birthday/deathday

[spitamenes]

Agesilaos,
Kudos on the research.
It seems our search for precise dates will always be matched by our sources ability to hide them.

[Taphoi]

Aristoboulos Arr.VII 28 i says Alexander lived thirty-two years and eight months and reigned for twelve years and the same eight months. Since he died on the last day of Daisios 323 that would mean he was born late in Hyperberetaios or the beginning of Dios (Octoberish)... nothing is going to explain Aristoboulos' implied birth date in Hyperberetaios/Dios.

Arrian, Anabasis 1.1.1, says that Alexander was "around about twenty" when he came to the throne and this is probably also via Aristobulus. The implication is that Aristobulus gave a rough age (to the nearest year) for Alexander's accession, then Arrian or Aristobulus himself added these twenty years to the exact (and correct) duration for Alexander's reign of twelve years and eight months to get his lifespan. I think that this offers a straightforward explanation of the disparity.

A letter of Philip's of 339 preserved in Demosthenes De Corona 157 equates Loios of 339 with Boedromion, which would require a slippage of about thirty seven days (assuming that the date in Hekatobaion is really the second sixth, waning actually the 25th) between the Athenian and Macedonian year in a period of only seventeen years which seems too much. It may be that Plutarch means that in his day Loios was equivalent to Hekatombaion....Plutarch and Philip might be reconcilable by making 356 a 12 month year and 340 a 13 month one in Macedon, the additional Xandikos Embolimos would push the Loios of 339 to Metageitnion requiring less of a slippage.

Having done some rough sums from retro-calculated eclipses, I don't think there is any need for an intercalary month in the Macedonian year 340-339BC. It should have begun on about 14th October 340BC and ended twelve synodic months later at the start of October 339BC. There is a much more cogent explanation for the mismatch. The Macedonian calendar was probably strictly Lunar regulated: for example, Plutarch's Macedonian dates for Alexander's death are precisely aligned with the Babylonian date, which was indisputably Lunar regulated. However, the Athenians operated two different calendars in Alexander's time: firstly a lunisolar calendar "according to the gods", which was strictly Lunar regulated, but secondly a calendar "according to the Archon", which arbitrarily added or subtracted days or even whole months relative to the Lunar regulated calendar for the social and political purposes of the city's chief official. Philip’s letter is probably just equating a Lunar regulated Macedonian date with a (now meaningless) Athenian Archon date and a mismatch is therefore to be expected. The same goes for Aelian: he is probably using Archon dates, which are nonsense. Even if he is right that Alexander's birth and death dates were on the same day of the month in the Archon calendar, that is of no ulterior significance.

The interesting question is whether Plutarch’s Athenian dates for Alexander’s reign are Lunar regulated or arbitrary Archon dates? This is readily answered: Plutarch’s date for Gaugamela of 26th Boedromion is in agreement with our date (calculated from the antecedent Lunar eclipse) of 1st October (Julian) in accordance with precise Lunar regulation. Conversely, Arrian gives the Attic month Pyanepsion for Gaugamela, which is completely wrong and is probably therefore an Archon date. Apart from this, there is a strong argument (after Hammond) that Plutarch’s date for Alexander’s birth comes from Timaeus, who was an extremely pedantic chronologist from Alexander’s own time (famous for promulgating the Olympiad dating system). Timaeus is hardly going to have smiled upon the arbitrariness of the Archon calendar. Therefore Plutarch’s date for Alexander’s birth should be supposed to be Lunar regulated and deriving from the best possible authority. Whereas the references that you have raised are of interest, they do not impugn Plutarch’s considerable authority on the dating of Alexander's birth.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Arr I 1 I

Λέγεται δὴ Φίλιππος μὲν τελευτῆσαι ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Πυθοδήλου Ἀθήνησι: παραλαβόντα δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν Ἀλέξανδρον, παῖδα ὄντα Φιλίππου, ἐς Πελοπόννησον παρελθεῖν: εἶναι δὲ τότε ἀμφὶ τὰ εἴκοσιν ἔτη Ἀλέξανδρον.

There is nothing here to indicate that this information is from Aristoboulos, if anything, legetai and the brevity of Arrian’s summary point more to an amalgm of his own from other than his main sources. We cannot say that Aristoboulos even covered this period as the Triballian narrative seems wholly Ptolemy, he is cited for casualties at I 2 vii and we know that the story of the Celtic embassy is his (he is cited as the author in Strabo VII 3 viii), the earliest story cited for Aristoboulos is that of Timokleia at Thebes. So it would be more probable that the ‘about twenty’ comes from Ptolemy. It is even more likely that the statement is Arrian’s based on Aristoboulos’ explicit statement of the length of the reign and Alexander’s life VII 28 i. Both figures coming direct from a contemporary courtier and the historian who preserves most of the detail of military organisation and belies any attempt to dismiss him as senile (not that I accuse you of doing that, but I did encounter it in my reading).

So to summarise the age at I 1 I is most likely Arrian’s approximation based on Aristoboulos’ accurate statement and not any confusion on the contemporary’s part.

Now we come to ‘by the Archon’; yes, it is true that ancient magistrates played fast and loose with the calendar but, and it is a big but these dates are a purely local affair for Athens, it is quite rare to find dual dates on inscriptions, other than the prytanny date or civil date. What is certain is that no Macedonian King would be able to refer to a future event using the ‘Archon date’ as even with Aristander by his side he could not predict the whim of an Athenian magistrate. The same goes for any historian, with the possible exception of the Atthidographers any month is almost certain to from the Festival Calendar which is the only one for which meaningful equivalents would exist in other states; though even then the months are unlikely to have been totally congruent due to vagaries in observing the exact date of the new moon or solstices.

That still leaves some discrepancies to be considered, notably Plutarch’s and Arrian’s different dates for Gaugamela. Now, in his Life of Camillus 19 iii

Now concerning "dies nefasti," or unlucky days, whether we must regard some as such, or whether Heracleitus was right in rebuking Hesiod for calling some days good and some bad, in his ignorance that the nature of every day is one and the same,— this question has been fully discussed elsewhere. 2 Still, even in what I am now writing, the mention of a few examples may not be amiss. To begin with, then, it was on the fifth day of the month of Hippodromius (which the Athenians call
Hecatombaeon) that the Boeotians won two illustrious victories which set the Greeks free: that at Leuctra, and that at Ceressus more than two hundred years earlier, when they conquered Lattamyas and the Thessalians. 3 Again, on the sixth day of the month of Boedromion the Greeks defeated the Persians at Marathon, on the third day at Plataea and Mycale together, and on the twenty-sixth day at Arbela. Moreover, it was about full moon of the same month that the Athenians won their sea-fight off Naxos, under the command of Chabrias, and about the twentieth, that at Salamis, as has been set forth in my treatise "On days." 4 Further, the month of Thargelion has clearly been a disastrous one for the Barbarians, for in that month the generals of the King were conquered by Alexander at the Granicus, and on the twenty-fourth of the month the Carthaginians were worsted by Timoleon off Sicily. On this day, too, of Thargelion, it appears that Ilium was taken, as Ephorus, Callisthenes, Damastes, and Phylarchus have stated. 5 Contrarywise, the month of Metageitnion (which the Boeotians call Panemus) has not been favourable to the Greeks. On the seventh of this month they were worsted by Antipater in the battle of Crannon, and utterly undone; before this they had fought Philip unsuccessfully at Chaeroneia on that day of the month; and in the same year, and on the same day of Metageitnion, Archidamus and his army, who had crossed into Italy, were cut to pieces by the Barbarians there. The Carthaginians also regard with fear the twenty-second of this month, because it has ever
brought upon them the worst and greatest of their misfortunes.

I am not unaware that, at about the time when the mysteries are celebrated, Thebes was razed to the ground for the second time by Alexander, and that afterwards the Athenians were forced to receive a Macedonian garrison on the twentieth of Boedromion, the very day on which they escort the mystic Iacchus forth in procession. 7 And likewise the Romans, on the self-same day, saw their army under Caepio destroyed by the Cimbri, and later, when Lucullus was their general, conquered Tigranes and the Armenians. Both King Attalus and Pompey the Great died on their own birth-days. In short, one can adduce many cases where the same times and seasons have brought opposite forces upon the same men.

I reproduce the bulk of the extract to demonstrate its nature; it is a collation of previously used, in ‘On Days’ (which is not extant) work.
In the Life of Alexander he has Plut Alx 31

Ἡ μὲν οὖν σελήνη τοῦ Βοηδρομιῶνος ἐξέλιπε περὶ τὴν τῶν μυστηρίων τῶν Ἀθήνησιν ἀρχήν,

The most important word being peri/about. It is more likely that this represents what Plutarch found in his source. Two things are immediately apparent, the date is not precise, as has been assumed and it is dated by an Athenian Festival which means the source is Greek, possibly Kallisthenes here as he is cited for the battle and as we can see from the Camillus passage he used Athenian months (unless Plutarch has been translating the originals to Athenian equivalents!).
This means that we have a range of Athenian dates. Vis-à-vis the eclipse of 20 Sept 331 Plutarch states that the eve of the battle was eleven days later, Arrian describes a four day march, another four day camp, a one day approach march and a day’s postponement, one day less but Arrian is not very clear and a day of reconnaissance seems to have been absorbed into the same day as the approach.
By the time he got to writing Camillus Plutarch has forgotten that peri and added twelve days to the start of the Mysteries on 14 Boedromion to get his 26th. Arrian must have taken the 19th, 20th or 21st as the date of the eclipse which would allow for the battle on 1st Pyanepsion. He has then combined the tradition that the battle was fought in the same month as the eclipse uncritically. Or he is translating a Macedonian date in Hyperbertaios as Pyanepsion, either is possible but that his source, presumably Aristoboulos or Ptolemy was using an’Archon date ‘ is not.
The Babylonian Astronomical Diaries (available at livius.com) give the date of the battle as 24th month VI Ululu which could imply that the Athenian year was two days behind or equally that Plutarch’s peri is really ‘just before’ ie. The 12th.
Hammond may think that Plutarch gets his date for Alexander’s birth from Timaeus but I see no evidence of it in the text the only source mentioned is Hegesias and he is accurate enough to take penalty kicks for England (soccer). Had Plutarch consulted Timaeus, whose work did cover Alexander his name ought to have appeared at chap 46 where he lists the sources for and against the visit of the Amazon Queen; it doesn’t. Hammond as you are well aware I am sure is frequently guilty of making bricks without straw and sometimes without clay either (witness his love of attributing passages to Diyllus whose two remaining fragments do not warrant the attributions).
Plutarch can be careless and is not particularly critical of his sources he is like Curtius, as good as the material he transmits.

[Taphoi]

…So to summarise the age at I 1 I is most likely Arrian’s approximation based on Aristoboulos’ accurate statement and not any confusion on the contemporary’s part.

Why would Arrian express accurate information in his sources as an approximation in his own text, if he believed it to be accurate? Why would he wish himself to introduce doubt about Alexander’s age, which was not in his sources? Do you think he was irrational? Surely the logic is that he expressed it as an approximation, because his source did so too?

Now we come to ‘by the Archon’; yes, it is true that ancient magistrates played fast and loose with the calendar but, and it is a big but these dates are a purely local affair for Athens, it is quite rare to find dual dates on inscriptions, other than the prytanny date or civil date. What is certain is that no Macedonian King would be able to refer to a future event using the ‘Archon date’ as even with Aristander by his side he could not predict the whim of an Athenian magistrate. The same goes for any historian, with the possible exception of the Atthidographers any month is almost certain to from the Festival Calendar which is the only one for which meaningful equivalents would exist in other states; though even then the months are unlikely to have been totally congruent due to vagaries in observing the exact date of the new moon or solstices.

You seem a bit confused: the Festival Calendar was the Archon Calendar (they are alternative names for the same thing). It was used in Athens for most practical purposes (the Prytany calendar was different again, but did not use the month names and is irrelevant to dates using those month names). It is certain that the Archon Calendar was announced widely well in advance, else we would have the reductio ad absurdum argument that nobody in Athens would have known when any public event was going to happen. If known in Athens, then it would be known throughout the Greek world. Other Greeks would have attended most Athenian public events for one reason or another.

That still leaves some discrepancies to be considered, notably Plutarch’s and Arrian’s different dates for Gaugamela … (quotes: Life of Camillus 19 iii)… The most important word being peri/about. It is more likely that this represents what Plutarch found in his source. Two things are immediately apparent, the date is not precise, as has been assumed and it is dated by an Athenian Festival which means the source is Greek, possibly Kallisthenes here as he is cited for the battle and as we can see from the Camillus passage he used Athenian months (unless Plutarch has been translating the originals to Athenian equivalents!).
This means that we have a range of Athenian dates. Vis-à-vis the eclipse of 20 Sept 331 Plutarch states that the eve of the battle was eleven days later, Arrian describes a four day march, another four day camp, a one day approach march and a day’s postponement, one day less but Arrian is not very clear and a day of reconnaissance seems to have been absorbed into the same day as the approach.
By the time he got to writing Camillus Plutarch has forgotten that peri and added twelve days to the start of the Mysteries on 14 Boedromion to get his 26th. Arrian must have taken the 19th, 20th or 21st as the date of the eclipse which would allow for the battle on 1st Pyanepsion. He has then combined the tradition that the battle was fought in the same month as the eclipse uncritically. Or he is translating a Macedonian date in Hyperbertaios as Pyanepsion, either is possible but that his source, presumably Aristoboulos or Ptolemy was using an’Archon date ‘ is not.

The start of the Athenian Mysteries is an Archon date and not a Lunar regulated date. Plutarch is therefore uncertain of the exact date on which the mysteries commenced in 331BC. That will be why he uses peri.

What you say above seems just to be obfuscation, since it does not change the fact that Plutarch’s date for Gaugamela is correct regarding the lunar phase and must therefore be supposed to be a Lunar regulated date. As Arrian gives a different Athenian month, the logical explanation is that he was using the only alternative version of the Athenian calendar that used the months: the Archon date. He should not be mistaken about the Athenian date of the battle or the eclipse, because he had access to the official records of Athens (he was himself Archon of Athens in AD 148-9).

The Babylonian Astronomical Diaries (available at livius.com) give the date of the battle as 24th month VI Ululu which could imply that the Athenian year was two days behind or equally that Plutarch’s peri is really ‘just before’ ie. The 12th.

Gaugamela took place on 1st October eleven days after the eclipse on 20th September. The New Moon happens nearly fifteen days before the Full Moon (at which all Lunar eclipses occur). Therefore Gaugamela took place on the 26th day after the New Moon, so Plutarch is correct that it was the 26th day of the month according to strict Lunar regulation. The Babylonians may have waited until they got a clear sight of the New Moon in the morning before kicking off their month, since their calendar was driven by actual observations. This could easily result in a drift of their month by two days relative to a calendar that inferred the time of a New Moon and was prepared to kick off the month even if the New Moon occurred in the evening.

Hammond may think that Plutarch gets his date for Alexander’s birth from Timaeus but I see no evidence of it in the text the only source mentioned is Hegesias and he is accurate enough to take penalty kicks for England (soccer). Had Plutarch consulted Timaeus, whose work did cover Alexander his name ought to have appeared at chap 46 where he lists the sources for and against the visit of the Amazon Queen; it doesn’t.

Hammond points out that Cicero tells exactly the same stories about Alexander’s birth in N.D. 2.69 & Div. 1.47 as Plutarch, Life of Alexander 3. Cicero names his source in N.D. as Timaeus. There is no reason why Plutarch should have named all of his several tens of sources for the Life of Alexander in his discussion of the Amazon incident.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Arr. I 1 i is an introductory blurb by Arrian, not a citation from his sources, he is vague because precision is out of place in such a passage; had he wished to be precise he would have been, unless you think he had no access to the information which he himself gives us. Alternatively you may believe Arrian is simply a cut and paste merchant, a charge that does not even bear examination with regard to Diodoros. The logical position is that Arrian wrote what he found fitting to the style of the passage. He is being cursory, sadly because his subject is the expedition not the reign of Alexander.

I assure you I am not confused but I will grant that it may have seemed such, I was merely using the Festival calendar to contrast with the Archon adjusted one in an attempt to avoid a more precise periphrasis. The adjusted one would be the one used day to day and adjustments would be announced at the Assembly or in the Agora, with only thirty thousand or so citizens and only a fraction of those needing to know the date, in fact only needing to know if they were due in the courts or Assembly etc. word of mouth would have sufficed; this is only a third of a football crowd. You are mistaken if you think the Archons did not change the date at short notice; in one case they postponed the Dionysia for five days to allow for extra rehearsals, this is not succeptible to long range prediction (this was in the second century BC but I have not tied down the reference...yet).

I have trawled through 700 odd Attic inscriptions and have yet to come across one with the date ‘by the God’ and ‘by the Archon’; the closest I have got is a remark that this was found on a first century BC stone if you have the SEG or IG3 it would be interesting to see the context and the difference.

Given that the changes were arbitrary they could not be ‘widely announced well in advance’. How do you envision this happening? A host of Pheidippedes setting off to East, West, South and North to synchronise the day? In fact there is evidence that even her own cleruchies did not run completely in synch. Apologies that I failed to note the book and epigraphic references.

You make a nonsense when you say that Plutarch did not know the date of the Mysteries so uses peri but then that his date is correct and therefore ‘Lunar regulated’. All the arguments about the Athenian calendar date for Gaugamela are based on Plutarch’s date of 26 Boedromion and fall once that foundation is shaken.

Plutarch must be using peri because that is what he found in his source, that he later wrote of the 26 which is as you say the correct date ought then come from a calculation like your own, the Greeks certainly knew that eclipses occur only at full moon and that the full moon is at mid point in a lunar month. Why else would he be imprecise in the Life, had he known the correct date he must surely have used it rather than an imprecise formula.

I can now say with some confidence why Arrian has Pyanespsion and Plutarch Boedromion. Epigraphic and Numismatic evidence points to a calendar reform of the Macedonian year vis-a-vis the Babylonian c 31-47 AD which advanced the Macedonian months by one slot so that Hyperberetaios which had been equivalent to the Athenian Boedromion became the equivalent of Pyanepsion at the time that Arrian was writing. This means that Arrian found, just what we should expect, Macedonian dates in his Macedonian sources and gave the equivalent months of his day not realising the calendar had been reformed. This also means that the Maimakterion he gives for Issos should be Pyanepsion which means that the sources account of Alexander’s illness are right and we don’t have to find an extra month of recuperation. It also means that the Mercenaries sailing from Tripolis are not setting off into the November squalls.

And finally, Timaeus,

47 "It certainly must be true that even barbarians have some power of foreknowledge and of prophecy, if the following story of Callanus of India be true: As he was about to die and was ascending the funeral pyre, he said: 'What a glorious death! The fate of Hercules is mine. For when this mortal frame is burned the soul will find the light.'
When Alexander directed him to speak if he wished to say anything to him, he answered: 'Thank you, nothing, except that I shall see you very soon.' So it turned out, for Alexander died in Babylon a few days later. I am getting slightly away from dreams, but I shall return to them in a moment. Everybody knows that on the same night in which Olympias was delivered of Alexander the temple of Diana at Ephesus was burned, and that the magi began to cry out as day was breaking: 'Asia's deadly curse was born last night.' But enough of Indians and magi.

On Divination

There is a remark of Timæus which, like many of his, shows ingenuity; after saying in his history that the temple of the Ephesian Diana had been burnt down on the same night that Alexander was born, he added that that was by no means to be wondered at, since Diana wishing to be present at the delivery of Olympias had been absent from her home.

Nature of the Gods

All this shows is that Hegesias actually stole Timaeus’ comedy moment, the fact that Plutarch believes the lame joke to be Hegesias’ own demonstrates unfamiliarity with the original in Timaeus. This doesn’t exclude the possibility that Hegesias also took the date over from Timaeus, of course.

[Taphoi]

Arr. I 1 i is an introductory blurb by Arrian, not a citation from his sources, he is vague because precision is out of place in such a passage… He is being cursory, sadly because his subject is the expedition not the reign of Alexander.

There is no stylistic reason why it would not have been better for him to write “twenty” instead of “around about twenty” had he not wished to convey some uncertainty in his sources as to Alexander’s exact date of birth. The former would have been even more cursory!

I assure you I am not confused but I will grant that it may have seemed such, I was merely using the Festival calendar to contrast with the Archon adjusted one in an attempt to avoid a more precise periphrasis. The adjusted one would be the one used day to day and adjustments would be announced at the Assembly or in the Agora, with only thirty thousand or so citizens and only a fraction of those needing to know the date, in fact only needing to know if they were due in the courts or Assembly etc. word of mouth would have sufficed; this is only a third of a football crowd. You are mistaken if you think the Archons did not change the date at short notice; in one case they postponed the Dionysia for five days to allow for extra rehearsals, this is not succeptible to long range prediction (this was in the second century BC but I have not tied down the reference...yet).

It is certainly true that we know of instances where late tweaks were made to the Archon calendar, but these must have been exceptions rather than the rule. Otherwise public life in Athens would have been in a permanent state of chaos and long range planning of public events would have been impossible. People needed to know where they were supposed to be and what they were supposed to be doing every day.

I have trawled through 700 odd Attic inscriptions and have yet to come across one with the date ‘by the God’ and ‘by the Archon’; the closest I have got is a remark that this was found on a first century BC stone if you have the SEG or IG3 it would be interesting to see the context and the difference.

The normal practice was to use Archon dates in inscriptions. However, Samuel cites IG II2 861 for a kata theon example. A parallel case to the two Athenian calendars would be our own Julian and Gregorian calendars. The Gregorian is used for most practical purposes, but nobody puts “Gregorian” in brackets after its dates. The Julian calendar is now relegated to specialist usages: for example, by historians.

You make a nonsense when you say that Plutarch did not know the date of the Mysteries so uses peri but then that his date is correct and therefore ‘Lunar regulated’. All the arguments about the Athenian calendar date for Gaugamela are based on Plutarch’s date of 26 Boedromion and fall once that foundation is shaken.

Let me explain again: Plutarch is certain of the date of the eclipse and of Gaugamela, because he has Lunar regulated dates for them. He cannot be sure of the date of the start of the Mysteries in the Lunar regulated calendar, because it was set arbitrarily by the Archon in 331BC. Therefore Plutarch is obliged to use peri to express his uncertainty concerning the start of the Mysteries. Plutarch’s date for Gaugamela is certainly Lunar and you have said nothing to shake it. Nor can you, because it is a matter of astronomical fact.

Plutarch must be using peri because that is what he found in his source, that he later wrote of the 26 which is as you say the correct date ought then come from a calculation like your own, the Greeks certainly knew that eclipses occur only at full moon and that the full moon is at mid point in a lunar month. Why else would he be imprecise in the Life, had he known the correct date he must surely have used it rather than an imprecise formula.

It is possible that Timaeus used a calculation like mine to find the Lunar regulated date of Gaugamela. It is not possible that Plutarch derived his date solely by such a calculation, because it only yields the day number and not the month name. Plutarch’s source must have identified the month name and so had probably already given the full date. The point remains that it is a Lunar regulated date and intentionally so, if it was derived by calculation. Plutarch uses a different kind of precision in the Life of Alexander by specifying how long after the start of the Mysteries the battle took place. It is only the difference between “December the twenty-ninth” and “four days after Christmas”.

I can now say with some confidence why Arrian has Pyanespsion and Plutarch Boedromion. Epigraphic and Numismatic evidence points to a calendar reform of the Macedonian year vis-a-vis the Babylonian c 31-47 AD which advanced the Macedonian months by one slot so that Hyperberetaios which had been equivalent to the Athenian Boedromion became the equivalent of Pyanepsion at the time that Arrian was writing. This means that Arrian found, just what we should expect, Macedonian dates in his Macedonian sources and gave the equivalent months of his day not realising the calendar had been reformed. This also means that the Maimakterion he gives for Issos should be Pyanepsion which means that the sources account of Alexander’s illness are right and we don’t have to find an extra month of recuperation. It also means that the Mercenaries sailing from Tripolis are not setting off into the November squalls.

It is easy to show that this is very unlikely to be true with a single example where Arrian definitely does no such thing. That is to be found in the Indica at 21.1 where Arrian maintains the equivalence of Hyperberetaeus and Boedromion in contradiction of your supposition concerning his practice. You would do better to look to the whimsy of the Archon calendar to explain these inconsistencies as I have said.

… All this shows is that Hegesias actually stole Timaeus’ comedy moment, the fact that Plutarch believes the lame joke to be Hegesias’ own demonstrates unfamiliarity with the original in Timaeus. This doesn’t exclude the possibility that Hegesias also took the date over from Timaeus, of course.

Since Timaeus was a famous chronologist and Hegesias was not and since Timaeus was probably writing slightly antecedent to Hegesias, it would seem likely that the date for Alexander’s birth originated from Timaeus.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

It is easy to show that this is very unlikely to be true with a single example where Arrian definitely does no such thing. That is to be found in the Indica at 21.1 where Arrian maintains the equivalence of Hyperberetaeus and Boedromion in contradiction of your supposition concerning his practice. You would do better to look to the whimsy of the Archon calendar to explain these inconsistencies as I have said.

LOL ! If you check the Greek in the Loeb, page 366, you will find that the phrase <menos Hyperberetaiou, esto> is bracketed to show that it has been supplied to fill a lacuna but the lack of any notice in the app.crit demonstrates how uncontroversial it is. This is because everyone knows Boedromion is equivalent to Hyperberetaios; but since this is the opinion of a modern editor and not what Arrian wrote it cannot be adduced as evidence. BUT even had Arrian written Hyperberetaios it does not follow that he did not find the correspondance in his source, Nearchos, and quote it. Ancient authors are quite capable of treating the same material differently in different works (consider Xenophon’s Hellenika and his Agesilaos ) it is even less likely that the same approach will be carried over from genre to genre and source to source.

The problem for your case is that the Athenian archon year would have to be running fifteen days ahead of the true lunar year by month three for Arrian’s assertion that the eclipse and battle occurred in the same month. I will demonstrate later that that is unprecedented. Another point is that Arrian’s main sources are known and neither seems a likely candidate for using the local Athenian calendar as the basis for his chronology. My suggestion preserves Arrian’s sanity and offers some new lines of analysis. I have to confess that I have yet to discover upon which evidence the reform is based... but I will.

. Plutarch’s source must have identified the month name and so had probably already given the full date.

Plutarch’s source did give a month,

It happened that in the month of Boedromion, about the same time as the beginning of the festival of the Mysteries at Athens, there was an eclipse of the moon.

Even had it only given a reference to the Mysteries Plutarch would have known that that Festival took place in Boedromion and could thus have supplied his own month. That the battle was fought on what should have been 26 Boedromion I am not disputing only that there no more value in calling the date 26 Boedromion than in calling it 1 October since if Plutarch has calculated his date in the Camillus it tells us nothing about how the calendar was running in Athens.

Now to the Athenian evidence for parallel systems. I have found thirty examples of the formula ‘kata theon’ relating to dates. Six were dated ‘kata theon’ only and one was too damaged to say whether a dual dating had existed. Of the remaining twenty-three fifteen preserved enough information to allow a calculation of the difference between the calendars. The earliest evidence for dual dating is from 196/5. The greatest discrepency comes from two decrees of 166/5 when the archon year was running a full month behind the true lunar year in the 8th month (Anthesterion) and was still uncorrected by the 10th (Mounichion). In 145/4 it was twelve days behind in Elaphebolion as attested by two decrees of the same day. There are two where it is seven days behind and two more where the error is six, and a further two where it was only one. There are four dates where it is running ahead by one, two, four and five days (two decrees for same day in 196/5 in Elaphebolion, month nine. The earliest month to show a discrepancy is Boedromion, six days behind). Of the months where the archon year was ahead of the moon the earliest month is an embolic (intercalary) Boedromion, so month four and that is by one day.

So the evidence for this sort of mismatch is late and nowhere does the archon year get ahead of the lunar year by fifteen days. This is just as one would expect with the archons declaring the date frozen by adding embolic days ie Today is the seventh of August, again...for the third time.

I have tabulated all the references should anyone wish it I can e-mail it just drop me a pm... go on I know that micro-chronology is the new Rock and Roll
Am off to Sonis[phere for weekend so dont think I'm being lazy.

[Taphoi]

LOL ! If you check the Greek in the Loeb, page 366, you will find that the phrase <menos Hyperberetaiou, esto> is bracketed to show that it has been supplied to fill a lacuna but the lack of any notice in the app.crit demonstrates how uncontroversial it is. This is because everyone knows Boedromion is equivalent to Hyperberetaios; but since this is the opinion of a modern editor and not what Arrian wrote it cannot be adduced as evidence.

Granted that the word Hyperberetaeus is an interpolation, your argument nevertheless founders on this reference, which I will quote in full:

Now when the trade winds had sunk to rest, which continue blowing from the Ocean to the land all the summer season, and hence render the voyage impossible, they put to sea, in the archonship at Athens of Cephisodorus, on the twentieth day of the month Boedromion, as the Athenians reckon it; but as the Macedonians and Asians counted it, it was <in the month of Hyperberetaeus and> the eleventh year of Alexander's reign.

Your hypothesis requires that Arrian always wrote the name of the Athenian month that succeeded the real Athenian month. Here he writes 20th Boedromion (about 18th September Julian), so the actual date at which Nearchus sailed in 325BC according to your argument was 18th Metageitnion (about 19th August Julian). That is quite impossible for many reasons. For example, Strabo 15.2.5 also cites Nearchus as writing that he set sail "at the time of the rising of the Pleiades in the west", which (as Brunt points out in Appendix XVII.24) equates to late September or early October and therefore confirms 20th Boedromion as being correct. (Actually, what Strabo means is the acronychal rising of the Pleiades in the eastern sky as the sun's light is dying in the west, which happens near the autumnal equinox.) Certainly too the editorial interpolation of Hyperberetaeus must therefore be correct, so my original point also stands. It might be added that the seasonal trade winds were very unlikely to have been blowing in the right direction for Nearchus to have been able to set sail as early as August.

The problem for your case is that the Athenian archon year would have to be running fifteen days ahead of the true lunar year by month three for Arrian’s assertion that the eclipse and battle occurred in the same month…

No, because Arrian need only mean that the battle took place in the same Lunar month. Greeks regarded the New Moon as the start of the month and Lunar eclipses took place at Full Moon. It is obvious that a battle 11 days after a Lunar eclipse must have been in the same Lunar month. Arrian does not seem to know the exact date in Pyanepsion, so he probably didn't know whether the Archon date of the eclipse was in Pyanepsion, but he knew that Archon date months were not aligned with real months. However, an offset between the Lunar and Archon calendars of more than two weeks is also quite feasible.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

It is an old and ineffective rhetorical tactic to tell an opponent what their argument is and then address the cuckoo rather than the real point;

BUT even had Arrian written Hyperberetaios it does not follow that he did not find the correspondance in his source, Nearchos, and quote it. Ancient authors are quite capable of treating the same material differently in different works (consider Xenophon’s Hellenika and his Agesilaos ) it is even less likely that the same approach will be carried over from genre to genre and source to source.

Couldn’t resist the LOL; it is amusing to be argued against from ‘square brackets’, the meteorological and astronomical pointers are a good point but the whole passage does not affect Arrian’s usage in the Anabasis. Here he is simply quoting the correspondence cited by his source, Nearchos.

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you have forgotten how the archons actually used there power over the calendar; and here I must stand accused as well for not realising it sooner. It took a good blast of Rock to clear the cobwebs.

The dates of the Festivals were fixed, so anyone would know the ‘Archon date’ for any Festival; eg Xmas was always 25 Dec BUT when city business required it the archons could interpolate a second Xmas Eve (a second New Year’s eve would be more fun) so that Xmas would really be on the 26. There does not seem to be any limit to the embolic days certainly three repeats are known. The only doubt is between the relationship between the archon and lunar days.

That means that the archon dates can never get ahead of the actual date but only be behind it. I rechecked the dual dated inscriptions and lo and behold I had goofed earlier, by forgetting they counted down from twenty (Doh!). Using the correct dates the archon date is always behind the real date . So you cannot make the archons call any date in Boedromion one in Pyanepsion.

[spitamenes]

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you two are talking about. And yet I read on....

[Taphoi]

It is an old and ineffective rhetorical tactic to tell an opponent what their argument is and then address the cuckoo rather than the real point;

BUT even had Arrian written Hyperberetaios it does not follow that he did not find the correspondance in his source, Nearchos, and quote it. Ancient authors are quite capable of treating the same material differently in different works (consider Xenophon’s Hellenika and his Agesilaos ) it is even less likely that the same approach will be carried over from genre to genre and source to source.

Couldn’t resist the LOL; it is amusing to be argued against from ‘square brackets’, the meteorological and astronomical pointers are a good point but the whole passage does not affect Arrian’s usage in the Anabasis. Here he is simply quoting the correspondence cited by his source, Nearchos.

You seem to be arguing that Arrian treated dates that he found in Nearchus differently to dates that he found in Ptolemy and Aristobulus. That is arbitrary and inconsistent. I do not by the way accept that Arrian’s month for Issus is unreasonable. Not only did Alexander need to recover from his near-fatal illness, but also the trip to Anchiale intervened. Then it would have taken some time to move the entire army including baggage beyond Issus from Tarsus. Then Alexander had to double back when he found Darius behind him.

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you have forgotten how the archons actually used there power over the calendar; and here I must stand accused as well for not realising it sooner. It took a good blast of Rock to clear the cobwebs.

The dates of the Festivals were fixed, so anyone would know the ‘Archon date’ for any Festival; eg Xmas was always 25 Dec BUT when city business required it the archons could interpolate a second Xmas Eve (a second New Year’s eve would be more fun) so that Xmas would really be on the 26. There does not seem to be any limit to the embolic days certainly three repeats are known. The only doubt is between the relationship between the archon and lunar days.

That means that the archon dates can never get ahead of the actual date but only be behind it. I rechecked the dual dated inscriptions and lo and behold I had goofed earlier, by forgetting they counted down from twenty (Doh!). Using the correct dates the archon date is always behind the real date . So you cannot make the archons call any date in Boedromion one in Pyanepsion.

In the first place your argument assumes that the Archons never found occasion to wish to advance their calendar, but only to retard it, which is improbable on practical grounds. Anyway, in the long run days had to be deleted as well as added to keep the calendar in any kind of alignment with the lunisolar year. In the second place there is specific evidence to suggest that the Archon calendar did get well ahead of the Lunar Calendar sometimes. We know from coins and other evidence that the pattern of intercalary (13-month) years was irregular in Athens. There are a number of instances of two intercalary years in succession, for example. But Meritt also notes on page 182 of “The Athenian Year” that the year 265/4 (BC) should have been 13-months according to the Metonic cycle (and according to actual Lunar observations), but that they waited until the next year 264/3 to insert an extra month (although that year should have been an ordinary 12-month one). This would have advanced the Archon calendar by thirty days relative to the Lunar calendar. The explanation cannot be that thirty extra embolic days had built up, because then there would have been no need for the intercalary month in the next year.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you two are talking about. And yet I read on....

Actually, it's all Greek to me too.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

I am unsure whether you are calling me or Arrian ‘arbitrary and inconsistent’; if the latter then I agree and there is a mountain of textual evidence to support the charge, if the former, then i can only suggest that abuse is the first refuge of a defeated argument.

Not only did Alexander need to recover from his near-fatal illness, but also the trip to Anchiale intervened. Then it would have taken some time to move the entire army including baggage beyond Issus from Tarsus. Then Alexander had to double back when he found Darius behind him.

The illness is assumed to have lasted a long time in order to make sense of Arrian’s dating, Engels ‘Logistics’ p42 has Alexander ‘incapacitated for nearly two months’; Curtius meanwhile says

day one;consultations no medicine for three days III 6 iii
day four; treated
day seven; appears before troops 6 xvi
day twelve; moves on Soli (Darius is four days away at 5 x and takes five days to cross Euphrates 7 i

So two weeks at the outside,
Anchialus was visited the day before reaching Soli then there were six days in the hills and a further five of Games (day 23) the pre battle marches are equally well documented; if one corrects Arrian from Curtius. 24 Tarsos, 25 Mallos, 27 Casteballum, 28 Issos, 29 Pillars of Jonah, 30 Myriandros, 31returns to Pillars of Jonah 32 day of battle.

In the first place your argument assumes that the Archons never found occasion to wish to advance their calendar, but only to retard it, which is improbable on practical grounds. Anyway, in the long run days had to be deleted as well as added to keep the calendar in any kind of alignment with the lunisolar year.

One day I am sure you will read what people say and not what you wish they had said; of course days would have to be deleted but these days were only used to correct the retardation of embolic days and the corrections seem to have been applied towards the end of the year cf W K Pritchett ‘Athenian Calendars Again’

(4) One reviewer (BCH 73 [1948], p. 497) has asked the question: if the archons intercalated days, would it not be likely that they would rectify the discrepancy as soon as possible? I can only state in reply that if we adopt the assumption of a regular prytany calendar, it will then be seen, as we pointed out from time to time in Calendars of Athens, that the compensations seem to hâve occurred usually, though not always, near the end of the year.

But Meritt also notes on page 182 of “The Athenian Year” that the year 265/4 (BC) should have been 13-months according to the Metonic cycle (and according to actual Lunar observations), but that they waited until the next year 264/3 to insert an extra month (although that year should have been an ordinary 12-month one). This would have advanced the Archon calendar by thirty days relative to the Lunar calendar.

In fact all this later intercalation does is realign the two calendars it does not leave the archon calendar ahead of the lunar.

None of the surviving inscriptions show the archon calendar ahead of the lunar, it would be bad practice to deduce a practice for which there is literally, or rather, epigraphically no evidence at all.

[Taphoi]

But Meritt also notes on page 182 of “The Athenian Year” that the year 265/4 (BC) should have been 13-months according to the Metonic cycle (and according to actual Lunar observations), but that they waited until the next year 264/3 to insert an extra month (although that year should have been an ordinary 12-month one). This would have advanced the Archon calendar by thirty days relative to the Lunar calendar.

In fact all this later intercalation does is realign the two calendars it does not leave the archon calendar ahead of the lunar.

No. The Lunar calendar would have added the intercalary month in 265/4 as was required by its rules, so it would have fallen a month behind the Archon calendar and this situation would have lasted a year. In 264/3 the Archon calendar added a month, but the Lunar calendar did not need to. That was when they became realigned. Thus for a year the Archon calendar was a month ahead.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Sorry, see your point now.(DOH)

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Athens operated according to the Metonic cycle, that is an invention of Merrit and Dinsmoor (not the metonic cycle itself, of course just its use in Athens) to support their fixed festival calendar theory; it seems that there were no rules for intercalation at Athens, although it must have happened; the intercalary months we have evidence for move all over the calendar. Nor is there a 'kata theon' dating for 264 the earliest being 196, so Merrit it working purely on his own discredited theory. Pritchett and Neueberger's more sensible (IMHO) opinions are neatly summarised here

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/pr ... _81_1_2374