The date of the Argive tyrant Pheidon has been generally discussed without asking about what was the reason of different ancients datings. The failure to understand it has led to rather voluntary selection among the dates as well as unwarranted constructions. The present paper is an attempt to give a complex explanation of all the dates put forward by the ancients, except the statement of Herodotos that placed Pheidon to the early 6th century BC. It is suggested that all other dates were based on two synchronisations. First, Pheidon was considered roughly as a contemporary of the end of Corinthian kingship, the foundation of Syracuse, the outbreak of the first Messenian war and the epic poet Eumelos. This synchronisation was based on the story about the death of Corinthian Aktaion and on the account of Ephoros, who had dated some of these instances, including Pheidon, to the 10th generation from the Herakleid invasion. It was the reason of the date in Pausanias (Ol. 8 in 748 BC). And second, Pheidon was synchronised with Spartan lawgiver Lykourgos. On this assumption were based the datings in Theopompos, Marmor Parium, Eusebios and Isidorus.
The variation in the ancient statements has given the moderns a good chance to place Pheidon in whatever historical context they please, proposing ingenious constructions to determine his true date, which has been placed anywhere from the middle of the eighth to the first half of the sixth century BC.13 However, in all this they have generally not asked about the reasons that led the ancients to put forward such apparently discrepant datings and how they relate to each other. Obviously, the datings of Pheidon could not have stood apart from the ancient chronological systems. They must all have been part of one system or other. But, curiously enough, the moderns have discussed the dating of Pheidon in isolation, outside the general framework of ancient chronography, while, on the other hand, studies on the formation of the ancient chronological tradition have paid almost no attention to Pheidon’s date. Therefore, the use of the ancient dates for Pheidon has been selective.
Mait Kõiv
Studia Humaniora Tartuensia, vol. 1 (2000)
Abstract
The date of the Argive tyrant Pheidon has been generally discussed without asking about what was the reason of different ancients datings. The failure to understand it has led to rather voluntary selection among the dates as well as unwarranted constructions. The present paper is an attempt to give a complex explanation of all the dates put forward by the ancients, except the statement of Herodotos that placed Pheidon to the early 6th century BC. It is suggested that all other dates were based on two synchronisations. First, Pheidon was considered roughly as a contemporary of the end of Corinthian kingship, the foundation of Syracuse, the outbreak of the first Messenian war and the epic poet Eumelos. This synchronisation was based on the story about the death of Corinthian Aktaion and on the account of Ephoros, who had dated some of these instances, including Pheidon, to the 10th generation from the Herakleid invasion. It was the reason of the date in Pausanias (Ol. 8 in 748 BC). And second, Pheidon was synchronised with Spartan lawgiver Lykourgos. On this assumption were based the datings in Theopompos, Marmor Parium, Eusebios and Isidorus.
The variation in the ancient statements has given the moderns a good chance to place Pheidon in whatever historical context they please, proposing ingenious constructions to determine his true date, which has been placed anywhere from the middle of the eighth to the first half of the sixth century BC.13 However, in all this they have generally not asked about the reasons that led the ancients to put forward such apparently discrepant datings and how they relate to each other. Obviously, the datings of Pheidon could not have stood apart from the ancient chronological systems. They must all have been part of one system or other. But, curiously enough, the moderns have discussed the dating of Pheidon in isolation, outside the general framework of ancient chronography, while, on the other hand, studies on the formation of the ancient chronological tradition have paid almost no attention to Pheidon’s date. Therefore, the use of the ancient dates for Pheidon has been selective.
Click here to read this article from Studia Humaniora Tartuensia
Sponsored Content