HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

A Papyrus Commentary on 
Alexander's Balkan Campaign 

N. G. L. Hammond 

W E OWE OUR knowledge of P. British Library 3085 verso to the 
alertness of T. C. Skeat and to the excellent publication of 
the fragments by W. Clarysse and G. Schepens. 1 The papy­

rus comes from a mummy cartonnage found by D. G. Hogarth at 
Rifeh in 190617. Clarysse and Schepens have supplied a valuable 
commentary on the fragments. "We cannot be far wrong," they write, 
"in dating our text to the second century B.C." 

Any interpretation of the nature of the document is to some extent 
tentative. Clarysse and Schepens come to the conclusion that the frag­
ments of text are part ofa historical narrative-hence their title-and 
they find that this narrative's "first striking peculiarity is the remark­
able narrative speed, combined with a high density of factual infor­
mation, almost in telegram style" (37). They are candid in saying that 
there are difficulties which their interpretation does not solve. Thus, 
for instance, in commenting on lines 5, 8, and 9 they observe: "Still, 
the problems involved have not been satisfactorily resolved and leave 
serious doubts as to the interpretation of the text" (41). 

1. The Text 

Let us look at those problems in lines 1-14 as numbered and re­
stored by Clarysse and Schepens. For later reference I have added the 
number ofletters in each line. 2 

1 [ ] .. 
2 [ ...... ]p'~[ .. ............... ]/-L1Juau 
3 [ .... ]Tav Kat. . [ ......•.. ] 7Topw8ijL 
4 ~6pp'~Y~v·:;v.[ ..... KaT]~uT~uas 
5 ¥va TW~ </>!AWV [ ..... ] . S TijS OV-
6 I "['] I , ~ va/-L£ws TO 7TpOS T 1JV xP£taV OLK£L-.. . 

27 
23 
26 

1 "A Ptolemaic Fragment of an Alexander History," ChrEg 60 (1985) 30-47. I refer 
to this article in the notes as "CIS." 

2 I am most grateful to Mr T. S. Pattie, the successor of T. C. Skeat in the Depart­
ment of Manuscripts, for permission to see the papyrus. 

331 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

332 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 

A PAPYRUS COMMENTARY 

\ \ ~, I"" [11 <, ov 7rapa r~ T1JS AAV pLJas 0pLa 7rV-

lC~ttS 7rp'O,!!Ta<E 7r~[LOV]fA.EVOV 
\'\\ '[ll:]' ll: Tas E7rL TO CTTpaT07r EuOV. S V7rOuEL-

, \', [ 11 ll: ICVVELV TC?V ECT0fA. EVOV ICLJVUVVOV 
E7r ••••••••••• [ ••••••••• ] • E7rEP-

X~P'-([V ]?1S IT T-ijS n [ ........... X]~p~[·] 

25 
23 
27 
25 
26 
26 

13 ELS ()£ T~V ' Eop()al[ av ••••••••• ] 25 
14 T-ijL 7r A 11CTlov ' EAELfA.la[ L. •••••• ] 25 

In line 4 the dependence of Koppa)'ov on [lCaT ]aCTT~CTas is clear, because 
7r0pEv8fjL is intransitive. The phrase fva TWV </>lAWV (5) may be taken to 
be in apposition to Koppa)'ov. In the following lines Clarysse and 
Schepens understand that 7rPOCT(Ta<E governs the infinitive tJ7rO()ELIC­
VVELV, and that tJ7rOaELICVVELV governs TOV ECT0fA.[EVOV ICl]V()VVov. Thus for 
them the main structure is coherent. The problems arise from all the 
other words in the long sentence. They do not cohere to the main 
structure. J For instance, there is no noun after the adjective 7rVICVas, 
and no noun after the article Tas. In fact, if we accept the main 
structure as understood by Clarysse and Schepens, we must conclude 
that the rest of the long sentence is ungrammatical. 

Let us now consider the translation they offer: 

... having appointed Korragos, one of the friends ... and having 
sent this part of the army which was fit for the matter along the 
frontier of Illyria, he gave order to signal the coming danger by 
making frequent messages (?) to the army ... when the ... came ... 
to Eordaia ... (in?) the neighbouring part ofElimeia. 

When we try to relate this translation to the Greek text, we face 
many problems. Despite their translation Clarysse and Schepens say 
that lCa, 7r(fA.t]as (5) "would give the required sense but is too long" for 
the lacuna.4 In any case their translation does not help with the 
difficulties in what follows. For 7rvlCvas in line 8 has no noun. Clarysse 
and Schepens in their translation "by making frequent messages" 
have to assume that the word b.)')'EAlas stood in the original text and 
that the scribe omitted it in this copy. There are two objections. The 
active voice and not the middle of 7rodw should be used with a)')'EAlas 
(see LSJ s. v. 7rOL(W 11.5), quite apart from the normal expression being 

3 Thus CIS 42 find the lacuna in line 5 "difficult to fill," think "along the frontier of 
Illyria" (41) "cannot ... go with what follows" (42), and are so puzzled by lines 7 to 9 
that "the idea ofa copyist's error ... is all we can suggest here" (43). 

4 Here P. Parsons proposed [lCat oo]~S', but CIS 42 find that it does not account for 
"along the frontier of Illyria." Also this proposal would give a line of only 23 letters. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

N. G. L. HAMMOND 333 

aYYfll.tas 7f€P.7fHV. It is most unlikely that the scribe made such an 
error; for his lettering is excellent, and his careful revision is indicated 
by his bracketing of TfjS in line 12 as mistaken and by his addition of 
T~V in line 27 of fr.b (CIS p.46). Then, even if we accept 7fVKVas 
<aYYfll.las> 7fO[LOV]/J.fVOV Tas E7f1. TO <TTpaT07f[fOOV], we shall find it very 
hard to parallel Ta~ E'7Tt TO O'TpaTO'7TfOOV as a way of saying 'to the 
army'.s 

In my opinion these difficulties are insurmountable. The text they 
have given us cannot be that of a consecutive historical narrative. 6 If 
the text is not that of a historical narrative, what is the alternative? 
There is, I think, only one alternative: it is the text ofa commentary. 

Before we put this alternative to the test, there are some textual 
points that arose when Mr Pattie and I had a close look at the papyrus 
fragments in the British Library. In line 7 after the break each of us 
read an omicron and not, as Clarysse and Schepens did, an alpha. This 
enabled us to restore the text as ' IlI.lI.v[plo]os, which is surely right 
since it is the standard form in the Hellenistic period, Polybius using 
no other. Since we now have an additional letter in the break in line 7, 
we may allow an additional letter also in the break in line 8. On the 
other hand, lines 6 and 9 are correctly juxtaposed and restored, 
yielding TO 7fPOS T[~V] XPflav and [ro]s; for the single letter before the 
sigma can only be omega. The numbers of letters in lines 6 to 10 then 
become 26,26,24,27, and 25. The reason for the 24 and 27 is that the 
scribe chose not to split the definite article Tas between two lines. 
When Mr Pattie looked at line 8, he noted at the end of the break a 
dot that might, in his opinion, be the end of the righthand branch of 
an upsilon. As we now have an additional letter to introduce here, I 
suggest 7fO[pLO ]Vj.LfVOV. The end of line 11 and the beginning of line 12 
are on different fragments of papyrus, which Clarysse and Schepens 
wisely put together to yield €'7TfPixOj.L€[v]1]S.7 The join is supported by 

5 CIS 42f thOUght the probable meaning to be an 'army' rather than a 'camp'. Their 
citation of ?TvlCva~ ?TpoCT{3oAas ?TOI£ICT8al in Diod. 13.62.1 and 14.103.3 does not help to 
solve the problem. It is here that they suggest a copyist's error. 

6 It is worth noting that there seems to be no question that the fragments have been 
assembled correctly. Clarysse and Schepens were confident that this is so, and Pattie 
and I agree with them. In the first place within the eight lines, when the fragments are 
placed together, there are five instances in which the last letters of one line and the 
opening letters of the next line make acceptable Greek words (3vivcl!-,£WS, ollKt"Iov, 
?TvUeVclS, V?T03£1IKVV£lV, £?TtpIX0!-'E[V]1}S); this cannot be accidental. In the second place, 
when we make probable restorations in the gap between the two fragments of 
papyrus, we shall find that the numbers of the letters within each line vary from 24 to 
27, which is acceptable. It must therefore be conceded that the text as we have it is as 
it was written in the course of the second century B.C. 

7 CIS 39 have no doubt about the join being correctly made. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

334 A PAPYRUS COMMENTARY 

slight traces of letters at the top of the beginning of line 12. 

On the supposition that the text is that of a commentary I suggest 
restorations in line 4 and 5. These are exempli gratia; they show what 
is possible within the spaces available. My text then is as follows: 

1 [ ] .. 
2 [ ....... ]pa[ . ..••..•••..•. ]/-t7Juau 

3 [ .... ]Tav Kat. . [ ........ ] 7rOPfvOijL 

4 Koppayov [M]fV[ OLTOV KaT ]auT~uas' 
5 rva T(;W <l>LAWV. [/-tEya /-tEpo]s TijS OV-
6 ' "[']" ~ va/-tfWS' TO 7rpOS T TJV xpfLav OLKfL-
7 ' , ~, I"" [''It] <I ov 7rapa Ta T7JS I\I\V pLu os opLa. 7rV-
8 KV(ls- 7rpOUETa[f 7ro[pw ]~/-tfVOV 
9 "" '['It ']' 'It Tas f7rL TO UTpaT07r fuOV. W S V7rOufL-

10 ' ", [ '] 'It KVVfLV TOV fU0/-t fVOV KL Vuvvov' 

11 f7r ......... [ ..•...... ] . E7rfP-
12 XO/-tE[V]7JS IT TijS I1 [ ........... ]wpa. 

26 
25 
26 
25 
24 
27 
25 
25 
25 

13 Ets OE T~V ' EopoaL[av .......... ] 26 
14 TijL 7iAr}ULOV 'EAfL/-tLa[L ........ ] 26 

In my translation I italicise the word or phrase that invited the 
commentator's entry: 

Appointing Corragus, son of Menoitas: 8 one of the Friends. A large 
part of the force: what was appropriate to the need along the frontier 
with Illyris. He prescribed close-packed (ones): (for) him to provide 
those for the camp. So as to indicate the future danger: ... on the 
approach of. ... And into Eordaea ... for the nearby Eleimia .... 

The first comment explains why this task was given to Corragus. 
The second provides the reason for a large part of the available force 
being detached. The third gives us the clue to the missing substantive 
with 7rVKVas, namely xapaKas, of which the gender is masculine or 
feminine in extant authors. A particular type of stake was to be 
provided for making the fortified camp which was customary from at 
least the time of Philip II in Macedonian warfare (e.g. Oem. 6.23 
xapaKw/-taTa and 18.87 xapaKa {3aAo/J-fvoS). This type of stake is here 
called 7rVKV~. Its meaning is clear from Polybius' comparison of Greek 
and Roman palisaded camps, where the branches on each stake were 
'close-packed' (7rVKV(;W) and so interwoven in the branches of the 

8 Or a name of similar length. Here H. Maehler proposed reading Koppayov 
lJ.t](V[TOl, but he had no suggestion for filling the remaining lacuna of three letters. CIS 
41 "do not see how the very short lacuna ... could possibly be filled." 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

N. G. L. HAMMOND 335 

neighbouring stakes (18.18.13, 7rVKVC;W OVCTWV Kat 7rPOCT7rL7rTOVCTWV av­
Tats). Thus the meaning of our lines 7-9 is not that stakes were to be 
planted close to one another, but that special stakes namely 7rVKVat 
xapaK€S, were to be provided for making the camp.9 The fourth 
comment is almost totally lost. It probably explained the system of 
indication (some sort of signalling) and defined the danger; for the 
word E7rEPXOP.~V7JS' is virtually certain, whether we supply CTTpanns or 
some other feminine noun with it. 

Up to this point it is clear, I think, that the text is much more 
convincingly explained as that of a commentary than as that of an 
historical text. But the next two lines, 13 and 14, introduced by the 
first 'Of so far, seem to provide a historical step. We may note that they 
are parallelled by lines 32-35, which seem to be of the same nature. At 
the front of each passage there is a paragraphos in the papyrus. We 
shall consider the significance of that line later in this article. 

The righthand parts oflines 1-11 and the lefthand parts of lines 22-
30 are on the same fragment of papyrus, and the gap between them 
shows that they belong to parallel columns of writing. How much text 
is missing between the surviving fragments of the two columns? Cla­
rysse and Schepens, assuming a papyrus roll of the normal height for 
the second century B.C., concluded that there must have been "20 lines 
at least." Lines 22-30 are by the same hand, and the only complete 
line, 23 with the restorations, contains 26 letters. It seems, then, that 
22-30 is a continuation of the same document; and this is supported 
by the nature of the content of22-30. 

The text of line 23 is made up of two pieces of papyrus, which 
Clarysse and Schcpens have left slightly apart in their plate. When Mr 
Pattie and I looked. closely at the text, we saw traces of a letter by the 
gap that justify the omega of 0patKwv.1O When the two pieces are put 
close together, one has to move the lower fragment further to the left 
and higher than it appears on the plate of Clarysse and Schepens. 
When this is done, the wide fl of €KOfltCT€ stands above the v of0patKC;w. 

9 In the same way the large enclosure by the 'hut' of Achilles was made with stakes 
that were 71'VKIVOI (II. 24.453), which is usually taken to mean that they were close 
together. This technique is common among transhumant shepherds, whether Mace­
donians of the centuries before the reign of Philip II (Arr. Anab. 7.9.2) or Vlachs and 
Sarakatsani today, who make enclosures for their sheep and goats with stakes, strong 
enough to keep predators out. Their speed and skill, "cutting the wood and driving it 
into the ground with the certainty of long practice," was admired by E. Howell, 
Escape to Live (London 1952) 136. 

10 In a subsequent letter Mr Pattie said that he could see the tops of the verticals 
and the upper diagonal of the kappa of 8paIK(;JV. CIS 44 expressed some doubt about 
the join, but Mr Pattie and I have none. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

336 A PAPYRUS COMMENTARY 

In consequence there is room for some six letters before fKOJJ.HTf, for 
three or four letters before 7ToTaJJ.0v in line 21, and for two or three 
letters before uvpaL in line 20. At the righthand end of line 22 a)'o 
stands above "'aT in line 23. Therefore, if the restoration Ka[T]f­
uTpE"'aT[ 0 TOVS] is correct, as seems certain, we can allow four or five 
letters after 7Tpoa)'o. The lefthand part of lines 31-33 is on a separate 
small piece of papyrus. The join here yields line 32, which with the 
probable restoration made by Clarysse and Schepens has 25 letters. 
Line 35 is on a scrap that seems to be attached by a strand to line 34 
(see their plate). 

Clarysse and Schepens print the text for lines 15 to 35 as follows. 

15 [ ............... ]u8 .. [ ..•.. ] 
16 [ ............. ] .. i;lov[ •.... ] 
17 [ ............. ] . Tauu:[ •.... ] 
18 [ .. ].wv ... p[ .... ]?JJ.w[oJr .[ ..... ] 
19 [ \ ]" . \ \ \ [ ] T7JV 7J7TELpOV TnV /CaTa TOV 7T •.... 
20 [ ... ]uvpaL {30V~~8[fL]S aVTo~ T[ .... ] 
21 [ .. ] .7ToTaJJ.0v KaL "-r~v llAA 1][ v: . .• ] 
22 ..... E/C0JJ.LUf KaL ~poa)'o[ .•... ] 
23 TWV 0paL/c~v /Ca[ T ]fuTpE"'a:[ 0 TOVs] 
24 7TPOUfXfLS : . [.] . [ .• ]aL pfV [ ..•.. ] 
25 TOVS 7T A 7Julov {30 . [ ••....•... f]-
26 UTPf"'f E7TL TfjS : [ ....•....• ] 
27 TWV ' A )'pulvwv 7T[ .....•.••. ] 
28 tas TOVS <ppovpobs [ ........ Of]-
29 opaJJ.Evovs a7Tf[ .. : .....•. ] 
30 JJ.E[V]1]V TfjS O"aL[ 0 ]vla[s .... " " " .. ] 
31 uVVfXfj~ [TfjL] ri[aL]o~la[L ..•.... ] 

26 
27 

26 

32 'Evuv8f!, [o]t- <l>LAwTa!' [TOV OapJJ.f]- 25 
33 vlwvos JJ.f[ T]a ovvaJJ.fw[s .....• ] 
34 aLaa .. [ .... ]X 0JJ.Evas [ •..•... , av]-
35 TOS at- T1JV .:. : ~?1[']' [ .......... ] 

Their translation is as follows: 

- - - (to?) the mainland ... wanting himself to lay waste ... the river 
and the rest of the ... he brought and ... of the Thracians ... he 
subjected the neighbouring ... the stream (?) ... the neighbouring 
... he turned towards ... the Agrianes ... having massacred (?) the 
guards ... Paionia ... contiguous to Paionia. From there he sent 
Philotas, the son ofParmenio, with an army ... he himself - --

When we consider how few letter-spaces are available for further 
restoration in these lines, it is not possible to see an} coherent his-



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

N. G. L. HAMMOND 337 

torical narrative in this translation. We are driven once again to the 
alternative explanation, that the text is that of a commentary. 

Here too I propose some restorations. They are again exempli gra­
tia, in order to show what is possible within the limits of the letter­
spaces. In line 20, I propose [CL7To]uvpaL ,BovA178[fth' aVToS' T[i7LOf I TOV] 
7ToTa/i-0v, giving a line of 27 letters and meaning "he himself intending 
to draw away (i.e., divert) the river at this point."ll The main verbs 
come in the continuation of the comment which I propose to restore 
as follows: Kat T~V llAA17[V uTpalTLav OL]fK0J-tLUf Kat 7Tpoayo[vTwV] I TWV 
0paLKwv Ka[ T ]fuTp''''aT[ 0 TOt;]S' I 7TPOUfXf'iS'. Line 21 is then of 25 letters, 
line 22 of 26 letters and line 23 of 26 letters. The translation is 
"transported also the rest of the army (i.e., to his side of the river) 12 

and with the Thracians leading subdued the nearest (i.e., of the 
enemy)." 13 In the next line the last word has almost certainly to be 
pftJ[J-tan], 14 and the preceding word will then have been a name in the 
dative, like Eurotas but shorter, to yield a line of 25 letters. I take it 
that the document on which the comment is being made had just the 
article and the name, and the comment is "a stream." Line 25 begins 
with the phrase for comment: TOVs- 7TATJULOV ,Bo[vvovS'], "the nearby 
hills." 15 For a word of geographical meaning is needed after 7TATJULOV, 
as in line 14. I propose to restore the lines of comment as follows: 
[ " "] .1," n [ , \ n] ~ , A ' 16 I aVTOS' f7Tf UTPf'l' f f7TL TTJS' J-tTJTP07TOl\fWS' T17S' TWV yPLaVWV. com-
pare the use of aVToS' at line 20, and I choose the compound to match 
(7Tt. Both lines 25 and 26 are then of 26 letters each, and the meaning 
is "he himself turned towards the capital of the Agrianians." In the 
following lines I propose to restore the phrase inviting comment as 
7T[OAAOVs- KaTaAE]ltas-, "enlisting many (i.e., Agrianians)," and the com-

II CIS propose to restore [Kalra]ITVpaL 'to lay waste' as "more likely" than any other 
compound. They have no suggestion for the lacuna of three letters after 7T that is then 
left in line 19. The compound CI.7TOITVPElV is used for drawing off a fatty fluid; see LSJ 
s.v. 

12 To capture an island in a river by diverting the water of one channel was a well­
known method after the Persian capture of the island of Prosopitis in the Nile by this 
means (Thuc. 1.109.4). 

13 CIS 44 thought of restoring [lh]w)I"LIT£ but made the objection that the verb in its 
simple form and with various compounds is rather "suited for the transport of 
things." But people were transported too, e.g. at Thuc. 3.75.5. They say also that "the 
traces at the beginning of line 22 are not favourable" to this restoration. However, 
their plate shows that the traces are minimal. They note that 7Tpoayo has to be part of 
the participle of the verb. They would prefer to restore 7Tpoay6[I"£vos] and then 
translate "those of the Thracians who were nearby"; but 7Tpoayw is not used in the 
middle in the sense they want. 

14 As CIS (41) imply when they translate "the stream (?)." 
IS The word is used, for instance, by Polybius at 18.24.7. 
16 Alexander placed 'metropolis' on coins minted at Babylon, and Hellenistic states 

referred to their 'metropoleis'. For the second rijs see the article ras in line 9. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

338 A PAPYRUS COMMENTARY 

ment itself as TOVS <ppovpovs ••. a'7TE[uTELAE], "he discharged the 
guards .... " The opening letters ofline 29 may be the genitive case of 
the name of the guards' commander; for it is difficult to restore a verb 
if the letters are those of a participial ending. l ? 

I propose to restore at lines 29-30 [T~V Eloo)IJAE[V)~V TfjS ITaL[o)vLa[s). 
We need a name (such as this) that occurs in the Macedonian home­
land, in order to account for the attribution TfjS ITaLovLas (we may 
compare Thuc. 2.98.2, Ao!317Pov T~V ITaLovLK~V).18 In line 31 there is a 
difficulty in that Clarysse and Schepens print CTvVExfjL with a circum­
flex accent, as if this were a variant form of CTVVEXEL.19 I do not know of 
any such form. The slight trace on the papyrus favours the final iota, 
in the opinion ofMr Pattie and myself, and we must see CTVVEX17L as the 
verb CTVVEXW in the subjunctive, comparing the subjective '7TopEv8fjL in 
line 3. I suggest as a possible restoration [ws TOV '7TE(OV) I UVVEX17L [TfjS) 
IT[aL)ovLa[s), and translate "in order that he may keep together the 
infantry of Paeonia." Line 31 is short; but that is no problem since it 
precedes the paragraphos. 

At line 32 we have a paragraph os and then the connective as we had 
at line 13. I take it that the paragraphos was not added by the scribe 
but was in the text he was copying. It was, I suggest, intended to warn 
the reader that something different was being provided. What was it? I 
suggest that the author of the commentary jumped from point A 
(Paeonia) in the text on which he was commenting to point B in the 
text, thus omitting a chunk of that text on which he chose not to 
comment. In order to keep his reader abreast of what was happening, 
he made the paragraphos and then added a short piece of narrati ve to 
bridge the gap.20 In this instance, then, he wrote "and from there, i.e., 
from Paeonia, he (?sent ahead) Philotas ,md he himself ... " (accept­
ing from Clarysse and Schepens [av)ITos in lines 34f). The restoration 
of aUTOS is probable in the context; we may compare line 20 and even 

17 CIS propose to restore [o,,'>]tas or [a1ToO'cpa]tas without offering a word to fill the 
gap between T and the participle. They think that -opaJ.Lfvov~ may be a perfect parti­
ciple passive of opaw, but offer no translation. 

18 Since there was an Eidomene in Amphaxitis in Lower Macedonia (see N. G. L. 
Hammond, A History of Macedonia I [Oxford 1972] 169ff). We do not know of an 
Eidomene in Paeonia; but the repetition of a homeland place-name was common, e.g. 
Petra in Pieria and Petra in the territory of the Maedi. 

19 CIS 41 translate as "contiguous to Paeonia" as if they read O'VV(X(L. 
20 CIS 43 suppose that the paragraph os line and the connective Of indicate either 

the beginning of a new section of the narrative (for they believe the text to be a 
historical narrative) "or perhaps more probably in the context separate two different 
locations where security forces were posted." At line 32 they think the same features 
"introduce a new section." 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

N. G. L. HAMMOND 339 

my proposed restoration in line 25. We are able to infer that the 
paragraphos at line 13 served the same purpose; and it was followed 
by a similar piece of narrative: "and into Eordaea ... to the nearby 
Elimea." The restoration in line 32, meaning "the son of Par men ion," 
is highly probable in itself and yields a line of 25 letters. It should be 
noted that if a patronymic is supplied at line 4 in a phrase lifted (on 
my interpretation) from the 'document', there was no article before 
the genitive; but in line 32, written by the commentator, there was an 
article before the genitive. The difference is no doubt due to different 
authors of the 'document' and of the commentary. 

Finally there are some tatters of papyrus, labelled Fragments b, c, 
and d, that cannot be given particular positions in relation to the text 
we have been considering. Fragment b has the three letters AAV, which 
might be part of'Illyrians' or part of a verb, and then two lines later 
Aat <T~V> Matowv, the T~V having been added by the scribe as a 
correction in the interlinear space.21 

2. Historical Questions 

For ease of reference I give the text with my proposed restorations 
and punctuation: 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 

[ ] .. 
[ .....• ]p'a[ ........... . 1fL1J(Ta(T 

[ .•.. ]Ta'~ Kat. [ .•..•• ] 7IOp£vO~t 
~6pP'~Y~V' [M]£v[ olrov Kar ]~(Tr~(Tas· 
" ~ rl, '\ [' '] ~ 0;, wa rw~ 't'~I\WV. fLEya fLEpO S' T1JS' uV-
, \ \ [\] , ,~ 

vafLEWS· T? 7IpOS' T 1JV xpEtav OtKEt-
\ \ ~, 1\ \ [' '0;,] " ov 7Iapa T~ T1JS' I\I\V ptu os Opta. 7IV-

K~(k 7Ip.0criratE 7I,![pW]VfLEVOV 
\ ,\ \ , [0;, ']' 0;, Tas E7It TO (TTpaT071 £uOV. W S'V7IOuEt-

, \,' [ '] 0;, KVVEW r'!v £(T0fL £vov Kt Vuvvov· 

£71 ...••.••• [ ••••••••• ] • €7I£P-

x·o!:'£[ v]?1S' IT T~S' n [ ........... l'!lp~, 

25 
25 
26 
25 
26 
26 
24 
27 
25 
25 
25 

13 £tS' OE T~V 'Eopoal[ av ......... ] 25 
14 T~t 7IA1J(TtOV 'EAEtfLta[t. .... .• ] 25 

A gap of at least 20 lines follows. 
15 [ ............... ]T€O .. [ ..... ] 25 
16 [ ............. ] .. LKLOV[ ..•.• ] 25 

21 H. Maehler thought that they could be joined, but CIS remained sceptical. I think 
rightly. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

340 A PAPYRUS COMMENTARY 

17 [ ••.••.••••.•• ] . TclS' TE r[ ..... ] 25 
18 [ •• ]. WV •• • e[ ... . ]~IoLEV[ O]~ . [ •••.. ] 25 
19 [ \ ] " \ \ \ [ '] T1JV 1J7!ELpOV T?1!' !CaTa TOV 7! oTaloL0v' 25 
20 [a'ITo ]uvpaL ,8oVA1J~[ Et]S' aVToS' r[ TlLOE] 27 
21 \ \ \ \ "AA [ ] TOV 'lTOTaloLOV Ka~ T1JV a 1J v UTpa - 25 
22 [Tlav OL]EK0loLLUE Kat 'lTpoayo[vTwV] 26 
23 TWV 0paLICii>v Ka[ T ]EuTP"t,ar[ 0 TOVS'] 26 
24 'lTPOUEXELS" r[WL]. [ •• ]aL' pEv[IoLan]. 25 
25 \ A ' ,8 [ , , \ , '] TOVS' 'IT 1JULOV l? vvoVS" aVTOS' E'lTE - 26 
26 UTpE"'E £'lTt TTlS' [IoL1JTPO'ITOAEWS' TTlS'] 26 
27 TWV ' AYPLclVWV. 7![OAAOVS' KaTaA(]- 24 
28 ,as" TOVs- 4>povpov~ [TOVS' loLETa Ev]- 25 
29 opaloLEvovr a'ITi[ UTELAE. T~V Eloo]- 25 
30 IoLE[V]~V TTlS' TIa~[o]vl~[S" wS' TOV 'lTE(OV] 26 
31 UVVEX1J! [TTlS'] TI[aL]ovla[S']. 18 

32 £vTEv6E!' rolf <l>LAwTa!' [TOV TIaploLE]- 25 
33 vlwvoS' IoLE[ T]a OVVclloLEW[S' ..•... . ] 25 
34 OLaO .. [ .... ]X0loLEvaS' [ •...... av]- 25 
35 TOS' Of T~V . :. : ~!1['] . [ ......... ] 25 

Appointing Corragus, son of Menoitas: one of the Friends. A large 
part of the force: what was appropriate to the need along the frontier 
with Illyris. He prescribed close-packed (ones): (for) him to provide 
those for the camp. So as to indicate the future danger . .. on the 
approach of. ... 

And into Eordaea ... for the nearby Eleimia .... (lacuna) ... Skios 
... the mainland by the river: he, intending to draw away (i.e., 
divert) the river at this point, transported the rest of the force also, 
and with his Thracians in the lead subdued the nearest (i.e., of the 
enemy). The . .. -as: a stream. The nearby hills: he turned towards 
the capital of the Agrianians. Enlisting many men: he discharged 
the guards, those with Eudramenes (vel sim.). Eidomene ofPaeonia: 
in order to keep together the infantry of Paeonia .... 

and from there (he sent?) Philotas, son of Parmenion, with a force 
... and he himself. ... 

Without deciding whether the text is a historical narrative or a 
commentary, we can see that there are a number of historical clues to 
the situation in the text. As Clarysse and Schepens said, the appointer 
of Corragus was a king of Macedon, who was mentioned simply as 
"he" (in line 20 and, if so restored, 25, and lines 34f). Part of the 
(available) force was to be posted along the frontier with Illyris that 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

N. G. L. HAMMOND 341 

was within the Macedonian cantons of Pelagonia and Lyncus, which 
alone marched with Illyris. On my interpretation of the text the com­
mander (presumably Corragus) was to make a camp fortified with a 
palisade made up of special stakes. We happen to know of such a 
fortified camp, called 'Parembole', on the main road from Heraclea in 
Lyncus towards Illyris; for in Macedonian military language parem­
bole meant 'encampment'. Danger of an invasion, evidently from 
Illyris, was imminent. From there the king moved into Eordaea, the 
adjacent canton to the south, which was part of the old kingdom 
before the expansion under Philip II, and from there he made some 
arrangement for Elimea, the neighbouring canton to the south.22 It 
seems likely that he was travelling along the main road, later called 
the Via Egnatia, which led to Edessa in Lower Macedonia. 

There is now a considerable gap in the text (we must not be misled 
by the consecutive numbering of lines 14 and 15 adopted by Clary sse 
and Schepens). It is not possible to estimate even roughly how much 
action took place in the missing lines. The story resumes with CTKWV in 
line 16. Clarysse and Schepens accepted the suggestion of P. Parsons 
that this is the accusative of the river called by Herodotus (4.49.1) 
"the river Skios flowing from the Paeonians and Mt Rhodope" into 
the Danube (Thucydides 2.96.4 called it the "OCTKWS). 23 Of course the 
Greek letters can be fitted into other restorations; but Parsons' sugges­
tion is supported by the occurrence of 7Torap.ov in line 21 and the 
subsequent mention of three peoples and places close to the river 
Skios, identified as the Iskar, namely Thracians, Agrianians, and 
Paeonia. If 'he' was the king, as has been proposed, he was conducting 
military operations that involved the river (presumably the Skios)24 
and the service of Thracian troopS.25 He then proseeded through Agri-

22 This is the usual spelling. For the spelling in the text see the third century B.C. in­
scription in BCH 2 (1897) 112: MaKf/lOvl 'E[A]flP.IW[T1/I). For Parembole see Ham­
mond (supra n.18) 42 and Map 6. 

23 CIS 43. This river was to the west of the Lyginus river, where Alexander first 
defeated the Triballi. If he used the Shipka Pass to cross the Haemus range, as I 
maintained in CQ N.S. 30 (1980) 455ff, the Lyginus river was the Rositsa. A. B. 
Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian 's History of Alexander I (Oxford 1980) 
53, 57, opted for the Trojan Pass and for a tributary of the river Vit near Pleven, 
which seem to me less likely. 

24 CIS 44 hesitated to make the restoration I have adopted in line 9 (KaTa TOV 
7T[oTap.ov]) because i/7TUPO'> "is normally opposed to islands in the sea." Here I think it 
is opposed to an island in the river Skios. Lines 21-24, as restored, support the idea 
of Alexander having to attack enemy forces which were in part on an island and in 
part on the other bank from his own main force. This was also the idea of CIS; for 
they related the operation to Alexander's unsuccessful attempt to land on the island 
in the Danube. But that incident took place far in space and time from his coming to 
Agriania. See N. G. L. Hammond, Alexander the Great (Park Ridge [N.J.] 1980) 49. 

25 After Alexander's successes against the 'republican Thracians', King Syrmus of 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

342 A PAPYRUS COMMENTARY 

ania, it seems, to Paeonia. It was from Paeonia that he sent Philotas, 
the son of Parmenion, with a part of the force, on a separate mission, 
and he himself did something else. 

A separate fragment of papyrus mentions the Maedi, a people to the 
south of the Agrianians and living in the middle Strymon valley. The 
hand is the same as that of our text. The fragment may belong to the 
text, but no one can estimate the gap that divides it from the context 
of what we have already considered. 

Clarysse and Schepens have considered it "virtually certain" that 
the king was Alexander the Great and the campaign under description 
was his Balkan campaign of 335 B.C. I agree entirely with their view. 
Having in the past made a special study of this campaign, I add some 
points that may supplement theirs. Our knowledge of the campaign is 
derived from Arrian's account, which is itself a much abbreviated and 
sometimes gappy version of what he read in the histories of Ptolemy 
and Aristobulus.26 Arrian begins his narrative by saying that Alexan­
der learnt that the Illyrians and the Triballians were making threaten­
ing movements (Anab. 1.1.4, v£wTEpl(Etv), and that Alexander set off 
towards Thrace, starting (i.e., on the major campaign) from Amphipo­
lis (1.1.5). Now it is obvious that Alexander did not leave an open 
frontier so that the Illyrians could invade Macedonia, denuded of the 
major part of its field army. He must have made special provision in 
the frontier cantons. It is this provision which we find him engaged 
upon in lines 1-14 of our text, which end with him returning on the 
main route to Lower Macedonia and so to Amphipolis. The gap be­
tween line 14 and lines 15ff must have been very considerable, since it 
had to cover the advance of Alexander through Mt Haemus to the 
Danube, his crossing of the river to attack the Getae, and the sub­
mission of Syrmus, king of the Triballi. The text resumes with some 
action near the river Skios, that is, in the territory still of the Triballi. 
This is not mentioned by Arrian, who failed to describe any action of 
Alexander over a period of some two months; the action near the river 
Skios took place evidently towards the end of that period. "Alexander 
then advanced towards the Agrianians and Paeonians" (1.5.1).27 This 
advance corresponds with what we read in lines 25-31. The separate 
mission of Philotas is not mentioned by Arrian; but it was sensible to 
send him ahead towards the Illyrian frontier, while Alexander himself 

the Triballi, and then the Getae, it is not surprising to find Thracian troops in 
Alexander's army, as later in 334 B.C. 

26 See my reason in "Alexander's Campaign in Illyria," JHS 94 (1974) 77f, and 
Alexander the Great (supra n.24) 48. 

27 For his route see JHS (supra n.26) 78 and Alexander (supra n.24) 49 with fig. 2. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

N. G. L. HAMMOND 343 

was making arrangements with Langarus, the king of the Agrianians 
(1.5.2f). We are not told by Arrian that Alexander made contact in 
335 or 334 with the Maedi; but we may be sure that he did so, before 
he set off from the lower Strymon valley on the march to Asia. 

There are thus excellent reasons for supposing that our text was 
concerned with the campaign of Alexander in the Balkans in 335 H.C. 
They seem to me to be clinched by the fact that only two personal 
names are mentioned in the text and both are known to have been dis­
tinguished officers in the reign of Alexander-Corragus and Philotas, 
son of Parmenion. 28 Clary sse and Schepens did not consider any other 
possibility. I have placed in the Appendix the consideration of an 
alternative in the reign of Philip V; but only to reject it. 

3. The Commentary and its Author 

Could there have been a commentary, available for copying in the 
second century B.C., that dealt with Alexander's campaign in the 
Balkans in 335 B.C.? The answer to this question is affected by the 
fourth-century B.C. Derveni papyrus, which is a commentary on an 
Orphic Hymn. 29 The existence of such a commentary, written say in 
the third century B.C. with reference to Alexander's campaign, is 
obviously possible. 

The Derveni commentary is interesting for purposes of compari­
son. Citation of the Hymn-or, to use a general term, the 'docu­
ment'-is in the form of a phrase or line or a couple of lines (e.g. in 
col. iv), much as in our text. The comments in the Derveni text are 
usually long, detailed, and even repetitive (e.g. in col. iv.I-8); but this 
is to be expected because the commentator was producing an exegesis 
of mystical and riddling terms (e.g. in col. iii). The comments in our 
text, being factual, are much briefer. A striking feature of the Derveni 
commentary is the recurrence of one or more words of the citation in 
the commentary, either in the same form or in a related form: XP1/t.T­
T7Jpta(op.at (i.2-3), p.avTELov (i.4-5), oaLp.ovH (ii.2-3), EVP.WLOH and evw 
(ii.9-10), aLvLyp.anoo07Js (iii.4-5), Z{VS, aAK~, oaLp.wv, and KVOpOS (ivA-
8), 1/ALOS (vi.12-13), l1,OVToV (vii.1-2), "OAVP.7TOS (viii.2-3), aKovw (ix.l-
2), pf(W and ovpavos (x.5-8), K{<paA~ (xiii.12-13), MoL'pa (xiv.3), (3at.TL­
A{VS (xv.IO-It), eopv~ (xvii.I-3), rij and M~T7JP (xviii.7-8), '.oKWVOS 

28 H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich 1926), 
listed two leading Macedonians called Corragus in the reign of Alexander (nos. 444 
and 445). CIS cite the restoration Dap/-LE]v{WVOs as certain. There was also another 
leading Macedonian called Phi Iotas on the Balkan campaign (no. 805). His father's 
name is not known; if anyone prefers him and can think of an alternative name 
ending -Vtwvos, it can be inserted here. 

29 See ZPE 47 (1982) after p.300 and 50 (1983) 12. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

344 A PAPYRUS COMMENTARY 

and ZElJS (xix.3-6), 'AXEAWLOS (xix. I 1-12) and EOs and ayaOos (xxii.2-
4). Similar repetitions occur with the word 7ToTajJ.os in lines 19 (as 
restored) and line 21, and with the word TIaLOvLa in lines 30 and 31. 

A commentary on a historical narrative is familiar enough to us in 
the form of lengthy tomes by A. W. Gomme and F.W. Walbank. This 
is not, however, in the ancient tradition. The historical narratives of 
Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, for instance, were thought to 
be self-explanatory, except for a few short scholia, often on textual or 
linguistic points. If our papyrus fragments came from a commentary 
on a historical narrative, it would be unique. In fact the 'document' 
that invited the comments was obviously not a historical narrative; 
for if it had been, it would have stated where the forces were being 
posted, how the camp was being fortified, how information of an 
impending attack was relayed, that 'he' did bring his army across the 
river and defeat the nearby enemy, that he did pass near the Agri­
anian capital, and that he did discharge the Guards at this point in the 
campaign. Rather, the document mentioned some isolated points that 
occurred during an ongoing campaign. These points, or rather some 
of them, were in need of explication. What the document was is 
obvious to a student of the Hellenistic age: it was a Royal Journal, 
such as we know was kept for the reigns of Philip II, Alexander III, 
one of the Antigoni (Polyaen. 4.6.2), Antigonus III (Polyb. 4.87.8), 
Philip V (18.33.2), Perseus (30.13.10), Pyrrhus (Plut. Pyrrh. 21.8), 
and their counterparts in the kingdoms overseas.30 In the present case 
the Royal Journal was that of Alexander III. Our fragments of papyrus 
happen to deal with a campaign that was of little interest to writers on 
Alexander because it was overshadowed by his more glorious achieve­
ments in Asia. We may be sure, then, that these fragments are only 
part of a much longer work that dealt with the Royal Journal as a 
whole. 

The commentary was not written in or near the neighbourhood of 
Macedonia, where the fact that Eordaea was near Elimea (lines 13f) 
would have been a matter of general knowledge. On the other hand, in 
an atlas-less age, it was desirable to provide for readers overseas the 
geographical information we see also in lines 24 and 25f. The 'docu­
ment', whether it was the Royal Journal of Alexander or some other 
work, must have been important both in its category-and Alexan-

30 The Journal and papers associated with it were known by various names: a~ 

~aCT{AELOl tf/J1/JUp{OES (Arr. Anab. 7.25.1: Alexander), TU {J7Top.v~p.aTa TOt! ~aCTlAf.WS 
(Diod. 18.4.2: Alexander), Ta ~atTlAlICa v7Top.v~p.aTa (Plut. Pyrrh. 21.8: Pyrrhus), Ta 
~atTlAlI,a 'Ypap.p.aTa (Polyb. 18.33.2: Philip V), etc. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

N. G. L. HAMMOND 345 

der's Journal was certainly that-and in the thought of the time, both 
when the commentary was composed and later when it was copied by 
our scribe. The obvious place for such lively interest to flourish was 
Alexandria in Egypt, where the cult of Alexander was celebrated an­
nually with unparalleled splendour during the third and second cen­
turies B.C.31 There is no doubt that the Library at Alexandria possessed 
a copy of Alexander's Journal, whether the original one, as I believe, 
or a copy of it. We are thus not surprised to find a copy of this com­
mentary on papyrus fragments at Rifeh in Egypt. 

That there was indeed a commentary on Alexander's Journal is 
known from an entry in the Suda: 

I.TpaTTLS' 'OA.'UVOWS' t<TTopudw 7Tfpl TWV ' AAftavopov 'Ec/>'TIIUplowv f3Lf3-
Ala 7TEVH. 7Tfpl 7ToTa/J-wv Kal KP'TIVWV Kal A L/J-VC;w. 7TfP't TijS' ' AAftavopov 
T(A£VTijS'.3:: 

Nothing else is recorded about Strattis, and no fragments of his works 
have survived hitherto. His commentary in five books is likely to have 
covered the whole span of Alexander's Journal. He must have been 
highly selective in the items on which he chose to comment, when we 
reflect that the record of Alexander's words, acts, and correspondence 
over thirteen years of intense activity must have filled very many 
volumes. Our small fragments show that Strattis was interested in 
military objectives, technical military terms, and geographical mat­
ters, including mention of a river and a stream appropriate for the 
author of a work On rivers, etc. We owe a debt of gratitude to T. C. 
Skeat, W. Clarysse, and G. Schepens for enabling us to bring together 
these fragments of Strattis of Olynthus, and to show that Alexander's 
Journal was available for a commentator in the Hellenistic period. He 
and others who studied it knew from their firsthand experience of the 

31 See, for instance, M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the 
Roman Conquest (Cambridge 1981) no. 219. 

32 FGrHist 118Tl. It was suggested by L. Pearson that this meant that Strattis wrote 
five books of Ephemerides about the achievements of Alexander. I doubt that anyone 
has accepted that suggestion. The expression Ta 'AA£~avopov is never found for the 
achievements of Alexander; Strattis can never have written 'day-by-day records'; and 
the order of the Greek words is clearly contrary to his suggestion. This is only one of 
the arguments that have been advanced either to refute the (to me) indisputable fact 
that Ephemerides were kept for Alexander as for other Macedonian kings, or to 
suggest that someone subsequently compiled a counterfeit Ephemerides of Alexan­
der-covering thirteen years of crowded life as king-and got the counterfeit one 
accepted in place of the genuine one. I have argued elsewhere that there was only one 
Ephemerides of Alexander, that it went with his corpse to Alexandria, and that it was 
genuine. See my recent arguments in Three Historians of Alexander the Great 
(Cambridge 1983) 5-10 and Historia 36 (1987) 1-21. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

346 A PAPYRUS COMMENTARY 

whole text that it was authentic and not, as some scholars have sup­
posed in recent years, a forgery. 33 

ApPENDIX 

When I first read the article of Clarysse and Schepens, I was working on the 
reign of Philip V, so that I had his campaign of winter 211-210 B.C. in mind. 
Some of the regions through which Philip then passed are mentioned in our 
papyrus. Moreover, an inscription of his reign records a Corragus as the 
owner of a large estate by royal grant, who might have been active in 211-
210. As Clarysse and Schepens had not noted this campaign and this Corra­
gus, it seemed advisable to investigate the matter. 

Philip began operations by making an unexpected attack on Apollonia and 
Oricum on the Adriatic coast. Having failed there, he marched rapidly into 
Pelagonia and invaded Dardanian territory, where he won an outstanding 
success. 34 Returning "through Pelagonia, Lyncus, and Bottiaea he descended 
into Thessaly" (Liv. 26.25.4). He placed Perseus with 4,000 men to hold "the 
pass of Thessaly" against the Aetolians, returned to Macedonia, and "from 
there led an army into Thrace and the Maedi." The capital of the Maedi 
surrendered after a siege, and he gained further successes,35 when a report 
from Acarnania caused him to return to Dium in south Macedonia (26.25. 
15-18). 

The points of contact with our text are that in Pelagonia Philip had a 
frontier with Illyris (our line 7), his march from there on the route of the later 
Via Egnatia took him into Eordaea and close to (or into) Elimea (our lines 
13f)36 and then after an interval of time (corresponding perhaps to the gap in 
our text) he entered Thrace and attacked the Maedi (our line 23 and a small 
fragment of the papyrus). The arguments against connecting this campaign 
with our text are that Philip did not enter Paeonia at all (mentioned in lines 
30f) and had no dealings with the Agrianians; and if "Skios" in line 16 is the 
river of that name, it is far to the north of the MaediY 

33 The belief of F. Jacoby and others that Strattis, being an Olynthian, must have 
been granted that citizenship before the destruction of Olynthus by Philip II in 348 
B.C. was unlikely in itself, in that the descendants of refugees from Greek cities, such 
as Aegina, Samos, and Sicyon (Plut. Arat. 9.4), seem to have inherited their father's 
citizenship, and has been disproved by the mention of an 'Olynthian' cavalryman in a 
papyrus of the mid-third century (P.Pelr. II xxxv[a]). I am grateful to T. C. Skeat for 
mentioning the papyrus and to T. S. Pattie for sending me the reference. 

34 This probably earned him the title "destroyer of the Dardaneis" (Anth.Pal. 6.115). 
35 He dedicated spoils from Dardanians and Maedi to Athena at Lindus (FGrHist 

532Flc.c.42). 
36 For this part of the Via Egnatia see N. G. L. Hammond and M. B. Hatzopoulos 

in AJAH 7 (1982) 128-47 and 8 (1983) 48-53, published respectively in 1986 and 
1987. 

37 For the positions of the Agrianes and the Maedi see Hammond (supra n.18) 197f, 
with Map 17. 



HAMMOND, N. G. L., A Papyrus Commentary on Alexander's Balkan Campaign , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.331 

N. G. L. HAMMOND 347 

In 181 B.C. Philip transferred the ownership of a royal estate from Corragus 
son of Perdiccas to a group of at least nine military men, who were stationed 
somewhere near Kozani in Eordaea. 38 At that time Corragus was no longer 
alive; but the grant of land might have been made in connection with services 
early in the reign of Philip. If this was the Corragus of our line 4, then we 
should postulate that the Philotas of line 32 was a contemporary of Corragus, 
whether he was a son of Parmenion or not. The arguments against making 
such a connection are that we cannot fit "son of Perdiccas" into line 4 and 
that no Macedonian Parmenion is to be found in the writings of Polybius. 
Thus the odds are against connecting our text with the reign of Philip V in 
respect to the campaign and the prosopography. 

General considerations are also against such a connection. The historical 
narrative of that campaign was written by Polybius; it can neither have 
needed a commentary nor elicited one within the second century B.C. (or 
within the first century, if one dates the papyrus copy later than Clarysse and 
Schepens do). The Journal of Philip, a part of which was deliberately de­
stroyed after the defeat at Cynoscephalae (Polyb. 18.33.2f, ra j3a(J"tALKa yPclfJ-­

fJ-ara and rwv V7T0fJ-v7JfJ-clrwv),39 must have remained confidential into the reign 
of Perseus. By then the star of Macedonia was setting. One cannot suppose 
that any scholar turned his attention then to writing a commentary on the 
Journal of Philip. 40 

CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE 

July, 1987 

38 Moretti, I.stor.ellen. II 110. 
39 This is one of several indications that the Journal passed under more than one 

name in our literary sources. 
40 I am most grateful to Professor Schepens for sending me a copy of his article. I 

have gained much from discussion with Dr M. B. Hatzopoulos, Mrs L. Loukopoulou, 
and Professor F. W. Walbank, and from suggestions made by the readers for GRBS. I 
am most grateful to them all.