Iacenti here translated as prostrate should rather be rendered as simply ‘thrown’; Hollenback’s own interpretation is that Coragus is on his back and therefore SUPINE. The detail of the English aside what he succeeds in conveying is how vivid the original was, real moves are being described from which it follows that the author had recently seen a similar fight.‘The Macedonian had begun to draw his sword when Dioxippus suddenly pulled his feet from under him with a grasp, seized him and slammed him to the ground. And having snatched away his sword, he placed his foot on the neck of the prostrate one, raising his club and about to finish off the defeated one right there had he not been prohibited by the king.’ Curtius IX 7 21-22
Diodoros’ account, XVII c 6-8 is substantially the same as Curtius’
Such close correspondence suggests a common source and for these two authors that is almost certainly Kleitarchos. Since we know that he was not present on the Asian expedition we can be certain that it is not the actual fight that he has seen; if indeed it ever occurred. Further reason for identifying the source as Kleitarchos is that the martial superiority of the Greeks is a theme of his.‘But as he was about to draw his sword, the other had already lunged forward and with his left hand laid hold of the arm drawing the sword and with the other – having gotten his opponent off balance – tripped up his legs. And setting his foot upon the neck of the one who had been slammed to the ground and raising his club, he looked up at the spectators.’
There is a good case to be made that Kleitarchos joined Ptolemy’s entourage in 309 when Ptolemy campaigned in Lycia and Caria before wintering in Kos less than eighty miles from Kleitarchos’ paternal home of Kolophon. It would certainly seem that he travelled with Ptolemy to the Greek mainland where he briefly became a pupil of Stilpon of Megara (Diog. Laertius 2 113). A B Bosworth, ‘In Search of Cleitarchus’, Histos 1997 suggests that Ptolemy presided over the Isthmian Games; but 308 was an Olympic year so this seems unlikely unless Ptolemy staged an irregular festival which is not mentioned in Diodoros.
Ptolemy remained in the Isthmus for several months but does not seem to have extended his influence as far as Elis and Olympia; nor would seizure of the presidency have bolstered his claim to be a champion of Greek liberty. Kleitarchos would, presumably have left with his new sponsor for Egypt later in the year and so not been present for the Isthmian Games of 307. Ptolemy actually won the foals’ biga race at the Pythian games of 306 (Pausanias X 7 viii), the sixty-ninth, but only as an absentee sponsor; he returned from Egypt to face Demetrios at Salamis in that year, nor did the Pythian Games include combat sports.
Given the military situation until the defeat of Antigonos at Ipsos in 301 it is unlikely that any Ptolemaic presence should be adduced on the mainland where Demetrios was supreme before his withdrawal to support his father in winter 302.
300 may be too soon after the rather messy post-Ipsos carve up, re-Ptolemy’s seizure of Coele-Syria. We know from Poseidippos (Hippika 78, 88) that Ptolemy had a chariot victory at Olympia prior to both his son’s and Arsinoe II’s in 272. So we have to choose from 296, 292, 288 or 284 as Ptolemy was dead in 280. In 297 there was definite Ptolemaic action in Greece as he returned Pyrrhos to Epeiros making 296 possible, although Demetrios was besieging Athens that year. 292 would also be a possible as Demetrios was then more concerned with his Macedonian realm than Southern Greece. 288 saw Demetrios expelled from Macedon and little point in anti Demetrian propaganda (assuming this is the sub text of Kleitarchos’ stories of drink and hetaira related excess).
It would be nice to say that therefore his floruit should be put around the mid 290’s. Unfortunately every Greek city had a palaestron where the pankration could be seen and followers of the late date for Kleitarchos will point out that post 280 Alexandria had its own iso-Olympic games, the Ptolemaia. But they will have to explain the favouritism shown to Greeks over Macedonians which still seems to fit a context in the 290’s best to me.
