Skip to main content

Full text of "Notes on the Text of Asklepiodotos"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


The Te'xvi? TaKTLKt) of Asklepiodotos, the philosopher, is con- 
tained in only a small number of MSS, the oldest, best-known 
and most accessible of which I shall discuss below. The first 
five are given the symbols employed by Hermann Kochly. 1 

F = Florentinus, i. e. Laurentianus LV, 4, membr., s. X, 
no. 7, 132a-l4#V 

V=Vallicellanus 130, chart., s. XVIII. 3 

A = Parisinus 2522, chart., s. XV, 52*>-77t>. 4 

1 In the first, and so far the only, edition of Asklepiodotos, published 
in H. Kochly and W. Rtistow: Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, II, 1, 
Leipzig, 1855 (henceforth referred to as "K. and R."). 

'This is the famous MS of the Greek Tacticians, described best in 
Bandini: Catal. Oodd. Mss. Graec. Bibl. Laur., II, 218-38, and K. K. 
Muller: Festschrift fur L. Urlichs, Wiirzburg, 1880, pp. 105-8. Of 
this MS Kochly knew only the few words which were quoted by Bandini. 

' See B. Martini : Catal. di Manoscr. Greci esist. nelle Bibl. Ital. II, 
1902, Cat. Cod. Graec. qui in Bibl. Vallicellana Romae adservantur, p. 
202. This MS was copied by Leo Allatius (1586-1669), Professor of 
Greek in the Greek Collegium at Rome and later Librarian of the 
Vatican, direct from the Laurentian at Florence. A small portion of 
it was printed by Angelo Mai: Spicilegium Romanum, vol. IV, Rome, 
1840, pp. 578-81. K. and R. are in error when they assert (p. 128) 
that this MS was in the Vatican. Mai merely reports that he saw it 
in Rome. 

* This MS Kochly collated himself, as he remarks apropos of the 
Anon. Byzant. (K. and R., II, 2, p. 4) although he says nothing about 
the matter in the introductory note to Asklepiodotos. That he had done 
so in time to use his own collations for the edition of Asklepiodotos is 
not impossible, because it came out in the same year, 1855, as the 
Anonymus Byzantinus. But there is no certainty that he did, and in 
the notes of his edition of 1855, he manifests no more familiarity with 
the readings of ABC than he had shown in the apparatus criticus which 
he published along with the first three paragraphs of the first chapter 
of Asklepiodotos in the Index Lectionum, Zurich, 1852, for which he 
secured his knowledge of the MSS almost certainly from Huntziker 
(see note 6 below). That Kochly had this MS in time for the edition 
of Aeneas (1853) is most improbable for he does not speak of this MS 
[for Aeneas =■ B] as though he had then seen it, and he refers to it only 
very rarely in his notes. On the whole it seems nearly certain that for 



B = Parisinus 2435, chart., s. XVI, 75a-85*>. 5 

C = Parisinus 2528, chart., s. XVII. 6 

D = Parisinus 2447, chart., s. XVI, 1-16. 

E = Parisinus Suppl. Gree 83, chart., 1652, 74-91. 6 * 

F is the archetype of V, A, B and C as is generally recog- 
nized. 7 Although an old and excellent MS it does not give 
us an impeccable text. Errors of itacism are tolerably frequent, 
but need no enumeration. The tendency to write prepositional 
phrases as a single word is marked. Thus, Chapter heading y', 
Ka66\rjv; I, 2 aTrtvavTtas ; I, 3 Sie\e<pdvT<av, etc. Sheer blunders 
are not so very common. Thus, II, 8 iwl for en; ibid. 9 ££ 
apSpol for i^dpid/jLot ; III, 2 ttjv 8e for Se ttiv, etc. Evidence that 
P was copied with fidelity may be seen in numerous instances 
where the scribe is clearly reproducing merely what he thought 
he saw, without trying to make either words or sense out of it. 
The archetype was occasionally lacunose or illegible. It seems 
not to have been as bad, however, as that of Aeneas in these 
respects. Indications of lacunae in the original appear very 
rarely ; thus, according to Dr. Eostagno's collation, only in X, 8 

all three of these Paris MSS K. and R. had only the collations of 
Huntziker available when the text of Asklepiodotos was published. Cf. 
note 6 below. 

6 Collated for K. and R. probably by Huntziker; see notes 4 and 6. 

•Kochly: Index Leet., Zurich, 1852, p. 10, K. and R., p. 129, and 
II, 2, p. 3 for A, assign all three of the Paris MSS to the 16th century, 
which is absurd for one written, as C is, by CI. Salmasius (1588-1653). 
The dates given above are those of Omont in the Inventaire Sommaire. 
K. and R. derived their knowledge of C from a collation prepared by 
Jakob Huntziker. This is not definitely stated, so far as I can find, 
but is implied by KSchly: Index Lect., Zurich, 1852, pp. 4 and 10 
(cf. K. and R., p. 212). Also in K. and R. occasional statements about 
certain readings of C are given in quotation murks, as though on some- 
one's authority, and twice, X, 16 and XI, 7, Huntziker is named as that 
authority. In general it might be said of Huntziker's collations that 
they are not complete enough, and an editor would frequently like more 
information. It is certainly not safe to infer anything from silence 
about the reading of any of these MSS. 

" The MS was copied at Stockholm by P. D. Huet. 

' K. and R., p. 129, had conjectured that such was the case even with- 
out having seen P. I owe my knowledge of it to the admirable colla- 
tion kindly prepared for me by Prof. Dott. Enrico Rostagno of the 
Laurentian Library at Florence. All my statements about P are, there- 
fore, made upon his high authority. 


tov i/xtv (space for 3 letters) for rbv e/iwpoo-fov, and XII, 11 
cmSov (space for 4 letters) for em 86pv. Elsewhere the scribe 
of F seems not to have noticed that anything was missing. How 
these numerous omissions are to be explained in a text otherwise 
pretty carefully copied is a question to which I find no answer 
suggested by the present state of F. Possibly a remote ances- 
tor had been seriously damaged, and the next copyist simply 
left out what was hard to read. Fortunately the very technical 
subject-matter enables the editor to make many restorations 
with complete certainty, while other passages can be recovered 
by means of the numerous direct or indirect quotations in 
Aelian, Arrian, and the Military Lexicon (see below, p. 140). 

For V we are informed by Mai and Martini that it was copied 
from the Laurentian MS, 8 and this is obvious from a mere 
glance at its readings. We know it only from Mai's publication 
of chapters I-II, 9 (inclusive). K. and E. used Mai, but as my 
own collation shows a dozen additional variant readings, their 
work was none too carefully done. The number of variants 
from F is large, but not all are due to Allatius; such absurd- 
ities as ttjv airoXtiwofixvov (II, 9) ; irpdcrwiro? (II, 5) j toAv (II, 2) ; 
Se'xa (II, 7), impossible for a native Greek, are certainly typo- 
graphical errors. Inasmuch as F is still perfectly legible, ex- 
cept in some of the diagrams, which V seems to have omitted 
anyway, 9 the only value V can have must lie in the emenda- 
tions of Allatius, and it is these (disregarding entirely mere 
errors 10 ) which we shall examine. 

I, 2 oire 0<opa£i KeKoa-firjiievov F : Koafiovfuvov V. A needless 
and unjustifiable change. 

I, 3 Sia to o-vveKi(TK€irT£oQa.i Kal rbv lirirov F : (jvveTrujKeireoOai V . 
An obvious and easy change which strangely escaped Salmasius. 

8 This statement was probably made in the MS itself, for it is given 
by both Mai and Martini, although neither had any special knowledge 
of the Laurentian MS. 

8 Mai makes no mention of them, nor, indeed, of the introductory list 
of chapters. 

10 These were probably not so numerous as Mai's text would lead one 
to imagine, for Allatius seems ordinarily to have copied with commend- 
able accuracy, except when he emended. Thus, in the heading of chap- 
ter I, V following F has tpaK&yytap, ABC <!>&\ayyos; so I, 2 direpavrias V, 
air' evavrias ABC; II, 1 \viialvr)Tai V, Xvnaherai ABC; II, 3 rois re V, 
toJs Se ABC, etc. 


I, 3 01 Si] rots oxpois emKOiviovovvTes ol pJev to£ois, ol he okovtiok 
pdxovrai F : ol 8e roh outpow V. An absurd change which destroys 
the sense of the passage. 

I, 3 Kal Trj aWi) xp">f"£VOi cncevfj (I. aAAjj) F: avrij V, followed 
by K. and E. aWj is preferable because it means the equipment 
other than that of bows and javelins just mentioned. Now the 
heavy cavalry did not use javelins, but long heavy spears (see 
just above), hence to say that the branch of the intermediate 
cavalry which resembled the heavy cavalry used the same equip- 
ment is incorrect; it was only the rest of the equipment (i. e., 
apart from the javelins) which was identical with that of the 
heavy cavalry. The emendation has only a superficial plausi- 
bility, but on closer examination turns out to be false. 

II, 1 o-v/i/ieTpa Be em Beueva to riOeptva to fiepr) fiijoev rr/v 
<j>d\ayya irpos ttjv pM\rjv \vpaivr)Tai (I. Xvpaiverai) F: a. 8. «m 
Oepeva to ftiptj a ni]8ev kt\. V. The serious corruption here was 
in F's archetype. First to must have dropped out and then 
eo-TiOefiem was written by haplography. Next the correction, 
probably in the form to T$ep.eva a was entered, and both error 
and correction were copied in F, whose scribe probably com- 
pleted the confusion by supposing that a belonged before pApq 
and so changing it to to. The one perfectly obvious emenda- 
tion, the restoration of the relative a after pipr) V did, indeed, 
make, but even the simple expedient of excluding the mean- 
ingless Oeixeva seems to have been beyond his powers. The cor- 
rect emendation of a passage like this was, of course, easy for a 
scholar like Salmasius. 

II, 2 oww/ucTia F : o-woytoTia (the accent probably due to Mai 
or the printer) V. Perfectly obvious emendation, made in all 
the other MSS as well. 

II, 4 towards the end, the words >) otio-totoi . . . irapoorarat 
are omitted by V. If this was really done by Allatius, not by 
Mai, or the printer, it is probably due to a belief that these 
words were a gloss, a view which would have been dispelled by 
even a very little study of the context. 

II, 5 Io-ti F : elrj V. Unnecessary and no improvement. 

II, t SV o F : Kal V. The recommendation to select numbers 
evenly divisible by two down to unity is a direct consequence 
of the preceding clause, so that the emendation km is altogether 


II, 8 eaovrai 81) F : 8e V. Unnecessary and less effective. 

II, 9 «£ apiS/wl F : IvapSiioi V. F's reading requires only the 
simplest change to e|apifytot. V's emendation makes nonsense. 

II, 9 rjiuaxpopov . . . tov 8' orjoit F : fjfuA(popov . . . orm [ !] 
V. What shall we think of the critical ability of a scholar who 
was unable to emend so obvious an error, particularly when the 
definition of the term was so broadly hinted at in the very next 

words, el p.r] <f><avTJs KaraKOvetv cvSexoiTO 8ia 66pv/3ov? 

II, 9 OTrore 8' c p,r] 8 earjixe. ov F : 8e p,rj8e arjfielov V. The 
correction to arj/ielov is too simple to deserve any credit, and 
nonsense is created by the retention of 8c. An archetype prob- 
ably had omre 8e with the correction p,rj8i for 81 and then F, 
or its original, ran the two together. 

II, 9 royc p.r)v F : to ye pkv V. The correction is obvious, tov 
ye pjfiv. What Allatius could have meant by his changes I have 
no idea. 

With this paragraph Mai's excerpt from V ends, but no more 
is needed. The character of the thirteen characteristic readings 
given above, where all but the very simplest corrections are 
wrong, is sufficient to show that Allatius, whatever his other 
attainments as a scholar, did not concern himself sufficiently 
with his task in this instance to deserve anything of Asklepi- 
odotos. It would be a waste of time for any one to collate V in 
full for any more of his emendations. 

A has been copied with great fidelity, but probably not direct 
from F itself, although it reproduces minutely almost all of its 
errors (see below under B). It introduces only a small number 
of changes, which are always wrong, 11 except in the most ob- 
vious matters. 12 A second hand emends successfully in IV, 1 
8ia<rrrjKa<n of F to SiauTTrjixdrmv, and two marginal readings (VII, 
7 tows F changed to oo-ots, and X, 2 iwepao-os F changed to 
WcpKcpoo-aus) hit the correct word. Otherwise the MS is 

B varies a little more from F than does A and contains a 

11 For example, I, 3 rois re Xtttovs F: robs Se A (also in B and C) ; 
III title ^ Kar& ra fi4pv F: (cari juepTj A (unnecessary, if not merely a 
case of haplography) ; VII, 8 eKarepa F: eKaripa A, where eK&repa is 

"For example, II, 2 avvuneria F: avvaiioria A (and all the other 
MSS) ; II, 10 0te' F: #</3' A (obvious to any one who can multiply by 


comparatively large number of gross blunders. It was not 
copied from A, as is clear from the way in which it retains a 
few peculiar errors in F which are not in A. Thus I, 3 
F has TrepuTKtTrwv changed to -TrepujKe-TTOV, A has irepKTKeTrov and B 
irepuTKCTrtDv ; II, 2 F and B (1st hand) have 0-wu/tena, A axwa^arla.. 
On the other hand A and B are obviously very closely related, 
because both omit the last thirteen words of X, 10, while such 
senseless errors as II, 7 apriaKe^ A B for dpruucts P; VI, 1 ovk 
e<7Tiv for ovkcti; and XI, 2 irrjKTai A 6irr)KTai B for ewrjrai P 
point clearly to a common archetype which must have been a 
very faithful copy of F, reproducing even both readings in the 
case of a correction, as in I, 3 mentioned above. B's own changes 
in no case really emend the text and as a MS B accordingly is 
worthless. Its marginal readings are, however, interesting and 
will be taken up in connection with the next MS. 

C coming from the pen of Salmasius has, of course, a high 
value because of its emendations, even though, since the great 
man was merely copying a MS and not editing a text, he often 
did not take time to emend all the corruptions, many of which 
could not in any case have been cured without the aid of the 
parallel versions in Aelian and Arrian. Mere slips in C have 
not been recorded, but all the important emendations have, 
except in those fairly frequent cases where Salmasius' conjec- 
ture has been confirmed by the examination of P. C was copied 
from B (or a descendant of B), because it not only reproduces 
some of B's peculiar errors like XI, 6 Terpafupia for Terpa/tepia ; 
XII, 11 imv for (jUvtol; 13 but omits regularly what B alone omits, 
as II, 1 ek; IX, 1 t6; XI, 7 Se; or else, as in X, 21, where B 
omits the last five words, C attempts to supply the lacuna, get- 
ting correctly only the first two words, which were easy enough 
to supply. 

Salmasius had clearly no MS but B to work upon, for not 
infrequently his corrections differ a good deal from P. Fur- 
thermore he so frequently agrees with a reading in the margin 
of B that one is tempted to examine into that point somewhat 
more closely. There are fifteen of these marginal corrections, 
running from IV, 3 to X, 10, and, what stands almost unpar- 

13 Errors common to B and C, but not in A are, of course, not very 
numerous because B resembles A very closely anyway, and then Sal- 
masius emended with the greatest freedom. 


alleled in criticism, all but one are certainly right. 14 Besides, 
they could not have been made from F, because in thirteen of the 
instances, F itself was corrupt. Now Salmasius followed these 
very closely ; ten out of the fifteen he took over exactly ; in three 
other instances his reading is (by oversight probably) not re- 
corded by K. and E., but the chances are that he accepted the 
emendation; in one case, VII, 9, he followed the anonymous 
corrector in B in part but reversed the order of the supplied 
letters, writing of instead of fo ; 15 and only once, V, 2, did 
he fail to follow. The credit then for this group of conjectures 
belongs to the anonymous corrector of B and not to Salmasius, 
and an editor should accordingly reverse the order of citation 
from " C B (margin)," as in K. and R., to " B (margin) C." 
The brilliant record of success in emendation shows that these 
marginal readings are the work of no ordinary scholar. They 
were certainly not made by Salmasius himself, because one he 
overlooks and another he gets mixed up. Besides, they appear 
in only a little more than half of the work, while Salmasius 
copied the whole of it. One thinks at once of Casaubon, who 
spent ten years at Paris/ 6 and was greatly interested in Greek 
military writers as his editio princeps of Aeneas (1609)," a 
closely related author, shows. 18 The restriction of the correc- 

M I have not counted among these the correction in II, 2 awuixcTia. 
where o is written in the lower margin, because that seems to be of a 
different kind from the others, and is separated from them by a number 
of pages. 

" This seems to constitute a certain proof that the marginal readings 
of B were used by Salmasius. 

10 To be sure this particular MS was not yet in the Royal Library at 
the time when Casaubon was at Paris ( it belonged to the Hurault Col- 
lection which was incorporated in the Royal Library in 1622; see 
Omont, op. cit., I, p. xix) but a man like Casaubon must have seen 
numerous libraries and hundreds of MSS during the many years that 
he spent in Prance. 

"Thus Aeneas is contained in Par. 2522, 2435 [=B], and 2443; 
Asklepiodotos in Par. 2522, 2435 [=B], and 2528. Casaubon also in- 
tended at one time to publish Aelian's Tactica (preface to Polybius, p. 
61), some MSS of which were at Paris, and copied a portion of Leo's 
Tactica (Mark Pattison: Isaac Casaubon, p. 184). Casaubon's emenda- 
tions of Aeneas are numerous and almost uniformly correct. 

18 To be sure Casaubon used MS 2443 for his text of Aeneas, pub- 
lished in 1609 (see his preface compared with Omont's Catalogue), and 


tions to a portion of the MS is just what one might expect of 
the somewhat desultory habits of Casaubon, as he might have 
had only a short time in which to examine this MS, and jotted 
down his ready and sure corrections. 

In the case of D photographs of folios 1, 4, and 5 recto and 
verso (= 1, 1 — II, 1 and III, 3 — VII, 2) were collated as speci- 
mens. They are sufficient to determine the relationship and 
value of the MS so that no more photographs were made. D is 
descended from F, as is evident from the retention of many of 
its absurd readings, like I, 3 xpv^I"^ *P* V > e ^ c - I* was no ^» 
however, copied direct from F, since it omits in I, 4 the words 
SxTKipiv — !rapaTa£«os along with ABC. It derives therefore from 
a common archetype of these three MSS. By the same token, 
and because of disagreement in peculiar readings like koct[h.ov- 
/xevov in I, 2 ; avTJj I, 3 ; the omission of o>s iroWrjv I, 3 ; (cara- 
Aox^crat II, 1, etc., D is not a descendant of V. It was copied 
with even greater fidelity than were A and B and reproduces 
not infrequently the exact form of F, as, e. g., I, tit. <j>aXdyymv 
(4>dXayyo's ABC) ; I, 3 rous re (Se ABC), etc. It disagrees also 
so frequently with ABC and B (margin) that it cannot derive 
directly from any of them, but it is unnecessary to present the 
complete evidence. Its emendations are: 

I, 3 cucovrif maiv : (-<n F). Superfluous. 

I, 4 &ia<t>o P al 6 : 8. alSe K. and E. Something is indeed lack- 
ing here, and a careful reading of the chapter will show that, as 
a matter of fact, exactly nine kinds of troops are mentioned, 
three of infantry, four of cavalry, and one each of chariots and 
elephants. But a bare number coming after the list is in itself 
unnatural, and such an enumeration of varieties by number 
alone is out of keeping with the style of the author. The 
emendation cannot, therefore, be accepted. 

Ill, 5 a^oTepaOev : -o0£v F. Obvious. 

says nothing about any other MSS of that author, although there is 
nothing to preclude the possibility of his having known several MSS, 
even though he used only one. In fact Casaubon had in his own hands, 
but did not use, a much older MS of Aeneas than the one in the Royal 
Library which he published (Mark Pattison, op. cit., p. 185). Be- 
sides he remained at Paris for a year or more after his Polybius ap- 
peared, and might have come to know about this MS at that time. 


III, 6 (and VI, 3) Iktoktoi, the first time with C: eKraroi F. 

IV, 3 Kara with B (margin) : «a F. Obvious. 

IV, 4 ct^x £K py with B (margin) and C : th]x u * M P- Ob- 

V, tit. ZSeas: elMas F. Simple. 

V, 1 oKTawaAaio-Tos : oktow- F. A change is needed, but that 
to o) (K. and E.) is more plausible. 

V, 1 irifiirrov: m/iirTov F. Obvious, but the tov supplied by 
K. and E. is also needed. 

V, 1 TTTjxeuiv: ■7n}X £( °v ( s i e ) F, and Tn)x lmv ( s i c ) : mjx a *° >v ■^ ,- 
Simple changes to the Attic accent and the ordinary spelling. 

V, 2 dvw. Kal /jo] ras o-apur (sic), but in margin el Kal prj with 
B (margin) C K. and E., to* <ra/>iWas with K. and E. : raU 
o-apiWcus B (margin) C. Very simple. 

VI, 1 Xtyerai with Lex. Mil. § 28 K. and E. : Xtyovrcu F. 

VI, 3 woraatw with K. and E. Obvious. 

VII, 2 poppoti&rj: pofx,/3otiZtl F. Absurd. 

VII, 2 erarTov with K. and E. : iXarrav F. Simple even if 
not quite obvious. 

VII, 2 poiiftotiSovs . . . acjirjvoeiSovs . . . ip,f3o\oei8ovs (sic) 
for -« in each case. Absurd. 

Two of the changes quoted are clearly wrong, two unnat- 
ural, another merely superfluous. The remainder are either 
obvious or else simple for even an average intelligence. No 
account has been taken here, of course, of the numerous egre- 
gious errors which D leaves uncorrected. An even moderately 
serious difficulty like that of the " Babylonians " in V, 2 is quite 
beyond his powers. The three folios examined show no indica- 
tion of an ability in emendation which would justify a collation 
of the remainder. Here and there, no doubt, " MS authority " 
of a certain kind would be given to a correction by Salmasius 
or by Kochly, but the value of such attestation is extremely 
slight, and minima non curat praetor. 

E is carefully written by a competent scholar, P. D. Huet, 
who, however, was not more than twenty-two years of age at the 
time. Photographs of folios 75, 78 versc—79 verso (= I, l-II, 
1 and IV, 1-VII, 1) were collated as specimens. E does not 
derive from any MS of the family ABCD, because, aside from 


a large number of disagreements in individual readings, it con- 
tains the seven omitted words fimcrpiv — irapai-a^ews in I, 4. Its 
original was either F itself or else a very close copy of it, since 
in many places it reproduces F's reading much better than ABC. 
It is not a copy of V for it has none of the latter' s peculiar 
readings, while in I, 3 it contains the omitted words k<u woXkrjv. 
Clear mistakes like V, 2 tov irefMTov £vyo'v are relatively rare. 

Huet's emendations are: 

IV, 1 l£tvpi)Tai with C : l^vp-qrai F. Superfluous. 

IV, 2 r) kclI to fiaOos: Kara /3a6os F Kara to j3a$os B. Since 
this change makes no proper sense, it may be merely a slip. 

IV, 3 to StTnjx" with B (margin) C. Obvious. 

IV, 3 Kara vvvao-rrujiwv with B (margin) D. Obvious. 

IV, 3 £7r<iya>fi£v with B (margin). Obvious. 

V, 1 ovoe jU.€i'f<o irkardav: /net £o\aTta aav (sic) F. A bad 


V, 1 <S 8e Kai: <S &? Kai F. Certainly wrong, and perhaps 
only a slip. 

V, 1 ireixiTTov with D. Obvious. 

V, 2 In the " Babylonian " passage the only change is to 
write tw o-Toi'xy with B (margin). 

V, 2 thai with F against B (margin) C D (margin), k<u fir) 
raU oapio-o-ais with B (margin) C. The first part of this read- 
ing is certainly wrong, and the latter part an unnecessary 
change. As far as it goes, however, it tends to suggest that 
Huet might have been independent of the marginal emendations 
in B with which he agrees in every other instance in the folios 
which we have, thus, IV, 3 thrice; IV, 4; V, 2; VI, 1. 

VI, 1 XeytTai with Lex. Mil. § 28 D. Obvious. 
VI, 1 irapivTa£iv with B (margin) C. Obvious. 

VI, 2 ffplv. vfilv F (ov p.rjv C is correct). Huet saw that 
there was a difficulty, but the remedy used is trite and shows no 
understanding of the context. 

A majority of the foregoing changes are obvious, one is super- 
fluous, two are bad mistakes, and two other changes may be mere 
slips. It is clear from such a showing that no emendations 
beyond the critical insight of a Hermann Kochly are likely to 
be found in the remainder of this MS, and that a complete colla- 
tion, accordingly, would not repay the trouble which it would 


A new editor of Asklepiodotos, with a knowledge of F's 
reading, will doubtless be less inclined to introduce emenda- 
tions than K. and E. who were handling only late MSS. In 
any event so well have the anonymous corrector, Salmasius, and 
Kochly done their work, that comparatively little remains to be 
gleaned. A few passages, however, may perhaps be discussed 
here not without profit, in view of the age and excellent char- 
acter of F. 

I, 2 it is said that the light-armed troops use " javelins, slings, 
Kal oA<os toU i£ airoarrjiuiTOs Xcyouivois TO^evpaaw. TO^tvpa as a 
general term for " missile " is apparently not otherwise attested, 
but it seems better to retain it here than with K. and E. to 
delete it and insert 6VAois after oAws. In a similar way cf>aXay$ 
(I, title, and § 4; cf. Anon. Byzant., XV, 1) is used generically 
of any kind of military detachment. 19 

I, 3 Kal to piv iyyvOev 6poio><s fiapVTaTr) Ktxpryrai. o~ Kiv V> tovs Tt 
(Se ABC /tev K. and B.) ivirovs Kal tovs avSpas iravraxoQev 6<!>pa£t. 
TreptxrKiTrov, paKpois f plv (8e K. and E.) xpwptvov Kal airo Tois 
Sopaow, f o Kal SopaTo<popov tovto Kal £voTO<p6pov irpooayopeveTai 
kt\. F. Here pJv is certainly corrupt, and a little further on o 
and tovto surely cannot stand side by side. Everything runs 
smoothly, however, if we keep re with F, and read /leVroi and 
oY 6 (cf. II, 7; Si' 5, II, 9) below. 

I, 3 a\X.t) (actually aAA^) F as against airy Allatius and K. 
and E. has been discussed above. 

II, 2 o-vv<i>p.oTia (o-vvtopxria F corrected by A B [lower mar- 
gin] C V) is to be retained, although not elsewhere attested, 
partly because it is designated here as an obsolete expression, 
and partly because of its proper formation and of the large list 
of closely related words. 

II, 2 £>v6pao~To K. and E. is a needless change from wvopao-Tai ; 
and similarly in 4 &<z to TrapaXX^Xovi urrao-ftu need not be changed 
to -nap' aWqXoii (K. and E.) in an author as late as ours (de- 
spite dva Xoyov in III, 1; see below). 

II, 9 ayptiotpopov (ri/<t>opov F) is out of its proper order. 
Inasmuch as Asklepiodotus is extremely exact in such matters, 

" That seema more natural than to suppose that this is a survival of 
the loose Homeric usage. 


and the word as well as its explanation below in any event are 
corrupt, 20 it seems not improper to restore the correct order. 

Ill, 1 yewpfrpiot F : ytiaerpoi K. and B. As neither word is 
attested elsewhere, IPs reading may be preserved with some hesi- 
tation, though if one emended, yeoifjuerpiKoi would involve less 
change than yeap-trpai. 

Ill, 1 eav rioaapa avaXoyov (dvdXoya Salmasius, K. and B.) 
27 F. Here rd seems necessary, because a particular group of 
just four numbers is mentioned. Also dva \6yov which F's read- 
ing presupposes should be retained. 

III, 6 ev rols awaxTvuTp.ol's aweSpevew avaypa^ouv F. K. and B. 
suggest avvepeiSeiv from Polybius, XII, 21, 3 which would be 
excellent. The well attested use of avveSpevav in the sense " ac- 
company," "be closely connected," may, however, justify the 
retention of F's reading here. 

IV, 2 rj Kara ftdOos, re Kal otoIxov {I. aroi^tlv) F. For te, 
which is impossible, K. and E. suggest Sirep. Somewhat closer 
would be to Kai in the same sense, used as the common 6 Kai in 
papyri and inscriptions for alternative designations. 

IV, 2 omp 6voad£trai Kal ■napaoTarrfv ivurTarrjV F. Salmasius 
emended to Kara irapaoT-aTrpi Kal erruJTarqv. In view of the fact, 
however, that the other terms just given are verb forms, perhaps 
we should read Kai Trapao-Tareiv Kal ejuoTareiv. 

VII, 1 Toirous apdvow; TrpOKaraXafielv Kal tow irpoKaTEiA.jjp.pivous 
avaXafielv. K. and E. change the last word to dvaoroAai, taking 
the preceding participle as middle. But it must be passive, a 
use which is well attested, and to change is clearly wrong. 

VII, 2 Trpos re tcis diropias Kal rds imo-Tpo<pas tu>v Ittkiav F. 
For the impossible diropi'as K. and E. read avao-Tpo^, a word 
which appears in paragraph 3 below. But here it seems to mean 
" wheeling round " in general, while imo-Tpo<f>rj means " wheeling 
to face the enemy," and diroo-Tpo<j>i] (which is closer also to F's 
reading), meaning "wheeling away from the enemy," is clearly 
the word needed here. 

VII, 3 to yap pirunrov twv ZpfSoXtov jSpa^v ywopxvov F. For 

*TMs corruption of both term and explanation although, separated 
by several lines, suggests that both were in the margin of some ances- 
tor MS and so especially subject to injury. If that be the case there 
need be no hesitation about shifting the present order slightly. 


fipaxv K. and E. read a<p6Spa 6|u, which is in a measure sup- 
ported by the parallel passage in Arrian, XVIII, 4 to p.eT(oitov h 
6£v avokrjyov. But fipaxv is logical and strictly speaking more 
exact than 6£v, while Aelian, in the parallel passage, who is 
clearly following Asklepiodotos very much more closely than 
Arrian, reads to Se fiirairov Ppa\v n yevofievov. There is, there- 
fore, no occasion to emend. 

VII, 4 in speaking of cavalry formations a depth of rpi<!>v rj 
TCTTaputv Ittttotwv is mentioned. K. and E. emend to l-mrwv, but 
needlessly, since Asklepiodotos at the beginning of the para- 
graph speaks of depth of oktu> . . . avSpws, and in treating 
schematic cavalry formations one can as readily say " men " as 
" horses." 

X, 1. K. and E. bracket some seven terms in this paragraph, 
because there is no definition of them in what follows, suggest- 
ing that they may be interpolations from Aelian. This last is 
surely a counsel of desperation, for there is not the least sus- 
picion that such an unlikely thing has happened anywhere else. 
As for aroixdv and £vydv, these terms were denned in II, 6 and, 
though they are introduced here no doubt for the sake of com- 
pleteness, it is superfluous to redefine them. Similarly in the 
case of irapepPoXri and the four other terms bracketed by K. and 
E. at the end of the paragraph, it is much better in view of the 
large number of undoubted lacunae in Asklepiodotos, to assume 
a lacuna in § 21, rather than delete these important technical 
terms. Besides, the first four of these terms are defined in VI, 1 
and the fifth, Imrafe, is perfectly clear from the definition of 
imrayfia in VII, 10, so that it is possible that here also, as in the 
case of o-Toixuv and £vydv, Asklepiodotos may have intentionally 
omitted redefinitions. 

X, 9, XII, 1 and 6 K. and E needlessly change a-noKaBio-Tavm 
of F (used by Polybius and Diodoros) to <WoKa0i<rr<Wt. 

X, 11 d . . . iroioiptBa Tijv imo-Tpo<j>rjv, tottov i(f>e£ei, ktX. F. 
K. and E. read TroiovptBa, but the mixed condition is paralleled 
by X, 12, d . . . KtXeioivTo . . . Serjo-et, which K. and E. allow 
to stand, and further supported by XII, 4 d . . . povXoipxBa 
. . ., where K. and E. needlessly change to 

X, 13 to 81 ecrnv F. ToSe is clearly required, since only a 
single manoeuvre is described, not raSe as K. and E. print. " 


X, 16. For txTxvpa TroieiTcu of F, Salmasius (followed by K. 
and E.) conjectures lo-xvpoiroiciTat, a needless change. 

XI, 2 . . . ov povov £7ri T?js oAtjs <£oA<ryyos iiiSe)(€<TOai Sci (x/>>? 

K. and E. after Salmasius, needlessly) a\Xa yap koI hrl iw 
nepSv F. K. and E. delete yap. To be sure I find no other 
example of a\\a yap Kai, but the combination in the natural 
sense of " but indeed also " is appropriate here, while d\\a yap 
8ij is not uncommon, and Plato once uses dXXa yap opxas (Eep., 
432 C). 

XII, 6 hvo eirarrpoc^as iirl roavro (I. to cwto) 86 pv iroijjo"ai 
irapayytXovpxv F. K. and E. in order to keep S6pv supply 
Toin-eo-Tiv (an expression not found in Asklepiodotos) art. But 
the phrase is not in Aelian's excerpt (Tactica, XXXII, 6 8vo 

■xoapjopxv tov avvrdypaTo<s bti to avrb £mo-Tpo<f>ds) , and is utterly 

otiose, so that 86pv is much more likely to be an intruded gloss 

upon TO aVTO. 

XII, 10 irpoo-T)6uTT<u was changed by K. and E. to ttpoo-d- 
Ourrat. But Cod. S of Demosthenes gives forms of the perfect in 
r,6- (XXVI, 18; XXVII, 64; LXI, 14), and it is attested like- 
wise by an inscription from Syros of 166-9 A. d. rats ^wrjaeVats 
jjiae'pais (I. G. XII, 5, 662, 14), so that it seems best to retain 
the form, although unusual, here. 

Since technical military terminology, especially for the Hel- 
lenistic period, has been somewhat inadequately treated in the 
lexicons, and since Asklepiodotos is the earliest authority to use 
many of these terms, for Suidas merely plundered the compiler 
of the Military Lexicon 21 who drew largely from Aelian 22 and 

"Best edited in K. and R., vol. n, 2, pp. 217 ff. ; also in Bernhardy's 
ed. of Suidas, n, 2, pp. 1735 ff. This work was clearly put under con- 
siderable contribution by Stephanus in the first edition of the Thesau- 
rus, but he gave no page or paragraph references, and by using several 
different appellations for it, De re miUtari; De vocab. mil.; De vocab. 
castrensibus, he seems to have confused the later editors, who gener- 
ally leave such references untouched. When they have occasion to use 
the same work, they generally call it Lex. ap. Montef. Bibl. Coislin., 
after Montfaucon's reproduction of the Coislin. MS. It would appear 
that they did not notice that this was identical with the work referred 
to by Stephanus, and neither they nor Stephanus made very systematic 
use of it. 

"References to Aelian's and Arrian's Tactics (given generally "Ae- 
lian-Arrian") are taken from the ed. of K. and R., II, 1, 1855. 


Arrian (but also in part from Asklepiodotos), while these lat- 
ter were dependent in part upon Asklepiodotos, it may not be 
amiss to record here the principal additions to the standard lexi- 
cons which Asklepiodotos affords. In the following list I shall 
give not merely what appear to be new words (marked with 
an *) but also special meanings of words and a few phrases 
which are either not recorded, or for which the evidence quoted 
comes from a much later period. In a few instances inexact 
definitions are corrected. Eeferences to the other Tacticians 
and to ancient lexicons are given only where false definitions are 
corrected. The lexicons used are the revised Thesaurus Linguae 
Graecae (1831-65), Liddell and Scott (8th edition), Van Her- 
werden, Lexicon Suppletorium et Dialecticum, 2nd ed., 1910. 23 
When a term in the lexicons is adequately defined from Aelian, 
I have not thought it necessary to cite it here. When, however, 
only late authorities are adduced, it has seemed proper to point 
out the much earlier source. 

anpov, to, the wing of a line of battle (= ictpas), I, 3. 

*dvTiiropia, rj, a counter-attack, or frontal attack, X, 2. 

avTt<TTo/tos, -ov; iroptla dvTiWo^os, marching in two parallel col- 
umns, the lines of the front-rank-men on the inside, XI, 
3. L. and S., following the Thesaurus, regard this word 
which they know only from Arrian XXXVII, 7, as prob- 
ably a false reading for d^tWo/tos. But the two are 
totally different, as a comparison with Aelian, XXXIII, 
3 (a passage which had fallen out in Arrian !) and Askle- 
piodotos, 1. c, shows. 

diroKardcrraarK, ij, return to original position, after wheeling or 
other evolutions, X, 1 ; 9 ; 11. Cf . onKaTdorao-is. 

diToroixr), -f), aTrorofir) Ktparo<s, a half-wing, or corps, 4096 men in 
the typical phalanx, II, 10; III, 1 and 2. 

*apap6<;, to, (neu. perf. ptcp. of apavio-Kw used as subst.), joining- 
point, point of division between the two wings of an army 
(cf. Sixoro/ua and 6/*<£aAos), II, 6. The word occurs also 

33 W. Criinert's admirable revision of Passow in so far as it has 
reached our library extends only to the word ava. It seems not to 
contain, however, aKpov as a technical term for " wing," Kepas, although 
use is made in it for the first time systematically of our author, e. g. 
s. v. a/cpo|3o\i<rTi7S, dfuf>i<rro/xos, etc. 


in Arrian- Aelian, VII, 3 (corrupted into opapos in the 
Mil. Lex., § 23, and apayos in Suidas, s. v. Six ™/"' ) • 

*y«o/*«Tpios, 6, a geometrician, III, 1 (if the reading of F be 
followed; v. supra, p. 138). 

*8uV7t«><tis, rj, a break-through with cavalry, VII, 3. 

SicfxiXayyia, y, a double-corps, one-half of a phalanx, or 8192 men 
in the typical phalanx, II, 10. The term " double-pha- 
lanx" used by L. and S. is certainly misleading. To 
draw up an army in 8i<f>a\ayyla formation is to divide 
the phalanx in two, placing one half behind the other, 
as is clear from Polybius, II, 66, 9; XII, 20, 7. See 
also Aelian-Arrian, IX, 9 and the Mil. Lex., §§ 18 and 19. 

Sixoro/ua, t), joining-point, point of division between the two 
wings of an army (cf. apapo<s and d/upaXos) , II, 6. The 
same meaning is given also by Aelian, VII, 3 and the 
Mil. Lex. § 23, along with the ordinary sense of bixoropla, 
as a division into two equal parts, but Arrian, VII, 3 
expresses it iva 8i ttov f/ Biyoropla yiverai . . . 6p.(f>a\6s 
ovo/Mx^eTai ktX. 

eKTaxro's, -ov, ol Zktoktoi, supernumeraries, attached originally 
to the to£is, but later either to the (rvvray/m, II, 9, or 
the licaTovTapxla of light-armed troops, VI, 3, or else the 
phalanx of light-armed troops, VI, 3. The Thesaurus 
in an incomplete statement quotes only Aelian and the 
Mil. Lex. 

ifiwXiKO), ifnrXtKonevoi, incorporate, used of light-armed troops in- 
corporated with the hoplites, man beside man, VI, 1. 

ivavTios, -a, -ov ; an ivavrias, on the contrary or other hand, I, 2. 
Van Herwerden gives several examples from Procopios. 

evto/iOTi'a, 7), a quarter of a file (Aoxos), II, 2. For this same use 
of the word in Hellenistic tactics, see Aelian-Arrian, V, 
2, and the Mil. Lex. § 4, and compare K. and K., II, 2, 
pp. 243 f . 

i£dpt.6fw<s, -ov, outside the normal number, in addition to it, 
supernumerary, II, 9. The Thesaurus quotes only the 
Mil. Lex. 

l^eXio-am, countermarch, X, 1 ; XII, 11. The lexicons give only 
the meaning deploy, although L. and S. give counter- 
marching as one of the meanings of l£tXiyiw<s. The sense 


countermarch is amply attested by Aelian-Arrian, 
XXVII, 1-5, and the Mil. Lex., § 39. 

iiri6r}papxt.a, fj, a unit of four war-elephants, IX, 1. 

imKaOiaTtjpu, to advance to original position, X, 11. Cf. 

*«riKaTa<xTa<7is, fj, advance to original position, after wheeling, 
X, 1 and 9. Cf. aTroKaTaorao-is. 

iTTixoivaiveu), to be attached to, or stationed upon, I, 3. 

im£evayo<s, 6, commander of an «ri£erayi'a, i. e. 2048 i^iAoi, VI, 3. 
The Thesaurus refers only to the Mil. Lex. 

emray/wt, to, supporting force, especially the phalanx of tpiXol, 
8192 men, VI, 3 ; VII, 10. 

imra$i's, fj, supporting position, X, 1 (cf. VII, 10). 

im<t>dvtta, fj, facing, to the right or to the left, X, 4. 

*£T«po<7TO|ifc)s, adv. of iTip6o-TO(io<s, used of the march of an army 
in column when the front-rank-men are on different sides 
of the two wings, XI, 4. 

£vyapxta, fj, a military unit of two war-chariots, VIII, 1. L. 
and S. quote Asklepiodotos, indeed, but suggest the 
wrong definition, as of the command of a captain of 
cavalry. The Thesaurus fails to give the passage in 
Aelian. It is XXII, 2. 

fwx os . °> the commander of one war-elephant, IX, 1. L. and 
S. take the word in Aelian, XXIII, 1 incorrectly as an 

*fjjjucnd&, to halve, to /?a0os ynuo-laZe, XII, 11. 

Oijpapxia, fj, a unit of two war-elephants, IX, 1. 

Orjpapxos, 6, a commander of two war-elephants, IX, 1. 

IXdpxns, o, a commander of eight war-elephants, IX, 1. The 
Thesaurus gives the correct meaning, but quotes no au- 
thority. Add Aelian, XXIII, 1 (dXdp X ^). 

Iwirapxia, f), two TapavTivapxiat. of cavalry, VII, 11. The The- 
saurus gives the correct meaning but quotes no authority. 
Add Aelian, XX, 2, and the Mil. Lex., § 32. 

Iroo-Oevtio, be equally strong, houOevdv, III, 4; ww^owi, III, 
2. The Thesaurus and L. and S. quote only Galen and 
Cyril of Alexandria. 

Kepdpxr)<>, 6, the commander of a Ktpas, or wing, composed of 8192 
men, II, 10; or, especially, the commander of 32 war- 


elephants, IX, 1. The Thesaurus quotes only the Mil. 

Ktpas, to, a squadron of 32 war-chariots, VIII, 1. 

KoiAe'/t/JoAos, ^ hollow wedge, XI, 5. L. and S. and the The- 
saurus give only koiA«/x/8oAov from Suidas. 

Ao|os, -r), -6v; Xofy <f>d\ay£, a phalanx in march with extended 
front, one wing in advance of the other, X, 1 ; XI, 1. 

Aoxoyos, 6, the front man and leader of a file (Adxos), II, 2. 

fieraywyr), i), wheeling, manoeuvering, VII, 5. 

/w/kos, to, the first line of a phalanx, II, 5. 

$€vay(a, rj, two battalions of i/aAoi, a regiment of 512 men, VI, 3 
[supplied from Aelian, XVI, 3] . 

*oKTa\oxla, i), a unit of eight Adxoi, II, 9. 

*oKT<orraAoicrTos, -ov, of eight palms, approximately 24 inches, 
V, 1. 

*6/m>iooto/xws, adverb of 6p.ou6o-Top.oi, used of marching in parallel 
columns, or also in sequence, the line of front-rank-men 
on the same side of each division, XI, 3 ; XI, 4. 

6p06<s, -i), -6v, tis SpObv airoSovvm, to face the front originally held, 
lines front, X, 1. 

ovpd, r); «V ovpav, about-face to the rear from the enemy; an 
ovpa<s, about-face from the rear toward the enemy, X, 3. 
The Thesaurus quotes only the Mil. Lex. 

oupayos, 6, the last man in file (Ao'xos), II, 2; III, 6, etc., the 
man at the rear angle of a squadron, VII, 2; a super- 
numerary to the to£k, II, 9 ; or to the knarovTapxla, VI, 3. 

oxqpaTiKos, -7], -6v, pertaining to the mounted force of an army, 
whether cavalry, chariots, or elephants, I, 1 and 3. L. 
and S. (following the Thesaurus) quote only a gloss in 
the sense " of or for a vehicle." 

vapayuiyri, r), march-in line, where the phalanx on the march 
keeps its original battle-line, whether marching with ex- 
tended front or in column, X, 1 ; XI, 1 ff. L. and S. 
give only " a wheeling from column into line," but the 
usage of Asklepiodotos is attested by Aelian-Arrian, 
XXVI, 3 and the Mil. Lex., § 48. 

7rapaTa£is, rj, the. first line of a phalanx, II, 5. 

TrtvTtjKovTapxla, i), two squads of \piXol, a platoon, consisting of 
64 men. VI, 3. The Thesaurus quotes only the Mil. 
Lex. Add Aelian-Arrian, XVI, 1. 


irAaytos, -a, -ov ; irXayla <j>d\ayi;, an army in march with the front 
extended, X, 1 ; XI, 1. 

irpoTTTWfm, ■%, projection of spears in front of a phalanx, V, 1. 

*irpocrtvTa£is, fj, flank position, used of light infantry stationed on 
the wings of the phalanx, VI, 1. 

^odrolis, -fj, van position of \pi\ol, VI, 1. The Thesaurus quotes 
only Suidas and the Mil. Lex. Compare wpoTao-o-djaevoi, 
Aelian, XV, 1. 

mjliciocjnpos, 6, signalman, II, 9; VI, 3. L. and S. (following 
the Thesaurus) give only the meaning " standardbearer." 
The Mil. Lex. § 14 (here clearly following Asklepiod- 
otos) gives both term and definition, while Aelian, IX, 4 
contains merely the term without definition. 

2kij07;s, 6, archer-cavalry, I, 3. 

<TTl<pos, to, two divisions of \jnAoi, a corps, of 4096 men, VI, 3. 

(rrpaT-qyo';, 6, a general, formerly of a corps of 4096 men, but 
properly of a full phalanx, II, 10. 

crt!feu£is, r/; Kara <xv£tv£iv, used of an army marching in parallel 
columns, XI, 2. 

<7nAAox«r^o5, 6, drawing up by files, an arrangement of the pha- 
lanx with files parallel, II, 5. The Thesaurus quotes 
only the Mil. Lex. (= § 7). Add Aelian VI, 1. 

frvvcSpevio, close up, draw together, of troops taking up the com- 
pact formation, III, 6 (cf. above, p. 138). 

avveino-Ktira), avvemo-KeircaOai, protect at the same time, of a shield 
for man and horse, I, 3. 

(rvvrayfia, a double rdfe, or a battalion, composed of 16 files, II, 
8 ; III, 6 ; = crvvTa£iapxwi, II, 10. 

*(rvvTaitap X la, f), a battalion, II, 9 ; takes the place of owray/ua, 

II, 10; III, 3 and 4. 

*o~uva>ixoTia, fj, a band of sworn soldiers, early designation of a 

file, II, 2 (cf. above, p. 137). 
owtoo-k, fj, four files of if/iXol, a squad, consisting of 32 men, 

VI, 3. 
Ta£iapxU, fj, a command of eight files of infantry, = to£k, II 10 ■ 

III, 4. 

Ta£lapxo<s, 6, commander of a ra£is or ra^iapxia, II, 8. 
to&s, f], a company, the same as Ta£iapx"i, eight files of infantry, 
II, 8 and 9. 


lapavTivoi, ol, cavalry who fight only with javelins at a distance, 
I, 3. Listed and correctly defined only in Pape-Benseler : 
"Worterb. d. griech. Eigennamen. 

Te'Aos, to, a division of infantry, the same as /uptipx" 1 , °f 2048 
men, II, 10; in cavalry, a half phalanx, VII, 11. 

ro^ev/m, to, a missile of any hind, I, 2 (cf. above, p. 137). 

to£oti?s, 6, archer-cavalry, a special branch, the same as Sku'^s, 
I, 3. 

wrep/?oAA<o; to K€pa<s \mcpfia\io-6ai, to outflank on one wing only, 
opposed to v7T£p<t>aXayyeo>, outflank on both wings, X, 2 
and 18. 

virof3alvo), follow, as one rank at a certain interval behind an- 
other, V, 1. 

WooroA^, ■>); 8V tvoo-ToAijs, holding back, X, 21. 

WoTct&s, ■?), a rear-position, used of light infantry stationed be- 
hind the phalanx, VI, 1. 

<j>a\ayydpxiis, 6, commander of a <f>a\ayyapxia, or corps, 4096 
men, II, 10 ; commander of the phalanx of war-elephants, 
64 in number, IX, 1. 

<f>a\ayyapxia, rj, a corps, 4096 men, II, 10. L. and S. suggest 
that the word is equivalent to phalanx, and quote only 
Suidas and the Byzantines. But the meaning as given 
above appears also in Aelian-Arrian, IX, 8, and in the 
Mil. Lex., § 17. 

<pd\ay£, fj, any branch of the army, chapter heading I ; I, 4 ; t he 
force of hoplites, 16,384 men, II, 10, etc. ; the full force 
of 64 war-chariots, VIII, 1. 

W. A. Oldfatheb. 

Thi Uhivirsitt or Illinois.