This digression is getting all set to "run and run" as the journalistic saying has it, despite it being totally irrelevant, as I have pointed out previously to the matter at hand, namely the 'Philip' tomb.....it has taken on a life of its own, seemingly !
In effect he said if your example was not congruent then no other example could exist and Diodoros must be taken chronologically, which is clearly an untenable chain of logic.
Once again I am forced to protest that what you attribute to me is not what I said at all, which was...
Since Diodorus does not in fact anticipate events for Antigonus, and chronology is not suborned, then by your reasoning he is unlikely to be doing so for Kassandros....and it would appear there is ample time for the funerals to have taken place in the sequence Diodorus gives, and before news of Eumenes demise arrived. On balance of probability then, it would seem there is no reason to prefer Diyllus over Diodorus.
Where do I say "must" or "no other example could exist " ? That is a 'straw man' argument, setting up a distortion of my words so as to knock it down, an 'Aunt Sally' argument if you will....
I was not setting up a logic sequence of my own, but commenting on Paralus' reasoning, which in essence was that D. had telescoped events out of chronological sequence in respect of Antigonus and was therefore doing the same in respect of Kassandros. This of course does not necessarily follow in any event, but certainly didn't here because the foundation of his argument was not, in fact, correct. Diod. had not referred to events in respect of Antigonus out of chronological sequence, a point on which Agesilaos and I seemingly agree. Since Paralus' reasoning ( not mine) relied on the similarities between D.'s descriptions not being in chronological sequence in the case of both Antigonus and Kassandros, I was pointing out that if they were in correct sequence for Antigonus, then by Paralus' reasoning that what was true of one was true of the other ( which of itself is not strictly logical ), his case fell down.
For those 'Pothos' readers not familiar with legal Latin, I would explain that a 'non sequitur' (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a' non sequitur', the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion, as here where even if Paralus was correct in Diod. going out of chronological sequence regarding Antigonus, it does not necessarily follow that he does with regard to Kassandros.
Paralus was right that the reference to 'non sequitur' should have meant his ( Paralus) argument, for I did not offer up one of my own, contra Agesilaos !
These are separate points. The first refers to the more important philoi and here some of these receive the satrapies and commands at this synhedrion. The second relates back to the philoi in general - the "not so important" philoi and those of the "more important" philoi yet to receive a reward - who have great expectations dangled before them. Two distinct groups are the subject of each notice.
This is rather hair-splitting I think. Your original argument was that D. here refers to both the "promises" of 319/318 and actual appointments made in 316, hence conflating chronological sequence. Now it appears you agree that D. is referring solely to "this synhedrion", that of 319/318, but that two types of appointments were made. The first, actually saying to some "You are now Satrap of 'X' with effect from today." while making future promises to others; "when we win, you will be made a Satrap". Whether there were two different types of 'appointment' made in 319/318 hardly matters. Whatever was said, D. is talking about what was said at that time, not referencing what was later said in 316, and on this basis your assertion about D.'s comments on Antigonus fall down, as Agesilaos and I apparently agree.[ assuming I have interpreted what he is saying correctly! ]
On a purely practical point, Antigonus cannot have assigned satrapies to some of his philoi without those satrapies under his control.
Why not ? In cementing the loyalties of his 'philoi' why could not Antigonus have said in 319/318 words to the effect of "So far as I am concerned, you are now Satrap of "X", not that lick-spittle of Eumenes, and the sooner we go there and kick the bastard out, the sooner you take up your satrapy."....or similar ?
Of course, Antigonus might dispose of any who accepted such in favour of his philoi but that would not do the continued use of the gambit - used throughout his career - much good...
...again, why not? I agree with Agesilaos, that such "political horse-trading is as old as the hills, as are empty promises swallowed wholesale."....as now, apparently, do you. A series of 'renegging' might debase the value of this particular coin, but when it is the only coin around, those offered it would have no choice but to accept it despite their increasing lack of confidence in Antigonus' promises....
Anyhow, what was initiated as an irrelevant aside as to just when the funeral of Philip III Arrhidaeus, Eurydike and Cynna occurred ( when the point was that the three were buried together) has now assumed all the debate of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'.
Let me see if I can summarise the positions. Paralus proposes that the funerals must have taken place in the Autumn, on the artificial basis that Diyllus, as referred to by Athenaios is to be preferred to Diodorus' clear sequence for events, in turn based on the incorrect grounds that D. mixes up chronological sequence regarding Antigonus. In addition, he chooses to place Olympias' trial/execution in mid March/early April - on what grounds he says not, other than to suggest 'beginning' of Spring means mid-March, and then argues that there wasn't time for Krateros to have the wedding, found the city, and conduct the funeral before "mid-to-late April, or even May" when we agree that news of Eumenes defeat likely occurred. But there was ample time of several weeks, even accepting Paralus' dating of Olympias' demise. Moreover, the hot potato of eliminating Olympias will have brooked little delay after she surrendered in perhaps as early as January/Feb - as always in such cases : "If 'twere done, 'twas best done quickly..." Hard to imagine him keeping her around for almost two months, especially as he made sure her victims got their revenge A.S.A.P after "trial." I am not sure of what significance Paralus puts on 52.6, for Cleitus merely foresees Antigonus' revolt, and takes ship to Macedonia to warn of it and enlist aid for himself. Antigonus then openly revolts by seizing the treasure at Ephesus.
Paralus seems to be using rationalisation - start with your conclusion - 'the funerals must have occurred at the end of the year' and then rationalise/reverse engineer the timings to preclude them occurring as Diodorus says they did.
Agesilaos' position seems to be that we can accept both, provided Diodorus sequence is illustrative rather than strictly sequential.
If one can accept both Diodoros' and Diyllos' statements, which one can by contextualising Diodoros' sentence as illustrative rather than narrative, then unless there is good reason to reject one of them one should accept both. If one chooses to reject Diyllos here one ought to suggest why he would falsify the chronology. I can see no reason, no advantage to misreporting when Philip III et al was buried, indeed doubting that casts doubt on all the information therein; if he was not returning from Boeotia was Kynna actually 'given funeral rites'? Diyllos was at Athens, presumably, so distance from events would not be a factor. The only hypothesis seems to be an error, which is an explanation of last resort.
I would agree that it need not be a 'one-or-the-other' situation. We don't actually have Diyllus' version, only Athenaios casually referring it out of context on the one hand, and Diodorus' clear sequence on the other, and he was quite possibly using Diyllus 'Universal History' as a source for his own. Given that, it may possibly be that Diodorus is the more accurate reporter of Diyllus as compared to Athenaios who wasn't even writing history and who may well be a trifle careless with the facts regarding anecdotes for a dinner symposion.
My position is that before or after are both possible, that we can't be entirely certain of fuzzy timings, but that Spring is certainly possible.Olympias' trial and execution after her surrender were likely to have been fairly prompt [why keep her around?], and that events probably occurred in the sequence Diodorus reported them( especially as Kassandros awaits reaction to Olympias' death) and that there was ample time for all this ( which needed no more than a few weeks at most) to occur before the arrival of the news of Eumenes defeat and death, possibly in mid-late April. For that matter there was more time after, for the Army would likely have set off at the end of May/beginning of June at the earliest, bearing in mind crop ripening.....
Therefore no need to hypothesise that Diodorus was "wrong" in quoting his sequence of events for Kassandros, which is perfectly possible and plausible, for all the reasons debated above.. and if I must choose between Spring or Autumn, I think Spring the more likely on weight of evidence.
It seems to me that throughout his universal history D. is at pains to report things in sequence, albeit turning from one region to another, and when events get slightly out of sequence, he says so as quoted above:
With the aid of Fortune he gained so great an increase in power that he took over the royal armies and championed the kings against those who had boldly tried to end their rule. But we shall relate these events in more detail a little later in their proper place.
We cannot, of course, be certain on the evidence we have, hence the reference to an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" type of debate....nor does it matter to the subject, to which we can now hopefully return.
P.S. : No need to go trawling for D. describing events out of sequence, given his style of reporting region by region, one might expect that he probably does from time to time, but just because he does on some occasions doesn't mean he does on THIS occasion (that is another form of flawed logic - a hasty generalisation, or false analogy, even a 'non sequitur !
.....the finding of such simply means it is possible for him to get his chronology wrong, but not necessarily probable, for here he is very firm as to the sequence of events he is reporting.....