends credence to Jaegers belief that Nicolaus merely parroted Aristotle without really understanding him.83 Yet the

21Life and Works

final verdict on Nicolaus philosophical writings must await the full translation of the Syriac manuscript, and its study by Aristotelian scholars.

Neither the sequence nor the time and place of composition of Nicolaus works is known. Laqueur argues that Nicolaus composed his philosophical works in Rome, during his old age.84 This seems unlikely. To say that Nicolaus felt an interest in philosophy only during the last period of his lifetime is to deny the entire thesis of his Autobiography. Referring to his youth, he claimed to have been an Aristotelian zealot, perhaps an allusion to his composition of the compendium of Aristotle.85 There is no doubt that his literary activities began as a Peripatetic. Laqueur bases his assumption on the questionable thesis that Nicolaus composed the Augustan Vita after the Princeps death. Nicolaus therefore must have lived at least 78 years, yet we do not have any evidence that Nicolaus lived until a .d . 14. With the available evidence, it is likely that Nicolaus attached himself early in his life to the Peripatetics and that the composition of most of the philosophical works must be placed not later than 14 B.C. He must have made a name for himself as a rhetorician in his early manhood, for the fact that Cleopatra chose him as tutor for her children would indicate that he had already, in the early thirties B.C., acquired some renown. Ambitious and extremely productive, Nicolaus would not have waited until old age to spread Aristotelian thought. Thus it is possible that Nicolaus wrote some, if not all, of his philosophical works before he became a full-time adviser to Herod.86

The renown that Nicolaus must have gained by his writings perhaps explains an important but obscure chapter in his life. Sophronius of Damascus is the authority for the statement that Nicolaus was the tutor of the children of Antony and Cleopatra.87 If Cleopatra was as astute in the selection of her childrens tutors as she was in choosing her lovers, Nicolaus must already have been a famous personality. The selection is not surprising, for Nicolaus had what might be described as a schoolmasters personality, and he had the ability to transmit traditional learning to others.88 When and how Nicolaus was chosen for that coveted position is not known. Perhaps he came to Alexandria in the pursuit of his studies. What is more likely, as Laqueur suggests,80 is that Cleopatra met him in 36 B.C. in Damascus or Palestine while she was on her way to meet Antony, then engaged in the Parthian campaign.00 Cleopatra had given birth to twins by Antony in 40 B.C., and a son in 36 B.C. Another son had been born to her earlier, in 47 B.C., and she had named him Ptolemy Caesar (Caesarion), allegedly the

Nicolaus of Damascus22

offspring of Julius Caesar. Nicolaus, then, must have begun the training of the twins not earlier than about 35 B.C. He evidently possessed enough learning, combined with conservative ideas, to capture the patronage of the mighty of his day. In his Autobiography, it is true, he boasts that neither kings nor princes could swerve him from the path of justice and humility.91 Autobiographies written in old age, however, do not necessarily recapture the ambitions of youth.

More intriguing, but equally difficult to assess, is how Nicolaus was affected by his sojourn in Alexandria. As tutor of Cleopatras twins, Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene, Nicolaus associated with the highest Alexandrian aristocracy. This must have been good training for his future career in the court of Herod. The shifting fortunes of Eastern rulers taught Nicolaus how to cope with court intrigue. His prominent position in Alexandria also lends authority, if not veracity, to his statements about Caesarion in the Augustus Vita and about Cleopatra in his history. Nicolaus is the first among the ancients to deny that Caesarian was the son of Caesar and Cleopatra. This he does by claiming that Caesar himself, in his testament, first made the denial.951 As a close observer of Caesarion, perhaps as his tutor, he could have hazarded a guess on his own. Josephus account of Cleopatras visit in Jericho, upon her return from Syria, must also be based on Nicolaus.98 The story of the pregnant Cleopatras attempt to seduce Herod, either because of her sensuality or because of her desire to trap the Judaean king, and Herods plans to slay her in order to save Antony and Rome from her clutches, has the air of anti-Cleopatra propaganda.04 In any case, such an account of Herods prescience, Nicolaus was well aware, would not displease Augustus. It is impossible to say, however, whether Nicolaus really felt an aversion to the last heiress of the Pharaohs or whether gratitude was simply not a consideration whenever it ran counter to the policies of his new patrons.

Cleopatra died in 30 B.C. and it is possible, though we cannot be certain, that Nicolaus remained in Alexandria during the twenties. Nothing is known about Nicolaus activities between 30 and 20 B.C. This is unfortunate. It would be of great historical interest to learn the exact time when Nicolaus entered into Herods service, for this would facilitate an intelligent evaluation of Josephus account of the Herodian era. In the absence of clear evidence, it is necessary to squeeze out every hint from available information. In 20 B.C., Strabo says, Nicolaus was in Antioch, where he witnessed the arrival of an Indian delegation to pay tribute to the visiting Augustus. The detailed de

23Life and Works

scription of the Indians, cited in Strabo, indicates that Nicolaus was a member of the immediate entourage of the Princeps.96

But this raises the question, in whose service was he? Two answers are possible. Either he was a member of Augustus staff, or he came as a part of the delegation headed by Herod. The former possibility would appear implausible. Except for Nicolaus Augustan Vita and his visit to Antioch, all known links between the historian and the Princeps point unmistakably to the probability that Nicolaus gained entrance to Augustus only through his influence in Herods court.98 There is no evidence for the view that Nicolaus attached himself to Augustus, upon the latters arrival in Alexandria. In fact, it might be argued that because the evidence shows the connection between the Damascene and the Princeps only through Herod, Nicolaus must have left Cleopatra immediately after Actium, before Augustus came to Egypt. Nicolaus does not seem to be one who would cling to a lost cause. It is likely that his journey to Antioch in 20 B.C. was in the service of Herod. The fact that Herod was also then in Syria07 offers additional support for the hypothesis that in 20 B.C. Nicolaus was already an assistant to the Judaean king.

Herods trip to Syria was indeed successful. Augustus handed Herod parts of northern Transjordan, which until recently had belonged to Zenodorus; and by doing so he extended the northern frontier of the Judaean kingdom to Damascus.98 The complaints of the Hellenistic inhabitants of Gadara against Herod were dismissed. But beyond this, Herod was made the chief client king among the Eastern princes. In view of the known close relationship between Herod and Nicolaus, it is not implausible to assume that the Damascene had considerable interest or influence in the granting of the Syrian tetrarchy to Herod.

Laqueur, indeed, goes even further. He argues that Nicolaus had already joined Herod, in 40 B.C.,99 basing the argument on the detailed description of Herods flight from Judea to Rome, and at first it appears attractive. Such a detailed account, historically worthless, Laqueur says, could have emanated from an eyewitness only; Nicolaus must have accompanied the fleeing Prince on his most crucial and dangerous exploit.100 In support of this thesis of an early friendship between the young Herod and Nicolaus can be cited the fact that Herod, in the year 43 B.C., was tetrarch of Galilee, visited Damascus, and, according to Josephus, was governor or procurator of Coele-Syria.101 The possible connection between the two Antipaters, the fathers of Herod and Nicolaus, mentioned above, seems to lend support to Laqueurs thesis.

Nicolaus of Damascus24

On closer analysis, however, Laqueurs argument that Nicolaus had joined Herod in his escape from Jerusalem during the Parthian invasion seems unsubstantiated. The detailed description found in Josephus offers no evidence that Nicolaus was an eyewitness. I t might just as well be that Nicolaus received this account either from Herods Memoirs or from oral reports.102 Laqueurs statement that the report is historically worthless fails to allow for the psychological and historiographic currents of the times. Herods throne was built on a shaky foundation, for he lacked either royal descent or the full approval of his subjects. He would never have been made king, had it not been for the fact that Palestine was in Parthian hands; and so the crown bestowed upon him was, temporarily at least, an empty gesture. Obviously, the trip to Rome under these trying circumstances, culminating in the great triumph, was one of the most important events of his life. To describe the journey and enlarge upon it in the most heroic terms was the duty of the scribe. Was not a man who turned adversity into triumph made of kingly stuff? One further consideration, moreover, robs Laqueurs thesis of its plausibility. Had Nicolaus shared with Herod the escape from Judaea to Rome, the Damascenes subsequent service in the court of Cleopatra, Herods archenemy, in itself would have disqualified him from again becoming Herods intimate friend.108 There is no proof, therefore, that there existed any close ties between Herod and Nicolaus, during the forties. However, this does not necessarily preclude casual and slight acquaintance dating back to their respective fathers.

The assumption, however, that Nicolaus joined Herod after Actium (31 B.C.) has much to commend it. The fact, described above, that both Nicolaus and Herod visited Augustus in Antioch in 20 B.C. suggests that Nicolaus had joined Herod at least by that date, for the king would have been likely to bring along only friends of long standing. Brought up in a home associated with the Damascene ruling classes, and now accustomed to the amenities of Cleopatras court, Nicolaus would very likely have had ambitions for the company of no less a personage than Augustus.104 The first step to such an aim would be to enter the service of the Judaean king.

It happened that Herod needed Nicolaus as much as Nicolaus needed the king. Summoned to Rhodes to defend his past support of Antony, Herod pointed out that he was a friend of the powerful, and faithful to those who favored him. Now that Antony was in his grave, Herod would be even more devoted to Octavian. Octavian appreciated plain talk, and in any case he could not find anyone better than the brave Idumaean to rule the Jews.105 But Herod was not satisfied with a mere

25Life and Works

affirmation of the status quo; he aspired to be the leading client king of Rome in the East. Unconditional subservience to Rome, and even lavish gifts, were not sufficient to accomplish such lofty aims; what was needed was a personal friendship with the Princeps.106 Herod proceeded to strengthen the Hellenistic flavor of his court by inviting more and more wandering scholars to Jerusalem.107 Generous subsidies to Greek cities and temples soon earned him fame as a Hellenistic patron. But perhaps what was more effective than all this in earning Augustus friendship was Nicolaus biography extolling Augustus. In all probability it was written at Herods urging, for the purpose of defending Augustus policies in the East.108

The statement that Nicolaus Vita of Augustus was written during the twenties requires elaboration. As the oldest surviving biography of Augustus, it has attracted more scholarly attention than any other of Nicolaus works.109 The date of its composition, unfortunately, has become a much contested issue. Asbach, first to express an opinion, felt that the Vita was written only after Augustus death.110 Gutschmid pointed out that the reference to the Pannonian campaign dates the Vita circa 12 B.C., the time Tiberius was engaged in Dacia.111 As Nicolaus accompanied Herod to Rome in that year, the date 12 B.C. sounds plausible. Gutschmid even suggested Apollonia as the place where the work was written, a view accepted by many scholars.113 Jacoby, however, has pointed out that Nicolaus references are to Augustus personal prowess, rather than to that of his lieutenants. The cited campaigns on the Rhine and in Pannonia must refer to Octavians earlier personal engagements. Jacoby points out further that the Augustan Biography ended with the year 27 B.C. and was a Greek version of Augustus Autobiography, which ceased with the Cantabrian war in Spain.113 Laqueur and Steidle have revived Asbachs contention that the Bios was written after Augustus death.114 Laqueur bases his argument upon the use of the imperfect and aorist tenses in Nicolaus prooemium of the Vita when referring to Augustus.115 He further contends that since Caesar had already reached the western bank, the suppression of the tribes on the Rhine refers to those on the eastern bank, accomplished in the Varus campaign of a .d . 9, and that of Ger- manicus in a .d . 14.lie Steidle reinforces this argument by pointing out that the Vita Caesaris presupposes an era of peace.117

Jacobys view, dating the Augustus Vita in the twenties, seems the most cogent. The use of the past tense as was, ruled, may be due to the excerptors abbreviation. The pacification of unruly tribes on the western bank of the Rhine was probably what Nicolaus had in

Nicolaus of Damascus26

mind, rather than the disastrous crossings into Germania by Varus and Germanicus. Steidles argument that the author assumes a period of peace seems correct, but the reference may be to conditions within rather than outside the borders. The basic weakness of this theory, however, is its assumption that Nicolaus composed the Augustan Vita at the age of seventy-eight. Not only is there no evidence that he reached such an advanced age; this theory also fails to suggest an incentive for the composition of this work.8 Nicolaus contention in the Autobiography that he shunned the company of the Roman aristocracy, preferring the companionship of the common people and devoting his days and nights to the study of philosophy, indicates that he had retired from the writing of propaganda pamphlets.119 The encomiastic nature of Augustus biography would only have been appropriate at a time when pro-Antony propaganda was still fresh in peoples minds. The statement, for instance, that Caesar himself, in his testament, denied that he was the progenitor of Caesarion, as Jacoby points out, could have been concocted only at a time when his slaying was still a heated issue. Gutschmids stand on the dating of the Augustus biography as 12 B.C.130 is equally untenable. The work displays a thorough knowledge of Roman affairs which Nicolaus brief journey in 12 B.C. cannot account for.121 Nicolaus, in the company of Herod, saw Augustus in Aquileia, not in Apollonia as Gutschmid claims.1" The Vita of Augustus was calculated, it has been pointed out, to glorify the name of Augustus in the East.128 And it was during the twenties that Augustus needed support for his Eastern policies, and Augustus naming a species of date after himnicolaimay well indicate Augustus gratitude for this accomplishment.124

If this interpretation is correct, the Vita Caesaris was well exploited not only by its author, Nicolaus, but (and this is historically more important) also by his patron Herod. Perhaps Herod might even have inspired Nicolaus to compose such a tract.125 At noted, Nicolaus had an important share in Herods boast: Second to Agrippa only, Herod was Augustus best friend.126 If the suggested date for the Vita Caesaris is correct, it follows that during the twenties Nicolaus spent some time in Rome, where he acquainted himself with the local political conditions, learned Latin,127 and may have served as a propagandist for the Judaean king. In the year 20 B.C., at any rate, both Herod and Nicolaus are known to have been in Syria on a visit to the traveling Augustus.128 That Nicolaus returned to Jerusalem might indicate that he felt it preferable to be a lion among foxes, rather than a fox among lions.

27Life and Works

While the sources date Nicolaus permanent stay in Jerusalem only from 14 B.C. it may be assumed that Nicolaus continued to perform important tasks from the year 20 B.C. on. The delicate mission entrusted to him by Herod in 14 B.C., the defense of the rights of the Ionian Jews, presupposes an old friendship.128 I t is not known, however, whether, as during the twenties B.C., Nicolaus continued to serve on a part-time basis. In 14 B.C., Herod and his entourage paid a visit to Agrippa, who had sailed to the Bosporus. Herod attached great importance to this visit. Officially, the journey was intended to reciprocate Agrippas visit to Jerusalem of the previous year.130 But more than this, Herod exploited the trip to display his power and wealth to the Greeks.131 The Jewish Diaspora in Asia Minor, which looked to Jerusalem for spiritual guidance, was also of great importance.138 Beset with difficulties in gaining the hearts of his Judaean subjects, Herod set out to impress those Jews in foreign lands who had no reason to complain either about his impiety or his tyranny. One way of impressing himself upon the Diaspora was to show how much he impressed the Greeks. Who knows? Herod may have thought. Winning over the Diaspora Jews may even create a more favorable climate of public opinion in Jerusalem.

The triple task that Herod hoped to accomplish in his journey to Asia Minorto cement his relations with Agrippa, to curry favor with the Greeks, and to lend support to Jews of the Diasporarequired considerable diplomatic finesse. It is clear, therefore, why a man like Nicolaus, with his wide learning, cosmopolitan outlook, and forensic skills could have been of great help. Nicolaus, joining Herod on this journey, became the instrument through whom Herod displayed his benevolence, a task that Nicolaus was pleased to perform. Was not philanthropia the main tenet of his philosophy? Philosophers have often cherished the dream of converting tyrants into one of their own, with results no more promising than those Nicolaus achieved with Herod. Meanwhile, Nicolaus was not averse to enjoying the prestige and power that a high position with Herod entailed. An incident during the journey, described by Nicolaus at length, shows the manner in which the Judaean king and the Damascene polymath helped each other. While at Ilium, Nicolaus heard that Agrippa had imposed a fine of a hundred thousand drachmae upon its citizens for failing to render aid to Agrippas wife, Julia, as she was crossing the Scamander River during a storm. Nicolaus then led a delegation of Ilians to Herod, requesting him to intercede with Agrippa on their behalf. Nicolaus explained to Herod that it was unjust to punish men who were not aware of Julias crossing, and that after all Ilium was no ordinary

Nicolaus of Damascus28

place. After persistent requests, Herod managed to persuade Agrippa to rescind the fine. The descendants of the Trojans, Nicolaus writes proudly, thereupon bestowed great honors upon him, and even greater ones upon the king.188

Nicolaus task of helping Herod to gain popularity among the Greeks was not difficult; Herod was soon confronted with the delicate problem of taking sides in a conflict between Jews and Greeks. The clash between Hellenism and Judaism was acute, not only in Jerusalem, but also in distant places such as Cyrene and Ionia.184 To the Greeks, it seemed strange for the Jews to claim the rights of citizenship, and at the same time to look toward Zion as their capital. The refusal of the Jews to serve in the army, the sending of gifts to the Temple in Jerusalem, and the seeming superstition of the Sabbath were especially repellent.185 The journey of Herod and Agrippa through Asia Minor gave both sides an opportunity to present their grievances. There is a conflict in the sources as to which side initiated the complaint.188 Perhaps both the Greeks and the Jews had reason to hope for a favorable decision. Herods generous contributions to the Greek Temples, and his claim of phil-Hellenism, may have encouraged the Ionians to hope that he would persuade the Jews to worship the gods of the country, rather than to look toward Jerusalem. The Jews, however, had no doubts about where Herods primary loyalty lay.187

For Herod, this clash between Judaism and Hellenism involved a difficult choice. The danger that much of the good will that he had bought with costly gifts might be dissipated had to be faced. But if he hesitated, the sources are silent. The king, accused at home of being a Hellenizer, was now eager to prove his devotion to the Jewish cause. Herod, however, could not risk pleading for Jews himself, even though his Greek and his eloquence might have been impressive enough.188 The possibility of an unfavorable decision, although unlikely, could not be based. He therefore asked Nicolaus to present the Jewish case before Agrippa.

Nicolaus, often regarded as a symbol of Herods Hellenistic tendencies,188 was now confronted with the task of maintaining Judaism in the cradle of Greece. The irony of the situation becomes even more evident when Josephus quotes Nicolaus as having extolled the virtues of the Sabbath and as having identified himself as a devout Jew.140 Some scholars, therefore, have expressed the opinion that the speech quoted by Josephus was one that had really been delivered by Nicolaus.141 Carefully weighed, the speech has the ring of general, if not literal, authenticity. Nicolaus recorded in his history, moreover, that he de

29Life and Works

livered a speech in Ionia, even devoting parts of two books to this subject, and it is likely that he also gave its text. It may be added that the other speeches attributed to Nicolaus by Josephus sound authentic. Praise for Herod and the Romans is the unifying theme of all three recorded speeches by Nicolaus.142

How, then, are we to explain Nicolaus praise of the Sabbath as a day of study, or his personal identification with it? Do the parts that were clearly designed to curry favor with Agrippa and Herod emanate, as Laqueur maintains, from Nicolaus, the passages that extol Judaism belonging to later additions?148 It is more likely that the address, though delivered by Nicolaus, was actually composed with the aid of Ionian Jews. Nicolaus use of the first person did not necessarily imply that he himself practiced such beliefs as he referred to; perhaps he was merely using the prerogatives of an advocate.144 Or perhaps Josephus, in paraphrasing Nicolaus, slipped into the first person. Be that as it may, the skillful delivery of the speech before Agrippa must have greatly increased Nicolaus prestige in the eyes of Herod and the Jews.

Herods successful journey through Asia Minor encouraged the king to attempt to increase even further his influence at home and his renown abroad. But determined opposition in Jerusalem to the kings Hellenistic pretensions created dissension within and derision outside the country.145 It is not unreasonable to maintain that Nicolaus historiographic activities were part of Herods design for counteracting these divisive forces.146 A world history, written by a defender of Judaism abroad, might help weaken the parochial tendencies among some prominent Jews and at the same time prove to the literary world that Jerusalem was becoming a center of Hellenistic learning. Under Herods prodding, Nicolaus began the Histories.U7

Fragment 135 gives an insight into the genesis and background of Nicolaus history:

Herod soon abandoned his enthusiasm for philosophy (as usually occurs with prominent men because of the great variety of diversions which they have), desiring next to study rhetoric. And Nicolaus was obliged to teach him rhetoric: so they practiced rhetoric together. In turn Herod took a liking to history. History was recommended by Nicolaus as beneficial to the citizen and as a necessity for a king to learn of former times and past events. He [Herod] then persuaded Nicolaus to begin working on a history. And Nicolaus was even more enthusiastic about the project; he compiled the whole history [the meaning is not clear, but the passage seems to say without aid from Herod or anyone else ] and labored as no one had before. Having worked on it unremittingly for a long time he completed it, saying that i f Eurystheus had challenged Heracles to such a task, it would certainly have worn him out.

Nicolaus of Damascus30

This fragment is revealing. Nicolaus would like his readers to believe that he was Herods scribe for the purpose of teaching him the truths of philosophy. Herod, however, rejected the study of philosophy, preferring rhetoric, and then changing again to history. The location of this fragment following the discussion of Herods journey to Ionia makes it seem likely that it refers to the year 14 B.C.148 It is surprising to learn that Herod, then some sixty years old, suddenly expressed a desire to master philosophy or rhetoric. Josephus long account of Herod contains nothing to suggest that the king had an interest in either discipline. The apologetic nature of the Autobiography makes it appear that Nicolaus set out here to defend his past association with Herod, a man notorious for his inhumanity. Nicolaus may also be apologizing for his own activities.149 Aristotle said that the study of history was inferior to that of poetry.0 No one, it is true, adhered to this belief any longer. Nevertheless, for a man who described himself as a zealous Aristotelian151 it was rather strange that he should sit down and compose a history in a hundred forty-four books. He therefore points out the utility of historiography. Subtly, this removes the sting of Herods lack of interest in philosophy; history, after all, is an extension of philosophy. What began as a damnation of Herod ends with his praise. The end of this fragment offers some proof for this contention: Later [12 B.C.] when Herod sailed to Rome to see Augustus he took Nicolaus along in his own ship, and they philosophized together ( Kowfi kL\oa0ovv) If used in the technical sense of the word, philosophy was Herods interest also.

A somewhat different interpretation, not necessarily contradictory, may be given to fragment 135, if one assumes the veracity of Nicolaus statements concerning Herods expressed desire to study the arts, and attempts to place them in context. There is no reason to doubt that Nicolaus attempted to expose Herod to the Peripatetic philosophy. Herod was not impressed. To his untrained ears, Nicolaus exposition of Aristotelian concepts of moderation and justice must have sounded very much like the Pharisaic nonsense about piety, and Nicolaus rhetoric not unlike a rabbinic sermon.158 To Herod, both were equally tiresome.

History, however, seemed more useful. I t might be of help in enlarging still further his domain, as well as in dealing with his internal foes.154 The prestige accruable to a history written under his patronage must have been another consideration. Archelaus, the king of Cappa- docia, whose daughter had married Herods son, entertained philoso

31Life and Works

phers and historians in his court and was an author himself.165 Juba, king of Mauretania, likewise composed many historical works.1 But in Herods case, there may have been still another motive. The Jews, believing as they did that only they possessed a past worthy of careful contemplation, may well have been impressed by a universal history, opening a window to Hellenism.17

Mention may be made of another semi-historical work of Nicolaus written under Herods patronage, the Collection of Remarkable Customs.158 This work described the strange laws and customs of certain barbarian and Greek peoples, arranged geographically, beginning with the Italian Peninsula and moving toward the EastIllyria, Thrace, Pontus, and Asia Minor, and then on to Libya.158 Jacoby suggests that this was a byproduce of the history and that the two were based on the same sources.160 If so, the work on customs must be dated in the last decade of Herods rule, between 14 and 4 B.C. But this is doubtful. The subject matter of the Collection belongs to the Peripatetic tradition, and thus may be classed wi