<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:D.daimachus_1</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:D.daimachus_1</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="D"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="daimachus-bio-1" n="daimachus_1"><head><persName xml:lang="la"><surname full="yes">Dai'machus</surname></persName></head><p>or DEI'MACHUS (<foreign xml:lang="grc">Δαΐμαχος</foreign> or <foreign xml:lang="grc">Δηΐμαχος</foreign>), of Plataeae, a Greek historian, whose age is determined by the fact,
      that he was sent as ambassador to Allitrochades, the son of Androcottus or Sandrocottus, king
      of India (<bibl n="Strabo ii.p.70">Strab. ii. p.70</bibl>), and Androcottus reigned at the
      time when Seleucus was laying the foundation of the subsequent greatness of his empire, about
       <date when-custom="-312">B. C. 312</date>. (<bibl n="Just. 15.4">Just. 15.4</bibl>.) This fact at
      once shews the impossibility of what Casaubon (<hi rend="ital">ad Diog. Laert.</hi> 1.1)
      endeavoured to prove, that the historian Ephorus had stolen whole passages from Daimachus's
      work, since Ephorus lived and wrote before Daimachus. The latter wrote a work on India, which
      consisted of at least two books. He had probably acquired or at least increased his knowledge
      of those eastern countries during his embassy; but Strabo nevertheless places him at the head
      of those who had circulated false and fabulous accounts about India. (Comp. <bibl n="Ath. 9.394">Athen. 9.394</bibl>; Harpocrat. <hi rend="ital">s. v.</hi>
      <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐγγυθήκη</foreign>; Schol. <hi rend="ital">ad Apollon. Rhod.</hi>
      1.558.) We have also mention of a very extensive work on sieges (<foreign xml:lang="grc">πολιορκητικὰ ὑπομνήματα</foreign>) by one Daimachus, who is probably the same as the
      author of the Indica. If the reading in Stephanus of Byzantium (<hi rend="ital">s. v.</hi>
      <foreign xml:lang="grc">Λακεδαιμών</foreign>) is correct, the work on sieges consisted of
      at least 35 (<foreign xml:lang="grc">λέ</foreign>) books. (Comp. Eustath. <hi rend="ital">ad Hom. Il.</hi> 2.581.) The work on India is lost, but the one on sieges may possibly be
      still concealed somewhere, for Magius (in Gruter's <hi rend="ital">Fax Artium,</hi> p. 1330)
      states, that he saw a MS. of it. It may be that our Daimachus is the same as the one quoted by
      Plutarch (<hi rend="ital">Comparat. Solon. cum Publ.</hi> 4) as an authority on the military
      exploits of Solon. In another passage of Plutarch (<bibl n="Plut. Lys. 12">Plut. Lys.
       12</bibl>) one Laimachus (according to the common reading) is mentioned as the author of a
      work <foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ εὐσεβείας</foreign>, and modern critics have changed
      the name Laimachus into Daimachus, and consider him to be the same as the historian. In like
      manner it has been proposed in Diogenes Laertius (1.30) to read <foreign xml:lang="grc">Δαΐμαχος ὁ Πλαταιεύς</foreign> instead of <foreign xml:lang="grc">Δαίδαχος ὁ
       Πλατωνικός</foreign>, but these are only conjectural emendations. </p><byline>[<ref target="author.L.S">L.S</ref>]</byline></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>