pothos.org

Since Diodoros does not give the Homeric drag race at Gaza, it is unlikely this was in Kleitarchos, Diodoros does not shun such fantasies. Nor does the act fit with the picture of a decline into Oriental tyranny after the death of Dareios which is certainly the picture in Metz, Curtius and Justin, more likely the entire conceit was Hegesias' and Curtius was attracted by the Caligulan echoes.

Diodoros certainly worked from a consular list and an archon list, and normally a Western source and a Greek one, Book XVII is unusual in being almost devoid of Sicilian Matters - the exception, a note on Agathokles boat burning in 310 is used sometimes as a terminus post quem for Kleitarchos, but could just as easily be one of those authorial intrusions.

agesilaos wrote:Words fail me... no, words of less than four letters, fail me

Let me help with a classic of the English slang tradition: bollocks. Although, having re read the post in question, adequate words are hard to find I grant you.

Reducing Curtius' work to a simple abridged Latin translation of Cleitarchus is about as nonsensical as establishing Cleitarchus as a source via Diodorus' use pyra. Curtius clearly reworked his source(s) to suit his creative purposes; he was no simple translating transcriber as is proposed. This is the sort of stuff that can readily be claimed when the original work is unavailable to correct it. Thus Hornblower's assertion that Hieronymus' "account can be retrieved with satisfying fullness from Diodorus Nooks 18-20". This based on 16 fragments and 13 testimonia and that Diodorus is a reliable mirror of the account.

But back to the "Latin translator". According to this simplistic and self serving "theory', Curtius merely abridged and translated Cleitarchus' account to produce his work. Leaving aside the evidence for his recasting and molding of his source(s), his comprehension and / or translating abilities seem, on occasion, rather poor as a glance at his Gaugamela description shows. Diodorus describes the Macedonian cavalry dispositions on the right followed by the hypaspists (argyraspides) and the rest of the infantry line with Craterus commanding the last 'battalion' on the left followed by the various left wing cavalry. Our Latin translator also has the cavalry of the right and then "the phalanx" behind which were the hypaspists and four of the other 'battalions'. On the left Craterus is named as the commander of the Peloponnesian cavalry - his phalanx unit makes no appearance. No matter how one explains this away it does not, in any fashion, cohere with Diodorus.

Further, although both Diodorus and Curtius describe a Scythian raid on the baggage only Curtius decides to have Menidas and Aretes ride to the baggage to do battle with them. Curtius says that Aretes' horse are "sarissophoroi". It is the only time he uses the word in his extant text. Arrian uses sarisaphoroi three times and other times refers to the same troops as "prodromoi" - very plausibly and reasonably ascribed to Aristobulous and Ptolemy respectively by Bosworth. Diodorus does not use it that I am aware of. This, a term describing a particular Macedonian cavalry subset, is rather more significant than the alley-cat common pyra. Just who might Curtius be "translating" here? But I forget: these differences are certainly due to the "clumsy" Sicilian or his even clumsier transmitters.

agesilaos wrote:Since Diodoros does not give the Homeric drag race at Gaza, it is unlikely this was in Kleitarchos, Diodoros does not shun such fantasies. Nor does the act fit with the picture of a decline into Oriental tyranny after the death of Dareios which is certainly the picture in Metz, Curtius and Justin, more likely the entire conceit was Hegesias' and Curtius was attracted by the Caligulan echoes.

Diodoros certainly worked from a consular list and an archon list, and normally a Western source and a Greek one, Book XVII is unusual in being almost devoid of Sicilian Matters - the exception, a note on Agathokles boat burning in 310 is used sometimes as a terminus post quem for Kleitarchos, but could just as easily be one of those authorial intrusions.

Since Diodorus chose to cover the siege of Gaza in fifteen words, I am not sure that arguing from what he does not say is very strong. One could just as well say that he neglected Gaza because he had just described the siege of Tyre in detail and had several other moral anecdotes to fit in. On the other hand, there are those who say that parallels between Alexander and Achilles probably entered the tradition late, after everyone knew that Alexander died young shortly after his best friend. Its a great loss that we don't have Rufus' version of the Granicus to see whether it was as Homeric (and un-Arrianic) as Diodorus'.

Book 17 does not have many "in this year ..." notes at the start or end of sections, but other books do, and scholars who read such notes in Tacitus or the received text of Xenophon's Hellenica usually suggest that they came from a chronicle. A well-equipped Hellenistic scholar like Diodorus certainly had access to chronicles, and his Roman source often looks like a consul-list with annotations.

The main trouble is that not just Diodoros, but also Justin/Trogus and even Plutarch fail to retail the story, and they all love scandal and even Arrian who points up homeric parallels ignores this (pace Bosworth he definitely knew Kleitarchos' account and damns him without naming him in several passages). Otherwise I might agree; the Homeric parallels were made early enough to influence Kleitarchos, I think, Choerilios seems to have been a poetaster at Court, whose flatteries were condemned as lame, for instance, I will have to look up the reference on that one, but he used the Achilles parallel.

On the chroniclers, or annalists, as I would call them, for the early Roman history they would be the only available sources and, strangely, Diodoros' list was better than the Varronian version, (as I am sure you are aware, Sean et al, but others may not realise); a circumstance that mirrors Curtius, rightly characterised as as valuable as the source he is using at that moment.

Some of the summaries that we find in Xenophon are editorial glosses rather than notes from chroniclers I think, the information does not expand on that found in his work; they are like the summaries that carlton brown adds to his translation of the Kyrou Paedia or Paton to his of Polybios. Thanks for the references to the books, they are now added to my already extensive wish list! Will have to have a good research and post more authoratively; perhaps a project? I don't think we can judge Book XVII without reference to the rest of his Library, as Paralus says Diodoros' aims matter as much as his source...maybe this time next year?

agesilaos wrote:The main trouble is that not just Diodoros, but also Justin/Trogus and even Plutarch fail to retail the story, and they all love scandal and even Arrian who points up homeric parallels ignores this (pace Bosworth he definitely knew Kleitarchos' account and damns him without naming him in several passages). Otherwise I might agree; the Homeric parallels were made early enough to influence Kleitarchos, I think, Choerilios seems to have been a poetaster at Court, whose flatteries were condemned as lame, for instance, I will have to look up the reference on that one, but he used the Achilles parallel.

Sure ... I agree that its wise to be suspicious of incidents which only appear in one source and fit a way in which later generations liked to imagine Alexander (whether Alexander the Ideal King or Alexander the Fickle Tyrant). I do not have a personal opinion on that story.

agesilaos wrote:Some of the summaries that we find in Xenophon are editorial glosses rather than notes from chroniclers I think, the information does not expand on that found in his work; they are like the summaries that carlton brown adds to his translation of the Kyrou Paedia or Paton to his of Polybios.

I agree, but I was thinking of the notes at the beginning or end of years in the first part of the Hellenica such as Xen. Hell. 1.1.36. They seem to have been added by someone with an annotated list of dates, that is a chronicle, who wanted to fit Xenophon's summers and winters into larger dating systems. The Anabasis has more notes which look like they were added by a careful reader.

agesilaos wrote:Thanks for the references to the books, they are now added to my already extensive wish list! Will have to have a good research and post more authoratively; perhaps a project? I don't think we can judge Book XVII without reference to the rest of his Library, as Paralus says Diodoros' aims matter as much as his source...maybe this time next year?

I'd be happy to talk about this further some time next year. I want to get up to speed on Alexander scholarship, but its a big field and not critical for the work I am being paid for. Looking at a few books of Diodorus in concert might help.

sean_m wrote:Book 17 does not have many "in this year ..." notes at the start or end of sections, but other books do, and scholars who read such notes in Tacitus or the received text of Xenophon's Hellenica usually suggest that they came from a chronicle. A well-equipped Hellenistic scholar like Diodorus certainly had access to chronicles, and his Roman source often looks like a consul-list with annotations.

Actually, Diodorus Book 17 has a "When such and such was archon" or (In Athens Simonedes was archon..." or similar for every archon year of the book excepting the large lacuna of 327/6. It is clear that Diodorus maintained his 'standard' annalistic method throughout book 17 despite whichever sources he used. It is when Diodorus gets to Books 18-20 - especially 18 - that he comes a cropper. Here he encounters a source who, like Thucydides, eschews archon years or Olympiads and proceeds on the basis of a campaigning year. Thus archons go missing and are most likely to be found wherever the occasional winter - also missing - have gone! The Sicilian seems to have little difficulty with book 17 though.

Paralus wrote:

sean_m wrote:Book 17 does not have many "in this year ..." notes at the start or end of sections, but other books do, and scholars who read such notes in Tacitus or the received text of Xenophon's Hellenica usually suggest that they came from a chronicle. A well-equipped Hellenistic scholar like Diodorus certainly had access to chronicles, and his Roman source often looks like a consul-list with annotations.

Actually, Diodorus Book 17 has a "When such and such was archon" or (In Athens Simonedes was archon..." or similar for every archon year of the book excepting the large lacuna of 327/6. It is clear that Diodorus maintained his 'standard' annalistic method throughout book 17 despite whichever sources he used. It is when Diodorus gets to Books 18-20 - especially 18 - that he comes a cropper. Here he encounters a source who, like Thucydides, eschews archon years or Olympiads and proceeds on the basis of a campaigning year. Thus archons go missing and are most likely to be found wherever the occasional winter - also missing - have gone! The Sicilian seems to have little difficulty with book 17 though.

Yes, but giving an archon or pair of consuls or winner of the stadion or Olympiad number just names the year. I was talking about the notes of the form "and in this year the temple of X burned down, and Y invented the catapult, and the philosopher Z flourished, and King K invaded Ruritania." Those seem to come from an annotated list of years, that is a chronicle. As Greek and Latin chronography became more developed from the fourth century BCE onwards, historians found themselves faced with events which they could date to the year but not more closely, and usually responded by placing them at the end of their narrative for that year. Aside from the notes in the first two books of Xen. Hell. one could cite all the people who die fine anni in Tacitus' Annals (I have read Tacitus scholars who think that should be understand "at the end of the 'year' of my narrative" not "at the end of the calendar year").

As far as I can recall, Diodorus still organizes book 18 by years and names those years by archons and consuls and winners of the Olympic games, although there are certainly problems with his chronology. I don't know what system his sources for book 17 used, although he seems to have been more successful at fitting their system to his own.

sean_m wrote:Yes, but giving an archon or pair of consuls or winner of the stadion or Olympiad number just names the year. I was talking about the notes of the form "and in this year the temple of X burned down, and Y invented the catapult, and the philosopher Z flourished, and King K invaded Ruritania." Those seem to come from an annotated list of years, that is a chronicle.

Yes, such as 16.69.1

When Lyciscus was archon at Athens, the Romans elected as consuls Marcus Valerius and Marcus Publius, and the one hundred and ninth Olympiad was celebrated, in which Aristolochus the Athenian won the foot-race. In this year the first treaty was concluded between the Romans and the Carthaginians. In Caria, Idrieus, the ruler of the Carians, died after ruling seven years, and Ada, his sister and wife, succeeding him, ruled for four years.

Without going over all of book 16, that's one of the few I recall (74.1 is close but cogent to the narrative). I don't count such matters as "During their year Timoleon sailed to Sicily ..." in those notices and "in / during this year" seems to be a Diodorus staple.

sean_m wrote:As far as I can recall, Diodorus still organizes book 18 by years and names those years by archons and consuls and winners of the Olympic games, although there are certainly problems with his chronology. I don't know what system his sources for book 17 used, although he seems to have been more successful at fitting their system to his own.

Yes, he most definitely continued his practice of archons / consuls and, as such, was still using the 'chronicle' or annals of such offices. Unlike other books he uses a source here that did not follow those chronological way points. This was a winter to winter system a la Thucydides. Diodorus' attempts to jam this campaigning year into archon years results in untold confusion for book 18 - the first half most especially. Here two archon years simply disappear and the Sicilian, in contrast to his earlier books, begins to regularly note players going into winter quarters / gathering from winter quarters. He eventually reconciled matters - though by keeping to his annalistic format, one half of the campaigning year falls under the incorrect archon.

Paralus wrote:Yes, he most definitely continued his practice of archons / consuls and, as such, was still using the 'chronicle' or annals of such offices. Unlike other books he uses a source here that did not follow those chronological way points. This was a winter to winter system a la Thucydides. Diodorus' attempts to jam this campaigning year into archon years results in untold confusion for book 18 - the first half most especially. Here two archon years simply disappear and the Sicilian, in contrast to his earlier books, begins to regularly note players going into winter quarters / gathering from winter quarters. He eventually reconciled matters - though by keeping to his annalistic format, one half of the campaigning year falls under the incorrect archon.

Thank you for the reference! As you probably know, there is also a year missing from the ancient narratives of the Ionian War, and I'm not sure that any of the four proposed solutions is satisfactory. I am always on the look out for problems similar to one which I can't solve, since sometimes the methods devised for one can illuminate the other. So next time I study the years around 400, I will have a look at the chronology of the Diadoch Wars.

sean_m wrote:

Paralus wrote: I am always on the look out for problems similar to one which I can't solve, since sometimes the methods devised for one can illuminate the other. So next time I study the years around 400, I will have a look at the chronology of the Diadoch Wars.

About which I have much. I'll send you a PM.