Birthday again; a study in method now with poll!

[Paralus]

You don't seem to be aware that a lot of Polybius is missing and that Polybius wrote about Timaeus. Furthermore, it is perfectly standard that Livy used Polybius (in his more complete ancient form) as is made clear by the following, which you can find here: http://www.livius.org/li-ln/livy/livy4.html

Two points on Livy. Firstly, although he unarguably used Polybius (for "Greek" affairs), his text is not ever to be considered a "mirror" of Polybius anymore than Diodorus 18-20 is often thought to be such of Hieronymus. Livy often rewrote his source and did so for a Roman audience. Secondly, it is clear Livy did not always understand what he read in Polybius. The famous instance being his ridiculous rationalisation of his failure to understand Polybius' language at 18.24.9 where instead of having the phalanx lower its sarisae and charge Livy writes:

...the caetrati and the men of the phalanx were ordered to lay aside their spears, the length of which only embarrassed them, and make use of their swords.

However, I actually agree with Agesilaos that to say that Timaeus definitely was the source of the birth date for Alexander is too strong: I would only say that he is the best candidate for being the ultimate source on the available evidence (which, like all evidence, is imperfect).

Were I to believe this behaviour - the closest I've ever noted to any admission of error - to continue I'd suggest that Andrew Chugg alter his forum name to Saul. The admission, whilst absolutely unavoidable, is nevertheless welcome.

Our sources are not exhaustive and they are lacunose. Such applies, near equally, to both Polybius and Livy. Even what they do report is a matter of choice; each writer including or excluding that which, to be rude, suits and massaging that which cannot be ignored. Polybius twice notes that his history will pick up from where Timaeus leaves off (1.5.1 & 39.8). This is not to say that the Megalopolitan likes the historian. Far from it. On Timaeus Polybius is scathing. This is not to single him out: Polybius dislikes many of his predecessors and is not shy in saying so. On Timaeus, though, Polybius is categoric (12.26d.32-3):

The most conspicuous instances of his success in inspiring this confidence are those parts of his work which treat of colonies, founding of cities, and the relationships of nations. In these points he makes such a parade of minute accuracy, and inveighs so bitterly when refuting others, that people came to imagine that all other historians have been mere dreamers, and have spoken at random in describing the world; and that he is the only man who has made accurate investigations, and unravelled every history with intelligence. As a matter of fact, his books contain much that is sound, but also much that is false.

Now, the founding of cities and colonies comes down to dates. Earlier (12.10.4) Polybius sarcastically notes Timaeus' "parade of accuracy in studying chronology and ancient monuments" whilst destroying it by noting that the great Timaeus had not ever seen the inscription detailing that about that which he wrote.

In whose hands did he find the treaty? Yet we all know, I suppose, that this is a specialty of Timaeus's, and that it is in this that he has surpassed all other historians, and rests his chief claim to credit — I mean his parade of accuracy in studying chronology and ancient monuments, and his care in that department of research. Therefore we may well wonder how he came to omit telling us the name of the city in which he found the treaty, the place in which it was inscribed, or the magistrates who showed him the inscription, and with whom he conversed

Agesilaos has dealt with the chronological question regarding Timaeus above. Although Polybius had other motives for dismissing Timaeus this last is difficult to toss aside. Timaeus had clearly never seen the treaty (and so its inscription) and so anything to do with his evidence (date included) is called into question. The man who...

...drew out a comparative list of the Ephors and the kings of Sparta from the earliest times; as well as one comparing the Archons at Athens and priestesses in Argos with the list of Olympic victors, and thereby convicted those cities of being in error about those records, because there was a discrepancy of three months between them

...clearly applied a method that was inimical to Polybius.

What is not said is not said. This sounds reasonable to most people but it is incredible how often it is ignored in history. The suggestion that the "thirteen years" comes from Polybius is bunk. Simply because Livy used Polybius and that Polybius, well let's say it, abused Timaeus, does not mean that Polybius excerpted Timaeus. That is silence based upon a silence and blinded by the light.

[agesilaos]

What Hammond writes is perfectly normal "quellenforschung" (source research) in the true Germanic tradition.

Sorry, misrepresentation of the sources belongs in no 'true' tradition it is the epitome of 'bad method' and far from being the best candidate Timaios' name on the ballot sheet is clearly a typing error. Coupled with which the desperate need for his being the source of the birthday in Plutarch is totally misplaced. Yes Polybios' attacks are probably exaggerated, it will be interesting to read what C A Baron has to say in his forthcoming book (was Nov now Jan 2013!), but the fact remains that this sort of work was not his field ie the DAY on which things happened, and that even in his chosen field of correlating annual magistracies he was not entirely competant.

[Paralus]

Yes Polybios' attacks are probably exaggerated, it will be interesting to read what C A Baron has to say in his forthcoming book (was Nov now Jan 2013!),

Ahh, yes: the re-writing for publication of a dissertation. It will come though.

David Thomas - he who provided the indispensable Introduction to the LandmarkXenophon's Hellenica and who has just provided the translation for the same author's Anabasis - tells me there is to be a Landmark Polybios. The Anabasis is not due until 2014 but the Polybius (and Caesar) were commissioned prior to Anabasis and should be out earlier. I would be interested in the extreme to see a more "modern" translation of the Megalopolitan and the more recent scholarly views.

The co-editor of the Anabasis actually walked the entire route some ten years back. The topographical notes should be outstanding one thinks.

[agesilaos]

The Loeb translation hs been updated, seemingly not always happily. Reviews are at bryn mawr classical review. Not surprising that Polybios is taking longert though, it is a much longer and denser work. Xenophon was a favourite for unseen translation in my first year of Greek, though occaisionally we had the joy of Thucydides!

[agesilaos]

Back to the issue of the relationship of Kleitarchos and Timaeus as implied by the citation in Clement of Alexandria.

I have found the full text online at newadvent.org/fathers and as usual the full context is illuminating. Clement is not interested in Greek chronology per se but is trying to establish the greater antiquity, and superiority of Biblical philiosophy, this is important to remember but of itself inconclusive. Fortunately earlier in his exegesis Clement gives a list of chronological markers in Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes thus sets down the dates: From the capture of Troy to the descent of the Heraclidæ; eighty years. From this to the founding of Ionia, sixty years; and the period following to the protectorate of Lycurgus, a hundred and fifty-nine years; and to the first year of the first Olympiad, a hundred and eight years. From which Olympiad to the invasion of Xerxes, two hundred and ninety-seven years; from which to the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, forty-eight years; and to its close, and the defeat of the Athenians, twenty-seven years; and to the battle at Leuctra, thirty-four years; after which to the death of Philip, thirty-five years. And after this to the decease of Alexander, twelve years.

Later, he turns to giving the time between the invasion of the Heraklidai and the archonship of Evainetos.

There are some that from Cecrops to Alexander of Macedon reckon a thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight years; and from Demophon, a thousand two hundred and fifty; and from the taking of Troy to the expedition of the Heraclidæ;, a hundred and twenty or a hundred and eighty years. From this to the archonship of Evænetus at Athens, in whose time Alexander is said to have marched into Asia, according to Phanias, are seven hundred and fifty years; according to Ephorus, seven hundred and thirty-five; according to Timæus and Clitarchus, eight hundred and twenty; according to Eratosthenes, seven hundred and seventy-four. As also Duris, from the taking of Troy to the march of Alexander into Asia, a thousand years; and from that to the archonship of Hegesias, in whose time Alexander died eleven years. From this date to the reign of Germanicus Claudius Cæsar, three hundred and sixty-five years. From which time the years summed up to the death of Commodus are manifest.

This is not one of the intervals mentioned in the earlier passage and, lo and behold, when you work out the time between the invasion of the Heraklidai and the death of Philip is 35+34+27+48+297+108+159+60 yrs = 768 yrs the expedition set off in the third year of his reign so add 3yrs....771? But Clement says 774; now we can see what is really going on here. Clement is not quoting these intervals but working them out based on data he finds in his sources – what he appears to have done here is add those three years twice. Thus we cannot be that the sychronism between Timaeus and Kleitarchos was stated in their work or has been arrived at by Clement’s posterior retrocalculation. It is perhaps significant that subtracting the unnamed chronographers 180yrs between the fall of Troy and the invasion of the Heraklidai and Duris’ 1000yrs from the expedition to the fall of Troy gives the 820 yrs Clement ascribes to Timaios and Kleitarchos. Which means that it is entirely possible that neither author gave the raw number but Clement’s arithmetic has caused the congruence rather than a direct statement in either author; nor can we be certain that Clement hasn’t reached the figure from different starting points making the already weak case for dependency tenuous in the extreme.

However, Clement does contain a clue to Plutarch’s day month specific date.

And in the eighteenth year of the reign of Agamemnon, Troy was taken, in the first year of the reign of Demophon the son of Theseus at Athens, on the twelfth day of the month Thargelion, as Dionysius the Argive says; but Ægias and Dercylus, in the third book, say that it was on the eighth day of the last division of the month Panemus; Hellanicus says that it was on the twelfth of the month Thargelion; and some of the authors of the Attica say that it was on the eighth of the last division of the month in the last year of Menestheus, at full moon.
It was midnight,
says the author of the Little Iliad,
And the moon shone clear.
Others say, it took place on the same day of Scirophorion. But Theseus, the rival of Hercules, is older by a generation than the Trojan war. Accordingly Tlepolemus, a son of Hercules, is mentioned by Homer, as having served at Troy.

It would seem more likely that he derived it from an Atthidographer, since the date is given in Athenian terms and as there would be no reason for a contemporary record it must be late and so less trustworthy than the contemporary Aristoboulos.

[agesilaos]

Now there is a poll