Zeno's Game of (A. P. ix.

482)
Author(s): Roland G. Austin
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 54, Part 2 (1934), pp. 202-205
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/626864
Accessed: 05/12/2008 12:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
of
drawing
in the classical
style,
in addition to its
interest as the
only surviving representation
in
ancient art of a famous incident in the
Nekyia
of the
Odyssey.
The
concluding
lines of the
passage describing
the
meeting
of
Odysseus
with
Elpenor (XI,
81-83)
must have have been
clearly
in the mind
of the artist:
Noi pEv os5 TErIcv dIpEIpoHIv)o oT-ruyEpoioV
ijiEO', Eycb
p.ev &vEUEv i?p' calpaTt
ipcyacvov trX>cov,
EicXov
8'
ETEpcoGEV iCaipou
ir6XX
&y6pEuVv.
In the
centre, Odysseus (OAYYEYE),
seated
on a rock with his chin resting on his right hand,
gazes
sorrowfully
into the
staring eyes
of his dead
comrade. His left hand holds the sword with
which he has cut the throats of the two sheep
lying
before him. Their blood drips into the
pit-oaaov
TE
'TruyocJIOv Evea Kai
evea-prepared
for the
purpose.
The
ghost
of Elpenor (EATE-
NOPO:),
whose
legs
from the knees down are
hidden in a
depression
of the
ground,
leans his
body
and raised left arm
against
a rock, the hand
grasping
a
projection
from it, while his right
hand, planted
on another rock, gives
him the
additional
support
he needs to hold himself erect.
One is reminded of the
epithet apEvrnva K&plva,
and of the
description
of
Agamemnon
later on in
the
story (11. 393-4):
WhX' o0/
y&p
ol ?-r'
/v
IS
pr1e805jos
oU8e T KIKUs,
oirl TEp T&poS Eg6(V EVi
yvapw-MTOIcn
pl crcn.
The
rendering
of the
landscape
recalls Circe's
description
of the entrance to the Lower World
(X, 513-5):
Evea pEv eiS 'AX?pOVTa TTlupipeyEQcov TIE Ooouct
KCOKUT6S 0', 6s 86i Z-rvyos
U85TOS
'CTrVv aroppcb6,
Tr-ETpTI
E TIVwiYS
TrE 8uco TOTrapCoV ept8oOTiftv,
The reeds
suggest
the
proximity
of the
rivers,
and the rock at their confluence is
represented
by
the
undulating
line
against
which
Elpenor
leans.
Hermes
(H<E>PMO),
who stands behind
Odysseus, plays
no
part
in this
episode
of the
Odyssey.
The artist
may
have added him
because of his
connection,
as
Psychopompos,
with the Underworld. It is
possible
also that the
god appeared
in one of the lost
tragedies dealing
with this theme.
L. D. CASKEY.
Zeno's
game
of
rT&pAi (A.P.
ix.
482).
861TrOTE yap Zivcova,
TroXtcaouxov PaclAiia,
Tratyvlov ex<ppac-rcov
KTEEO0VTac K3pCOV,
Toifl T0OIKl?OTEUl-rTOS E?V O?etlS,
E&T' c&Tr
AEUKO0,
TOo Kai 6roiailSfiv Eis
686v
pXOpEVOU,
of
drawing
in the classical
style,
in addition to its
interest as the
only surviving representation
in
ancient art of a famous incident in the
Nekyia
of the
Odyssey.
The
concluding
lines of the
passage describing
the
meeting
of
Odysseus
with
Elpenor (XI,
81-83)
must have have been
clearly
in the mind
of the artist:
Noi pEv os5 TErIcv dIpEIpoHIv)o oT-ruyEpoioV
ijiEO', Eycb
p.ev &vEUEv i?p' calpaTt
ipcyacvov trX>cov,
EicXov
8'
ETEpcoGEV iCaipou
ir6XX
&y6pEuVv.
In the
centre, Odysseus (OAYYEYE),
seated
on a rock with his chin resting on his right hand,
gazes
sorrowfully
into the
staring eyes
of his dead
comrade. His left hand holds the sword with
which he has cut the throats of the two sheep
lying
before him. Their blood drips into the
pit-oaaov
TE
'TruyocJIOv Evea Kai
evea-prepared
for the
purpose.
The
ghost
of Elpenor (EATE-
NOPO:),
whose
legs
from the knees down are
hidden in a
depression
of the
ground,
leans his
body
and raised left arm
against
a rock, the hand
grasping
a
projection
from it, while his right
hand, planted
on another rock, gives
him the
additional
support
he needs to hold himself erect.
One is reminded of the
epithet apEvrnva K&plva,
and of the
description
of
Agamemnon
later on in
the
story (11. 393-4):
WhX' o0/
y&p
ol ?-r'
/v
IS
pr1e805jos
oU8e T KIKUs,
oirl TEp T&poS Eg6(V EVi
yvapw-MTOIcn
pl crcn.
The
rendering
of the
landscape
recalls Circe's
description
of the entrance to the Lower World
(X, 513-5):
Evea pEv eiS 'AX?pOVTa TTlupipeyEQcov TIE Ooouct
KCOKUT6S 0', 6s 86i Z-rvyos
U85TOS
'CTrVv aroppcb6,
Tr-ETpTI
E TIVwiYS
TrE 8uco TOTrapCoV ept8oOTiftv,
The reeds
suggest
the
proximity
of the
rivers,
and the rock at their confluence is
represented
by
the
undulating
line
against
which
Elpenor
leans.
Hermes
(H<E>PMO),
who stands behind
Odysseus, plays
no
part
in this
episode
of the
Odyssey.
The artist
may
have added him
because of his
connection,
as
Psychopompos,
with the Underworld. It is
possible
also that the
god appeared
in one of the lost
tragedies dealing
with this theme.
L. D. CASKEY.
Zeno's
game
of
rT&pAi (A.P.
ix.
482).
861TrOTE yap Zivcova,
TroXtcaouxov PaclAiia,
Tratyvlov ex<ppac-rcov
KTEEO0VTac K3pCOV,
Toifl T0OIKl?OTEUl-rTOS E?V O?etlS,
E&T' c&Tr
AEUKO0,
TOo Kai 6roiailSfiv Eis
686v
pXOpEVOU,
iTT'& plv EKTOS
EXeV,
pliav
etvaTOS'
aciTap
6
aoOppoS
8iaca&as a&lplrwcov laoos
?lv SEKMOT' 10
OS
TE ErriET
pETr& CaOUppov
IXEV
8io pouv&8a
8'
aArirv,
qf9pov
-r v
TupOi&TTrV apcplEcTroKE Sipos.
a?aX
p&ka's SitooCas plev
V6y
o&y-rc hire
XCpcp
Kal
T60roraS TirpaS EiS UOCiv
fv6EK6TT)v-
apqil Suco6EKarrov
8E
S81'rpE-rov EiKEAXOl ahXa,
15
KaXi
TplKaitSEK6aTcp 'p9os5 iKEIT'O iia
i8{3yES 'AvTiyovov
sIEKO6aEOV-' d6AA Kcai CiTZO
fCToS iEplve TVrITcs TrEvTTrwIKat8EKaTc,
OKTcoKaiSEKoTc
TFravopo10os' ECrTtl
8'
&XXa
EtXEV 81X09a6ias T'TpaTOS
?K TVuV6TOV. 20
aOTrTp ava
Xnsuxoio
hXcXov CprtlTia Iocwraou,
Kai T-rV
Ecroplvi)v
oV voeov
rrayiSa . . .
Sola Kati ? Kai
'
TrevrgT KTa-ryayEv-' CaTiKa
8'
OKT"C
23
ax3uyas EixEv oias
Trp6o0aE ppi3oplvas5.
rT&PTrV 9pEVyETE Tr&vTES, ErlEi Kai
K:a
ipavoS aOUToS
K?ivTS S Ta&5 Xoyous
oOuX ui&rxie
TUOXas.
The
purpose
of this note is to shew the faulti-
ness of
Henry Jackson's
reconstruction of Zeno's
game
of
T-r6As
l
(JPh. vii, 1877,
pp.
240 fF.),
and to
suggest
that the correct solution is
given
by Becq
de
Fouquieres (Jeux
des
Anciens, Ist edn.,
I863,
pp.
371 f.).
Agathias' epigram
forms our chief and most
circumstantial evidence for the
game;
the inci-
dent narrated must have become a
commonplace
among anecdotists,
as
Agathias
himself was not
born until
nearly fifty
years after Zeno's death
in
491
A.D.
Jackson
and
Becq
both
suppose
that
Agathias
is
describing
a
game
of' xii
scripta.'
But whereas the latter was
played
on a board
with three rows of
I2 points (see my papers
in
Greece and
Rome,
Oct.
1934
and Feb.
1935),
Tc-rxr
needed
only
two such
rows,
as is clear from the
epigram. T6dpA,
in
fact,
is a direct descendant
of 'xii
scripta'; although
both are of the
backgammon type,2 T&IpAr
is the more
developed
form and more akin to the modern
game;
it is to
be identified with the
game
of tabula or alea
described
by
Isidore
(Orig.
xviii. 6o
ff.).
The
point
of the
epigram
is that Zeno's men
were so
placed
that a throw of
2, 6,
and
5 gave
him
eight 63uyEs,
thus
virtually ruining
his
game:
for
a3uyes,
as
Jackson shewed,
are the
'blots' of
backgammon, single pieces
liable to
capture
if one's
opponent
chances on an
appro-
iTT'& plv EKTOS
EXeV,
pliav
etvaTOS'
aciTap
6
aoOppoS
8iaca&as a&lplrwcov laoos
?lv SEKMOT' 10
OS
TE ErriET
pETr& CaOUppov
IXEV
8io pouv&8a
8'
aArirv,
qf9pov
-r v
TupOi&TTrV apcplEcTroKE Sipos.
a?aX
p&ka's SitooCas plev
V6y
o&y-rc hire
XCpcp
Kal
T60roraS TirpaS EiS UOCiv
fv6EK6TT)v-
apqil Suco6EKarrov
8E
S81'rpE-rov EiKEAXOl ahXa,
15
KaXi
TplKaitSEK6aTcp 'p9os5 iKEIT'O iia
i8{3yES 'AvTiyovov
sIEKO6aEOV-' d6AA Kcai CiTZO
fCToS iEplve TVrITcs TrEvTTrwIKat8EKaTc,
OKTcoKaiSEKoTc
TFravopo10os' ECrTtl
8'
&XXa
EtXEV 81X09a6ias T'TpaTOS
?K TVuV6TOV. 20
aOTrTp ava
Xnsuxoio
hXcXov CprtlTia Iocwraou,
Kai T-rV
Ecroplvi)v
oV voeov
rrayiSa . . .
Sola Kati ? Kai
'
TrevrgT KTa-ryayEv-' CaTiKa
8'
OKT"C
23
ax3uyas EixEv oias
Trp6o0aE ppi3oplvas5.
rT&PTrV 9pEVyETE Tr&vTES, ErlEi Kai
K:a
ipavoS aOUToS
K?ivTS S Ta&5 Xoyous
oOuX ui&rxie
TUOXas.
The
purpose
of this note is to shew the faulti-
ness of
Henry Jackson's
reconstruction of Zeno's
game
of
T-r6As
l
(JPh. vii, 1877,
pp.
240 fF.),
and to
suggest
that the correct solution is
given
by Becq
de
Fouquieres (Jeux
des
Anciens, Ist edn.,
I863,
pp.
371 f.).
Agathias' epigram
forms our chief and most
circumstantial evidence for the
game;
the inci-
dent narrated must have become a
commonplace
among anecdotists,
as
Agathias
himself was not
born until
nearly fifty
years after Zeno's death
in
491
A.D.
Jackson
and
Becq
both
suppose
that
Agathias
is
describing
a
game
of' xii
scripta.'
But whereas the latter was
played
on a board
with three rows of
I2 points (see my papers
in
Greece and
Rome,
Oct.
1934
and Feb.
1935),
Tc-rxr
needed
only
two such
rows,
as is clear from the
epigram. T6dpA,
in
fact,
is a direct descendant
of 'xii
scripta'; although
both are of the
backgammon type,2 T&IpAr
is the more
developed
form and more akin to the modern
game;
it is to
be identified with the
game
of tabula or alea
described
by
Isidore
(Orig.
xviii. 6o
ff.).
The
point
of the
epigram
is that Zeno's men
were so
placed
that a throw of
2, 6,
and
5 gave
him
eight 63uyEs,
thus
virtually ruining
his
game:
for
a3uyes,
as
Jackson shewed,
are the
'blots' of
backgammon, single pieces
liable to
capture
if one's
opponent
chances on an
appro-
1
Lamer
(RE.,
s.v. lusoria
tabula)
rightly
refuses to
admit that
Becq's theory
can be
applied
to xii
scripta,
but is
wrong
in
alleging
that the
game
is nowhere
named:
Agathias gives
the
name, Trtpal.
2
'Tables,'
the
generic name,
is more
accurate;
Tapr6iX
is not
exactly equivalent
either to
backgammon
or to the French
tric-trac,
but is
merely
one
repre-
sentative of the
family.
1
Lamer
(RE.,
s.v. lusoria
tabula)
rightly
refuses to
admit that
Becq's theory
can be
applied
to xii
scripta,
but is
wrong
in
alleging
that the
game
is nowhere
named:
Agathias gives
the
name, Trtpal.
2
'Tables,'
the
generic name,
is more
accurate;
Tapr6iX
is not
exactly equivalent
either to
backgammon
or to the French
tric-trac,
but is
merely
one
repre-
sentative of the
family.
202 202 NOTES NOTES
NOTES
priate
throw. A
position
where Zeno could
escape eight
blots is therefore invalid.
Zeno is
playing White;
he has
7
men on the
6th
point,
i on the
gth,
2 on both the loth and
the
aoupios,
2 on the
point
after the aooppos,
and one on the
Sipos.
Black has 2 on the
8th,
i th and I2th
points,
I on the
I3th,
2 on
Av-riyovos,
2 on both the
i5th
and
i8th,
and
2
again
on the
4th point
from the last. White
is described as 6oli5iinrv EiS
686v
ipXO6pvos,
which
must mean that he is
transferring
his men
through
his
opponent's
tables back to a home
table, exactly
as in
backgammon.
I
append
(Fig. I)
a
diagram
of
Becq's arrangement.
The
vertical division between the tables is found in
all xii
scripta boards,
and
may certainly
be
assumed in rap?Ar
also. The horizontal division
,
BLACK
24 23 22 21 20 19
203
regular
order from lower to
higher
numbers:
the
only exception
to this is the
rouipos,
named before the Ioth
point
instead of after
it,
but as the two are
coupled
in a
single
clause for
metrical
reasons,
the disturbance of order is
only
apparent.
The Sipos is more difficult to
assign; Becq places
it on
23 by elimination,
as
it is in fact the
only point
left where the
presence
of a blot fulfils the conditions of the
game;
there
may
be some connexion between the name
and the 2nd
point
from the end of the board.'
Zeno now threw
(KaTrriyayEv,
cf. French amener)
2, 6,
and
5.
He could not move
any piece
from
6,
as
8,
I
I,
and 12 are all
blocked,2
nor the
piece
on
9,
as I
,
I4,
and
15
are
blocked,
but he could
move one of the men on Io to I6. He then had
a 2 and a
5
to
play;
he could
only
move 20 to
< WHITE
<
18 17 16 15 14 13
o
* 0 0
*
*
0 0 * 0
0 0
00
0
0 o
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II /2
> WHITE > BLACK<
FIG. I.
is necessitated
by
the
type
of
game;
it can
easily
be accounted for if we
regard
-rPApq
as
originally
played
on a xii scripta
board in which the middle
row was not used for movement.
The
diagram
will shew how
Becq disposes
of
those
points
which had
special
names. The
aooiios
he
puts
at the
i9th,
on the certain
ground
that this is the furthest
point
to which a
piece starting
from I could travel
by
the
highest
possible
throw,
i.e. three sixes. In confirmation
of
this,
Mr. H.
J.
R.
Murray
tells me that in the
Middle
Ages
this
point
and the 6th
(Black's
corresponding aooppos)
had technical
names,
as
they play
an
important part
in the tactics of
the
game.
The
place
of
'AvTiyovoS
at
14
is
clear from the
Greek,
which names the
points
in
22 and
19
to
24,
which resulted in his
eight
blots
as described
by Agathias.
It should be added
that he could not have moved from
19
with his 6
or from 20 with
5
or 6: these moves would have
1 I cannot understand
why Sipos
has been
equated
with divus; surely
the
quantity
alone would
prevent
this. The word is not mentioned in the old
Liddell and
Scott;
in the new edition it should
rather be
explained
as 'a
point
on a
backgammon
board' than as 'a
square
on a
draught
board.'
E. A.
Sophocles,
in his Lexicon
of Byzantine Greek,
wrongly
accents it
sipos.
2
Because two or more men on
any
one
point
make movement
impossible
to that
point by
an
opponent.
204 NOTES
taken him off the
board,
which in
games
of this
sort is not allowed until a
player
has all his men
in his home table
(i.e.
for
White, I9-24). Becq's
reconstruction
(accepted
in essentials
by
Stadt-
muller in his edition of the
Anthology)
thus
fulfils the conditions of the
epigram,
and must
be
regarded
as
correct;
Mr.
Murray
tells me
that he arrived at the same
position indepen-
dently,
which confirms
Becq's theory.
Let us now turn to
Jackson.
He
arranges
his
board
(see
his
diagram Fig. 2)
with I and
24
on
the
right-hand
side of the
board,
a
perfectly
possible system.
But he is
fundamentally wrong
in his unnatural direction of movement. He
makes White move forward from I2 towards I
(on
his
diagram)
and back
again
from
24
to
13,
13 14 15 16 17 18
which the
o3uyEs
or blots could not be moved.
Such a rule nowhere exists in this
family
of
games,
and of course makes
any
real
play
impossible,
as
may
be seen from
experiment;
and as without it Zeno is not forced to his
eight
blots, Jackson's
reconstruction must be
wrong.
Nothing,
in
fact, suggests
that the blots were
immovable
per se; only
their
position might
make them immovable for the
purpose
of
any
one
throw,
since their
progress
would be blocked
by
the
presence
of two or more hostile
pieces
on
the
point
to which
they might
otherwise
go.
It is
position
alone that
matters, and
Becq's arrange-
ment satisfies this
condition, Jackson's
does not.'
This
brings
us to a most
important piece
of
evidence,
in which Mr.
Murray
has solved a
BLACK
19 20 2t 22 23 24
*
t t ; 9
$ t$ 9:
1X
<??
12 II 10 9 8 7
instead of
through
a natural
progression
from I
through
I2
up
to
24.
Such a direction is
quite
opposed
to the invariable
practice
in
games
of this
type,
and
precludes any
natural movement from
the lower to the
upper
tables.
Jackson then,
in order to arrive at the
necessary eight blots,
puts
aoOppos
at
24,
thinking
that it must be an
end
point, 'Av-ryovos
at
I,
and
Sf3po provision-
ally
at 2. But this
arrangement
is forced on him
by
his unnatural
direction; apart
from
anything
else,
it
quite ignores
the
methodical, neatly
expressed
Greek order.
However,
even
so,
Zeno is not so
placed
that
eight
blots are inevit-
able;
he could still have saved two of
them;
therefore
Jackson
is driven to invent a rule
by
6
WHITE
FIG. 2.
5 4 3 2 1
problem
which has hitherto caused the
greatest
misapprehension. Isidore,
in
describing
the
moves in 'tabula'
(certainly
the same
game
as
rpha1),
states
(Orig.
xviii.
67):
'calculi
partim
ordine
moventur, partim vage:
ideo alios
ordinarios,
alios
vagos appellant; qui
vero
moveri omnino non
possunt,
incitos dicunt.'
Mr.
Murray points
out that Isidore's termin-
1
Jackson supports
his view of the
a3uyEs by
an
analogy (itself false)
from
latrunculi,
an
utterly
different
type
of
game;
he further
states, wrongly,
that the men were
originally arranged
in
threes,
an
inference from Ovid's account of the
game
of Merels
(A.A.
iii.
365),
another
quite
different
game.
The
Campaign
of Marathon.-I have
through
the
courtesy
of Professor Sotiriadis of the
University
of Athens received an extract from
rTpCKT.
1933, 8, p.
377,
entitled 'The
Campaign
of Marathon
according
to a recent critic.' In
this
paper
Professor Sotiriadis refers to
my paper
on the
campaign
of Marathon
(JHS. 1932,
pp.
I3-24).
I
regret
to find that he considers
my
paper
'an
unjustifiable
attack on Herodotus.'
I
may say
at once that
my
studies of the
military
campaigns
described
by
Herodotus fill me with
admiration for the father of
history.
I said in
my paper (p. 13):
'We have to remember in
dealing
with the
story
of Marathon that Hero-
dotus was
writing long
after the event with the
greater
event of Xerxes' invasion between him
and the
campaign
of Marathon. It was as if a
British historian were to
attempt
to write now
the
history
of the South African War without
any
of the
carefully catalogued
records which are
to-day
at his
disposal.
The wonder then is
not that there are
improbabilities
in Herodotus's
story
of
Marathon,
but that there are so few of
them.'
Indeed,
as I
say (p. 24),
my story'
involves
only
one
important departure
from
Herodotus,
the date of the fall of Eretria.'
It is
upon
this
point
that Professor Sotiriadis
challenges
me. He
says (p. 380)
that Herodotus
VI.
Ioo,
in which the
appeal
of the Eretrians to
Athens is described,
is an insertion
(rrapeppoAi)
in the
story
of the
campaign
of Marathon and
refers to events which
preceded
the first
landing
of the Persians in Euboea and the fall of
Karystos.
It is
quite possible
that Professor Sotiriadis is
right,
and it is
arguable
whether the words with
which Ch. 1oo begins
refer to what was
taking
place
while the Persians were
ravaging
the
country
round
Karystos
as described in Ch.
99
or
to events which
preceded
the
landing
in Euboea.
Indeed it is
quite probable
that the
Eretrians,
remembering
the
part
which
they
had taken in
the
burning
of
Sardis,
were in a
panic
when
they
learned of the
approach
of the Persians to
Euboea and
appealed
at once to the Athenians
for
help.
The
point
is immaterial. The real
points
are:-
I. Whether the whole Persian
army
landed at
Marathon after the fall of
Eretria;
2. Whether Miltiades
marched out from
Athens before or after the fall of Eretria.
With
regard
to
(i)
I have
already pointed
out
(1.
c.
p. I6)
that the whole of the Persian
expedi-
tion could not have been
required against
little
Eretria.
With this view Professor Sotiriadis seems to
agree,
for he
says (p. 379),
after
speaking
of the
p
The
Campaign
of Marathon.-I have
through
the
courtesy
of Professor Sotiriadis of the
University
of Athens received an extract from
rTpCKT.
1933, 8, p.
377,
entitled 'The
Campaign
of Marathon
according
to a recent critic.' In
this
paper
Professor Sotiriadis refers to
my paper
on the
campaign
of Marathon
(JHS. 1932,
pp.
I3-24).
I
regret
to find that he considers
my
paper
'an
unjustifiable
attack on Herodotus.'
I
may say
at once that
my
studies of the
military
campaigns
described
by
Herodotus fill me with
admiration for the father of
history.
I said in
my paper (p. 13):
'We have to remember in
dealing
with the
story
of Marathon that Hero-
dotus was
writing long
after the event with the
greater
event of Xerxes' invasion between him
and the
campaign
of Marathon. It was as if a
British historian were to
attempt
to write now
the
history
of the South African War without
any
of the
carefully catalogued
records which are
to-day
at his
disposal.
The wonder then is
not that there are
improbabilities
in Herodotus's
story
of
Marathon,
but that there are so few of
them.'
Indeed,
as I
say (p. 24),
my story'
involves
only
one
important departure
from
Herodotus,
the date of the fall of Eretria.'
It is
upon
this
point
that Professor Sotiriadis
challenges
me. He
says (p. 380)
that Herodotus
VI.
Ioo,
in which the
appeal
of the Eretrians to
Athens is described,
is an insertion
(rrapeppoAi)
in the
story
of the
campaign
of Marathon and
refers to events which
preceded
the first
landing
of the Persians in Euboea and the fall of
Karystos.
It is
quite possible
that Professor Sotiriadis is
right,
and it is
arguable
whether the words with
which Ch. 1oo begins
refer to what was
taking
place
while the Persians were
ravaging
the
country
round
Karystos
as described in Ch.
99
or
to events which
preceded
the
landing
in Euboea.
Indeed it is
quite probable
that the
Eretrians,
remembering
the
part
which
they
had taken in
the
burning
of
Sardis,
were in a
panic
when
they
learned of the
approach
of the Persians to
Euboea and
appealed
at once to the Athenians
for
help.
The
point
is immaterial. The real
points
are:-
I. Whether the whole Persian
army
landed at
Marathon after the fall of
Eretria;
2. Whether Miltiades
marched out from
Athens before or after the fall of Eretria.
With
regard
to
(i)
I have
already pointed
out
(1.
c.
p. I6)
that the whole of the Persian
expedi-
tion could not have been
required against
little
Eretria.
With this view Professor Sotiriadis seems to
agree,
for he
says (p. 379),
after
speaking
of the
p
ology
need not and in fact does not
apply
to the
men
per
se
(an
assumption
which has so much
vitiated most researches on this
subject),
but
only
in virtue of their relative
position.
' Ordinarii' are men
moving
in
rank,
two or
more at a time for
protection,
as in
backgammon:
'
vagi
' are
single
blots
(&a3uyes)
which have
'
strayed
' from their
companions:
'
inciti'
are
pieces
which at a
given
throw cannot be
moved at all.
Thus, according
to the fluctua-
tions of the
game, (a)
an ordinarius can become
vagus
if its
companions
are
played
to another
point, (b) any vagus
can become an ordinarius if
another
piece
is
played
to its
point, (c)
either
ordinarii or
vagi
are also inciti if for the moment
their
way
is blocked
by
hostile ordinarii.
Now,
does not this
apply admirably
to Zeno's
game,
as reconstructed
by Becq?
For
example,
the
&uVyES on
9
and
23
are
vagi
which have become
inciti;
one of the ordinarii on Io becomes
vagus
when its mate is
played
to
I6,
but the other is
incitus. Thus Mr.
Murray's
account illustrates
Isidore and makes him
plain by
means of
Agath-
ias;
and the obvious fact that Isidore is
describing
'tabula' and not 'latrunculi' or
any
other
game,
when taken with this
explanation,
rids
the
history
of these
games
of a most undesirable
will-o'-the-wisp.
There is one further
point.
What is the mean-
ing
of vv.
25-6
of the
epigram? Gottling
apparently
took
6oAac
with
Trpo6as, interpreting
'he had
eight
divided
pieces,
which were
pre-
viously
6oAcl ;
but the use of the
present participle
then
appears strained,
and the whole run of the
line is
against
the
interpretation. Jacobs sug-
gested ?rrp6ao'
6pf i3lopvas; Jackson objects
both
to this and to
Gottling's
translation on the
ground
that two of the ultimate
eight
blots
existed before Zeno's fatal throw. The
objection,
though
a real
one,
cannot be
pressed: Agathias
may
have been
speaking loosely.
Stadtmiller
appears
to take
pEpl3opavas
as a middle used
absolutely, translating
' he had
eight
blots
which
previously
when in
partnership (vept3opEvas)
were not
separated (6hAs) ';
this solution
is
ingenious
to a
degree,
but it seems
very
hard
to extract from the Greek. A definite decision
seems
scarcely possible;
I should like to think
that Stadtmiiller
is
right. Jackson's
own emen-
dation is
-rp6S ENp' 6pl3opivas,
'marked out as
ology
need not and in fact does not
apply
to the
men
per
se
(an
assumption
which has so much
vitiated most researches on this
subject),
but
only
in virtue of their relative
position.
' Ordinarii' are men
moving
in
rank,
two or
more at a time for
protection,
as in
backgammon:
'
vagi
' are
single
blots
(&a3uyes)
which have
'
strayed
' from their
companions:
'
inciti'
are
pieces
which at a
given
throw cannot be
moved at all.
Thus, according
to the fluctua-
tions of the
game, (a)
an ordinarius can become
vagus
if its
companions
are
played
to another
point, (b) any vagus
can become an ordinarius if
another
piece
is
played
to its
point, (c)
either
ordinarii or
vagi
are also inciti if for the moment
their
way
is blocked
by
hostile ordinarii.
Now,
does not this
apply admirably
to Zeno's
game,
as reconstructed
by Becq?
For
example,
the
&uVyES on
9
and
23
are
vagi
which have become
inciti;
one of the ordinarii on Io becomes
vagus
when its mate is
played
to
I6,
but the other is
incitus. Thus Mr.
Murray's
account illustrates
Isidore and makes him
plain by
means of
Agath-
ias;
and the obvious fact that Isidore is
describing
'tabula' and not 'latrunculi' or
any
other
game,
when taken with this
explanation,
rids
the
history
of these
games
of a most undesirable
will-o'-the-wisp.
There is one further
point.
What is the mean-
ing
of vv.
25-6
of the
epigram? Gottling
apparently
took
6oAac
with
Trpo6as, interpreting
'he had
eight
divided
pieces,
which were
pre-
viously
6oAcl ;
but the use of the
present participle
then
appears strained,
and the whole run of the
line is
against
the
interpretation. Jacobs sug-
gested ?rrp6ao'
6pf i3lopvas; Jackson objects
both
to this and to
Gottling's
translation on the
ground
that two of the ultimate
eight
blots
existed before Zeno's fatal throw. The
objection,
though
a real
one,
cannot be
pressed: Agathias
may
have been
speaking loosely.
Stadtmiller
appears
to take
pEpl3opavas
as a middle used
absolutely, translating
' he had
eight
blots
which
previously
when in
partnership (vept3opEvas)
were not
separated (6hAs) ';
this solution
is
ingenious
to a
degree,
but it seems
very
hard
to extract from the Greek. A definite decision
seems
scarcely possible;
I should like to think
that Stadtmiiller
is
right. Jackson's
own emen-
dation is
-rp6S ENp' 6pl3opivas,
'marked out as
prizes.' prizes.'
ROLAND G. AUSTIN. ROLAND G. AUSTIN.
1 In the earlier xii
scripta game
the Latin term for
a blot
may
have been
'distans';
see S. G. Owen's
note on
Ovid,
Trist. ii.
475-6.
J.H.S.-VOL.
LIV.
1 In the earlier xii
scripta game
the Latin term for
a blot
may
have been
'distans';
see S. G. Owen's
note on
Ovid,
Trist. ii.
475-6.
J.H.S.-VOL.
LIV.
NOTES NOTES 205 205