Torben Retboll - Teacher and Traveller

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea (1805)

Arrian’s Voyage Round the Euxine Sea is a modern reprint of a book that was published in 1805, more than two hundred years ago. The key document is an English translation of an ancient text written in Greek in AD 131 or 132: Arrian’s report about the Black Sea, written while he was governor of the Roman province Cappadocia (also known as Pontus). His report is cast as a letter to Hadrian, who ruled 117-138, and the Latin title is “Periplus Ponti Euxini,” which we can translate as “The Circumnavigation of the Black Sea.”

In fact, Arrian did not circumnavigate the Black Sea, because he did not do the full circle. The first part of his letter is based on personal observations, his inspection tour, while the second and third parts are based on information he had received from other sources and other witnesses. For more details on this matter, see below.

Arrian’s letter was translated by William Falconer (1744-1824), an English physician, who also wrote a geographical essay about the report and three discourses about issues related to the Black Sea and ancient navigation. The book was edited by his son Thomas Falconer (1772-1839), who was an English clergyman, a doctor of medicine, and a classical scholar. Here is the table of contents:

** Arrian’s letter to Hadrian

** A geographical dissertation on Arrian

** Tables of distances
** Three discourses:

(I) On Commerce in the Black Sea

(II) On the distance which ancient ships sailed in 24 hours

(III) On the measure of the Greek stadium

** Appendix

** Additional tables

Who is Arrian? And what does he have to say about the Black Sea?

Lucius Flavius Arrianus Xenophon, known in English as Arrian, was born in Nicomedia (today Izmit), which is only 70 km from Byzantium, later Constantinople, and today Istanbul. We do not know when he was born or when he died, but we think he was born around AD 86 and died around AD 160. He was not only a historian and a philosopher, but also a public servant and a military commander. While his first language was Greek, he also knew how to read and write Latin.

He met Hadrian and became a friend of his around AD 111-114, while Trajan still ruled the empire. Perhaps this is the reason why Hadrian later decided to appoint him as consul (129 or 130) and as governor of a Roman province. Arrian served as governor of Cappadocia for seven years, 131-138. He left his post shortly before Hadrian died.

For more information about this person, his life and his works, see Arrian of Nicomedia by Philip A. Stadter (1980).

Arrian wrote his letter about the Black Sea in the beginning of his term as governor. We do not know if he was ordered to write it or if he did so on his own initiative. The official dispatches written in Latin have not been preserved, but Arrian refers to them two times in his letter to Hadrian (which is written in Greek and which we still have today):

** On page 5 he says: “My report concerning these subjects has been already written in the Latin language.”

** On page 8 he says: “We here went into the harbour; but for what causes and what business we transacted there, the Latin letters will explain.”

Apparently, the Latin dispatches were official and secret, while the Greek text was an open letter to Hadrian, which was circulated in antiquity. Perhaps this is why the Latin dispatches are lost, while the open letter has been preserved.

The structure of the document is a bit surprising. We would expect a description of the Black Sea to start at one point and then go full circle, clock-wise or counter-clockwise. But Arrian does not work this way. His letter is divided into three sections (the direction is always counter-clockwise):

** Part 1 **

Sailing from Trapezus (Trebizond) in the southeast to Sebastopolis (Dioscurias) in the northeast. This part is based on personal observations: his inspection tour. He speaks in the first person: “We sailed…” This part is the most detailed, the most accurate, and (in my opinion) the most lively (pp. 1-10).

** Part 2 **

Moving from Byzantium in the southwest to Trapezus in the southeast. This part is probably based on information from other sources. But it could be based on personal observations as well (see below). Whatever the case, he speaks in the third person: “There is…” This part is not as accurate as part one, but more precise than part three (pp. 10-14).

** Part 3 **

Moving from Sebastopolis (Dioscurias) in the northeast to Byzantium in the southwest. This part is definitely based on information from other sources. He speaks in the third person: “There is…” This part is not as detailed as the others and it is the least accurate of the three parts (pp. 14-20).

“whatever the governor of Pontus had seen, from Trebizond to Dioscurias [part 1]; whatever he had heard, from Dioscurias to the Danube [part 2]; and whatever he knew from the Danube to Trebizond [part 3].”

What does the letter say?

Part 1

The starting point is Trapezus, later Trebizond, and today Trabzon in Turkey. Arrian mentions two altars of stone and a statue of Hadrian facing the sea. He is not happy with the statue: it does not look like the emperor. Although this town is a part of the Roman Empire, he describes the inhabitants as barbarians, because they do not know how to write a proper inscription on an official monument.

Sailing east, the expedition passes Hyssus (near modern Sürmene) where some Roman soldiers are based. The fleet stops at a place which is called Athenae Ponticae, because it has a Greek temple. But it is nothing like Athens in Greece. The governor and his staff seek shelter from a storm in this harbour.

Continuing east, they reach Apsarus, or Asparus, today Gonio in Georgia. Five Roman cohorts are based here. The governor brings them their salary.

Now the expedition changes course: they turn left. Now they are heading north, and after a while they reach Phasis where there is a statue of the goddess Phasiana, which he compares to the goddess Rhea. Some 400 Roman soldiers are based here. The legend of Jason and the Argonauts is connected with this place.

The expedition changes course again. Now they are going northwest, and after a while they reach Sebastopolis, whose old name is Dioscurias. Today it is Sukhimi in Georgia. Some Roman soldiers are based here. The governor brings them their salary. This town marks the frontier of the Roman Empire in this part of the world. From this place they can see mount Caucasus, the highest point of which is called Strobilus. The legend of Prometheus is connected with this mountain.

Part 2

The starting point is Byzantium and the Thracian Bosporus, i.e. the northern end of the Bosporus strait. By the entrance to the Black Sea there is a temple for Jupiter Urius. This landmark is located on the Asian side of the strait.

Moving east, Arrian mentions several rivers that flow into the sea and several towns on the coast. After a while he gets to Sinope, which is the capital of Pontus. Continuing east he mentions a few more places and then he gets to Trapezus, which is the end of section 2.

Regarding the observations in part 2 of Arrian’s letter, Falconer writes: “Mr Dodwell thinks that they might be the result of his own examination in his journey from Byzantium when he went to take possession of his government of Cappadocia; and this conjecture is not improbable” (page 25).

I agree with this statement.

While in Sebastopolis (Dioscurias), Arrian learns about the death of Cotys who was king of the Cimmerian Bosporus on the Crimean peninsula. An ally of Rome, Cotys II ruled from 123/124 to 131/132. This piece of information helps us date the text.

Part 3

The starting point is Sebastopolis (Dioscurias). The course is still northwest. Arrian mentions several towns on the coast: Pityus, Nitica, Pagrae, Hierus and Sindica. Next up is Panticapaeum, the capital of the Cimmerian Bosporus, on the eastern tip of the Crimean peninsula. The modern name of this place is Kerch. As a result of the Crimean crisis in 2014 the sovereignty over the peninsula is disputed between Ukraine and Russia.

After this, Arrian mentions two rivers and two towns. The first river is Tanais (today Don) which flows into the Mariotis lake (today the Sea of Azov), a small body of water located above the northeast corner of the Black Sea. The first town is Theodosia (today Feodosiya) on the southern coast of Crimea, which he calls a deserted city. The second river is Borysthenes (today Dnieper), while the second town is Olbia (today Parutino), a Greek city located in the northwest corner of the Black Sea.

Dio of Prusa - also known as Dio Chrysostom (ca. 45-115) - visited Olbia (sometimes called Borysthenes after the river) around AD 97. In Oratio # 36 he talks about his experiences in this town. Dio was a famous orator, but neither Arrian nor Falconer connects him with this place. I do not know why.

For more information about the Greek orator from Prusa, see Dio Chrysostom edited by Simon Swain (2000, 2002).

Moving south along the western coast of the Black Sea, Arrian mentions Leuke, the white island, which is located near the mouth of the river Danube. He says it is known as the island of Achilles and offers a surprising amount of details about it. Having described the island, he mentions several towns:

** Istria

** Tomea or Tomis (today Constanta in Romania)

** Calantra or Callatis

** Odessus

** Mesembria

** Apollonia

** Daphne (today Umuryeri, on the Asian side of the Bosporus strait)

** Byzantium = the end of section 3

In connection with Tomis, William Falconer mentions the Roman poet Ovid, who spent the last eight years of his life here (page 86). Augustus signed the decree to banish him in December AD 8, and the poet arrived in Tomis in the spring of AD 9. While in Tomis, he wrote two works both of which have been preserved: Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto. Ovid was a famous poet, but Arrian does not mention him. Why not? Perhaps because the poet was banished to this place by Augustus. When Augustus died in AD 14, Ovid had a chance to return to Rome, but the next emperor Tiberius did not recall him, so the poet ended his days in Tomis in AD 17.

For more information on this issue, see Ovid in Exile by Adrian Radulescu (2002) and Ovid Revisited: The Poet in Exile by Jo-Marie Claassen (2008).

Falconer’s translation of Arrian’s letter is quite good, although there are some cases where you can see that it is more than two hundred years old.

In his dissertation, Falconer focuses on geographical elements, in particular the distance from A to B, from B to C, etc. When he wrote his book, mapping the world was still a difficult and not yet completed task. Today we can open an atlas or go to Google and view any part of the globe from a satellite. The development of new technology makes a great change.

I suspect most modern readers will not pay much attention to the numerous tables which show the distance from A to B, from B to C, etc.

Arrian’s letter to Hadrian is an important historical document. It is valuable for what it says about Roman policy in the Black Sea area (and what it does not say). Regarding geographical facts and distances, it is interesting to see where he is right and where he is wrong. Some passages reads like a list of proper names - rivers, towns, and peoples – and since there are (almost) no details about them, it can get monotonous and a bit boring. In other cases, however, in particular part 1, his inspection tour, the details provided and his personal observations make the text come alive.

With more than two hundred pages, Arrian’s Voyage Round the Euxine Sea is a relatively long book. If you ask me, the two first chapters are the strongest parts of the product, while the remaining sections – more than half of the whole book - are less captivating. Therefore I have to say: this book is interesting, but slightly outdated.

PS # 1: Before you start reading – and while you are reading – this book, you should arm yourself with a good map of the Black Sea. Preferably a detailed map which shows as many ancient names as possible. Without a good map of the area, you might get lost during your own circumnavigation of the Black Sea!

PS # 2: Here are some useful references (some of these works are available online or as modern reprints):

** James Rennell, A Treatise on the Comparative Geography of Western Asia was published in two volumes in 1831. Volume 2 contains a section about Arrian and his Periplus of the Euxine Sea (book IV, Chapters I-VIII), pp. 271-394.

** A French translation of Arrian with a commentary was published by Henry Chotard in 1860: Le Périple de la Mer Noire par Arrien.

** A new French translation with a commentary was published by Alain Silberman in 1995: Arrien: Le Périple du Pont-Euxin.

** A new English translation of Arrian with a commentary was published by Bristol Classical Press in 2003: Arrian: Periplus Ponti Euxini (edited by Aidan Liddle).

** Henry Francis Pelham’s article, “Arrian as legate of Cappadocia,” first published in 1896, is reprinted in Essays on Roman History collected and edited by F. Haverfield (1911), pp. 212-233.

Here are some additional references:

** Black Sea by Neal Ascherson (1995, 2007)

** The Black Sea: A History by Charles King (2004)

** Rome and the Black Sea Region edited by Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen (2007)

** Tim Rood, “Black Sea Variations: Arrian’s Periplus,” Cambridge Classical Journal, vol. 57, 2011, pp. 137-163.

* * *

Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea,

Translated by William Falconer,

Edited by Thomas Falconer,

J. Cooke, London 1805,

Kessinger Publishing 2010, 226 pages

* * *

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Arrian: Periplus Ponti Euxini (2003)

Arrian: Periplus Ponti Euxini was published in 2003 by Bristol Classical Press, an imprint of Duckworth & Co., which has since been taken over by Bloomsbury Publishing. The key document in this slim volume is an English translation of an ancient text written in Greek in AD 131 or 132: Arrian’s report about the Black Sea, written while he was governor of the Roman province Cappadocia (also known as Pontus). His report is cast as a letter to Hadrian, who ruled 117-138, and the Latin title is “Periplus Ponti Euxini,” which we can translate as “The Circumnavigation of the Black Sea.

Arrian’s letter is edited with an introduction, a translation and a commentary by Aidan Liddle, who read Classics at Oxford and who now works as a civil servant. Here is the table of contents (some headings have been slightly modified):

** Introduction:

** 1. Arrian’s career

** 2. Arrian’s literary achievement

** 3. The Periplus Ponti Euxini:

** (A) Structure and authenticity
** (B) Transmission

** 4. Conclusion

** Bibliography

** A Note on the Text

** ARRIAN: PERIPLUS PONTI EUXINI

** Parallel Text: Greek and English

** Commentary
** Maps

Who is Arrian? And what does he have to say about the Black Sea?

For more information about this person, his life and his works, see Arrian of Nicomedia by Philip A. Stadter (1980). Obviously, this essential title is listed in Liddle’s bibliography.

Arrian’s letter was written in the beginning of his term as governor. Since 1846 most modern editors have divided the text into 25 chapters. The official dispatches written in Latin have not been preserved, but Arrian refers to them two times in his letter (which is written in Greek and which we still have today):

** In chapter 6 he says: “My opinion about this latter point I have written to you in the Latin report.”

** In chapter 10 he says: “The reason for this, and what we did there, my letter in Latin will explain to you.”

Apparently, the Latin dispatches were official and secret, while the Greek text was an open letter to Hadrian, which was circulated in antiquity. Perhaps this is why the Latin dispatches are lost, while the open letter has been preserved.

** Part 1 **

** Part 2 **

Moving from Byzantium in the southwest to Trapezus in the southeast. This part is based on information from other sources. But it could also be based on his personal observations: when he had to take possession of his province, he probably sailed along this route. Whatever the case, he speaks in the third person: “There is…” This part is not as accurate as part one, but more precise than part three (chapters 12-16; chapter 17 is used as a “bridge” to the last part).

** Part 3 **

Moving from Sebastopolis in the northeast to Byzantium in the southwest. This part is definitely based on information from other sources. He speaks in the third person: “There is…” This part is not as detailed as the others, and it is the least accurate of the three parts (chapters 18-25).

Edward Gibbon refers to this document in volume 7 of his monumental study The History of the Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire. He notes the three-part structure of the text when he says it contains:

“whatever the governor of Pontus had seen, from Trebizond to Dioscurias [part 1]; whatever he had heard, from Dioscurias to the Danube [part 2]; and whatever he knew from the Danube to Trebizond [part 3].”

I should point out that this quotation from Edward Gibbon is not found in Liddle’s book.

It is obvious to compare this volume published in 2003 with Falconer’s translation and commentary published in 1805, almost two hundred years before: Arrian’s Voyage Round the Euxine Sea. The conclusion is clear: the new book is much better than the old. Here are three reasons why:

# 1. The new translation is better than the old. Moreover, Liddle provides a facing-page translation, with the Greek original on the left-hand pages and the English translation on the right-hand pages. It is easy to compare one with the other.

# 2. Liddle provides an excellent introduction, which places the ancient author and his text in a historical context.

# 3. The new commentary is more comprehensive and more systematic than the old. Whenever possible, Liddle provides the modern name of every river and town mentioned by Arrian. In addition, Liddle provides references to other ancient sources and to modern scholarship, for each river and each town, whenever this is possible.

The conclusion is no surprise. Liddle has the advantage of almost 200 years of scholarship since Falconer’s volume was published. It would be more surprising – indeed shocking – if the old volume from 1805 was better than the new book published in 2003.

In his introduction and in his commentary, Liddle covers geographical and historical aspects. He also tries to explain what Arrian says and why he says it. Here are four cases, based on four keywords:

The first keyword is Hadrian. Arrian addresses the Roman emperor several times. In chapter 1 he says:

“We looked down on the Euxine Sea from the very same spot as both Xenophon and you.”

In chapter 3 he says:

“That cohort of foot soldiers, as you know, also has 20 cavalry which is sufficient.”

In chapter 5 he says:

“… the ship’s timber, of which, as you know, there is a great abundance in the Euxine.”

In chapter 12 he says:

“These things that I tell you [here], you already know.”

Liddle explains that Arrian writes in this way in order to give his letter a personal touch and at the same time to remind Hadrian about his own visits to this part of the world in 123/124 and 129.

The second keyword is Xenophon. The Greek historian, who lived ca. 430-354 BC, is mentioned several times (for one example, see the passage just quoted from chapter 1). In the English text, he is sometimes referred to as “Xenophon the Elder” in order to distinguish him from Arrian, who has the same name. Liddle explains that Arrian writes in this way in order to show his connection with classical Greece.

The third keyword is barbarians. This word is used several times. In chapter 1, about a monument in Trapezus, Arrian says:

“The altars are already set up, though in rather rough stone, and as such the inscribed letters are not particularly clear; the Greek inscription is also inaccurately carved, as it was written by barbarians.”

In chapter 9, about the fort in Phasis, he says:

“And its foundations are firm, and war engines are installed – and in short, it is fully equipped to prevent any of the barbarians from even approaching it, let alone to protect the garrison there against the danger of a siege.”

In chapter 11 a warlike tribe is described as pirates, i.e. they are even worse than barbarians:

“They were also formerly liable for tribute to the Romans, although, being pirates, they are not anxious to pay their tribute. But nowadays, God willing, they will be, or we will exterminate them.”

Liddle explains that Arrian writes in this way in order to present himself as a loyal and efficient governor of his province (although his threat to exterminate the warlike tribe might have been beyond his powers).

The fourth keyword is ancient mythology. Ancient myths are mentioned several times. In chapter 9 Arrian mentions the legend of Jason and the Argonauts. In chapters 11 and 19 he mentions the legend of Prometheus. In chapters 21-23 he mentions the legend of the Greek hero Achilles and his friend Patroclus. Liddle explains why:

“Arrian here touchingly and subtly compares the intense grief of Hadrian following the death of his favourite Antinous in Egypt in 130 – only a year or two before – to that of Achilles for Patroclus.”

The bibliography contains books and articles in several languages, including the following:

** A French translation of the Periplus edited by Henry Chotard. According to Liddle, it was published in 1960. He is off by 100 years. It was published in 1860. Perhaps an unfortunate misprint?

** A new French translation of the Periplus edited by Alain Silberman and published in 1995.

** An Italian translation of the Periplus edited by Gerardo Marenghi and published in 1958

For some reason, Falconer’s English translation published in 1805 is not listed in the bibliography, but it is mentioned in the introduction, on page 33. According to Liddle, the text is translated by Thomas Falconer. The first name is wrong. The text is translated by William Falconer (1744-1824), while the book is edited by his son Thomas Falconer (1772-1839). Perhaps an oversight?

H. F. Pelham’s article about Arrian as governor of Cappadocia (published in 1896) is listed here, but Liddle fails to tell us that this article was reprinted in Essays on Roman History collected and edited by F. Haverfield (1911), pp. 212-233. Perhaps another oversight?

There are two maps at the end of the book: map # 1 (pp. 136-137) shows the western half of the Black Sea, while map # 2 (pp. 138-139) shows the eastern half. Both are useful, because (almost) all rivers and towns mentioned in Arrian’s letter are shown on these maps. I notice one exception: the River Tanais (today Don), which is mentioned in chapter 19, is not shown on the map.

It would have been even more helpful if the publisher had decided to print them as fold-out maps. In that case it would have been possible to view the maps and the text at the same time. As it is, you have to flip back and forth between the text and the maps. An easy solution to this problem is to make a photocopy of these four pages and place them next to the book.

There is no index.

Owen Hodkinson – from the University of Leeds – reviewed this book in Scholia Reviews (vol. 14, 2005). The review is available online (Academia.edu).

It is a positive review, except for a few minor points. I agree with Hodkinson. I like this book. All three parts – introduction, translation, and commentary – are well crafted, but I have to mention a few points which bother me. I do not want to say that Liddle has done anything wrong, but there are a few cases where his commentary is too brief; where relevant facts have been omitted.

CASE # 1

In chapter 14 Arrian mentions a town called Abonouteichos. He does not say much about it, but he does issue a warning for sailors:

“The mooring is not secure for ships; though they can ride at anchor without harm, unless a large storm blows up.”

Fortunately, Liddle has more information:

“Now Inebolu (from its later name of Ionopolis), this town was originally a Sinopean foundation, probably as a trading post.”

He adds a reference to an ancient source and a modern book. So far so good, but something is missing.

Abonouteichos is the birthplace of Alexander (ca. 105-ca. 170), who is often described as a false prophet. His oracle flourished during the reign of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Lucian of Samosata (ca. 125-ca. 185) wrote an essay about him, which has been preserved. But neither Alexander nor Lucian is mentioned by Liddle.

It is relevant to mention Lucian, because he refers to Arrian, and his reference is found precisely in his essay about Alexander. Here is the context: Lucian explains that a friend has asked him to write an essay about Alexander, and he has done so. Now Lucian explains that both of them may be reproached: the friend for asking Lucian to write the essay, and Lucian for writing the essay, because a rascal does not deserve the attention of honest men. But Lucian has a good defence:

“If anyone reproaches us for this, we shall be able to quote a precedent, namely Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, a Roman of the highest distinction, and a life-long devotee of letters… You see, he decided to write the life of Tilloborus the brigand.”

If Arrian could write a life of a brigand, then Lucian is allowed to write an essay about a false prophet. Unfortunately, Arrian’s life of the brigand has not been preserved.

As for the name of the brigand, some scholars think Tillorobus is more correct. For more information on this issue, see Bandits in the Roman Empire by Thomas Grünewald (2004, 2008), page 6 with note 17 on pp. 168-169, as well as Arrian of Nicomedia by Philip Stadter, page 162 with note 81 on page 239.

CASE # 2

In chapter 20 Arrian mentions the river Borysthenes and the Greek city called Olbia. He does not provide any details about them. Fortunately, Liddle has more information: the river Borysthenes is now the Dnieper, while Olbia is now the town of Parutino. He adds a few references to ancient sources and to modern scholarship. So far so good, but something is missing.

Dio of Prusa - also known as Dio Chrysostom (ca. 45-115) - visited Olbia (sometimes called Borysthenes after the river) around AD 97. In Oratio # 36, he talks about his experiences in this town. Dio was a famous orator, but Liddle does not connect him with this place. This omission is all the more surprising because Dio is mentioned two times in the introduction (pp. 15 and 17). Liddle is aware of him, but fails to connect him with this specific location on the Black Sea coast.

For more information about the Greek orator from Prusa, see Dio Chrysostom edited by Simon Swain (2000, 2002).

CASE # 3

In chapter 24 Arrian mentions Tomis. But he does not provide any details about it. Fortunately, Liddle has more information:

“Tomis, now the important Romanian port of Constanta, is perhaps the most famous of the Greek colonies of the west coast of the Black Sea, due to its most reluctant resident, Ovid.”

It is good that he mentions the poet, but something is missing: Liddle does not discuss why Arrian fails to mention Ovid. Perhaps because the poet was sent into exile here by a previous emperor, Augustus?

For more information about this issue, see Ovid in Exile by Adrian Radulescu. Since this book was published in 2002, it could have been included by Liddle, whose preface is dated June 2003.

The flaws I have mentioned in this review are real and important, but I think they must be considered minor.

Arrian’s Periplus is “a strange and disparate work,” as Liddle says in his introduction, because it is “part military and diplomatic report, part fantastic mythological guidebook, [and] part friendly correspondence” (page 2).

Towards the end of his introduction, Liddle raises an important question: “In the final analysis, then, why should Arrian’s Periplus warrant attention at all, let alone a new edition and translation?” His answer is quite long, because it comes in four stages. It is too long to quote here, but I can quote the fourth and final stage:

“Above all, written by a man who was perhaps the most representative of the culture of his age, it affords us an epitome of that culture in a tightly packed nutshell. It is a nutshell well worth opening.”

I agree with him.

Arrian: Periplus Ponti Euxini is an excellent book about an interesting document. Liddle’s introduction, translation and commentary are all examples of good scholarship. Therefore this slim volume is highly recommended.

PS. Here are some useful references:

** Black Sea by Neal Ascherson (1995, 2007)

** The Black Sea: A History by Charles King (2004)

** Rome and the Black Sea Region edited by Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen (2007)

** Tim Rood, “Black Sea Variations: Arrian’s Periplus,” Cambridge Classical Journal, vol. 57, 2011, pp. 137-163.

* * *

Arrian: Periplus Ponti Euxini,

Edited with Introduction, Translation & Commentary by Aidan Liddle,

Bristol Classical Press, 2003, 139 pages

* * *

Thursday, September 4, 2014

The Navies of Ancient Rome

Michael Pitassi is the author of three books about Roman history, whose titles are almost identical:

** The Navies of Rome

Boydell Press, hardcover 2009, paperback 2010

** Roman Warships

Boydell Press, hardcover 2011

** The Roman Navy: Ships, Men & Warfare 350 BC-AD 475

Seaforth Publishing, hardcover, 2012

This review is about the first book that was published in 2009 and 2010. On the back cover of the paperback version the author is presented in this way: “Michael Pitassi is an independent scholar.” Not exactly a long and detailed biography. On the Amazon website there is a bit more information:

“Michael Pitassi is a retired lawyer with a lifelong interest in naval warfare and Roman history.”

Chronology dominates this book from the first to the last page. In the beginning of the book there is a chronological table of major events from the foundation of Rome in 753 BC to the end of the Roman Empire in the west in AD 476. At the end of the book there is a chronological table of Roman kings and emperors which covers the same period.

The main text between the two tables is divided into nine chapters which follow a chronological line from 753 BC to AD 476. In each chapter the text is broken up into several shorter sections by subheadings, which is very reader-friendly. Notes with references and additional comments are placed at the end of each chapter, which is not so reader-friendly, because you have to flip back and forth between the text and the notes to read both.

At the end of the book we also have several appendices about practical and technical matters plus a bibliography and an index. What about illustrations? There are two types of illustrations in this book:

** Type # one = 40 illustrations in black-and-white are scattered throughout the book: maps and line drawings. Apparently, they are all produced by the author himself. This is quite impressive.

** Type # two = 14 colour plates placed in one block in the middle of the book between pp. 196 and 197. All plates (except # 14) are pictures taken by the author himself. This is also quite impressive.

The hardcover version was well received by Choice. On the back cover of the paperback version there is an excerpt from a review in this publication:

“Both welcome and useful… This is a narrative history as well as a focused study of the development of the ships, officers, and crews and the overall naval establishment. Recommended.”

Michael B. Charles – from Southern Cross University in Australia – reviewed the book for the online magazine Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2009.12.22). In this review he says:

“It must be pointed out that this is not a particularly academic book… Despite this, the underlying scholarship is quite sound overall, though largely derived from other studies, and mainly Anglophone at that.”

For one exception, a book in French, see below (part 2).

Later, Michael Charles says

“the book … reads as a straight historical narrative, with very little room for analysis and reflection – which is a bit of a pity, since there are glimpses of interesting independent analysis scattered here and there.”

As you can see from these quotes, there are positive as well as negative elements in his review. I agree with his evaluation (to a certain degree). Regarding the positive elements I would like to mention two:

# 1: The author emphasises that the crews (the rowers) on Roman warships were free men and not slaves (chapter 1, page 24 with note 32; see also chapter 6, page 187 with note 4; the cross reference “Chapter 1 note 28” is inaccurate). The famous scene in the Ben Hur movie, where the rowers are slaves who are chained to their benches, is based on a gross misunderstanding of Roman history; perhaps inspired by the conflict between blacks and whites in the US during the 19th and 20th century.

# 2: The author explains how long it took to build a Roman warship: two-three months (pp. 48-50). A shipyard could build five ships in one year. With five shipyards, you could build 25 ships in one year. But during this time you would probably lose five ships: two were too old, two were lost in a storm, and one was lost in a battle with an enemy or captured by pirates. So the net increase in one year was 20. To build a fleet of 100 ships would take five years.

Regarding the negative elements, I think there is more to be said than Michael Charles indicates in his review, because flaws are found in every part of this book. They can be divided into six categories. In what follows I will discuss them one by one.

PART ONE: THE INDEX

The index covers 12 pages. At first glance it appears to be comprehensive and helpful. But a closer inspection reveals that it is not as helpful as it could and should be, because there are no annotations, only a list of pages.

As an example, take the entry for “Misenum.” The index refers to 26 different pages, but this does not give me what I am looking for. I want to know: Where can I find a map of this place? Where can I find background information about this place? In this case the index does not help me at all. The reader faces the same problem with other locations, such as “Ostia” (listed 28 times), “Alexandria” (listed 22 times), and “Ravenna” (listed 19 times).

Mithridates VI, king of Pontus, is listed nine times. The first eight references are in order, but the last reference to page 232 is not to this person: on this page we have another person with the same name, because he is active around AD 45, while Mithridates VI died in 63 BC.

The author is not always sure how to spell ancient names. Thus, we have “Bithynia” (which is right) with reference to pp. 139, 151, and 185; but we also have “Bythinia” (which is wrong) with reference to pp. 153 and 154.

Lucius Scribonius Libo (consul 34 BC) is mentioned several times. On page 170 his cognomen is Libio; on the next page it is first Libio and later Libo; on page 172 it is Libo. In the index we have the false spelling: Libio.

Some persons are not listed at all: Claudian, whose name appears on page 304, is not listed in the index. For a bit more about Claudian, see below (part 6).

PART TWO: THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography covers five pages. All items listed here are books published in English, with only one exception: a book written by two Romanian historians and published in French in 1996: Les Forces Navales du Bas Danube et de la Mer Noire aux 1er-6eme Siècles by Octavian Bounegru & Mihail Zahariade.

One of the items listed is Piracy in the Ancient World by Henry A. Ormerod. According to Pitassi, it was published in 1997. This is correct, but it is a reprint. The original version of this book was published in 1924, and this fact is not indicated.

Some of the items listed do not belong here, because they cover Roman history in a general way. On the other hand, several items which are highly relevant for a book about the Roman navy are not listed, for instance:

** The Mediterranean in the Ancient World by John Holland Rose, 1933, 1934, reprinted 2014

** The Mediterranean in the Ancient World by Fernand Braudel, English translation 2002, 2007

** Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces by A. J. Parker, 1992

** Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World by Philip de Souza, 1999, 2002

** Roman Britain and the Roman Navy by David D. P. Mason, 2009. This book was published in the same year as The Navies of Rome. Pitassi could not have included it. I will mention it anyway, because it is relevant for the topic.

** Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, 2008, 2010, in particular chapters 24 and 25 (with extensive bibliographies at the end of each chapter). The hardcover version of this book was published in 2008. Perhaps too late for Pitassi to include it. I will mention it anyway, because it is relevant to the topic.

PART THREE: THE END NOTES

The end notes (1 or 2 pages per chapter) often provide an additional comment when you are hoping to find a reference. When a reference is given, it is often incomplete. References to modern works include only the last name of the author and the title of the book. There is no reference to a specific page or even a specific chapter in the book. References to ancient sources are sometimes complete, but not always. Here are some awful examples:

** Livy, VII – page 40 note 23

** Livy, XXVIII – page 80 note 14

** Livy, XXVII – page 149 note 10

** Caesar, Civil War, III – page 182 note 31

In some cases, the reference must be a total mistake, because it is completely off the mark. On page 236 we are told that Nero had his mother Agrippina killed. This is followed by note 28 which is a reference to The Piercebridge Formula by Raymond Selkirk (1983). This does not make any sense, since Agrippina is not mentioned in this book.

On the next page (237) Pitassi says: “The new fleet was some forty ships in strength.” This is followed by note 31 which reads: “Selkirk, The Piecebridge [sic] Formula, quoting Horace on his journey along it.” Horace is mentioned three times by Selkirk. Each time with a reference to Horace’s famous poem about his journey from Rome to Brundisium (present-day Brindisi) (Satires, I.5). But this does not make any sense here. As far as I can see, Pitassi does not mention Horace anywhere else in his book.

I wonder why the publisher allowed these incomplete references to stand.

PART FOUR: THE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

The chronological table of major events at the beginning of the book covers 13 pages. Unfortunately, there are several mistakes here:

“151 BC – Start of Third Punic War.”

In fact, this war began in 149 BC, as stated in the main text.

“71 BC – Slave revolt in Italy.”

He should say: Slave revolt in Italy ends. He should add a new entry for 73 BC and say: Slave revolt in Italy begins.

Several entries from 44 BC to 27 BC – the name “Octavius” should be changed to “Octavian.” The same mistake appears in the main text.

“AD 132 – Jewish revolt.”

He should say: Jewish revolt begins. He should add a new entry for AD 136 and say: Jewish revolt ends. The same mistake appears in the main text.

“AD 285 – Diocletian emperor.”

In fact, this emperor ruled from AD 284. The same mistake appears in the main text.

“AD 311 – Galerius dies. Constantine defeats Maxentius.”

Galerius died in AD 311, but Constantine defeated Maxentius in AD 312, as stated in the main text.

“AD 406 - Honorius moves [the capital] to Ravenna.”

In fact, the emperor moved to Ravenna in AD 402.

PART FIVE: THE COLOUR PLATES

The 14 colour plates are placed in a block in the middle of the book, between pp. 196 and 197. The plates are excellent, but there are no cross references from a plate to a specific page in the main text or the other way: from the main text to a specific colour plate. In other words there is no connection between the main text and these illustrations. Since they are not used to support the main text, they end up as beautiful decorations.

Plate # I shows a statue base of Valerius Valens, who was Prefect of the Misenum Fleet around AD 240. The upper register has ten lines in Latin, while the lower register has four lines in Greek. Pitassi translates the Latin text as follows:

“To the great god, and to make good. Valerius Valens, most perfect gentleman; Praefect of the Misenum Fleet, erected in his lifetime, cordially fulfilled his vow.”

This translation is partially right and partially wrong. Before giving a better translation, I will provide the Latin text, line by line, as it is carved on the statue base:

01 DEO

02 MAGNO

03 ET FATO

04 BONO

05 VALerius VALENS

06 Vir Perfectissimus PRAEFEC-

07 TUS CLASSIS

08 MISENsis Piae Vindicis

09 GORDIANAE

10 VOTUM SOLVIT

In English:

“To the Great God and to the Good Fate. Valerius Valens, most perfect gentleman, Prefect of the Misenum fleet [which has the honour title] Pia Vindex Gordiana, has fulfilled his promise.”

The official reference is CIL volume 10, # 03336.

The word “Gordianae” in line 9 is a reference to Emperor Gordian III (who ruled AD 238-244). Pitassi translates this word as “cordially,” but this does not work. Pitassi seems to think the letters P and V in line 8 stand for POSUIT VIVUS, and translates “erected in his lifetime,” but this does not work either. Incidentally, the honour title “Pia Vindex” is mentioned on page 269, but Pitassi did not make the connection between the title and the inscription.

Valerius Valens is never mentioned in the main text. Two times Pitassi comes close: on page 201 he mentions inscriptions on tombstones of Italian sailors; and on pp. 203-204 he presents the harbour of Misenum, but even though he is so close, there is still no cross reference to Plate I. A missed opportunity.

PART SIX: THE MAIN TEXT

As stated earlier, chronology dominates this book. This means there is “very little room set aside for analysis and reflection,” as Michael Charles explains in his review. Pitassi is aware of this problem. He tries to get around it by using several sidebars – printed on a grey background and always placed on a right-hand page – to present practical and technical issues that do not fit the chronological narrative, but it does not solve the problem.

In chapter one almost every right-hand page is a sidebar (or part of a sidebar that is longer than one page), because the author wants to explain so many practical and technical issues from the beginning. The high number of sidebars is annoying, because it breaks the flow of reading.

Here is what the author should have done in order to solve the problem. He should have divided the main text into three parts:

** Part 1 = a chronological approach

** Part 2 = a topical approach, e.g. different types of ships

** Part 3 = a geographical approach, i.e. different locations

There is more: despite the title, this book is not a naval history. It is a military history of the Roman Empire with focus on naval affairs. This account comprises three elements. The first: Roman history in general. The second: military history, i.e. battles on land. The third: naval history, i.e. battles at sea. These three elements are intertwined. You have to read the first and the second in order to get to the third. While this combination may appeal to the beginner, it will probably annoy the expert or the scholar who already has a basic knowledge of Roman history.

In addition to the structural problems, the text is marred by factual mistakes and unfortunate statements. Regarding this issue, Michael B. Charles says:

“It is to be expected that a book of such a breadth would contain an error or two. Most notable is the description of Claudian, the late Latin poet and writer of rather nauseating panegyrics, as a ‘historian’ (page 304.)”

Pitassi may be familiar with military and naval aspects of Roman history, but it seems he is not so familiar with the literary aspects of Roman history.

Charles adds two further examples. But that is all. If you ask me, there is much more to be said on this issue. Here are some examples (there could be more examples which I failed to notice):

** On page 66 Pitassi mentions a consul of 253 BC, calling him “Cnaius Sempronius Blaesus.” The first name of this man is Gaius, abbreviated with the letter C. The wrong version of the name is repeated in the index.

** On page 84 the author talks about a consul of 229 BC, calling him “Cnaius Fulvius Centumulus.” The first name of this man is Gnaeus, abbreviated with the letters Cn. As far as I know, there is no Roman praenomen spelled Cnaius. And the cognomen of this man is Centumalus. The wrong version of the name is repeated in the index.

** On page 112 (about 203 BC) Pitassi writes: “The main Carthaginian fleet however, had been laying somewhere to the west off Utica…” Since Utica is located on an eastern coast, the Carthaginian fleet must have been waiting somewhere to the east off Utica.

** On page 128 (about 190 BC) the author says: “At the same they frustrated every attempt by the Rhodians to envelope the Romans…” Something is wrong here. This sentence should read: At the same time they [i.e. the Rhodian allies] frustrated every attempt by the Syrians [i.e. the enemy] to envelope the Romans.

** On page 137 Pitassi writes: “The following year (148 BC) widespread trouble broke out in Greece once more. The Romans therefore overran the rest of Greece and sacked Corinth.” The reader must think that all of this happened in 148 BC. But this is not the case: Corinth was not sacked until 146 BC, as stated in the chronological table for chapter 4.

Roman imperialism can be interpreted in different ways. As you can see from the preceding quote, Pitassi seems to view the Romans as “reluctant imperialists.” He never makes an explicit statement (he does not discuss any theories). But there is indirect evidence, for instance a passage on page 123: “The Romans, having settled affairs, evacuated Greece by 194 BC.” And a passage on page 130: “Once more the Romans evacuated Asia Minor.” Finally, a passage on page 132: “The war was ended in 167 BC … Greece was otherwise left independent and Roman forces once again withdrew.”

The theory of the “reluctant imperialists” is rejected by most modern scholars, because it is not supported by the ancient evidence and because it is used to justify Roman expansionism. See War and Society in the Roman World edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley (1993, 1995), in particular chapters 6 and 7.

** On page 141 Pitassi writes: “In 130 BC Pergamum became the new province of Asia.” In fact, this happened three years earlier. When King Attalus III died in 133 BC, he donated his kingdom to Rome. The same mistake appears in the chronological table for chapter 4.

** On page 153 the author says: “One of the consuls for 79 BC, Lepidus, raised an army and marched on Rome; the Senate appointed Pompeius to lead the loyal forces, who defeated Lepidus’ rising.” Many things are wrong here. The consuls of 79 were Publius Servilius Vatia and Appius Claudius Pulcher. The Lepidus mentioned here - Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (129-77 BC) - was consul in 78 BC. His colleague was Quintus Lutatius Catulus, but the two consuls did not get along, so Lepidus was sent to Gaul. The following year, 77 BC, he returned with an army. He was defeated by his former colleague Catulus in a battle on Campus Martius. Forced into exile, he died later that year.

** On page 154 (about 73 BC) Pitassi writes: “The consuls for the year were sent east … Gaius Aurelius Cotta to Bythinia [sic] and [Lucius Licinius] Lucullus to Cilicia and Asia.” The first name of the person who was sent to Bithynia is Marcus, not Gaius. Moreover, Marcus and Lucullus were consuls in 74, not 73. Incidentally, there is a Gaius Aurelius Cotta. He is the elder brother of Marcus and he served as consul in 75 BC.

** On pp. 155-156 (about 71 BC) Pitassi writes about Pompey and Crassus: “The Senate had to appoint them both to be the consuls for the year…” The chronology is wrong: Pompeius (known in English as Pompey) and Crassus were appointed to serve as consuls for the next year, 70 BC.

** On page 156 (about 67 BC) the author talks about “the Senator Aulus Gabinius.” At the time, Gabinius was a tribune of the people (tribunus plebis). He was a magistrate, but not a member of the Senate, which represents the Roman elite.

** On pp. 156-158 (about 67 BC) we are told Pompey cleared the Mediterranean Sea of pirates in just three months. This is what Pompey wanted the world to believe. His propaganda seems to be working well, even today: Pitassi believes it. For a sober analysis of this case, see Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World by Philip de Souza (1999, 2002). As mentioned earlier, this book is not listed in Pitassi’s bibliography.

**On page 159 the author says Mithridates VI, king of Pontus, “committed suicide in 63 BC.” In fact, we do not know exactly how this person died.

On pp. 164-165 (about 54 BC) Pitassi writes: “… when the empty ships plus the some of the new replacement ships tried to return to Britain…” The article “the” between “plus” and “some” should be deleted.

** On page 183 (about 44 BC) we are told: “Gaius Octavius learned that he had been adopted as a son by Caesar and named as his principal heir.” From this moment until 27 BC the young man should be called Octavian, to mark his new status as an adopted son of Caesar. But Pitassi still uses the name Octavius. The same mistake appears in the chronological table for chapter 6.

There are, however, two exceptions: on pp. 185 and 198 his name is suddenly changed to Octavian (without any explanation). On page 198 we have arrived at 27 BC when the Senate offered him the title Augustus. From that moment the problem disappears.

** On page 184 (about 42 BC) the author mentions a fleet commander called Murcus. On the next page (185) his name is changed to Marcus. Who is this person? The answer: Lucius Staius Murcus, who worked with Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus for a while. Later, he joined Sextus Pompeius, who had him killed in 40 or 39 BC. In the index he is listed as Murcus. Neither first nor family name is given.

** On pp. 199-200 Pitassi describes the expedition of Aelius Gallus to the Red Sea and Arabia Felix from 26 to 25 BC. He says: “… the army took towns in its path and achieved its objective.” This description is highly misleading. Pitassi fails to tell us that this expedition was a total disaster.

** On page 260 we hear about the wars against Dacia which began in AD 101. The author says: “Three pontoon bridges were built across the river for the campaigns, although no attempt was made to build permanent bridges and the pontoons were dismantled after the war.”

This is not true. The Syrian architect Apollodorus of Damascus was commissioned by Trajan to design and build a permanent bridge across the Danube River at the Drobeta ravine where the river is at its narrowest. The bridge consisted of 20 stone piers which were connected by wooden arches and carried a wooden road. The total length of the bridge was 1,135 meters. It has been described as “the largest bridge ever built anywhere in the world to that time.” For more information about this project, see Roman Bridges by Colin O’Connor (1993).

In a later passage about Emperor Constantine, on page 297, Pitassi suddenly remembers the bridge when he says: “He rebuilt Trajan’s bridge across the Danubius and in AD 336 attacked the Sarmatians…”

** On page 262, Pitassi presents Lucius Flavius Arrianus (Arrian), governor of Cappadocia around AD 131, and his (partial) circumnavigation of the Black Sea (Pontus Euxinus). While I am happy to see this case mentioned, I am sad to discover that there is no reference to the ancient text. Note 22 on this page does not provide a reference but merely an additional comment. Here is a reference: an English translation published in 1805 was reprinted in 2010: Arrian’s Voyage Round the Euxine Sea. A new English translation was published by Bristol Classical Press in 2003: Arrian: Periplus Ponti Euxini (edited by Aidan Liddle).

** On page 263 the author mentions “a Jewish revolt in AD 132.” In fact, this episode, which is known as the Bar Kochba Revolt, lasted several years, from 132 to 136. The same mistake is found in the chronological table for chapter 8.

** On page 270 Pitassi talks about “the accession of Diocletian in AD 285.” In fact, this emperor ruled from 284. The same mistake appears in the chronological table for chapter 9.

** On page 303 (about AD 392) the author says an emperor was murdered and succeeded by “an usurper.” The article “an” is wrong. It should be: a usurper.

CONCLUSION

How many stars does this book about the navies of ancient Rome deserve? Perhaps it depends on who you are. A beginner will probably like this book and give it four stars. Since I already have some knowledge of Roman history, I expect more and I cannot be so generous. While the colour plates are beautiful, there are not many of them and they are not connected with the main text in any way. The unfortunate structure of the book is a big problem. The chronological approach leaves little or no room for analysis or interpretation. In addition, flaws are found in every part of this book, as I have demonstrated above.

How could this happen? How could the author go wrong in so many ways? How could the publisher fail to help the author improve a product in which he obviously has invested a lot of effort and time? On the back cover of the book we are told this work is “the result of over a decade of study.”

For me as a reader it is not important if the author has worked on the book for a month, a year or a decade. The only thing that counts is the result, and in this case I am afraid the negative elements are too many and too serious. For these reasons I cannot give this book more than two stars.

PS. The paperback version is much cheaper than the hardcover version. This is a welcome fact, but the book tends to fall apart while you read it, because the binding is not solid enough. You have been warned!

* * *

Michael Pitassi,

The Navies of Rome,

Boydell Press, hardcover 2009, paperback 2010, 348 pages

* * *