The Epoch of the Seven Sages

7/29/2019 The Epoch of the Seven Sages

1/17

The Epoch of the Seven SagesAuthor(s): Alden MosshammerReviewed work(s):Source: California Studies in Classical Antiquity, Vol. 9 (1976), pp. 165-180Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010705 .

Accessed: 25/11/2012 07:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

California Studies in Classical Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:37:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25010705?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25010705?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/17

ALDEN MOSSHAMMER

The Epoch of the Seven Sages

According toDiogenes Laertius (1.22.5), Thales was the first to be namedsophos.He cites Demetrius of Phalerum for the date, according to whomThales and the College of Seven were formally recognized asWise duringthe archonship of Damasias.1 The date of Damasias' archonship iscontroversial. Most scholars now agree, however, that both the absolutedate of Damasias' archonship and the rationale behind Demetrius'association of the Seven Sages with it can be inferred from the entry oftheMarmor Parium at the year corresponding to 582/1. According to theMarmor, the first in the regular series of Pythian Games (agonstephanitis)was celebrated inDamasias' second archonship, 582/1.2 Thus, Demetriusfollowed a tradition similar to that attested by Plato (Protagoras343a)that the Seven Sages met at Delphi and there dedicated toApollo thefirst fruits of their wisdom. He chose the first Pythian Celebration asbeing an appropriate date both for the traditional synchronism and for the"official" recognition of the Seven asWise.3The Naming of the Seven Sages subsequently became an epoch inthe

chronographic tradition. Despite the authority of Demetrius and theappropriateness of his synchronism with the first Pythian Festival,however, the laterEpoch of the Seven Sages isnot reported atDemetrius'date, 582/1. The chronographic epoch is best attested in the ChronicleofEusebius, where an entry for theNaming of the Seven Sages appears atthe fiftiethOlympiad (580/77) in both versions of the ChronologicalCanons.The Armenian translation exhibits the notice at the year of Abraham1439, Olympiad 50.4 (577/6), in this version's alignment of the tables

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

166 AldenMosshammer(p. 187 Karst). In the Bodleian manuscript of St. Jerome's version, thenotice stands at Olympiad 50.2 (579/8): Septem sapientesappellati.4Theequivalent Greek is preserved by Syncellus (453.16): ol er7raaooo d'VwoCdOrloaav.In both versions of the Canonsand inSyncellus the notice immediatelyfollows Eusebius' entry on the establishment of the Isthmian and PythianFestivals. Busolt therefore suggested that the Eusebian Canons in factpreserve Demetrius' date, with a slight shift downwards introduced bythemanuscript tradition.5 A date forThales and the Seven Sages in thefiftieth Olympiad is attested in sources other than Eusebius, however,and the entries of the Canonscan accordingly not be treated as resultingfrom transcriptional error.6Felix Jacoby therefore argued thatDemetrius'date had been superseded by that of a far more influential authorityApollodorus of Athens. Apollodorus dated the akmeof Thales to 585/4in synchronism with the famous solar eclipse supposedly predicted byThales (Herodotus 1.74)which brought to an end thewar of the Lydiansand theMedes. He elevated theNaming of the Seven Sages to the statusof chronographic epoch by synchronizing itwith the akmeof Thales. Theepoch isnever reported at theApollodoran date, 585/4. In Jacoby's view,the disagreement between Apollodorus' date in 585/4 and that of Eusebiusin the fiftieth Olympiad (580/77) is only superficial. The year 585/4 wasthe thirty-third year of Alyattes for Apollodorus, since he convertedHerodotus' statements (1.24; 1.86) that Alyattes ruled for fifty-sevenyears and Croesus for fourteen years to an absolute chronology by datingCroesus' fourteenth year to 547/6. This version of the Lydian list was notthe only one in use. Erwin Rohde had noted that in the Canonsof Eusebiusthe thirty-third year of Alyattes corresponds to the second year of thefiftieth Olympiad in the Latin version, the fourth in the Armenian, inboth cases precisely where the notice on the Seven Sages stands. Jacobyadopted Rohde's conclusion that the date for Thales and the Seven Sagesin the fiftieth Olympiad was a late variant of the traditional date in585/4. On this hypothesis, Apollodorus synchronized the akmeof Thaleswith the Epoch of the Seven Sages and expressed the date by citing thespecific regnal year of Alyattes, the Lydian king involved in the famouseclipse-battle, as well as by naming the Athenian archon for the year.An excerptor assigned an Olympiad date using a different recension ofthe Lydian king-list, and the Epoch of the Seven Sages thus came to beassociated with the fiftieth Olympiad.7The hypothesis of Rohde and Jacoby, based on the appearance inthe fiftieth Olympiad of the thirty-third year of Alyattes, is plausible,but not conclusive. Both scholars were influenced to a certain extent by



4/17

The Epoch of theSevenSages 167a desire to create agreement among the sources about an important datewhich is especially significant for modern historians because it is subjectto independent control by astronomical data. For Apollodorus thethirty-third year of Alyattes was 585, and on 28May of that year a totaleclipse of the sun was widely visible in Asia Minor.8 Rohde assigns evenDemetrius' date to that year.9 Jacoby rightly associates Demetrius'report with the first Pythiad. He uses Pliny's report on the eclipse (N.H.2.53) as the principal evidence for the Apollodoran date in 585/4, butthen he adduces the Epoch of the Seven Sages in the fiftieth Olympiadas "ein neuer beweis dass die Apollodorische epoche des Thales wirklichin ol. 48, 4 zu setzen ist."10 The argument is circular. There can be nodoubt that Apollodorus included the name of Alyattes in his reportabout the akme of Thales in the year of the eclipse. That much is clearfrom Pliny.11 There is, however, no real evidence that he cited a specificregnal year. The Chronicleof Apollodorus was organized by Athenianarchon-years. His excerptors were concerned primarily with convertingthese eponymous dates to the numbered system of Olympiads whichEratosthenes had made standard for literary chronology. Even ifApollodorus had included the precise regnal year of Alyattes, it is not likelythat his epitomators would either have transmitted it or used it to makethe conversion to the Olympiad system. It was much easier to convertarchon-years toOlympiad dates than Lydian king-years.Hans Kaletsch has extended the argument considerably. The association of Thales and the eclipse with the thirty-third year ofAlyattes wasno accident oftransmission. On thecontrary, the thirty-third year ofAlyattesand the events associated with it constitute the basis from which allversions of the Lydian listwere constructed. Herodotus himself, althoughhe did not mention the regnal year in the text, had the thirty-third yearofAlyattes "tatsachlich vor Augen" when he wrote of Thales, the eclipse,and the Lydo-Median War. Kaletsch adduces the Eusebian texts in proofof this hypothesis. His principal points may be summarized as follows.The chronographers wrongly synchronized the eclipse with the beginningof the six years' war, rather than its end. Hence the thirty-third year ofAlyattes, marking the end of thewar, was lowered six years to 579, whereit appears in Jerome's text together with the notice on the Seven Sages.In the Armenian version, the Lydian list ends at the fall of Croesus twoyears later than inJerome. Thus the thirty-third year ofAlyattes is 577 inthe Armenian. This two-year difference results in the length of the warbeing raised from six years to eight years. There is accordingly a noticefor thewar at the year 577 inJerome, 575 in theArmenian. The beginningof thewar isentered six years earlier by Jerome, who reckoned inclusively,



5/17

168 AldenMosshammerat 582, eight years earlier in the Armenian version, with exclusive reckoning, at 583. In the Armenian version the notice on Thales and the eclipsealso appears at 583. In Jerome that notice is entered, separately from thewar, at 585. Thus Jerome transmits an eight-year interval between theeclipse and the end of thewar, although he also has separate notices onthewar with a six-year interval. This interval of eight years, instead of six,beginning with the eclipse, instead of ending there, accounts for thechronographers' corresponding reduction in the number of regnal yearsallotted to Alyattes from the fifty-seven attested by Herodotus to theforty-nine of the Eusebian lists.12

The general thesis in this section of Kaletsch's study is that all versions of the Lydian king-list derive fromHerodotus, rather than from theapplication of different estimates about the average length of a generationto the genealogy of the Lydian kings. Kaletsch is probably right. Thearguments he adduces from the Chronicleof Eusebius, however, cannotsupply the proof, since they are based on amisunderstanding of the extanttexts. Neither Jerome nor the Armenian translator engaged in suchchronographic manipulation as the reckoning of intervals and the adjust

ment of termini. Their energies were directed solely to the difficult taskof translating and transcribing the complex Chronicleof Eusebius. Bothaltered the format of the ChronologicalCanons; but, apart from Jerome'sRoman addenda, neither redacted the content. Differences between thetwo versions in the alignment of the numerals in the chronologicalframework with respect to each other and to the historical notices aretextual problems, not chronographic puzzles. Even for Eusebius himself,the primary business was transcription-not chronographic manipulation-and there was never any such relationship between the regnal lists ofthe chronological framework and the historical notices of the text as theargument of Kaletsch suggests. Eusebius collected the regnal lists from avariety of sources and created from them the elaborate synchronisticdisplay of the ChronologicalCanons. Some adjustments may have beennecessary to harmonize the lists, but Eusebius did not alter the givenmaterial on the basis of new research and calculations. He transcribedthe lists of his sources in parallel columns, leaving in themiddle of thepage a space for historical entries. These he added to the chronologicalframework from encyclopedic epitomes inwhich the notices were alreadyassociated with absolute dates. For Greek history he used an Olympiadchronicle fromwhich excerpts could readily be transcribed onto chronological tables inwhich he had made the Olympiad numbers especiallyprominent. If there are errors and disagreements in the extant texts,either in the alignment of the regnal listsor in the placement of historical



6/17

The Epoch of theSevenSages 169notices, they reflect logistical problems of transcription-not chronographic manipulation on the part of Eusebius, his translators, or anyintermediate redactor.13

St. Jerome and the Armenian version attest in different ways to thesame Eusebian original. Eusebius in turnwitnesses to the chronographictradition as it had developed up to his time. The notices on Thales'eclipse and the Lydo-Median war must be understood accordingly.Jerome enters the eclipse at the last years of the forty-eighth Olympiad,586-585: Solisfacta defectiocumfuturamearnThales antedixisset(100fHelm).The first notice of the forty-ninth Olympiad is Alyattes etAstyages dimicauerunt(1010Helm). The Armenian version has both in a single noticeentered at Abraham 1433, Olympiad 49.2 (583/2): "Die Sonne wardverfinstert nach Thales des Weisen Vorauskiindigung. Aliates undAtdahak lieferten eine Schlacht" (187 Karst). Both attest to the sameoriginal. In this case, theArmenian text suggests that Thales' eclipse andthe Lydo-Median war were included in a single notice or perhaps enteredside by side on the same line in the space reserved forhistorical notices.14Jerome, however, is the better witness to the original placement of thetextwith respect to the chronological framework-the traditional Apollodoran date inOlympiad 48.4 (585/4). Either therewas one lengthy noticein the original or two short ones were entered side by side. The date,however, was not only the last in the Olympiad but also the last onJerome's twenty-six-line page. As he was dictating the text associatedwith that year (uelocissime ictauerim,p. 2Helm), his bookman had to turnthe page. The second sentence (the war) thus came to be inscribed nearthe top of the next page and in the next (forty-ninth) Olympiad. In theArmenian version there is a downward shift by two years or more, incomparison with Jerome, for every notice in the right margin of the page(e.g., Solon 592, Pythian celebration 580). The Armenian date forThales'eclipse and the Lydo-Median war in 583 instead of 585must therefore beattributed to transcriptional error, not chronographic manipulation inthehistory of the sources.The second Eusebian notice on theLydo-Medianwar appears in both versions two lines and therefore two years below theentry on the Seven Sages. The Armenian dates are two years later thanthose of the Latin version, but again this difference results only from thefact that the entire column of entries is displaced. Jerome attests to anoriginal placement for both entries-Septem sapientesappellati (10le Helm)and Astyages contraLydos pugnat (10lf)-in the fiftieth Olympiad. Theappearance of the Lydo-Median war in that Olympiad does not resultfrom recomputation of the date relative to the eclipse. The Epoch of theSeven Sages was especially associated with Thales, as Diogenes' citation



7/17

170 AldenMosshammerfrom Demetrius shows. Any date for the Seven Sages could therefore becombined with the well known tradition about the eclipse-battle. TheEusebian texts attest to such a combination in the fiftiethOlympiad-theSeven Sages flourished at the time of the Lydo-Median war.15The hypothesis of Rohde and Jacoby that the date for the SevenSages in the fiftieth Olympiad (580/77) is a variant of the Apollodorandate in 585/4, the thirty-third year of Alyattes, is open to the objectionthat Apollodorus organized his Chronicleby Athenian archon-years, notLydian regnal years. Kaletsch's argument that the thirty-third year ofAlyattes was always prominent in the tradition founders on two grounds.First, the Eusebian texts do not support Kaletsch's argument; and thevariant notices of the extant versions are best understood as textualproblems. Second, it is not likely that Greek tradition could associateThales' eclipse with a specific date like the thirty-third year of Alyattesuntil after the tradition had been systematized by theHellenistic chronographers. It is hazardous to suppose that such a date was embedded inprimitive tradition and thatHerodotus therefore had the thirty-third yearof Alyattes specifically inmind when he wrote of these events-especiallysinceHerodotus himself does not make that association.An alternative hypothesis must therefore be sought. No extant texttransmits a date for the Seven Sages in 585/4, the thirty-third year of

Alyattes. On the other hand, the date in the fiftieth Olympiad is wellattested. Both versions of the ChronologicalCanons of Eusebius enter theNaming of the Seven Sages in the fiftiethOlympiad. As has already beenshown, the variant dates of Jerome and the Armenian translator forThales, the eclipse, and theLydo-Median war do not lead to the conclusionthat the apperance of the thirty-third year ofAlyattes in thatOlympiad issignificant. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the date in the fiftieth

Olympiad was in Eusebius' source material and does not derive fromchronographic manipulation on the part of Eusebius, his redactors, or histranslators. Eusebius includes in his prefatory chronographic excerpts alist of Olympic victors. Among the occasional notes which that list transmits is one at the fiftieth Olympiad on theNaming of the Seven Sages.The appearance of the notice in this context suggests that the date was astandard entry of the Olympiad chronicles.16 It is in fact attested insources earlier than Eusebius and earlier thanDiogenes Laertius. Tatian,in awell-known passage where the vulgate (Apollodoran) dates ofDracon,Solon, Pythagoras, and the Trojan War appear, dates the Seven Sagesand Thales inparticular to the fiftiethOlympiad.17 Clement ofAlexandriaalso dates Thales to the fiftieth Olympiad, once in connection with thefamous eclipse he is said to have predicted and again in synchronism with



8/17

The Epochof theSevenSages 171the Seven Sages.18 The sole exception (apart from Diogenes' citation ofDemetrius' date) to this unanimity among the sources on the date of theSeven Sages in the fiftieth Olympiad is the statement of Eusebius atPraep. Euang. 10.4.10 that the collective akmeof the Seven Sages could besynchronized with Cyrus. The synchronism is artificial, as the contextmakes clear, adduced to show that the earliest of the Greek philosopherswere contemporary with the last of the Hebrew prophets. Eusebius'source for this later date was probably Sextus Julius Africanus, whoseChronographiaewas characterized by such vaguely contrived GraecoHebrew synchronisms.19 The synchronism with Cyrus therefore liesoutside the mainstream of the Greek chronographic tradition. Withinthat tradition, there are several references in the Sudawhich show that anepochal synchronism among the Seven Sages was included in the chronological sources (presumably, Hesychius of Miletus), but the precise dateisnot reported.20All the authorities upon whom we depend for the reconstruction ofGreek chronographic tradition, if they preserve a precise date at all,assign the synchronism among the Seven Sages either to the fiftiethOlympiad, 580/79, or with Demetrius of Phalerum to 582/1. Neither datecan be regarded as a variant of theApollodoran akmeof Thales in 585/4,synchronized with the eclipse of that year. We should therefore seek anunderstanding of the tradition as it is transmitted in our sources, insteadof manipulating the data to force the ancients into agreement with amodern astronomical date.

Unequivocal evidence is, as usual when dealing with the chronographic tradition, not to be found. There is, however, a good case forhypothesizing that the synchronism of the Seven Sages in the fiftiethOlympiad derives from sources earlier thanApollodorus, earlier even thanDemetrius of Phalerum. The hypothesis is admittedly conjectural, sinceit cannot be proved beyond all doubt. But it provides an alternative tothe prevailing view, inasmuch as it both accounts for the evidence ofour sources and offers an explanation for the genesis and growth of thetradition without recourse to the objectionable assumption that Thalesand his eclipse were always dated to the thirty-third year of Alyattes.

In both of his citations, Clement of Alexandria associates the dateforThales and the Seven Sages in the fiftieth Olympiad with authors ofthemid-fourth century B.C.The interpretation of theGreek is uncontroversial, and the passages may be translated as follows:

Strom.1.129: They prophesied earlier thanPythagoras, who flourishedin the sixty-second Olympiad, and earlier than the eldest of those the



9/17

172 AldenMosshammerGreeks consider wise, Thales, who flourished in the fiftiethOlympiad.Those enrolled with him as wise were synchronous with Thales,asAndron says in The Tripod (fr. 3,Miller FHG II, p. 347).Strom. 1.65: Eudemus in his History of Astronomy (fr. 143Wehrli)says Thales predicted the solar eclipse which happened when theMedes and the Lydians joined battle with one another during thereign of Cyaxares the father of Astyages, king of theMedes, and

Alyattes the father of Croesus, king of the Lydians. Herodotus inthe first book (1.74) agrees with him. The date is fiftiethOlympiad.The Olympiad date in these passages cannot be attributed directlyeither to Andron or to Eudemus. Clement or his source has no doubt

added it, giving the date shared with Tatian andwith Eusebius' Olympiadchronicler. It is nevertheless important to note that a synchronism assuch between Thales and the Seven Sages was current with Andron,before the publication of Demetrius' Archons' List. Indeed, Herodotus'account (1.29) of the visits to Croesus' Sardis of all the Greek sophistaiof the day has been taken as suggesting that such a synchronism waspopular already in the fifth century.21 Andron, among others, told indetail of the Sages' self-effacing agon to lose the prize of wisdom. Littlesurvives of his account, apart from a fragment preserved by DiogenesLaertius (1.30; FHG II, p. 347). Unlike that of Plato's Protagoras (343a),however, Andron's synchronism may well have carried at least a relativedate. Clement associates the same date both with Andron and with Eudemus' account of Thales' eclipse. Eudemus relied for his information onHerodotus; and by naming Cyaxares as the Median king, Eudemusshows himself to have been free of the chronographic computation whichcarried with it the name ofAstyages as king.22Nevertheless, he needed arelative chronology for his antiquarian work. Clement may be right thathe and Andron, who were roughly contemporary, agreed on Thales'date. Olympiad dates were not yet current, and chronography in thestrict sense cannot be attributed either toAndron or to Eudemus. Somevague estimate, however, for the popular synchronism of Thales and theSeven Sages must surely have been made by the middle of the fourthcentury. The date which Clement associates with Andron and Eudemussuggests that the popular tradition of their time believed Thales and theSeven Sages to have lived about one hundred years before the PersianWars.23 This estimate for the relative date of Thales and the Seven Sagesof about one hundred years before the PersianWars, popular in the timeofAndron and Eudemus, was subsequently translated into amisleadinglyprecise date by the authors of literary Olympiad chronicles. Where



10/17

The Epochof theSevenSages 173Andron and Eudemus had given an approximate relative date, theirexcerptors and epitomators, including Clement or his source, introducedthe equivalent absolute date.Such a hypothesis isplausible enough as an explanation for the presence in the chronographic tradition of a date for Thales and the SevenSages in the fiftieth Olympiad. The evidence of Andron and Eudemus isadmittedly tenuous. The evidence of Demetrius of Phalerum ismuchbetter, since there can be no doubt that he synchronized Thales and theSeven Sages at a precise date. On this hypothesis, Demetrius inherited atradition to the effect that Thales and the Seven Sages lived about onehundred years before the Persian Wars-a relative chronology sharedwith Andron and Eudemus. Instead of converting the interval directlyto an absolute eponymous date corresponding to 580, he fastened uponan event about one hundred years before the PersianWars with which hebelieved the Seven Sages could reasonably be synchronized-the establishment of the regular Pythian games in 582. As one of the Seven,Solon's own position in the archons' list (594/3), the ten years of hisapodemia(Herodotus 1.29), and the traditional association of Solon withthe amphictyonic victory, lent credence to the precise date in 582/1.24Confirmation of chronographic hypotheses is found in odd places.In this case, there is supporting evidence in the variant dates reported forArion. According to Herodotus (1.23-24), Arion had lived for some timeat the court of Periander before voyaging to Italy and Sicily to winprizes there. Wishing to return, he booked passage on a Corinthianvessel bound for home. His life threatened by the greedy crew, he flunghimself into the sea and was delivered safely to Cape Taenarum on theback of a dolphin. From there he made his way toCorinth and broughtbefore Periander an indictment against the sailors. This account was thestarting point of any attempt to establish Arion's date. The simplest viewsynchronized him with Periander, and the Suda reports the same date forthe akmeof both inOlympiad 38 (628/5). That date was theApollodoranakmeof Periander (FGrHist 244 F 332), synchronous with the beginningof his reign as tyrant of Corinth. A date forArion's miraculous ride, themost appropriate occasion for his akme,would have to be a few years afterthe beginning of Periander's rule in accordance with Herodotus' accountof thematter. Solinus (7.6), who preservesApollodoran material excerptedfrom the lost Chronicleof Nepos (FGrHist 244 T 7, F 333, 348), dates aSicilian victory of Arion and his return toGreece on the dolphin to thetwenty-ninth Olympiad.25 The date ismuch too early. Either therewas acorruption in the numeral (XXIX forXXXIX) or Solinus has made thecommon error of confusing an Apollodoran birthdate with the akme.26



11/17

174 AldenMosshammerThe thirty-ninth Olympiad (624/1) isprobably Apollodorus' date for theakmeof Arion, synchronized, according to Solinus, with a Sicilian victoryin dithyrambic music and with his return toGreece astride the dolphin.Whether or not the victory is historical, there cannot have been documentary evidence for its date. Apollodorus could, however, infer anapproximate date for the famous ride by reference to his Cypselid chronology-a few years after the accession of Periander in 627. A precise dateis afforded by applying Apollodorus' well-known device of setting theakmaiof famous persons at intervals of the fortieth year apart. The dateforArion in the thirty-ninth Olympiad (624/1) is forty years afterApollodorus' date forArchilochus (FGrHist244 F 336) and forty years before theakme of Thales. The date for Thales was the starting point; and, sinceApollodorus reckoned such intervals inclusively, the precise dates are624/3 forArion and 663/2 forArchilochus.27

Apollodorus, then, dated the akme of Arion to 624/3, the fortiethyear before the akmeof Thales. Eusebius preserves a somewhat later dateforArion. In the oldest manuscripts ofJerome's version the entry appearsbetween the second and third years of the fortieth Olympiad (619-18):ArionMethymnaeus clarushabetur.Qui a delfinoin Taenarum transportatus97kHelm). The notice cannot be interpreted as attesting to theApollodorandate in the thirty-ninth Olympiad with a slight shift downwards introducedin the Latin manuscripts. The entry appears immediately below TarquiniusPriscusCapitolium extruxit (971), and the Eusebian Canons date thebeginning of Tarquin's reign to the fortieth Olympiad. The Armenianevidence also points to an original placement for the entry on Arion in thefortieth Olympiad. The notice actually appears at Abraham 1406,Olympiad 42.3 (610/9). The entry on Tarquin, however, appears in thefortieth Olympiad; and the displacement of the notice forArion into theforty-second Olympiad results from the interpolation into the right columnof entries, between Tarquin and Arion, of a lengthy notice on the warbetween Josiah ofJudah and Necho of Egypt. Eusebius found among hissources a date forArion in the fortieth Olympiad (620/17). The date isdifferent both from the vulgate synchronism with Periander in the thirtyeighth Olympiad and from the Apollodoran date in the thirty-ninthOlympiad. The date may derive, however, from a computation similar tothat of Apollodorus. The Apollodoran date forArion is the fortieth yearbefore his date for Thales. The Eusebian date is the fortieth year beforethe synchronism between Thales and the Seven Sages in the fiftiethOlympiad. The use of that date for such a computation provides evidencethat the Epoch of Thales and the Seven Sages in 580/79 was an earlyelement of the tradition. The computation of a date forArion in 619/18



12/17

The Epochof theSevenSages 175must have been carried out before Demetrius' date for the Seven Sagesand Apollodorus' date for Thales entered the chronographic tradition.The date in the fiftiethOlympiad was transmitted to the sources ofTatian,Clement, and Eusebius; but it is not likely that a practicing chronographerwould have used it as a base-date after themore sophisticated computations of Demetrius and Apollodorus had been made. The date for Arionmust therefore be ascribed to a fourth-century authority whose methodology prefigured that of Apollodorus. Identification of that source mustbe the subject of a separate investigation where the question can beconsidered in the context of a broader range of evidence.

The date forArion in 619/18 is the fortieth year before the Epoch ofThales and the Seven Sages in the fiftieth Olympiad. The Apollodorandate forArion is the fortieth year before the akmeof Thales. These conclusions might be interpreted as implying that Apollodorus did in factsynchronize the Epoch of the Seven Sages with his new date for Thales.But the variant dates forArion reflect different dates for Thales in particular, rather than for the Seven Sages as a group. Furthermore, there isno direct evidence for theApollodoran Epoch of the Seven Sages at all.It isnot self-evident thatApollodorus must necessarily have synchronizedthe naming of the Seven Sages with Thales' eclipse, and the coincidentalappearance of the thirty-third year ofAlyattes in the fiftiethOlympiad ofthe Eusebian Canonscannot prove that he did. On the contrary, Apollodorus may well have agreed with Demetrius of Phalerum. The associationwith Apollo and the first Pythiad made good sense. In Thales' case, itwould have permitted Apollodorus to say that he earned the title conferred in 582/1 by virtue of the reputation won in 585/4. For a chronographer who rejected the literal synchronism among the Seven Sagesand computed separate akmai ranging from 627 (Periander, FGrHist 244F 332) to 556 (Chilon, F 335), itwas better to have a date forApollo'sproclamation which coincided with the akmeof none of them. Finally,Diogenes' information about Demetrius' date for the proclamation maywell have come to him through his epitome of Apollodorus, as seems tobe the case with Diogenes' dates forAnaxagoras.28

Apollodorus, then,may have adopted Demetrius' eminently sensibledate for theNaming of the Seven Sages, rather than shifting it to the dateof Thales' eclipse. Evidence to support this hypothesis may be foundthrough close examination of the standard date for Pherecydes of Syros,the teacher of Pythagoras. Both Eusebius (103"Helm) and DiogenesLaertius (1.121) date thefloruit of Pherecydes to the fifty-ninth Olympiad(544/1). Jacoby argued for the Apollodoran origin of this date; but he

was unable to discover its rationale or to reconstruct the precise date with



13/17

176 AldenMosshammercertainty, since any year in the fifty-ninth Olympiad ismore than fortyyears later than the akmeof Thales.29 For Jacoby the akme of Thales in585/4 also marks the Apollodoran Epoch of the Seven Sages in thethirty-third year of Alyattes. If, however, Apollodorus adopted either ofthe two attested dates for theEpoch of the Seven Sages, his date forPherecydes can be explained. An akme inOlympiad 59.2 (543/2) would be thefortieth year after Demetrius' date for Thales and the Seven Sages. AnakmeinOlympiad 59.4 (541/0) would be the fortieth year after the epochas dated to 580/79. That is,Apollodorus could compute a precise date forPherecydes by synchronizing his birth with the Epoch of the Seven Sages.That such a date was approximately correct Apollodorus had inferredfrom Pherecydes' relationship to Pythagoras, whose birth Apollodorusdated to 571/0 (FGrHist 244 F 339). Pherecydes was not only the teacherof Pythagoras, according to the tradition which Apollodorus followed,but also his colleague and friend-that is, an elder contemporary.30 Thedates for their akmai in the fifty-ninth and sixty-second Olympiads expressthis relationship. We do not know which year within the fifty-ninthOlympiad was theApollodoran akmeof Pherecydes; but we can determinewhat date he accepted for the Epoch of the Seven Sages ifwe can findevidence for the Apollodoran date of Pherecydes' birth. That Apollodorus synchronized Pherecydes' birth with the Epoch of the Seven Sagesat Demetrius' date in the forty-ninth Olympiad, 582/1-not with the lessformal estimate which led to 580/79-follows from analysis of the Suda'snotice on Pherecydes of Syros.The Suda has three articles for persons named Pherecydes-onefrom Syros, an Athenian Pherecydes who was older than the Syrian, anda Pherecydes of Leros who was younger than the Syrian. Eratosthenes(FGrHist241 F 10) recognized the existence of only two-the Syrian andthe Athenian. Apollodorus agreed and considered the Athenian theyounger of the two. For the Suda cites Porphyrius (FGrHist 260 F 21) inrefutation of the statement that theAthenian Pherecydes was older thanthe Syrian, and Porphyrius' chronology is that of Apollodorus (FGrHist244 F 61, 338 and Komm.). The Suda'sdates forPherecydes of Syrosmaytherefore be regarded as deriving through Hesychius of Miletus fromApollodorus and Porphyrius.31 The chronological statement is, however,difficult to interpret. It reads as follows (4.713Adler): yeyove Se KaTa roAv8Sv claaLAE'aAvavTTr-v, As ouvyXpovelV TroIs ' caoqos Kal TTEX'acL rEplrrv ,EdA>vpuTrLciaS71V ofe OAVL'asOaThe sentence combines two chronological references into one.According to the first, Pherecydes flourished during the reign of Alyattesand was synchronous with the Seven Sages. A synchronism between the



14/17

The Epoch of theSevenSages 177floruit of Pherecydes and the Epoch of the Seven Sages is comprehensible,since Pherecydes was often counted among their number. This statementmay derive from such a tradition. On the other hand, the Suda's ye'ovefrequently expresses an Apollodoran birthdate. So interpreted, the firststatement confirms the hypothesis thatApollodorus synchronized the birthof Pherecydes with the Epoch of the Seven Sages. According to the secondstatement, Pherecydes was born in the forty-fifth Olympiad (600/599), adate not in agreement with either of the dates attested for the Seven Sages.One manuscript ("G" = Parisinus 2623) reads ve', which is either asecondary corruption or a scribe's deliberate attempt to lower the date ofPherecydes to the fifty-fifthOlympiad (560/59) so as to restore an approximate synchronism with Pythagoras (floruit523).32 Both Diogenes Laertius(1.121) and Eusebius (103nHelm) date thefloruit of Pherecydes to thefifty-ninth Olympiad (544/1) and both frequently transmit Apollodorandata. The Suda's birthdate in the forty-fifth Olympiad must thereforebe a textual corruption. For "45" we should read "49", an emendation easily justified on paleographical grounds (MOmisread asME). Thecase is exactly parallel to the Suda'swell-known report of Thales' date inthe thirty-fifth Olympiad instead of the thirty-ninth. There is the samecorruption in the numeral, the same confusion between birthdate andakme.33The Suda's first statement, then, confirms the hypothesis that

Apollodorus synchronized the birth of Pherecydes with the Epoch of theSeven Sages. The second statement shows that Apollodorus adoptedDemetrius' date for that epoch in the forty-ninth Olympiad, specificallyOlympiad 49.3 (582/1).The conclusions are both simple and important. They might havebeen stated long ago and with amuch less tortuous argument, had not thethirty-third year of Alyattes so fascinated historians for almost a century.The well-attested date for Thales and the Seven Sages in the fiftieth

Olympiad (580/79), although it is preserved only in Christian sources,represents the earliest chronological construction. While therewas muchdisagreement about the names to be included, a college of seven wascanonical by the beginning of the fourth century B.C.Such a concept lednaturally to a synchronism, and the Seven Sages were estimated to havelived about one hundred years before the PersianWars. This estimate wasused by antiquarians of themiddle of the fourth century both as a dateforThales and as a base for other constructions. By the end of the fourthcentury Demetrius of Phalerum had refined the estimate and synchronizedThales and the Seven Sages with the establishment of the Pythian gamesin 582. Apollodorus adopted Demetrius' date forApollo's proclamationof the Seven aswise; but he computed separate akmai for the individuals,



15/17

178 AldenMosshammerincluding one forThales at the date Apollodorus established for the famouseclipse, 585/4. The date of Demetrius for theNaming of the Seven Sagesand of Apollodorus for the akmeof Thales became standard for chronographic computation soon after their publication. Neither date was eversuperseded. In lessscholarly circles, however, the earlier estimate continuedto be circulated. It was transmitted in theworks of fourth-century authorswho had used this relative chronology before Demetrius established amoreformal synchronism with the firstPythiad. Itwas also converted to a precise, absolute date by thepopular Olympiad chroniclers, who synchronizedThales and the Seven Sages with the fiftieth Olympiad (580/79), onehundred years before the Persian Wars.

University of CaliforniaSan Diego

NOTES1D.L. 1.22.5 = Demetrius FGrHist 228 F 1and fr. 149Wehrli, Die Schuledes

Aristoteles (2 vols. Basel 1944, 1953): Kal irp&oZ ooaos wvoLyoI' dYpXoTosA0ron a Jaact'ov, Kca'OVKato0ra acoiol erKani)lyawv,s as& I7tptloplO?I EatpEvs 't TWVpXOWT avaypen].2Marmor Parium FGrHist 239 A 38. Damasias was archon for two years andtwomonths according toAth. Pol. 13.2,where the chronological difficulties are notorious. SeeCadoux, "The Athenian Archons fromKreon toHypsichides," JHS 68 (1948) 70-123, andSamuel, GreekandRomanChronologyMunich 1972) 198-206.3This is the explanation offered by Felix Jacoby, ApollodorsChronik (PhilologischeUntersuchungen6, Berlin 1902; reprinted New York, Arno Press, 1973) 182-183. Thework ishereafter cited as "Jacoby" with the appropriate page numbers.On the tradition of theSeven Sages in general, seeBarkowski, "SiebenWeise," RE 51 (1923) 2242-2264.4 P. 101e, R. Helm, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Eusebius Werke, Band VII(zweiterAuflage, GCS 70, Berlin 1956); J.K. Fotheringham, Eusebii PamphiliChroniciCanones,latine uertit, adauxit, ad sua tempora produxit S. Eusebius Hieronymus (London 1923), 179. J. Karst, Die

Chronik des Eusebius aus dem armenischen iibersetz, Eusebius Werke, Band V (GCS 20, Leipzig 1911).Jerome is hereafter cited by the pagination of Helm's edition, the superscript representingHelm's ordinal lettering of the historical entries.sG. Busolt, Griechische eschichteI2 697.6The testimonia are presented and discussed below. That the fiftiethOlympiadwas the original placement of the notice in the Canons is confirmed by the excerpt of Cyrillus ofAlexandria, Contra ulianum 1.13, that the Seven Sages flourished in the fiftiethOlympiad. OnCyrillus as an earlywitness to the text of Eusebius' Chronicle,eeHiller, RhM 25 (1870) 253-262.

7Jacoby (aboven. 3) 181-182.Rohde, "r'yoi inden Biographica des Suidas,"RhM 33 (1878) 161-220, reprinted in Kleine SchriftenI (Leipzig 1901) 114-184. The article ishereafter cited as "Rohde" with thepagination ofKline Schriften .His discussion of theEpochof the Seven Sages appears pp. 158-162, where he also argues for 585/4 asDemetrius' date.8F.K. Ginzel, Spez.Kanon derFinsternisse(Berlin 1899) 169; Oppolzer'sCanonof Eclipses (Dover edition, 1962) 1489. The modem debate over whether Thales could or didpredict the eclipse andwhether an eclipsewas visible on the field of battle at all does not affectthe argument. The ancients believed both.9Rohde 159 (above n. 7).



16/17

The Epoch of theSevenSages 17910Jacoby 182 (above n. 3).11N.H. 2.53: apud Graecos autem inuestigauit primus omnium (sc. the causes of asolar eclipse) ThalesMilesius olympiadis LVIII annoquartopraedicto olis defectuquiAlyatte rege

factus est urbis conditae anno CLXX.12Kaletsch, "Zur lydischen Chronologie," Historia 7 (1958) 1-47, especially6-22. 13On the technical problems see the introductions to the editions of Fotheringham and ofHelm and, especially,R. Helm, Eusebius'Chronik nd ihreTabellenformSBBerlin1929).14For this"nebeneinander" hypothesis seeHelm, SBBerlin 1929 (aboven. 13).15The dates in the forty-ninth Olympiad for Thales' eclipse and the LydoMedian war transmittedby Solinus (15, 16) and Laurentius Lydus (9, 18) are, as acoby (179180) argues, variants of theApollodoran date derived from computing Nepos' 170 years ab urbecondita(reportedby PlinyN.H. 2.53) with a lower date for the era.Apollodorus and, apparently,all others after him associated Astyages with the war instead of Cyaxares (Herodotus 1.74). Itmay have been Alcaeus who prompted thisdisagreement with Herodotus. SeeHuxley, "AWarBetween Astyages and Alyattes," GRBS 6 (1965) 201-206.16Chron.I, p. 93, Karst; cf.A. Schone, H. Petermann, EusebiChronicorumibriDuo (Berlin 1875, 1866, reprinted Zurich, Weidmann Verlag, 1967) I, p. 201. Eusebius' immediate source for the list ofOlympic victors has been identified as Africanus since the time of

Scaliger. See H. Gelzer, SextusJulius Africanusund die byzantinische hronographie2 vols. Leipzig1880, 1898; reprintedNew York, B. Franklin, 1967) I, p. 167. The attribution, however, is notsecure. See A.A. Mosshammer, The ChronicleofEusebius and GreekChronographicradition (forthcoming, Bucknell University Press, 1977).Whatever the immediate source, notices such as thisone at the fiftieth Olympiad should be ascribed to the tradition and not to the excerptor.

17 ad Graecos 41; he dates Dracon to the thirty-ninth Olympiad (624/1, Jacoby[above n. 3] 166), Solon to the forty-sixth (596/3, Jacoby 165), Pythagoras to the sixty-second(532/29, Jacoby 215 and FGrHist 244 F 339), the first Olympiad 407 years after the Trojan War(1184/3, Jacoby 78 and FGrHist 244 F. 331).18 Strom. 1.65; 1.129; discussed in detail below.19My own views on Africanus are substantially different from those advancedin the late nineteenth century. There has not been a thorough examination since that time.An interim report appears inmy forthcomingChronicleofEusebius andGreekChronographicradition(Bucknell University Press, 1977). For the suggestion that Africanus is the source of a synchronism (not dated to a precise year) between the Seven Sages and the reign of Cyrus, there issome evidence in the Excerpta Barbara, an almost illiterate source discovered by Scaliger whichcombines excerpts from the Chronicle of Eusebius with excerpts from Africanus. In column 30a(Schoene I, 207) the author lists the prophets of Cyrus' time and offers the following synchronismfor theGreeks: in ipsisautemtemporibusythagoras tprinceps gorasfamosifilosofi ognoscebantur.hislast phrase is possibly an attempt to translate a text similar to that of P.E. 10.4.10: TOtrp7irpW7ovs

avbpas E'Maooifa OavJiaaOcivaL.20 The Suda on Pittacus, Tyrtaeus, Mimnermus, Periander, and especiallyPherecydes. The prominence in the chronographic tradition of the Epoch of the Seven Sages isattested by its inclusion in the epigraphic Chronicon Romanum (composed A.D. 16), but the daterecorded cannot be read (FGrHist 252 B 3 and Komm.). References to the Seven Sages insynchronism are common in literary texts, both Greek and Latin, e.g., Cicero de Or. 3.137:septem fuisse dicuntur uno tempore qui sapientes et haberentur et uocarentur. The statement probablyderives from Apollodorus through the Chronicle of Nepos, but Cicero unfortunately did notexcerpt the date. 21 cf. Barkowski (above n. 3).22 cf. above n. 15.

23There are no exact parallels. But such an expression of the relative chronology may be regarded as a variant of the reckoning "to our own times" attested by Herodotus(2.53) or to a fixed terminus within historical memory such as Thucydides uses (1.18).



17/17

180 AldenMosshammer24Plutarch, Solon, 11.1-2. See Forrest, "The First Sacred War," BCH 80

(1956) 33-52. The sources do not associate the Seven Sages with the establishment of thefestival which celebrated the amphictyonic victory. There can be no doubt, however, thatDemetrius made such an association.25 Solinus 7.6: Taenaron in quo fanum est Methymnai Arins quem delphine eoaduectum imago testis est ad effgiem casus et ueri opris expressa aere. Praterea tmpus signatum. Olmpiadeenim undetrigesima qua in certamine Siculo idem Arion uictor scribitr id ipsum gestum probatur. Jacobydoes not discuss the passage; but cf. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici I, 193.26On this error in general seeRohde, Keine Schriften , 114-184.27Only Eusebius (94eHelm) preserves a precise date for the Apollodoranakme of Archilochus, entered at the twenty-ninth Olympiad (664/1). The hypothesis offeredhere also solves the puzzle left by Jacoby on that date (FGrHist244 F 336 Komm.): "wie ergerade auf 664 kam,weiss ich nicht." Aplllodorus inferredan approximate date forArchilohusbased on references in the poems to the Cimmerian invasions. He computed a precise date bysetting him two forty-year intervals before Thales.28D.L. 2.7 = Demetrius FGrHist 228 F 2, fr. 150 Wehrli = ApollodorusFGrHist 244 F 31; cf. Jacoby 244.

29Jacoby 210-215 and FGrHist 244 F 338, Komm.30On the relationship between Pherecydes and Pythagoras in this version ofthe tradition seeJacoby 210-227.31For detailed discussion of the problem of the homonymous persons calledPherecydes, see Jacoby, "The First Athenian Prose Writer," Mnemosyne 13 (1947) 13-64,reprinted inAbhandungen urGriechischeGeschichtschreibungLeyden 1956) 100-143.32Adler cites von Gutschmid for an emendation to i' (40th), a conjecturewhich would make theSuda'sbirthdate forPherecydes forty years before Eusebius' Epoch of theSeven Sages-a plausible emendation logically, but not paleographically.33On this emendation see Rohde (above n. 7) 158-162.

The Epoch of the Seven Sages

Documents

Transcript of The Epoch of the Seven Sages