Professional Documents
Culture Documents
33
glory was brief, for not only did she give birth to a daughter (Europa)
not a son, she was also murdered by Olympias, along with her child,
not long after her husband’s violent death (Ath. 13. 557e; Plut. Alex.
10.8; Paus. 8.7.7; Just. 9.7.12).7 She is now a mere footnote in Mace-
donian history but her position at court (and in Philip’s life) from the
day of her marriage in summer 337 to the day of his assassination a
year later must have been both very prominent and very promising. It
was during that year that construction of the Philippeum at Olympia
was going on in full swing. And yet modern scholarship has con-
vinced itself that she was absent from the dynastic portrait gallery
designed by Philip to be viewed at the heart of the Panhellenic sanc-
tuary as an advertisement of his past and future plans. His message
was aimed at the domestic front as well as at the Greeks at large.
We will attempt to decipher that message by looking closely at
Pausanias’ text.
Pausanias states (5.20.10) that the Philippeum was a round building
made of mud brick, no doubt because he was misled by the reddish
brown color of its limestone walls. He states that it was made by
Philip after the fall of Greece at Chaeronea, and it housed statues of
Philip and Alexander, alongside a statue of Amyntas, Philip’s father.
These statues, he says, were made by Leochares in ivory and gold,
just like the portraits of Olympias and Eurydice. In his description of
the temple of Hera, which lies adjacent to the Philippeum, Pausanias
(5.17.4) had already remarked that the chryselephantine statues of
Philip’s Eurydice and . . . had been brought in from the Philippeum.
The text is lacunose but we assume that the other statue was that of
Olympias.8 There are enough blocks surviving from the semicircular
pedestal of the statuary group in the Philippeum (figure 4.2) to sug-
gest that it originally held five statues even though Pausanias only
saw three in place.
Attempts to fill the gaps in Pausanias’ text have concentrated on
two Macedonian queens named Eurydice, first, Philip’s mother, wife
of Amyntas III, and second, Philip’s grand-daughter, Adea, who,
according to Arrian (FGrH 156 F 1. 23), took the name Eurydice upon
marriage to her uncle Arrhidaeus, Alexander’s half-brother.9 It is
assumed that Adea chose the name Eurydice in order to honor Phil-
ip’s mother but we must bear in mind that Adea’s own grandmother,
Audata, Philip’s Illyrian wife, had probably also been renamed Eury-
dice (Arr. FGrH 156 F 1.22). Arrhidaeus in his turn assumed his father’s
name, Philip, upon his accession in 323 (Diod. 18.2.4; Curt. 10.7.7).10
Further name changes are known in the Macedonian court. Accord-
ing to Plutarch (Mor. 401B), Olympias had three other names, Polyx-
ena, Myrtale, and Stratonice.11 We do not know at which stages in her
life she assumed different names, but the name Olympias is some-
times associated with Philip’s first Olympic victory in 356, the year of
Alexander’s birth. Ernst Badian has made the cautionary remark that
despite all her name changes, Olympias did not assume the name
Eurydice, and therefore it could not have functioned as a regnal name
in Macedonia.12 In addition, Antipater named one of his daughters
Eurydice without arousing suspicion that she aspired to royalty.
If we look at the various emendations to the text of Pausanias pro-
posed since the nineteenth century, we observe that Corais’ noncom-
mittal Eὐρυδίκη τε ἡ Φιλίππου <καὶ Ὀλυμπιάς> (“Philip’s Eurydice
and Olympias”) is unhelpful because it implies that Philip had a
daughter named Eurydice, which we know to be untrue. Buttmann’s
emendation Eὐρυδίκη τε ἡ <Ἀριδαίου γυνὴ καὶ Ὀλυμπιὰς ἡ>; Φιλίππου
(“Eurydice, Arrhidaeus’ wife and Olympias, Philip’s wife”) adding
Adea Eurydice to the family group is impossible if we recall that Adea
was born around the time of the construction of the Philippeum13 and
that Philip had no room for her in his dynastic plans. The last two
emendations by Rocha Pereira (Eὐρυδίκη τε ἡ Φιλίππου <μήτηρ καὶ
Ὀλυμπιὰς ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ>: “Eurydice, Philip’s mother and Olympias,
his wife”) and Cassevitz (Eὐρυδίκη τε ἡ <μήτηρ καὶ Ὀλυμπιὰς ἡ>
Φιλίππου <γυνή>: “Eurydice, the mother, and Olympias, the wife of
Philip”) advocate the inclusion of Philip’s mother Eurydice as a com-
panion to his father Amyntas, forming a pendant to Philip’s wife
Olympias. And yet this reconstruction of the Philippeum statuary
group does not reflect the realities of the final years of Philip’s life. It
is a construct of modern scholarship blinkered by hindsight. The
great historical significance of Alexander and Olympias has colored
modern perception of the monument.
Philip’s father, Amyntas III, reigned from 393 to 370/69, and was
succeeded by his son, Alexander II, who sat on the throne until 367,
building. The statues were not made of ivory and gold, but of marble,
presumably polished and gilded to give an impression of chrysele-
phantine technique.21 An alternative view was offered by Giorgos
Despinis, who suggested that the bottoms of the statues were in
marble, with marble plinths, whereas the upper parts were completed
in ivory and gold.22 As there are no other examples of this technique
from the classical period, however, this suggestion remains sub
judice.
We now come to the crux of the matter, Philip’s Eurydice. Philip
was obviously very selective in his choice of family members for the
dynastic monument, considering that he had left out several of his
wives and children, not to mention his brothers. Would the inclusion
of his mother have served his purposes in 338–336? There is no evi-
dence that she was still alive in 338, and despite her eventful career
earlier in life, she seems to have had no impact on the reign of Philip II.
Her last recorded action fell in 368/7: during his embassy to Philip
in 346 Aeschines (2.27–29) recalled Eurydice’s plea to the Athenian
general Iphicrates to save the dynasty in 368/7, implying that she was
no longer alive as he spoke.23 Besides, Philip’s claim to the throne
rested almost entirely on the fact that he was Amyntas III’s son. He
was not his brother’s obvious successor since Perdiccas III had an
infant son, Amyntas ‘IV’, who was pushed aside to make way for
Philip. After Philip’s death, Amyntas ‘IV’ constituted a potential
threat to Alexander, who had him eliminated by 335.24
Eurydice in the Philippeum has been almost unanimously identi-
fied by modern scholars with Philip’s mother.25 There is, however, a
more obvious candidate, who seems more appropriate in the context
of 337. Philip’s last wife Cleopatra is named Eurydice by Arrian
(3.6.5). Given her prominence in Philip’s life at the time the Philippeum
was built, it would have been surprising had she not been represented
in the dynastic portrait gallery. Her absence, especially considering
the inclusion of Olympias, would have constituted an affront to the
faction of Attalus that was so powerful at court on the eve of Philip’s
Asian campaign. Arrian (3.6.5) says that Philip became suspicious of
Alexander after he married Eurydice and disgraced Alexander’s
mother, Olympias. Because all other sources name Philip’s last wife
Cleopatra,26 the name Eurydice was considered a mistake on the part
of Arrian, notably by Ernst Badian, who published a polemical article
on the issue.27 Badian, as we saw earlier, succeeded in establishing
that Eurydice was not a regnal name. On the other hand, there is
no reason to reject Cleopatra’s name change in the face of all other
name changes attested for Macedonian royalty. Far from doubting
Arrian’s testimony, Helmut Berve had proposed the reverse scenario,
that Cleopatra was originally named Eurydice but changed her name
after her marriage to Philip.28
Cleopatra/Eurydice’s greatest champion was Waldemar Heckel.29
He defended the name Eurydice given to her by Arrian and went so far
as to suggest that the name change was significant to the point of being
offensive to Olympias. It is a pity that his impressive battery of argu-
ments did not take into consideration Pausanias’ corrupt text with
regard to the Philippeum. There is no reason why we could not restore
Pausanias’ lacuna as Eὐρυδίκη τε ἡ Φιλίππου <γυνὴ καὶ Ὀλυμπιάς>
(“Eurydice, Philip’s wife and Olympias”). Pausanias’ account of the
monuments in the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia is heavily indebted
to the inscriptions written on or alongside these monuments.30 It is
therefore reasonable to suppose that his identification of the portraits
in Philip’s family group was based on accompanying inscriptions. As
the pedestal carries no lettering (figure 4.2), we assume that the names
of the figures were either painted on the blocks or written on a sepa-
rate stele. Bearing in mind that women’s names were normally fol-
lowed by a patronymic or, in the case of married women, by the hus-
band’s name in the genitive followed by γυνή (wife), we would expect
the inscription identifying Philip’s mother to have conformed to this
formula and to read Eὐρυδίκη τε ἡ Ἀμύντου γυνή (“Eurydice, wife of
Amyntas”). If Pausanias’ incomplete phrase Eὐρυδίκη τε ἡ Φιλίππου
actually echoes the words on the statue base, then the inevitable res-
toration is Eὐρυδίκη τε ἡ Φιλίππου γυνή (“Eurydice, wife of Philip”).
An additional point to be made here is the fact that the three extant
inscriptions actually naming Philip’s mother Eurydice, only give her
patronymic. Eὐρυδίκα Σίρρα (“Eurydice, Sirras’ daughter”) seems to
be the way she chose to describe herself after her husband’s death
in 370. If her statue had been included in the Philippeum, it is likely
that the accompanying inscription would have named her as Eury-
dice, daughter of Sirras, and that Pausanias would have read it that
way. A statue base that once carried Eurydice’s portrait, perhaps form-
ing part of a dynastic group, and reused in a Christian basilica at
Palatitsia near Vergina, preserves the inscription Eὐρυδίκα Σίρρα.31
Two statue bases dedicated by Eurydice to Eukleia that came to light
between 1980 and 1990 in Eukleia’s sanctuary at Vergina carry the
identical inscriptions Eὐρυδίκα Σίρρα Eὐκλείαι (“Eurydice, Sirras’
daughter, to Eukleia”).32 The statue that stood on the second base rep-
resents a peplos figure with separately attached head, covered by a
cloak falling over her shoulders.33 This statue has been identified as a
portrait of Eurydice. Extant portrait statues of the fourth century, how-
ever, are not peplos figures but wear a chiton and himation, for ex-
ample the so-called Artemisia from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus.34
Acknowledgments
64. Cf. Hamilton 1966: 235–41; Hampl 19652: 32; Fredricksmeyer 1991:
201; 1990: 311–12. The propaganda of Alexander’s special relationship
with Zeus-Ammon played an important role. The story about the pater-
nity of Zeus-Ammon being confirmed at Siwah, however, is to be seen in
the context of the official reception of the new pharaoh by the Egyptian
priests and should not be over-interpreted as implying that it was Alexan-
der’s purpose to disown Philip. Cf. Engels 2006: 53–54; Heckel 2008: 72.
Callisthenes endorsed Alexander’s divine descent in his official report
and gives the impression that the oracles from Branchidae and Erythrae
confirmed his divine origins. Even though Callisthenes’ propaganda was
not successful, it was clear to him that the special bond between Zeus-
Ammon and Alexander was not meant to replace Philip as a divine phys-
ical father or to render Alexander divine in his own right. Cf. Bosworth
1980–95: ii, 75–76. On the legend cf. Stoneman 2008: 6–21.
65. Cf. Wirth 1985a: 163–66. Alexander probably did not understand
why Philip gave in to the hostile court faction. But Philip made him
return from his voluntary exile in Illyria in 337 and signaled that he was
willing to be reconciled with him and his Molossian supporters by cele-
brating the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra with her uncle Alexander
of Molossia. This was also a sign of reconciliation with Olympias who
was probably present at the wedding. Cf. Carney 2006: 37; 2000a: 66.
66. Plut. Alex. 9.3–5; 10.4; Just. 9.7. Cf. Carney 2006: 2–4.
67. Cf. Fredricksmeyer 1990: 313–14. See also Hamilton 1966:
156–67.
68. Cf. Carney 2006: 6–7.
69. Cf. Wirth 1985c: 104–05; Engels 2006: 52.
70. Cf. Arr. Anab. 7.9.1–6.
71. Curt. 6.11.23–24; 8.1.43; 8.7.13–14; Arr. Anab. 7.8.2–3; Diod.
17.108.2–3; Just. 12.11.5–6; Plut. Alex. 50.6.
72. Arr. Anab. 1.11.8; 3.3.1–2; 4.11.6; Plut. Alex. 2.1; Pyrrh. 1; Paus.
1.11.1. Cf. Ameling 1988: 657–92; Carney 2003b: 47–48. See also Zahrnt
1996: 129–47.
Chapter 4
1. Ellis 1976: 203–09; Heckel 1979: 390–91.
2. Hammond (and Griffith) 1979: 664–65. Coinage: Le Rider 1977:
365, 413, pls. 6–22, 30–35 and 53–82.
3. The Philippeum was published in detail by Schleif et al. 1944.
4. Cf. (Hammond and) Griffith 1979: 691–95; Borza 1990: 250;
Lapatin 2001:115–19; Carney 2007a: 37–39; Worthington 2008: 164–
66, 231.
Chapter 5
1. See brief discussions in Ogden 1999: 273–77 and Carney 2000a:
27–29, both written without access to recent scholarship on Greek domes-
tic space (see below). Mortensen 1997: 50–52 sees royal women as more
secluded than either Ogden or Carney.
2. Solomon 2001: 32; Rosenstone 2000: 232.
3. See Carney forthcoming.
4. Spawforth 2007a: 91, citing as an example the royal wedding
festival Philip held at the time of his daughter Cleopatra’s wedding
305
——— 2000. Human Rights in Ancient Rome. London and New York.
Baynham, E. J. 1998. Alexander the Great. The Unique History of Quintus
Curtius. Ann Arbor, Mich.
——— 2003. “The Ancient Evidence for Alexander the Great” in Roisman
2003: 3–29.
Bearzot, C. 1981. “Religione e politica in Isocrate” CISA 7: 97–114.
——— 1987. “La tradizione su Parmenione negli storici di Alessandro”
Aevum 61: 89–104.
——— 1995. “Cassandro e la ricostruzione di Tebe: propaganda filellenica e
interessi peloponnesiaci” RendIstLomb 129: 107–20.
Bell, A. 2004. Spectacular Power in the Greek and Roman City. Oxford.
Beloch, K. J. 1922. Griechische Geschichte. iii.1. Berlin and Leipzig.
Bengtson, H. 1964. Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. 2nd ed.
2 vols. Munich.
Bergmann, B., “Introduction: The Art of Ancient Spectacle” in Bergmann
and Kondoleon 1999: 9–36.
Bergmann, B., and C. Kondoleon (eds.) 1999. The Art of Ancient Spectacle.
New Haven, Conn.
Bergson, L. 1965. Der griechische Alexanderroman Rezension Beta.
Stockholm.
Bernabé, A., and A. I. Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008. Instructions for the
Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets. Leiden. Trans. of Instrucciones
Para El Más Allá: Las Laminillas Órficas De Oro. Madrid, 2002.
Berve, H. 1926. Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage.
2 vols. Munich.
Bieber, M. 1964. Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art. Chicago, Ill.
Billows, R. A. 1990. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the
Hellenistic State. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif.
——— 1995. Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Mediterranean Imperialism.
Leiden.
——— 2000. “Polybius and Alexander’s historiography” in Bosworth and
Baynham 2000: 286–306.
Bingen, J. 2007. Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture.
Berkeley, Calif.
Blass, F. 1882. “Neue Papyrusfragmente im Ägyptischen Museum zu
Berlin” Hermes 17: 148–63.
Bloedow, E. F. 1995. “Diplomatic Negotiation between Darius and
Alexander: Historical Implication of the First Phase at Marathus in
Phoenicia in 333/332 B.C.” AHB 9: 93–110.
——— 1997. “‘Back to Damascus’: The Story Behind Parmenion’s Mis-
sion to Seize Darius’ Field Treasure and Baggage Train in 333 B.C.”
Prudentia 27: 1–23.
——— 2000. “Ptolemy and the will of Alexander” in Bosworth and Bayn-
ham 2000: 207–41.
——— 2002. The Legacy of Alexander. Politics, Warfare and Propaganda
under the Successors. Oxford.
——— 2003. “Introduction: Some Basic Principles” in I. Worthington
(ed.) Alexander the Great: A reader. London and New York, 7–16.
Bosworth, A. B. and E. J. Baynham (eds.) 2000. Alexander the Great in
Fact and Fiction. Oxford.
Bousquet, J. 1984. “Delphes et les ‘Pythioniques’ d’Aristote” RÉG 97:
374–80.
——— 1989. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes. Tome ii. Les comptes du
quatrième et du troisième siècle. Paris.
Bowersock, G. W. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford.
Bowie, E. L. 1974. “The Greeks and Their Past in the Second Sophistic”
in M. I. Finley (ed.) Studies in Ancient Society. London: 166–209.
Reprinted with modifications from Past and Present 46 (1970) 3–41.
Brécoulaki, H. 2006. “La peinture funéraire en Macédoine” in Guimier-
Sorbets et al. 2006: 47–61.
Bremmer, J. N. 1990. “Adolescents, Symposion, and Pederasty” in O.
Murray (ed.) Sympotica: a Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford,
135–48.
Briant, P. 1973. Antigone le Borgne. Paris
——— 1991. “Chasses royales macédoniennes et chasses royales perses:
le theme de la chasse au lion sur la chasse de Vergina” DHA 17:
24–55.
——— 1996. Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris.
Trans. as From Cyrus to Alexander : A History of the Persian Empire.
Winona Lake, IN, 2002.
——— 2002. “History and Ideology: the Greeks and ‘Persian Decadence’”
in T. Harrison (ed.) Greeks and Barbarians. Edinburgh, 192–236.
Brind’Amour, P. 1967. “Les dernières paroles d’Isocrate” RÉA 69: 59–61.
Brosius, M. 2007. “New Out of Old? Court and Court Ceremonies in
Achaemenid Persia” in Spawforth 2007b: 17–57.
Brown, T. S. 1947. “Hieronymus of Cardia” American Historical Review
53, 684–96.
——— 1949. “Callisthenes and Alexander” AJP 70: 225–48.
Brunt, P. A. 1976. “Anaximenes and King Alexander I of Macedon” JHS
96: 151–53.
——— 1976–83 (trans.). Arrian. Anabasis Alexandri and Indica. 2 vols.
LCL. Cambridge, MA.
Buckler, J. 1989. Philip and the Sacred War. Leiden.
——— 1996. “The Action of Philip II in 347 and 346 B.C.: A Reply to
N.G.L. Hammond” CQ 46.2: 380–86.
Gill, C. 2000. “Stoic Writers of the Imperial Era” in C. Rowe and M. Scho-
field (eds.) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political
Thought. Cambridge: 597–615.
Gillis, D. 1979. Collaboration with Persians. Wiesbaden.
Gleason, M. W. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in
Ancient Rome. Princeton, N. J.
Glotz, G. 1900. “Katapontismos” in C. Daremberg and E. Saglio (eds.)
Dictionaire des Antiquités grecques et romains. Paris. 3.1,
808–810.
Goff, B. 2004. Citizen Bacchae: Women’s Ritual Practice in Ancient
Greece. Berkeley, Calif.
Golan, D. 1988. “The Fate of a Court Historian: Callisthenes” Athenaeum
66: 99–120.
Goldberg, M. Y. 1999. “Spatial and Behavioural Negotiation in Classical
Athenian City Houses” In P. M. Allison (ed.) The Archaeology of
Household Activities. London and New York, 142–61.
Goldhill, S. (ed.) 2001. Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the
Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Cambridge.
Goukowsky, P. 1978–81. Essai sur les origines du mythe d’Alexandre
(336–270 av. J.-C.). 2 vols.
Gow, A. S. F., and D. L. Page, D. L. (eds.) 1965. Hellenistic Epigrams. 2
vols. Cambridge.
Gowing, A. M. 2005. Empire and Memory: the Representation of the
Roman Republic in Imperial Culture. Cambridge.
Graf, F., and S. I. Johnston 2007. Ritual Texts for the Afterlife. Orpheus
and the Bacchic Gold Tablets. London.
Granier, F. 1931. Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung: eine Beitrag
zum antiken Staatrecht. Munich.
Grayeff, F. 1974. Aristotle and His School. Worcester and London.
Green, P. 1974. Alexander of Macedon. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
——— 1982. “The Royal Tombs of Vergina: A Historical Analysis” in
Adams and Borza 1982: 129–151.
——— 1990. Alexander to Actium. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.
——— 2006. Diodorus Siculus: Books 11–12.37.1. Austin, Texas.
Greenwalt, W. S. 1984. “The Search for Arrhidaeus” AncW 10: 69–77.
——— 1985. “The Introduction of Caranus into the Argead King List”
GRBS 26: 43–49.
——— 1988. “Amyntas III and the Political Stability of Argead Macedo-
nia” AncW 18: 35–44.
——— 1989. “Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia” Arethusa
22: 19–45.
——— 1993. “The Iconographical Significance of Amyntas’ III Mounted
Rider” Ancient Macedonia 5: 509–18.
Wacholder, B. Z. 1984. “The Beginning of the Seleucid Era and the Chro-
nology of the Diadochoi” in F. E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert and B. Mack
(eds.) Nourished with Peace. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in
Memory of S. Sandmel. Denver, 183–211.
Walbank, F. W. 1957–79. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. 3 vols.
Oxford.
——— 1967. Philip V of Macedon. Hamden, Conn.
——— 1993. “ἡ τῶν ὅλων ἐλπίς and the Antigonids” in Ancient Macedo-
nia 3: 1721–30.
Walker, H. J. 2004. Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings:
One Thousand Tales from Ancient Rome. Introduction and transla-
tion. Indianapolis, Ind.
Wannagat, D. 2001. “Eurymedon eimi. Zeichen ethnischer, sozialer und
physischer Differenz in der Vasenmalerei des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.”
in R. von den Hoff and S. Schmidt (eds.) Konstruktionen von Wirklich-
keit: Bilder im Griechenland des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Stut-
tgart, 51–71.
Wardle, D. 1997. “‘The Sainted Julius’: Valerius Maximus and the Dicta-
tor” CP 92.4: 323–45.
——— 1998. Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings: Book I.
Translation and commentary. Oxford.
——— 2005. “Valerius Maximus on Alexander the Great” Acta Classica
48: 141–61.
Warry, John. 1991. Alexander 334–323 B.C. Conquest of the Persian
Empire. Osprey Campaign Series 7. Oxford.
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociol-
ogy. G. Roth, and C. Wittich (eds.). 2 vols. Berkeley, Calif. Trans. of
Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen, 1921.
Wehrli, F. (ed.) 1944–59. Die Schule des Aristoteles: Texte und Kommen-
tar. 10 vols. Basel.
Weileder, A. 1998. Valerius Maximus: Spiegel kaiserlicher Selbstdarstel-
lung. Munich.
Welles, C. B. 1934. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. New
Haven, Conn.
——— 1963 (trans.). Diodorus of Sicily. vii. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.
Wheatley, P. V. 1998. “The Date of Polyperchon’s invasion of Macedonia
and Murder of Heracles” Antichthon 32: 12–23.
White, H. 1988. “Historiography and Historiophoty” American Historical
Review 93: 1193–99.
White, P. 1993. Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome.
Cambridge, Mass.
Whitehead, D. 2000. Hyperides: The Forensic Speeches. Trans. and
Comm. Oxford.
Wyke, M. 1997. Projecting the Past: Ancient Rome, Cinema and History.
New York.
Yardley, J. (trans.) 2001. Quintus Curtius Rufus. The History of Alexander.
London.
——— 2003. Justin and Trogus. A Study of the Language of Justin’s
Epitome of Trogus. Toronto.
Zahrnt, M. 1971. Olynth und die Chalkidier. Untersuchungen zur Staaten-
bildung auf der Chalkidischen Halbinsel im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert.
Munich.
——— 1996. “Alexanders Übergang über den Hellespont” Chiron 26:
129–47.
Zanker, P. 1990. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor,
Mich.
——— 1996. The Mask of Socrates. The Image of the Intellectual in
Antiquity. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif.
Zuckler, F. 1954. Isokrates’ Panathenaikos. Berlin.