Reconstruction of Cleitarchus

[Taphoi]

Dear Pothosians,The Pirate Tale thread started by Karen is an interesting example of the expertise and talent of some Pothosians. It led to the suggestion that the pirate tale is actually a lost fragment of Cleitarchus. I can see more reasons why this is a credible suggestion: for example, Cleitarchus was an early citizen of Alexandria, so KarlGÇÖs association of the tale with that city is particularly apt for Cleitarchus and also Cicero is the source for several other known fragments of Cleitarchus.It seems to me a bit of a pity that all this talent and expertise is not being directed towards achieving any really notable extensions of Alexander scholarship. In particular there is a project, which I have been mulling over for some time, which might be worthy of you, if you were up to the challenge. This is the reconstruction of CleitarchusGÇÖ History of Alexander. Although this might sound at first like an impossible objective, since the last copy of Cleitarchus was probably destroyed over a thousand years ago, there is in fact a good prospect of getting a long way with this.Firstly, Diodorus 17 is basically an epitome of Cleitarchus, though it is probably only 15%-30% the length of the original. Then we have JacobyGÇÖs fragments, which include hints of the basic book structure of Cleitarchus (probably about 15 books in total: we know book 12 dealt with the gymnosophists and Cleitarchus probably opened with AlexanderGÇÖs accession and closed with his death). Furthermore, Hammond has systematically combed through the other major surviving sources (Justin, Curtius, Plutarch) and identified the parts, which come from Cleitarchus. Finally, there are many essays, book chapters and articles, which provide many further clues (e.g. PearsonGÇÖs Lost Histories, Hamilton in Historia 10 and again in Ancient History & PrehistoryGǪ, Goukowsky in REA 71, TS Brown in AJP 71). As more fragments of the puzzle came together, it would become clearer how the gaps must have been filled, just as with an ordinary jigsaw puzzle.The method could be to divide the reconstruction into 15 books and assign each book to a person or small group. The reconstruction should be in English for accessibility and each book would require a parallel commentary explaining the source material for each reconstructed passage and assigning a confidence level for its attribution to Cleitarchus.I would be happy to volunteer space on my website at http://www.alexanderstomb.com to publish the evolving pr

[Taphoi]

continues...I would be happy to volunteer space on my website at http://www.alexanderstomb.com to publish the evolving project, if people were interested. Your comments on this proposition are very much invited.

[marcus]

Hi Andrew,What an excellent idea!Much as I would love to take part, however, I don't think I could afford the necessary time at the moment, due to the PGCE that I have just embarked upon.I would be happy to lend a hand with anything I can, of course, but I wouldn't be able to take any sort of 'driving' role.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

Andrew, I think this is a most wonderful idea and I would be happy to assist anyone in the grunt work - transcription, research and the like. Am afraid I'm not an experienced enough scholar to contribute more than this. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[agesilaos]

Something may be achievable, though I think it will read like the reconstruction of the opening books of Curtius in Yardley/Heckel's penguin edition, all the same it will entail close inspection of the sources and ones own preconceptions and so must be a good thing. I have started skimming Arrian's logoi for any Kleitarchan element but can't commit to having found any until I compare them with Curtius and Diodoros.But what about the story in book one of the Gallic ambassadors who fear nothing other than the sky falling on their heads; it is rhetorical; has an anti-Imperialist tone; is not pro-Alexander and points to a late date for composition, probably after 279 and Brennos' invasion, all this fits Kleitarchos (I prefer a late Ptolemy II date for him)but Arrian does not distinguish the story from his main narrative 75% probability?

[Taphoi]

Hi Karl and Linda,The situation is much better than for the missing bits of Curtius. There is a huge amount of material buried in the extant sources which can be identified as Cleitarchus with reasonable certainty, but hardly any fragments of the missing bits of Curtius.Regarding Arrian, Hammond has also identified sources for many of his legomena, e.g. in Book I he finds 1.9.8 and 1.9.10 to be Cleitarchus and suggests some other stories were in the Cleitarchan tradition at least. Only more obscure sources like Aelian have not been systematically trawled for Cleitarchus already: that's one of the things that makes this feasible. We already have a lot of pieces of the puzzle. Strangely, nobody seems to have tried to put them all together, so we don't yet know quite how much we have.Regarding the date of Cleitarchus, you are essentially espousing a clever but tendentious argument by Tarn, which was taken up by Pearson. I would council extreme caution. For example, Hamilton has shown in Historia 10 that Tarn's argument that Cleitarchus wrote after Aristobulus is not tenable in the evidence. Conversely, it is very difficult to see how Pliny could be wrong when he states that Cleitarchus wrote before Theophrastus, who in turn wrote before 300BC.I plan to put a certain amount of background material, such as Hammond's identifications of Cleitarchus in the main sources, onto my website in about a month. An initial problem will be to assign date ranges to the books. I will post more on Pothos about this as things develop.Best wishes,Andrew

[agesilaos]

That would be handy; at -ú50 Hammond is out of my range at the moment and whilst I can recognise his scholarship he frequently adopts views which amaze me; but to his credit he is one of the few who bother to 'show their working', as it were, at least in 'King, Commander and Statesman'.Tarn was similar and it is frequently his method which is attacked rather than the conclusions; I think I remembered to address the Pliny quote in my piece on 'Dating Kleitarchos'.On the structure of the book I have some half formed thoughts and will spill ink once they are more concrete so they can be pilloried. Chaire