Massagetae and Alans

The Massagetae Become the Alani:

Dating the Name Change

In my article «The Geography of Orosius» (2008), I briefly mentioned the name change from Massagetae to Alani which took place at the beginning of the Christian era, to which several ancient authors are witnesses. Historians of the Later Empire routinely mention this event, without providing either chronology or context. Our earliest dated source seems to be Chinese; the Wei lio informs us concerning «le royaume de Yen-ts'ai qu'on appelle aussi A-lan; ils ont tous les mêmes moeurs que le K'ang-kiu [Sogdiane]; à l'Ouest, ils touchent au Ta-ts'in [Rome] (Chavannes, tr). Date: between AD 125-150 (...).

Greek and Roman sources contemporary with the Wei lio confirm the name change. Cassius Dio writing before AD 220 reports: «A second war was begun by the Alani (they are Massagetae) at the instigation of Pharasmanes [king of Georgia]. It caused dire injury to the Albanian territory and Media, and then involved Armenia and Cappadocia; after which, as the Alani were not only persuaded by gifts from Vologaesus but also stood in dread of Flavius Arrianus, the governor of Cappadocia, it came to a stop» (Cary's tr 69,15,1). The Albanians lived in the Caucasus, in modern Daghestan, while the Alans dwelled along the Don river, close to the Crimea; but their histories overlap and their similar names are occasionally confused in the manuscript tradition. However we are on safe ground with Cassius: he clearly differentiates the ones from the others.

Arrian of Nicomedia [90-145], who is himself an important source on the Alani, was legate of Cappadocia from 131 to 137. He was a contemporary of the Wei lio. So was Dionysius Periegetes, also a witness for the Alans, who composed his geographic poem under Hadrian [117-138]. A classic historian of geography wrote of Dionysius: «Among [the Scythian tribes] the Alani deserve special notice, as being the first definite mention of a people destined before long to play so important a part among those that contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire» (Bunbury 2:486). Here is Dionysius in Bernhardy's Latin translation: «Ei ad septemtriones diffusae habitant gentes admodum multae perpetuo tractu Maeotidis paludis ostio Tanais, Germani, Sarmatae, simulque Getae, Bastarnae, Dacorum que immensa terra, et bellicosi Alani, atque Tauri...» (verses 302-306).

Bunbury, however, describes this notice as being the first definite report on the Alans. Perhaps he means the first geographer. He overlooked references to the Alans in the course of the previous century. I now propose to review these sources and narrow down the time slot for the name change -- apparently some time under the Flavian dynasty, probably under Vespasian [69-79].

We will look at five authors: Lucan [39-65], Pliny [died AD 79] Valerius Flaccus [died ca AD 90], and Flavius Josephus [...], Suetonius [...], all contemporary. Valerius and Josephus both started to write under Vespasian, but the dates of the final editions or versions of their works are uncertain: shortly before AD 100 -- after the death of the censorious Domitian. Both writers mention the Alani in a context which points to Vespasian's foreign policy in the Caucasus and Scythia.

While the works of Josephus and Valerius bear an uncertain date, and the years of their deaths are unrecorded, Pliny the Elder is famously known to have perished during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius: AD 79. He was born in either AD 23 or 24; we cannot establish how early he entered the Alans into his description of the nations of Scythia; but we know that it had to be before 79.

Describing the lands starting east from the mouths of the Danube, Pliny lists the following peoples: «Ab eo in plenum quidem omnes Scytharum sunt gentes: variae tamen littori apposita tenuere, alias Getae, Daci Romanis dicti: alias Sarmatae, Graecis Sauromatae, eorumque Hamaxobii, aut Aorsi: alias Scytae degeneres et a servis orti, aut Troglodytae; mox Alani, et Rhoxalani» (Historia naturalis 6,25,1). In Pliny, the Alans are one of many nations of the steppe without any indication of recent changes; let us note, however, that the Massagetae do not appear on this list.

When Valerius Flaccus composed his Argonautica, the story of Jason's quest for the Golden Fleece was already at least 500 years old and had inspired several poets. Valerius' interest in this Caucasian adventure may have been stimulated by Vespasian's Oriental policy but he also knew the ancient tradition well and he worked closely within it. On several occasions, he mentions both Albani and Alani, without confusing the ones with the others. Medea is engaged to be married to the Albanian ruler, while other peoples have their own leader who is not Medea's fiancé: «The fiery Alani and fierce Heniochi had Anausis...» (6,42, Mozley's tr).

Valerius' description of the Alani, their weapons, their lifestyle.

There are two problems with Valerius' evidence on the Alani: the date of the Argonautica itself, and the date of its content. The Proem is addressed to Vespasian. «La datation du proème des Argonautiques et de l'oeuvre elle-même a fait couler beaucoup d'encre» (Liberman xviii). As a working hypothesis, it would seem that Valerius began his epic poem under Vespasian, and continued to write under his sons; he died under Domitian, without having finished it. This provides us with a Flavian date for the Alani -- assuming that Valerius took the name from contemporary events, and not some earlier version of the Argonautica, lost to us.

Our next witness is not a poet but a historian. Flavius Josephus [AD 35 - before 100] is best known for his Jewish War and his Antiquities of the Jews but he is also an important source for the general history of the Roman Empire, especially the Eastern provinces, and Rome's foreign policy in the East. Josephus is possibly the earliest author who mentions unambiguously the name of the Scythian Alani as he describes events dated to the reign of Vespasian [69-79]. «The Alani -- a race of Scythians, as we have somewhere remarked, inhabiting the banks of the river Tanais and the Lake Maeotis -- contemplating at this period incursions into Media and beyond...» (Jewish War 7:244, Loeb translation). Josephus does not mention the name change but the care he -- or his source -- takes in locating these Alani indicates that he expects his readers to be perhaps unfamiliar with them.

BJ dated to 75-79, but there is a possibility that he prepared a second edition during the '90's.

The reference is unambiguous because of the geographical setting: he cannot possibly be referring to the Caucasian Albanians who also make an appearance in his works: «the kings of both the Iberians and of the Albanians [...] did bring in the Alani against Artabanes by allowing them free transit through their own territory after throwing open the Caspian Gates» (Jewish Antiquities 18:97, in the Loeb translation).

Josephus knew both of these peoples, one in Scythia, the other in the Caucasus, and he did not confuse one with the other. But how recent was the appearance of the name Alani in his days? We will look at his contemporary, Lucan, for clues.

The Spanish born Lucan was a favourite of Nero but when the artistic emperor became jealous of his subject's talents -- so we are told -- Lucan joined Piso's conspiracy. Condemned to death for sedition in 65, he took his own life. He was not quite 26 years old. He left behind an unfinished epic poem, known to posterity variously as Bellum civile or Pharsalia, which his young widow Polla Argentaria preserved and published after the death of Nero. Lucan mentions the Alani twice:

si uos, o Parthi, peterem cum Caspia claustra

et sequerer duros aeterni Martis Alanos,

passus Achaemeniis late decurrere campis

(8:222-224)

[...] quem non violasset Alanus,

non Scytha, non fixo qui ludit in hospite Maurus

(10:454-455).

Susanna Braund offers this free verse translation based on the editions by Housman and Shackleton Bailey:

Do this if, when I headed for the Caspian Gates and chased

the hardy ever-warring Alani, I ever let you freely

race across the Achaemenid plains and never drove you

trembling into Babylon's safety, O Parthians (8:222, page 159).

The man whom the Alan would not have outraged

nor the Scythian nor the Moor who ridicules the wounded stranger (10:454-455, page 219).

The Alani mentioned in these two passages from Lucan apparently dwell in the Caucasus, neighbours of the Parthians. They are specifically not Scythians: in the second passage, Lucan lists the Northern Scythian, then the Southern Moor -- so that we expect his third example, the Alan, to be an Easterner. The Caucasian Albani would fit the context; the name Alan does not meet here the requirements of symetry which ruled ancient literature (Nisbet ...)

Did Lucan mean here, like Cassius Dio, the Alani who are the Massagetae? Not probable: he does refer to the Massagetae as a transdanubian people. «Massageten Scythicus non adliget Ister» (2,50). «Longaque Sarmatici solvens ieiunia belli // Massagetes quo fugit equo» (3,281-283). The first passage is very specific concerning the geography of the Massagetae; the second refers to wars with the Sarmatians who were Danubian neighbours of the Romans. On the other hand, in the invocation by Pompey, a Caucasian environment is indicated.

In the first passage, Lucan's Alani are associated with the Caspian Gates. We know from many authors and we have just seen in Josephus that the Caspian Gates lay somewhere in the territory of either the Albani (modern Daghestan) or the Iberians (Georgians), or perhaps on the confines of both. The Caspian Gates were a favourite point of entry for Scythian bands raiding the Parthian empire, Syria, Cappadocia; therefore the words Caspia claustra evokes the name Alani, not because they lived there, but because they crossed it on their marauding expeditions.

But are we reading Lucan correctly? Standard editions all have Caspia claustra but some manuscripts have Caspia regna. The word claustra has been accepted unquestioningly by editors; if regna should turn to be the correct reading, then Caspia regna could only apply to the Albani, not to the Alani.

Before returning to the Alani/Albani issue, let us consider more closely claustra/regna. While editors agree on Alani (as opposed to Albani), they seem to flounder over Caspia claustra. According to his apparatus, Cornelis Francken found the following variants:

porti a correction in the Montepessulanus

regna in the Ashburnhamensis, Bernensis and Taurnensis, with a correction in the Montepessulanus and the Gemblacensis

claustra: a correction in the Ashburnhamsensis.

We might assume that the remaining manuscripts (E, K D, etc) have the reading claustra -- except that Francken relies primarily on A, B, T and G, or so he says. According to Genthe, who collated it, the Erlangensis has regna, with claustra as a gloss.

That claustra has an ancient history is evident from the commentaries. But this is not proof that Lucan used it. Some early scribe may have been influenced by another very popular author during the middle ages (200 remaining mss) Josephus: «the kings of both the Iberians and of the Albanians [...] did bring in the Alani against Artabanes by allowing them free transit through their own territory after throwing open the Caspian Gates» (18:97 Latin needed from incunabular edition).

Then we have the problem of collations. Francken did not establish his text on the basis of freshly collated manuscripts. He relied on a widespread method which is to use the best edition one can find, then collate or have collated a few more, perhaps better manuscripts, and establish a new text. Francken used the edition by Hosius (with collation of M by Steinhart) and he added new collation (G by Wageningen), E (by Genthe) and developed his text. This method may produce an expeditious edition, but it does not garantee a secure text.

Check history of word regnum. Propose that the original text had Albani and regna but that confusion came later, perhaps already in Late antiquity.

With claustra the text is weak, and Francken felt the need to buttress it in his commentary: «Caspia claustra» Kaspiai pylai Graecis Alanorum (223) haec vetustissima mentio videtur: eos non debellasse Pompeium dicunt veteres intpp. ap. Oud., se ne sequitur quidem a verbis; sequerer i. q. peterem, non attingerem (in his footnote to 8:222). We can dispense with this quibble if we read the phrase -- whether Caspia claustra or Caspia regna -- as standing for the Caucasus as a whole; then we can interpret peterem in its strong sense of gaining control -- which is what Pompey actually achieved in the Caucasus.

Francken's doubts have a long history, including the twelfth century commentator Arnulfus of Orléans: «Caspia claustra: uocat Caspios montes qui claudunt regnum Parthorum sicut Alpes Italiam, Pirenei montes Hispaniam.» (page 403 of Marti's edition). Arnulf -- or his source -- suggests that Lucan means neither the defile of Derbent in Daghestan, nor that of Girdava in Mazanderan but that he uses the phrase Caspia claustra metaphorically to mean the Caucasus itself as a barrier to Parthian expansion. The commentators could be right; but it is also possible that Lucan actually wrote regna not claustra -- literally, not metaphorically -- and that claustra is derived from an intrusive gloss.

Translations often provide built-in commentaries. Here is Robert Graves on this passage: «You will recall that when I marched through the Caspian Gates against the bellicose Alans I left Parthia in peace; your horsemen were free to scour the plains instead of taking refuge behind the walls of Seleucia [Babylon]» (page 179). Like Braund, Graves uses the Housman edition; unlike her he aims at a self-contained, self-explanatory translation; he brings the footnotes into the text (see his introduction).

Graves renders the general sense correctly: the defeated Pompey, seeking refuge after the disaster at Pharsalus, is addressing the Parthians. He reminds them that he left them strictly alone when he subdued the Caucasus; he now expects generosity in return. But in showing Pompey at war against the Alans through the Caspian Gates, Graves places too much reliance on Housman. The Caspian Gates were used by the Alans and other Scyths to invade Parthia, Syria, Cappadocia -- but no Roman general would himself march through this defile against the Alans. To do that he would need first to invade Parthia -- a considerable detour -- which Pompey expressly states he did not do.

I propose the following translation based not on the uncertan manuscript tradition but on the known history of the region: «Parthians, when I subdued the Caucasus and chased the hardy ever-warring Albani, I let you freely race across the Achaemenid plains and never drove you trembling into Babylon's safety. Now do this for me...» Pompey finalized the conquest of the Caucasus (started by Lucullus), including their most warlike nation, the Albani, without entering into conflict with the Parthians. Now they owe him a favour -- so he suggests.

Over a century ago, Haskins suggested that Alani in Lucan 8:222 and 10:454 should be emended to Albani (1887:280). He was neither the first to propose this, nor to be unheeded. We find the same recommendation, more developed, in the edition by Schrevelius with notes by Grotius and Farnaby. The footnote on 8:222, at page 358, reads: «Caspia claustra: Caspiae portae sunt fauces montium Caspiorum inter Medos et Parthos. Sed de aliis furcis ceu faucibus Armeniam versus est intelligendum : cum Pompeius huc non pervenerit. uti nec ad Alanos Scythiae Europaeae pop. sed Albanos potius, qui Caspiis claustris est Parthis viciniores. De his item Plut. in Pomp. et Tacit. Annal. 12.13.15 atque ita legendum apud Suet. in Domitiano cap. 2.» Here is the historical dossier provided by Schrevelius:

Tacitus, Annales. This citation is not helpful for our purpose. Tacitus calls the Massagetae seu Alans by their alternate name of Aorsi, 12,16,1; 12,19,1. Moreover this passage refers not to the Caucasian Mithridates who was hunted by Pompey, but to Mithridates, king of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, and a campaign against him under Claudius. «Aquila et Cotys ... envoyèrent une ambassade auprès d'Eunones, qui était à la tête du peuple des Aorses» (12,15,2).

Suetonius. T. Flavius Domitianus. «Néanmoins, Vologèse. le roi des Parthes ayant réclamé des troupes de secours contre les Alains et prié qu'on leur donnât pour chef l'un des fils de Vespasien, [Domitien] mit tout en oeuvre pour leur être envoyé de préférence [à Titus]» (2,2). The political background to this juicy and clearly apocryphal bit of court gossip can be dated from Cassius Dio to AD 75. It refers to the Alans in the days of Vespasian -- not to Pompey's campaign.

While Schrevelius' first two references are not particularly useful, the third is valuable and convincing. In Agesilas and Pompeius, Plutarch refers to the same event as Lucan, namely Pompey's campaign against Mithridates § 32-41. The campaign takes place in the Caucasus only, and Plutarch describes the Albani's lands as «facing east and the Caspian sea» (§ 34,2). This reference supports an emendation from Alani to Albaniin Lucan.

Inspite of their own credible argument to emend Alani to Albani, the Schrevelius edition retains Alani in its text, as do all modern editors. The reason is not mysterious; the manuscript tradition is unanimous: Alani. Could it be unanimously wrong? Or have the editors not examined the manuscript tradition sufficiently?

Five early Lucan manuscripts survive -- all from the Carolingian Renaissance. Except for a few palimpsest fragments from the fifth century, and commentaries based on undatable sources, they constitute our earliest evidence for the text of Lucan. Closely related, they are treated as one witness by editors, yet «each of these five is a source of independent information, stored in some cases in the text, in some cases between the lines and in the margins» (Gotoff 1). Nevertheless, the genetic similarities struck Housman: «the true line of division is between the variants themselves, not between the manuscripts which offer them ... The manuscripts group themselves not in families but in factions; their dissidences and agreements are temporary and transient» (vii).

These fundamental manuscripts are all dated to the ninth century -- some 700 years after the death of Lucan. Yet historians of this epic have little to say concerning the intermediate period. Medieval commentaries, based on Late antique originals, attest «the interest scholars in the fifth and sixth centuries had in Lucan» (Gotoff 1). So do our palimpsest fragments (Bick, Detlefsen, Bourgery and Ponchont xi). But we know that the Gallo-Roman aristocracy of the fifth century loved Lucan, and copied his words for posterity. Did the so-called Caroligian Renaissance truly save Lucan from the wreckage of antiquity? Or was the salvage operated much earlier by the Gallo-Romans -- bequeathing a wealth of manuscripts for the Carolingian scribes to copy? This is a question for historians of Latin literature. For our purpose, a brief overview of some key events of the fifth century will suffice.

The late fourth century witnessed a flowering of letters amongst the Roman aristocracy -- brutally interrupted in 410 when Alaric sacked Rome. The tribulations of St Melania the Younger illustrate the dislocation suffered especially by the cultured classes. This was not an auspicious period for the preservation of literary codices. In Gaul, however, a different relationship developped between the old Gallo-Roman aristocracy and the invaders -- a sort of partnership. As a result, Latin literature survived in Gaul, while it practically perished in Italy.

Without straying from the authors under study, we find echos of Valerius Flaccus «dans le poème dit Hylas de Dracontius, chez Sidoine Apollinaire et, peut-être, dans l'Alethia de Marius Victorinus» (Liberman civ).

Sidonius was a leader of this movement. Sidonius on Lucan. Rutilius, see Pichon.

The posterity who deeply appreciated Lucan's epic and copied it over and over again may have introduced unintended readings from a very early stage. One of Lucan's admirers was the Gallo-Roman Sidonius Apollinaris writing in the fifth century -- when the Alans together with the Huns and other Eastern nations had overrun Gaul -- who declared his literary allegiance by openly imitating Lucan: «Vandalicas turmas et iuncti Martis Alanos» (... 2:364). Did Sidonius find Alanos in his manuscript or did he find Albanos and alter this word to a much better known people -- who indeed were camping in his backyard as he wrote?

The vicissitudes of Lucan's text did not end with the turmoils of Late Antiquity, or the Middle Ages. Lucan's modern editors and scholars make few, if any references, to the history of one fundamental manuscript, the Parisiensis olim Ashburnhamensis (siglum A). Stolen from .... by Guillaume Libri in 1840?, it was bought by Bertram Lord Ashburnham in ... See also Jean Baptste Joseph Barrois.

When he died in June 22, 1878, Lord Ashburnham's son inherited the collection, and proceeded to dispose of it. Delisle.

The history of Lucan's text in modern times is dominated by the colourful figure of A. E. Housman who disdained manuscript studies, as he wrote in his edition (1926/corrected 1927): «an idle yet pretentious game ... Ueberlieferungsgeschichte ... a longer and nobler name than fudge» (xiii). But Housman himself admitted later having dropped three verses from his edition of Lucan, not because he thought they were not by Lucan, but because he did not know where they fitted into the text; he also failed to mention this deletion in his notes (1932). These same verses do not appear in the Bourgery-Ponchont even though they claimed to have collated their manuscripts themselves (Souter 132). Did Shackleton Bailey restore these three verses?

Hamblenne reported on ancient damage done to the Bruxellensis olim Gemblacensis (siglum G), one of the fundamental Carolingian manuscripts of Lucan. Describing the losses, unmentioned by editors, Hamblenne commented: «Aucun éditeur de Lucain n'a collationné directement le ms de Bruxelles, BR 5330» (195).

None of the ninth century mss is complete. How was the Davatriensis used? Our best editions are at best approximate.

Tacitus and Ethnography:

Unlike Lucan, whose unfinished epic was so carefully preserved by Gallo-Roman literati that five manuscripts remain from the Carolingian period alone, and 400 from the Middle Ages, the Histories and Annals of Tacitus survive, incomplete, in a single Italian codex (..................). Along with what we can glean from those fragments, we also have a brief work ascribed to Tacitus, the Germania. The attribution is justified on grounds of style but the structure of the text which we know under this title is markedly un-Taciteam: no finely wrought prologue, very little balance or purpose, and an abrupt ending without any form of conclusion. If we had the complete text of the Annals, we might recognize the loosely strung paragraphs of the Germania as excerpts from a Tacitean excursus on the Northern nations.

Passage by Tacitus.

Fourth century historians whose works show the influence of Tacitus' writing agree to distribute the northern nations into Suevi beyond the Rhine, Dacians or Getae along the middle Danube, and the Alani as the easternmost -- with other nations in between, adding up to a canonical number of 54. Orosius is a good example. Of the fifty-four nations which fill Rome's Northern European border, from the Don to the North Sea, he only mentions the Alans, who were the easternmost, settled north of the Caucasus, the Goths of Dacia, and the Suebi of the Upper Rhine (I:2,52-53).

An anonymous treatise from the same period cites passages from Tacitus, from the work we know as the Germania. It reflects the same tradition as Orosius: «ab oriente Alania est, in medio Dacia, ubi et Gothia; deinde Germania est, ubi plurimum partem Suevi tenent. Quorum omnium sunt gentes LIIII.» (Divisio orbis terrarum, ed: Riese 62, lines 18-19, §21).

Late antique authors update the ethnography of their first century sources: in about the middle of the second century, the Goths established their empire in modern Rumania and Ukraine: «Dacia, ubi est Gothia». Others preserve the more noble sounding names of very ancient authors. Claudian: «... audax // Massagetes caesamque bibens Maeotin Alanus // membraque qui ferro gaudet pinxisse Gelonus» (In Rufinum 1:311-313). «Avec le hardi Massagète qui blesse son coursier pour s'abreuver // L'Alain qui boit au Palus-Méotide de ses pères // Et le Gélon qui aime à tatouer son corps avec le fer» (tr: Charlet).

Ammianus: See my article.

The Text of Josephus:

The earliest author who provides unambiguous evidence for the name of the Alani remains Josephus -- supported by Pliny, Suetonius and Valerius Flaccus. Based on the argument presented here, I cannot consider Lucan a serious contender.

Josephus provides the earliest evidence supporting the name change not because he is the only author who reports on the Alan raid in Parthia but because he uses the name Alani and not some characterless literary label such as Scythian or Sarmatae, or an alternate name like Aorsi. The suggestion has been made that for this episode Josephus used the Flavian commentaries -- just as Tacitus apparently did (cite ...). Details ...

Scholars have also wondered why Josephus mentions the Alan raids into Parthia -- when it had nothing to do with Jewish history (cite ...). Since he refers to these Alan raids twice, in the War (7:244), and in the Antiquities (18:97), there may have been an unspoken link with the events in Judea. The nations of the steppes were very willing to do Rome's bidding: when the Romans under Claudius decided to eliminate Mithridates of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, the deed was done by his Scythian neighbours at Rome's instigation. If Vespasian knew or suspected that the Jewish revolt had been aided and abetted by the Parthians, he might have engineered the Alan raids as retaliation. If so, it would be damaging for the honour of both the Romans and the Jews to discuss this openly, and the link between the Jewish revolt and the Alan raids is left out -- but not so discreetly that it the raids themselves are unmentioned.

First, however, we need to be sure of the text of Josephus. It survived in parallel strands which became intertwined during the Renaissance when the Greek tradition was rediscovered by Western scholars deeply familiar with the Latin translations made during Late Antiquity. The editio princeps for the Latin Josephus is dated 1470; nine editions in Latin (not counting translation into the vernacular) are known from the incunabula period alone; by the time the Greek princeps saw the light of day, in 1544, we cannot be sure that even such admirable philologists as Arlenius and Gelenius were not influenced by the Latin version they grew up with.

How different is the Latin Josephus? Sufficiently to justify an edition by Franz Blatt (1958). The Jewish War is known from a translation made by a fairly reliable writer, Rufinus of Aquileia, in ca 400; and also from a paraphrase by an otherwise unknown writer, called Hegesippus in our sources, who should perhaps be considered a historian in his own right. The best known, perhaps the only ancient Latin translation of the huge Antiquities of the Jews was made during the first half of the sixth century, in Italy, by Cassiodorus and his friends. Just as the Gallo-Roman litterateurs who rescued Lucan from oblivion may be responsible for the change from Albani to Alani, the possibility remains that the presence of the name of the Alani in the surviving text of Josephus is due to later influences. At the time when Josephus wrote about them, the Alani were sufficiently exotic to merit a thumbnail sketch; by the time versions were made by Rufinus, Hegesippus, Cassiodorus, the Alani were all over Roman lands, and exceedingly, and painfully well known.

It is not enough simply to pick up a copy of Josephus edited and or translated by Niese, Naber, Reinach, Thackeray, Pelletier, Whiston... and to look up the relevant passages. It is necessary to take into consideration the vagaries of this author's works after his death. After weighing this history, I am confident that Josephus indeed provided this information on the Scythian Alani, and that he is the earliest amongst surviving authors to do so, using the new name of the Massagetae.

The history of Josephus' text could benefit from an entire monograph, and cannot be usefully summarized in an article; in the meantime, until more research becomes available, I include detailed records on early editions, and other relevant information (see Bibliographic Appendix, below). In general historians of text transmission have paid insufficient attention to the influence of incunabular editions upon the modern recensions of ancient authors. Those who have warn us that «the printed text became the standard recension of a work, driving out of circulation even superior manuscript recensions» (Monfasano 1988:8). Careless proof-reading by printers introduced mistakes into the texts which scribes never made.

The age of printing made literature widely available at a fraction of the cost of hand made codices. But the price of democratisation was commercialisation -- and traumatic damage to the archetypal text; the unprincipled selection of manuscripts mentioned by Monfasano was aggravated by improvements to the text by Renaissance scholars whose methods were quite different from scrupulous medieval scribes. In the ninth century «there was no wholesale tampering with the text as is to be found in the manuscripts of the fifteenth century, which were not infrequently copied by scholars of the Renaissance, whose aim was to produce a readable text» (Shipley 1904:69).

Acknowledgements:

I am grateful to Judith Deitch, Bert S Hall, David W Smith, for discussions of bibliographic researches. John Corbett for St Melania the Younger, Sarah Pothecary for geography. Also the staff of Petro Jacyk (Robartss Library, Toronto), Ksenya Kiebizinski, Wasyl Sydorenko, and Nadia Zavorotna. Radmilo and Pavle Anicic for technical assistance (namely computers). My sister Guylaine for stimulating discussions, especially concerning genealogies. Mado for resources (EJ). Shortcomings are naturally my own.

Bibliography:

Chavannes, Edouard. «Les pays d'Occident d'après le Wei Lio.» T'oung Pao. NS 6 (1905) 519-571. Wei lio = Tien lio. Author: Yu Houan, qv.

Hirth, Friedrich. China and the Roman Orient. 1885. Tr: ... New York, 1966. DS 6 H6. Description of West in Wei-lio.

Yu Houan. Wei lio = Tien lio. Ed: Chavannes. Unofficial history closing with Emperor Ming (227-239). Survives incorporated in later histories. «le royaume de Yen-ts'ai qu'on appelle aussi A-lan; ils ont tous les mêmes moeurs que le K'ang-kiu [Sogdiane]; à l'Ouest, ils touchent au Ta-ts'in [Rome]; au Sud-Est, au K'ang-kiu; dans ces royaumes il y a beaucoup de martres réputées; (les habitants) sont pasteurs et vont à la recherche des eaux et des pâturages; ils sont voisins de grands marais; précédemment ils ont parfois été quelque peu soumis au K'ang-kiu, mais maintenant ils n'en dépendent pas» (558f).

Bibliographic Appendix on Flavius Josephus:

When preparing his Latin Josephus, Blatt provided a detailed descriptions of manuscripts, but his list of early editions was skeletal (p...). In my reference list, I have flagged the editions mentioned by Blatt; he used them in his edition, and this is evidence for their importance. Schreckenberg prepared the most exhaustive bibliography of Josephus available; however he displayed little interest in the history of the Latin translations and the incunabular editions (1968:1-30). The list of incunabular and post incunabular editions which follows is meant as a supplement to standard bibliographies.

I have documented the early editions of Josephus using standard reference works, in particular the Illustrated Incunabula Short Title Catalogue (IISTC). I have left out early translations of Josephus in the vernacular, not because they are not valuable in their own right, but because they could not provide answers to my ethnographic questions. For these, and for editions from the 17th to the 19th century, the reader is advised to turn to Engelmann, Schreckenberg, Feldman, and to reference works of sixteenth century printing (Verzeichniss, etc) which are included in my general bibliography.

Some controversial or merely obscure issues remain. For instance, one of the earliest editions of Josephus was printed before 1475 (IISTC §ij00482000); the date is not in doubt because one copy of that press run was accessioned in 1475 by an English purchaser (evidence from BMC ...). Many scholars have followed Goff who attributes it to an unknown printer in the Southern Netherlands (§J-482). Others have accepted Haebler's argument that it was printed by another anonymous printer, in Paris. No summary of research were provided to support those attributions.

A number of scholars support a third attribution, namely to Jean Mentelin of Strasbourg, with credible arguments (Freiman, etc). In 1475, briefly after IISTC §ij00482000 was produced, Lucas Brandis of Lübeck published the works of Josephus (IISTC § ij00483000). Brandis was educated at Leipzig and he trained as a printer in Strasbourg before settling down in Lübeck and operating his own presses. Comparisons between IISTC §ij00482000 and IISTC § ij00483000 could help determine if Brandis used the IISTC §ij00482000 as his prototype. This would provide pointers to the place of printing for IISTC §ij00482000.

All known editions of Josephus from the princeps in 1470 to the late sixteenth century have this in common: they were produced by publishers with deep pockets, who could capitalize such a voluminous author (10 volumes of the Loeb edition). They were expensive for printers to produce, and for clients to purchase. «Books represented a substantial outlay for many customers ... Sometimes they might be allowed to pay by installments: thus the Strasbourg priest Johannes Kuon was allowed to purchase Johann Mentelin's first Latin Bible (GW 4203), printed in 1460, in three installments of four guilders each» (Flood 145).

Whether they were the foremost publishers in their period like Sébastien Gryphe in Lyon, or whether they were funded by a rich and powerful government like Minutianus of Milan, they had the resources to handle such a large project. Mentelin, not a poor man himself, was backed by the then powerful archdiocese of Strasbourg. Printing in Paris starts in 1470, and this makes it a narrow fit for the Josephus which was a major production requiring months of labour. Regarding Goff's attribution, there may be technical and/or artistic reasons to deny this edition to Mentelin but the economics of book production rule out some anonymous jobbing printer in a nameless small town, especially at such an early phase of the art of printing. If Mentelin did not print the pre-1475 edition of Josephus, it should be attributed to someone of equal stature -- provided he can be found.

Bibliographic Appendix on Lucan:

Four hundred manuscripts of Lucan survive from the middle ages, but they do not all have a comparable importance. Here I list those of which I make mention in my text, with leads to studies on them. Since I write for both classical scholars and ethnographers of the Central Asiatic nations, I use modern names of cities and libraries, with references to the traditional Latin names of codices.

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds latin 10314 (ninth century): Pharsalia by Lucan. Siglum: Z. From the Abbey of Epternach. For damages, see description by Lejay.