¹ Pollux, Onom. iv 59 Google Scholar; Aristides Quintilianus ii 16 (p. 62 Jahn, p. 85 W-Ingram); Porphyrius, , Comm. in Ptolemaei Harm. i (During, p. 35).Google Scholar

² Strabo x 3.17; Aristoxenus, in Athenaeus iv 182f; Juba, ibid. 175d (assuming that the lacuna contained the names of other instruments of Syrian origin); Semos of Delos, in Athenaeus xiv 637b (presumably the Erythraean Sibyl is meant, but the passage is of little value as evidence).

³ Neanthes of Cyzicus, in Athenaeus iv 175d; Suidas s.v. σαμβύκαι, Ἰβυκος.

⁴ Phillis of Delos, in Athenaeus xiv 636b, and Suidas I.c.

⁵ Eupolis fr. 139 ( Kock, , CAF i p. 294 Google Scholar) cf. also Philemon fr. 44 ( Kock, , CAF ii p. 489 Google Scholar).

⁶ Euphorion in Athenaeus iv, 182e (cf. ibid. xiv 635a); Lesbothemis' date is not known.

⁷ Athenaeus iv, 129a; Plutarch, , Antony 9 Google Scholar, Cleomenes 35 (Polybius v 37.10); Macrobius, Sat. iii 14.7 Google Scholar; Livy xxxix 6; Plautus, , Stichus 381.Google Scholar

⁸ I have not discussed Isidorus, , Etym. iii 21 Google Scholar, where sambuca has apparently been confused with sambucus (elder-wood).

⁹ Athenaeus xiv 633f: cf. Aristides Quintilianus, I.c. note 1.

¹⁰ Plutarch, , Moralia 827a Google Scholar (cf. Plato, , Republic 399d Google Scholar). Plutarch also adds to Plato's list but the generally accepted view is that the barbitos was an enlarged form of the lyre, with seven strings, not a πολύχορδον ὄργανον.

¹¹ Politics ix 1341a. The context does not make it quite clear which of the two objections applies.

¹² See, however, Düring, , ‘Studies in Musical Terminology in 5th century Literature’ (Eranos xliii (1945) 186–94Google Scholar). He interprets στρόβιλον in Pherecrates (fr. 145 Kock) as a device for altering the pitch of the strings.

¹³ Polybius viii 6: Vegetius, , Mil. iv 21 Google Scholar: Plutarch, , Marcellus 14.Google Scholar Biton's account appears in Wescher, , Poliorcétique des Grecs (Paris 1867) v 57–61 Google Scholar: also in Bau von Belagerungsmaschinen und Geschützen, ed. Rehm-Schramm, (Abh. Bay. Akad., Munich 1929).Google Scholar

¹⁴ It is clear from later on in the account that while the ladder was fully raised (before being brought up to the wall) there were at least four men on the platform plus, almost certainly, some ‘replacements’; as they were then higher than the wall, the whole structure must have been extremely top-heavy.

¹⁵ Cf. Vitruvius x 16.9—an account of how the Chians successfully prevented ships with sambucae from approaching.

¹⁶ The ladder was not at right-angles (the normal meaning of the word πλάγιος) to the sides of the ship, or to anything else mentioned in the context. It might be expected to mean ‘sideways’ (cf. πλάγια in 9).

¹⁷ This thrust would be the vector sum of two forces, (a) that exerted by the weight of the ladder, and (b) that exerted by the men heaving on the rope; while the bridge is held stationary these two forces are equal. The resultant would then be exerted along a line bisecting the angle formed by the two parts of the rope, with its apex at the pulley (s). With the ladder just raised from the deck this line would be a few degrees out from the vertical, since the ladder projected beyond the bows: as the ladder was raised, the tension in the rope due to its weight would diminish, but the deviation from the vertical would increase: so there must have been at all times a tendency for the masts to bend forwards. Shortening the masts would make the initial thrust greater, but more nearly vertical.

¹⁸ ὑπερδέξιοι in 9 is usually translated ‘above’; that is its normal meaning in Polybius' day, but here the context seems to demand that older (etymological) sense, ‘when they are in a controlling position on the wall’. Cf. Book v 102.3.

¹⁹ I owe this suggestion to Prof. Walbank. The article is used with ἀντηρίσιν in 6, where the poles are not ‘aforementioned’, but this case is not really parallel. It is omitted (as one would expect) where the hoisting cables are first mentioned in 5.

²⁰ Livy's account (xxiv 34.6) agrees with Polybius on this point.

²¹ Drachmann, A. G., in The Mechanical Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Copenhagen & Wisconsin, 1963)Google Scholar makes a curious mistake on this point. Although he repeatedly asserts that Biton's work is unintelligible and useless (pp. 11, 186, 191, 200 etc.) he evidently understands the words (Biton's description of the counterweight) to mean a 6-ft. cube, which it need not necessarily mean. He says (p. 11) ‘The scaling-ladder with its large screw is certainly an armchair invention, for the container for the counterpoise will take 44 tons of lead where 4 tons were plenty’. I assume that the figure of 44 tons is the estimated weight of 216 cu. ft. of lead: but Biton nowhere suggests that the πλινθίον is to be filled with lead. He says It is more reasonable to suppose that ingots or lumps of lead were put into the πλινθίον (perhaps in compartments of some sort, to prevent them from sliding about when the ladder was tilted up) until the ladder was exactly balanced. As we have no real knowledge of how much of the ladder or its armour-plating weighed, or of the position of the pivot, it can fairly be said that Drachmann's figure of 4 tons is also an ‘armchair invention’.

²² Note also the dimensions of the trolley on which Biton's engine was mounted—3 ft. wide, 2 ft. high and 27 ft. long. Presumably the κιλλίας was at or near the rear end, and the length was necessary to counteract the torsion effect of the 60-ft. ladder (see p. 70 above).

²³ Cf. Walbank, F. W., ‘ Naval Triarii ’ (CR lxiv (1950) 10–11).Google Scholar

²⁴ New York 16.73: Richter and Hall pl. 146–7 and pl. 174, 144; Wegner, , Das Musikleben der Griechen pl. 23 Google Scholar; ARV ² 1126, 6; New York 07.286.35: Richter and Hall pl. 146 and pl. 174, 145; ARV ² 1126, 1.

²⁵ More accurately, the shape of an ancient spindle: hence Wegner calls this instrument ‘Spindelharfe’. The term was apparently first used by R. Herbig in his article Griechische Harfen (AM liv (1929) 164–93).

²⁶ For the problem of the ‘steadying cables’, see p. 71 above. If the σαμβύκη had four strings, they might correspond to four props: but that is virtually impossible if the σαμβύκη was a harp-type instrument (see p. 69 above). It is difficult to imagine a large number of props being effectively used, especially as the exact height of the wall might not be known beforehand. Vegetius (loc. cit.) mentions funes … qui pontem de superiore parte trochleis laxant, pointing out that these ropes correspond to the strings of the cithara. But these were clearly hoisting cables, above, not below, the drawbridge.

²⁷ E.g. London BM E271: CVA iii (iv) pl. 12 (177)2; Wegner, op. cit., pl. 19; ARV ² 1039–40, 13 The Peleus Painter. Wegner calls this type ‘Bügelharfe’. It may or may not be significant that it appears more frequently on Italian vases than on others.

²⁸ T. Reinach used the convenient term ‘instruments à manche’ for this type.

²⁹ The remarks on the latter in Athenaeus (iv 183f) are closely similar to those on the σαμβύκη. It is difficult to decide whether this implies identity of the two instruments or merely confusion in Athenaeus' mind (or his text); see the next note.

³⁰ See Higgins and Winnington-Ingram, ‘Lute-Players in Greek Art’, in JHS lxxxv (1965) 62–71. Though this list does not claim to be complete, it supersedes T. Reinach, La guitare dans l'art Grec in REG viii (1895). The possible identity of πανδούρα and σαμβύκη is discussed in note 34.

³¹ Cf. also Andreas of Panormus in Athenaeus xiv 634a, who appears to be drawing on Polybius himself, or on the same source.

³² Sachs, C., History of Musical Instruments 79 Google Scholar; Farmer, H. G. in New Oxford Dictionary of Music i 242–3.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. M. Wegner, Die Musikinstrumente des Alten Orients; in the comparative chart following the plates, Mesopotamia item 9 (from Ur), Assyria items 75 and 93.

³⁴ Sachs' remarks (op. cit. 81) are very misleading: ‘The stick holding the strings, instead of being erected vertically at the end of the body of the harp, has been shifted inwards and stands a span away from the end. Thus it has become a bridge that communicates its vibrations to the soundboard'. It seems to me that the ‘stick’ (as Sachs calls the vertical member) is not a bridge in the accepted sense of that word, since the strings are not stretched over it to an anchor point. The ‘Assyrian stone reliefs’ to which he refers are the Ashur-bani-pal Royal Hunt scenes in the British Museum ( Wegner, , Die Musikinstrumente des alten Orients pl. 4b Google Scholar).

³⁵ Sachs (op. cit. 135) referring to the instruments of Greece, Rome and Etruria, says ‘the harp was angular and vertical’. Yet on p. 136 he identifies the σαμβύκη with the sabka of Nebuchadnezzar's orchestra: he discusses the latter on p. 83–4, and describes it as a horizontal angular harp. Perhaps he assumed that the modification of the μάγαδις (see above, p. 69) involved a change from the vertical to the horizontal. It need hardly be added that philological arguments of this sort, based on the supposed identity of Hebrew and Greek words, are hopelessly unreliable. By ‘Euphorios’ Sachs means Euphorion, in Athenaeus xiv 635a.

³⁶ Helbig, Wandgemalde no. 1442; Mau, , Pompeii—its life and art fig. 268, p. 476 Google Scholar; Brion, Marcel, Pompeii and Herculaneum pl. 122, p. 204.Google Scholar I take this to be the ‘painting from Herculaneum’ alluded to by Sachs (op. cit. 135 fin.); according to Brion it is from Stabiae.

³⁷ My thanks are due to Professor F. W. Walbank and Professor R. P. Winnington-Ingram (chordis peritus hic, Polybio ille) both of whom have read this article in draft and made helpful suggestions.