POxy LXXI 4808 and the date of Kleitarchos

[agesilaos]

First, on 'the life of tranquility', it does indeed seem that this phrase means something specific in the context of philosphy and sadly for me it is not retirement from the world but ignoring distractions and treating everything with indifference

...and whenever he was disturbed by his maid-servants or by the dogs, he paid no attention to them, studying above all things to live in tranquillity.

Diogenes Laertius Life of Timon in Bk IX.

However, things are not so dark concerning Stilpo's dates. In his Life Diogenes states that Stilpo was himself the pupil of either Euklides of Megara, or Thrasymachos of Korinth (an error for Chalcedon).Euklides dies c.380 which would make Stilpo born c400 which is far too early. Thrasymachos was a pupil of Euclides and it is probable that those stating Stipo studied under Euklides were decieved by a notice that he studied at the school of Euklides. Thrasymachos has been assigned to c430 on the basis of a fragment of Aristophanes dated to 427, however he is linked there with Alkibiades

Father: Well, you'll get your come-uppance in time, my lad! Son: Ha! That 'get your come-uppance' is from the rhetoricians. Father: Where will all these fine phrases of yours land you in the end? Son: 'Land you in the end' - you got that from Alcibiades! Father: Why do you keep making insinuations (hypotekmairei) and slandering people who are just trying to practise decency? Son: Oho, ho! O Thrasymachus! Which of the law-men came up with that piece of Jargon?' Dillon, John; Gergel, Tania (2003). The Greek Sophists. Great Britain: Penguin Group. p. 205. ISBN 0-14-043689-8. Hypotekmairei is a hapax legomenon, and occurs nowhere else in surviving literature. Dillon and Gergel assume that the word had some technical definition, possibly given to it by Thrasymachus.

and this Thrasymachos is linked to the 'law-men'; I doubt this is the same man.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis VI 1 records that he was commissioned to write a speech for the Larissans against the territorial ambitions of Kind Archesilaos, who died in 399. Aristotle mentions him in the context of rhetorical development as coming after Teisias (On Sophistical Refutations 183b22-34); Teisias was famously the pupil of Korax himself involved in property disputes occaisioned by the seizure of power at Syracuse of Thrasyboulos which occured in 466, this seems to have been the beginning of his career,say at 25 taking a pupil at 40 would make Teisias c451 a thirty year career would bring the terminus post quem to 421, which we might consider the latest possibility for Thrasymachos' birth (having 'For Larissa' commisioned when 21. His career, then could reasonably extend to 360ish which would make Stilpo born c375 at the latest and thus c 68 in 307 when he encountered Demetrios.

We can further investigate this hypothesis by considering the named pupils of Stilpo.

Menedemos is an interesting case as he gets a life of his own. The most important remark comes at the end thereof, Herakleides says he lived to 74 and Diogenes quotes from a vote of thanks for Gonatas’ victory over the Gauls at Lysimacheia in 277. He cannot, therefore have been born before 351; this in turn means that the earlier statement, that he studied at the Academy under Plato, must be in error since Plato died in 347 and did not admit four year olds! He was also meant to be deserting from a body of Eretrian soldiers being sent to garrison Megara. Any context before 338 would make these Athenian allies and so deserting to Athens would be a nonsense.

After the Lamian War Antipater established garrisons in several Greek cities, it is not stated but Megara’s strategic importance must make it a good candidate for being garrisoned (and it is implied by Diodoros XVIII 46) and 320 would make Menedemos 21 a much more appropriate age for military service and where better to abscond, than the Strategos’ late enemy?

Later he moved next to Stilpon in Megara with Asclepiades of Phlius and they both became his disciples for an unspecified length of time before becoming a follower of Phaedo and proceeding to the Court of Nicocreon in Cyprus, a monarch not mentioned during the Salamis campaign and presumed to have died before 306.

Menedemos went on to found the ‘Eretrian School’ upon which Phaeros wrote under Philopatros.

Timon is another case; he was studying dance but abandoned his studies to study under Stilpon. He then returned to Phlius, married and moved to Elis to see Pyrrhon, who studied under Bryson the successor to Stilpon before leaving with Anaxarchos on Alexander’s Expedition. Timon raised a family and then went to Chalcedon to make his fortune as a Sophist and then moved to Athens where he stayed but for a short sojourn in Thebes (thus after 316 when Kassander rebuilt it). It is only a guess but Demetrios Phalerios went to Thebes after his ejection from Athens in 307 perhaps his fellow sophist went with him returning when Demetrios’ regime proved to be more beneficent than expected.

Timon lived to be ‘nearly ninety’ and had the acquaintance of Antigonos Gonatos and Ptolemy Philadelphos, given his Athenian residence a context around the Cremonidean War would seem right so if he died 260 he would have been born c 350.

So on this evidence it would seem that Stilpon flourished in the mid to late fourth century and that he would barely have made it into the third, meaning that if Kleitarchos did not join his School in 309 it was most likely earlier rather than later.

Hereendeth part one.

[Taphoi]

So on this evidence it would seem that Stilpon flourished in the mid to late fourth century and that he would barely have made it into the third, meaning that if Kleitarchos did not join his School in 309 it was most likely earlier rather than later.

Yet Wikipedia gives:
Stilpo (or Stilpon; Greek: Στίλπων, gen.: Στίλπωνος; c. 360-c. 280 BC) with the dates referenced to Tiziano Dorandi, Chapter 2: Chronology, in Algra et al. (1999) The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, page 52. Cambridge.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

And Wikipedia gives Thrasymachos' dates as 459-400 on the authority of, Dillon, John; Gergel, Tania (2003), 'The Greek Sophists', maybe Stilpon employed a medium for his lectures as being born forty years after his mentor's death must have been something of an impediment even for a choice pupil like Stilpon!

Wikipedia might be ok for a quick check on general facts but even when it gives references like here unless it quotes the source's reasoning one this reduced to accepting statements on trust, never good practice. I would also suggest that the books referenced are more concerned with the thoughts rather than the detailed chronology of these philosophers.

[agesilaos]

Part Two

We can also consider the men from whom Stilpon filched pupils, according to Diogenes these were, Theophrastos, Aristotle of Kyrene, Aristedes and Euphantos.

Theophrastos was head of the Lyceum from 323 when Aristotle was forced to quit Athens due to anti-Macedonian feeling and held the post for 35 years dying soon after his own retirement at the age of 85, so theoretically Stilpon could have made his catch at any time between 323 and 288. Metrodoros of Chios, the speculative philosopher, whom he detached from him had himself taught Diogenes of Smyrna a teacher of Anaxarchos which suggests a date at the beginning of Theophratos’ archscholiate.

Aristotle of Kyrene is an interesting case as it is from him that Kleitarchos was drawn; there is no other reference to this man. BUT and it is a big but, the founder of the Kyrenaic School was Aristippos, and the succession passed to his daughter and through her to Aristippos Metrodidantos (mother-taught) and from him to Theodoros the Atheist and a contemporary of both Stilpon and Demetrius of Phalerum. Given Diogenes' method of noting people by abbreviations in his notes and not always translating these accurately it is easy to postulate that the unknown Aristoteles conceals the well known Aristippos, Metrodidantos in this case making it likely that Kleitarchos joined his circle before the fall of Demetrius of Phalerum and the death or retirement of Aristippos which we can make a guess at.

Aristippos was a pupil of Sokrates and taught for money while he lived ie pre 399, he was with Plato at the Court of Dionysius II 367-5 (reigned 367-57 and 346-44). If we take him as 25 in 400 he would be 60 in 365. This may be when he travelled to Kyrene and wrote a History of Africa which he sent to Dionysios. Allowing him to father a daughter at 30, she would have been 30 in 365 and her son possibly 10, she could hold the leadership until he was 25 say, ie 350. Theodoros would assume the mantle while Demetrios of Phalerum was tyrant in Athens 321-307. This pattern would fit with Aristippos handing over aged 50, they were the ‘hedonistic school’ after all and Demetrios was friendly with Theodoros sufficient to protect him from a public prosecution. Making 309 seem somewhat late for Kleitarchos’ volte-face.

Euphantos was the teacher of Antigonos Monopthalmos (382-301) and wrote a treatise ‘On Kingship’ for him so 306 or later. Once again a floruit in the late fourth century.

[Paralus]

Apologies for a late reply: been very much otherwise occupied.

The rude fact of the matter is that, until this papyrus, any conjectured dating for Cleitarchus is exactly that: conjecture. The varying edifices constructed by "high" and "low" enthusiasts are exactly that: facades built upon circumstantial and allusory evidence. The foregoing posts debating one single "fragment" - that noting that a Cleitarchus was nicked by Stilpo(n) - are a great example of the argument. If someone might have taught another that other might have been contiguous with the other who might have studied under...

Then a papyrus turns up which baldly states that a Cleitarchus (absolutely, clearly and without doubt the "Alexander" historian) was a tutor to Philopater. The entire papyrus and its contents might be accepted as correct except for that regarding Cleitarchus: here it is clearly incorrect for it contradicts an hypothesis that has no room for it. Yet this is the first (and only) chronographic evidence for the man and, on the basis of decades of ever more clever constructs, it must be dismissed.

It is almost religious.

[agesilaos]

The papyrus seems to quote the same source, Philip of Megara, for Kleitarchos' post in the katalogein which Diogenes cites for Kleitarchos being a disciple of Stilpon so if one chooses to reject Diogenes story it is unsound to accept the papyrus'. Since accepting the Stilpon story must make the Philopatros chronologically impossible I think it is fair to suggest that the scholar has simply confused his Ptolemies. I find nothing to suggest that the author is writing from notes, like quotes; he seems to be writing an appreciation of each writer from the top of his head, or perhaps they are lecture notes

I appreciate that this is the first and only clear chronological reference to Kleitarchos (Pliny NH III 57-8, notwithstanding), however, one still has to consider the type of text, the date and, yes, if it scuppers any pet theories, though that thought should then consigned to the inner circles of Tartaros. Hence the long, involved and, probably, boring attempt to demonstrate the chronological problem of Stilpon's tutorship which is demonstrable, rather than relying on where Kleitarchos is listed in lists of authors or making assertions about his sources (which is obviously fraught as we are really talking about material transmitted and transmuted by later writers).

Must fly to sacrifice another lager to the Gods of the early Third century and one-day cricket

[Paralus]

The papyrus seems to quote the same source, Philip of Megara, for Kleitarchos' post in the katalogein which Diogenes cites for Kleitarchos being a disciple of Stilpon so if one chooses to reject Diogenes story it is unsound to accept the papyrus'.

No, I do not advocate rejecting the story from Philip of Megara. I do advocate accepting the chronological note in the papyrus and, that being done, having those wedded to a high date re-arrange the many cards which make up their house of same. I would see it more methodologically correct to modify the (very often) ingenious constructs based upon circumstantial and allusory 'evidence' rather than emend the clearly stated evidence of the papyrus. Unless of course one can categorically prove error in the papyrus. Categorically being something more than the conflation of sometimes inconsistent source material.

[agesilaos]

I doubt there will be 'categorical proof' of much concerning Kleitarchos.

Let us agree some points, though
i) We accept the testimony that Kleitarchos was poached by Stilpon.
ii) the earliest Philopater would have had a didaskalos would realistically be when he was twelve so 234, taking his birth to be 246 the earliest possible.
iii) Kleitarchos must have been about twenty to become a disciple of Stilpon after having followed 'Aristoteles' of Kyrene. (Philosophical School being for more mature students than those of a didaskalos, Zeno of Citium only started his studies at thirty).
iv) Exteme ages give reason to pause, to doubt, but not necessarily reject.
v) Different forms of evidence have different evidential value, so an inscription would have more force than a writteny history for instance and that whilst free from copyists errors authorial error still exists in papyri maybe even transmitted from the source of the comment.

If Stilpon was born in 375 he is unlikely to have lived passed 295, so the very latest Kleitarchos could have been born would be 315, making him 81 at his appointment, I find this stretches credulity as much as Pliny's statement that he wrote before Theophrastos and Diodoros' that he wrote before 'those who later crossed into Asia'.

The thing that makes me doubt the papyrus testimony is the chronology and the sort of career it implies for Kleitarchos - one book author, civil servant, Royal tutor over three reigns and sixty plus years. I find a slip of the pen easier to believe than a career that stretches the limits of so many lifespans and ends with a promotion from very long serving civil servant to Master of the Queen's English, to make a bad analogy. Kleitarchos as Mr Chips? It would be nice to be able to say that the end of Eurgetes reign saw a resurgence of interest in Alexander...actually I think that it is to his reign that the stele claiming Argaead ancestry for Soter does come from this reign!

[Paralus]

Let us agree some points, though
i) We accept the testimony that Kleitarchos was poached by Stilpon.
ii) the earliest Philopater would have had a didaskalos would realistically be when he was twelve so 234, taking his birth to be 246 the earliest possible.
iii) Kleitarchos must have been about twenty to become a disciple of Stilpon after having followed 'Aristoteles' of Kyrene. (Philosophical School being for more mature students than those of a didaskalos, Zeno of Citium only started his studies at thirty).
iv) Exteme ages give reason to pause, to doubt, but not necessarily reject.
v) Different forms of evidence have different evidential value, so an inscription would have more force than a writteny history for instance and that whilst free from copyists errors authorial error still exists in papyri maybe even transmitted from the source of the comment.

I broadly agree with the above. With respect to (V), the Parian Marble might fracture that confidence for inscriptions.

If Stilpon was born in 375 he is unlikely to have lived passed 295...

And so it all depends upon what dates one assigns to the lover of a quiet life. Also, I do not believe that Diodorus is claiming that Cleitarchus wrote before those who crossed into Asia with Alexander. Diodorus is saying that Cleitarchus claims different - as well as certain of those who later crossed into Asia with Alexander also claimed different. He is grouped with them as he writes the same thing not that he wrote earlier.

[agesilaos]

Ho ho, the Parian marble, I did not think of that, but I was thinking more of dated laws and treaties the parian is Chronography written in stone and so of the same value of that written on vellum etc, the point is well made though, the whole picture is too complex to be easily depicted in broad strokes.

Yes, I think Stilpon's date is probably crucial, in that it is the one piece of evidence we might be able to deduce, though it is alot of quite boring digging and trying to avoid supposition is difficult. As you know I don't believe that is what Diodoros means but it is what he says 'Kleitarchos and those who afterwards crossed into Asia', I agrre with Pearson's take that it is the imperfect assimilation of a quote in his source. It is a different error but it does warn against trusting every clear statement, that said I once read an ultra sceptical take on Marathon which rejected so much of Herodotos that one could have reconstructed the battle as being fought on the playing fields of Eton between Real Madrid and a touring Aussie XI!

Reading the Adulis Decree I can find a context under Euergetes and once I have supped enough inspiration I shall belch forth a construct supporting the papyrus; you must forgive me some ironic touches that is what passes as a sense of humour for me!

[Paralus]

Ho ho, the Parian marble, I did not think of that, but I was thinking more of dated laws and treaties the parian is Chronography written in stone and so of the same value of that written on vellum etc, the point is well made though, the whole picture is too complex to be easily depicted in broad strokes.

Yes, I'd realised it was a chronography and one with its share of errors. I take the point on laws and treaties. The latter being rather important. For example, Xenophon would have it that Sparta (via its king Agesilaos) dictated the King's Peace of 386 (Hell.5.1.32). He depicts a meeting in Sparta where Tiribazos reads out the Royal Respcript and the decision to accept signatories rests with Agesilaos. The impression is that Sparta is the driver of this agreement and Persia would become her ally against recalcitrant Greek should they refuse (5.1.25). One might never guess that Sparta was also made to sign this treaty enforced by the King as is attested by IG II2 34 (the Attic/Chian Alliance):

These [vows were made, and since the Chians, in accordance with] the co/mmon agreements [that have been written by] the Hell/enes, are mindful [that they will maintain], like / the Athenians, the [Peace and the] friendship /10 and the oaths and [the treaties that are in existence], / which were sworn by the King and [the Athenians and] / the Lacedaemonians and the other [Hellenes]...

On the other hand we have the (in)famous Troezen Inscription (the "Themistocles Decree"). Acceptance of this as genuine would require the view that the Athenians abandoned their city prior to an oar striking water for Artemesium. A nice message to send to vacillating states in Central Greece.

[agesilaos]

The stele I mentioned is indeed from the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes, it is the Adulis Decree

1. One account is taken from an inscription put up at Adulis (near Suakin), probably by some Ptolemaic officer who had been sent to these regions in connexion with the elephant-hunting. The original inscription we have no longer, and must trust to the copy of it made by the monk Cosmas ("Indicopleustes") in the 8th century A.D., or rather to the copy of Cosmas's copy which has come down to us in existing MSS. As we have it, it runs:
"The Great King2 Ptolemy, son of king Ptolemy and queen Arsinoe, Brother-and�Sister Gods, children of king Ptolemy and queen Berenice, Saviour Gods, the descendant on the father's side of Herakles, son of Zeus, on the mother's side of Dionysos, son of Zeus,3 having inherited from his father the kingdom of Egypt and Libya and Syria4 and Phoenicia and Cyprus and Lycia and Caria and the Cyclades, set out on a campaign into Asia with infantry and cavalry forces and a naval armament and elephants both Trogodyte and Ethiopic,5 which his father and he himself first captured from these places and, bringing them to Egypt, trained them to military use. But having become master of all the country this side of the Euphrates and of Cilicia and Pamphylia and Ionia and the Hellespont and Thrace, and of all the military forces in these countries and of Indian elephants,6 and having made the local dynasts (τοὺς μονάρχους) in all these regions his vassals, he crossed the river Euphrates, and having brought under him Mesopotamia and Babylonia and Susiana and Persis and Media, and all the rest as far as Bactria, and having sought out whatever sacred things had been carried off by the Persians from Egypt, and having brought them back with the other treasure from these countries to Egypt, he sent forces through the canals —" Here the inscription, as Cosmas found it, was broken off.

This relates to a great campaign in the opening years of the reign which is clearly claimed to have almost paralleled Alexander’s in its extent, and there is the claim of descent from Herakles for Ptolemy Soter through his father (claiming Philip II’s paternity?). He also associated his own cult, that of the ‘Benefactor Gods’ with Alexander and ‘The Brother-Sister Gods’, his parents

In the reign of Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, Brother-and�Sister Gods, year 9, Apollonides son of Moschion being priest of Alexander and the Brother-and�Sister Gods and the Benefactor Gods

So there does seem to be a reason for Ptolemy III to commission or at least appreciate an Alexander History. So how about this

Born around 315, moves with his father to Athens in 306 where the hedonist Aristotle is in the entourage of Demetrios and under whose spell he falls to spite his prudish father. Dinon begins amassing notes for the completion of his Persika, interviewing both Greeks and Asiatics. He dies before he can give them anything but a rough shape, the remorseful son abandons riotous lifestyle and goes to study under the Apathetic, Stilpon when he dies in his turn Klleitarchos has to decide where to go, the temptations of the Antigonid Court now repell him, Lysimachos has destroyed his home town and chaos rules in Northern Greece. Taking his chance he purchases a passage to Egypt with the ship that had delivered Pyrrhos, Lenin like, to further Ptolemaic claims in Macedon (hence the interest in the Aeacidae). In Egypt he finds royal favour as a pupil of the much admired Stilpon. He gets a boost in an administrative career. He serves well and starts writing up his fathers notes only to put them aside when King Ptolemy publishes his chalk dry History. He is now 35 and becomes head of the katalogein an important but generally dull post. Like many with boring jobs he turns to fantasy to escape and is attracted by the new style of writing,the Asianic, its bizarre rhythms and jarring constuctions the perfect antidote for the bureaucratic Greek of his work-a-day life. The Library opened under the Second Ptolemy becomes his second home, although like a schoolboy looking up rude words in dictionaries his tastes are for the fantastic rather than the scholarly. He dreams of writing but lacks a true direction until the start of the next reign in 246, when he was a venerable 64, he is dragged of to war to keep the Kings Diary. He falls in with a fellow stateless man, Xanthippos the Spartan condotierre who besides regaling him with the stories of heroic Spartan kings Leonidas and Agis III piques his interest in the obscene rites of the Carthaginians.
241 war is over, Euergetes is associating himself more with Alexander, and the 74 year-old finally sees his chance for some indirect flattery, the sort this monarch prefers. He revisits his father’s work building up Ptolemy’s role and his true lineage and including allusions to Arsinoe II (Cleophis) and Euergetes’ return of Persian spoils from Egypt parallels Alexander’s of spoils from Greece. He publishes at 75 to great eclat, the racy treatment, the dramatic scenes and the fashionable language combine with the pushing of the regime’s myth to make him a success. Five years further down the line, seeing his son going bad Euergetes hits on the idea of appointing the octogenarian didaskalos to his son, he has the language qualifications, his son likes his work and so might co-operate and Stilpon’s influence might encourage some virtue in him. Two weeks after the appointment Eratosthenes corners him in a dark alley and kicks the life out of him, the chief librarian should be the Royal Tutor!