"P.Oxy". 2820: Whose Preparations? Lewis, Naphtali Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1975; 16, 3; ProQuest pg. 295

P.Oxy. 2820: Whose Preparations? 
Naphtali Lewis 

I N Chiron 3 (1973) M. Treu offers an ingenious reconstruction of 
P.Oxy. XXXVII 2820 which would make it an account of autocratic 
measures, one of them verging on the treasonable, taken by 

Cornelius Gallus as Prefect of the newly annexed province of Egypt. 
One reads Treu's paper with growing excitement, for it appears to 
throw light on the reasons for Gallus' subsequent fall from imperial 
favor, reasons heretofore shrouded in our sources-as with Ovid a 
generation later-in allusive language conformable with Augustus' 
puritanism. l It is hardly necessary to emphasize the self-evident 
historic importance of such information; what must be emphasized. 
unfortunately, is that no such information is at hand. Treu's interpre­
tation collapses under the weight of two objections. The first is merely 
logical: Gallus' disgrace and suicide occurred in 26 B.C., after his return 
to Rome. If treasonable or arrogant actions committed in 30-29 B.C. 

were the cause of his downfall, why was he kept in office for another 
three years? The second objection is utterly fatal: the key point in 
Treu's interpretation is highly dubious, and the textual reconstruction 
on which it rests is simply wrong, as will shortly appear. 

The following is the transcription of the text as it appears in the 
edition (P.Oxy. 2820 col. i): 

5 

10 

] 
] 
] 

] 
] 

] 
] 

[ 

fLETa1TEfL1TOLTO[ 
acPLcTac()aLKaLS,a 

TOVTO[ . ... ] . f7TAn 
WTWV . [ .. ]Vf!'V 

[. ]Xa,.\KEV€~[ . •. ]. n[ 
• ]1TC;X:Tpacva . [ 

fL~TaTOV€K€[ 
] (JavaTovwc • [ . ] . 

] HKOC€g7JfL€ . [ ] 
] fL€VOV7TaALV€g 

15 

] "lEt. €cPpovpa[L ]C€ [ 

] 1TtT7Jcxwpac€fL [ 
] ,BoAatc[ • ]cT7JKa[ 
] 1TavTlXOca1Tpo[ 

] 1TOAEfLoV7JvE[ 

] Tpem'€Vwcy. [ 

] .. ~[ . ]9 . €V'T€0[ 
]oAa,Bw. [ 

] . [ •.. ]1T€J!f[ 

lOV. Trisr. 2.445, lillguam ... non tenuisse; Suet. Aug. 66, eb ingratum et rna/eve/urn animum 
•.. accusatorum denuntiationibus; Cass.Dio 53.5, £~UPP"£II V'II"O 'Tijc 'T&,.,.ijc. 'll"olla ... ,.,.a.'Tcua lc 
'TO)! AJyoVC'To)! a'll"~A";p~&, '11"0).).« ••• £'II"al'T&a 'll"apE'II"pcrrr~. I omit Amm.Marc. 17.4.5, which 
Treu agrees (p.227) is a garbled version of earlier sources. 

295 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



296 

20 

25 

P.OXY. 2820: WHOSE PREPARATIONS? 

] .Baca,'YV['" ]OVCTWV 
] a.Uwvfwrup,a[ 
] X£J-LW'Ta'TOVc7Tpw[ 

] 'TOVp,~pOV'TPE[ 

] 7TEVaVTOVCEK[ 
] C£WCE7Tt77JvcT· [ 

] ... avwcSoVK . [ 
] vn X0V'T07TPOC[ 
] •. []va'T .. E ..•. [].[ 

] ~f'f'To[ 
30 ]co • . [ 

1. Lines 3-5 
This is the heart of Treu's thesis. He proposes the restoration 

'Ta] TE 7TAEl­
W 'TWV ~[o£ ]Vifv 
[E]xaAKEVE. 

which he interprets (pp.229-30) as stating that Gallus struck copper 
coinage, using up the greater part of the Egyptian treasury. This is a 
most intriguing result, but the more closely one examines its details, 
the more impossible it becomes. 

A first objection, though not perhaps an insurmountable one, is the 
restoration 'Ta], which ignores Lobel's correct indication that the 
lacuna requires a longer restoration. 

More important are the doubts stirred by the meaning here ascribed 
to XaAKEVW. Is the fact-adduced by Treu-that only copper coinage 
was issued in Egypt under Augustus really sufficient warrant for 
ascribing such an unprecedented acceptation to this verb? That would 
involve not a mere HBedeutungsnuance" but a clear-cut distinction 
between two entirely different and differently expressed processes: 
between forging, fabricating-i.e. working-metal, which is the image 
conveyed by XaAKEVW in its many occurrences, and producing coins 
by die-stamping-i.e. striking the metal with a die-which was 
normally expressed in Greek by the appropriately descriptive K67T'TW. 

Doubt increases when we look at the meaning ascribed to 'TWV 
~[o, ]v4}v. Are citations from Aristophanes, Demosthenes and Polybius 
really sufficient warrant for accepting this rare and unusual term in 
place of the well and widely known official designation of the treasury 
of the Ptolemaic state, 'T~ .Bac£A'K6V? 

The coup de grace is provided by the papyrus itself: the reading 
~[o,]vcpv is impossible. Treu states (p.230), HVom ersten Buchstaben 
nach'Twv ist noch das untere Ende einer Senkrechten sichtbar. Das 
ergibt nicht unbedingt ein K, scheint mir jedoch nieht unvereinbar 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



NAPHT ALI LEWIS 297 

mit diesem Buchstaben." Not so: the published photograph (Plate IX) 
dearly shows the bottom of not one but two "Senkrechten," posi­
tioned so close together as to rule out any possibility of reading 
kappa. Drs John Rea and Revel Coles have kindly confirmed this on the 
original, and the latter offers the readingi~~IIt,i}v, which seems excellent 
in every way. 

The word o1TAa, rejected by Treu (p.229), now seems the likely 
restoration in 3, giving the following text for lines 2-5: Kai 8ux I 
'TOVTO [o1TAa] T€ 1TA€t/W TWV ;,!~v~v / [l]XaAK€V€, Hand for this reason 
he forged a more than adequate quantity of weapons." 

II. Lines 5-11 
Lobel's note suggests the following restoration: 

5 K[ai T6] :i[c2 IO..€-
o ]1Ta.TpaC va~[ 'TLK6V 

, , . [' p,ETa TOV t:K€ LV7JC 
8avaTov WC1T[ € ]p 
€lK6C l~p,€A[ 7]-

10 ' ~\'/:' p,€VOv 1TWUV €~-
n€L ,!<ab cppovp«c KTA. 

To cope with Lobel's caveat that this makes line 5 too long, Treu 
suggests reading K<a~>. as in line 11. Two objections oppose this 
solution: (1) The spacing is wrong. There is room for four letters 
between K[ and l~[c, thus no cause to postulate an omission through 
oversight. The difficulty comes at the end of the line, where there is 
no room for KAt:. (2) The presumed justification in line 11 is non­
existent. There ,!<ai) is Lobel's counsel of despair to avoid the harsh 
asyndeton. The papyrus has not kappa but epsilon. 

Returning to KA€: As there seems to be little doubt that a name 
ending in -1TaTpac in this context must be the genitive of Cleopatra. 
and as blank papyrus after ]~[c] reveals that KAt: was not written at 
the end of line 5, all of KA€o1TaTpac must have been written where 
there is now a hole in the papyrus at the beginning of line 6. The name 
may have projected into the left margin, or a few letters may have 
been added interlinearly. 

Next there is the matter of the verb in lines 10-11. Lobel and Treu 
were both troubled by l~n€', recognizing that what is wanted is a 

• T]fi( c Lobel, but the plate shows TT/f c. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



298 P. ox Y. 2820: WHOSE PREPARATIONS? 

transitive verb, preferably in the imperfect tense, in sequence with 
lX«AKEVE (line 5), KT1] (13) and E{rrp"",'EV (15-16). Here again Drs Rea 
and Coles have found the answer on the original: lf7}(Y11IE. 

This in tum leaves us face to face with the problem of the following 
asyndeton: the copula must be found or supplied. Lobel's apparatus 
notes that there are "above vpa traces of which the middle one 
resembles , but perhaps all offsets." If these interlinear traces or 
smudges could be found to represent Kat, or even TE, the problem 
would be solved. Otherwise we must attempt to explain the omission 
of the copula, no doubt through oversight. The explanation may lie 
in the trouble that the scribe obviously had with the words immed­
iately following: he initially wrote q,povpa£c in the dative before 
deleting the iota, and he had to add TatC interlinearly, which suggests 
that he may have started to write a non-coordinate continuation after 
lf7}p7VE and neglected to insert the desiderate Kat when changing 
back to coordination. 

Thus, lines 5-11 now read: K [ai 'To] ~ [c 13 KAEO ]7T«Tpac vaV [nKOV ] I 
P.E'Ta 'TOV lKE[lVTJc] I 8«va'Tov aK7T[E]P I ElKOC If'1p.EA['1]Ip.'vov 7T«Aw 
lfl7}P'TVE <Kai) q,povpac K'TA., "and he refitted Cleopatra's fleet, which 
had-understandably-been neglected after her death, and (he 
stationed) garrisons," etc. 

III. The whole text: Who is the subject of these verbs? 
To the extent that we can decipher and reconstruct it our text now 

reads as follows. 

p.E'Ta7T'p.7T0£'T0 [ 
acplc'Tac8a& Kat 8,a 
'ToVro [cmAa] TE 7TAEl-

-' -W 'TWV flfc!-vcpv 
5 l]XcXAKEVE K[a, 'To] ~[c 

,IDe' 0 ]7T<f'Tpac vaV[ 'TLKOV 
, , , [' p.E'Ta 'TOV EKE 'V'lC 

8&va'Tov WC7T[ E]P 
ElKOC l~P.EA['1-

10 I -"\'/: p.EVOV 7TWUV E~-

7}P'TVE <Kat> q,povpac l-
17" ''Tatc' rijc xwpac lp.­
fJoAatc [i]c'T'l Ka[L 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



NAPHT ALI LEWIS 

, - '[ 7TaVTa oca 7TpO c 
15 " l' [' 7TOI\EP,OV "1v E v-

Tp/7Tt{EV WC'Tf[ 
] .. a[ . ]0. EVTE~[ 

]oAa,Btilv[ 
]. [ }T€P' [9~-

20 ,Bac Alyv[ 7TTl]ovc TWV 
~\\ .. 
W\l\WV E wa, JLa-

, -X'JLWTaTove 7TpW-, ., 
TOV JLEV 7TPOVTPE-. \ . [ 
7TEV aVTove EK ov-

25 ", \ [ e,we E17' rTJv eTp a-
I • ~~ , • [ Tnav we u OVK 7J -

vElxoVTO 7TpOC[ 
.. []vaT . . € •••• [] . [ 

~f.ETO[ 
30 ]eo .. [ 

18, im]oAafMv Treu. 

299 

Reviewing seriatim the actions taken by the subject of the verbs, we 
find: 

1. LINES 1-2. The verbs of summoning and defection, however 
suggestive of intrigue, can hardly be particularized to a specific person 
or situation in the absence of further clues. 

2. LINES 2-5. «For this reason he forged a more than adequate 
quantity of weapons." During his brief prefecture of Egypt (29-26? 
B.C.) Cornelius Gallus put down local revolts against the new Roman 
rule at Heroonpolis and Thebes. Neither of these seems to be a likely 
occasion for massive production of new armaments: the first city 
8,' JAlywv ElAE", the second tv ,BpaXEi KaT/AVCE.4 Gallus then proceeded 
to the Egyptian-Ethiopian frontier, where he apparently put on a 
military display to 'show the flag', but for the rest his activities there 
were diplomatic rather than military. 

In 26 B.C. Augustus assigned Aelius Gallus, his new prefect of Egypt, 
to lead an expedition into Arabia Felix.5 Most of what we know about 
that expedition comes from Book 16 (ch. 4.22-24, C 780-82) of Strabo, 

4 Strabo 17.1.53 (C 819). In his commemorative inscription Gallus boasts that he subdued 
the Thebaid in fifteen days (OGIS 654 = Dessau, ILS 8995 = IGRR I 1293). 

5 Cassius Dio has already reached the year 24 B.C. before he tells of Aelius Gallus' expedi­
tion (53.29.3-8). But according to the plausible argument of S. Jameson,jRS 58 (1968) 78, 
the opening words of Dio's account, EV 0/ of: 'TOW' lylyv€'To, covers a period beginning in 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



300 P.OXY. 2820: WHOSE PREPARATIONS? 

who was with Aelius in Egypt (17.1.46, C 816), the base in which he 
prepared and from which he launched the expedition. A massive 
production of armaments is quite appropriate to an account of those 
preparations. In fact, Strabo (16.4.23, C 780) states that Aelius' first 
mistake (aILap7"T)ILa) was to create a huge, unneeded war fleet. Our 
writer's dry TTA€tw 'T(~IV ZKavwv reflects a similar overproduction of 
weaponry. 

3. LINEs 5-11. "He refitted Cleopatra's fleet, which had-under· 
standably-been neglected after her death." This reference to the 
refurbishment of Cleopatra's fleet places the action of P.Oxy. 2820 in 
the first few years after her death, before the neglected hulls had 
deteriorated beyond salvage. The timing is thus right for Cornelius 
Gallus, but what would the occasion have been? Surely not his capture 
of Heroonpolis cS,' oMywv. As for his march on Thebes, it is true that 
the Ptolemies maintained a Nile river patrol (TTo'TaILot/>vAaKta), but 
can the light vessels of that service by any stretch of the imagination 
be called the country's naval force, 'TO vavnK6v? Perhaps in a wild 
burst of hyperbole, or even in vainglorious language such as that of 
Cornelius Gallus' own inscription,6 but not in· the flat matter-of-fact 
language of P.Oxy. 2820. Professor Lionel Casson calls my attention 
to Arrian 5.8.5, where 'TO vavnK6v denotes the collectivity of vessels 
constructed on the spot to ferry Alexander's army across the Indus 
river and later reassembled for crossing the Hydaspes. But the 
situations are not the same. Alexander the Great marched across 
Persia to India with a land army, which created this ad hoc <naval arm' 
when it was needed. In the Hellenistic kingdoms of Alexander's 
successors the naval arm of the military establishment operated on 
the sea, and the fleet of the Ptolemies was no exception.7 

But if Cornelius Gallus had, so far as we can tell, no need of Cleo­
patra's fleet, his successor Aelius Gallus may well have had a use for it 
for his expedition to Arabia Felix. At the northwestern extremity of 
the Red Sea (present-day Suez), with a connection to the Nile, lay the 

26 B.C. That, as further suggested (ibid. p.79), Aelius Gallus was already in Egypt as prefect 
"not later than the year 27 and conceivably earlier" is indeed possible but unprovable in 
the present state of the evidence. 

• See n.4 supra. 
7 In a recent study by H. Hauben, Callicrates of Samos: A Contribution to the Study of the 

ProlemaicAdmiralty(StudiaHellenistica 18, Leuven 1970), and in the substantial body of earlier 
work there reviewed, the Ptolemaic and other Hellenistic navies are uniformly treated as 
maritime forces. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



NAPHTALI LEWIS 301 

city of Cleopatris; here Aelius began his preparations with the 
construction and equipping of no fewer than eighty warships: 'TO 

, '8 \... • It, , (\ , • , JUXKpa Ka'TaCKEVacac at 7T1l0ta ••• OVK EAa'T'TOV O'YOOTJKOV'Ta EvaV7TT]'YTJca'TO 
~ I " './.. I, \ K"\ I~' , -CHKpO'Ta Kat 'TptTJpELC Kat 'f'acTJl\ovc Ka'Ta I\E07Ta'TpLOa 'TTJV 7TpOC rn 
1Tai\a,~ 8LWpVy' -rfi &1T0 'Toli NlLAov (Strabo 16.4.23, C 780). Now, while 
ivaV1TT}'Y*a'To describes the action of building ships (presumably from 
scratch), Ka'TaCKEVaCac8al. refers, more properly, to equipping or 
outfitting existing ships.s The Ptolemaic fleet left at Alexandria at 
Cleopatra's death was not insubstantial, consisting of the sixty ships 
with which she returned from Actium (Plut. Ant. 64.1), plus whatever 
number she had left behind for the defense of Egypt in her absence, 
minus the small number lost in her vain last effort to flee.9 It would 
have been elementary good sense for Aelius to move the most usable 
of those abandoned hulls from Alexandria, where they would in fact 
have been taking up berths needed for the new classis Alexandriae, to 
Cleopatris and refit them there.10 In that case, Strabo' s Ka'TaCKEvacacfJaf, 

and the synonymous le~p'TVE of P.Oxy. 2820 could refer to the same 
activity. In the present state of the evidence this interpretation must 
be regarded as no more than a pOSSibility, but it does seem to be a 
very tempting one. 

Another case-though a much more tenuous one, in my opinion­
might be built on the possibility that the fleet in P.Oxy. 2820 is called 
Cleopatra's through confusion with Ka'T~ KAE07Ta'Tpt8a. But in such a 
hypothesis, too, P.Oxy. 2820 would be a description of the preparations 
of Aelius Gallus for the Arabian expedition. 

4. LINES 11-13: "He stationed garrisons at the entrances to the 
country." Such preparation hardly seems appropriate for Cornelius 
Gallus, since he dealt with the uprisings as purely local, limited affairs. 
No doubt he left a frontier garrison behind after his negotiations with 
the Ethiopians, but did he similarly garrison the other entrances to 

Egypt? For Aelius Gallus, who was preparing to lead his military force 
out of Egypt, such garrisoning would be an elementary precaution to 
safeguard both the province and his rear. Srrabo's language is strikingly 

8 Cf. e.g. LS] S.v. 
• See n.10 infra. 
10 If the big vessels could not use the canal, they could be hauled across the narrow 

isthmus between the seas. By that method Cleopatra moved some of her ships to the Red 
Sea in a futile last effort to escape Octavian's pursuit (Plut. Ant. 69.2-3)-just as Octavian 
hastened that pursuit by having his fleet hauled across the isthmus of Corinth (Cass.Dio 
51.5.2). 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



302 P.OXY. 2820; WHOSE PREPARATIONS? 

close: Aelius invaded Arabia using p,£PEL Tijc EV Alyv1TTcp ~povpac 
(17.1.53, C 819) and the Ethiopians took advantage of his absence to 
attack Tjj ~povpfj. .•• KaTa Ev~V1]v (17.1.54, C 820). 

5. LINES 13-16: "He prepared everything needed for war." What 
war? Even the vainglorious language of Cornelius Gallus' own 
inscription is not so hyperbolic as to tout his local military actions as a 
'war'. It speaks of ~v 87J{Jal8a [a]1TocTcXcav, defection[is] Thebaidis, and 
S b ' 1 ···1' f U' '\' - , tra 0 s anguage IS SImI ar, T7JV TE npwCJJv 1TO/UV a1TocTacav ••• CTaCtll 
TE YEV1]8E'icav Ell Tjj 87J{Jal8L.ll Aelius Gallus, on the other hand, was 
preparing to carry war to a potential enemy, a fact which is reflected 
in the vocabulary of Strabo's account: KaTacTp£<pEc8at, EX8pGJV Kparr7-

, \ - \ , y, - , \"~' 
CEtV, p,aKpa 1TI\Ota, 1TOl\Ep,OV, 1TE~OVC, TWV Cvp,p.<XXWV, 1TOl\Ep,tOV OVVEVOC, 
cvva"'&VTWV •.• Elc p,&X7JV, 1TOAEp,lwv, and later, r&,\,\vv AlAtvv 1TOAEp,VVV­
TOC 1TP(,C TOUC" Apa{Jac.12 

6. LINES 18-27: "Esteeming the Egyptians of the Thebaid to be 
better fighters than the others, he first encouraged them to volunteer 
for the expedition, but when they did not come forward [he resorted 
to a draft(?)]." 

How does this statement fit Cornelius Gallus? He may well have 
considered that the Thebaid, which engaged him in two pitched battles 
and for a total of fifteen days, was peopled by tougher fighters than 
the rest of Egypt; and he was informed (as his inscription shows, 
ILS 8995.6-7) that Thebes, the seat of the priests of Amun, was the 
age-old center of opposition to the crown: Thebaide, communi omn[i]um 
regum formidine, subacta. It is conceivable that after defeating them he 
invited them, out of respect for their fighting qualities, to enlist 
with his forces. Their refusal would indicate, presumably, that 
defeat did not abate their hostility. But to what expedition of Cornelius 
Gallus would this text make reference? The only possibility that we 
know of would be his march from Thebes to the border with Ethiopia, 
which no extant source, not even his own lordly inscription, elevates 
to the status of an expedition. Since in the inscription he does speak of 
his CTpaTt&, one may consider whether that is the word intended in 
P.Oxy. 2820.25-26, but this possibility is effectively excluded by the 
fact that the careful writer of P.Oxy. 2820 nowhere confuses or inter­
changes Et and t. 

11 OGIS 654 etc. (Sltpra n.4) 2-3; Strabo 17.1.53 (C 819). 
11 Strabo 16.4.22-24 (C 7S0-82) passim, and 17.1.54 (C S20). 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



NAPHT ALI LEWIS 303 

In sum, lines 18-27 taken alone can if necessary be accommodated 
to Cornelius Gallus and his march to the Ethiopian frontier. The 
ineluctable objection arises from trying to fit this interpretation with 
the preceding lines of P.Oxy. 2820. For if lines 18-27 refer to Cornelius 
Gallus, then he is also the subject of the parallel preceding verbs; 
that in turn means that all these preparations for his • expedition' 
(forging arms, refitting a fleet, stationing garrisons, etc.) took place 
between the capture of Thebes and the march to the Ethiopian frontier 
-which is, of course, a patent absurdity. 

How stands the case of lines 18-27 for Aelius Gallus? First and most 
obvious: an expedition is precisely what he was preparing, and 
Strabo twice designates it by the term crpaTEla : lCTE'~E T~II cTpaTElall 

J r&.~~OC ..• ~ cTpaTEla aVT7J.13 Less obvious but possibly also apposite 
is Strabo's intervening remark that Aelius' infantry consisted of some 
10,000 TWII ;K rijc AlYV1TTOV 'PwI-'alwII Ka, TWII WI-'I-'&'XWII. Among the 
allies, he adds (implying that there were also others?), were Jews and 
Nabataeans. If there was also a contingent of Egyptians, the Thebans, 
with their reputation as being I-'aX'I-'wTaTOt, would be the prime 
recruits in any commander's eyes. 

7. A FINAL POINT which should not be overlooked is the fact that the 
sequence of indicative verbs in P.Oxy. 2820 is not in the narrative 
aorist or even in the historical present but in the imperfect tense. In 
other words, these were actions that were carried on over a period of 
time-which, again, is more appropriate to the preparations of 
Aelius Gallus than to the actions of Cornelius Gallus. 

SUMMARY. Gaius Cornelius Gallus, poet, friend of Vergil, soldier and 
statesman, was one of several <Renaissance men', as they might be 
called today, those men of striking ability and versatility who assisted 
Octavian's rise to power. Information that would help solve the 
enigma of Gallus' downfall would be most welcome, but such 
information is not to be found in P.Oxy. 2820. Treu's attempt to relate 
that text to Cornelius Gallus rests on a combination of false reading 
and false idiom, and must be rejected. In contrast, a fairly strong case 
can be made out for interpreting P.Oxy, 2820 as an account of prepara­
tions for Aelius Gallus' expedition to Arabia Felix. 
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

May. 197$ 
13 Srrabo 16.4.23, 24 (C 780, 782). Dio's account of Aelius Gallus' expedition also uses 

c'Tpa'TEta and E1TfC'TpanllCf (53.29.3). 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies