Year Breaks and Book ends

[Taphoi]

It is clear that this topos was not peculiar to Alexander and certainly not to book 17. Any such reading of Diodorus can really only be wishful reading.

If you look at my second post under this thread, you will see that I say (and Diodorus himself sometimes says) that the boundary phrases mark changes of source or divisions within sources used by Diodorus throughout his Library of History. So essentially we are in agreement. I am not quite clear who it is who is "wishfully reading" that these divisions are only evident in Book 17 or why they would want to wish this to be?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

It is clear that this topos was not peculiar to Alexander and certainly not to book 17. Any such reading of Diodorus can really only be wishful reading.

If you look at my second post under this thread, you will see that I say (and Diodorus himself sometimes says) that the boundary phrases mark changes of source or divisions within sources used by Diodorus throughout his Library of History. So essentially we are in agreement. I am not quite clear who it is who is "wishfully reading" that these divisions are only evident in Book 17 or why they would want to wish this to be?

I'm afraid that *I* read Paralus' posts as being in disagreement given that the "boundary phrases" throughout the rest of Diodorus (not book 17) offer little evidence that they "mark changes of source or divisions within sources". You have said yourself that Diodorus "sometimes" says this is the case. In examining the rest of the books I note that such claims are exceedingly infrequent when compared with the number of boundary phrases used. Even a cursory examination demonstrates rather obviously that Diodorus used such phrases frequently when changing subject or changing theatre. Is he being accused of merely paraphrasing Cleitarchus in book 17? And presumably doing the same with other ancient authors? And yet when one reads the rest of his books they are all consistently "Diodorus". How can he be viewed as a mere copyist, incapable, seemingly, of creating his own divisions within his work, when we do not have original sources with which his work can be compared? I hate to see one of the very few extant sources on Alexander diminished to the level of a high school student who never did his paper until the last minute and simply combined info from borrowed library books. I'd need more proof of such than his constant use of repetative boundary phrases.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

If you look at my second post under this thread, you will see that I say (and Diodorus himself sometimes says) that the boundary phrases mark changes of source or divisions within sources used by Diodorus throughout his Library of History. So essentially we are in agreement. I am not quite clear who it is who is "wishfully reading" that these divisions are only evident in Book 17 or why they would want to wish this to be?

As ever you refuse to address the issue. A sidestep such as that would be appreciated by the English rugby team.

You have stated the following:

There are, however, other echoes of the Cleitarchan book divisions in Diodorus XVII, e.g. the end of Book 4 of Cleitarchus is probably indicated by the words "Now we have described things concerning Alexander, we shall turn our narrative in another direction" at 17.47.6. Similarly the end of Book 5 at 17.63.5; the end of 6 at 17.73.4; the end of 7 at 17.83.3; the end of 12 at 17.108.3. An interesting point is that several of these boundary phrases incorporate the short title of Cleitarchus' work: Concerning Alexander. (See Section 8 of Alexander the Great in Afghanistan by Andrew Chugg for a detailed version of all this.)

Thus you adduce these boundary phrases as indicating book divisions in Diodorus' source. Further you have claimed that the use of the supposed "short title" of Cleitarchus within these boundary phrases listed above shows these as source book divisions and referencing that title. I assume you wish to walk away from that claim now? If so, that would be wise for, as I've clearly demonstrated (and seemingly you've not read), these are mere topois of Diodorus and have nothing specifically to do with Alexander or Cleitarchus. Unless of course one assumes Cleitarchus wrote "Concerning Lysimachus", "Concerning Antigonus", "Concerning Philip", et al.

It is a wonderful thing to observe wishfull readers wallowing in hermeneutic circles. You postulate a book division in Cleitarchus (a non-extant source) and see that division reflected by Diodorus' topois though it is Diodorus' use of these topois that is then adduced to prove a Cleitarchan book division. Even more tenuously, the use of the word peri in associtaion with Alexander indicates the title of the ultimate source. Clearly it is nothing of the sort.

As well, Diodorus was quite capable of inserting and arranging his own changes as well as modifying his source; he did not merely slavishly copy (the most obvious being his moralising notes). His method of dealing with concomitant events is also clear: he states it on numerous occasions (18.19.1; 17.1.1-2 and 20.43.7 - just few examples). Such divisions are as likely to be his own as his sources'. The only way to prove a direct correlation is by comparison with the original material.

As far as Cleitarchus writing in "regnal years" of Alexander is concerned, Diodorus has been (and continues, erroneously, to be by not a few) seen as a mindless, slavish compiler. In Stylianou's words "a mere epitomiser and an incompetent one at that". Diodorus - this clumsy, mindless poor excuse for an epitomiser - set out to write 40 books (that he altered that to 42 near his end is neither here nor there) and set himself a structure to follow; something he managed very well. Your Cleitarchus cannot even do this as you would contend that Cleitarchus began this work writing in years marked by Alexander's accession. It then took him all of five books to realise that Alexander died in summer and that he would have to reorganise his year ends to suit. Perhaps "the wilds of the East" is not so out there at that...

You claim that the last eight books are written summer to summer. This because, I imagine, there is no evidence you can scrape together to support regnal years. I would say that it is far more probable that the work was not ever written in regnal years; that the lack of evidence for your purported last eight books indicates what obtained for the first five.

[agesilaos]

Amyntoros wrote

Is he being accused of merely paraphrasing Cleitarchus in book 17? And presumably doing the same with other ancient authors? And yet when one reads the rest of his books they are all consistently "Diodorus". How can he be viewed as a mere copyist, incapable, seemingly, of creating his own divisions within his work, when we do not have original sources with which his work can be compared? I hate to see one of the very few extant sources on Alexander diminished to the level of a high school student who never did his paper until the last minute and simply combined info from borrowed library books. I'd need more proof of such than his constant use of repetitive boundary phrases.

Well, yes I do accuse Diodoros of sticking with one source, Kleitarchos, in Book XVII, the evidence is not the use of ‘boundary phrases’ however but the complete lack of material one would not expect to find in that History, no Sicilian Affairs and no mention of Rome. Nor is there anything to suggest that there is any source-blending, beyond minor inconsistencies equally explicable by carelessness.

Naturally, I agree that the ‘boundary phrases’ have no significance beyond being Diodoros’ standard method of changing focus. What does seem more significant, as I have said, is where he puts his year breaks, once after a retrospective (twice if there was a break after the wedding of Roxane) and twice separating a battle from its aftermath. Since these are clearly not related to Diodoros’ own annual framework, it is fair to postulate that they might relate to divisions he found in his source; in Book XVIII, for instance which is also lacking in extraneous material, the year breaks come at the end of the campaigning season, there are for archons named, Kephisodoros 2-25 (323/2), Philokles 26-43 (322/1), Apollodoros 44-57 and Archippos 58-75. It seems that Hieronymos used the campaign year to organise his work and here is that pattern reflected in Diodoros’ year breaks. We cannot be sure that Hieronymus ended his books at any particular winter, but it would seem logical that each book would end at the end of the constraining campaign season and the armies going into winter quarters. Unlike Kleitarchos, Hieronymos (or Diodoros’ source; excuse the shorthand) had a mass of data to organise throughout the Empire and his is a history concerned with causation, he needed a strong framework to keep it in order.

Kleitarchos had the luxury of organising his work around set piece events, so that in each book he may be said to have kept the best for last (evidence that Jesus read him and therefore knew Greek? ). Whilst Kleitarchos is excoriated for overblown language, and fantastic tales, his compositional powers are praised(cf POxy 4808); a bad history, well organised. Speculation, but based on reasonable assumptions I hope.

Diodoros’ value would be significantly less had he not been a student in a library doing a cut and paste job. For then we would have less of the sources we have lost preserved and when Diodoros does intrude into the work it is difficult not to describe his comments as trite.

[agesilaos]

Amyntoros wrote

Is he being accused of merely paraphrasing Cleitarchus in book 17? And presumably doing the same with other ancient authors? And yet when one reads the rest of his books they are all consistently "Diodorus". How can he be viewed as a mere copyist, incapable, seemingly, of creating his own divisions within his work, when we do not have original sources with which his work can be compared? I hate to see one of the very few extant sources on Alexander diminished to the level of a high school student who never did his paper until the last minute and simply combined info from borrowed library books. I'd need more proof of such than his constant use of repetitive boundary phrases.

Well, yes I do accuse Diodoros of sticking with one source, Kleitarchos, in Book XVII, the evidence is not the use of ‘boundary phrases’ however but the complete lack of material one would not expect to find in that History, no Sicilian Affairs and no mention of Rome. Nor is there anything to suggest that there is any source-blending, beyond minor inconsistencies equally explicable by carelessness.

Naturally, I agree that the ‘boundary phrases’ have no significance beyond being Diodoros’ standard method of changing focus. What does seem more significant, as I have said, is where he puts his year breaks, once after a retrospective (twice if there was a break after the wedding of Roxane) and twice separating a battle from its aftermath. Since these are clearly not related to Diodoros’ own annual framework, it is fair to postulate that they might relate to divisions he found in his source; in Book XVIII, for instance which is also lacking in extraneous material, the year breaks come at the end of the campaigning season, there are for archons named, Kephisodoros 2-25 (323/2), Philokles 26-43 (322/1), Apollodoros 44-57 and Archippos 58-75. It seems that Hieronymos used the campaign year to organise his work and here is that pattern reflected in Diodoros’ year breaks. We cannot be sure that Hieronymus ended his books at any particular winter, but it would seem logical that each book would end at the end of the constraining campaign season and the armies going into winter quarters. Unlike Kleitarchos, Hieronymos (or Diodoros’ source; excuse the shorthand) had a mass of data to organise throughout the Empire and his is a history concerned with causation, he needed a strong framework to keep it in order.

Kleitarchos had the luxury of organising his work around set piece events, so that in each book he may be said to have kept the best for last (evidence that Jesus read him and therefore knew Greek? ). Whilst Kleitarchos is excoriated for overblown language, and fantastic tales, his compositional powers are praised(cf POxy 4808); a bad history, well organised. Speculation, but based on reasonable assumptions I hope.

Diodoros’ value would be significantly less had he not been a student in a library doing a cut and paste job. For then we would have less of the sources we have lost preserved and when Diodoros does intrude into the work it is difficult not to describe his comments as trite.

[Paralus]

Well, yes I do accuse Diodoros of sticking with one source, Kleitarchos, in Book XVII, the evidence is not the use of ‘boundary phrases’ however but the complete lack of material one would not expect to find in that History, no Sicilian Affairs and no mention of Rome. Nor is there anything to suggest that there is any source-blending, beyond minor inconsistencies equally explicable by carelessness.

Quite. So those arguing for Duris of Samos for the Greek notices can be ignored. If Diodorus had used Duris we would certainly have had the narrative punctuated by Sicilian affairs as with 18-20 where it would seem certain that Duris is his source. Such a view concedes that Cleitarchus had absolutely no interest in the wider picture of Alexander and his activity.

Naturally, I agree that the ‘boundary phrases’ have no significance beyond being Diodoros’ standard method of changing focus. What does seem more significant, as I have said, is where he puts his year breaks, once after a retrospective (twice if there was a break after the wedding of Roxane) and twice separating a battle from its aftermath. Since these are clearly not related to Diodoros’ own annual framework, it is fair to postulate that they might relate to divisions he found in his source;

That is a better fit for such evidence as exists.

in Book XVIII, for instance which is also lacking in extraneous material, the year breaks come at the end of the campaigning season, there are for archons named, Kephisodoros 2-25 (323/2), Philokles 26-43 (322/1), Apollodoros 44-57 and Archippos 58-75. It seems that Hieronymos used the campaign year to organise his work and here is that pattern reflected in Diodoros’ year breaks. We cannot be sure that Hieronymus ended his books at any particular winter, but it would seem logical that each book would end at the end of the constraining campaign season and the armies going into winter quarters.

There is little - if any - doubt that Diodorus' source for 18 and the Successor/Greek narrative of 19-20 related matters winter to winter in the same way as Thucydides. Complicating matters is the near regular campaigning through winter. This can confuse Diodorus' chronology and the example of the siege of Tyre, which took 15 months (315-autumn 314) but is described in the one year, is just one instance. This was a problem that Diodorus recognised and, though it took some working out, he did manage to sort it. Thus he arranged his campaign years under the archon who took office in that year. The result, though not perfect, means that events begin in the late winter/spring before that archon came to office and continue through to the next winter.

Diodorus, as this shows, was far from the mindless, ignorant dullard - incapable of even basic transcribing - that many have described. Should he be excoriated it should be on the basis of his selection. One wonders what he didn't tell us whilst indulging one of his favourite interests with the Docimus affair. Whilst he is happy to relate Seleucus' loss of his satrapy and his subsequent recovery (with so small a force!), he is silent on the war between Antigonos and Seleucus over 310-308. Perhaps because there was no great turn of fortune here: that was to come at Ispus. It is also possible that he treated it in a retrospective when he covered Seleucus (book 21), I suppose (cf 19.55.9)

The blending of different sources throughout 18-20 (Sicilian and Roman narratives with the Greek/East) also shows Diodorus was eminently capable of organising his different material contemporaneously. Thus he endeavours to include - at the correct time - different theatres of action. Clearly he was able to insert his own changes of direction and focus as he thought it fit; something he did throughout his work. The source for the Greek/Successor narrative of 18-20 may well be Hieronymus but it equally, and more likely, is an intermediary (unless one postulates a source enamoured of Ptolemy and hostile to Antigonus in equal measure as an example). We do not know how this source was organised and, like the hermeneutic circle involving Cleitarchus elucidated above, we cannot claim that this source altered focus based on the fact that Diodorus does because his source did where Diodorus does. Given that Diodorus was able to edit Duris' Sicilian narrative into his Successor narrative - keeping matters as contemporaneous as possible - nothing suggests he could not have done so with his other material.

That these "boundary phrases" indicate such in Diodorus' source or that "peri Alexanderon" should indicate the title of Cleitarchus' work is a stretch. Were we to attribute such notices so readily we might have to conclude that Marsayas was the source of Diodorus . After all, many in favour of the Hieronymus "direct route" claim the notices (18.42.1; 50.4; 19.44.3; 100.1) with reference to Hieronymus prove this. What then of 20.50.4 ("Marsyas, who compiled the history of Macedonia...")?

[agesilaos]

I think you overstate my low opinion of Diodoros, it is true that I am closer to the traditional (tra-diss-ional, perhaps ) than the new wave, and I hold my hands up as an acolyte of the einquellen prinzip, after all it would be impossible to judge which lost source(s) he is following or make any judgement about their works; and that is too much fun to give up lightly. Naturally, I realise that no deductions are actually going to be free from induction, it is such a shame that the Polybian books survive only in fragments then we would have a worthwhile basis to assess Diodoros' methods, maybe they'll turn up bound at the back of some hagiographer in a Spanish monastery, or in the burnt papyri from Herculaneum. Until then we are stuck with insecure hypotheses, some more insecure than others.

Even the ‘fact’ that there is no Sicilian matter in XVII and XVIII may be in doubt as XIX 3 iii refers to Sicilian events being dealt with in ‘the previous book’. What we have may be heavily edited or lacunose (fortunately, there is no actual reference to other matters in XVII).

Concerning the Sicilian/Roman matters I have analysed Book XIX and find the first ten chapters concern the rise of Agathokles and an end note on Rome the remainder of the year, seven chapters is Diadoch, the following year chh 17-54 is entirely Diadoch, then there are ten chapters of Diadoch followed by one of Agathokles and Rome; chh 66-69 are Diadoch, 70-72 Sicilian then Roman, 73 is another year which contains three Diadoch chapters followed by one Roman; 77-100 comprise the following year’s Diadoch material then a chapter on Rome and three concerning Agathokles. Coverage of the final year in the book begins at 105 with the death of Alexander IV, the only Diadochic notice and Roman matters followed by the final five chapters on Agathokles.

This smacks to me not of integrating sources but of following the main source, whom I will call Hieronymos whilst accepting your perfectly valid caveats, and then appending matters from another probably two. This does not speak to me of an author assembling his material re-modelling it extensively and producing an integrated and nuanced text; rather it smacks of someone reading a passage making notes according to that source’s division of matters, Spring-Winter in the case of Hieronymus, I am unclear on the Sicilian source but March to March, the consular year for the annalistic Roman material. If this were the method, and I concede there is no real evidence for or against, then Diodorus would tend to preserve the scene changes of his source; it might prove fruitful to examine how the scene does shift from Europe to Asia in the Hieronymean material only I can’t see how one could decide whether the pattern originated with Diodoros or his source, the more so if one considers him to be significantly revising his sources’ structure.

Re Marsyas, the quality of the references are of a completely different order, Hieronymos’ mentions concern his missions and have an apologetic air, as well as being quite extensive whereas Marsyas merely receives a note that he wrote a History of Macedonia, something Hieronymos could well have included, as members of the Antigonid Court they may even have known and respected each other, Marsyas’ work dealt with the period up to Alexander’s departure from Egypt so they were not rivals.

Arguments based on the supposed biases of non-extant authors are never going to be strong; I suspect that the low opinion held of Diodoros would tend to make the thought of his wading through the mammoth and inelegant work of Hieronymos anathema. Yet he seems to have used Polybios’ forty books and, I would argue, the fifty-eight of Theopompos’ Philippika. Certainty is impossible as per usual.

[Paralus]

This smacks to me not of integrating sources but of following the main source, whom I will call Hieronymos whilst accepting your perfectly valid caveats, and then appending matters from another probably two. This does not speak to me of an author assembling his material re-modelling it extensively and producing an integrated and nuanced text; rather it smacks of someone reading a passage making notes according to that source’s division of matters, Spring-Winter in the case of Hieronymus, I am unclear on the Sicilian source but March to March, the consular year for the annalistic Roman material. If this were the method, and I concede there is no real evidence for or against, then Diodorus would tend to preserve the scene changes of his source; it might prove fruitful to examine how the scene does shift from Europe to Asia in the Hieronymean material only I can’t see how one could decide whether the pattern originated with Diodoros or his source, the more so if one considers him to be significantly revising his sources’ structure.

He most assuredly followed a "central" source. That source, in my view, being an intermediary rather than Hieronymus directly. The constant dismissing of Antigonus as arrogant, harsh and a rebel against the kings cannot have come from a writer patronised by the house whose founder Antigonus was; especially when contrasted with the near hagiographic approach to the arch enemy Ptolemy (and Seleucus for that matter) . He will have continued to follow this source into books 19 and 20 but here another intrudes and that source was focused upon Agathocles. The most likely candidate is Duris although it could never be ruled out that the central intermediary source also contained this. The detail - and there are long involved stretches of "Agathoclean" history with a host of named actors - speaks more to a dedicated source though.

Re Marsyas, the quality of the references are of a completely different order, Hieronymos’ mentions concern his missions and have an apologetic air, as well as being quite extensive whereas Marsyas merely receives a note that he wrote a History of Macedonia, something Hieronymos could well have included, as members of the Antigonid Court they may even have known and respected each other, Marsyas’ work dealt with the period up to Alexander’s departure from Egypt so they were not rivals.

18.42.1: Their leader was Hieronymus, who has written the history of the Successors.
18.50.4: With these plans in mind he summoned Hieronymus the historian, a friend and fellow citizen of Eumenes of Cardia, who had taken refuge in the stronghold called Nora. After endeavouring to attach Hieronymus to himself by great gifts, he sent him as an envoy to Eumenes,
19.44.3: Among the wounded there was also brought in as a captive the historian Hieronymus of Cardia, who hitherto always had been held in honour by Eumenes, but after Eumenes' death enjoyed the favour and confidence of Antigonus.
19.100.1: In charge of this he placed Hieronymus, the writer of the history, and instructed him to prepare boats, collect all the asphalt, and bring it together in a certain place.

I don't know that I'd describe those as "apologetic". Yes, they are somewhat longer that the note of Marsayas' brilliant fighting beside Demetrius, but not greatly. As for the missions, the first is to seek a rapprochement with Eumenes and the quote above it the extent of Hieronymus' role. The second, the asphalt mining, is different. Bosworth has argued that the excursus on the Nabataean Arabs and the intrinsic difficulties in subduing these disappearing nomads that appears in book 19 is Hieronymus' own excusatory manifesto for his failure. He may well be right. Still does not nail a direct usage of Hieronymus though.

Arguments based on the supposed biases of non-extant authors are never going to be strong; I suspect that the low opinion held of Diodoros would tend to make the thought of his wading through the mammoth and inelegant work of Hieronymos anathema. Yet he seems to have used Polybios’ forty books and, I would argue, the fifty-eight of Theopompos’ Philippika. Certainty is impossible as per usual.

I would think he clearly did read most, and probably all, of Polybius. Whilst one can never be certain, it's likely there was no other way in Diodorus' day.The polemics against Timaeus clearly come from this source and from memory by their presentation (13.90.6-7 and 21.17.1-3 for example). Similarly, one can never rule out that he read Hieronymus though I'd stick with my caveats for direct use above as I think it wildly unlikely that Diodorus searched for hagiographic tid-bits from a pro-Ptolemaic (and Seleucid) source to insert into his narrative.

I agree it is very unwise to proceed on the supposed biases of non-extant sources. In the case of Hieronymus, though, those biases (or the major one) were well known in antiquity:

Paus.1.13.9:
The account, how ever, given by Hieronymus the Cardian is different, for a man who associates with royalty cannot help being a partial historian. If Philistus was justified in suppressing the most wicked deeds of Dionysius, because he expected his return to Syracuse, surely Hieronymus may be fully forgiven for writing to please Antigonus.

Now, it might be said that this was simply Pausanias' view. Elsewhere, though, he makes plain that this was a widely held view in antiquity:

Paus.1.9.2:
The next part of the story is incredible to me, but Hieronymus the Cardian relates that he destroyed the tombs and cast out the bones of the dead. But this Hieronymus has a reputation generally of being biased against all the kings except Antigonus, and of being unfairly partial towards him.

Note the the reputation was generally known. It is hard to conceive that Hieronymus could so publicly trash Gonatas' grandad's reputation so.

I'd also argue that it's unwise to work from the notion of a supposed narrative structure of said sources. We simply do not know when and how those sources altered focus; the hermeneutic circles so beloved of Taphoi are always hovering. Whilst it might be more likely that these were in his source, there are always those wonderful little excursions of Diodorus - not always introduced as such to be sure - rounded off with the formulaic "now that we have said enough on XYZ, let us return to our place in our narrative" or some such to keep one guessing. The Themsitocles eulogy, to me, looms largely as Diodorus' own comment (11.58.4-59.4). Also the great long and moralising diversion into Charondas and Zaleucus(12.11.3 - 21.3) is surely fashioned by Diodorus. This addresses the other of his great themes: the law (or "good laws") and respect for it. Whilst Diodorus' source may have shared the same fetish, I get the distinct impression that the length and detail are the result of Diodorus' own investigations and embellishment.

[Paralus]

If you look at my second post under this thread, you will see that I say (and Diodorus himself sometimes says) that the boundary phrases mark changes of source or divisions within sources used by Diodorus throughout his Library of History

I would be greatly interested in your direct evidence for these "boundary phrases" marking [...] divisions within sources used by Diodorus throughout his Library of History. Your adduced "evidence" for supposed Cleitarchan book divisions have already been dealt with and so may be omitted.

An interesting point is that several of these boundary phrases incorporate the short title of Cleitarchus' work: Concerning Alexander. (See Section 8 of Alexander the Great in Afghanistan by Andrew Chugg for a detailed version of all this.)

If you purport to argue case on a forum you should be prepared to support that case. Throw away promotional lines such as the above are no such support; a summarised version of the argument might constitute such. As it is you have claimed without any support (surprise!).

Then again, if the arguments you've brought to bear in this thread are indicative, Alexander the Great in Afghanistan by Andrew Chugg might best be bypassed in favour of somewhat less "wishful" works on this Alexander source.

To quote Elton John (or, more correctly, Bernie Taupin)...

Not your alchemist
Making gold from rust