Ptolemy & Alexander Brothers???

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Greek and Macedonian days

Post by marcus »

Chris Bennett wrote: Years were counted eponymously (e.g. by the name of the Athenian archon), and since we don't have a list of eponyms it is often impossible to assign a fully dated inscription to a particular year, or at least a matter of endless controversy.
Hi Chris,

But we do have a list of Athenian archons - at least, I have!* Unless you mean that we don't have the eponymous lists for other states, so while we can be pretty exact on dates that use the Athenian list, we have trouble dating inscriptions, etc. pertaining to other states.

(*I don't know how much controversy there might be over the accuracy of the list, admittedly.)

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Taphoi »

Chris Bennett wrote: Aelian's excerpt from the Ephemerides uses the same format as Plutarch for the 28th but uses a regular forward count for the 24th. So does the decad count reflect Plutarch's or Aelian's representation of the dates rather than that of the Diarist?
Chris,

I had a look at Aelian 3.23 and I can see that you are possibly getting confused. You are translating "tetradi meta eikada" as the 24th in forward counting, but it is also backward count for the 27th (at least in the Athenian calendar from the late 4th century). In this instance I think it must be backward count, since the 28th is backward. See Samuel, Greek & Roman Chronology, p.60-1 on this point.

Best wishes,

Andrew
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Chris Bennett »

Taphoi wrote:
Chris Bennett wrote: Aelian's excerpt from the Ephemerides uses the same format as Plutarch for the 28th but uses a regular forward count for the 24th. So does the decad count reflect Plutarch's or Aelian's representation of the dates rather than that of the Diarist?
Chris,

I had a look at Aelian 3.23 and I can see that you are possibly getting confused. You are translating "tetradi meta eikada" as the 24th in forward counting, but it is also backward count for the 27th (at least in the Athenian calendar from the late 4th century). In this instance I think it must be backward count, since the 28th is backward. See Samuel, Greek & Roman Chronology, p.60-1 on this point.

Best wishes,

Andrew
Thanks for the pointer, I'll check it out. I was following Robinson (C A R Robinson, The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition) who has the entries from Arrian, Plutarch and Aelian conveniently laid out side by side in a tabular form by date, and who takes "tetradi meta eikada" as the 24th. Robinson's interpretation seems pretty reasonable, since Aelian has Alexander dining with Bagoas, 10 stades from the palace, on that day, while in Plutarch and Arrian he is already on the verge of death on the 27th, with the soldiers parading by his deathbed. While sick on the 24th in Plutarch and Arrian, he is still capable of offering sacrifices. Unfortunately, neither of them mention Bagoas, which would nail the case.

As given by Robinson (I don't have a full Greek text handy) Plutarch's dates are ("h" = eta): 24th "ebdomh", 25th "th ekte", 26th "thn pempthn" 28th: "th de trith phthinontos" After the 24th (or 27th), Aelian only gives the 28th ("th trith") which matches Plutarch's style, if not this particular entry, so even if Aelian meant the 27th he seems to be changing convention, just less dramatically.

Chris
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Greek and Macedonian days

Post by Chris Bennett »

marcus wrote: Hi Chris,

But we do have a list of Athenian archons - at least, I have!* Unless you mean that we don't have the eponymous lists for other states, so while we can be pretty exact on dates that use the Athenian list, we have trouble dating inscriptions, etc. pertaining to other states.

(*I don't know how much controversy there might be over the accuracy of the list, admittedly.)
Lots and lots of controversy, especially for the third century and later. Just to give one example that directly affects an issue I care about, the date of the death of Arsinoe II, dates for the year of Peithidemos, archon at the start of the Chremonidean war, seem to vary from 270 to 264 (with modern sentiment tending to settle on 268/7). But I do agree that Athens is one of the better understood states. I had occasion to look at the Thessalian strategoi a while back -- they are in far worse shape.

Chris
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Taphoi »

Chris Bennett wrote:I was following Robinson (C A R Robinson, The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition) who has the entries from Arrian, Plutarch and Aelian conveniently laid out side by side in a tabular form by date, and who takes "tetradi meta eikada" as the 24th. Robinson's interpretation seems pretty reasonable, since Aelian has Alexander dining with Bagoas, 10 stades from the palace, on that day, while in Plutarch and Arrian he is already on the verge of death on the 27th, with the soldiers parading by his deathbed. While sick on the 24th in Plutarch and Arrian, he is still capable of offering sacrifices. Unfortunately, neither of them mention Bagoas, which would nail the case.
Uh-oh, you're more confused than I thought! It is now generally accepted (thanks to A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander, Oxford 1988, 170-2) that Aelian 3.23 is October-November 324BC. The palace is that at Ecbatana - not Babylon! The Greek always said this (the month is Dios, not Daisios), but some silly people jumped to unwarranted conclusions.

Cordially,

Andrew
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Chris Bennett »

Taphoi wrote: Uh-oh, you're more confused than I thought! It is now generally accepted (thanks to A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander, Oxford 1988, 170-2) that Aelian 3.23 is October-November 324BC. The palace is that at Ecbatana - not Babylon! The Greek always said this (the month is Dios, not Daisios), but some silly people jumped to unwarranted conclusions.
No doubt. As I hope you have gathered, I am still fairly early in the process of researching this issue. One reason for discussing it here is to encourage hopefully knowledgeable people to give me pointers and advice.

Bosworth's book is on the list but I haven't got to it yet. I do have his earlier CQ article. At that time he thought that Aelian's date was either corrupt or referred to Alexander's earlier stay in Babylon in 331. Robinson also thought that Dios is simply an MS corruption of Daisios. Silly or not, it is perfectly possible, as Bosworth himself thought in 1971. I'll be interested to read why he changed his mind.

I agree that Aelian's extracts could be separated from those of Arrian and Plutarch. This has consequences for the nature of the purported forgery. If the Aelian extracts are from the Ephemerides and Ecbatana then they extend the scope of the Ephemerides at least 8 months into the past before Alexander's death, and we are no longer dealing with a document that just addressed the final days.

Also, redating the extract still leaves us with variations in the formats of dates.

Chris
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Greek and Macedonian days

Post by marcus »

Chris Bennett wrote: Lots and lots of controversy, especially for the third century and later. Just to give one example that directly affects an issue I care about, the date of the death of Arsinoe II, dates for the year of Peithidemos, archon at the start of the Chremonidean war, seem to vary from 270 to 264 (with modern sentiment tending to settle on 268/7). But I do agree that Athens is one of the better understood states. I had occasion to look at the Thessalian strategoi a while back -- they are in far worse shape.
... which is why I did put a caveat at the end of my post! :D

I have to admit that I've never really looked carefully at the archon list beyond around 301, so if there is controversy for the list later than that I suppose I wouldn't really know.

Thinking about it, we're likely to be much better for 5th and 4th centuries, thanks to the historians we have for the periods. Then again, as in the case of your problem with the death of Arsinoe (for example), one also has to assume that a historical writer got the date correct himself - irrespective of the accuracy of the archon or other strategos list.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Taphoi »

Chris Bennett wrote:I agree that Aelian's extracts could be separated from those of Arrian and Plutarch. This has consequences for the nature of the purported forgery. If the Aelian extracts are from the Ephemerides and Ecbatana then they extend the scope of the Ephemerides at least 8 months into the past before Alexander's death, and we are no longer dealing with a document that just addressed the final days.
As I said above, there are good reasons to believe that Aelian 3.23 is only an indirect fragment of the Ephemerides. In my article I suggest that Aelian got it from Ephippus of Olynthus. I had not particularly noticed the evidence of the dating number formats before, but this tends to confirm my view. Aelian is using the Athenian format that came into use in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, whereas Plutarch (in saying that he is citing the Ephemerides almost word for word) is using the earlier Athenian format that the Aelian format replaced. This is actually quite powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Ephemerides. It would require either an exceptionally careful or very early forgery to produce the date numbering format we see in Plutarch.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
dean
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Las Palmas, Spain

Eumenes tent

Post by dean »

Hello,

While doing a bit of background reading regarding this topic I read that it has been said that Ptolemy used the Ephemerides as his main source- which I found quite interesting- although the writer didn't note why he believed this.
To be honest I hadnGÇÖt paid much attention to the aforementioned work by Eumenes. In fact, initially I was under the impression that the whole body of his work had been engulfed in flames in his tent. So God knows how Ptolemy got his hands on them.
Being an English teacher, I love to find out the origins of words and without wanting to wander off this rather technical debate, I at least thought it interesting to note that the word Cardia itself gave rise to Latin/Spanish terms such as taquicardia- meaning that your heart has just skipped a beat or that you have an irregular pulse.
I am sure the Eumenes had "taquicardia" when he found his tent aflame!!! :wink:

Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

Hi Dean,

The "Ptolemy used the Ephemerides" idea is an old one championed in recent times by Hammond (now unfortunately deceased). The idea is that this explains the extraordinary level of detail in Arrian. Sadly, however, there is a suspicious lack of tangible evidence to support the theory and it is predicated on various dubious suppositions, such as that Alexander's Journal was dumped on his funeral carriage, instead of remaining in the custody of Eumenes. Bosworth and others (including me) find this a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

Pothosians once voted the matter of Alexander's death to be their most burning question. The Ephemerides is the most crucial evidence on the matter of Alexander's death. Although we might seem to be discussing abstruse chronological issues here, it is a kind of proxy for discussing what killed Alexander!

The conflagration of Eumenes' tent in India is one of many intriguing convolutions in the story of the Ephemerides: did the Ephemerides only survive for the last two years of Alexander's reign? Is this why the surviving sources tend to be vague on details for Bactria and India? What General Relativity is to Physics, the Ephemerides are to Alexander studies!

Best wishes,

Andrew

PS. Tachycardia is Greek for a racing heart (when there is no reason for it to race)
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Chris Bennett »

Taphoi wrote:As I said above, there are good reasons to believe that Aelian 3.23 is only an indirect fragment of the Ephemerides. In my article I suggest that Aelian got it from Ephippus of Olynthus. I had not particularly noticed the evidence of the dating number formats before, but this tends to confirm my view. Aelian is using the Athenian format that came into use in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, whereas Plutarch (in saying that he is citing the Ephemerides almost word for word) is using the earlier Athenian format that the Aelian format replaced. This is actually quite powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Ephemerides. It would require either an exceptionally careful or very early forgery to produce the date numbering format we see in Plutarch.
And at that point I guess I will just have to wait for your article! Of course, Bosworth's theory is that the Ephemerides are a very early forgery.

One query you may be able to answer: Hammond proposed that a papyrus containing commentary on an account of Alexander's Balkan campaign was a fragment of Strattis' lost commentary on the Ephemerides, and in any case he considered it to be a conclusive proof that the journals were available for most of Alexander's reign. In the responses I have seen so far to Hammond's arguments for authenticity, this particular point is completely ignored. Do you happen to know why this is? Or have I missed something?

Chris
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Chris Bennett »

Taphoi wrote:
I had a look at Aelian 3.23 and I can see that you are possibly getting confused. You are translating "tetradi meta eikada" as the 24th in forward counting, but it is also backward count for the 27th (at least in the Athenian calendar from the late 4th century). In this instance I think it must be backward count, since the 28th is backward. See Samuel, Greek & Roman Chronology, p.60-1 on this point.
Further to this, it turns out that these pages are included in the extracts of this book I have in my files. I have also done a quick search through JSTOR. I see that Merritt and Pritchett are of the view that this count was always a backward count in Athens, and that no evidence exists of its use as a forward count. If this is a universal convention (and, with no apparent counter-evidence, why not?), then I agree that the date must be the 27th. In view of the content, this is strong confirmation that Aelian's extracts (whether direct or indirect) must refer to a different time than those of Arrian and Plutarch.

One interesting point is that Pritchett (CQ 54 (1959) 151 at 155) points to two inscriptions in consecutive months which respectively use phthinontos-style and met' eikados-style backwards counts, so it is not absolutely impossible that both styles were used in the Ephememerides, though it is still a bit surprising to find them on consecutive days.

Chris
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Taphoi »

Chris Bennett wrote: One query you may be able to answer: Hammond proposed that a papyrus containing commentary on an account of Alexander's Balkan campaign was a fragment of Strattis' lost commentary on the Ephemerides, and in any case he considered it to be a conclusive proof that the journals were available for most of Alexander's reign. In the responses I have seen so far to Hammond's arguments for authenticity, this particular point is completely ignored. Do you happen to know why this is? Or have I missed something?
Hammond might be right as far as I can see, but it's clear from his article that it's really a bit of a guess. There are many other possible explanations. Hence the Clarysse & Schepens papyrus fragment does not seem like very satisfactory evidence on the general problems of the Ephemerides.
Chris Bennett wrote: Bosworth's theory is that the Ephemerides are a very early forgery.
Yes, but you must see that this is an attempt to rescue his old poisoning theory. Eumenes is supposed to have invented symptoms of a feverish disease to cover a poisoning plot. The idea that the genuine author forged his own work is clearly a concession to Bosworth having realised that logic forces us towards a conclusion of genuineness for the Ephemerides. This is a last ditch defence if ever I saw one. I come at this with a knowledge that there are almost impossible difficulties for poisoning even without the Ephemerides. All the sources agree that there is a space of at least a week between the supposed poisoning event and Alexander's expiry. This makes poisoning extremely improbable on medical grounds. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in my book (The Lost Tomb) and my Minerva article, the supposed symptoms of poisoning (stabbing pains in the back etc) are actually classic precursor symptoms of a severe bout of falciparum malaria. In particular you should notice that the most convincing reasons to believe that Alexander died of malaria are not things that a forged diary by Eumenes could have influenced: the trip to the marshes and the duration of the illness are indisputable, because they were public knowledge at the time.

Best wishes,

Andrew
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Date of Alexander's death

Post by Chris Bennett »

Taphoi wrote:

Hammond might be right as far as I can see, but it's clear from his article that it's really a bit of a guess. There are many other possible explanations. Hence the Clarysse & Schepens papyrus fragment does not seem like very satisfactory evidence on the general problems of the Ephemerides.
It may be so, but Hammond didn't think so, so the silence is rather deafening.
Taphoi wrote:
Chris Bennett wrote: Bosworth's theory is that the Ephemerides are a very early forgery.
Yes, but you must see that this is an attempt to rescue his old poisoning theory. Eumenes is supposed to have invented symptoms of a feverish disease to cover a poisoning plot. The idea that the genuine author forged his own work is clearly a concession to Bosworth having realised that logic forces us towards a conclusion of genuineness for the Ephemerides. This is a last ditch defence if ever I saw one.
Oh, I quite agree, but its a view that Alexandrian scholarship has strongly endorsed for 35 years now, as far as I can tell.
Taphoi wrote: I come at this with a knowledge that there are almost impossible difficulties for poisoning even without the Ephemerides. All the sources agree that there is a space of at least a week between the supposed poisoning event and Alexander's expiry. This makes poisoning extremely improbable on medical grounds. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in my book (The Lost Tomb) and my Minerva article, the supposed symptoms of poisoning (stabbing pains in the back etc) are actually classic precursor symptoms of a severe bout of falciparum malaria. In particular you should notice that the most convincing reasons to believe that Alexander died of malaria are not things that a forged diary by Eumenes could have influenced: the trip to the marshes and the duration of the illness are indisputable, because they were public knowledge at the time.
It seems plausible enough to me. The earliest mention I have found of the malaria theory goes back to 1872, it is interesting that the commentary I have seen on the authenticity of the Ephemerides has ignored it.

CHris
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

I notice this thread is showing a rather remarkable seventeen and a half thousand views :!:

Has somebody linked to it from elsewhere or has the counter malfunctioned :?:

:o

Andrew
Last edited by Taphoi on Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply