POxy LXXI 4808 and the date of Kleitarchos

[agesilaos]

NEI.]KLEITARCOSDEKOMPW
DWS]MENKAIAUTOSTHNIS
TORI]ANGEGRAFENAMEM
PTO]SDESTINTHNDIAQE[SI]N
EGE]NE[TO]DEKAIEPITOUK[
]. GE.[ ] KAQAFHSIN . [
PO] [.K]AIDIDASKALOS[
]TOU[F]ILOPATROSTE[
] vacat

Copy and paste into word and then apply Symbol font to get the Greek but note that the sigmai should be C-form, this will allow easier inspection of the actual papyrus pictured here. http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/ees/ees.html and searching for 4808.

This recently published (in vol LXXI of the ‘Oxyrhynchus Papyri’) is a chronological list of some Hellenistic historians, from Onesikritos to Polybios, with some notes on them and their works. Among those mentioned by the anonymous scholar is Kleitarchos. He seems (the text is fragmentary and therefore dependant on reconstruction) to say that Kleitarchos wrote a boastful (kompodos), self-serving? (autos?) History, whose composition (diathesin) was, nevertheless blameless (amemptos). The next lines are gibberish to me, just a collection of conjunctions and prepositions until in the final two lines it seems that Kleitarchos was tutor (didaskalos) to Philopater, ie Ptolemy IV who was born c 241BC and reigned 221-205. Were this to be correct it would difficult to assign a date for Kleitarchos’ work before 290 and that would assume that he wrote when he was about twenty and was tutor in his seventies; this is an extremely unlikely scenario. We can assume that Kleitarchos did not make old bones as unlike Aristoboulos and Timaios he is not mentioned by the author of ‘Macrobioi’ (usually credited to Lucian). Nor is it likely that his fame preceded his tutorship by half a century, they were surely quite close which would make the History of Alexander date to the 230’s (this was Kleitarchos’ only work, it seems, so we cannot credit him with a great corpus which would recommend him as Royal tutor), at which time there would be no one left alive who had accompanied Alexander making his work a compilation of other works and thus of considerably less value than might otherwise be the case.

Despite this definite statement there is much circumstantial evidence to put him earlier, this is rehearsed by Luisa Prandi in her ‘Histos’ article (No 6 2012 ‘New Evidence for the dating of Cleitarchus (POxy LXXI 4808)?’), which is available online; I shall summarise here and add some supporting views of my own.

Prandi’s first point is that we know from Pliny (NH IX 36) that Kleitarchos’ father was Dinon of Kolophon who wrote a Persika, or History of Persia, a genre which did not survive the Acheamenids’ fall. Thus he must have written before 330 BC. Once again this would make it mathematically possible for Kleitarchos to have been born c300 BC and tutoring in his seventies but it is not likely, especially when one considers Pliny NH II 57, which describes him as proximus to Theopompos and before Theophrastos (by implication); whatever Pliny’s confusion in this passage it is clear that he considers Kleitarchos to have written in the late fourth/early third century.
Again, there is Diogenes Laertius’ report (III 113) of Philip of Megara’s news that Kleitarchos and Simmias left the entourage of Aristotle of Kyrene to join Stilpon of Megara. There is no certainty that this is our man but if it is A B Bosworth has suggested the context would be Ptolemy I’s 309 visit to Greece, Kleitarchos must have been about twenty so would have been tutoring in his nineties at least (why no mention in ‘Macrobioi’?).

Diodoros II 7 ii links Kleitarchos with ‘those who later crossed into Asia with Alexander.’ Clearly associating him with the first batch of Alexander writers; though it has to be said that the passage as it stands actually places him before Alexander, not a bad trick for a writer ON Alexander! Despite this he is placed in an early rather than late context.

Longinus (On the Sublime, III 20) compares Kleitarchos’ sensationalism with that of Kallisthenes and places them earlier than Amphikrates, Hegesias and Matris. Quintillian (X 1 lxxiv) puts him after Ephoros (b.c400 BC) with ‘a long time’ between him and Timagenes (possibly as late as early first century BC). Finally, Clement of Alexandria, as we have seen in the birthday (or length of reign thread), lists him after Phainis and Ephoros and before Timaios, Eratosthenes and Duris. This is slightly disingenuous, as he actually lists Kleitarchos with Timaios and credits them with the same figure (for the number of years between the Return of the Heraklidai and Alexander’s expedition). None of this is in anyway conclusive but cumilatively suggestive.

She then turns to the arguments that Kleitarchos used several late writers namely, Timaios, Patrokles and Berossos. The claims of Timaios have been dealt with on the birthday thread, she too dismisses them but without much elaboration. The link with Patrokles is that both writers say that the Caspian is ‘about the same size as the Black Sea’. Prandi considers that this passage cannot be treated in isolation but belongs with the other fragments concerning the area, including the Amazon Visit concluding that they stem from Polyklitos of Mendes, an earlier writer than Patrokles (published c280). Similarly she finds scant evidence for use of the work of Berossos.

Now, she considers those authors who display knowledge of Kleitarchos; Strabo XI 5 iv shows that Eratosthenes (276-196 BC) knew him as in this passage he corrects him. Athenaios XII 530A, XIII 576 d-e and 586 c-d are from Klearchos of Soli who was, like Alexander, a pupil of Aristotle and lived until about 250BC.

Prandi leaves it at that, noting that these sort of notes frequently contain errors. I think she has missed a trick in not considering the oddities of Diodoros’ XVII, perhaps due to her (in my view erroneous) theory that he used two sources the second of which being Duris.

As I have mentioned before, it is unusual to find Macedonian arms frequently put down and the Thessalians so lauded. I can only find a context early in the Third Century which might explain this, i.e. the Ptolemaic move to re-instate Pyrrhus as King of Epeiros. The propagandist aspect tying the work tightly to its context. The Kremonidean War seems not to have had a Northern Greek front. Since the work must surely relate closely to the tutorship a date in the 230’s is impossible.

Should we then reject the whole note? Given the value of other parts of the papyrus that would seem drastic. I would propose that the author has suffered a memory lapse and substituted Philopatros for Philadelphos who was born in 309BC. A date of 297 for the work would make him twelve when it were published which is an appropriate age for a tutor to be appointed. This would place Kleitarchos much closer to the Ptolemaic Court than previously thought and make explaining his placing Ptolemy at the Mallian town and the story of Thais seem more difficult. But in the context of a Propaganda War it is easy to see the advantage of Ptolemy being the hero and a drunken hetaira alluding to the entourage of Demetrios Poliorketes.

Kleitarchos wrote his propaganda piece; the war was won and he received his reward.

[Alexias]

Prandi’s first point is that we know from Pliny (NH IX 36) that Kleitarchos’ father was Dinon of Kolophon who wrote a Persika, or History of Persia, a genre which did not survive the Acheamenids’ fall. Thus he must have written before 330 BC. Once again this would make it mathematically possible for Kleitarchos to have been born c300 BC and tutoring in his seventies but it is not likely, especially when one considers Pliny NH II 57, which describes him as proximus to Theopompos and before Theophrastos (by implication); whatever Pliny’s confusion in this passage it is clear that he considers Kleitarchos to have written in the late fourth/early third century.

That was most interesting, thank you. I don't know enough to comment, but could I ask a question please?

"Persika, or History of Persia, a genre which did not survive the Acheamenids’ fall" - is that an assumption that no one would be interested in the history of Persia, or was a Persika particularly a panegyric on the Acheamenids?

Also, if Kolophon was destroyed by Lysimachus (not sure exactly when - c 306 BC?) and Dinon is known as belonging to the city, but his son isn't, does this mean that Kleitarchos hadn't reached his majority (or not been born) before the city fell? Or just that he didn't live there?

[agesilaos]

Yes, I had forgotten about Lysimachos and Kolophon, but it was not in 306 rather about 297 when he re-founded Ephesos and transplanted the populations of kolophon and Lebedos, I think to boost the population, I think he blocked the sewers to force the Ephesians to move to the new city; the story is in Strabo which I do not possess and isn't online however the city of Kolophon was reoccupied after Lysimachos' death in 280.

When a city is given it is normally the city of their birth, a good example of an exception is the trierarch list found in Arrian's 'Indike' where the cities seem to be where the nobles held their fiefs. Kleitarchos is only ever called 'the Alexandrian' I think, but I don't believe that means he was born there, only that he is more associated with that city. Off hand I can't remember which sources call him 'the Alexandrian', doh! But your point is an interesting one that I will now have to think about.

I think I am correct in thinking that all the Persikai we know of are ascribed to authors who pre-date Alexander. They were certainly not panegyric, it is from these gosssipy morality plays that we get the image of a decadent, barbarically cruel Empire constantly at the mercy of Harem politics. But I suppose the image of a decadent dead empire lost its appeal in an age of decadent successor monarchies!

[Alexias]

Thanks for that. Kolophon probably doesn't make any difference to your dating, and the only reason it caught my eye was that I recently looked it up in relation to an inscription.

[agesilaos]

There is actually only one reference to him being Alexandrian, in 'On Rhetoric' by Philodemos a first century BC philosopher whose canon has expanded massively recently with the preparation of the scrolls from the villa in Herculaeneum which contained about forty of his works. I cannot think of any reason to suspect that he did not live in Alexandria; especially given the possible tutorship of a Ptolemaic prince. If there were one might wonder if it was not a slip because he wrote an Alexander History.

[Taphoi]

Without being aware of the new papyrus, I already evaluated the evidence on Cleitarchus' date of publication in my book: Alexander the Great in India: A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus. I concluded:

...the internal evidence that Cleitarchus had some knowledge of contemporaneous authors and events down to perhaps 280BC seems to be emerging from a wider range of evidence than has previously been appreciated. I would therefore favour a date shortly after 280BC, whilst conceding that any time in the range 320-250BC remains feasible.

The strong evidence of the new papyrus that Cleitarchus was tutor to Philopator tends to confirm me in my view that the correct date range is 280BC - 250BC.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Let us run with that hypothesis; there are two pointers to each end of the chronological spectrum. The last event preserved in the fragments of Dinon is in fragment 24 and dates to 340BC, sadly I cannot quote the fragment and the date comes from the encyclopedia Brittanica. Let us assume, then that he actually wrote 335BC and was twenty. We will ignore the story of Stilpon of Megara and allow Dinon to father Kleitarchos at fifty which would have him born in 305BC. Philopatros was born 241BC let him have a tutor at five so 236BC making Kleitarchos sixty-nine at the time. There is no evidence for the use of any author later than 280 and the evidence for those is scant and inconclusive. Given the lack of any other works it must be the ‘History of Alexander’ that secured his post at court so one would expect it to belong to the 240’s at the earliest. This scenario is not very likely and involves discarding evidence simply because it is inconvenient. It also makes Pliny a nonsense, not in itself a disqualification, since he clearly calls Kleitachos ‘ the next author after Theopompos’ to mention Rome before Theophrastos actually recorded Roman data from autopsy rather than rumour and he is alluding to a passage dating to 314BC; being almost 100yrs out and two monarchs.

Alternatively, let Dinon write in 335 BC at 30 and father Kleitarchos in 325BC, making him 16 in 309 when he left Aristotle of Kyrene for Stilpon; c295 he publishes aged 30 when Philadelphos would be 14 making a tutorship follow closely on it’s heels. The political situation suits the quirks in his treatment and his dependency on Kallisthenes, Onesikritos, Niarchos and Aristoboulos but not Ptolemy can be explained by those being the only sources available, by 280 Ptolemy was available and would surely have been used by an author close enough to the Court to become a tutor to the heir.

I read your analysis and it amused me greatly; assigning random percentage chances to the use authors and then using probability theory to form an argument does seem ‘scientific’ but it is flawed at its most basic level – the assigning of the initial percentage. Nowhere do we have a fragment of Kleitarchos quoting a source so it all comes down to an intensely subjective process, the state of the evidence, coming as all of it does through prism of intermediary authors, all bringing their own accretions of style and content, forbids any claim to precision. This is why every academic work is necessarily hedged about with conditional clauses, and why the debate persists.

Reduced to considering the likelihood of the various scenarios I find an early Third Century date most compelling not least because no other time explains the praise of the Thessallians and the denigration of Macedonian arms.

[Taphoi]

Let us run with that hypothesis; there are two pointers to each end of the chronological spectrum. The last event preserved in the fragments of Dinon is in fragment 24 and dates to 340BC, sadly I cannot quote the fragment and the date comes from the encyclopedia Brittanica. Let us assume, then that he actually wrote 335BC and was twenty. We will ignore the story of Stilpon of Megara and allow Dinon to father Kleitarchos at fifty which would have him born in 305BC. Philopatros was born 241BC let him have a tutor at five so 236BC making Kleitarchos sixty-nine at the time. There is no evidence for the use of any author later than 280 and the evidence for those is scant and inconclusive. Given the lack of any other works it must be the ‘History of Alexander’ that secured his post at court so one would expect it to belong to the 240’s at the earliest. This scenario is not very likely and involves discarding evidence simply because it is inconvenient. It also makes Pliny a nonsense, not in itself a disqualification, since he clearly calls Kleitachos ‘ the next author after Theopompos’ to mention Rome before Theophrastos actually recorded Roman data from autopsy rather than rumour and he is alluding to a passage dating to 314BC; being almost 100yrs out and two monarchs.

Alternatively, let Dinon write in 335 BC at 30 and father Kleitarchos in 325BC, making him 16 in 309 when he left Aristotle of Kyrene for Stilpon; c295 he publishes aged 30 when Philadelphos would be 14 making a tutorship follow closely on it’s heels. The political situation suits the quirks in his treatment and his dependency on Kallisthenes, Onesikritos, Niarchos and Aristoboulos but not Ptolemy can be explained by those being the only sources available, by 280 Ptolemy was available and would surely have been used by an author close enough to the Court to become a tutor to the heir.

I read your analysis and it amused me greatly; assigning random percentage chances to the use authors and then using probability theory to form an argument does seem ‘scientific’ but it is flawed at its most basic level – the assigning of the initial percentage. Nowhere do we have a fragment of Kleitarchos quoting a source so it all comes down to an intensely subjective process, the state of the evidence, coming as all of it does through prism of intermediary authors, all bringing their own accretions of style and content, forbids any claim to precision. This is why every academic work is necessarily hedged about with conditional clauses, and why the debate persists.

Reduced to considering the likelihood of the various scenarios I find an early Third Century date most compelling not least because no other time explains the praise of the Thessallians and the denigration of Macedonian arms.

Please cite your reference for the date of birth of Philopator. This site http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptole ... _iv_fr.htm gives 244BC and appears to concede that it could have been as early as 246BC.

To say that Cleitarchus must have written his History Concerning Alexander only just before he tutored Philopator is rather like saying that Rolf Harris could not have just received a Bafta because he did his most famous work decades ago. (And yet he just has.)

To say that the evidence must be changed (Philopator to Philadelphus) because it disagrees with your opinion does not merit any response. It is obvious that the papyrus has the status of all other source evidence and is now the strongest evidence available on the date of Cleitarchus' History Concerning Alexander. It is improper to change it unless it is necessary, because it contradicts some other source evidence of similar strength, but it does not. The Dinon argument is pure silliness - there are histories of the Achaemenid kingdom still being written today, let alone just after it fell. The Stilpo evidence is reconcilable with Cleitarchus being tutor to Philopator in old age just after 240BC.

There are several reasons that 280BC must be the terminus post quem. For example, the closing lines of Curtius record the transfer of Alexander's corpse to Alexandria from Memphis. Pausanias states that this was done by Philadelphus, so it can hardly have happened before his reign began in 282BC. It is very likely that Curtius is following the end of his main source in this statement and it is an obvious place for Cleitarchus to conclude: with the delivery of the corpse to his home city. The evidence for Cleitarchus' use of Megasthenes and his awareness of the Romans, when they were of no significance on the international stage until ~280BC are other reasons.

The point of my argument about probabilities in Alexander the Great in India was not to calculate exact values, but to show that the multiple independent arguments that Cleitarchus used 3rd century BC sources, though individually unprovable, nevertheless collectively add up to a strong argument.

Best wishes,

Andrew

P.S. Luisa Prandi has a track record to defend regarding the date of Cleitarchus, since she concluded boldly and as it turns out incorrectly that he wrote towards the end of the 4th century BC in her 1996 monograph on Cleitarchus. It is ingracious and rather Canute-like of her not to bow to the inevitable in the light of the new evidence.

[amyntoros]

Without being aware of the new papyrus, I already evaluated the evidence on Cleitarchus' date of publication in my book: Alexander the Great in India: A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus. I concluded:

...the internal evidence that Cleitarchus had some knowledge of contemporaneous authors and events down to perhaps 280BC seems to be emerging from a wider range of evidence than has previously been appreciated. I would therefore favour a date shortly after 280BC, whilst conceding that any time in the range 320-250BC remains feasible.

The strong evidence of the new papyrus that Cleitarchus was tutor to Philopator tends to confirm me in my view that the correct date range is 280BC - 250BC.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Okay, I admit it, I am totally confused by this debate given statements made on other threads. How does a date range for the publication of Cleitarchus' history of 280 BC - 250 BC fit into the argument that contemporaries of Alexander were still alive when Cleitarchus wrote? I.e., if someone was the same age as Alexander when the campaigns began, that is born in 356 BC, they would have been ninety-four years old in 250 BC! Seems to me that the spread is a little extreme.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

To say that the evidence must be changed (Philopator to Philadelphus) because it disagrees with your opinion does not merit any response.

I utterly agree that the emendation of source material because it disagrees with one's opinion is extremely poor method.

There is a Bagoas mentioned in Nearchus' list of trierarchs, ie. the most important men in Alexander's court. He is the only Persian in the group. I recall reading in a biography (Lane Fox?) that this was not the same Bagoas. The author was conclusive but didn't provide any reason to back this assertion. I was new to Alexander at the time and thought "must be something really obvious". It probably is, but can anyone tell me why these two have to be different people?

No, there is no reason at all. I will assert that it is the same Bagoas that was the trierarch, because the evidence is quite overwhelming that it is so. The only contrary argument has been to claim that a eunuch cannot possibly have risen to such heights under Alexander, which is quite fatuous.

There are fine details (a whole chapter) in my book on Alexander's Lovers.

Best wishes,

Andrew

And what is the evidence adduced?

According to Curtius, Bagoas was given to Alexander as a gift in late July or August 330 BC and he had a sexual relationship with the King. Then, we never heard of him again until november 325 BC after the crossing of the Gedrosian desert when Alexander gave him a kiss publicly after a dance contest that Bagoas won. I think that we didn't hear of him during those 5 years, because he was not with Alexander's army he had been left behind at the palace in Hyrcania with other eunuchs and the 365 concubines of Darius' harem, around october 330 BC before proceeding towards Bactriana.

This is an argument from silence, when there is actually no silence. In addition to Arrian's mention of the trierarch, whose designation ho pharnoucheos is likely a corruption of Bagoas the Eunuch, there is also Curtius's mention (7.9.19) of an effeminate youth, who was Alexander's lover, in the context of Sogdiana and this too must be be Bagoas.

Furthermore, excluding Bagoas from India would not serve to undermine his influence, since he is independently cited in a shortlist of Alexander's greatest flatterers by Plutarch.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Quite simply: if the received text does not conform to the expressed opinion, emend it to suit. Matthew, 23.2-3 comes to mind.

[agesilaos]

My source for 241 was Bevan, antiquated and incorrect; why I did not go to Chris Bennet’s excellent site in the first place, I do not know, senility, perhaps. That said having given the opposition five years leeway by allowing a tutorship to a five –year old Philopatros I think chipping three years away does not greatly affect my argument.

Your Rolf Harris analogy is totally fallacious, Rolf has worked solidly since 1953 until the present with only a year or so off for a nervous breakdown, Kleitarchos seems to have produced one book. Royal tutors tend to be men of the time rather than ancients dragged back from obscurity. If you accept the Stilpon story then this man was at the centre of the Court under three Ptolemies; I find his lack of footprints in such a case unusual.

To say that the evidence must be changed (Philopator to Philadelphus) because it disagrees with your opinion does not merit any response.

I know English is a difficult language for you, but you will find (if you can find a native speaker to explain it to you) that I would change the papyrus reading because of the chronological difficulties, not because I am of a different opinion. Nor do I say it ‘must’ be changed only that if it were the problems disappear. Take a short course on answering the points made rather than inventing different arguments to knock down (a rhetorical trick so lame that even our bum-faced overlords use it!).

It is obvious that the papyrus has the status of all other source evidence and is now the strongest evidence available on the date of Cleitarchus' History Concerning Alexander. It is improper to change it unless it is necessary, because it contradicts some other source evidence of similar strength, but it does not.

LOL ! Can you see what it is yet, yep, self-contradictory bluster; if ‘it is obvious that the papyrus has the status of all other sources’ then it cannot be called ‘the strongest’; maybe you can explain why a fragmentary papyrus note from an anonymous author of whom nothing is known, other than that he wrote c100 AD, should have more force than any other evidence? The evidence it contradicts is the Stilpon story, which comes from an author whose veracity or, at least, competence can be tested as we have much more than one page and in some cases can compare what he writes with his sources; sadly, he is rather uneven. But that is still a stronger position than that of the papyrus author who cannot be judged at all.

The Dinon argument is pure silliness - there are histories of the Achaemenid kingdom still being written today, let alone just after it fell. The Stilpo evidence is reconcilable with Cleitarchus being tutor to Philopator in old age just after 240BC.

You will no doubt be able to prove your point by naming an ancient auyhor of a ‘Persika’ after 336BC, if you cannot then who is being silly? Yes you can reconcile Stilpo if Philopatros was given a sixty-five year old tutor when he was four, ‘pure silliness’; Amyntoros is into social History not sourced from Wikipedia, maybe she can tell us, with examples the usual age for children to go to a didaskalos.

There are several reasons that 280BC must be the terminus post quem. For example, the closing lines of Curtius record the transfer of Alexander's corpse to Alexandria from Memphis. Pausanias states that this was done by Philadelphus, so it can hardly have happened before his reign began in 282BC. It is very likely that Curtius is following the end of his main source in this statement and it is an obvious place for Cleitarchus to conclude: with the delivery of the corpse to his home city. The evidence for Cleitarchus' use of Megasthenes and his awareness of the Romans, when they were of no significance on the international stage until ~280BC are other reasons.

Always with the ‘must’; yes, Curtius records the move, you suppose he was a slavish copier and was unaware of the fact himself? What is Curtius is not Kleitarchos, Diodoros is almost certainly the more dependent author and yet in his list of Kassander’s crimes against Alexander (XVII 118 ii) he fails to mention the murder of Alexander IV something that Pausanias (IX 7 i-ii) does, along with that of Herkules, either Diodoros is anticipating partial material from Hieronymos or Kleitarchos was unaware of the crime against Alexander IV, which could just about have remaned secret until Demetrius Poliorketes accession but certainly not until 280 let alone 240.
As usual what you call ‘obvious’ is just an a priori justification of your position and hence fallacious, the obvious place to end an Alexander History is with his death as Diodoros does and Ptolemy and Aristoboulos and Arrian, It is by no means certain Alexandria was Kleitarchos’ ‘home city’ nor can it be said with any authority that Curtius is ‘very likely’ following any particular source ; bald assertion is no substitute for evidence.

Megasthenes’ mission cannot be dated but may well connected with Seleukos’ swapping the Indian satrapies for elephant c 303BC; as for the Romans oops Theopompos mentions them, a post 280 date for someone born around 380 writing at 100, what a man. Diodoros does not mention the Roman Embassy and Arrian only cites two later authors Aristos and Asklepiades, Pliny has perhaps been taken in by one of these later authors citing his work in support of their lie; they go on to credit Alexander with prophesying Rome’s future greatness: so there is no reason to dismiss the possibility of an early date for Klietarchos, dogmatism is the only impossibility, probability the nearest we can get to certainty.

The point of my argument about probabilities in Alexander the Great in India was not to calculate exact values, but to show that the multiple independent arguments that Cleitarchus used 3rd century BC sources, though individually unprovable, nevertheless collectively add up to a strong argument.

History is not mathematics it is more like jurisprudence, and there no matter how much circumstantial evidence (just like that Prandi uses) a case resting solely upon it is doomed to fail; five weak argument still add up to a weak argument, the premise is simply wrong.

P.S. Luisa Prandi has a track record to defend regarding the date of Cleitarchus, since she concluded boldly and as it turns out incorrectly that he wrote towards the end of the 4th century BC in her 1996 monograph on Cleitarchus. It is ingracious and rather Canute-like of her not to bow to the inevitable in the light of the new evidence.

The consensus is in favour of an early date, actually so it is those preferring a later one who are ‘Canute-like’, as for being ungracious the evidence is hardly so overwhelming that she can be accused of petulance. For the record I find that both she and Bosworth favour too early (high) a date c.310, but they have their reasons, I am simply not convinced. The mid 290’s fits much better to my mind and will continue until someone can explain the undue importance of the Thessalians.

[Taphoi]

It may be apposite at this point to interject a short discussion of the history of Sparta in the mid 4th century BC as background for the discussion of Alexander the Great.

When Agesilaos came to Ephesus, he found the power and interest of Lysander, and the honours paid to him, insufferably great; all applications were made to him, crowds of suitors attended at his door, and followed upon his steps, as if nothing but the mere name of commander belonged, to satisfy the usage, to Agesilaos, the whole power of it being devolved upon Lysander. None of all the commanders that had been sent into Asia was either so powerful or so formidable as he; no one had rewarded his friends better, or had been more severe against his enemies; which things having been lately done, made the greater impression on men’s minds, especially when they compared the simple and popular behaviour of Agesilaos with the harsh and violent and brief-spoken demeanour which Lysander still retained. Universal preference was yielded to this, and little regard shown to Agesilaos. This first occasioned offence to the other Spartan captains, who resented that they should rather seem the attendants of Lysander, than the councillors of Agesilaos. And at length Agesilaos himself, though not perhaps an envious man in his nature, nor apt to be troubled at the honours redounding upon other men, yet eager for honour and jealous of his glory, began to apprehend that Lysander’s greatness would carry away from him the reputation of whatever great action should happen. He therefore went this way to work. He first opposed him in all his counsels; whatever Lysander specially advised was rejected, and other proposals followed. Then whoever made any address to him, if he found him attached to Lysander, certainly lost his suit. So also in judicial cases, any one whom he spoke strongly against was sure to come off with success, and any man whom he was particularly solicitous to procure some benefit for might think it well if he got away without an actual loss.

These things being clearly not done by chance, but constantly and of a set purpose, Lysander was soon sensible of them, and hesitated not to tell his friends, that they suffered for his sake, bidding them apply themselves to the king, and such as were more powerful with him than he was. Such sayings of his seeming to be designed purposely to excite ill-feeling, Agesilaos went on to offer himself a more open affront, appointing him his meat-carver, and would in public companies, scornfully say, ‘Let them go now and pay their court to my carver.’ Lysander, no longer able to brook these indignities, complained at last to Agesilaos himself, telling him that he knew very well how to humble his friends. Agesilaos answered, ‘I know certainly how to humble those who pretend to more power than myself.’ ‘That,’ replied Lysander, ‘is perhaps rather said by you, than done by me: I desire only that you will assign me some office and place in which I may serve you without incurring your displeasure.’

Upon this Agesilaos sent him to the Hellespont, whence he procured Spithridates, a Persian of the province of Pharnabazus, to come to the assistance of the Greeks with two hundred horse and a great supply of money. Yet his anger did not so come down, but he thenceforward pursued the design of wresting the kingdom out of the hands of the two families which then enjoyed it, and making it wholly elective; and it is thought that he would on account of his quarrel have excited a great commotion in Sparta, if he had not died in the Boeotian war. Thus ambitious spirits in a commonwealth, when they transgress their bounds, are apt to do more harm than good. For though Lysander's pride and assumption was most ill-timed and insufferable in its display, yet Agesilaos surely could have found some other way of setting him right, less offensive to a man of his reputation and ambitious temper. Indeed they were both blinded with the same passion, so as one not to recognize the authority of his superior, the other not to bear with the imperfections of his friend.

I suppose there must have been some Spartans who believed that Agesilaos was sincere in his attacks upon Lysander, although in fact his only motivation was a determination to show Lysander who was king. This pigheadedness and self-importance is what Agesilaos is famous for in history. It was exactly these qualities that led him subsequently to embroil Sparta in the fight with the Thebans that entailed their annihilation at Leuctra and the permanent relegation of Sparta to second-class status among the nations of Greece. The irony is that Agesilaos must have had even more contempt for those Spartans who thought him sincere in his attacks upon Lysander than he had for Lysander himself. And yet they followed him dotingly from disaster to disaster, paving the way for the rise of Macedon.

Hoping that nobody will mind this short diversion into the background behind our central topic.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Hmmm

they compared the simple and popular behaviour of Agesilaos with the harsh and violent and brief-spoken demeanour which Lysander still retained

Do you read what you copy and paste? Quite happy to discuss Agesilaos and the failure of the Spartan Hegemony but a moderator would have to open it as a new thread, it really has nothing to do with POxy 4808. You will not be surprised to find that I think your 'analysis' simplistic' and superficial, if I did not know better I might think it was an attempt at analogy; in which case, thanks for considering me Agesilaos, the most Spartan of all Spartans, I did choose the name because I liked him after all. But Lysander, a preening tyrant who accepted divine honours only to lose his life at a small town in Boeotia due to sheer incompetence? well, maybe.

[Paralus]

It may be apposite at this point to interject a short discussion of the history of Sparta in the mid 4th century BC as background for the discussion of Alexander the Great [...] Hoping that nobody will mind this short diversion into the background behind our central topic.

Best wishes,

Andrew

There is absolutely no need for this utterly irrelevant and unnecessary digression. It has little to do with our "central topic" and absolutely nothing to do with the thread. But that is not, of course, its purpose. In fact it is a personal attack, not even thinly disguised and artless in its transparency. The need to resort to such, rather than engage on the topic, says much about the character of he who felt the need to post such.

You will not be surprised to find that I think your 'analysis' simplistic' and superficial...

The use of "analysis" is unwarranted; it is far less than that. I too would be happy to debate the politics of first half of the fourth century. Perhaps the role of the koine eirene several times agreed to and how this was used (the role of the prostatai of the 'peace' in defining "autonomy" for example) could start it? I would look forward to the clear demonstration of the notion that the replacement of Sparta as hegemon necessarily meant the rise of Macedon.

[Paralus]

Managed to get around to reading Prandi's paper last night and again early this morning. For those who do not have a copy it can be found here. I had to reread it again this morning as, in my initial reading, I found it somewhat disquieting.

To begin at the end (p23) Prandi writes:

To conclude this paper, let me propose a consideration of methodology. The fact that POxy LXXI. 4808 has only recently been discovered does not make it more important or invalidating for the outcome of the data we have at hand, not least because it seems to be the product of a non-official private cultural environment. (my italics)

This serves to marginalise the papyrus and sets up the reader for the following line:

The possibility that the writer was wrong is not very remote, if one considers the number of inaccuracies commonly recognised by modern scholars in the famous list of Alexandrian librarians and princes’ tutors in POxy X. 1241 (2nd c. AD)...

The import is that the author of the papyrus, who seems to be writing in a "non-official private cultural environment", has got it wrong. On this basis the notation of Philopater has to be rejected. In fact, it is just as likely - if not more so given the other information - that the author has it correct. One might well ask what of the other notations? These, presumably, were written within the same 'prejudicial' environment.

We can nonetheless retain the information regarding Cleitarchus’ position of responsibility and his role of didaskalos, possibly for a later king. The importance of POxy LXXI. 4808 thus remains undeniable, both for what concerns the aforementioned authors as well as for its overall
view. Let me also point out that the information about Chares’ hostility towards Parmenio’s entourage is valuable...

Other details, then, are clearly unaffected by the author's environment. In reality, the problem for Prandi is that the chronological note concerning Philopater is evidence which is contradictory to the "high" chronology with respect to Cleitarchus. There has never been any indisputable evidence - and certainly no chronographic evidence as here - to date Cleitarchus. This is a point Prandi is quite happy to deploy in her arguments regarding the publication date of Ptolemy's history ("There is no indisputable evidence to date the composition, and above all the completion, of Ptolemy’s work..." p.21). Yet confronted by a chronographic reference relating to Cleitarchus, Prandi argues for the disputable and allusive "data we have at hand" over a clear statement.

The ground for the dismissal of the chronographic note is well prepared in the first paragraph. Here Prandi informs us that the papyrus lists historians - in chronological order - from Onesicritus through Cleitarchus and Hieronymus down to Polybius.

The fragment thus gives us a ‘Macedonian’ perspective from the privileged position of Alexandria, but while its value as a whole seems indisputable, the same cannot be said of its contribution about Cleitarchus, because lines 9–17, which concern him, are partly incomplete and require specific analysis and careful consideration before they can be properly evaluated.

It is not just the section dealing with Cleitarchus that is need of "specific analysis and careful consideration"; the entire papyrus quite naturally being in something far less than a pristine state. Prandi then gives us the text of the papyrus concerning Cleitarchus followed by a explanation of same ending with "finally (15–7), he is stated to have been tutor of Philopater (Ptolemy IV, born around 224 BC and on the throne from 222 to 205 BC), which is, in fact, the chronologically relevant news." Indeed it is though Philopater was born near to 244 BC. Now Prandi is firmly within the "high" chronological camp and she reminds the reader that the communis opinio about Cleitarchus "is still in favour of a 'high' dating". She also notes that some scholars, in the last twenty years, have placed him under Philadelphus or later (second half of the 3rd century). These scholars she then describes as "more or less isolated voices" whose theories have "never examined in depth the evidence in favour of the high dating".

The language is deliberate: these are marginal views and views which fail to properly consider all the evidence. What follows is a trenchant defense of the high chronology against these "isolated voices" and, more so, the papyrus. Prandi, in making this defense, can even conjure a detrimental judgement from Felix Jacoby who will have - were he alive - "concluded that the ancient tradition appeared to be contradictory and that the chronological placement of the historian was therefore difficult".

All in all I would have to agree with Taphoi (if he writes of this paper) as he would recognise the method. It is the method of defending a hypothesis come what may; a defense that involves marginalising evidence and explaining away that which does not suit. Ultimately, discomforting evidence - the papyrus and its chronographic note - is first called into question and then rejected (or emended). Not in its entirety mind for "The importance of POxy LXXI. 4808 thus remains undeniable, both for what concerns the aforementioned authors as well as for its overall view". By and large new evidenced is welcomed (even when it contradicts one's view). Not here; the chronological note on Cleitarchus must go.

Sometimes "isolated voices" may well prove correct. Prime amongst those "isolated voices" might well be Victor Parker. His paper Source Critical Reflections on Cleitarchus' Work (in Wheatley and Hannah eds., Alexander and His Successors: Essays from the Antipodes, Regina, 2009) should be read in conjunction with Prandi's. In light of this papyrus he seems slightly prescient and Prandi's communus opinio, considering this clear chronographic evidence, might eventually resemble those "isolated voices".