![5.1. the Two Daimachi: Analysis of TT 1-2 and [TT] 3-5](https://data.docslib.org/img/3a60ab92a6e30910dab9bd827208bcff-1.webp)
5. Daimachos of Plataia SALVATORE TUFANO – Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma [email protected] 5.1. The Two Daimachi: Analysis of TT 1-2 and [TT] 3-5 T 1 (= BNJ 65 T 1a; FGrHist 65 T 1a [Euseb. Praep. evang. 10.3.3 p. 464b Mras]). “καὶ τί γὰρ ᾽Εφόρου ἴδιον”, <ἔφη>, “ἐκ τῶν Δαιµάχου καὶ Καλλισθένους καὶ Ἀναξιµένους αὐταῖς λέξεσιν ἔστιν ὅτε τρισχιλίους ὅλους µετατιθέντος στίχους;” 1 ἔφη Stephanus 2 ὅλους BN “‘And what does really belong to Ephoros, then’ – he went on, ‘who literally copied, without exceptions, three thousand lines from those writings of Daimachos, Kallisthenes, and Anaximenes?’” (tr. S. Tufano). T 2 (= BNJ 65 T 1b; FGrHist 65 T 1b [Euseb. Praep. evang. 10.3.23 p. 467d Mras]). ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα µὴ καὶ αὐτὸς κλοπῆς ἄλλους αἰτιώµενος κλέπτης ἁλῶ, τοὺς πραγµατευσαµένους τὰ περὶ τούτων µηνύσω. Λυσιµάχου µέν ἐστι δύο Περὶ τῆς ᾽Εφόρου κλοπῆς· ᾽Αλκαῖος δέ, ὁ τῶν λοιδόρων ἰάµβων καὶ ἐπιγραµµάτων ποιητής, παρώιδηκε τὰς ᾽Εφόρου κλοπὰς ἐξελέγχων. “So that I myself might not be found guilty of plagiarism, while accusing other people, I will mention all those authors who focus on this topic. First, there are two books by Lysimachos On Plagiarism; then, Alkaios (that poet of railing Salvatore Tufano. Boiotia from Within. Teiresias Supplements Online, Volume 2. 2019. © Salvatore Tufano 2019. License Agreement: CC-BY-NC (permission to use, distribute, and reproduce in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed and not used for commercial purposes). Tufano, Boiotia from Within – 5. Daimachos iambs and epigrams), confuted and made fun of Ephoros’ plagiarisms.” (tr. S. Tufano). T 3 (= BNJ 716 T 1; FGrHist 716 T 1 [Str. 2.1.9 C 70]). ἅπαντες µὲν τοίνυν οἱ περὶ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς γράψαντες ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ψευδολόγοι γεγόνασι, καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν δὲ Δηΐµαχος, τὰ δὲ δεύτερα φέρει Μεγασθένης [...] ἐπέµφθησαν µὲν γὰρ εἰς τὰ Παλίµβοθρα ὁ µὲν Μεγασθένης πρὸς Σανδρόκοττον, ὁ δὲ Δηΐµαχος πρὸς Ἀµιτροχάδην τὸν ἐκείνου υἱὸν κατὰ πρεσβείαν, ὑποµνήµατα δὲ τῆς ἀποδηµίας κατέλιπον τοιαῦτα, ὑφ᾽ ἧς δή ποτε αἰτίας προαχθέντες. 2 φέρει Radt λέγει mss. ἄγει Aly 4 Σανδρόκοττον Korais ἀνδρόκοττον Λ ἀνδρόλοτον BCE Ἀµιτροχάδην Lassen ἀλλι- mss. “Sure, all the authors of works On India have generally been lying, but Daimachos exceeded them all, and then comes, in second place, Megasthenes. [...] They were both sent as ambassadors to Palimbothra: Megasthenes, to the court of Sandrocottos, Daimachos to that of Amitrochades, Sandrocottos’ son. They left us Commentaries of such a (bad) sort, moved by mysterious grounds.” (tr. S. Tufano). T 4 (= BNJ 716 T 2; FGrHist 716 T 2 [Str. 2.1.19 C 76]). πάλιν δ᾽ ἐκείνου τὸν Δηΐµαχον ἰδιώτην ἐνδείξασθαι βουλοµένου καὶ ἄπειρον τῶν τοιούτων. “And also, when he wants to show that Daimachos is a layman and has no expertise of these subjects.” (tr. S. Tufano). 316 Tufano, Boiotia from Within – 5. Daimachos T 5 (= BNJ 716 T 3; FGrHist 716 T 3 [Str. 2.1.4 C 68-9]). πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀπόφασιν ταύτην ὁ Ἵππαρχος ἀντιλέγει διαβάλλων τὰς πίστεις. οὔτε γὰρ Πατροκλέα πιστὸν εἶναι δυεῖν ἀντιµαρτυρούντων αὐτῷ, Δηϊµάχου τε καὶ Μεγασθένους, οἳ καθ᾽οὓς µὲν τόπους δισµυρίων εἶναι σταδίων τὸ διάστηµά φασι τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ µεσηµβρίαν θαλάττης, καθ᾽οὓς δὲ καὶ τρισµυρίων· τούτους τε δὴ τοιαῦτα λέγειν καὶ τοὺς ἀρχαίους πίνακας τούτοις ὁµολογεῖν. 2 οὐδέ Meineke δυοῖν B 3 τε Korais γε mss. “Hipparchos answers by disproving these causes. Because Patrokles was not reliable, as he is contradicted by two witnesses, Daimachos and Megasthenes, who say that the distance from the southern sea is, at some points, twenty thousand stadia, in others, thirty thousand. He says that they mention these numbers and that the ancient maps confirm them.” (tr. S. Tufano). 5.1.1. The Namesakes: Two Biographies Our witnesses on Daimachos as a historian can hardly all be connected to the same figure. A first group of sources (TT 1-2) revolves around information ascribed by Eusebius to Porphyrios, who probably read Lysimachos of Alexandria (cp. infra). Another series of passages in Strabo’s Geography refers to an ambassador who wrote on India. Strabo also mentions him along with Megasthenes: Strabo’s probable intermediary source was Eratosthenes, who could probably still read Daimachos and Megasthenes.1109 The first Daimachos was plagiarized by Ephoros in his Histories (BNJ 70 T 17), which means that Daimachos finished his work by 340 BCE, the date of the siege of Perinthos, 1109 TT 3-5. Cp. BNJ 716 F 3. For the origin from Eratosthenes of the quotes from Daimachos and Megasthenes, see Dognini 2000: 100 and Roller 2010: 138-9. 317 Tufano, Boiotia from Within – 5. Daimachos the last event personally touched upon by Ephoros in the composition of his work.1110 The second consequence of this tradition is that Daimachos was coterminous with Anaximenes (BNJ 72 T 28) and Kallisthenes (BNJ 124 T 33), the other two writers of Ἑλληνικά who are mentioned in the same context. In fact, we must consider that Ephoros had all these books available when he finished the draft of the first twenty-nine books of his Histories: this gives us a terminus ante quem of around 330 BCE.1111 There is a high degree of homogeneity in the list of Anaximenes, Kallisthenes, and Daimachos, if we consider their dates and the characteristics of their production. Despite the impossibility that Daimachos also wrote the Hellenica of Oxyrhynchos,1112 as suggested by Jacoby (1924; 1950), the detail on the plagiarism of Ephoros is explicit in defining Daimachos’ work on the same level as that of the other names that occur with him. Since no witness explicitly mentions Daimachos’ Ἑλληνικά, the existence of this title has been strongly suspected, but this is not enough to doubt the value of Lysimachos’ comparison: this author, in his On the Plagiarism of Ephorus (BNJ 382 F 22), was probably comparing Daimachos with two other universal historians (T 2) and not contrasting a 1110 The suggestion of later dates for the completion of this part of the work does not take into account the fact that both Aristotle and Lykourgos used Ephoros. We infer from an observation by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.139.3 = BNJ 70 F 223), that Ephoros probably meant to deal with events until 335 BCE, but the project was interrupted from a lack of time (Breglia 1996: 63-4; Prandi 2013b: 684-5). 1111 Davies 2013: 59 and n.11. On Ephoros’ method and on his work in general, see Barber 1935, Schepens 1977, Parmeggiani 2011, and the essays edited by de Fidio – Talamo 2013 (among which, Landucci Gattinoni 2013 confirms the main date which I follow in the text). 1112 To respect the structure of the Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, J. Engels (2011a), editor of Daimachos of Plataia for Brill’s New Jacoby (65), re-quotes the Hellenika of Oxyrhynchos as a fifth fragment (BNJ 65 F 5), despite discrediting Jacoby’s trust in this authorship (1924). However, it now seems better to align it with the few certain data we possess on Daimachos and deny him this work, as G.L. Barber first suggested (Barber 1935: ix n.1; for a critical overview, cp. Camacho Rojo 1994: 537-40, spec. 537-8). We still lack positive evidence on the authorship of the Hellenika Oxyrhynchia; see, at least, Grenfell – Hunt 1909; Meyer 1909; Gigante 1949; Jacoby 1950; Bartoletti 1959; Bruce 1970; Accame 1978; Canfora 1988; McKechnie – Kern 1988; Chambers 1993; Bianchetti – Cataudella 2001; Behrwald 2005; Bleckmann 2006; Cuniberti 2009, and Occhipinti 2016. It is sometimes forgotten what H. Bloch (1940: 303-76, spec. 344) and R. Nicolai (2006: 693-720, spec. 708 and n.53) rightly observed, i.e. that Dionysius of Halikarnassos (Thuc. 9) does not know any historian who, like the author of the Hellenika, organized their subject matter for military campaigns: this means that he might as well be a writer whose name is completely obscure to us. 318 Tufano, Boiotia from Within – 5. Daimachos local historian, Daimachos, with different figures.1113 If, moreover, it is uncertain whether these authors are listed by Porphyrios in chronological order (Daimachos > Anaximenes > Kallisthenes),1114 the witnesses on Anaximenes (ca. 380-20 BCE; BNJ 72)1115 and on Kallisthenes (ca. 370-27 BCE; BNJ 124)1116 confirm that these two wrote before Ephoros.1117 This same Daimachos was quoted by Athenaeus Mechanicus in a passage, which consists in a series of sources: according to Jacoby (1926a: 4) and to Zecchini (1997: 192-3), the names are registered in chronological order,1118 even though the section (F 5) is textually troublesome and it is not completely certain whether Daimachos worked after Aineas Tacticus, whose Poliorketika were written in the first half of the fifties of the fourth century BCE.1119 This fragment was not considered a witness, in previous scholarship, because of doubts that still exist on the authorship of the mentioned work (cp. infra) and on the chronological criterion behind the list.1120 The second Daimachos wrote a treatise on India1121 as a result of his mission in the region. Daimachos was sent by a Seleukid king, probably Antiochos I,1122 to Palimbothra (skr. 1113 Dognini 2000: 103-4. Cp., from a different point of view, Zecchini (1997: 192): “Dalla testimonianza di Lisimaco [...] si può [...] ricavare che [...] Daimaco dovette scrivere un’opera analoga a quelle di Callistene e di Anassimene, con cui è citato, cioè Elleniche.” 1114 For the suggestion of a chronological disposition of these names, see Zecchini 1997: 192. However, it is not completely certain whether Anaximenes actually lived long before Kallisthenes. 1115 On Anaximenes, see infra in text. 1116 Prandi (1985; 2013b, spec. 692-3) confirmed both the plausibility that Kallisthenes’ work was known and usable by Ephoros, and his chronological precedence (cp., on the precedence of Daimachos and Kallisthenes over Ephoros, Niese 1909: 175 n.2).
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages84 Page
-
File Size-