POxy LXXI 4808 and the date of Kleitarchos

[agesilaos]

Yes, Parker's work is interesting and I do not deny the wooliness of Prandi's argument BUT and as you can see it is a big but.

Parker suggests Kleitarchos' use of three late sources, Timaios (see other threads for that argument) Berossos and Hieronymos. Taking the Berossos argument first I agree that Diodorus II 10 is largely Kleitarchos interjected into a surrounding matrix of Ktesias but the big mistake is to assume that the facts therein stem from Berossos; Kleitarchos actuall tells us on whom his assertions are based...'those who later crossed to Asia with Alexander' now, Berossos does not belong to this group. All other argumentation is of the order we love but is bad practice, towhit trying to compare two non-extant authors. I must confess that it was only on re-reading the paper this morning that the solution struck me and it is a familial trait to 'correct' Ktesias, Plutarch's 'Life of Artaxerxes' frequently puts information from Dinon against that of Ktesias (Plutarch prefers Ktesias). Berossos can be dropped too, then.

The argument for his use of Hieronymos is equally weak, depending on the facts that Megasthenes is reported to have given the width of the Ganges as 100 stadia, Hieronymos as 30 and Kleitarchos as 32 it is then supposed that Hieronymos has corrected Megasthenes and Kleitarchos tweaked Hieronymos; it is just as likely that Kleitarchos, who does seem to have used Megasthenes, corrected him and that Hieronymos then gave a round number; again it is possible that the number reported for Megasthenes is corrupt, numbers being quite liable to corruption ( this is certainly so in Curtius but I am not sure about Strabo so this is a weak option).

Once these authors are out of the equation an early third century date is very possible.Parker himself doubts a date later than the mid third is likely. Also the papyrus is in chronological order and Kleitarchos follows immediately on Chares (and before Hieronymos) I have still to work out the whole list, but soon, nephew and booze allowing

No argument is going to be conclusive but what abot those pesky Thessalians?

[Paralus]

. All other argumentation is of the order we love but is bad practice, towhit trying to compare two non-extant authors. I must confess that it was only on re-reading the paper this morning that the solution struck me and it is a familial trait to 'correct' Ktesias...

I do agree that attempts to compare and contrast authors of whom we have only allusions and references is fraught. One relies on teasing information - correctly or otherwise - referred to in passing. A good example would be the (in)famous Polybian rant at Kallisthenes. The detail is likely correct; how it is used and presented is the concern (Polybios is unlikely to provide reasons for Kallisthene's description or the latter's explanation of the movements when he wishes to denigrate him). That said, Parker's material on Berossus, Megasthenes and Cleitarchus is actually Bosworth's from Alexander and the East which I've read, though do not have a personal copy of. I would like to reread it before commenting.

Kleitarchos actuall tells us on whom his assertions are based...'those who later crossed to Asia with Alexander' now, Berossos does not belong to this group.

This seems to occasion all sorts of interpretations. Diodorus (2.7.3-5) says the following (Curtius' correspondence is below):

Taking the Euphrates river into the centre she threw about the city a wall with great towers set at frequent intervals, the wall being three hundred and sixty stades in circumference, as Ctesias of Cnidus says, but according to the account of Cleitarchus and certain of those who at a later time crossed into Asia with Alexander, three hundred and sixty-five stades; and these latter add that it was her desire to make the number of stades the same as the days in the year. Making baked bricks fast in bitumen she built a wall with a height, as Ctesias says, of fifty fathoms, but, as some later writers have recorded, of fifty cubits, and wide enough for more than two chariots abreast to drive upon; and the towers numbered two hundred and fifty, their height and width corresponding to the massive scale of the wall.

Prandi claims that, in this passage, Diodorus "compares Ctesias’ claims with those of Cleitarchus and of other anonymous Alexander historians who took part in the expedition, thus showing that Cleitarchus was somehow part of that second group". In fact all Diodorus says is that this is contested by Cleitarchus and also by some of those who went with Alexander. Cleitarchus, by virtue of shared opinion then, is indeed "part of that second group" (then called "these latter"). Diodorus goes on to elaborate on this group's views when describing the construction of the wall and its height. Here Ctesias claims "fifty fathoms" but "some later writers" correct this stating "fifty cubits, and wide enough for more than two chariots abreast to drive upon".

Unless one seeking circumstantial support for a high date for Cleitarchus, there is no compelling reason to see Diodorus' note as temporal. He can just as easily be "grouping" him on the basis that he shares the same information as "certain" of those who crossed into Asia with Alexander. This is likely because Cleitarchus utilised these primary sources; a use that does not demand Cleitarchus be contemporaneous with those sources only that he read them.

Curtius 5.1.24-26
And with justification. Founded by Semiramis (not, as most have believed, Belus, whose palace is still to be seen there). its wall is constructed of small baked bricks and is cemented together with bitumen. The wall is thirty-two feet wide and it is said that two chariots meeting on it can safely pass each other.Its height is fifty cubits and its towers stand ten feet higher again. The circumference of the whole work is 365 stades, each stade, according to the traditional account, being completed in a single day

.

If Curtius relies heavily upon Cleitarchus then he is also likely the source of the "fifty cubits".

What specifically bothers you about the Thessalians?

[agesilaos]

The thing about the Thessallians is that in Diodoros they are singled out as the best fighters and the Macedonians are denigrated, something one would not expect in a Macedonian sponsored source hence one has to find a context where Ptolemaic interests would be served by attaching the Thessalians to the cause.

Taking the Euphrates river into the centre she threw about the city a wall with great towers set at frequent intervals, the wall being three hundred and sixty stades in circumference, as Ctesias of Cnidus says, but according to the account of Cleitarchus and certain of those who at a later time crossed into Asia with Alexander, three hundred and sixty-five stades; and these latter add that it was her desire to make the number of stades the same as the days in the year. Making baked bricks fast in bitumen she built a wall with a height, as Ctesias says, of fifty fathoms, but, as some later writers have recorded, of fifty cubits, and wide enough for more than two chariots abreast to drive upon; and the towers numbered two hundred and fifty, their height and width corresponding to the massive scale of the wall.

Now Diodoros here seems to be saying that Kleitarchos wrote before 'those who at a later time crossed into Asia with Alexander' a blatant nonsense. Part of Parker's argument is that these seeming references to Diodoros comparing sources are actually just what he found in his source so that what he found in Kleitarchos was the information that the walls were 365 stades long and not 360 with a supporting reference to 'those who later(than Ktesias) crossed into Asia and so could report from autopsy, this is Pearson's view in 'The Lost Historians of AtG'. My point is merely that as Kleitarchos is citing his sources as these 'who later crossed into Asia' Berossos has nothing to do with the passage, despite giving the same measurements. Curtius supports this view as he seems to make Kleitarchos say that Semiramis built the city whereas Berossos specifically denies her role and has Bel found the city later re-founded by a later king. It is certainly not conclusive for his date but I think it disposes of the Argument that he used Berossos.

[Paralus]

Part of Parker's argument is that these seeming references to Diodoros comparing sources are actually just what he found in his source so that what he found in Kleitarchos was the information that the walls were 365 stades long and not 360 with a supporting reference to 'those who later(than Ktesias) crossed into Asia and so could report from autopsy, this is Pearson's view in 'The Lost Historians of AtG'.

And Parker, in my view, is correct (as is Pearson). Cleitarchus - no member of the Alexandrian anabasis - was a compiler of others' experiences and stories as he saw fit. Like Herodotus he gathered and compiled "facts" well after the events he recounts. Parker's picture of him as a frequenter of libraries strikes true: he read and synthesised well. He also chose that which suited his style.

Prandi's preoccupation with the date of Ptolemy and the relationship to Cleitarcus rankles. The argument that a non-descript historian might argue with a "king" ( that is, Cleitarchus followed Ptolemy) is as silly as a king feeling the need to write a book "correcting" a the non descript historian. As she writes "it is probably inappropriate to think about a real historiographical debate between them". Bingo!

And if Cleitarchus wrote after Ptolemy "it remains obscure why Cleitarchus should have chosen to diverge from a source that was reliable and that was part of his environment". One wonders whether Prandi understands modern "history" and its reporting. Just when that thought occurs she provides this: "although he [Cleitarchus] could know what the king remembered, [Cleitarchus] was freer to choose a different tradition without appearing controversial". Cleitarchus, had he published before Ptolemy then, could choose to "diverge from a source that was reliable and that was part of his environment" for purely compositional reasons - even knowing "what the king remembered"! I do not know what is the easier to believe.

The Thessalians I will get to. I think you place too much on them though... winning the "palm" at Granicus et al??

[agesilaos]

I have been having a good look at the original papyrus and one thing that stands out is the blank line after the note on Kleitarchos, no such gap appears between the note on Chares ( with which the fragment begins; it seems to have Chares demanding a share of the booty or tribute from Parmenion) and that on Kleitarchos nor do any appear in the remaider of the first column nor the second. I could of course claim that this shows a chronological separation, and that does remain a possibility, but the first line after the blank mentions '...[D]iadochiou' so it seems to me just as likely that the separation in along subject lines ie the first part relates to Alexander historians and those in the second to historians of the Successors, Hieronymos and Polybios are both mentioned in the secondary literature but I cannot find them on the original (that is probabably down to my own failings though).

Were the relationship to preserve the order of writing as well as subjects then Kleitarchos could not have been didaskalos to Philopatros, since Hieronymos (presumably) who follows him was dead before Philopatros was born. As usual the case is not that simple and the evidence can bear more than one interpretation. Nor can we fairly evaluate the evidence in the papyrus as we have no supporting evidence for its claims; no other evidence for a conflict between Chares and Parmenion exists, for instance, so the evidence is of the same value as anything else for which we have only one untestable account.

I agree that Kleitarchos does seem to be the antithesis of a Polybian 'pragmatic historian', the only places I diverge with Parker are with the use of mid Third Century sources, especially for Timaios and Berossus, There is no reason Hieronymos might not have published his first books on the 'Diadochoi' just after Ipsos ( the Suda divides his work into two, the second being 'Epigonoi'; though this may reflect a later editorial decision, it is also possible that the work was issued in decades, heptads or any number of parts, it was, after all, notably long).

The question of Ptolemy's presence at the Mallian town is totally indecisive both ways and hence something of a red-herring; it is much like the oft quoted 'no historian would write what could be contradicted by living witnesses' tosh, yet Ptolemy definitely wrote of talking snakes, and Onesikritos of an Amazon Queen to a living witness who DID contradict him!

[Paralus]

Were the relationship to preserve the order of writing as well as subjects then Kleitarchos could not have been didaskalos to Philopatros, since Hieronymos (presumably) who follows him was dead before Philopatros was born.

And so Cleitarchus turns up on Alexandria's "The Voice" like the Bay City Rollers as coach?

Nor can we fairly evaluate the evidence in the papyrus as we have no supporting evidence for its claims; no other evidence for a conflict between Chares and Parmenion exists, for instance, so the evidence is of the same value as anything else for which we have only one untestable account.

The state of the evidence for events following Alexander is deplorable. Photius summarises ten of Arrian's books into a single page pdf file. Yes we have Diodorus and it has been said we should be thankful for this narrative source. That this "narrative" source can regale us with morality tales about Dokimos and others captured by Antigonos whilst passing over a major war between Seleukos and the Antogonids (310-308) is a stark example of how bankrupt that source material can be and, in fact, is. Much we are not informed of. Much that we are might not be as relevant as one thinks - it depends upon the reporter.

The king - Arrhidaeus - is clearly said to have had a brother. One source, Arrian (Photius). To my thinking it is hardly unreasonable to suppose that Arrhidaeus' mother had another son prior to her "conquering" by Philip.

Whilst there exists no direct evidence for a "conflict" between Chares and Parmenion there is good evidence for a hostile "court" tradition regarding the marshal. This is the only - reasonably - direct evidence for a source. Trust me, there will will now be an industry based on this! (like the Hieronyman industry for 18-20).

[agesilaos]

Yes, the elusive Amphimachos; he is only styled 'the brother of the king', which ought to mean the brother of the incumbant king - Philip Arrhidaios - but given that this is an epitome of a later writer by a much later writer one has the latitude to wonder whether Arrian did not actually mention King Lysimachos, for instance and that the king is not one of the later ones; that said the nature of Philip's relations with Phillina are a bit obscure in themselves; that said, still no reason why she should not have had more kids, before, after or during (were she a scorta!) her relationship with Philip

Without these controversies, would we be not entertained? To paraphrase Russel Crowe.

[agesilaos]

Having received the full text of 4808 I reproduce here the translation therein; anyone wanting the full discussion of the papyrus graphology and all can drop me a PM with their e-mail and I’ll send it as an attachment

‘[Onesikritos]...who had been a pupil of Diogenes the Cynic. Chares, in addition to the fact that he himself also told many lies, for very many things are narrated in an [even] stranger way, shows malice; for example you catch him blackening Parmenion and his friends.[ K]leitarchos himself also wrote his history in a boastful vein, but he is faultless in his composition. He also became [head of the katalogeion?] as Philippos says, and [dies after becoming] tutor of Philopater.

[Hieronym]os [who wrote about the D]iadochoi was a...historian and a gentleman(?)...experienced...since indeed he wrote about those things he followed closely...mediator...he offered himself(?)...writing...in favour...,and if he did not take pleasure in speeches, [something which is alien to] true history(?) and [any kind of] utility...[he would not be inferior] to any other historians...first...to the...by Alexander....twenty-five...with E[umenes]...Antig[onos]...Dem[etrios]....[Antig]onos ...he lived for over ninety years, [presenting] an example of sobriety...From all of which [it will be clear] that he was a [useful?] historian and a good man..
Polybios, from the...order, himself took part in affairs and went on campaign with [Scipio] and was an eye-witness of most things and wrote them up truthfully. And he was more knowledgeable in...and especially in politics...knowledgeability...’

I have supplemented the matter on Hieronymos (in bold) as the editors chose to leave these lines, which are very fragmentary, for discussion in the notes. Matters in square brackets have been supplied

[Paralus]

I have supplemented the matter on Hieronymos (in bold) as the editors chose to leave these lines, which are very fragmentary, for discussion in the notes. Matters in square brackets have been supplied

I see you've got the published papyrus of Beresford, Parsons and Pobjoy. I too got a copy yesterday evening and was going to mail you. I do have Collins' latest on the Chiliarchy (Alexander and the Persian Court Chiliarchy, Historia 2012, Vol 2) which should be in your inbox.

Prandi's description of the papyrus as listing these historians in "chronological" order is only one way of viewing it. More likely is the fact that these authors are grouped by that which they wrote. The editors make the point that the information on Onsesikritos began in the preceding column (now lost). They well ask just who else might have been contained in this group and point to Plutarch Alex. 46. I would think it more likely these authors are grouped by subject and thus Hieronymos and Polybios are on their own (for there certainly were far more writers of history in the Hellenistic age than these listed). Thus there is no compulsion to see this list as strictly chronological (though their subject matter is).

There seems no way around the uncomfortable note of Philopater.

[agesilaos]

Yes, probably from the same source! I would consider it perfidious to have kept it under my hat once I had it, no matter how it affects my argument. This is an important piece of evidence that is not easy of access, after all.

I am still not too troubled by that 'Philopater', though. On this reconstruction of col i line14/5

katha phesin Phi-
lippos kai didaskalos

which differs from Prandi's (it is impossible for me to decide which is the more likely as the photograph of the papyru s shows that the tray was disturbed on shooting and this is where a large loose fragment has occluded the adjoining text!) lends support to the Megara story we find in Diogenes attributed to Philippos of Megara which would make him at least fourteen in 309, and it is hard to have him teaching even this late, as Plutarch Demetrius 9 v

5 Megara, however, was captured, and the soldiers would have plundered it had not the Athenians made strong intercession for its citizens; Demetrius also expelled its garrison and gave the city its freedom. While he was still engaged in this, he bethought himself of Stilpo the philosopher, who was famous for his election of a life of tranquillity. Accordingly, Demetrius summoned him and asked him whether any one had robbed him of anything. "No one," said Stilpo, "for I saw nobody carrying away knowledge." 6 But nearly all the servants in p25the city were stolen away, and when Demetrius once more tried to deal kindly with the philosopher, and finally, on going away, said: "Your city, Stilpo, I leave in freedom," "Thou sayest truly," replied Stilpo, "for thou hast not left a single one of our slaves."

[/quote][/quote]

I post the whole quote for interest; this is 307 and Stilpon is 'famous for choosing a life of tranquility' would two years out of work make one 'famous'? Well I've had three and no one has heard of me! Seriously, though,one could hardly not push his retirement as far back as 309. Realistically, the sort of education given by a didaskalos was undertaken around fourteen which would be c 230 in the case of Ptolemy IV Philopatros and Kleitarchos would therefore have been 93! Yet he does not make the 'Makrobioi' nor does the author of the papyrus, who does notice Hieronymos' career at 25, col ii 6 (presumably from Hieronymos' own writings) and his death at over ninety, col ii 14, (presumably not from his own writings, unless like Moses, he wrote of his own funeral!). I find this a most unlikely scenario. The posited job as head of the katalogein would not rank so high as to recommend the incumbant as Royal Didaskalos, others we know of were head of the Library. The notes point out that this is not the case for Ptolemy IV whose tutor is otherwise unknown (save for this papyrus), similarly the tutor of Ptolemy II cannot have been head of the Library, as he was an adult when it was established.

So, as so often, we are only left with probabilities; a 93 year old public records keeper appointed as royal tutor, or a lapsus memoriae in a scribe's personal notes (the uneven line lengths and corrections in his own hand suggest this rather than a more formal context). Since the other known royal tutors were authors as well as Librarians (Appolonios of Rhodes- Ptolemy I, in MS emended to IIIby editors, and Aristarchus - Philopater's children), it would seem odd if Kleitarchos appointment was connected to his civil service career rather than his one book. Aristoboulos is stated to have written his book at 82 would it have remained unnoticed that Kleitarchos was older?

[Taphoi]

This is an interesting discussion, but I would urge you to consider that the 308BC dating for Cleitarchus as a pupil of Stilpo was only ever a wild guess. It probably falls on the new papyrus evidence (like so much else!) Stilpo's dates are quite uncertain and a death as late as ~280BC is not unlikely. There is no real objection to him taking pupils in "retirement" as far as I know.

The overall message is that Cleitarchus was a pupil of Stilpo some time in the first two decades of the 3rd century BC, wrote the History Concerning Alexander circa 280-250BC, got to be famous on account of it and was given the position of Royal Tutor to Philopator just before he died.

I would suggest that it is not a valid criticism of Cleitarchus that he wrote late. Nobody could write a decent history of the Second World War until quite recently, because we were not allowed to know that Turing won it rather than Churchill.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

I hardly think a position based on evidence can be characterised 'a wild guess'; Diogenes Laertius 'Lives Of the Eminent Philosophers' Life of Stilpon, tells us that he was invited to the Court of Ptolemy I to dispute with Diodoros Cronos and that he so humiliated him that the latter died of shame composing a rebuttal after the event, that Ptolemy offered him a large sum to accompany him back to Alexandria and that Stilpo declined returned the money and retired to Aegina. These last two facts show that Ptolemy's Court where the diputation took place was not one in Egypt; the withdrawl to Aegina and both Diodoros' and Stilpon's association with Megara certainly suggest a context when Ptolemy was holding Court in Korinth 309/8. Bosworth develops the argument in 'In search of Cleitarchus.' a review of Luisa Prandi, Fortuna e realtà dell'opera di Clitarco (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996) (Historia. Einzelschriften, 104).

If a teacher retires and yet retirement does not preclude teaching can he be said to have retired? Stilpon himself would appreciate the point.

Ancient Historians simply did not operate in the same way as modern ones; those that Polybios approved of were men of action, close to the events they described who questioned (let us not forget that 'historia' means enquiries, not quite what we mean by it) participants. Should a library researcher, like Arrian choose to base his account on the works of men who meet these criteria then we can afford it a certain value; a library researcher who relies on the likes of Onesikritos, considered unreliable in antiquity, and ignores the work of Ptolemy, to which an Alexandrian of the mid to late third century must have had access, may likewise be judged to disadvantage. There did not exist in ancient times, the mass of information available to modern historians, there were no newspapers, most government papers were kept secret; they had only published works and living witnesses upon which to rely. Remove the living witnessses and necessarily one is left with a derivative work in which any new information is highly likely to be plain invention.

I think the fourteen million dead of the Red Army might dispute, Turing's claim to winning the War (Enigma had little effect on the Great Patriotic War, Stalin did not believe intelligence from Western sources - the Soviets recieved their best intel via the Lucy Ring which was a tool of Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr; maybe he deserves the credit!)

I will post separately on Stilpon's dates, it deserves a thread of its own but the evidence is widespread needs to be fully argued, so it will be next week before I get to it.

Glad you are finding it interesting.

[Paralus]

If a teacher retires and yet retirement does not preclude teaching can he be said to have retired? Stilpon himself would appreciate the point.

The time is clearly Ptolemy's "high water" of 309/8 prior to his scarpering back to Egypt at news of Antigonos' return west from his desultory (and eventual disastrous) war against Seleucus. What, though, demands the view that Stilpon retired? (in the modern sense as you ironically state)

[Taphoi]

...What, though, demands the view that Stilpon retired? (in the modern sense as you ironically state)

Nothing, really. It probably comes from reading too much into the "life of tranquillity" mentioned by Plutarch:

Megara, however, was captured, and the soldiers would have plundered it had not the Athenians made strong intercession for its citizens; Demetrius also expelled its garrison and gave the city its freedom. While he was still engaged in this, he bethought himself of Stilpo the philosopher, who was famous for his election of a life of tranquillity. Accordingly, Demetrius summoned him and asked him whether any one had robbed him of anything. "No one," said Stilpo, "for I saw nobody carrying away knowledge." But nearly all the servants in the city were stolen away, and when Demetrius once more tried to deal kindly with the philosopher, and finally, on going away, said: "Your city, Stilpo, I leave in freedom," "Thou sayest truly," replied Stilpo, "for thou hast not left a single one of our slaves."

Diogenes Laertius does not say when Stilpo took Cleitarchus as his pupil:

Stilpo, a citizen of Megara in Greece, was a pupil of some of the followers of Euclides, although others make him a pupil of Euclides himself, and furthermore of Thrasymachus of Corinth, who was the friend of Ichthyas, according to Heraclides. And so far did he excel all the rest in inventiveness and sophistry that nearly the whole of Greece was attracted to him and joined the school of Megara. On this let me cite the exact words of Philippus the Megarian philosopher: "for from Theophrastus he drew away the theorist Metrodorus and Timagoras of Gela, from Aristotle the Cyrenaic philosopher, Clitarchus, and Simmias; and as for the dialecticians themselves, he gained over Paeonius from Aristides; Diphilus of Bosphorus, the son of Euphantus, and Myrmex, the son of Exaenetus, who had both come to refute him, he made his devoted adherents." And besides these he won over Phrasidemus the Peripatetic, an accomplished physicist, and Alcimus the rhetorician, the first orator in all Greece; Crates, too, and many others he got into his toils, and, what is more, along with these, he carried off Zeno the Phoenician.

He later mentions Ptolemy's visit to Megara, but nothing requires that that was also the meeting of Cleitarchus with Stilpo - it was just a guess, which now turns out to be wrong. The "retirement" to Aegina was just a judicious relocation.

Ptolemy Soter, they say, made much of him, and when he had got possession of Megara, offered him a sum of money and invited him to return with him to Egypt. But Stilpo would only accept a very moderate sum, and he declined the proposed journey, and removed to Aegina until Ptolemy set sail. Again, when Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, had taken Megara, he took measures that Stilpo's house should be preserved and all his plundered property restored to him. But when he requested that a schedule of the lost property should be drawn up, Stilpo denied that he had lost anything which really belonged to him, for no one had taken away his learning, while he still had his eloquence and knowledge.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

...What, though, demands the view that Stilpon retired? (in the modern sense as you ironically state)

Nothing, really. It probably comes from reading too much into the "life of tranquillity" mentioned by Plutarch...

Oh dear, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree again. That Stilpo was well known or "famous" for passing his life in stillness or quiet does not require Stilpo to be retired; simply that he was well known for this way of life (compare Diog. Laert. 5.10 where Aristotle is clearly described as having retired to Chalcis). It also seems passingly odd for one to be famous for a life of retirement. Further, it is clear that subsequent to Ptolemy's sprint home at the news that Antigonus had returned west, Stilpo returned to Megara where Demetrius found him as Plutarch relates. Clearly he continued to live there and for how long might be anyone's guess.

On the listing of authors on the papyrus, the more I think on it the more likely this is done by subject matter rather than in chronological order. We do not have the preceding text or the following. As the editors note, the writer "may have put all his Alexander historians in same boat [...] or chosen some as more reliable [...] before listing the unreliable". And, as already noted, the material on Onesicritus began in the previous column. For all we know - and it is only speculation - there may have been similar notations of Philipic histories prior to the Alexander historians. Though nothing compels it, Hieronymus and Polybius may be "grouped" on the basis of their reliability: both having taken a part in the events they relate.

That the listing of actual individuals is chronological is not required unless one needs to have Cleitarchus publish before Hieronymus and near to Chares and Onesicritus.