A story...

[Paralus]

Since my favourite diadoch encompassed this ones fall and death I could never see eye to eye with him, not only that it would only take this fellow half as long to get blind drunk as my man.

Now, that's interesting. The former is Lysimachus? And a cupie doll to add to your much admired pin collection.

I shall get to your "hoplite" post on the other thread later today...

[agesilaos]

Absolutely, his reputation suffers from our main source being pro-Antigonid and the fact that Lysimachos synoecised his home town, Kardia, to form Lysimacheia. For my money he was the best first generation general. His famous coinage does seem to claim the lion's share (a rather appropriate turn of phrase) of that decisive victory. The obverse has Alexander, his side's watchword and the reverse Athene the other half of the watchword holding victory, surely that victory, the other chap merely has a trophy being crowned and Morkholm (Early Hellenistic Coinage) dates the issue later and relates it to victories in the east, cannot see why though. And all that dysfunctional family life, the paranoia and ruthlessness are just add on goodies.

[Paralus]

Absolutely, his reputation suffers from our main source being pro-Antigonid and the fact that Lysimachos synoecised his home town, Kardia, to form Lysimacheia. For my money he was the best first generation general.

Indeed it does. I would (as with many others I'd think) love to know more - especially of the "early years" (323-315) in Thrace. Unfortunately we are left largely to conjecture. It is certain that he must have come to some negotiated arrangement with Seuthes III as Perdiccas did not - for good reason - provide him with a surfeit of Macedonian troops. His fighting retreat of 302 - the Lysimachaean version of Thermopylae - which kept the septuagenarian Antigonus occupied whilst Seleucus mustered and marched from Babylon was the key to the success of the following summer's campaign. As you have related elsewhere - a much underrated Diadoch.

I agree with your comments re the source material. Hieronymus does have an "Antigonid" gloss. Not unexpected when one considers his employment by that family. I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that it irreparably colours his narrative. Billows, for example, is wont to criticise his Eumenid "apologia" yet accept his Antigonid "praise" (for want of a better adjective). If there is a criticism to be made of the historian it is that much of what we read depends upon his participation in events. Hence we have the vibrant (based on autopsy) description of Antigonus's forces debauching onto the plain at Paraetecene and complete silence about the two years of warfare in Babylonia following the "peace of the dynasts". Hieronymus, with respect to the later, prefers to regale us with an explanation for his failure at the bitumen pits in the ME. It is a most frustrating lapse and one only - marginally - illuminated by the "Successor Chronicles".

[abm]

complete silence about the two years of warfare in Babylonia following the "peace of the dynasts". Hieronymus, with respect to the later, prefers to regale us with an explanation for his failure at the bitumen pits in the ME. It is a most frustrating lapse and one only - marginally - illuminated by the "Successor Chronicles".

It seems to be inconceivable that Hieronymos would not have mentioned the warfare in Babylonia. Surely this was an important campaign that deserved a place in his work, and one of the few things we know for sure about him is that he even dealt with the history of Rome. Thus, autopsy was not the criterion that determined what he included. The reason for the silence is rather that Diodorus did not include the campaign (and we are not even sure that he used Hieronymus directly). The silence in a secondary author can never tell us anything about what was not in his source -- or about who that source was, for that matter --, because he could leave out anything he did not deem important. In book XX Diodorus has chosen to focus on the history of Agathokles; as a result the history of the Successors of the years 310-308 in general is treated only very summarily.

[Paralus]

It seems to be inconceivable that Hieronymos would not have mentioned the warfare in Babylonia. Surely this was an important campaign that deserved a place in his work, and one of the few things we know for sure about him is that he even dealt with the history of Rome. Thus, autopsy was not the criterion that determined what he included.

Well hello and welcome back.

I don’t disagree – more of a venting of frustration. No, autopsy was not the basis of what he chose to write. There is much that Diodorus does not find “interesting” or pertinent to his “gloss”. I don’t buy the theory that he was epitomising an epitomiser though.

It is possible that Diodorus has garbled this campaign with the short and limited expedition of Demetrius into Babylonia in his rush to get to Agathocles (who does, as you say, dominate that book) in whom he displays a serious interest. It is also possible that Hieronymus did not treat this campaign in anywhere near the manner that he did that of Iran in the preceding years. It was not, after all, a resounding victory for his patron. We do have a fulsome – and excusatory – account of his bitumen dealings and the efforts of Demetrius in that regard though. Again, perhaps Diodorus thought the Arabs and the bitumen dealings the more interesting. Why only his shade knows.

Similar arguments are run as to why Lysimachus receives scant attention until the close of the fourth century. He is mentioned when he comes into contact with Antigonus or a third party related to the narrative. It is also possible that Diodorus found (possible) notations about Lysimachus’ consolidation of his satrapy through negotiation and limited warfare not to his interest. Ditto Seleucus who appears as a support player – appearing with a fleet every now and again and scarpering to Babylon after Gaza to “disappear into the east”.

Be lovely to have the original wouldn’t it??

[abm]

Well hello and welcome back.

I don’t disagree – more of a venting of frustration.

Thanks, I have not really been gone actually, but I hardly found the time to post. And I know that you were venting frustration. So was I actually: I am just very much in a "war on Quellenforschung" mood these days. I have just been reading Bauer's Die Heidelberger Epitome, one of those old German dissertations. On almost every page he presents proof that Hieronymus was the source of all the preserved accounts. One of the most absurd instances is certainly Perdikkas' Egyptian campaign. According to Bauer all authors must have used Hieronymus for this event, because they all state that he went to Egypt to fight Ptolemy. He deems it especially compelling because of the verbal parallels: several authors use words such as "Ptolemy" and "fight". Most striking indeed!
I am also reading Franca Landucci's just published commentary on Diodorus XVIII which has a lot of interesting things to say, but it also contains a lot of Quellenforschung (although Landucci is one of the few scholars who recognizes that there is no evidence for Hieronymus being Diodorus' source, she tries to make the case for Duris, in spite of a similar lack of evidence). Well, never mind, this is just to explain my reaction.

I agree with all your above points on the Babylonian campaign. As to the Bitumen expedition, Diodorus simply loved geographical and ethnographical descriptions, and this one must have had special appeal to him for some reason, as he had already written part of it in book II, in almost completely the same words.

It would be lovely to have the original indeed, although Dionysius of Halicarnassus would not agree

[Paralus]

It would be lovely to have the original indeed, although Dionysius of Halicarnassus would not agree

No, he would not indeed.

[I am also reading Franca Landucci's just published commentary on Diodorus XVIII which has a lot of interesting things to say, but it also contains a lot of Quellenforschung (although Landucci is one of the few scholars who recognizes that there is no evidence for Hieronymus being Diodorus' source, she tries to make the case for Duris, in spite of a similar lack of evidence). Well, never mind, this is just to explain my reaction.

Written in Italian?

Sounds interesting. I’d agree that whilst there is no direct and incontrovertible evidence for Hieronymus being the sole source, the fragments and their match up point to him being the major source. Diodorus also mentions Hieronymus two (or more?) times in this book. It is often taken for granted that this is the source of the Eumenid apologia – as Billows and, I think, Jane Hornblower call it – that dominates books 18 and 19. Billows, of course, emphasises this apologia to contrast the “bad deal” his more admired Monophthalmus apparently receives. Other sources are often argued for on the basis, for example, of the favourable treatment of Ptolemy. Again, I don’t buy the argument that Diodorus epitomised an earlier epitomiser: his description of events following Triparadeisos, the Iranian campaign and especially the ethnographic discourses (Indian women and the Nabateans) don’t seem to be an abridgment of some Reader’s Digest Hieronymus.

Some day, somewhere, the original will be found. Least that’s the dream….

[abm]

Written in Italian?

Yes, it is written in Italian, but there are plans for an English translation. It might take years, of course, before that will actually be published. The plan is to produce a commentary on the whole Bibliotheca and if they will wait until the whole project is finished before the translation will be undertaken, that will be quite a long time.

whilst there is no direct and incontrovertible evidence for Hieronymus being the sole source, the fragments and their match up point to him being the major source. Diodorus also mentions Hieronymus (…)

Actually there is hardly any significant match up between Diodorus XVIII-XX and the fragments of Hieronymus. In fact, there are hardly fragments of Hieronymus, and most of them are just one or two sentences.
The fragment on the death of Ariarathes from Pseudo-Lucian agrees with Diodorus about the way he was killed, and it has two words in common with Diodorus, but “battle” (machê) is hardly a telling one and “capture” (zôgrein) not much more so. It is a word that occurs throughout Diodorus’ work in battle descriptions. Furthermore, Appian (Mithr. 8) gives a different version of Ariarathes’ death (hanged instead of crucified), just after having quoted Hieronymus’ claim that Alexander did not conquer Kappadokia because he decided to deal with Darius first. The different manner of death might be Appian’s own inaccuracy, of course, but it is not immaterial, because the statement on the conquest of Kappadokia is another of the few fragments where Diodorus’ text corresponds with Hieronymus. Diodorus too claims twice (XVIII 3.1 and 16.1) that Alexander had not conquered Kappadokia because of the war with Darius. The latter of these two instances, however does not necessarily agree with Hieronymus’ version on Alexander and Cappadocia. It is equally compatible with Arrian’s verison (Anab II 2.4). Such might even be the case with the former. We must never forget that Diodorus and Appian were summarizing their sources here, and accuracy all too often went lost in the process.

The fragment on the dead sea is not very telling either:
“Hieronymus relates that in the country of the Nabataean Arabs there is a bitter lake, in which there are neither fish nor other aquatic creatures, but the local people gather blocks of asphalt out of it.” (translation from attalus.org)
Diodorus mentions the same fact, but there is no reason why he could not have found that fact in a different author. Indeed the Dead Sea episode is one of the four places where Diodorus mentions Hieronymus, but Hieronymus was in charge of the expedition: he had to be mentioned.

Then there is Athenaeus’ statement that Hieronymus was famous for his description of Alexander’s funeral carriage. We do not have a single word of this description, however, and Diodorus might just as well have found such a description in another source. Ancient authors loved describing works of art, and this one was so spectacular, and related to such an important person, that many other historians will have described it.

The other fragments are even less useful. Furthermore, there is also a correspondence with a fragment of Duris (on the etymology name of Rhagae in XIX 44) and with Dyillus on the burial of Eurydike and Arrhidaios and Kassandros (in XIX 52). Neither case carries much weight, but neither do the correspondences with Hieronymus.

As to the mentioning of Hieronymus, as in the case already discussed above, he is never mentioned as a source, but always as an actor in the events. Marsyas of Pella, another historian, is also mentioned (in book XX), and no one argues that he must have been Diodorus’ source.

It is often taken for granted that this is the source of the Eumenid apologia – as Billows and, I think, Jane Hornblower call it – that dominates books 18 and 19. (…) Other sources are often argued for on the basis, for example, of the favourable treatment of Ptolemy.

The treatment of and focus on Eumenes is indeed the most compelling argument, but then again, the focus could also be the result of Diodorus’ selection. It cannot be denied that Diodorus was able at least to chose what he wanted to include and what not, and Eumenes’ story obviously was a popular one because of all his reversals of fortune which Diodorus (and other ancient historians) loved so much. Garvin (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2006/2006-11-04.html) also has an alternative explanation for the focus on Eumenes: he simply was a kind central figure to whose history all other threads could be tied. However that may be, the apologia does remain a not unattractive argument, but it is virtually the only one with some force.
Indeed Ptolemy and others are sometimes treated very positively, and it is difficult to assume that such praise for Antigonos’ ennemies came from Hieronymus. Moreover, as Landucci has often stressed, many passages are negative about Antigonos and they are not likely to have come from his own historian either. That Hieronymus wrote in the time of Gonatas and not during Monophthalmos’ reign is an argument that can only be upheld by those who want to explain the problem away. Ancestors were important to Hellenistic kings (one need only think of Gonatas’ progonoi monument here).

Again, I don’t buy the argument that Diodorus epitomised an earlier epitomiser: his description of events following Triparadeisos, the Iranian campaign and especially the ethnographic discourses (Indian women and the Nabateans) don’t seem to be an abridgment of some Reader’s Digest Hieronymus.

It need not have been a reader’s digest. The history of Agatharchides, for instance, might have been much more elaborate on these events than Diodorus, but probably less so than Hieronymus’. He could be the intermediary. But of course, one of the reasons why this theory exists is the assumption that Diodorus always worked from a single source, but he seems not to have done so in book XVI. Consequently, he need not have done so in XVIII-XX, but he might have if he found one that was suitable.

Thus, there are many questions and very few answers. I do not see any conclusive evidence for direct use of Hieronymus, and if Diodorus did use Hieronymus, the Cardian certainly was not his only source. That is about all that can be concluded about the matter, imho.

[Paralus]

The history of Agatharchides, for instance, might have been much more elaborate on these events than Diodorus, but probably less so than Hieronymus’. He could be the intermediary. But of course, one of the reasons why this theory exists is the assumption that Diodorus always worked from a single source, but he seems not to have done so in book XVI. Consequently, he need not have done so in XVIII-XX, but he might have if he found one that was suitable.

Back from holiday ... sadly.

Agatharchides has been postulated as the "intermediary". There is that persistent notion that the "slavish copier" (there are far worse descriptions as you well know) only ever utilised the one source per book. I think that has taken a battering somewhat recently. The notion that Ephorus was his source for nearly all of his Greek narrative (of the classical period) too has slid somewhat.

Book XVI certainly gives the impression that more than a couple of "contributors" were consulted. The Philip narrative and the Persian / Egyptian discourse (yet more Achaemenid monarchs chasing the province too far) seem to be from differing sources. The Greek / Macedonian has been further split (at Hammond's suggestion) into three (if I recall) sources.

No matter his sources or the merits of his "method", the value of Diodorus, as an historical source, is quite alarmingly demonstrated by his absence (aside from fragments) post Ipsos. One wonders what the trite Tarn made of the absecnce of a writer who was not only "not an incompetent hisorian" but also was not able to realise this and therefore wrote what he thought was history. I realise you have a "thing" happening with respect to quellenforschung at the moment but one must wonder how Wilamowitz got by once his “miserable scribbler” had “defragged” into mere “diodorettes”; or, for that matter, Wilhelm Soltau once he no longer had the “foolish pen pusher” to pillory. Sityalnou, going on Green’s acerbic commentary, might be the high priest of the assumption you refer to above as well as the “derivative” theory. What one might give to have his “mere epitomiser” in full after Ipsos – regardless of whether he supposedly never read the original if an easier copy or summary is available.

All that said, have you given any in-depth thought to the material behind 18-20?