SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES the Fall of Troy in Syriac Historiography* 1

SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES The Fall of Troy in Syriac Historiography*

1. Introduction

The Trojan War, one of the most intriguing episodes in Greek mythology, is best known through the Iliad and the Odyssey. Not long after the creation of the Homeric poems, however, various episodes of the prelude, course and aftermath of the war were also the subject of other Greek texts. The collection of these texts, together with the Iliad and the Odyssey, which is now known as the Epic Cycle, is lost, apart from the Homeric poems, which were transmitted independently1. Fortunately, a summary and an epitome, both in Greek, have survived in a Chrestomathy2, attributed to a certain Proclus, and in the Library3, a mythological handbook, attributed to Apollodorus of Athens. Several episodes from the tale of the Trojan War are also described and alluded to in classical and medieval texts, composed in Greek4, Latin5, other Western European6 languages and even in Arabic7. Several Syriac authors, mostly chroniclers, mention the capture of Troy as well. In this article I will study these Syriac historiographical witnesses, identify their sources and retrace the process of the transmission of their information on the Trojan War. This study will show that none

* This article is the result of further investigation into the material I briefly presented in a paper entitled “Syriac Historiographical Accounts of the Trojan War” on February 9, 2011 during the 2nd U4 Humanities Winter School “Myth, Memory and Mimesis”, organ- ised by four European universities, including Ghent University, in the Academia Belgica in Rome. Thanks are in order for Mark Janse and Danny Praet for having given me the oppor- tunity to present that paper there; for Peter van Nuffelen, the supervisor of my Ph.D. project, “Defeating Doom with History: Syriac historiography in the twelfth and thirteenth century”, for his continuous advice and support; and David Taylor and Andrea Schmidt, who were so kind to proofread this article and offer several useful suggestions. 1 MONRO, Poems; BURGESS, Tradition. 2 EVELYN-WHITE, Fragments. 3 Apoll., Libr., p. 238-335. 4 E.g. Tryphiodorus’ the Taking of Ilion (Iliou halosis), MAIR, Oppian, Colluthus, Try- phiodorus, p. 580- 633 and the journal of Diktys of Crete, which is now only preserved in a Latin translation, Dikt. Cret., Ephem. Bell. Troi. 5 E.g. Virgil’s Aeneid. 6 Examples have survived in medieval English, German and Middle Dutch, see AUTY, Lexikon, vol. 8, col. 1038-1040 for an overview of the sources. 7 KRAEMER, Homerverse; STROHMAIER, Homer in Bagdad; KHOURY, Übersetzungen; CHRAÏBI, Note.

996680.indb6680.indb 285285 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 286 A. HILKENS

of these Syriac chroniclers had direct access to Greek literary texts such as the Iliad, but only drew on historiographical sources. The only exception is the account in the Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 1234, which appears to have been influenced by the Epic Cycle.

2. The Iliad and the Odyssey in Syriac?

Syriac references to the Trojan War are rare, probably because of the limited scope of accessible sources8. No Syriac translations of the Iliad or the Odyssey have come down to us, but the testimonies of Athanasius of Baladh (634-688) and Isho‘dad of Merv (ca. 850)9 as well as that of Antony of Tagrit (9th century)10, who demonstrate detailed knowledge of the contents of the Iliad, indicate that Homer’s Iliad, along with other examples of Greek poetry and prose, was an integral part of the Late Antique and early Medieval Syro-Mesopotamian school-curriculum11. Greek fragments of the Iliad survive in a manuscript from the 5th/6th century (BL Add. 17,21012),

8 Apart from the sources identified below, episodes from the Trojan War are also discussed in Pseudo-Nonnus’ Mythological Scholia on the first invective (Or. 4) of Gregory of Nazianzus against Julian, which were translated into Syriac. These scholia discuss Helen, Alexander (Paris) and Menelaus and the war [BROCK, Scholia, p. 83-84 (= scholion 2)] and the sacrifice of Polyxena [BROCK, Scholia, p. 86 (= scholion 8)]. 9 In his epitome of Aristotle’s Analytica Priora Athanasius, “illustrating non-apophantic forms of speech, cited the Iliad, presumably directly from the Greek”, WATT, Grammar, p. 60, n. 71 who refers to FURLANI, Una introduzione, p. 732 (ed.) and p. 769 (transl.), which I was not able to access. For Isho‘dad, see VOSTÉ – VAN DEN EYNDE, Commentaire, p. 36.9-12 (ed.) and VAN DEN EYNDE, Commentaire, p. 38.25-39.3 (transl.) (cf. Homer, ll. 7.421-423; 8.68, 486). 10 In his Rhetoric. For the complete edition of this work, see SEVEN, Book of Rhetoric. So far, citations that are “quite far from the Greek text” (WATT, The fifth book, p. XIX) have been found in the fifth book of this work which has been separately edited and translated, WATT, The fifth book, p. 8.22-24 (ed.), p. 7.8-10 (transl.) (= Homer, Il. 23.315- 317), p. 72.4-8 (ed.), p. 60.35-37 (transl.) (= Homer, Il. 19.415-418), p. 72.11-13 (ed.), p. 61.3-6 (transl.) (= Homer, Il. 14.231.234f.267f.270), p. 75.7-13 (ed.), p. 63.26-29 (transl.) (= Homer, Il. 1.225-228; 231), p. 77.23-30 (ed.), p. 66.6-9 (transl.) (= Homer, Il. 20.67-75; 21.403-407), p. 78.19-25 (ed.), p. 66.34-67.3 (transl.) (= Homer, Il. 20.67- 73), p. 80.4-12 (ed.), p. 68.13-15 (transl.) (= Homer, Il. 16.745-749). On these citations, see RAGUSE, Syrische Homerzitate and KÖBERT, Bemerkungen. Antony’s Rhetoric has been identified as a source of the Dialogues of Jacob Bar Shakko (d. 1241), see MERX, Historia, p. 210-211 and WATT, Grammar, p. 55. MERX, Historia, p. 210 notes that Jacob also used a Syriac translation of the Iliad, but this remains to be seen. A Syriac translation of Homer, Il. 7.99 is also extant in the late 8th/early 9th-century Book of Scholia of Theo- dore Bar Koni [SCHER, Theodorus Bar Koni, II, p. 289.22-3; HESPEL – DRAGUET, Livre des scolies, II, p. 216 (XI 6)], but this is part of a translation of Ps-Clement, Hom. 6.3, p. 106-107, on which see NÖLDEKE, Bar Choni, p. 501-504. 11 WATT, Grammar, p. 59-60; WATT, Syriac Rhetorical Theory, p. 254-255. 12 WRIGHT, Catalogue, vol. 2, n° DCLXXXVII, p. 548-550; SCHMIDT, Syriac Palimp- sests, p. 163, n. 10.

996680.indb6680.indb 286286 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 287

which was reused in the beginning of the 9th century for a Syriac translation of Severus of Antioch’s Treatise against John Grammaticus of Caesarea13. Also worth mentioning in this respect are five fragments of an ensemble of mosaics, probably originating from the first half of the 3rd century from Edessa, four of which are now kept in the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem and one in a private collection14. These fragments depict several major and minor characters from the Iliad: Briseis, Polyxena, Achilles and Patrocles, the Trojan king Priam and queen Hecuba and their youngest son Troilus. All of these figures (except Polyxena) are accompanied by the Syriac version of their name. In contrast, there is no evidence that suggests that Syriac authors were familiar with the Odyssey and Odysseus’ adventures after the Trojan War. This general ignorance of, or disinterest in, the figure of Odysseus is also reflected by the scarcity of Syriac references to Odysseus’ presence at Troy. The only apparent exception is Michael the Great (1126-1199), who mentions Odysseus twice in his Chronography15. In one account of the Trojan War, which will be discussed in detail below, Michael recog- nises Odysseus’ role in the capture of Helen, but incorrectly identifies him as the one who slew Paris, demonstrating his relative unfamiliarity with the story of the fall of Troy16. Michael also mentions the Odyssey17 and one event described in that poem (Odysseus’ escape from Scylla and the Sirens18), but these are excerpts from the Chronicle of Eusebius (d. 339). The Greek original and Syriac translation19 of Eusebius’ work have not survived, but we do possess a Latin expanded translation20, produced by Jerome (d. 420), and an anonymous Armenian translation21 (ca. 600), both of which preserve the passages in question22.

13 CURETON, Fragments; APTHORP, Iliad 14.306c and APTHORP, New Evidence. 14 BALTY – BRIQUEL CHATONNET, Nouvelles mosaïques, p. 51-69 (description), p. 70 (date and origin). 15 Odysseus is also mentioned by Antony (SEVEN, Book of Rhetoric, p. 89), but only briefly, without mention of his deeds or the Odyssey. 16 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 57; IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 36. 17 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 53; IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 34. 18 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 57; IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 37. 19 Large fragments of this Syriac translation are preserved in several West-Syrian chronicles, written in the Eusebian tradition, see KESELING, Chronik; WITAKOWSKI, Chronicle, p. 427-437 and DEBIÉ, L’héritage. 20 HELM, Chronik (ed.). 21 KARST, Chronik (German transl.). 22 For the reference to the Odyssey, see HELM, Chronik, p. 61c and KARST, Chronik, p. 171; the reference to the episode of Scylla and the Sirens, see HELM, Chronik, p. 62h and KARST, Chronik, p. 172. Similarly, Michael also preserves Eusebian references to several books of the Epic Cycle: e.g. the Telegony [CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 81 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 51 (= HELM, Chronik, p. 87g; KARST, Chronik, p. 181)] and the Little

996680.indb6680.indb 287287 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 288 A. HILKENS

The assessment of the unavailability of the Iliad and Odyssey in Syriac is contradicted by Antony of Tagrit’s mention of “those who translated Homer”23 and the claim of Barhebraeus (1226-1286), in his Syriac24 and Arabic25 chronographies, that the maronite astronomer and chronographer Theophilus of Edessa26 (d. 785) translated from Greek into Syriac two books on the fall of Troy that were written by Homer. Antony’s remark need not necessarily point to the existence of a full Syriac translation of the Homeric corpus. It is perfectly plausible that Antony received a bilingual Greek-Syriac education27, that he read the Iliad in Greek – like the 9th-century East-Syriac author Hunayn ibn Ishaq28 – and that only excerpts of it were translated into Syriac29. A few scholars30 have accepted Barhebraeus’ claims, but others have suggested that Theophilus could have translated a two-book summary of the Iliad rather than the Homeric poems31. Instead, I would like to put forward the theory that not the Homeric corpus, but the Ilioupersis, a work that belonged to the Epic Cycle, was the subject of Theophilus’ translation32. The fact that the Ilioupersis comprised two books and specifically dealt with the fall of Troy ties in with Barhebraeus’ consistent mention of two Greek books that were translated into Syriac as well as his reference to the “fall of Troy” instead of the Trojan War in general. Interestingly also, this hypothesis could connect the account of the Tro- jan War in the Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 123433 to Theophilus.

Iliad [CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 89 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 56-57 (= HELM, Chronik, p. 94i; KARST, Chronik, p. 185)]. 23 SEVEN, Book of Rhetoric, p. 89 (book 1, chapter 16). 24 BEDJAN, Chronicon Syriacum, p. 126.26-127.4 (ed.) and BUDGE, Chronography, vol. 1, p. 116 (transl.) 25 SALIHANI, Ta’riÌ, p. 24.18-21 and p. 127.15-16 (ed.). 26 Theophilus’ Chronicle is not preserved, but its material has been identified in the works of several Syriac and Byzantine historiographers, among whom Theophanes, Agapius of Mabbug, Michael and the anonymous chronicler of 1234, HOYLAND, Theophilus of Edessa. 27 WATT, Syriac Rhetorical Theory, p. 254. 28 STROHMAIER, Homer in Bagdad, p. 196-200; STROHMAIER, Byzantinisch-arabische Wissenschaftsbeziehungen, p. 182; and WATT, Syriac Rhetorical Theory, p. 254. 29 A parallel for this can be found in Antony’s use of Heliodorus of Emesa’s Aethiop- ica. CORCELLA, Citazioni has shown that Antony only had access to excerpts of this text, preserved in florilegia. 30 WRIGHT, Short History, p. 164; FRICK, Übersetzungen, p. 445; RAGUSE, Syrische Homerzitate, p. 162; BROCK, Greek into Syriac, p. 6; WATT, The fifth book, p. VII; CORCELLA, Citazioni, p. 24 (but see p. 47 where he argues for caution). 31 RENAN, De philosophia, p. 49-50, n. 2; BAUMSTARK, Geschichte, p. 341; DEBIÉ, Homère chronographe, p. 86. 32 EVELYN-WHITE, Fragments, p. 520-521. 33 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 66.8-78.24 (ed.), p. 50.16-59.34 (transl.). For a paraphrastic French translation of this account, see NAU, Traduction.

996680.indb6680.indb 288288 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 289

The author of this long description identifies Homer as his source, but actually based “himself on his own Syriac translations of the Greek poems of the Epic Cycle, supplemented with information available from other lore”34.

3. West-Syrian historiographical references to the Trojan War

Including the Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 1234, nine Syriac Orthodox historical texts mention the fall of Troy or the events leading up to it: the Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor (ca. 569), the Chron- icle of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), the Chronicle up to the Year 640 (preserved in the Chronicle up to the Year 724), the Chronicle of Zuqnin (ca. 775), the Chronicle up to the Year 846, the Chronography of Michael the Great, and the Syriac and Arabic chronographies of Barhe- braeus. These references can be classified in three types: (1) a brief dating of the fall of Troy, (2) the use of the fall of Troy as a chronological reference point, and (3) longer descriptions of the Trojan War.

3.1. Type-1 references The earliest example of the first type appears in the 6th-century Miscel- laneous History of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, which preserves large parts of the now-lost Greek Ecclesiastical History of Zachariah of Mytilene. After dating the beginning of the kingship in Rome “in the third year of the destruction of the city of Ilion” in the footsteps of Eusebius35, Pseudo-Zachariah notes that Troy “was ruined in the days of Samson (Jg 13-16) and of Eli the priest (1-2 Sam) who was in Jerusalem”36. The reason for this dating remains unclear. The Armenian37 translation and Jerome’s Latin version38 of the Eusebian canons confirm that Eusebius placed the beginning of the war in the time of Ibzan (Jg 12:8-10) and the capture of Troy in the time of Labdon (Jg 12:13-15) so he cannot have been Pseudo-Zachariah’s source. It is, however, possible that Pseudo-Zachariah, like several of his later colleagues, had an issue with Eusebius’ dating of the start of the Trojan War to the time of

34 CONRAD, The Mawali, p. 388. This possibility had already been suggested by BAUM- STARK, Geschichte, p. 341. 35 Eusebius dates the first year of Aeneas’ rule in Rome to “three years after the capture of Troy”, HELM, Chronik, p. 62 and KARST, Chronik, p. 171. 36 BROOKS, Historia Ecclesiastica II, p. 194.19-20. GREATREX et al., Pseudo-Zachariah, p. 418 erroneously translates with “siege of the city of Ilion”. 37 KARST, Chronik, p. 171. 38 HELM, Chronik, p. 60-61.

996680.indb6680.indb 289289 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 290 A. HILKENS

Ibzan. In contrast to the Septuagint in which Labdon is said to have succeeded Ibzan, the Peshitta agrees with the Hebrew bible in identifying Elon39 (Jg 12:11) as Labdon’s predecessor. Pseudo-Zachariah might have decided to avoid this issue by dating the Trojan War to the time of Labdon’s immediate successors. Another possibility is that Pseudo-Zachariah’s dating originated from the first section40 of Euse- bius’ Chronicle, now only extant in Armenian translation, in which it is claimed that the war broke out in the time of Samson41. The Chronicle up to the Year 640, the earliest witness to the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Chronicle, claims that Troy fell in the days of Labdon, completely agreeing with Eusebius42. This indicates that the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Chronicle agreed with the Latin and Armenian translations and that Elon was not included in the succession of biblical judges. The author of the Chronicle up to the Year 84643, another crucial Eusebian witness, very briefly states that Ilion was destroyed in the days of the judge Elon. This Syriac chronicler seems to have solved the same issue by including Elon in the succession of biblical judges, between Ibzan and Labdon. The previous conclusion regarding the absence of Elon from the Syriac translation of Eusebius is confirmed by Michael the Great, who states that Troy was destroyed in the time of Labdon, 3 years before the foundation of Rome, whose first king was Aeneas44. Much earlier in his chronicle, Michael had already mentioned “those who say that the city of Ilion was destroyed” in the time of Tautanes, a king who is said to have ruled over the Assyrians between the fourteenth year of Jair (Jg 10:3-5) and the second of Samson, by whom he probably meant Eusebius as well45. Michael’s use of Pseudo-Zachariah becomes evident later on in his Chronography, where he preserves a literal copy of the fifteenth chapter of Pseudo-Zachariah’s tenth book, including the dating of the Trojan War in the time of Samson and Eli, three years before the beginning of

39 After the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint lets Labdon succeed Ibzan, which is why the latter was not mentioned by Eusebius and does therefore not appear in the Armenian and Latin translations of his Chronicle. 40 KARST, Chronik, p. 52.23. 41 KARST, Chronik, p. 52, n. 3, however, questioned the authenticity of this remark. 42 BROOKS, Chronicon Miscellaneum, p. 84.27 (ed.), p. 68.27 (transl.). 43 BROOKS, Chronicon ad annum 846, p. 158.17 (ed.), p. 124.4-5 (transl.). 44 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 81 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 52 (= HELM, Chronik, p. 62; KARST, Chronik, p. 171). 45 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 53 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 33 (= HELM, Chronik, p. 59a; KARST, Chronik, p. 171).

996680.indb6680.indb 290290 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 291

the reign of the first Roman king46. Elsewhere in Michael’s Chronogra- phy, Pseudo-Zachariah’s influence also seems to emerge from Michael’s remark that “others say that the destruction of Troy occurred in the time of Eli and that Aeneas, the first king of the Latins, reigned there”47. In both of his chronographies48, Barhebraeus briefly dates the Trojan War to the time of Tola, son of Puah (Jg. 10:1-2). He must have borrowed this chronological indication from the first description of the Trojan War in Michael’s Chronography49, which will be discussed below.

3.2. Type-2 references Examples of the second type, the use of the capture of Troy as a chronological reference point, are only extant in the Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa, the Chronicle up to the Year 724 and Michael’s Chronography. In his discussion of the chronological computation in the Eusebian canons Jacob says that the third year of the 10th Corinthian ruler Alexander coin- cided with the 368th year after the destruction of Troy50. Jacob’s claim is confirmed by the testimony of Jerome who equates year 3 of Alexander of Corinth with year 1203 of Abraham and dates the fall of Troy in year 835 of Abraham (1203 – 835 = 368)51. The Chronicle up to the Year 72452 mentions the Trojan War three times as a chronological reference point, but mostly in fairly literal translations of passages from Eusebius’ Chronicle whose calculations sometimes differ, perhaps due to scribal errors. In one of these passages, however, even though it relies on the Eusebian computation, the chronicler claims that the Trojan War occurred in the time of the judges Labdon and Samson53. In this case, the war has again shifted

46 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 2, p. 241 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 311. 47 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 58 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 37. 48 BUDGE, Chronography, vol. 1, p. 16 and SALIHANI, Ta’riÌ, p. 24.18-21. In the latter, Barhebraeus combines the dating of the fall of Troy with the reference to Theophilus of Edessa’s translation of two books on the fall of Troy. 49 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 53 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 34-35. 50 BROOKS, Chronicon Iacobi Edesseni, p. 265.23-27 (ed.), p. 201.24-26 (transl.). 51 HELM, Chronik, p. 83 and 86. The section of the Armenian canons that discussed the period between year 1177 and 1120 of Abraham is lost, but the canons also date the capture of the city to year 835 of Abraham, KARST, Chronik, p. 180. 52 BROOKS, Chronicon Miscellaneum, p. 91.25-27 (ed.), p. 74.6-7 (transl.) (= HELM, Chronik, p. 71b; KARST, Chronik, p. 177), p. 93.25-26 (ed.), p. 75.21-23 (transl.) and p. 100.10-13 (ed.) and p. 80.6-7(transl.) (= HELM, Chronik, p. 41c; KARST, Chronik, p. 171). 53 BROOKS, Chronicon Miscellaneum, p. 92.29-93.1 (ed.), p. 74.35-36 (transl.) counts 330 years between year 45 of Cecrops and the fall of Troy (495 + 330 = year 825 of Abraham) and the same number of years between year 80 of Moses and “Labdon and Samson who (lived) in the days of the destruction of Troy”.

996680.indb6680.indb 291291 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 292 A. HILKENS

to a later date, probably in order to avoid the issue of the identity of Labdon’s predecessor. Michael preserves similar Eusebian excerpts54, but in one instance he claims that there were 438 years “from the destruction of Ilion until year 11 of Achaz, which corresponds to the 1st Olympiad”55. This passage is unlikely to be of Eusebian origin; not only does it not have any counterparts in the Latin and Armenian translations of Eusebius’ Chron- icle, the numbers do not correspond to the Eusebian computation, which counts 435 years between the fall of Troy (AM 835) and year 11 of Achaz (AM 127056). More importantly however, in the Eusebian chronological system, the 11th year of Achaz’ reign does not belong to the 1st, but to the 8th Olympiad. Whether Michael or another post-Eusebian chronicler was responsible for these computational differences cannot be ascertained.

3.3. Type-3 references Apart from these chronological references to the Trojan War, five longer passages of the third type are preserved, one in the Chronicle of Zuqnin (ca. 775 AD), three in Michael’s Chronography, and one in the Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 1234. 3.3.1. The Chronicle of Zuqnin The reference to the fall of Troy in the Chronicle of Zuqnin, whose author usually relies on Eusebius for his presentation of pre-Constantinian history, is quite brief: In year 832 [of Abraham], Abisan died and was buried in Bethlehem. After him, Elon from the tribe of Zebulon judged Israel for 8 years, in whose days Ilion was seized by Alexander57.

The dating to the 832nd year of the Abrahamic era corresponds to Eusebius’ opinion58, but similarly to the anonymous author of the Chron- icle up to the Year 846 the Chronicler of Zuqnin dates the capture of Troy to the time of Elon, not Labdon. Particularly interesting also is the chronicler’s misinterpretation of Paris’ role in the fall of Troy, emerg- ing from his claim that “Ilion was seized by Alexander”, using Paris’

54 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 55 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 35 (= HELM, Chronik, p. 60c and 61b; KARST, Chronik, p. 171); CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 58 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 37-38 (= HELM, Chronik, p. 66a; KARST, Chronik, p. 174); and CHABOT, Chro- nique, vol. 1, p. 79 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 50 (= HELM, Chronik, p. 86a). 55 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 98 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 64. 56 HELM, Chronik, p. 88.19; KARST, Chronik, p. 182. 57 CHABOT, Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum, p. 27.4-7 (ed.), p. 21.29 (transl.). 58 HELM, Chronik, p. 60 and KARST, Chronik, p. 171.

996680.indb6680.indb 292292 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 293

nickname that was given to him because of his childhood bravery. The attribution of the capture of Ilion to Alexander Paris demonstrates the chronicler’s low level of familiarity with this mythological tradition.

3.3.2. Michael the Great a) Michael’s first account The first description of the Trojan War in Michael’s Chronography preserves the only extant Syriac (historiographical) reference to the judgement of Paris. This episode is placed, along with the abduction of Helen and the Trojan War in the time of the judge Tola, son of Puah59. Why Michael suddenly dates these events to that time period is unclear, but a comparison between Michael’s excerpt and the Armenian and Latin translations of particular Eusebian materials demonstrates that Michael clearly borrowed this account from Eusebius.

Armenian Eusebius Jerome Michael Alexandros entführte die Alexander Helenam rapuit Thuoris, king of Egypt, is Elene; und der Elische Krieg et Troianum bellum decen- called Polybus and husband zog sich auf zehn Jahre nale surrexit causa mali, of Alcandra by Homer, hin zusammen, wegen des quod trium mulierum de which means: ‘many bulls’ Apfels praemium fuit una earum is mentioned in the book Schönheit, deren ; Schieds- him with Helen after the richter aber war Paris, der destruction of Troy. Alex- Rinderhirte60. ander took away Helen at Memnon und die Ama- Memnon et Amazones Pri- that time. zon wurden dem Pria- amo tulere subsidium63. The great battle against mos Mitkämpfer61. (…) Troy lasted ten years; the Thoris, der Ägypter- Thuoris rex Aegypti ab cause was a [piece of] fruit König wird von Homeros Homero Polybus uocatur, offered to the most beau- Polibos genannt, der Gemahl maritus Alcandrae, cuius tiful of three women, of der Alkandra; er erwähnt meminit in Odyssia dicens which one, called Helen, seiner in der Odyssee: bei post Troiae captiuitatem was already loved by Paris,

59 This must have been Barhebraeus’ source for dating the Trojan War to the time of this judge as well (see above). 60 KARST, Chronik, p. 171. 61 KARST, Chronik, p. 171. 62 HELM, Chronik, p. 60e. 63 HELM, Chronik, p. 60f.

996680.indb6680.indb 293293 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 294 A. HILKENS

Armenian Eusebius Jerome Michael ihm sei, sagt er, nach der Menelaum et Helenam ad the judge who was a shep- Zerstörung 64. of it. According to information we found in other manuscripts at that time Memnon and the Amazons helped Priam in the war66.

Although the materials in the Syriac account are clearly of Eusebian origin, it shows several unique characteristics (italicised). The translation of the Greek names, for instance, must have been introduced, by the translator of Eusebius’ Chronicle or an intermediary chronicler, in order to explain the Greek terms to a Syriac-speaking audience that was not fluent in Greek. Furthermore, despite the seemingly knowledgeable addi- tion that Homer “often” spoke of the Trojan War, Michael’s description of the judgement of Paris suggests that either the Syriac translator of Eusebius’ Chronicle, an intermediary chronicler or Michael himself was quite unfamiliar with the background of this mythological episode. Helen is misidentified as one of the three women whose beauty was judged by Paris, whereas the original myth identified these three women as the Greek goddesses Athena, Hera and Aphrodite, the latter promising Paris a beautiful wife (Helen) if she were chosen. Since Michael is the only Syriac witness for these passages, we cannot verify if he drew these directly from the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Chronicle or from a chronographic intermediary. The reference to information procured from “other manuscripts” could suggest that Michael retrieved these materials from two different sources, but the material in question, on Memnon and the Amazons, was available in Eusebius’ Chronicle as well. b) Michael’s second account Michael’s second description of the Trojan War appears among the events that occurred in the time of Samson (Jg 13-16): At that time seven generals waged the war of the Centaurs. Some people say that it preceded the destruction of Ilion. Others say that at the time that

64 KARST, Chronik, p. 171. 65 HELM, Chronik, p. 61c. 66 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 53-54 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 34-35. Michael also briefly acknowledges the presence of the Amazons at Troy during the war in an earlier passage (CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 23-24 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 11-12), but claims that the war lasted for eleven years and that eleven kings attacked it.

996680.indb6680.indb 294294 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 295

Priam, son of Laomedon reigned, his children – Polyxena, Alexander, who is that Paris who took Helen, and their sixteen brothers – waged war. Andro- geus was killed and Ilion destroyed67. The majority of the names listed in this passage – the Trojan kings Priam and Laomedon, Alexander Paris, Polyxena and Helen – are main characters from Trojan mythology. All of them were mentioned by Eusebius and John Malalas (d. after 570), except Polyxena, who only appears in Malalas’ Chronicle68. Neither of these Greek chroniclers was directly responsible for this information, but Michael’s direct reliance on Eusebius could be reflected in his reference to authors who placed the war of the Centaurs before the capture of Troy. Interestingly however, Eusebius’ influence, though indirectly, also emerges from the contents of the remaining materials in this Syriac passage, most of which finds parallels (underlined) in the Armenian translation of Eusebius’ Chronicle and in Jerome’s canons.

Armenian Eusebius Jerome Michael Priamos regierte nach Bellum Lapitharum et At that time seven gener- Laomedon über Ilion. Centaurorum, quos scribit als waged the war of the Palaefatus libro de incred- Centaurs. Der Eselstiere (Onoken- ibilibus primo nobiles fui- tauren) und der Lapithen sse equites Thessalorum71. (…) Kampf. Die Eselstiere waren thessalische Ritter, Priamus regnauit post Others say that at the time wie Palephatos erzählt im Laomedontem72. that Priam, son of Laome- Ersten von den “Unglaub- (…) don reigned, his children lichen”. – Polyxena, Alexander, Die Sieben zogen gegen Septem qui aduersum The- who is that Paris who took die Thebäer zu Felde. bas pugnauerunt73. Helen, and their sixteen brothers – waged war. (…)

Andogeos ward durch Androgeus Athenis dolo Androgeus was killed Hinterlist getötet zu Athen69. interficitur74. (….) (…) Ilion ward eingenommen70. Troia Capta75. and Ilion destroyed76.

67 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 56 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 36. 68 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.40. 69 KARST, Chronik, p. 169-170. 70 KARST, Chronik, p. 171. 71 HELM, Chronik, p. 57d. 72 HELM, Chronik, p. 57e. 73 HELM, Chronik, p. 57g. 74 HELM, Chronik, p. 57h. 75 HELM, Chronik, p. 60.22-23. 76 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 56 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 36.

996680.indb6680.indb 295295 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 296 A. HILKENS

Clearly, this Syriac account of the Trojan War was based on Eusebian materials that have been reworked and rearranged and that must have been passed on to Michael through a Syriac chronicle that relied on Eusebius as a source. That Michael himself did not create this excerpt through a misinterpretation of Eusebian materials is indicated by the presence of much more literal translations of the original lemmata elsewhere in his Chronography77. Michael’s description of Androgeus as a casualty of the Trojan War shows the involvement of someone who knew Greek and had read Virgil’s Aeneid (1st century BC), because Virgil is the only other witness, classical or medieval, to Androgeus’ death near Troy78. This intermediary author knew that Virgil characterised Androgeus as the first Greek victim of Troy’s last stand and therefore mistook Eusebius’ reference to Andro- geus, the son of Minos, who was killed by the Athenians, as a reference to Virgil’s ‘Trojan’ Androgeus79. That a Syriac chronographer had any first-hand knowledge of a Latin text from the 1st century BCE is highly improbable80 and we can therefore reasonably assume the involvement of at least one Greek intermediary, a Greek translation81 of the Aeneid and/or a Greek chronicle. There- fore, Michael’s Syriac source can be described as follows: it was either (a) a Syriac translation of a lost Greek chronicle, which is unlikely, (b) a Syriac chronicle that contained excerpts from a Greek chronicle (Anni- anus?), or (c) an unidentified Syriac chronicle whose author was familiar with the Aeneid. In the case of both (b) and (c), this chronicler must have known Greek. c) Michael’s third account The main focus of Michael’s third excerpt on the Trojan War is its cause. In this case, the Trojan War is dated to the time of Samson as

77 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 50 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 33. 78 Virg., Aen., 2.370-393. 79 Although it is remotely possible that Androgeus originally appeared in the Epic Cycle, in my opinion, RAUK, Androgeos has sufficiently argued that Virgil based the character of this ‘Trojan’ Androgeus on the Minoan character of the same name, the son of Minos who was killed by jealous Athenians. In consequence of their actions, Minos demanded the sacrifices of Athenian virgins to the Minotaur. 80 Early 6th-century (?) fragments of books 2 to 6 of the Aeneid and a late 6th-century Latin-Greek glossary to this text have been discovered among the Nessana papyri in the Negev (CASSON – HETTICH, Excavations, p. 2-78), but these could also have been bought for the purpose of reuse, not for their contents, SCHMIDT, Syriac Palimpsests, p. 163. 81 There is ample evidence to suggest that the Aeneid was read in the East and perhaps even translated in Greek, BALDWIN, Vergilius Graecus. On Greek translations of Virgil’s oeuvre in general, see ROCHETTE, Du grec au latin et du latin au grec, p. 250-269.

996680.indb6680.indb 296296 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 297

well, but specifically between the 8th and 18th year of his ‘reign’. The excerpt is titled “story of the destruction of the great city of Ilion”: In year 8 of Samson, Alexander Paris, king of Ilion, went to present offerings to Apollo, god of the pagans, in the region of Hellas, when he was 33 years old, as if he declared to his father that he would have a son. When he arrived at (the court of) Menelaus, king of Sparta, he saw Helen his wife who was beautiful. He took her and returned to Troy, in the land of Phrygia, near his father, without having presented offerings. When he saw what had happened, Menelaus called twenty kings to aid, with their ships, 1250 in all, and he began a war that lasted for ten years, until the 18th year of Samson. Then Odysseus (sic!) killed Alexander and took hold of Helen who had already had three children. These things were written by the wise Diktys82 who aided in that war. Ilion was destroyed83.

The particular details offered by this excerpt – apart from the date84 and the erroneous reference to Odysseus as slayer of Paris and captor of Helen – all derive from the fifth book of the Chronicle of John Malalas85. Elements such as the localisation of Troy in Phrygia86; Paris’ age87; his departure to sacrifice to Apollo in Hellas and return home without having done this88; his arrival at the court of Menelaus in Sparta89; the size of the Greek fleet (1250 ships)90; Helen’s three children91; and the reference to the “wise Diktys” as a source prove that Malalas was the inspiration for this excerpt92. This fact has been overlooked, even though almost a century

82 Ms.: , Distys (IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 58). CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 57 recommended an emendation to , Damastes, the name of a Greek chronicler from the 5th or 4th century BC, who is said to have written on the Trojan War (hence his nickname Troas). An emendation to Diktys (), however, would make more sense; it not only implies a more understandable scribal error, but also agrees with the source reference in Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.40. That this scribal error could already have been present in Michael’s autograph is suggested by Barhebraeus who refers to Diktys as D(i)stus () in a passage in his Treasury of Mysteries, which is undoubtedly based on Michael’s second account of the Trojan War, SPRENGLING – GRAHAM, Barhebraeus’ Scholia, p. 345-346. 83 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 57 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 36. 84 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.1 dates the war to the time of David. 85 On the afterlife of Malalas in Syriac, HAASE, Untersuchungen; WITAKOWSKI, Malalas in Syriac and DEBIÉ, Jean Malalas. Byzantine chroniclers used Malalas for information on the Trojan War as well, see JEFFREYS, Attitude, p. 204, 208, 212, 224- 225, 228. 86 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.1. 87 Jo. Mal., Chron. 3. 88 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.3, 6. 89 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.4. 90 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.41. 91 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.44. 92 It is also worth noting that this Syriac paraphrase does not include Malalas’ reference to the judgement of Paris, Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.2.

996680.indb6680.indb 297297 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 298 A. HILKENS

ago Alexandre Vasiliev, the editor and translator of the Kitab al-‘Unwan93 of the melkite bishop Agapius of Mabbug (ca. 941/942 AD), already highlighted the connection between Malalas and this excerpt, which also appears, with some variants, in Agapius’ Arabic chronicle94.

Agapius Michael Story of the destruction of the great city of Ilion

In year 8 of the reign of Samson, In year 8 of Samson, Alexander Alexander Paris, son of Priam, king of Paris, king of Ilion, went to present Ilion, took up offerings and went to the offerings to Apollo, god of the pagans, god Apollo, in the region of Hellas, at in the region of Hellas, when he was the age of 33 years, because he declared 33 years old, as if he declared to his that it was he who had prophesied to his father that he would have a son. father that he would have a son. When he went and approached the When he arrived at (the court of) king of Sparta who was called Mene- Menelaus, king of Sparta, he saw Helen laus, he saw Helen there, whose beauty his wife who was beautiful. and grace charmed him, and he desired her. Her husband was detained where he went to aid and he was far away from him. He abducted the young woman and took her to Troy, in the land of Phrygia, He took her and returned to Troy, in near his father, without having presented the land of Phrygia, near his father, offerings. When Menelaus arrived and without having presented offerings. learnt what had happened, he sent mes- When he saw what had happened, sengers and called twenty kings to aid Menelaus called twenty kings to aid, with their ships, 2250 ships in number. with their ships, 1250 in all, They went by sea and fought Priam and his son who had abducted the beautiful Helen. They took hold of her and the entire region that had warred with them for and he began a war that lasted for ten ten years until year 18 of the reign of years, until the 18th year of Samson. Samson. Then Odysseus (sic!) killed Alexander and took hold of Helen who had already had three children. These things were At that time the city of Ilion, described written by the wise Diktys who aided in in the book and poetry of Homer, was that war. destroyed95. Ilion was destroyed96.

93 VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan. 94 VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 15, n. 1. 95 VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 15. 96 CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 57 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 36.

996680.indb6680.indb 298298 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 299

A comparison of Agapius’ and Michael’s accounts reveals many simi- larities (underlined) among which even a few literally identical phrases. However, certain differences (italicised) between the two accounts also emerge. For instance, the small discrepancy between Agapius’ and Michael’s indication of the number of ships in the Greek fleet, 2250 and 1250 respectively, must have resulted from either a scribal error or Agapius’ mistranslation of his Syriac source, because the latter number reflects Malalas’ account perfectly. On the other hand, some minor phrases, only occur in either one of the two descriptions, such as ‘son of Priam’, the epithet of Paris that only Agapius has preserved. Most of these probably also reflect the original source, which Agapius and Michael excerpted differently. There are, however, two crucial differences, one lies in the mention of Odysseus, the other in the identification of the source. Michael identifies Odysseus as the slayer of Paris and the captor of Helen, which expressly contradicts Malalas’ testimony. Whether these statements reflect Michael’s source and Agapius did not copy them remains unclear. On the other hand, Michael preserves Malalas’ original source reference to Diktys (of Crete), whereas Agapius identifies “the book and poetry of Homer” as a source for a description of Troy (though not explicitly its destruction). By doing so, Agapius reveals that he was aware of the existence of the Iliad and that it was a poem. Agapius’ and Michael’s common source was a Syriac chronicle, written between ca. 565 – the approximate date of the composition of Mala- las’ Chronicle – and ca. 941/942, when Agapius created his Kitab al- ‘Unwan. Two chronicles can be excluded as possible candidates for this position: Pseudo-Zachariah and the so-called Chronicle on Clas- sical Antiquity97 (of unknown date, possibly 9th century), which have previously been cited in connection with the Syriac transmission98 of Malalas’ mythological materials, but do not preserve Malalas’ account of the Trojan War. Pseudo-Zachariah was not used by Agapius, not even for information regarding the 5th and 6th century, so he could not have transmitted this paraphrase of Malalas’ account of the Trojan War. This is also confirmed by Agapius’ and Michael’s dating of the Trojan War, between

97 GUIDI, Pseudo-Dioclis fragmentum. This text is the only Syriac witness of the myth of Hercules’ invention of the purple and the Pythia’s revelation to Augustus of the divinity of Christ, DEBIÉ, Jean Malalas, p. 150-153. 98 DEBIÉ, Jean Malalas.

996680.indb6680.indb 299299 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 300 A. HILKENS

the 8th and 18th year of Samson, which expressly contradicts Pseudo- Zachariah’s statement that Troy was captured in the time of Eli the priest, Samson’s successor99. Even though the contents of the Chronicle on Classical Antiquity do overlap to a certain extent with Malalas’ materials preserved by Agapius, Michael and the anonymous chronicler, the former’s depictions of the infancy of Romulus and Remus, the former’s foundation of Rome, and Caesar and his birth considerably diverge from the latters’, which are fairly literal translations. The Chronicle on Classical Antiquity, on the other hand, contains elements that have no counterparts in the extant version of Malalas’ Chronicle and therefore it has been suggested that its author either read Malalas in Greek, adding materials from other sources, or had access to Malalas’ source, which he then excerpted dif- ferently100. Although Agapius’ and Michael’s common source cannot be identified, this unknown Syriac chronicler must have been extremely interested in Greco-Roman mythology and ancient Roman history. Apart from Malalas’ description of the Trojan War, he also incorporated into his chronicle translations of sections from Malalas’ seventh book101, on the foundation of Rome and the origin of Roman traditions, and adapted materials from Malalas’ first book102, on the burial of Zeus on Crete, and

99 BROOKS, Historia Ecclesiastica II, p. 194.19-20 (ed.) and GREATREX et al., Pseudo- Zachariah, p. 418. 100 Because these Syriac accounts contain elements that DEBIÉ, Jean Malalas, p. 152 has suggested that the author of the Chronicle on Classical Antiquity. 101 In order of appearance in the writings of Agapius and Michael, these discuss Romulus’ and Remus’ genealogical origin, childhood and foundation of Rome (Jo. Mal., Chron. 7.7; VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 50-51; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 80 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 51); the plague of earthquakes that torment Romulus and Rome, and the origin of the majestic plural (Jo. Mal., Chron. 7.1-2; VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 51-52; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 80-81 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 51); the construction of the wall, the organisation of the Marsfestival and the naming of the month March (Jo. Mal., Chron. 7.3; VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 52-53; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 82-83 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 53); the construction of the circus and creation of the circus factions (Jo. Mal., Chron. 7.4-5; VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 53-54; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 83-84 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 53); Oenomaus’ organisation of similar games (Jo. Mal., Chron. 7.4; VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 55; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 84 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 53); the creation of the Brumalia (Jo. Mal., Chron. 7.7; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 84-85 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 53-4); and the plot of Februarius against Manlius Capi- tolinus and the naming of the month February (Jo. Mal., Chron. 7.10-13; VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 125-127; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 141-143 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 93). 102 Jo. Mal., Chron. 1.13; VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 15-16; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 57 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 37.

996680.indb6680.indb 300300 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 301

from his ninth103, on the birth of Caesar by Caesarean section. Further- more, Agapius and Michael also preserve, interlaced with these materials of Malalas, two non-Eusebian passages on early Roman history, which these two chroniclers highly likely copied from that unidentified historiographical text as well104. The fact that this chronicler also had a certain impact on the anonymous chronicler of 1234’s presentation of pre-Christian history, as is demonstrated by the presence of two of these Syriac paraphrases of Malalas’ material, one on Zeus’ burial105 and the other on the origin of the majestic plural106, suggests that it might well have been Andronicus who transmitted these materials of Malalas into Syriac. For, elsewhere, I have highlighted a similar situation in which Andronicus, whose chronicle was a major source for postdiluvian and pre-Abrahamic history for Agapius, Michael and the anonymous chronicler, was not afraid of using a Greek myth and integrating it into a Christian perspective on world history by combining it with apocryphal Jewish and Syriac traditions107. 3.3.3. The Anonymous Chronicle of 1234 Although the anonymous chronicler of 1234 relied on many of the same sources as Michael, he seems consciously to have decided to preserve another description of the Trojan War than Michael108. The length of this excerpt, entitled “Concerning the Wars against Troy and its destruction”, is unrivalled in Syriac literature and its contents were clearly based on Greek sources of a non-historiographical nature. L. Conrad described this account in 1999 as “a prose paraphrase ultimately but loosely derived from the Iliad”109. This assessment is inaccurate, insofar as the sequence

103 Jo. Mal., Chron. 9.1; VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 125; CHABOT, Chro- nique, vol. 1, p. 133 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 87. 104 Comp. VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol . 1 (2), p. 49-55 wit h CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 80-85. The first excerpt is a variation on the legend of Romulus and Remus’ childhood and their foundation of Rome and the origin of the terms ‘Rome’ and ‘Roman’ (VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan, vol . 1 (2), p. 49-50; CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 80 and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 51). Michael attributes this tradition to a certain Qumun (= Cymon?), but it closely resembles those preserved in Latin sources such as Liv., Ab Urbe Condita, 1.3-7. The second excerpt discusses Romulus’ organisation of a banquet for the nobility and the origin of the distribution of “consular largess" (hupateia: VASILIEV, Kitab al- ,CHABOT, Chronique, vol. 1, p. 83 and IBRAHIM, Codex ;فاطيا :Unvan, vol. 1 (2), p. 53‘ p. 53: ). This passage could be a highly reworked version of Malalas’ account of the Romulus’ creation of the Brumalia, but is certainly not a literal translation. 105 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 78.25-28 (ed.), p. 59.36-8 (transl.). 106 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 110.2-15 (ed.), p. 86.34-87.8 (transl.). 107 HILKENS, Andronicus. 108 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 66.8-78.24 (ed.), p. 50.16-59.34 (transl.). 109 CONRAD, Varietas Syriaca, p. 92-93.

996680.indb6680.indb 301301 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 302 A. HILKENS

of events between the arrival of the Greeks and the death of Hector, i.e. the main focus of the Iliad, are barely discussed in this Syriac text. After introducing110 the subject, its author goes into detail about Helen’s genealogical origins, her birth and betrothal. The story continues with the story from her abduction by Paris onwards, until the arrival of the Greeks at Troy and their raiding of the surrounding area111. Thereafter, the story skips to the events that took place after the death of Hector and focuses on Achilles and the deaths of some of his adver- saries in the siege, the Amazon queen Penthesilea and the Cushite king Memnon; then on Achilles’ own death; and lastly, that of Paris, who slayed Achilles112. The remainder of the account is effectively a Syriac Ilioupersis, a detailed description of the events that precipitated the fall of Troy: the betrayal of Helenus; the theft of the Palladium, the statue of Athena that protected the city; the construction of the Trojan horse; the feigned retreat of the Greeks; and the speech of Sinon, who deceives the Trojans and convinces them to take the horse into the city113. More than forty per cent of this account is devoted to the events that precipitated the Trojan War and the fall of Troy, rather than the war itself. This assessment indicates that the source for this account was not the Iliad, but the Epic Cycle or a related text. This conclusion has already been drawn by Conrad in 2005, when he suggested that this account was based on a Syriac translation of the Epic Cycle. Further- more, he attributed its authorship to Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785), who compared the case of Troy with “the fate of the eastern Christian community: the fate of both is undeserved, but both are nevertheless doomed: Troy to be destroyed by the Greeks, eastern Christendom to be destroyed by the expansion of Islam”114. Interestingly, the influence of the Epic Cycle is also alluded to by the source reference for the “great destruction” of the city as books 43 to 51 of the “chronography of Homer”115. Not only is the qualification of Homer as a chronographer unique, these numbers do not match the usual division of the Iliad and the Odyssey, each into 24 books. How- ever, they do make sense in the context of the Epic Cycle.

110 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 66.8-23 (ed.), p. 50.16-29 (transl.). 111 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 66.23-72.11 (ed.), p. 50.29-54.35 (transl.). 112 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 72.11-73.19 (ed.), p. 54.35-55.33 (transl.). 113 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 73.19-78.24 (ed.), p. 55.33-59.34 (transl.). 114 CONRAD, The Mawali, p. 388. 115 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 66.19-23 (ed.), p. 50.25-29 (transl.).

996680.indb6680.indb 302302 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 303

Work Number Subject of books Cypria 11 The events leading up to the Trojan War and the first nine years of the conflict, including the judgement of Paris Iliad 24 The Trojan War up to – but not including – the sack of the city Aethiopis 5 The arrival of the Trojan allies, Penthesilea the Amazon and Memnon; their deaths at Achilles’ hands in revenge for the death of Antilochus; Achilles’ own death Little Iliad 4 Events after Achilles’ death, including the building of the Trojan Horse Ilioupersis 2 The sack of Troy Nostoi 5 The return home of the Greek force and the events contin- gent upon their arrival, concluding with the returns of Agamemnon and Menelaus Odyssey 24 Odysseus’ adventures on the way home to Ithaca Telegony 2 On Odysseus and his son Telegonus

The first six texts of the Epic Cycle – the Cypria, Iliad, Aethiopis, Little Iliad, Ilioupersis and Nostoi – account for 51 books. Therefore, books 43 to 51 cover the latter half of the Little Iliad (two books), the entire Ilioupersis (two books) and the entire Nostoi (five books). This source reference does not entirely match the scope of the Syriac account. The discussion of the circumstances surrounding Helen’s birth, for instance, were unlikely to have been discussed in either of these three texts that belonged to the Epic Cycle. Furthermore, the Syriac account does not discuss the return home of the Greeks, the subject of the Nostoi, either. However, this source reference could have been intended to specifically apply to the fall of the city itself, which was discussed in the Ilioupersis and the latter half of the Little Iliad. Despite this inconsistency, the inclusion of these numbers in the Syriac account does indicate a certain familiarity with the Epic Cycle. In which format this information came down to the anonymous chronicler is unclear, although this source must have been composed in Syriac. It is highly unlikely that a late antique or medieval author still had access to the Epic Cycle in its entirety. Rather, it could have persisted in the form of a mythographical work, similar to that preserved in Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library, or in a summary, which has not survived. Let us now investigate the contents of this excerpt. Because it is too extensive to be translated in full in this article, its contents and the

996680.indb6680.indb 303303 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 304 A. HILKENS

sequence of events will be briefly analysed and significant elements, which might offer some clues with regards to the sources, will be highlighted. The description of the Trojan War is preceded by a brief introduction, in which the war is dated to the time “(…) when the judges of the Israel- ites were governing, a short while after Joshua bar Nun, in the days of the judge Heshbon [= Abisan; Jg 12:8-10], when the Greeks were governing the mighty kingdom of the islands that were in the sea (…)”116. The cause of the war is identified in a fairly traditional manner, albeit without a reference to the judgement of Paris: (…) a man with the name Alexander Paris, son of king Priam of Ilion, went with an army of ships and travelled by sea to the islands of Rhodes and Crete. And he snatched Helen, the wife of king Menelaus and he brought her to his great city of Ilion near the sea of Asia, which was glorious and magnificent, finished with fortified walls and renowned in the inhabited world117.

However, there is one crucial difference: Menelaus’ court is not located in Sparta on the Greek mainland, but on the islands of Rhodes and Crete. Together with the reference to the Greek domination over islands in the Mediterranean, the relocation of the court from mainland Greece to Rhodes and Crete moves the focus of the story away from Greek history and mythology to that of Asia Minor and the Eastern Mediterranean. This could have been a conscious decision, but might equally be due to the author’s unfamiliarity with the geography of Classical Greece. Never- theless, the author’s disinterest in the Greeks, their history and their adventures is also demonstrated by the fact that the account only briefly discusses the return home of the Greeks after the destruction of Troy. The introduction continues with detailed information regarding the genealogical origin of Helen: There was a man, of the kings of Greece, who was called Tasus (), and a daughter was born to him with the name Nonna (). He betrothed her to one of the Greek kings because she was very beautiful of appearance. Nonna then gave birth to two of his daughters. Her father called one Clytemnestra () and they betrothed her to a man of the Greek kings who was called Agamemnon (), and his other daughter Helena, because of whom all of Greece went into battle and the great city of Ilion was destroyed118.

116 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 66.9-12 (ed.), p. 50.18-19 (transl.). 117 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 66.12-18 (ed.), p. 50.19-22 (transl.). 118 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 66.23-67.2 (ed.), p. 50.29-36 (transl.).

996680.indb6680.indb 304304 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 305

Helen, Menelaus, Clytemnestra and Agamemnon are well-known characters from Trojan mythology, but the Greek king (Tasus), his daughter who is Helen’s mother and her royal Greek husband, are, to my knowledge, only mentioned in two other sources, both written in Greek: (1) the third book of Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library119, the Greek mythological handbook that also preserves an epitome of the Epic Cycle and (2) the fourth book of Malalas’ Chronicle120. Both describe a situation compara- ble to that in the Syriac account: Leda (= Nuna121), one of the daughters of king Thestius (= Tasus), is betrothed to king Tyndareus (= anonymous Greek king). Leda then bears several children, including Castor and Pol- lux, Helen and Clytemnestra, some by Tyndareus, but others by Zeus. This description of the circumstances of Helen’s birth is unlikely to have stemmed from a mythological handbook. Similarly to Malalas, the author of this account adopts an euhemeristic stance, but, whereas the former explicitly dismissed the story that Zeus turned into a swan when he had intercourse with Leda as “foolish”122, the latter simply refrains from mentioning Zeus, Castor, Pollux or any of the usual fantastic elements (Leda’s transformation into a swan and Helen’s birth from an egg) altogether. After the overview of Helen’s family history, the Syriac account describes the circumstances of Helen’s betrothal to Menelaus. The Greek kings hear of Helen’s beauty and come to ask Tyndareus for her hand in marriage. Tyndareus is afraid to choose between the suitors because he fears the consequences of such a decision. Eventually, a pact is concluded between the suitors; they swear not to act against Tyndareus’ wishes and punish anyone who would not uphold this oath. This episode is alluded to in several classical Greek and Latin texts, including the Iliad, but only Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library preserves a full description of it123. A comparison between this Greek account and the Syriac rendering confirms our earlier assessment of the unawareness of most Syriac authors of Odysseus’ role in the Trojan War. In this case, the Syriac author refrains from identifying Odysseus as the one who brought the idea of the pact between the suitors to Tyndareus, in exchange for Penelope, his future wife.

119 Apoll., Libr. 3.126-127. 120 Jo. Mal., Chron. 4.17. 121 The origin of this name is unclear. 122 Jo. Mal., Chron. 4.17. He identifies the On Incredible Tales of Palaephatus as his source. 123 Apoll., Libr. 3.128-32.

996680.indb6680.indb 305305 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 306 A. HILKENS

The introduction is followed by an intricate depiction of the Trojan War, especially the fall of the city, and the events that preceded it. Every single one of the episodes in the Syriac account has a counterpart in the Epic Cycle124.

Epic Cycle Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 1234 Cypria Meeting of Paris and Helen at a feast Departure of Menelaus Flight to Troy without incident Prophecy of Mamistra of the fall of Troy Mustering of the Greek army Episode of the serpent and the birds Deployment of the Greek forces, plundering of Galatia, Bithynia and Cilicia124 and beginning of the war Iliad (Episode of the serpent and the birds) Death of Hector Aethiopis Battles of Achilles with the Amazon queen Penthesilea and the Ethiopian king Memnon Death of Achilles Little Iliad Death of Paris Betrayal of Helenus Theft of the statue of Athena Description of the Trojan horse? Ilioupersis Description of the Trojan horse? Speech of Sinon Taking of the city Nostoi Departure of the Greeks? Odyssey //////

From this table can be concluded that the Homeric corpus barely had any influence on the Syriac account. The majority of the scenes depicted in Syriac occurred before or after the events that were recounted in the Iliad and before Odysseus’ adventures on his way home to Ithaca. The Iliad does describe the episode of the serpent and the birds and the death of Hector125, but the Syriac author could have encountered these in the Cypria and Little Iliad as well. This ‘Syriac Epic Cycle’ preserves many details which are not extant in Pseudo-Apollodorus’ summary and Proclus’ epitome of the Epic Cycle

124 These regions could have been mentioned in order to emphasise the story’s impor- tance for the history of Asia Minor. 125 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 73.19-21 (ed.), p. 55.33-35 (transl.).

996680.indb6680.indb 306306 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 307

and sometimes even contradict these Greek descriptions. Nevertheless, this should not worry us too much, because later witnesses of the Trojan myth such as the Capture of Ilion of Triphiodorus often contradict each other and the earliest sources. According to the Syriac equivalent to the Cypria Menelaus left Sparta two days after the arrival of Paris, because pirates were threatening his realm; according to Proclus, however, the death of Menelaus’ grandfather Catreus was the reason for his departure, not after two, but after ten days126. Similarly, the ‘Syriac Cypria’ places the prophecy of Cassandra – she is called Mamistra () in Syriac – after the arrival of Paris and Helen in Troy, instead of before Paris’ departure to Sparta and his encounter with Helen127. Furthermore, the Syriac account says that the lovers travelled to Troy in a “handful of days” and there is no indication of any incident that occurred during their voyage. This contradicts Proclus’ summary of the Cypria, which describes how Hera attempted to intervene and sent storms against the couple to prevent them from arriving in Troy. The lack of reference to Hera probably resulted from the euhemeristic approach of its author, but is not without precedent: according to Herodotus, the Cypria contradicted the Iliad in saying that Helen and Paris arrived in Troy after three days and enjoyed a favourable wind and smooth sea128. The episode of the serpent and the birds is an interesting example of how the Syriac account differs from the extant classical sources. Accord- ing to the Cypria129 and the Iliad130, before setting sail for Troy, the Greek army gathers in Aulis, a port-town in Boeotia in Eastern Greece, in order to sacrifice to Apollo. A sacrificial fire is lit, but a serpent suddenly crawls out of the fire. The snake climbs a nearby tree and eats nine birds sitting in a nest, eight hatchlings and their mother. Distraught by that omen, the Greeks consult their diviner, Calchas, who interprets it as a sign that the war will last nine years and that Troy will fall in the tenth. The essence of this story is the same as in Syriac, but it differs from the Greek in several interesting ways. The Syriac account claims that the serpent ate ten birds and that these ten birds represented the ten years that the war would last. Calchas is not mentioned by name, the Syriac even speaks of ‘wise diviners’ in the plural. Interestingly also, the scene of the serpent is said to have occurred on an (unidentified) island. This change

126 Apoll., Libr. Epit. 3.3. 127 EVELYN-WHITE, Fragments, p. 491. 128 EVELYN-WHITE, Fragments, p. 501 (fr. 10 = Herodotus, Hist. 2.117). 129 EVELYN-WHITE, Fragments, p. 493; Apoll., Libr. Epit. 3.15. 130 Homer, Il. 2.299-330.

996680.indb6680.indb 307307 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 308 A. HILKENS

of geographical location could be due to the Syriac author’s unfamiliarity with Greek geography, but probably resulted from the earlier localisation of Menelaus’ court on Rhodes and Crete. The Syriac text continues with a brief reference to the death of Hector without any details about the circumstances of his demise, suggesting that its author did not use the Iliad and was not interested in this episode. The ‘Syriac Epic Cycle’ then focuses on individual battles, particularly those of “king” Achilles, who is explicitly identified as the son of Peleus ( 131 ), against the Amazon queen Penthesilea, who remains anonymous, and against the Cushite king Memnon (). Eventually, Achilles’ death is described as well. The Syriac author describes the battles in such detail – Penthesilea hits Achilles with her sword but does not injure him, and Achilles and Memnon fight “from morning until the ninth hour”132 – that it is highly likely that his description must have been based on the Aethiopis or a related tradition, even though none of these details are reflected in the summary and epitome of this text133. The remainder of the Syriac account focuses on events that precipitated Troy’s downfall, which correspond to the subject of the Little Iliad and the Ilioupersis. The first episode, however, the death of Paris, is described in a way, which is reminiscent of the testimonies of Diktys of Crete134 and Malalas135: the ‘Syriac Epic Cycle’ describes how Paris is slain by an arrow in the right eye, shot from Philoctetes’136 “mighty”137 bow. If the author of this account borrowed this information from Malalas, he is likely to have been a (Greek or Syriac) chronographer. After the death of his brother Paris, one of the two remaining Trojan princes, Helenus – who remains anonymous – is envious of his brother (Deiphobus, anonymous), who is allowed to marry Helen, and defects to the Greeks. Having arrived in the Greek camp, Helenus reveals that “as long as the statue of Athena stands in the centre of the city, you will not be able to seize it”138. Two Greek soldiers – who remain unnamed,

131 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 72.12 (ed.). 132 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 73.7 (ed.), p. 55.22-23 (transl.). 133 EVELYN-WHITE, Fragments, p. 506-507; Apoll., Libr. Epit. 5.1-3. 134 Dikt. Cret., Ephem. Bell. Troi. 4.19. 135 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.44. 136 Ms.: , Danaoqlitites. This is a corruption of Philoctetes, perhaps due to a misinterpretation of the Greek root dana-, which was often used as a pars pro toto for the Greeks. I am indebted to Mark Janse for pointing this out to me. 137 Possibly an allusion to the myth that Philoctetes received Hercules’ bow, see e.g. Apoll., Libr. Epit. 27. 138 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 73.27-29, p. 56.4-5 (transl.).

996680.indb6680.indb 308308 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 309

but are traditionally identified with Odysseus and Diomedes – sneak into the city and steal the statue. This deed heralds the beginning of the tenth and final year of the war. An interesting difference between the Greek witnesses and the Syriac account lies in the circumstances surrounding Helenus’ revelation of Troy’s Achilles’ heel. The Syriac account claims that Helenus’ envy was the cata- lyst for his treason, but according to Proclus and Pseudo-Apollodorus, although Helenus did leave Troy because of his jealousy, he only revealed the secret of the Palladium after having been captured by Odysseus and having been tortured139. Thereafter follows an extensive description of the construction of the Trojan horse. Because it is unique – it is the only extant Syriac reference to the Trojan horse – I will include it here (in my own translation140): Then, they devised a plan and came up with an admirable trick, through which their battle would come to an end. They plotted to make a certain wooden statue, a horse in which they would lay in wait and act cunningly to seize the city. Artisans, skilled in the carpentry trade, and others, skilled and wise in the fabrication of engines of war, showed themselves strong, gathered and brought forth many (pieces) of wood of all sorts. And they sawed (them into) boards and hewed and made a certain horse, greater than the height of the city wall. They carved it with great skill, furnished it and adorned it with images and various colours so that a joint between a board and its neighbour would never be visible or perceived; they made its head in the likeness of that of a horse that was very high above (it), because (the wall?) was very high as well. And so, they furnished it with an open space in the middle, so that many men (could) enter and lie in wait in it. And others were sitting in its head and listening to what was being said on the outside. They made big eyes for it and put windows in them, so that those who were on the inside could see what was being done (on the outside) and those who were on the outside could not see (them). They made big and deep nostrils and a mouth for it, exits through which their breath (could) go out and through which (fresh) air could enter, so that they would not suffocate. And in this manner they adorned this animal, and they wrote on its breast in beautiful letters in pure gold the following: “This horse is an offering of thanks, offered to the great and inaccessible temple of the goddess Athena in the city of Ilion to replace her magnificent statue, which the Greeks have taken. She has grown angry with them (and) because of this, through this magnificent offering, her will will be done; she will be pleased and she will pardon them for the effrontery that they have committed”141.

139 EVELYN-WHITE, Fragments, p. 508-510; Apoll., Libr. Epit. 5.9-10. 140 A full English translation of this chronicle, including the account of the Trojan War, is in preparation. 141 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 74.8-75.4 (ed.), p. 56.14-57.1 (transl.).

996680.indb6680.indb 309309 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 310 A. HILKENS

Having placed men inside the horse, the Greeks burn their camp and set sail to hide in a nearby location. One anonymous Greek soldier (= Sinon) is left behind. Pretending to be a captured deserter, he persuades the Trojans of the horse’s harmlessness. The Trojans take it into the city and celebrate the departure of the Greeks. At night, when the Trojans are sleeping, the Greek soldiers sneak out of the horse “like wasps”142 and, having lit beacons to warn their comrades, they fall on the sleeping Trojans “like lions on a flock of sheep and like rapacious bears on a vineyard”143. Many Trojans are taken captive, but some, including Priam and his only remaining son, are killed. Helen is given to Mene- laus, the palaces and houses are looted, and the city is burnt. Afterwards the Greeks return home. The last three events – the description of the Trojan horse, the speech of Sinon, and the capture of the city – are the subject of one third of this Syriac rendering of the Epic Cycle, and if we include the episode of the betrayal of Helenus and the theft of the statue as well, forty per cent of the Syriac text covers the end of the war, demonstrating that the main focus of this account was the fall of Troy, not the Trojan War. The intricate depiction of these events indicates that the author of this account disposed of an account of the sack of Troy, an ilioupersis, which in turn ties in with Bar- hebraeus’ claim that Theophilus translated two books on the fall of Troy. At the end of this excerpt, the author claims that the city fell, because “the Lord was angry with Ilion and with its inhabitants. He handed them over to destruction, plundering, captivity and perdition in the hands of the Greek kings and their armies”144. The cause of God’s anger could be Helen’s and Paris’ sexual transgressions, because of the unlawfulness of their marriage145, or the idolatry of the Trojans, which is symbolised by the statue of Athena that functions as the city’s protector. In case of the latter, the Trojan War could indeed function as an allegory for “the fate of the eastern Christian community” which would “be destroyed by the expansion of Islam”146. The author warns the inhabitants of Anatolian – and by extension Eastern Christian – cities not to turn away from God, but seek protection from him against foreign invaders. If however, their cities were to be captured and plundered, they should not fear, because it would be part of His divine plan.

142 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 77.26 (ed.), p. 59.5 (transl.). 143 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 77.28-29 (ed.), p. 59.7-8 (transl.). 144 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 78.1-4 (ed.), p. 59.11-14 (transl.). 145 CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 69.20 (ed.), p. 52.37-38 (transl.): “And thus was concluded this unlawful marriage, that brought forth terrible things”. 146 CONRAD, The Mawali, p. 388.

996680.indb6680.indb 310310 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 311

4. Conclusion

The myth of the Trojan War, one of the key episodes of Greek mythology, has been integrated into a Christian perspective of world history. Suffering a fate similar to that of other Near Eastern cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah and even Jerusalem, Troy becomes an example of how God intervenes in human history147. It is therefore no surprise that these Syriac accounts of the Trojan War refrain from acknowledging any direct influence of the pagan Greek gods on these events, the only exception being the protective properties that are attributed to the statue of Athena in the account in the 13th-century chronicle. This study of West-Syrian historiographical representations of the Trojan War has demonstrated that West-Syrian chroniclers relied on their Greek and Syriac predecessors for information regarding this Greek myth. In two cases, however, these views must be slightly nuanced. From Michael’s second description of the Trojan War, which is an adap- tation of Eusebian materials, emerges the influence of a tradition from Virgil’s Aeneid. Similarly, the anonymous author of the 13th-century Syriac chronicle, might have copied his account, a crucial witness for the Epic Cycle and its aftermath in the Medieval Near East, from Theo- philus of Edessa.

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Apoll., Libr. = P. DRÄGER, Apollodor, Bibliotheke: Götter- und Heldensagen (Sammlung Tusculum), Düsseldorf, 2005. APTHORP, Iliad 14.306c = M.J. APTHORP, Iliad 14.306c Discovered in the Syriac Palimpsest, in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 109 (1995), p. 174-176. APTHORP, New Evidence = M.J. APTHORP, New Evidence from the Syriac Pal- impsest on the Numerus Versuum of the Iliad, in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 110 (1996), p. 103-114.

147 An earlier example of this use of the Trojan War is extant in the 18th treatise of the Book on Divine Providence of Cyriacus of Tagrit (d. 817). Cyriacus (OEZ, Book on Divine Providence, vol. 2, p. 158-161) identifies “those from both sides who were killed in the destruction of Illium” as humans whose “end has been determined by God”, mentioning them alongside biblical prototypes such as “those who perished in the flood”, “each one of the people of Sodom and those who were with Sennacherib”, “Pharaoh and his army [who] were drowned in the sea and the Amorites and the Canaanites”, “the children of Israel [who] fell in the wilderness”, and even alongside the historical example of “those who were killed by Titus in the destruction of Jerusalem”. The vagueness of Cyriacus’ reference to the victims of the Trojan War does not allow us to identify Cyriacus’ source, but it is likely to have been historiographical.

996680.indb6680.indb 311311 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 312 A. HILKENS

AUTY, Lexikon = R. AUTY (ed.), Lexikon des Mittelalters, München, 1977-1999. BALDWIN, Vergilius Graecus = B. BALDWIN, Vergilius Graecus, in The American Journal of Philology, 97 (1976), p. 361-368. BALTY – BRIQUEL CHATONNET, Nouvelles mosaïques = J. BALTY – F. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, Nouvelles mosaïques inscrites d’Osrhoène, in Monuments et mémoires, 69 (2000), p. 31-72. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte = A. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn, 1922. BEDJAN, Chronicon Syriacum = P. BEDJAN, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum, Paris, 1890. BROCK, Greek into Syriac = S. BROCK, Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek, in Journal of the Syriac Academy, 3 (1977), p. 1-17. Repr. in S. BROCK, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 199), London, 1984. BROCK, Scholia = S. BROCK, The Syriac Version of The Pseudo-Nonnos Mytho- logical Scholia, Cambridge, 1971. BROOKS, Chronicon ad annum 846 = E.W. BROOKS, Chronicon ad annum domini 846 pertinens, in BROOKS – GUIDI – CHABOT, Chronica Minora II, p. 157- 238 [ed.], p. 123-180 [Lat. transl.]. BROOKS, Chronicon Iacobi Edesseni = E.W. BROOKS, Chronicon Iacobi Edes- seni, in BROOKS – GUIDI – CHABOT, Chronica Minora III, p. 259-330 [ed.], p. 199-258 [Lat. transl.]. BROOKS, Chronicon Miscellaneum = E.W. BROOKS, Chronicon Miscellaneum ad annum domini 724 pertinens, in BROOKS – GUIDI – CHABOT, Chronica Minora II, p. 77-155 [ed.] and p. 61-119 [Lat. transl.]. BROOKS, Historia Ecclesiastica II = E.W. BROOKS, Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori vulgo adscripta II, Accedit fragmentum Historiae eccle- siasticae Dionysii Telmahrensis (CSCO, Syr. III, 6 T[extus]), Louvain, 1921, repr. (CSCO, 84; Script. Syr., 39), Louvain, 1953 [ed.]; (CSCO, Syr. III, 6 V[ersio]), Louvain, 1924, repr. (CSCO, 88; Script. Syr., 42), Louvain, 1953 [Lat. transl.]. BROOKS – GUIDI – CHABOT, Chronica Minora II = E.W. BROOKS – I. GUIDI – J.-B. CHABOT, Chronica Minora II (CSCO, Syr. III, 4 T.), Paris, 1904, repr. (CSCO, 5; Script. Syr., 5), Louvain, 1961 [ed.]; (CSCO, Syr. III, 4 V.), Paris, 1904, repr. (CSCO, 6; Script. Syr., 6), Louvain, 1960 [Lat. transl.]. BROOKS – GUIDI – CHABOT, Chronica Minora III = E.W. BROOKS – I. GUIDI – J.-B. CHABOT, Chronica Minora III (CSCO, Syr. III, 4 T.) Paris, 1904, repr. (CSCO, 5; Script. Syr., 5), Louvain, 1960 [ed.]; (CSCO, Syr. III, 4 V.), Paris, 1904, repr. (CSCO, 6; Script. Syr., 6), Louvain, 1960 [Lat. transl.]. BUDGE, Chronography = E.A.W. BUDGE, The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus Being the First Part of His Political History of the World, 2 vols., London, 1932, repr. (Gorgias Historical Texts, 6-7), Piscataway (N.J.), 2003. BURGESS, Tradition = J.S. BURGESS, The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle, Baltimore (Md.), 2001.

996680.indb6680.indb 312312 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 313

CASSON – HETTICH, Excavations = L. CASSON – E.L. HETTICH (ed.), Excavations at Nessana, vol. II: Literary Papyri, Princeton, 1950. CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum I = J.-B. CHABOT, Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I (CSCO, Syr. III, 14 T.), Louvain, 1920, repr. (CSCO, 81; Script. Syr., 36), Louvain, 1952 [ed.]; (CSCO, Syr. III, 14 V.), Louvain, 1937, repr. (CSCO, 109; Script. Syr., 56), Louvain, 1965 [Lat. transl.]. CHABOT, Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum = J.-B. CHABOT, Incerti auctoris chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum I (CSCO, Syr. III, 1 T.), Paris, 1927, repr. (CSCO, 91; Script. Syr., 43), Louvain, 1949 [ed.]; (CSCO, Syr. III, 1 V.) repr. (CSCO, 121; Script. Syr., 66), Louvain, 1949 [Lat. transl.]. CHABOT, Chronique = J.-B. CHABOT, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199), 4 vols., Paris, 1899-1910, repr. Brussels, 1963. CHRAÏBI, Note = A. CHRAÏBI, Note sur un “abrégé” arabe de la guerre de Troie, in Arabica, 56 (2009), p. 90-94. CONRAD, The Mawali = L.I. CONRAD, The Mawali and early Arabic historiography, in M. BERNARDS – J. NAWAS (ed.), Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam (Islamic History and Civilization Studies and Texts, 61), Leiden, 2005, p. 370-425. CONRAD, Varietas Syriaca = L.I. CONRAD, Varietas Syriaca, in G.J. REININK – A.C. KLUGKIST (ed.), After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor H.J.W. Drijvers (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 89), Leuven, 1999, p. 75-105. CORCELLA, Citazioni = A. CORCELLA, Due citazioni dalle Etiopiche di Eliodoro nella Retorica di Antonio di Tagrit, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 74 (2008), p. 389-416. CURETON, Fragments = W. CURETON, Fragments of the Iliad of Homer from a Syriac Palimpsest, London, 1851. DEBIÉ, Homère chronographe = M. DEBIÉ, Homère chronographe: l’héritage grec antique dans l’historiographie syriaque, in M. ATALLAH (ed.), Les Syriaques: transmetteurs de civilisations. L’expérience du Bilâd el-Shâm à l’époque omeyyade, Antélias, 2005, p. 69-93. DEBIÉ, Jean Malalas = M. DEBIÉ, Jean Malalas et la tradition chronographique de langue syriaque, in J. BEAUCAMP et al. (ed.), Recherches sur la Chro- nique de Jean Malalas I (Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance; Monographies, 15), Paris, 2004, p. 148-164. DEBIÉ, L’héritage = M. DEBIÉ, L’héritage de la chronique d’Eusèbe dans l’historiographie syriaque, in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 10 (2010), p. 18-28. Dikt. Cret., Ephem. Bell. Troi. = W. EISENHUT, Ephemeridos Belli Troiani libri a Lucio Septimio ex graeco in latinum sermonem translati: acce- dunt papyri Dictys graeci in Aegypto inventae, Leipzig, 1973 (second edition). EVELYN-WHITE, Fragments = Fragments of the Epic Cycle, in H.G. EVELYN- WHITE, Hesiod: The Homeric Hymns and Homerica (Loeb Classical Library, 57), London – New York, 1914, p. 479-533.

996680.indb6680.indb 313313 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 314 A. HILKENS

FRICK, Übersetzungen = C. FRICK, Die syrische, die armenische und die geor- gische Übersetzungen der homerischen Gedichte, in Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, 14 (1910), p. 444-446. FURLANI, Una introduzione = G. FURLANI, Una introduzione alla logica Aristotelica di Atanasio di Balad, in Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, ser. V, vol. 25 (1916), p. 717-778. GREATREX et al., Pseudo-Zachariah = G. GREATREX et al. (ed.), The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity (Trans- lated Texts for Historians, 55), Liverpool, 2011. GUIDI, Pseudo-Dioclis fragmentum = I. GUIDI, Pseudo-Dioclis fragmentum, in BROOKS – GUIDI – CHABOT, Chronica Minora III, p. 360-370 [ed.]; p. 286- 295 [transl.]. HAASE, Untersuchungen = F. HAASE, Untersuchungen zu der Chronik des Pseudo- Dionysios von Tell-Mahrê, in Oriens Christianus, 2 (1916), p. 240-270. HELM, Chronik = R. HELM, Die Chronik des Hieronymus (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, 47; Eusebius’ Werke, 7), Berlin, 1956. HESPEL – DRAGUET, Livre des scolies = R. HESPEL – R. DRAGUET, Théodore bar Koni. Livre des Scolies (recension de Séert), vol. 2 (CSCO, 432; Script. Syr., 188), Leuven, 1982. HILKENS, Andronicus = A. HILKENS, Andronicus et son influence sur la présen- tation de l’histoire postdiluvienne et pré-abrahamique de la Chronique syriaque anonyme jusqu’à l’année 1234, in P. BLAUDEAU – P. VAN NUFFE- LEN (ed.), L’historiographie tardo-antique et la transmission des savoirs, forthcoming 2013. Homer, Il. = A.T. MURRAY (ed.), Homer. The Iliad. With an English translation, 2 vols. (Loeb Classical Library, 170-1), Cambridge (Mass.) – London, 1924-1925. HOYLAND, Theophilus of Edessa = R.G. HOYLAND, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (Translated Texts For Historians, 57), Liverpool, 2011. IBRAHIM, Codex = G.Y. IBRAHIM (ed.), The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great. A Publication of St. George Parish and Edessan Community in Aleppo (Texts and Translations of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, 1), Piscataway (N.J.), 2009. JEFFREYS, Attitude = E. JEFFREYS, The Attitude of Byzantine Chroniclers towards Ancient History, in Byzantion, 49 (1979), p. 199-238. Jo. Mal., Chron. = E. JEFFREYS – M. JEFFREYS – R. SCOTT, The Chronicle of John Malalas. A Translation (Byzantina Australiensia, 4), Melbourne, 1986. KARST, Chronik = J. KARST, Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Kommentar (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, 20; Eusebius’ Werke, 5), Leipzig, 1911. KESELING, Chronik = P. KESELING, Die Chronik des Eusebius in der syrischen Überlieferung, in Oriens Christianus, 23 (1927), p. 23-48, 223-241; 24 (1927), p. 33-56, repr. (Analecta Gorgiana, 465), Piscataway (N.J.), 2010. KHOURY, Übersetzungen = R.G. KHOURY, Die arabischen literarischen Über- setzungen aus dem Griechischen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ilias von Homer, in P.O. SCHOLZ – R. STEMPEL (ed.), Nubia et Oriens Christianus. Festschrift für C. Detlef G. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, Köln, 1987, p. 163-180.

996680.indb6680.indb 314314 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 315

KÖBERT, Bemerkungen = R. KÖBERT, Bemerkungen zu den syrischen Zitaten aus Homer und Platon im 5. Buch der Rhetorik des Anton von Tagrit und zum syrischen peri askèseôs, angeblich von Plutarch, in Orientalia, 40 (1971), p. 438-443. KRAEMER, Homerverse = J. KRAEMER, Arabische Homerverse, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 106 (1956), p. 259-316; 107 (1957), p. 511-518. Liv., Ab Urbe Condita = B.O. FOSTER, Livy. History of Rome. Volume I (Loeb Classical Library, 114), Cambridge (Mass.) – London, 1919. MAIR, Oppian, Colluthus, Tryphiodorus = W.A. MAIR, Oppian, Colluthus, Tryphiodorus (Loeb Classical Library, 219), Cambridge, 1958. MERX, Historia = A. MERX, Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros, Leipzig, 1889. MONRO, Poems = D.B. MONRO, The Poems of the Epic Cycle, in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 5 (1884), p. 1-41. NAU, Traduction = F. NAU, Traduction de la chronique syriaque anonyme, éditée par Sa Béatitude Mgr. Rahmani patriarche des Syriens catholiques, in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 13 (1908), p. 90-97. NÖLDEKE, Bar Choni = T. NÖLDEKE, Bar Choni über Homer, Hesiod und Orpheus, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 53 (1899), p. 501-507. OEZ, Book on Divine Providence = M. OEZ, Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies, 33), Piscataway (N.J.), 2012. Ps-Clement, Hom. = F. PASCHKE, Die Pseudoklementinen. I: Homilien (Griechi- schen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 42), Berlin, 1992 (third edition). RAGUSE, Syrische Homerzitate = H. RAGUSE, Syrische Homerzitate in der Rheto- rik des Anton von Tagrit, in Göttinger Arbeitskreis für syrische Kirchenge- schichte, Paul de Lagarde und die syrische Kirchengeschichte, Göttingen, 1968, p. 162-175. RAUK, Androgeos = J. RAUK, Androgeos in Book Two of the Aeneid, in Trans- actions of the American Philological Association, 121 (1991), p. 287-295. RENAN, De philosophia = E. RENAN, De philosophia Peripatetica apud Syros commentatio historica, Paris, 1852. ROCHETTE, Du grec au latin et du latin au grec = B. ROCHETTE, Du grec au latin et du latin au grec. Les problèmes de la traduction dans l’antiquité gréco- latine, in Latomus, 54 (1995), p. 245-261. SALIHANI, Ta’riÌ = A. SALIHANI, Ta’riÌ muÌtasar ad-duwal, Beirut, 1985 (second edition). SCHER, Theodorus bar Koni = A. SCHER, Theodorus bar Koni, Liber Scholiorum, II, (CSCO, 69; Script. Syr., 26), Paris, 1910, repr. Louvain, 1960 [ed.]. SCHMIDT, Syriac Palimpsests = A. SCHMIDT, Syriac Palimpsests in the British Library, in V. SOMERS (ed.), Palimpsestes et éditions de textes: les textes littéraires. Actes du colloque tenu à Louvain-la-Neuve, septembre 2003 (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 56), Louvain-la-Neuve, 2009, p. 161-186. SEVEN, Book of Rhetoric = E. SEVEN D-BETH QERMEZ (ed.), The Book of Rheto- ric by Antony Rhitor of Tagrit, Stockholm, 2000.

996680.indb6680.indb 315315 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 316 A. HILKENS

SPRENGLING – GRAHAM, Barhebraeus’ Scholia = M. SPRENGLING – W.C. GRAHAM, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament. Part I: Genesis – II Samuel (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 13), Chicago, 1931. STROHMAIER, Homer in Bagdad = G. STROHMAIER, Homer in Bagdad, in Byzan- tinoslavica, 41 (1980), p. 196-200. STROHMAIER, Byzantinisch-arabische Wissenschaftsbeziehungen = G. STROHMAIER, Byzantinisch-arabische Wissenschaftsbeziehungen in der Zeit des Ikonoklasmus, in H. KÖPSTEIN – F. WINKELMANN (ed.), Studien zum 8. und 9. Jahrhundert in Byzanz (Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten, 51), Berlin, 1983, p. 179-183. VAN DEN EYNDE, Commentaire = C. VAN DEN EYNDE, Commentaire d'Iso’dad de Merv sur l'ancien testament, I. Genèse (CSCO, 156; Script. Syr., 75), Leuven, 1955. VASILIEV, Kitab al-‘Unvan = Kitab al-‘Unvan, histoire universelle, écrite par Aga- pius (Mahboub) de Menbidj, éditée et traduite en français par A. VASILIEV, Première partie (I), (Patrologia Orientalis, 5), Paris, 1910, p. 558-691; Pre- mière partie (II), (Patrologia Orientalis, 11), Paris, 1915, p. 5-144; Seconde partie (I), (Patrologia Orientalis, 7), Paris, 1911, p. 459-591; Seconde partie (II), (Patrologia Orientalis, 8), Paris, 1912, p. 396-547. Virg., Aen., 2 = N. HORSFALL, Virgil, Aeneid 2: A Commentary (Mnemosyne supplements, 299), Leiden, 2008 [ed. and Engl. transl.]. VOSTÉ – VAN DEN EYNDE, Commentaire = J.-M. VOSTÉ – C. VAN DEN EYNDE, Commentaire d'Iso’dad de Merv sur l'ancien testament, I. Genèse (CSCO, 126; Script. Syr., 67), Leuven, 1950. WATT, Grammar = J.W. WATT, Grammar, Rhetoric, and the Enkyklios Paideia in Syriac, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 143 (1993), p. 45-71. WATT, Syriac Rhetorical Theory = J.W. WATT, Syriac Rhetorical Theory and the Syriac version of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, in W.W. FORTENBAUGH – D.C. MIRHADY (ed.), Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle (Rutgers University studies in classical humanities, 6), New Brunswick – London, 1994, p. 243-260 (repr. in J.W. WATT, Rhetoric and Philosophy from Greek into Syriac [Variorum Col- lected Studies Series, 960], Farnham – Burlington, 2010). WATT, The fifth book = J.W. WATT, The fifth book of the Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit (CSCO, 480-481; Script. Syr., 203-204), Leuven, 1986 [ed. and Engl. transl.]. WITAKOWSKI, Chronicle = W. WITAKOWSKI, The Chronicle of Eusebius: Its type and continuation in Syriac historiography, in Aram, 11-12 (1999-2000), p. 419-437. WITAKOWSKI, Malalas in Syriac = W. WITAKOWSKI, Malalas in Syriac, in E. JEFFREYS – B. CROKE – R. SCOTT (ed.), Studies on John Malalas (Byzantina Australiensia, 6), Sydney, 1990, p. 299-310. WRIGHT, Catalogue = W. WRIGHT, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, 3 vols., London, 1870-1872. WRIGHT, Short History = W. WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature, London, 1894.

Ghent University Andy HILKENS Department of History Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 35 B-9000 Gent, Belgium [email protected]

996680.indb6680.indb 316316 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38 SYRIAC ILIOUPERSIDES 317

Abstract — The best-known literary expression of the tale of the Trojan War is probably the Iliad. Yet, although Syriac authors also demonstrate knowledge of that myth, only Athanasius of Baladh (634-688) and Antony of Tagrit (9th century) appear to have had access to the Iliad, probably in Greek. Most Syriac references to the Trojan War are preserved in West-Syrian chronicles, dating from the 6th until the 13th century AD. All but one of these can be retraced to the Greek chronographic tradition, albeit via Syriac intermediaries. In most instances, these chronographic references to the Trojan War are rather brief and merely relate to chronological issues, but a few longer accounts of the war do exist. The two most important sources in this respect are the Chron- ography of Michael the Great (1126-1199) and the Anonymous Chronicle to the Year 1234. Michael’s Chronography preserves three accounts of the Trojan War, one directly borrowed from the Chronicle of Eusebius (d. 344); another copied from an intermediate source, written by a yet unidentified chronicler who not only had access to Eusebius’ Chronicle, but also to a tradition from Virgil’s Aeneid; and a third, a paraphrase of the fifth book of Malalas’ Chron- icle (d. after 570), which is also preserved in the Kitab al-‘Unwan of Agapius of Mabbug (ca. 941). The Anonymous Chronicle to the Year 1234 contains the longest Syriac account of the Trojan War, which appears to have been based on books from the Epic Cycle, though not the Iliad or the Odyssey. The influence of the Ilioupersis emerges from the author’s detailed knowledge of the circumstances of Troy’s capture, in particular, the only extant description of, and indeed reference to, the Trojan horse.

996680.indb6680.indb 317317 118/12/138/12/13 09:3809:38