Borgtas Xi, fase TAIS6-54, pp 99-92 e205 Arve, £9708 by Tout Wold THE DECAY OF THE IRANIAN EMPIRE OF THE SELEUCIDS AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PARTHIAN BEGINNINGS garners oelcoet cet alee third century B.C. closely con- nected with the destinies of Hellenism in the Near East is one of the key problems of the Hellenistic world, one which so far we have not been able to solve ina satisfactory manner). The main difficulty lies in the sphere of the chronology, on which depends the possibility of obtaining a clear picture of the social, economic and political forces at work, and thereby of penetrating into the true motives of the process. This difficulty reflects the state of our knowledge, which for decades, as far as is known, has not been increased by new sources, s0 that all efforts aiming at establishing the chronology of the two principal events, i, e. the rise of the Bactrian, and Parthian states must be confined to the ancient accounts. These are very scarce in spite of the relative abundance of the preserved writings, but there are great differences of time between them and they show manifest contradictions‘). This explains the futility of all experiments tending to fix the date of the beginnings of the Arsacids and consequently of the Bactrian state, both bound together with strong ties. Lately this chronological complex has been the object of some important works and studies, which aimed at bringing some order in this chaos*). They are marked by two main tendencies in treating our evidence. The one may be called unitarian, the other separatist. The aim of the followers of the former is to prove that the 9) Ch. J. Wolski, “L'Effondrement de la do. mination des Séleucides en Tran au TII-e sav. JoC.." Bulletin tnternational de Tc. Pol. des ‘Sciences et des Leties, Cl. de Philologie-Ch, @ Mist 1 de Philosophie, Sppl. No. 5, Cracovie 1947, D-¥3 $8. who gives a review of the investigations in this matter. 4) The value of the sources refering to this ‘epoch were discussed recently by J. Wolski, Ar- aces the founder of the Parthian state (in Polish), Fos, 38, 1937, p. 492. See also W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, 2. 0d., Cambridge 19st, p-39 #8. C.N, Debevoise, A Politeal History of Parthia, Chicago 1938, p. XXV ss., Fr. Altheim, Weitgecchiche Asiens im griechischen Zettalter, 1 Hale 1947, p-25s.,and P. J. Junge."Parthia”, RE, 36. He., 1949, col. 1968, give merely a sketeh, 4) See abovesmentioned authors, and W. W Tarn, Cambridge Ancient History, 1X, 1932, p. 574 88 EJ, Bickerman, “Notes on Seleucid and Parthian Chronology,” Berytus, 8, 1944, 2.73 8, H. Bengtson, “Ueber einige Griinde des Niedenganges der hellenistischen Welt." Histor sehes Jabriuch, 74, 1955, 9-26 58eon principal sourees, Strabon, Arrian and Justin, form a compact, harmonious whole), whilst for those of the latter they represent various strata of different derivation’). It is the main object, consequently, of their analysis of the sources to separate valuable accounts from such as should be rejected. This last manner of proceeding is not entirely new’), but improved methods of criticism have given it a new im- portance. In the opinion of the author of this study the only way by which the ultimate scope may be gained, is the latter one. Tt is based on observation drawn from the scrutiny of all available sources that they, evidently as a product of the activity of more than a thousand years, contain manifest discrepancies, which ex- clude the possibility of placing them on one and the same level But before conclusions commonly acknowledged can be reached, it is right to review all the evidence both literary, documentary and numismatic, and try to classify it into groups. To the first class belong Strabon, Isidorus of Charax, Appian, Arrian, Justinus, Eusebius, Syncellus and Zosimus'). As to the value of these authors, who range from the first century B. C. (Strabon) to the twelfth A. D. (Syncelins) it is necessary to emphasize the fact that with the exception of Strabon whose source may be traced back to Apollodorus of Artemita, a Greco-Parthian author living about 100 B.C., we are unable to establish with certainty from what first-rate sources they drew their accounts*). But notwithstanding this ob- servation, which tends to diminish their value, we are obliged to limit our investi- gations to them alone, since for the handling of the chronological problem the so-called Arsacid Era and the numismatic evidence are of no importance. The for- mer) preserved in the documents (tablets, parchments) presents a system which was calculated on an unknown base and which till now we have been unable to include in a chronological frame’). As to the numismatic evidence, it is of no value 4) The mest determined adherent of this view is E. J. Bekerman, 1 ¢ 4) This was particulary stressed by J. Wol- ski, Eos, 38, 1937, p. 499 58. and, recently, by Fr Altheim, Wellgeschichte Asiens, U1, Halle 1948, pa. 4) CE JG. Droysen, Geschichte des Hel= lenismus, I, (1-8. 1843), p. 33. '*) One should abstain from taking into ac count the Armenian writers, such as Moses of Chorene, Ps. Agathangelus. On this subject see the remarks of N.C, Debevoise, f.¢, p. XXXII, and Fr. Altheim, 1. Hh p. 13, note 15, 5) As to the source of the Parthian accounts in Trogus "Historias Phiippicas", the main problem of the discussion is whether itis distinct from the source of those of Strabon (which is the opinion of Tarn) or whether it is the same (as Altheim admits), On this subject nothing now has. been produced by Al. Klots, “Pompelus Trogus RE, 42. Hbd., 1952, col. 2300 ss. *) The supposition of Bickerman, fc, p. 82, thatthe starting poiat ofthat era should be sought in the victory won By Arsaces (Tiridates according ‘to Biekerman) over Selenens TI in 231, whieh, ‘therefore, was antedated, thos Sxing the Arsacid fra in 247, is ingenions and attractive, but 1 is land remains wholly hypothetical The weale point ‘of Bickecman’s reconstruction i¢ the mixing up ‘of two different evidences, namely the one fering to Tiridates (the number of his regnal years being drawn from Syncellus 284 B-C), the other to Arsaces (the most ancient coins bearing the name of Arsaces, the coronation of Arsaces in Asaac. Cf, Isidorus of Charax, Mans. Parth. 11), %) Cf. E.H, Minns, “Parchments of Avro- rman,” Journ. of Hell. Studies, 35, 1915, p. 229 C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondonce in the Helle- istic Period, New Haven 1934, P.299 58.=a for establishing the exact chronology"), although it may contain many surprises for the future, Therefore, the starting point of our investigation must be the literary sources, on the analysis of which depends the issue of the chronological research. The inquiry into the theme of the decay of the Seleucid Iranian Empire was concentrated from the beginning of the eighteenth century upon two chronological problems, the one being the date of the foundation of the Parthian monarchy?), the other that of the rise of the Bactrian state’). These researches had one and ‘the same starting point, the sources of which lay in the dogmatic acceptance of the epoch, for which the name, the authority, was of more value than the real arguments, As is known, our evidence gives different dates for the foundation of the Arsacid monarchy‘), but there are no exact dates for the defection of Diodotos of Bactria, The historical knowledge of the eighteenth and following centuries aimed at eliminating the chronological discrepancies by assuming a priori as a starting point the account of the distant historian Arrian (second century A. D.) preserved only in fragments by Photius (ninth A. D.)$). Convinced of the great value of Arrian fas a historian highly appreciated for his Anabasis, the investigators transferred their evaluation to his fragmentarily pre Parthica. This explains why neither his evidence nor that of authors Sich SSS Symeting wt depended ‘on him, was subject to a detailed analysist) This methodological error has caused a further one. The epitome of Photius did not contain any precise date, but a chronological expression. According to him (Parth. fr. 1) the two Arsacid brothers Arsaces and Tiridates zpewécr tov Ord "Avmidyou Tol Baointes (Qxbv aivrbv érixny dvépagov) aarpéamy alray THis Kdpas xaraorévra ... éveiov. From Vaillant’s time this evidence is interpreted to mean. that the monarchy of the Arsacids was founded in the reign of Antiochus IT Theos (26x—246). For the support of this interpretation two sources were cited: that of Justin, and that of Eusebius, According to the former the revolt of the Parthians (defectio Parthorum) occurred (XLT 4,3) in the consularship of L. Manlius Vulso and M, Atilius Regulus, ie. in the year 256, falling within the regnal years of Antiochus II, Eusebius assigned to this event two dates, but only one of them (Chron, 11 120 Schoene) the third year of the x3znd Olympiad, i. e. 250 B.C., falls within the limits of Antiochus I's reign, whilst the other (Chron. I 207) the 133rd Olympiad, i.e. 248—44, only partially falls within those limits. Furthermore, on the basis of the evidence of Strabon and Justin, who describe the revolt of Diodotus before mentioning the foundation of the Arsacid monarchy, it was commonly ad- 4) Bg the problem of the coins attributed and Fr. Altheim, Le., If, p.10 58, who give all to the Diodotides, Cf. J.Macdonald, Cambridge the passages of the sources. History of India, 1, 192% p.437 8) Te was A. Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans wad 2) Ck, J. Vaillant, Arsaciderum imperium seiner Nachbarlander, Tubingen 1888, who gave tc, Parisis 1725, it its ultimate form. 3) Cf, Ph. S. Bayer, Historia regni Graecorum 4) Bat see the summary given by J. Wolsi Bactriani, Potropolt 1738. "Arsaces,” Eos, 38, p. 495.88. Cf. also Fr. Altheim, 4) Cf, J. Wolski, “Arsaces," Bos, 38,p.51088. Le, Mp2.eee mitted that the rise of the Greeks in Bactria also occurred under Antiochus II Theos?) The point of view of Vaillant was shared and, till now, is shared by the over- whelming majority of scholars. But the application of Arrian’s chronology has caused the necessity of harmonizing the totality of the evidence with the main source. The most. important operation in this respect was the introduction of a conjecture in Strabon’s text. One passage, namely, is transmitted ambiguoush (XI 9.2): veartepioSévteov BE Taw Eo TOU Tavpov ié 73 lun tois THis Zuplas Kai tis MnBios BasiAos. The philologists, influenced as they were by their appreciati rian, have availed themselves of this and introduced ine the tet CEMA RROUIBKIDS cnsojens of hs aeration Strabo’ ard Media, howe ail ese By ms precely Antiochus II and his son Seleucus, the future Callinicus, acting as co-regent, as is indicated by the use of the plural of the title PaowMtos, who were entangled most probably in the second Syrian War. This alteration of Strabon's text accepted by the totality of both historians and philologists*) caused the breaking up of the coherence between Strabon and Justin, whose account showed much likeness to that of the Geographer‘). Already this superficial outline of the researches into the chronology of the Parthian and Bactrian beginnings gives an approximate idea of the quantity of methodological errors which were committed over this problem’) ‘The most striking fact was the lack of a detailed analysis of all the available evidence, which would enable us to find a sure base for future investigations"). One of the postulates of the critic should be to discover the strata of the tradition and to select, if not the first-hand sources, at least those, which were near the events cited therein. One feels the lack of the application of the criteria of internal probability, which ‘would enable us to look upon the evidence from this point of view. The importance of such terms as “defectio, defectores, defecere” in Justin and “ééoraais” in Appian, Syr. 65, which are quoted in connexion with Parthian history, were entirely overlooked’). Modern scholars have related this evidence to the history of the Arsacids, notwithstanding that all that is known of the beginnings of the Parthian 1) CL J. Wolski, L'Efondvement de ta do rmination des Séleucides on Iran, p. 16, where the new literature is discussed *) Upon the conjecture of Tyrwhitt adopted fn Coray’s edition of Sirabon, Parisits 1815, 4) In the first place by Gutschmid, c., 1.29, mote 1, who stated its necessity in the most decisive manner. 4) The close relationship of these writers had been pointed out already by P. Longuesue, Annales Arsacidarum, Strasebourg 1732, p-3, but this view was not adopted by the scholars. 4) A more detailed review of the research ‘wpon this subject is given by J.Wolski, L'Ffondre- ‘mont de la domination des Sélencides en Iran, Dera ss 1) Besides the studies of the author cited above, the necessity of inquires into the state of ‘the entire evidence as been realized by Fr. Altheim, 1c, 11, p. 10 55, who, however, did not [go beyond the beginnings 2) Regarding particularly the consular date ‘of Justin, ef J. Wolk, “Arsaces,” Bos, 38, p. 510ag monarchy points to an invasion from without and not to a revolt, and in the case ‘of Appian, they disregarded him entirely. Finally, the most serious doubts from the point of view of the modern critical methods must be aroused by the conjecture in the text of Strabon, and, last but not least, the interpretation of the above- mentioned phrase of Arrian ‘These methodological inaccuracies call imperatively for an inquiry into the whole chronological problem and for the sources to be submitted to a thorough. analysis. The starting point in the investigation will be the account of Strabon, who represents the carliest stratum of the preserved evidence. He must be very highly appreciated. As a matter of fact he quotes several times as his source of the history of Hellenistic Iran a Greek writer Apollodorus of Artemita, flourishing probably about 100 B.C., who, one may suppose, had his information from the records of the Arsacids, and who gives the official view of the founding of the monarchy). The full value of his evidence will not appear in its proper light, until it has been possible to reproduce his text in its anthentic wording. One may safely assume that his account XI 9,2 was drawn from Apollodorus of Artemita’s Parthica’). The main point of the discussion is the alleged co-regency of Seleucus II Callinicus with his father Antiochus IT, which gives the only support to the conjecture 51é 7 -npis GMAois elvan. But against the historicity of this co-regency may be raised from the historical point of view most serious arguments. Neither the cuneiform documents nor the literary evidence contain any information which one may quote to support this co-regency ereated with but one aim — to legalize the conjecture in the text of Strabon’). Having noted the lack of historicity of the said co-regency*) wwe are induced to omit it and to proceed to the analysis of the readings cited by the Mss., although they were till now entirely overl is known, the majorit of Mss. cite the readin, task of deciding which of these readings is the authentic one is mnsely facilitated by the discovery of Strabon’s palimpsest in the Vatican, which supplies us, too, with an argument against the proposed conjecture!) that it will not be easy to overthrow. The reading mpbs 4AAAo1s having proved 1) The exceptional value of this writer, D.J.Wiseman, “A Babylonian king list of the Hel- ‘whove relation is still hidden in many passages lenistic period,” f7o9, x6, 1954, P. 202 $8. See also as particularly stressed by J. Wolski, A. Aymard, "Du nowveau sur la chronologie des Arsaces,” Eos, 38. p. 503, and, independently by Séleucides,” Revue des Etudes Anciennes, 57, 1955, W.W. Tar, The Greeks in Bactria and India, p. 102 5s., and H. Bengtson, “Neve Seleukiden- p. 37. See alo Pr. Altheim, 1c, I. p.2 ss. daten.” Historia, 4, 1955. p.113 6. 4) This i, also, the opinion of W. W. Tara, 4) This viow based upon the analysis of all Le, and Fr. Altheim, fc 4) As to the cuneiform evidence see A. T Clay, Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pier- ont Morgan, IL, Legal Documents from Evech dated fm the Stleucid Era, New York 1913, 9. 83, eon firmed by the new evidence of a Babylonian chronicle discovered recently. Cf. A. J. Sachs and available data was already proposed by J. Wolski, “Arsaces,” Eos, 38, p. 499 $8 the recently men- toned chroniele not being known at the date 2) Kindly imparted to the author in a letter bby Professor W. Aly, the future editor of the Patimpaest.40 the only authentic one, we may with certainty admit that under the term of "the kings of Syria and Media” are hidden the Seloucids conceived as a family, in this ase Seleucns II Callini and his brother Antiochus Hierax, who fought — Bi& ‘bout the kingship in the so-called Brothers’ War’) But the most valuable argument, which gives a new direction to the enti problem is the fact that in Justin we we or may appear more clearly, it is necessary to place them side by side. Strabon XI 9,2 NewrepioStvreay 88 Tév Ee rot Tadpou Bi& 1 pds &AAAAoIs elven Tods Ts Eu- plas Kat is Mnbias BasiAéos tous Eyovras kai tTodta, Mpérov viv Thy Baxtpiovhy améorngov of temoreuntvor Kol Thy by yis outils mécav, of mepl EVSUEMuOY “Enerr’Apodxns, évap eins, 7Sv Acésv twas Exev, Tots Tépvous KaRou- utvous voudBas, rexpomodvras roy xov, errjASev emi thy TlapSusiav Kall Expérnoev auris Justin XLI 4,37 Huius defectionis inpunitatem illis (se. Parthis) duorum fratrum regum, Seleuci et Antiochi, discordia dedit, qui dum in- vicem eripere sibi regnum volunt, per- sequi defectores omiserunt, Eodem tempore etiam Diodotus, mille urbium Bactrianarum praefectus, defecit regemque se appellari iussit Erat eo tempore Arsaces vir sicut in- certae originis, ita virtutis expertae. Hic solitus latrociniis et rapto vivere, ac cepta opinione Seleucum a Gallis in Asia vietum, solutus regis metu, cum prae- donum mann Parthos ingressus praefec- tum corum Andragoram oppressit subla- toque eo imperium gentis invasit. a? This comparison affords the possibility of pointing out the entire conformity which occurs between these sources. One may take it for granted that the civil war between Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax —discordia duorum fratrum regum Seleuci et Antiochi—in Justin has its corresponding passage in the e kings of Syria and Media is MnBias PootAéas — of Strabon, From this certainty of the utmost importance can be drawn the conclusion that the two earliest accounts put the foundation of the +) Te is worth while to mention that already Longuerue, {held this interpretation to be the only correct one, As to the supposition that the Selevsids could be referred to as Kings of the ‘most important provinces, it must be stated that this practice was often adopted im the literary sources, e.g. Eusebius, Chron, passim "Aates wal Zuplas Baoeis. Syncellus, Chron. 274 A—C Eu- plas xal BeBudavies Baoihvis, *Asias, Zupias, Bopuncvias ... iBacthevey. Strabon's Eupias wat MnBag Baothsts could only refer to the Seleucids. ‘The substitution of the commonly used term of BaPunovias” by “MnBias” may have resulted from the fact that Babylon was dispossessed in favour of Seleucia, In this matter see W. Otto, Beitrage zur Seloukidengeschichte d. 3. Jaheh. v.Che," Abh, d. Bayer. Akad. Wissensch. Philos = phllolog-ist. KL, 34, 1928, p. 4 and passim. > \“ eai state of the Arsacids in the reign of Seleucus IT (246—26) as a consequence of the internal war which followed after the no less troubled times of the third Syrian War. This chronological evidence gives a key for further examination of the mutual relations of these accounts. They do not restrict themselves only to the chronology. Of no less importance are other facts such as the acknowledgment that Arsaces himself was the founder of the Parthian state, the version of the Scythie origin of the dynasty and that of the conquest of Parthia ffom without. On these points the accounts of both writers are not only in perfect agreement, but together they differ on all principal questions from other sources, above all those of Arrian and his follower Syncellus, which till now were held to be the basic account for the history of the beginnings of the Arsacid monarchy. ‘This clearly shows from the comparison of the last mentioned sources. Arvian, Parth. fr. t @noi Be 1d MépSeav yévos ZkvSdv, dmooriioas BE tis dv Maxebéveov ém~ xpatelas, duc Tepodsv xotaotpogévtev, médai BovawStv, Br'altlev Totatrmy. “Apoaxns Kai TnpiGémns fjoTny abehgc “Apooxifiea, Toi uiod “ApadKou tou Opia- troy éndyover. Otro Oeperdtarrdy od Avri6xou To Baoihus (Ocdv odrov bridnu dvéuaqov) oarpérny cdrrésy THs xeopas xorootévte, énel tev Erepov TGV &BAPGY aloxptis Emelpace Pracdueves, ox Eveyxdvres Thy OBpiv, évetAdv Te Tov ‘Ppiccwra xen érépors mévte Thy TpaEW vaxowveradyievor Kati to ESvos Moms Sve00 dmiotoay vol a9" tavrois fipfou. Syncellus 284 B—C Zuplas kal "Agios B'eBaoinevaey “Avrioxos 8 tds adrou, 8 éxrneAnSeis KoRNvIK0s, & eutds roi Békeunos, En ka’. "Eni tovreu 100 ‘Avridxou Tipo iis Moxebéveov kat *Avndxay epxiis éréotoay, om cirrous ehoivtes émd “AReEévbpou Toi eriotou Bié-To.aUTHY alviay. ’Apodns ris kai ThpI- Barns abeAgol 1 yévos Exovres dnd Too Tlepodsu “Aptafépgou toerrpérrevo Boxer pleovérr’AyaSoxhéous MaxeBsvos érrapxot ‘THis Tepaikiis. 5 ‘AyaSoxdfis. EpacSels TnpiBérou, «5 "Appiavés gnaw, &vbs rv BAGGY, Koi TEv veavioKoY eTPOUBEgEOV EmBourstioe Biayapriioas évypéSn Tap! eiToU Kall “Apodxou TOU ABeAgod currou, ai Paoinede: Tepodiv “Apadnns dp “ot of Tlepodv Bacthels ‘ApoaxiBea éxpnuccioay, Erm B', Kai dvoupeiror, Kai wer ‘otrot TpiBirens &6eagés Erm As" {ite characte sens tha erat a aE falls the’ wwe brothers Arsaces les are cited as the founders of the Parthian state, their rising is represented as a revolt against the legitimate power of the Seleucids, and the colouring of the entire account is underlined by the version of the Iranian, native descent of the Arsacids. The real reason for the entire process of disintegration of the Seleucid Iranian empire, so vividly depicted by Strabon and Justin, is by Arrian and Syncellus entangled with legendary elements (the motive of pederasty) with borrowings from earlier tradition (the plot of Darius and his followers). Allee this compels us to the utmost caution before we avail ourselves of this late stratum, of tradition which fully deserves to be held as fictitious, But for the time being we confine ourselves to maintaining that we have to deal with two distinct strata of tradition. The earlier one composed of Strabon and Justin seems to be much more trustworthy than the later one, composed principally of Arrian and Syncellus®). We are unable, even in the most general manner, to define from what source Arrian, and naturally Syncellus who cites him, have drawn their accounts of the origin of the Arsacids. On the other hand we are strongly supported in our investigations by the fact that we know Strabon’s source: Apollodorus of Artemita; and in the case of Trogus we have a well-in- formed Hellenistic source called by Tarn "'Trogus’ source”. We find only in Strabon and Justin the account which gives @ chronological sequence of the events which took place in Parthia and Bactria. Arrian and his followers, Syncellus and Zosimus, mention only the Parthian affairs and we find in them not one word about the Bactrian revolt. And now, proceeding to examine the testimony of Strabon and Justin, we must conclude that both the “&méotaats”” of the Bactrian Greeks in Strabon and the “defectio” of Diodotus in Justin are contained within the time limits of the reign of Seleucus II Callinicus and of the fratricidal war, which must have been fought about-239-8 B. C.%). One may, then, assume that Diodotus’ revolt falls in the first year of the war, i.e. 2394). Justin XLI 4,3 gives also an account of “defectio Parthorum” which has its parallel in Appian Syr. 65. Both accounts refer to a Parthian revolt, which falls also within the years of the reign of Seleucus II Callinicus. There is a substantial difference between this evidence bearing upon a Parthian revolt and what Justin, XLI 4.7 says of the foundation of the Arsacid monarchy, of the invasion of Parthia by Arsaces*): Arsaces ... Parthos ingressus praefectum eorum Andragoran 4) This radical conclusion pronounced ready by the author — of. “Arsaces,” Eos, 38, p. 508 =. —seems to be wholly justified. See also Fr. Altheim, £64 IL, p. 10 5s. who in all the prin- cipal questions agrees with the conclusion pro- posed above 4) In former literature this view was shared by many scholars (¢. g. F. Jacoby, Frag G.#., 114, 568), recently by Fr. Aitheim, Fe. IE. p12. *) As to the chronology of this war the one proposed by B. Niese, Gesch, d. griech, w, maked. Staaten, TT, Gotha 1899, p. 135, and A. Bouché- Leclercq, Hist, des Séleucides, M1, Paris 1914, . 562, seems to be preferable to that of K. J Beloch, Griech. Gesch, IV, 2, Betlin-Leipaig 1925, . 543, who fixed it between 235 and 234 *) One may ask, on what grounds Bicker- ‘man, 1. ¢4 p. 83, proposed for this revott the date 2.245, thus, linking it with the third Syrian War. The evidence of both Strabon and Justin ln this question is fairy clear. Tt would be aif ficult to separate it from the civil war between Seloweus TI Calinieus and Antiochus Hierax, ‘consequently we must seek to fix its limits with ‘2 possible error of one year. 8) We must regard as a major problem the view of Bickerman, 1. ©, p.80, who supposes that JJostin and some modern historians mixed yp two distinct facts, the insurrection of the Parai in the satrapy of Bactria under Antiochus II Theos and the conquest of Parthia by Arsaces (Tiridates according to Bickerman) wnder Seleueus TI Cal- linicus. This hypothesis enables him to eliminate the two conficting traditions, But, we must ask, what out of the narrative of Arrian may be found that refers to the insurrection of the Parni, theseae oppressit sublatoque €0 imperium gentis invasit. Of the utmost importance is also the fact that Strabon XI 9,2 gives an identical account: ’Apodans .. . &ni{ASev rei Thy TlopSuatev Kai éxpémnoey avrfis. Now, on the one hand Strabon und Justin place the attack of Arsaces and his tribe of the Parni on Parthia, (preceded by the great invasion of Iran by the Nomads, in the reign of Seleucus It), after their mention of the revolt of Diodotus and his coronation, i.e, probably in the first year of the civil war, 239 B.C., on the other hand this "defectio Parthorum” is mentioned by both Appian and Justin prior to their description of Arsacid affairs Hence, according to the former this uprising of the Parthians falls within the time limits of the third Syrian War. Therefore, according to the accounts of writers who lived in territories where in the second century B.C. the Arsacids ruled — Apol- lodorus of Artemita, “Trogus’ source” — the decay of the Iranian Seleucid Empire falls within the regnal years of Seleucus IT Callinicus, and was accomplished in three phases. Syrian Wat ctria during the civil war between Callinicus and Hierax, i.e. probably in 239, and, as the last phase, the conquest of Parthia by the Parni led by Arsaces, in 238"). In the light of the above-mentioned evidence it was the reign of the fourth Seleucid, ee II, that created conditions advantageous to the rraps and to a successful invasion from with- out, both of which were followed by considerable losses in Iran. Both the internal and foreign affairs of the Seleucid monarchy during the reign of Antiochus II, under whom, according to the opinion of many scholars, i It is true that Antiochus mani is state had concentrated all his forces on the western border, in Syria and in Asia Minor, but he did not come out of the second Syrian War without rot even being mentioned by this author, who Seleucid Empice in Tran in the [lind century ives a fictitious and wholly improbable tradition Methodologically this explanation of Bickerman gives no possibility of escaping the fundamental diffculty, which can not be eliminated by ad- mitting that Strabon and Justin omit the humble origin of the royal house, whilst Arrian goes back ‘to the beginnings of the Arsacids. As to Arrian’s chronology which for Bickerman is the ground for his hypothesis see below. 4) The dimensions of this great invasion could only be appreciated when we have brought ‘to light the fragments of the ancient evidence, principally from Strabon and Plinius the Flder, ‘hich enable us to sketch both the enormity of the devastation and, also, the greatness of the Aefensive means. Cf. J. Wolski, “The decay of the B.C," Eos, 40, 1939, p23 (in Polish), reprinted in French under the same title, The same results were reached, independently, by W.W. Tara, ‘Tarmitha,” Journ. of Hell. Studies, 63 peas ss 4) This chronological scheme was already conceived by the author ia is preceding studies, See Fos, 39, 1938, p. 251 88.1 L'Effondvement de la domination des Sdoucides ow Ivan, p. 42 . Te was accepted by M. Rottovtzelf, Social and Eeo- nomic History of the Hellenistic Wort, 1, Oxtord 1941, p. 420 8, See also A. R. Bellinger,“ Hyspao- snes of Charay,”" Yale Cl. Studies, 8, 1042, B. 37, note 23; H. Bengtson, Historisches Jahrbuch, 74 1955, P26 ssPa gain and preserved all his prestiget). Assuming the historicity of Diodotus’ revol and of Arsaces’ invasion of Parthia in his reign, we should be inclined to suppose that Antiochus II, would have intervened with the aim of repressing both rebels and invaders, as previously Seleucus I and Antiochus T had done on the occasion ‘of the great invasion of the Scythic tribes in Iran, and later Seleucus II after the civil war. But the sources contain no reference whatever to this subject), Quite different, however, were the conditions of the Syrian monarchy after the death of Antiochus II Theos, when Ptolemy IIT aimed at conquering the Seleucid state — the sel thd Span Wa (6 ea of Fao. The violent con- vulsions which shook the Syrian monarchy during this war continued even after the conclusion of the peace with Egypt, in consequence of the civil war waged by is civil war is considered by the best authority, Pompeiu: 1¢ epitome of Justin, as the cause of the decay of the Seleucid empire in Iran, XLI 4,3: Huius defectionis inpunitatem (this fol- lows his mention of the revolt of the Parthian satrap) illis sc. Parthis duoram fratrum regum, Seleuci et Antiochi, discordia dedit qui dum invicem eripere sibi regnum volunt, persequi defectores omiserunt. Closely related to this evidence, by which both the chronology and the political conditions are strongly underlined, there is this other one given also by Justin, 2. c.: Post hunc a Seleuco Nicatore possessi sc. Parthi... a cuius pronepote Seleuco primum defecere, and by Appian Syr. 65: Kai TlapSuatot tis drootdaecos TSre Fipfav, ds tetapayuuns Tis Tv EeheuxiBeov dpyiis. ‘The authors mentioned have then preserved the account of a revolt of the Parthian satrap preceding the great crisis of the empire at the time of the civil war. Neither the fact itself nor its date can be doubted, At the moment when the armies of Ptolemy III of Egypt without struggle subdued one part of the state, while the satraps of the other swore allegiance to the conqueror‘), ‘Seep revolted, his aim evidently being to profit by the general upheaval, probably in 245 B.C. ‘The name of the satrap on this occasion is not mentioned in the sources, but we find a satrap Andragoras cited by Justin XLI, 47, on the occasion of Arsaces’ ') In contradiction with the older view re- ness, to be sure, the possibility of an expedition presented iva, by A,Gutschmid, Lc, p.29, the of Antiochus IT Theos in Iran newest literature has a more favourable one of 4) CL W. Koch, Ein Plolemaer-Krieg, p. the reign of Antiochus 11 Theos. On this matter see W. Koch, Ein Pholomder-Krieg, Stuttgart 923, ptt, note 25: W.W. Tarn, CAH, VII, 1928, p. 710 s5., W. Otto, Beinige sur Selewhide- peschichte, p. 47. 4) On this subject see below, note T, p. 46. 2) The weakmess of the position of modera research was felt fairly well by T. Waleke-Czer- recki, The Greek History, Warsrawa 1034, P. 703, (in Polish), who admitted, with great cautious 12 ss, W, Otto, Beiivage sur Seleukidengeschichte, p48 s, M.Cary, A History of the Greek Worl, London 1932, p. 88. 5) On the ground of Strabon’s evidence H. Seyrig, “Antiguites syriennes,”” 49, Syria, 28, 1951, P. 206 5, gives an interesting inquiry into the consequences ofthe civil war upon the destinies fof the Phoenician cities and of their relations to the Seleucid empice. *) On this matter se the exhaustive study of W.Otto, Berge ur Seleubidengeschicle, 9.65 88 vEases invasion. Taking into consideration the testimony of the Epitomator that the Seleucids undertook no steps to subdue the rebellious Parthians, J. c.: Persequi defectores omiserunt, sc. Seleucus et Antiochus, one may conclude that this An- dragoras was the author of the revolt). We are able to produce two arguments to strengthen this conclusion. The first of these is that Justin gives an account according to which a certain Andragoras was satrap of Parthia under Alexander eas the ancestor of the subsequent kings of Parthia‘). This account, at importance and gives us the possibility, {appreciating the growing ambitions of the Arsacids, who ist satisfied themselves with their descent from a Greek ruler of Parthia transferred to the time of the great conqueror’), but had sub- stituted for him at a later period the Achemenide Artaxerxes. 2 s of Justin, and that no other Andragoras is known in the sources, we may conclude that all this, evidence strongly supports the view of the legal position of Andragoras and of the fact that he was the rebellious satrap of Parthia’) This revolt greatly affected the situation in Iran, since the main road linking the East, especially the Bactrian satrapy with the centre of the empire, ran through. Parthia‘). As we know, the satrap of Bactria for a certain time had his likeness fon the coins, and the view is commonly admitted that this was the first sign of his, growing independence’). But from the unmistakable evidence of both Strabon and ¥) Ch, J. Wolski, "Arsaces,” Eos, 30, p25. L-Effondrement de la domination des Seucides on Iran, p.32 Sq followed by M, Rostovtzed, The Parthian Coinage, London 1877. See also RH MeDowell, Stamped and Inscribed Objects from Seleucia om the Tigris, 1935, BP. 215, 217 Te was, however SEHHIV, 1, p.43o, and H. Bengtson, Historisches Jahrbuch, 74, 9.33 4) NIT 4.12: Parthis deinde domitis prae- fectus his constituitur ex nobilibus Persarum An- Aragoras, a qvo postea originem Parthorum reyes ‘users 4») On this subject see the discussion in H. Berve, Das Alexandorreich au) prosopogra- hischer Grualage, 11, MUnchen 1928, p. 414 ‘)B. Head, Historia nwmorunt, Oxford 1911, 825; G.F. Hill, “Andragora,”” iti e monum. Tstit, tal. numism., TL, 2, Roma 1919. 4) The detailed analysis of the problem is given by J. Wolski, “Le probléme d’Andragoras, Melanges G. Kasarow, Sophia 1949, p. 110 5. ) The significance of the system of co ‘munication in antiquity for maintaining the gre political organisms was rightly stressed by W. Vogel, Propydaen-Weltgeschichte, 1, 1931, D. 68. 2) This is, at least, the view of P, Gardner, contested by A. Sallet, Die Nachfolger Alexanders d. Grossen in Bahirien Indien, Berlin 1879, p.3 SS. But regarding the problem from another point of view, namely freed of chronological associations with Ane tochus IL Theos, which we hold to be non- existent, we are inclined to try to give another explanation ofthis doubtful numiamatie evidence, ‘Would it not be possible to assume that Diadotus uring the third Syrian War, that is to say, after the death of Antiochus 11 Theos, in the confused state of the monarchy, had continued to coin under the name of the deceased king, having placed hhis portrait upon the coins? In this case it would not be necessary to assume, as in the fof Fr. Altheim, 1c. 1, p. 286.8, and H, Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte, Minehen 1950, p. 385== Justin it results that the satrap of , Diodotus, proclaimed himself independent 20 ing dng Gl a vo bat S98 Gn aly pe eT er This historical process, which one may characterize as an internal struggle in the Greco-Macedonian family for predominance in Iran, took an entirely different. course in consequence of the invasion of the newcomers from outside Iran, which was but an episode in the lasting struggle waged between the Nomads and the settled population of Iran. The réle which danger from the Nomads played in the process of the decay of the Iranian realm of the Seleucids can only be exactly determined when we realize the gravity of the Nomad invasion under Seleucus I. The increasing entanglement of the Seleucids in the western part of the empire greatly influenced the position of the satraps of the Iranian border provinces. They. ae ritories, endangering the future of Iranian Hellenism’). This was #), Withou ich as the inveterate animosity between the Greeks and the Macedonians, particularly strong in Bactria’), and the personal ambitions of the satraps, may have played a part. The situation in Tran was full of tension, when among the tribe of the Pari appeared Arsaces*) The ancient accounts give only superficial information upon his career before his invasion of Parthia, e. g. Justin, lc. Arsaces vir sicut incertae originis ita virtutis expertae. According to Strabon XI 9,2, he was the leader of the Parni tribe, who, partially Nomadic and partially settled, dwelt on the borders of the river Ochos. Arsaces, of whose political and military ability we must have a high opinion, must have watched with the utmost care the development of internal affairs in the realm 4) Cf, J.Wolski, “Arsaces," Kos, 30, p.256; referred to by Diodorus: XVII 99,5, and Justin LEflendrement de la domination des Séleucides, p.4t =. This view was accepted by M. Rostovt- ell, SERHW, 1, p.433 s8., H. Bengtson, Hist. Jahrbuch, 74, 9.26 5. 4) E.g. during the first Syrian War. Cf WW, Tarn, “The fist Syrian war,” Journ. of Hell Studies, 46. 1926, p. 155, who is supported by the cuneiform evidence, *) ‘That this menace was entirely appreciated by the Greeks, is testified by the well-known passage of Polybius XT 34.5. 4) On the position of the satraps in. the Seleucid empire, especially those of Tactria, see H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in dev hellenistischen Zeit, Th, Manchen 1944, p. 49 5. 5) The revolts of the Greeks in Bactria are XV an ) Te is necessary to insist once more on the fact that the early tradition knows only Arsaces, Whilst the later one knows the brothers Arsaces- Tiridates, The modern writers do not agree on thie fundamental problem, E. g.W.W.Tam, GAH, TX, p. 575. and E, Bickerman, Berylus, 8, p. 79, deny the historicity of Arsaces as the founder of the Parthian state. But, see J. Wolski, Fos, 39, 244 58, who rejects the historicity of Tiridates, This view was accepted by M. Rostovtzelt, SEHUW, 1, p.423; AR Bellinger, Yale Cl Studies, 8, p.57, note 23; H. Bengtson, Hist Jatrbuch, 74, p-26 ss This is also the opinion of Fr, Altheim, fc, I], p. 12. For obvious reasons this problem cannot be investigated in this study.a of the Seleucids, meanwhile he was incessantly undertaking predatory incursions tipon the soil of Iran. The propitious moment was not long coming. According to Justin, whose explicit evidence XLI 4,7, gives us the possibility of fixing the chronology with the aid of 2 synchronism, the defeat of Seleucus TT at the hands of the Celts at Ancyré Parthia and, having thrown out take possession of the country. The d is fact can be fixed approximatively as belonging to the second ¢hus vanished the rebellious satrap Andragoras, whos Ips us to explain the small number of his coins found to date’). On the Parthian territory there was founded meanwhile a Scythian state which after a lapse of one hundred years was to stretch its hand not only over Iran but even over countries lying beyond. accounts of Strabon, Pompeius Trogus (in the epitome of Justin) and Appian give a sound and real base for this process, equally satisfactory from the logical and from the historical point of view. tis in vain that we seek amot internal coherence and unity similar to what we were able to find among those of the first group. It is true that an important link uniting the two main sources of this group, Arrian and Syncellus, is the version of the brothers Arsaces and Titidates, which forms the main difference between Strabon-Justin and these writers. But in other important points we are able to discern discrepancies, e. g. a different name for the Parthian satrap, in Arrian, Pherecles, in Syncellus, Agathocles. Of the utmost the ambiguity in the question of the chronology). Whilst IT as the king who appointed the satrap murdered by the is refers all of the Arsacids to the reign of Se- This substantial difference did not strike the eye of modern scholars). Yet the criticism of the chronological data of this tradition, which has already been called “entirely romantic and historically valucless”, could be very important’). The above-mentioned discrepancy makes it difficult to reconstruct Arrian’s original text. One must not importance is, mo +) Most probably Ay fs worth while to point out that itis a fragment from an unknown contest and not an ial. met bbe the same, Ci +) Only taken into consideration by J. Saint- E.T, Newell, The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints jrom Setoucus to Antiochus IIT, New York 1938, p.250, who determined the series of the coins of Seleveus IT coined in Hecatompylos. +) One must not forget that there are many ‘more dowbtful places. Photius cites, 1a, another fenealogy of the Arsacids than Syncellus, who ‘makes them satraps of Bactria, a detail passed lover i silence by Photius. Regarding Avrian, it Martin, Fragments dune histoire des Avzacides, 1, Paris 1850, p.272. 4) CE Bd, Meyer, “Atsakes," RE, II, 1896, ol. 1260, His judgment seems to be wholly con- firmed by the abovesketched research. That in this ease we have to deal with an Hellenistic rovelette was rightly assumed by Fr. Altheim, he, Th povee dismiss the possibility that who lived many centuries after hit aling as they were with conditions long past!). To su to recall the case of Z isunderstood nntiochus as governor of the upper provinces?) ‘The distrust, therefore, which we have shown for the tradition of Arrian, seems to be clearly founded. This opinion must be deepened when we proceed to examine other points of the version of Arrian transmitted by Photius as well as by Syncellus. Both these writers, like other authors of this group, represent the action of the Arsacid brothers as a revolt against the legal power of the Seleucids. They derive the Arsacids from the native Iranian, element, with the purpose, of course, of sink the aid of a fictitious y with the Achemenids’), c Strabon and Justin give the version of a nomadic, Scythic origin of the dynasty, confirmed by the whole development of the history of the Arsacids. But, bearing in mind that the ehron- ological evidence given by the writers of the later group refers to the revolt of the Parthians under Antiochus II and not to an invasion from without’), we must insist that between Strabon-Justin and Arrian there are profound differences and no substantial agreement, the data given by them referring to two entirely dif- ferent f in the ied ther words, if Photius cited any other chronology than that which is given by Strabon and Justin. Tt seems to me that in re FY we cannot find in Arrian any basis for another chronology. In Arrian's text the passage in 2) We have earlier evidence of the mistakes ‘committed by the ancient writers precisely in the ‘question of the names. e.g, Tacitus, Hist. V 8, ‘these two genealogies are a striking token of the substantial disagreement between the early and ‘the later traditions. They represent two phases who places the foundation of the Arsacid mon- of the formation of the ideology of the Anacide archy under Antiochus 1V While the former must he held to be a typical luct of Hellenistic times, the latter, removed leueus T Nieator from the former by hundreds of years, gives an 4) Unless in this ease we have to deal with the Parthian satrap cited by Arrian as Phereces, by Syncellus as Agathocles *) By the interposition of Artaxerxes called Arsikas before his ascension to the throne, Put. drtax. 1. But this isthe point which enables us te callin question the statement of Bickerman ‘upon the substantial agreement of the three main sources. Taking into consideration the relation of Justin cited above who derives the Arscids from 4 Greek satrap of Parthia, Andragoras, and the enealogy which makes of the Aracide descen. ants of the Achemenids, we must observe that insight into the changed mind and policy of the Arsacids, It is interesting to note that Antiochus ‘of Commagene (frst eentary B.C) in his fictitious genealogy held himself to be a descendant of the Seloucids and the Achemenids. He occupies, therelore, a medium position between the ex- tomes of the Aracids. 4) This fact which is based upon the inter- pretation of the terms such as “defectio” and “émcéovaais” was passed over in silence by the modern writers who related all the ancient ac= ‘counts bearing upon Parthian affairs in the thied century B.C. to the history of the Arsacids49 question is (Parth. fr. 1) "Apadxns Kai TpiScerms ... Oepexhécr tov Ord “Avniéyou TOU Pooikkws (Gedy adrrdv énikAny dvopagzov) catpémny avrav This Xopas Kora otdvta... dveiAov. The statement then, that the Arsacid brothers had murdered Phe- recles (or Agathocles) nominated satrap of Parthia by Antiochus II Theos, gave the the dates of the foundation both of the Bactrian and of the Parthian states under Antiochus II. It seems, however, that to-day just as in the past much more has been drawn from this account than it is possible to find there. The aorist participle xctaotavra does not indicate that the murder was perpetrated under Antiochus IL, but only the victim was appointed satrap of Parthia by this king!).JFaP that from the chronological point of view between the early and the later groups of sources there are no differences; that the chronology which is to be seen in the handbooks has no foundation. This interpretation makes it easier to understand why Syncellus advocated the chronology which is known from Strabon and Justin: because there was no other chronology for the foundation of the monarchy of the Arsacids than the one given by the above-mentioned writers. Having thus interpreted the tangled question of Arrian’s chronology we may proceed to fix the date of the revolt of Diodotus and of his coronation. As is known, the computation which assigned for these events the reign of Antiochus II was ex- clusively based on the chronological passage of Arrian, the other data being in- conclusive in this matter. But, things being clearly in favour of the interpretation we are obliged to admit that the entire process of the disintegration of the Seleucid Iranian Empire in the third century B.C. is to be sought within the time limits But, with these results our task is not at an end, we still have to discuss the data which do not fall within the chronological scheme sketched above"). It is really incredible that, in view of the scarcity of ancient evidence refering to the Hellenistic epoch, the ancient sources give so many dates for the foundation of the Parthian state. This fact is the more surprising because they are discordant, and another feature which ought to be considered is that these discrepancies appear lone aad he an sors, This the cse sna ie WO SL and contradictory dates forthe foundation COOP Pe ate In ie ee author already in his preceding studies, But the in J. Wolski, “Arsaces.” os, 38, p. 5t1 3% now evidence, Strabon’s Vatican Palimpsest, themag who lived dismiss the possibility that many centuries after hit jealing as they were with conditions long past). To support this hypothesis it is to recall the case of Zosi jsunderstood him, subs ding Antiochus as governor of the upper provinces?) The distrust, therefore, which we have shown for the tradition of Arrian, seems to be clearly founded. This opinion must be deepened when we proceed to examine other points of the version of Arrian transmitted by Photius as well as by Syncellus Both these writers, like other authors of this group, represent the action of the Arsacid brothers as a revolt against the legal power of the Seleucids. They derive the Arsacids from the native Iranian, element, with the purpose, of course, of link he aid of a fictitious with the Achemenids*) T Strabon and Justin give the version of a nomadic, Seythic origin of the dynasty, confirmed by the whole development of the history of the Arsacids. But, bearing in mind that the chron- ological evidence given by the writers of the later group refers to the revolt of the Parthians under Antiochus IT and not to an invasion from without*), we must insist that between Strabon-Justin and Arrian there are profound differences and Ro substantial agreement, the data given by them referring to two entirely dif- ferent in the d ther words, if Photius cited any other chronology than that which is given by Strabon and Justin. Tt seems to me that in reality we cannot find in Arrian any basis for another chronology. In Arrian’s text the passage in 4) We have earlier evidence of the mnistakes ‘committed by the ancient veriters precisely in the ‘question of the names, e.g. Tacitus, Hist. V 8, who places the foundation of the Arsacid mon- of the formation of the ideology of the Arcecias archy under Antiochus TV Ey While the former must be held to be a typical M duet of Hellenistic times, the later, removed leucus T Nicator. from the former by hundreds of years, gives an *) Unless in this case we have to deal with the Parthian satrap cited by Arrian as Pherecles, bby Syncellus ax Agathoctes, 4) By the interposition of Artaxerxes. IL called Arsikas before his ascension to the throne, Plut. drtax. r. But this isthe point which enables 18s to call in question the statement of Bickerman ‘upon the substantial agreement of the three main sources. Taking into consideration the relation of Justin cited above who derives the Arscids from | Greck satrap of Parthia, Andragorss, and the genealogy which makes of the Arsacids descen- ants of the Achemenids, we must abverve that these two genealogies are a striking token of the substantial disagreement between the early and the later traditions. They represent two phases Insight into the changed mind and policy of the Arsacds. It is interesting to note that Antiochus of Commaene (first eentury B,C.) in his fictitious genealogy held himself to be a descendant of the Seleucids and the Achemenids. He cecupies, therefore, a medium position between the ex- ‘tomes of the Arsacids 4) This fact which is based upon the inter- pretation of the terms such as “defectio” and “éméovaots” was passed over in silence by the modern writers who related all the ancient ac- counts beating upon Parthian affairs in the third century B.C. to the history of the Arsacids- hes it is the 132 OL, ive. the years 248—44, (Chron. I 207 Karst), in the second case it ig the third year of the 132 OL, that is to say 250 B. C. (Chron, II x20 Schoene). Tt is worth while asking, why for one and the same event Eusebius gives in one work two dates, the one precise, the other not. A characteristic feature of his evidence is that he treats the Arsacids as rebels against the legal power of the Seleucids. This affords us the chance of tracing back this account to Arrian, who seems to be the first link of the whole chain of ancient writers containing the deformed and unhistorical tradition, In view of the fact that Eusebius refers to the rebellion of lArsaces and not to his invasion of Parthia, we may suppose that the origin of the date of Eusebius Chr. 1 207, i.e. 133 OL, years 248—44 B. C., is to be sought in the misunderstood account of Justin and Appian, who speak of the revolt of Andragoras, satrap of Parthia, during the third Syrian war, ca. 245, This date is contained within the time limits of the 133 Ol., and it is admissible that chronologically they refer to the same event. If so, it is possible to give an explanation of this conflation When in ancient historiography the rebellion of Andragoras, short-lived as it was, was forgotten, this date was presumably conflated with the chronological scheme of the foundation of the Arsacid monarchy, which was much more fresh in the memory of the ancients. In the account of Eusebius, therefore, the rebellion would be something primary, the Arsacids on the other hand would have been included later, as something secondary. The version of the native, Iranian origin of this dynasty!) and, consequently, of their rebellious steps against the Seleucids undoubtedly contributed in great measure to facilitate this contamination. As we go on spinning the thread of our investigation in the above spirit we may suppose that under cover of the voluptuous satrap of Parthia, named by Arrian Pherecles and by Syncellus Agathocles, is to be sought the seditious satrap Andragoras, re- presenting in the eyes of the nationally coloured propaganda of the Iranians their hatred of the Macedonian invaders. In this manner we would be able to solve one puzzle which has so far overshadowed the Parthian beginnings. We have still to cope with the other date of Eusebius (Chron. II 120 Sehoene) who gives the third year late of the Parthian revolt and the beginnings of the Arsacid dynasty. Aiming to follow the same methodological path, we may suppose that the source of this date is to be sought in the deformed and misunderstood information of the early stratum of the tra- dition. A characteristic feature of this dating is its chronological precision. We must ‘affirm that this precision is a puzzling one, considering the chronological doubt- fulness of third century history. In the whole of the early tradition only one precise date is attested which we can connect with the destiny of Parthia. It is the con- ssular date of Justin XLI 4,3: a cufus pronepote Seleuco primum defecere sc. Parthi L. Manlio Vulsone M. Atilio Regulo consulibus. Before starting to deal with this 4) W. W. Tarn, “Queen Plolemais and Arsacids. But itis diffeut to decide whether it [Apama," Classical Quarterly. 23, 1929, 7-138 58, was the product of propaganda or a Uterary Supposcs that it was the work of the same confusion. nn ee—s- second date of Ensebius we must endeavour to solve the puzzle of this date of Justin, which affords a separate chronological proble falling in 256 B. C. has been held by many authors, specially those of the eighteenth century to be the date of the foundation of the Arsacid dynasty), But, already Droysen*) has rightly pointed out the difficulties which stand in the way of its being accepted in the chronology. One must note lies between the date of Justin and that of Eust ebius. a neither date lies within the regnal years of Seleucus IT (246—26). Great importance must like- wise be attached to his su cestion®) that we: 6 in 250 B.C. As a matter of fact in many Mss. of Justin the praenomen is omitted. The hypothesis of Droysen, who endeavoured to bring some order in the Parthian chronology, was favourably accepted by many scholars‘). But its signi- ficance is very modest, as it does not solve of the Parthian beginnings. It can, however, be second date of Eusebius. Wit reat probability we the principal difficulty in the chronology applied to the question of the B.C. L. Manlius Vulso and Q. Caedicius were consuls; not till after the death of the latter was M. Atilius Regulus chosen consul suffectus. It is commonly admitted that the dating after consul suffectus and not after consul ordinarius would for the third century B. C. be something wholly exceptional"). And in that case the sup- position of Droysen supported by the observation in the Mss. may be proved to be right. The identity of the names would facilitate the mistake and one must stress the circumstance that M. Atilius Regulus’ name was famous thanks to his having taken part in the first Punic war. Great importance also attaches to the fact which seriously supports the hypothesis of Droysen, that it gives us the pos- sibility of finding out the source of the precise date of Eusebius. And once more wwe can trace back this account of the Chronographer to the early stratum of sources and must again affirm the identical conflation of two different events into one whole, as in the case of the earlier date of Eusebius. It would, then, be a product of ancient erudition and not an indepen: \dent_historical version. consular date of Justin does not possess necessary to state that the ci falls outside the regnal years of Seleucus TI Callinicus and, what deserves special mention, it is the only consular date attested by Justin; still more puzzling is the fact that it is used to date an event in Hellenistic history. 4) Longuerue, Richter, Viseont, Eckel Ct J. Saint-Martin, Fragments dune histoire des Ar Sacides, I, p. 264 3) Gesch, d Hellenismus, IL 2, p- 574, note 4) Before him a similar supposition had al ready been made by Usserius. Cf. Vaillant, 4n- hale Arsacidarem, p.2 4) This corrected date was used by A. Gut- sehunid, Geschichte Trans, p, 29 s, for his chrono logy of easly Parthia. 5) Ch. A, Bouehé-Leclerog, Manuel des in- stitutions romaines, Paris 1931, p. 58, note 1 who cites the study of A. Schafer, “Zur Geschichte 4, rim, Consulates,” Jabrab. . Philologi, 115, 1876, p- 569 3=e fy Computation, That its origin is to be sought in the Roman environment’ may be concluded from the expression “primo Punico bello” which is unlikely tec siven by a Greek author). But we must state that it is very im plus Trogus should have found it in the Greek tradition, thus we have no othe alterative but to assume that it is either an interpolation or a blunder of Be this as it may, one thing is clear, namely, that play gui revolt of Andragoras and the histo er being forgotten by the later authors, who knew only one Parthian state, that of the Arsacids, there Ta {he deformed scheme of the Iranian chronology in the third century, BC Thus there were presumably recorded ates for the revolt of the Parthians and for the foundation of the monarchy of the Arsacids, ar trod of the ancient writers, particularly interesting in view of the great scarcity of the preserved tradition referring to the epoch. A critical inquiry into the state of the ancient evidence referring to the Tranian Sest{n the third century B.C. allows of the conclusion that the moder hypotheses aimed at reconstructing the chronology of the Parthian and Bactrian beginnings have failed in thei scope because they treated all the preserved evidence av tees Worthy whole. This attitude could not give any positive results; on the contrary it created chaos in the chronology, the question of the revolt of Diedotus being a slaring example of the methods which have been applied in these investigations. ‘This being so, one would agree that thoroughly conducted analysis of the pre- served evidence would be a methodological necessity. The upshot of the pretest analysis is that our tradition is composed of two distinct groups, of whicn only the early one deserves to be considered trustworthy. In the light of the evidons, of this stratum of tradition the beginnings of the decay of the Selencid Empire in Tran appear with tolerable clearness. They fall in the reign of king Seleucus TI Callinicus. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE: 247 Arsaces chief of the Parni. Beginning of Arsacid Era. 245 Revolt of Andragoras, 239 Diodotos independent and king 238 Arsaces invades Parthia "VL J. Wolski, “Arsaces,” Fos, 38, p. 513, University of Wroclaw Jozef Wotski.