Chilon and Aeschines Again

Abstract

IN A RECENT NUMBER of The Phoenix,2 Professor MI. White, in arguing for a late dating of the Orthagorid dynasty at Sicyon, has re-examined Rylands Papyrus 18, and in particular has found reason to criticise and dissent from views previously expressed by myself on this same fragment, which I hold to support the earlier system of chronology. She has now very kindly made it possible for me to restate my views in the light of her discussion, and to attempt to meet the criticisms which she has brought forward; and for this opportunity I am indeed grateful. It will be convenient to begin by recapitulating the main heads of my former discussion, the more so because they appeared in a publication not wholly devoted to classical studies, and they are not all immediately apparent from Professor White's article. The conclusions which I regarded as probable were as follows: 1. The papyrus represents an epitome rather than a full narrative. 2. The original seems to have been a work on the Seven Wise Men, probably after the manner of Dicaearchus of Messene, whose writings on the early sages stressed their practical statesmanship; this would date the original narrative not earlier than the end of the fourth century B.C. The terminus ante quem is of course provided by the date of the papyrus itself-i.e., according to the editor, the second century B.c. 3. The text is to be reconstructed as follows: XcXwv be 6 AaKOv fiopevaas Kat arpafrygias (or perhaps, though less likely, arparevcas) 'Avaravbpt6bs re ras v roLs 'EXXiEpt rvpavvtbaS KareXvae~v Iv 2;KVWV IE AI-Xtexv KrX.