This book by Aude Cohen-Skalli is part of the series of editions with translation and commentary of Strabo’s Geography published in the Collection Budé série grecque, initiated by G. Aujac and F. Lasserre.[1] Therefore, it belongs to a series that represents a landmark in the studies on Strabo. This volume deals with Book XIV, which describes Asia Minor: Ionia (1); Rhodes and Caria (2); Lycia (3); Pamphylia (4); Cilicia (5); and Cyprus (6). The volume is structured around an extensive Notice (pp. XI-CVIII), which includes discussions relevant to Strabo’s geographical description. This is followed by critical text, French translation, commentary and an appendix containing five historical maps by F. Delrieux, in collaboration with the author. The book reflects the renewed scholarly interest in Strabo’s Geography, which in recent years has led to a number of significant studies. This interest is evident in the two Companions to Strabo’s Geography published in 2005 and 2017, in the work of D. Dueck (2000), F. P. Bianchi (2020), E. Olshausen, and in the recent translation by S. Pothecary (2024). Cohen-Skalli applies the insights of this recent scholarship to Strabo’s text, offering a more current and methodologically informed approach.
In Cohen-Skalli’s study, Strabo is no longer dismissed as an “untidy compilator”, as R. Syme put it, but is instead recognised as an intellectual capable of shaping a new literary project.[2] In the section Traditions et sources livresques (pp. XXVII–XXXVII), Cohen-Skalli identifies the various traditions that Strabo reworks within the framework of his work. The section titled Les excursus historiques (pp. XXXVIII-XLIX) addresses the relationship between Strabo and the historical past. Cohen-Skalli demonstrates that Strabo is able to incorporate contemporary history into his narrative, following the tradition that was already established by Hecateus of Miletus, in which historical information is a key feature of descriptive geography. The purpose of this approach is to shape the perception of space in light of the events that occurred there. Thus, this section examines portraits of personalities such as Alexander, Sulla, Mithridates, Servilius Isauricus, Pompey and Caesar up to the recent past of Strabo’s time with Augustus and Antony. Another section, titled La géographie intellectuelle (pp. XLIX-LI), is dedicated to the portrayal of intellectuals. There is also a section focusing on Strabo’s language. In the section titled Établissement du texte (pp. LVI-CVIII), the description of the textual transmission of Strabo’s work is followed by the explanation of the principles guiding the critical edition. As Nicolai recently underscored and the author states (pp. CV-CVIII), it is impossible to reconstruct the original text, because it is uncertain if Strabo had the opportunity to revise it himself.[3] In the critical edition, the author avoids normalizing Strabo’s language. This principle is also applied to literary quotations and proverbs. Indeed, Strabo may have been quoting from memory, so such errors may be his own.
The translation consistently takes a critical and interpretative approach to Strabo’s text, while the notes clarify translator’s choices. In XIV 5, 14 C 674, the term δημοκοπία, used in reference to Boethus of Tarsus—a rhetorician appointed by Antony to govern the city—is rendered as “attitude démagogique,” a translation that reflects Boethus’ political maneuvering. His actions aimed to deceive and divide the populace in order to secure leadership. In the section on Tarsus, the rendering of ἀντιγυμνασίαρχον—a civic office granted to Boethus by Antony—as “vice-gymnasiarque” is based on a study by C. A. Forbes, who clarified the nature of the title through a Locrian inscription.[4] In the section on Mylasa (XIV, 2, 24 C 659), we hear that Hybreas, a rhetorician known for encouraging his city to resist the Parthians under Quintus Labienus, had studied rhetoric in Antioch. Upon his return to Mylasa, Strabo writes that he τῷ ἀγορανομίῳ παρέδωκεν αὑτόν, which is translated as “il se présenta au tribunal de l’agoranome.” As the commentary notes (p. 283, n. 366), Hybreas could not have held the office of agoranomos. The interaction between translation and commentary reveals the full complexity of Strabo’s text. Epigraphic, numismatic, and archaeological evidence is regularly employed to clarify Strabo’s account. The sections on Nysa (XIV 1, 43 C 649), Caunus (XIV 2, 3 C 651–652), Cnidos (XIV 2, 15), Halicarnassus (XIV 2, 16), and Tarsus (XIV 5, 12 C 673) are enhanced by historical maps or city plans, which are included directly within the commentary. These materials help contextualize Strabo’s omissions or apparent inaccuracies within their historical and cultural settings, thereby providing a clearer understanding of the text.
The commentary addresses the interpretative issues raised by Strabo’s text. The sections on the history of the poleis of Asia Minor are particularly extensive and well documented in terms of sources and bibliography. Examples include the section on Nysa (XIV 1, 46 C 650, pp. 222-226) and the city of Rhodes (pp. 234–244), which outlines the city’s history from its foundation to the Roman period through Strabo’s eyes and examines how sites have evolved over time. The commentary on the section about Tarsus (XIV 5, 14 C 674, pp. 392-400) clearly defines the prosopography of the city’s notable figures and explains why Strabo chose to represent them in the way that he did. Indeed, the commentary makes it clear that the negative portrayal of certain local personalities associated with Antony, such as Boethus, is intended to reflect negatively on the triumvir himself. Conversely, Hybreas of Mylasa is celebrated in light of the city’s revival after the Battle of Actium. These are just two examples — Mylasa and Tarsus — among many. Accordingly, in the commentary, Geography is regarded as a political text: a description of the inhabited world that situates events within spatial frameworks from the perspective of Rome.
The commentary notes, covering topics ranging from Homeric exegesis to the geopolitics of the Roman Empire, not only deals withumerous interpretative issues but also raise questions about passages whose interpretation is still debated. One such case regards the excursus on the war of Aristonicus (XIV, 1, 38 C 646–647). Strabo reports that, having gathered a multitude of men and calling them “Citizens of the Sun,” Aristonicus took possession of Thyatira and then Apollonis. However, he was stopped by forces sent by the cities and by the joint action of Nicomedes and the kings of the Cappadocians. There is no doubt that “Nicomedes” refers to Nicomedes II Epiphanes, king of Bithynia, whose reign is traditionally dated from 149 to 128/127 BCE. However, more problematic is the use of the plural “the kings of the Cappadocians”, which, as explained in the commentary (p. 197, note 188), refers to the intervention of Rome’s allied monarchs prior to the arrival of the Romans: Nicomedes II of Bithynia and Ariarathes V of Cappadocia. The plural form “kings” (βασιλεῖς) is used because Ariarathes V died during the war and was succeeded by his son, Ariarathes VI (Iust. 37. 1. 2). The sources clearly state that Aristonicus was opposed by Nicomedes II, Mithridates V Euergetes, and Ariarathes V Philopator (Oros. 5.10; Eutr. 4.20). Furthermore, Trogus/Justin (37.1.2) records that Ariarathes V died during the military campaign against Aristonicus (qui eodem bello occiderat) yet makes no mention of Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator (130–116 BCE) participating in the conflict. He merely states that Lycaonia and Cilicia were assigned to the sons of Ariarathes V, while Syria Maior was assigned to Mithridates V. However, according to Appian (Mith. 57.231), Mithridates received Greater Phrygia. As Cohen-Skalli notes (p. 196), the excursus in XIV, 1, 38 C 646 may be a summary of what Strabo discussed in more detail in the Historikà Hypomnēmata. For this reason, the expression οἱ τῶν Καππαδόκων βασιλεῖς may refer to both the King of Cappadocia (Ariarathes V) and the King of Pontic Cappadocia (Mithridates V). In various passages of the Geography, Strabo clearly distinguishes between Greater Cappadocia and Cappadocia near the Pontus (XII, 1, 4 C 534). These are two politically distinct entities within the same geographical area. In XIV, 5, 24, Strabo notes that the name Pontus is a recent creation, referring to Cappadocia as the one that “today is specifically called Pontus” (ὁ νῦν ἰδίως λεγόμενος Πόντος). Furthermore, as S. Mitchell explained, the Mithridatid kings were traditionally referred to as Cappadocians in sources predating the Mithridatic Wars.[5] Given that Strabo was a native of Amaseia and descended from an aristocratic Pontic family, it is reasonable to assume that he was fully aware of the ethnic designation of the Mithridatids as Cappadocians in earlier sources. In any case, his audience would have readily understood this usage, as Appian also refers to Mithridates VI as “Cappadocian” in several passages (Mith. 53.210; 30.120; 117.576).
The commentary also deals with problems of historical geography. The notes focus on both landscape features whose identification is well established, such as the Xanthus River in XIV, 3, 6 C 665, and those whose location remains uncertain, such as Cape Astypalaia and Zephyron in XIV 2, 20 C 658, p. 269, n. 339.
In conclusion, D. Marcotte has recently noted that F. Lasserre “a eu l’ambition de donner de Strabon une interprétation totale.”[6] This volume, dedicated to Lasserre himself, is perhaps the work that most closely approaches that ambition today. It supports the view, advanced by R. Nicolai and G. Traina, that the Geography should be studied as a “monument” rather than a “document.”[7]
References
Aujac, G., Lasserre, F. (1969) Strabon. Géographie, Tome I -1re partie (Introduction générale -Livre I), Paris.
Bianchi, F. P. (2020) Strabone e il teatro. La biblioteca drammatica della Geografia, Rombach Wissenschaft – Reihe Paradeigmata 63, Baden-Baden.
Dueck, D. (2000) Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome, London-New York.
——— (ed.) 2017 The Routledge Companion to Strabo, London-New York.
Dueck, D., Lindsay, H., Pothecary S. (eds.) (2005) Strabo’s Cultural Geography: The Making of a ‘Kolossourgia’, Cambridge.
Forbes, C. A. (1931) “Antigymnasiarch in Strabo and in a Locrian Inscription”, CPh 26.1, 89-91.
Lasserre, F. (1981) Strabon: Geographie. Tome IX (Livre XII), Paris.
Marcotte, D. (2018) “François Lasserre face à Strabon: le texte et les muses”, FCl 4, 227-260.
Mitchell, S. (2002) “In Search of the Pontic Community in Antiquity”, in A. Bowman, H.M. Cotton, M. Goodman, S. Price (eds.), Representations of Empire. Rome and the Mediterranean World, Oxford, 35-64.
Nicolai, R. (2017) “Textual tradition and textual problems”, in Dueck 2017, 309-323.
——— (2019) “Lo scrittoio di Strabone”, in A. Cohen-Skalli (ed.), Historiens et érudits à leur écritoire. Les œuvres monumentales à Rome entre République et Principat, Scripta Antiqua 125, Bordeaux, 203-224.
Olshausen, E. (2022) Strabon von Amaseia, Studienbücher Antike Band 18, Hildesheim – Zürich – New York.
Nicolai, R., Traina, G. (2000) Strabone. Geografia. Il Caucaso e l’Asia Minore (libri XI-XII), Milano.
Pothecary, S. (2024) Strabo’s Geography: A Translation for the Modern World, Princeton.
Syme, R. (1995) Anatolica: Studies in Strabo, edited by A. Birley, Oxford.
Notes
[1] Aujac – Lasserre 1969
[2] Syme 1995, 50.
[3] Nicolai 2017; 2019.
[4] Forbes 1931.
[5] Mitchell 2002.
[6] Marcotte 2018.
[7] Nicolai – Traina 2000, 8.