pothos.org

Recently I came across the somewhat surprising claim that Kleitarchos ended his first five books on the anniversary of Alexander’s accession and that his fifth book ended at midnight 1 Oct 331.

Now none of the fragments we have mention that they are the opening of any book nor the ending, where has this claim come from? The author believes that Kleitarchos assigned one year of the reign to an individual book, Diodoros too writes annalistically so presumably his method is to look at where Diodoros places his year divisions in Book XVII. Not a ridiculous notion, an author like Diodoros may well have preserved the book endings and beginnings as convenient yearly divisions. But just how true is this assumption?

2 1 When Evaenetus was archon at Athens, the Romans elected as consuls Lucius Furius and Gaius Manius.2 In this year Alexander, succeeding to the throne, first inflicted due punishment on his father's murderers,3 and then devoted himself to the funeral of his father. 2 He established his authority far more firmly than any did in fact suppose possible, for he was quite young and for this reason not uniformly respected, but first he promptly won over the Macedonians to his support by tactful statements.4 He declared that the king was changed only in name and that the state would be run on principles no less effective than those of his father's administration. Then he addressed himself to the embassies which were p123present and in affable fashion bade the Greeks maintain towards him the loyalty which they had shown to his father. 3 He busied his soldiers with constant training in the use of their weapons and with tactical exercises, and established discipline in the army.

This is all well and good as a start to an Alexander history but now we come to our first reason to doubt the next year notice is

17 1 When Ctesicles was archon at Athens, the Romans elected as consuls Gaius Sulpicius and Lucius Papirius. Alexander advanced with his army to the Hellespont and transported it from Europe to Asia. 2 He personally sailed with sixty fighting ships to the Troad, where he flung his spear from the ship and fixed it in the ground, and then leapt ashore himself the first of the Macedonians, signifying that he received Asia from the gods as a spear-won prize. 3 He visited the tombs of the heroes Achilles, Ajax, and the rest and honoured them with offerings and other appropriate marks of respect, and then proceeded to make an accurate count of his accompanying forces.

This is TWO years on, the previous year had ended with the banquet/festival just before the crossing and this book starts with the crossing itself. Is it likely that this occured on the same day as the battle of Gaugamela? Arrian tells us that Alexander crossed twenty days after the beginning of the campaigning season (I xi) which certainly did not start in September. Already the annalistic Kleitarchos is confounded. Book I consisted of two years and ended not with the Olympian Games at Aigai as established by Archelaos and celebrated by Philip after the fall of Olynthos, the date of the Festival is, unfortunately, unclear, but with the later celebrations described by Chares but not dated. Book two would begin at least twenty days later probably a whole season.

It ends with ‘the capture of the littoral as far as Cilicia’ an event that belongs after the move from Gordion in 333 once again not synchronous with the other book endings. Then we have

29 1 When Nicocrates was archon at Athens, Caeso Valerius and Lucius Papirius became consuls at Rome. In this year Dareius sent money to Memnon and appointed him commanding general of the whole war. 2 He gathered a force of mercenaries, manned three hundred ships, and pursued conflict vigorously. He secured Chios, and then coasting along to Lesbos easily mastered Antissa and Methymna and Pyrrha and Eressus. Mitylenê also, large and possessd of rich stores of supplies as well as plenty of fighting men, he nevertheless captured with difficulty by assault after a siege of many days and with the loss of many of his soldiers. 3 News of the general's activity spread like wildfire and most of the Cyclades sent missions to him. As word came to Greece that Memnon was about to sail to Euboea with his fleet, the cities of that island became alarmed, while those Greeks who were friendly to Persia, notably Sparta, began to have high hopes of a change in the political situation. 4 Memnon distributed bribes freely and won many Greeks over to share the Persian hopes, but Fortune nevertheless put an end to his career. He fell ill and died, seized by a desperate malady, and with his death Dareius's fortunes also collapsed

A retrospective report of the Persian side of things bringing matter back into synch; Alexander heard of Memnon’s death once he reached Tarsos in Cilicia. The rest of the book concerns the campaign of Issos ending with the evening of the battle since the next division starts

40 1 When Niceratus was archon at Athens, the Romans elected as consuls Marcus Atilius and Marcus Valerius, and the one hundred and twelfth Olympic Games were held, in which Grylus of Chalcis was the victor. In this year, Alexander buried the dead from his victory at Issus, including even those of the Persians who had distinguished themselves by courage. Then he performed rich sacrifices to the gods and rewarded those who had borne themselves well in battle with gifts appropriate to each, and rested the army for some days. 2 Then he marched on towards Egypt, and as he came into Phoenicia, received the submission of all the other cities, for their inhabitants accepted him willingly.

This division is day specific, it is the day after the battle as we shall she the very same construct is used for Gaugamela, yet they were fought in different months. Once again, no synchronism.

The next division comes at the capture Gaza.

49 1 In the archonship of Aristophanes at Athens, the consuls at Rome were Spurius Postumius and Titus Veturius. In this year King Alexander set in order the affairs of Gaza and sent off Amyntas with ten ships to Macedonia, with orders to enlist the young men who were fit for military service. He himself with all his army marched on to Egypt and secured the adhesion of all its cities without striking a blow. 2 For since the Persians had committed impieties against the temples and had governed harshly, the Egyptians welcomed the Macedonians.

Then we have a division at at the end of the battle of Gaugamela or Arbela in Diodoros

62 1 When Aristophon was archon at Athens, the consular office at Rome was assumed by Gaius Domitius and Aulus Cornelius. In this year word was brought to Greece about the battle near Arbela, and many of the cities became alarmed at the growth of Macedonian power and decided that they should strike for their freedom while the Persian cause was still alive. 2 They expected that Dareius would help them and send them much money so that they could gather great armies of mercenaries, while Alexander would not be able to divide his forces. 3 If, on the other hand, they watched idly while the Persians were utterly defeated, the Greeks would be isolated and never again be able to think of recovering their freedom.

And and then

64 1 After his defeat in the battle near Arbela, Dareius directed his course to the upper satrapies, seeking by putting distance between himself and Alexander to gain a respite and time enough to organize an army. He made his way first to Ecbatana in Media and paused there, picking up the stragglers p301from the battle and rearming those who had lost their weapons.1 2 He sent around to the neighbouring tribes demanding soldiers, and he posted couriers to the satraps and generals in Bactria and the upper satrapies, calling upon them to preserve their loyalty to him.
3 After the battle, Alexander buried his dead and entered Arbela, finding there abundant stores of food, no little barbaric dress and treasure, and three thousand talents of silver.3 Judging that the air of the region would be polluted by the multitude of unburied corpses, he continued his advance immediately and arrived with his whole army at Babylon. 4 Here the people received him gladly, and furnishing them billets feasted the Macedonians lavishly.5 Alexander refreshed his army from its private labours and remained more than thirty days in the city because food was plentiful and the population friendly.

So what we can say is that if the year breaks in Diodoros do reflect the book breaks in Kleitarchos then his method was not annalistic but dramatic, he ended each book with bang, a revel, the story of the Mamares’ suicide rather than the chronological advent to Cilicia, the battle of Issos, the fall of Gaza, the battle of Gaugamela. There is simply no anniversarial ordering all of these events occured on different days and most likely different months.

agesilaos wrote:Recently I came across the somewhat surprising claim that Kleitarchos ended his first five books on the anniversary of Alexander’s accession and that his fifth book ended at midnight 1 Oct 331.

Now none of the fragments we have mention that they are the opening of any book nor the ending, where has this claim come from? The author believes that Kleitarchos assigned one year of the reign to an individual book, Diodoros too writes annalistically so presumably his method is to look at where Diodoros places his year divisions in Book XVII.

No. Diodorus puts his year boundaries at the Attic Archon Year divisions, which are at or near the first New Moon after the Summer Solstice. (He does so throughout his Library of History - not just in his Book XVII, which was the only major area where he used Cleitarchus.) Alexander's accession would be 27th Boedromion in the Autumn according to the theory that you mention (which happens also to have been the Autumnal Equinox in 336BC!) Therefore Diodorus did NOT adopt the postulated Cleitarchan year divisions. 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.)

Best wishes,

Andrew

Oh dear, that is quite wrong. Diodoros labels his years with archons and consuls (or tribunes during periods of alleged anarchy at Rome) what he never does is align his historical material with the years of the magistracies, hence his complete muddle in the so-called Hieronymean books XVIII-XX. This is easily demonstrable as he divides both the battle of Issos and the battle of Gaugamela from the burying of the ensuing dead with a year break neither battle occured at the New Moon after the summer solstice. This very separation of material demonstrates that he is not attempting to relate material to the magisterial year, the full moon/eclipse before Gaugamela was well known and he must have realised that it occured after the beginning of the archon year, yet he chooses to put the battle under the previous archon and the disposal of the dead under the next. I can see no compositional rationale for Diodoros to choose to separate these events, twice whereas it would make sense for his source.

In my opinion there is nothing to be read into those linkages, they are paralelled throughout the 'Library' whenever the scene shifts, I don't think you would suggest he is changing sources.

What is your evidence that Kleitarchos divided his books into regnal years?

Part II

Having been fairly negative in the last section let us explore the remaining year sections in Diodoros and how they might relate to Kleitarchos’ original;

I Accession – Banquet of Friends
II Crossing – Capture of Cilician Littoral tale of Mamares’ suicides
III Memnon s campaign - Issos
IV Burying dead of Issos – Capture of Gaza
V March to Egypt – Battle of Gaugamela (Agiad War)
VI Gaugamela – end of Agis’ War
VII Bessos situation – Start of 1st Sogdian revolt
VIII Campaign against Parapanisadae –lost
IX Lost – Mophis mistaken for enemy tragedy averted
X Move against Poros – Opis Revolt
XI Persianisation –Sinister entry into Babylon
XII World embassies – Rumours of murder, Suicide of Sysigambis

Several issue arise, how do the fragments with book numbers fit in? Can the break between VIII and IX be retrieved?

Clearly if the numbered fragments cannot be assigned to the scope of the book suggested by this method of retrieving the limits of Kleitarchos’ divisions then the method must fail.

The first assigned fragment concerns the spoils from the destruction of Thebes (Athenaeus IV 30) it belongs to Book I as it would here.

The next is assigned to book IV, Athenaeus XII 39 ‘But Cleitarchus, in the fourth book of his ‘History of Alexander’, says Sardanapalus died of old age after he had lost the sovreignty over the Syrians. (Trans. C D Yonge). I give the quote because had Kleitarchos given his note about Sardanapalus on the same occaision as Arrian, a visit to his Tomb in Anchiale then it ought to appear in Book III on this scheme. Bang goes a theory? Perhaps, but there is no reason to think Kleitarchos dealt in detail the sojourn in Cilicia (the details in Curtius seem to come from Ptolemy). The main concern is to correct the accepted story (Ctesias) that Sardanapalus was burned alive at Ninevah. Possibly he mentioned it in connection with Dareios’ retreat. It must be conceded that the tomb would afford an equally good, if not better opportunity, and at the time Ninevah was a ruin. It would be simple to postulate a paralleling of Dareios and Sardanapalus, but this is not reflected in the sources and must remain in the realm of fantasy.

Two fragments are assigned to Book V, Stobaeus Flor. IV 20 73, Theias Byblios falling in love with his daughter and Harpocration explaining ‘homereuontas’ mention Kleitarchos as giving 50 for the number of Spartan hostages after Agis’ War. Theias is otherwise unknown but Byblos is a Phoenician city, which might suggest a context in Bk IV, however it is also concerned with incest and that is an Egyptian Institution which could put it in our Book V. The Spartan hostages cannot have been sent before Agis’ defeat which is related in the year we are calling Book VI. However, Diodoros chooses to end the first half of Book XVII immediately after mentioning it. This may represent a break found in his source, The Metz Epitome is titled Book II and begins after the death of Dareios, not precisely sychronous but perhaps indicating a bi-partite source. In which case perhaps having given Gaugamela Diodoros felt impelled to mention the correct year for it and the appended the final matter from his source which ended at the break between parts I and II. Special pleading, but not so incredible. Justin/Trogus also divides his treatment at the death of Dareios and continues with the Agiad war. The attribution is based on editorial authority rather than manuscript but since I cannot remember how the text stands I cannot use that argument.

A notice on the upright tiara being the preserve of Royalty is from Book X (Schol. Aristophanes Birds 487) which if the reference was to the ill-reported assumption of power by and the disorder in Persis during Alexander’s absence is where this scheme would put it.

Finally a note (Diog. Laertius I 6) on the contempt for death felt by the gymnosophists is assigned to Book XII. This must surely be a reference to the death of Kalanos and his self-immolation. Sadly, this story is told by Diodoros in the division here identified as Book XI and it would be specious to suggest that the reference could refer to a recapitulation rather than the original notice. Yet, all is not lost.

When one analyses the length of each year in Diodoros one finds

I 158
II 123
III 112
IV 104
V 127
VI 121
VII 78
VIII [25]
IX [39]
X 235
XI {42}
XII 65

It would be foolish to suggest that every year would be treated at the same length but excluding the lacunose and introductory/final books we have a range of 78-127 lines (in translation and not counting part lines, so only roughly). The exception that leaps out is Book X’s 235! It would seem that there is a division missing here. I would suggest the break came with Alexander’s wounding among the Malli, line 119 which would make the next book start with his recovery and have 116 lines. Thus XI would become XII and this reference would fit.

The next problem may also be susceptible to solution. Wee text for lack the lacuna (obviously!) but we still have the table of contents, which is not a detailed break down of everything covered, nor does each heading cover matter of equal length but it provides a basis for argument.

1. How Alexander marched desert through the and lost many of his men (this and the subsequent chapters are missing).
2. How the Branchidae, who of old had been settled by the Persians on the borders of their kingdom, were slain by Alexander as traitors to the Greeks.
3. How the king led his troops against the Sogdiani and Scythians.
4. How the chieftains of the Sogdiani, who were being led off to execution, were unexpectedly saved.
5. How Alexander defeated the Sogdiani who had revolted and slew more than one hundred and twenty thousand of them.
6. How he punished the Bactriani and subdued the Sogdiani a second time and founded cities in suitable places to restrain any who rebelled.
7. The third rebellion of the Sogdiani and capture of those who took refuge in the "Rock."
8. Concerning the hunt in Basista and the abundance of game there.
9. Concerning the sin against Dionysus and the slaying of Cleitus at the drinking bout.
10.Concerning the death of Callisthenes.
11.The campaign of the king against the people called Nautaces and the destruction of the army in heavy snow.
12. How Alexander, enamoured of Roxanê, daughter of Oxyartes, married her and persuaded numbers of his friends to marry the daughters of the prominent Iranians.
13. Preparation for the campaign against the Indians.
14. Invasion of India and complete annihilation of their first nation in order to overawe the rest.
15. How he benefited the city named Nysia because of his relationship to it through Dionysus.
16. How, after plundering the stronghold of Massaca, he cut down all the mercenaries although they fought magnificently

Compositional considerations must take precedence so the book end ought to be a bang. The third rebellion and the capture of the ‘Rock’ is a possible followed by a hunt but it seems to leave too little material in Book VIII . My preference is for the Marriage to Roxane, which is presented out of chronological position just as the story of the Mamares at the end of Book II, this might also explain why the single marriage becomes a mass wedding here in order to provide a bigger finish.

This is not a perfect solution but does seem to answer most questions and serves to warn us when dealing with the ends of the books to be on the look out for ‘add-on goodies’.

agesilaos wrote:Diodoros labels his years with archons and consuls (or tribunes during periods of alleged anarchy at Rome) what he never does is align his historical material with the years of the magistracies, hence his complete muddle in the so-called Hieronymean books XVIII-XX. This is easily demonstrable as he divides both the battle of Issos and the battle of Gaugamela from the burying of the ensuing dead with a year break neither battle occured at the New Moon after the summer solstice. This very separation of material demonstrates that he is not attempting to relate material to the magisterial year, the full moon/eclipse before Gaugamela was well known and he must have realised that it occured after the beginning of the archon year, yet he chooses to put the battle under the previous archon and the disposal of the dead under the next. I can see no compositional rationale for Diodoros to choose to separate these events, twice whereas it would make sense for his source.

I have no problem agreeing that Diodorus’ attempts to use Archon years are inaccurate. But the point is that his chronological divisions are not related to those of his sources. They could not be unless his sources also used Archon Years and Roman Consuls, which in general they did not.

agesilaos wrote:In my opinion there is nothing to be read into those linkages, they are paralelled throughout the 'Library' whenever the scene shifts, I don't think you would suggest he is changing sources.

I absolutely do suggest that most of the boundary phrases in Diodorus indeed reflect either divisions within his sources or his moves between his sources. In some cases he is explicit that this is the significance of his boundary phrase. For example, he uses a boundary phrase at 16.76.4 immediately prior to announcing that this was where his source, Ephorus of Kyme, had ended his history.

agesilaos wrote:What is your evidence that Kleitarchos divided his books into regnal years?

Many reasons, but overall because everything can be shown to be consistent with a thirteen book structure at one book per year for Cleitarchus. One example is that Fragment 6 is from the 12th book and appears to be from the funeral of Calanus (by analogy with the material on the same topic in Diodorus). Btw Cleitarchus' History Concerning Alexander was in two parts, just as Diodorus XVII is in two parts. Part One ended at the end of book 5 with Gaugamela and used regnal years. But he seems not to have followed regnal years for the second half of his work, perhaps because his dating information on the expedition was not sufficiently accurate once it had gone out into the wilds of the East or perhaps because the thirteenth book had to end in the Summer, so his book boundaries needed to migrate into the Summer.

I'm afraid that your Part 2 makes no sense to me, because there were 13 books rather than the twelve that you have assumed.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote: I'm afraid that your Part 2 makes no sense to me, because there were 13 books rather than the twelve that you have assumed.

Is the above your hypothesis or a statement of fact?

Best regards,

You ought to actually read Part II, Taphoi; if you take the trouble to do so, you will find that I arrive at thirteen books as well; precisely because of the reference to 'the gymnosophists contempt for death’ which Diogenes puts in Book XII.

What I cannot find is the precise anniversary divisions you postulate. And you must confess it is somewhat specious to announce in your video that Kleitarchos divides the battle of Gaugamela from the next day’s cleaning up operations, something found in Diodoros at a year division; exactly the same occuring in his treatment of Issos. Once the imagined significance of that break is exploded the the rest of the exposition is simply urinating in a force 9.

amyntoros wrote: Is the above your hypothesis or a statement of fact?

It is my hypothesis, but it is supported by a great deal of evidence. Other numbers of books can be shown to lead to major contradictions with the evidence.
Best wishes,
Andrew

agesilaos wrote:What I cannot find is the precise anniversary divisions you postulate. And you must confess it is somewhat specious to announce in your video that Kleitarchos divides the battle of Gaugamela from the next day’s cleaning up operations, something found in Diodoros at a year division; exactly the same occuring in his treatment of Issos. Once the imagined significance of that break is exploded the the rest of the exposition is simply urinating in a force 9.

It is not just Diodorus, but also Curtius who has a major division between Gaugamela and the day after. This makes it overwhelmingly likely that this reflects the same division in their common source: Cleitarchus. It would be the division between books 5 and 6. Justin 11.14.6 (also ultimately deriving from Cleitarchus) asserts that Gaugamela fitted within the fifth year after Alexander's accession. If you project the Attic date of the 2nd October 331BC back to the year of Alexander's accession using the Attic Lunar calendar, then you arrive at the Autumnal Equinox in 336BC. We know that Philip was assassinated on a major festival day. We are fairly sure that the Macedonian year was kicked off by the first New Moon after the Autumnal Equinox. So I find it quite persuasive that Cleitarchus believed the day after Gaugamela to be the fifth anniversary of Alexander's accession and therefore chose that day to begin the second part of his work with his sixth book. There are a lot of other supporting strands of evidence for the one book per year hypothesis too.
Best wishes,
Andrew

For the record here are all the fragments which mention a Book number

Book I
Athenaeus IV 30 p148 D-F
Viewing all this, which surpasses what we have, we may well admire Greek poverty, having also before our eyes the dinners of the Thebans, an account of which is given by Kleitarchos in the first book of his ‘History of Alexander. He says that after the demolition of their city by Alexander, their entire wealth was found to be under 440 Talents; he further says that they were mean spirited and stingy where food was concerned, preparing for their meals mincemeat in leaves, and boiled vegetables, anchovies, and other small fish, sausages, beef-ribs, and pease-porridge.
Diod 17

Book IV
Athenaeus XII 39 p 530 A
But Kleitarchos, in the fourth book of his ‘History of Alexander’, says Sardanapalus died of old age after he had lost the sovereignty of the Syrians.

Book V
Stobaeus Flor. IV 20 73
Kleitarchos, in the fifth book of his ‘History of Alexander’: Theias Byblios, of whom it is said that he surpassed all human possibility with his handsomeness and that he fell in love with his own daughter called Myrra...
Harpokration homereuontas
Used by Aeschines in the oration ‘Against Ctesiphon’ and applied to the Lacedaimonians sent up to Alexander. Kleitarchos says in the fifth(?) book that the hostages given by the Lacedaimonians were fifty.

Book X
Schol. Aristophanes Aves 487
All the Persians were allowed to wear the tiara, but not upright, as Kleitarchos says in the tenth book. Only the King of the Persians wore it upright.

Book XII
Diog. Laertius I 6
That the Gymnosophists at all events despise even death itself is affirmed by Kleitarchos in his twelfth book.

Whether six references constitute ‘a great deal of evidence’ is something the reader will have to decide. There is no reason, for instance that the reference in Book XII could not come in the main Indian narrative and if one chooses to believe that the succession crisis in Curtius X comes from Kleitarchos I see no evidence that the work may not have comprised fourteen or fifteen books.

There is no real evidence that the work was divided into two parts other than the facts that the Metz Epitome calls itself Book II and begins directly after the death of Dareios, Justin spreads his account over two books, XI and XII; XI finishes with the death of Dareios. Curtius’ mid-point at the end of BookV is the death of Darieos. Only Diodoros divides his Book XVII with Arbela and the Agiad War. What evidence there is then points to the death of Dareios in Hekatombaion of Aristophon’s archonship as the dividing line. Diodoros reports this at the end of Aristophon’s archonship Arrian implies it is at the beginning for Diodoros has Aristophon assume office the day after Arbela, which is a nonsense. Diodoros’ archons are all out of synch since he has Philip assassinated under Pythodoros (XVI 91) but Alexander accede under Evaenetos (XVII 2)!

Yes the autumnal equinox of 336 fell on 27 Boedromion, assuming no tampering; but the significant date is 1 Dios, the beginning of the year and that is 3 days later nor can it be stated for certain that Philip was slain at a major festival other than the one he arranged to celebrate Cleopatra’s wedding to Alexander of Epeiros. It seems to be an amalgm of Archelaos’ Olympian Games and the Festival of the Muses associated with Dion rather than Aigai. And crucially it contradicts the statements of the reign’s length by Aristoboulos and in Diodoros which would put it in Appellaios which ran, 29 Oct – 28 Nov.

Justin’s ‘6 Hoc proelio Asiae imperium rapuit, quinto post acceptum regnum anno’ means just what it says ‘By this battle he seized the sovereignty of Asia, in the fifth year after becoming king.’ Any accession date after 26 Boedromion is encompassed, as Aristoboulos’ date would be. Had it occurred on the anniversary of his accession it is striking that no Greek bothered to mention it when sychronisms were a favourite trope.

agesilaos wrote:Had it occurred on the anniversary of his accession it is striking that no Greek bothered to mention it when sychronisms were a favourite trope.

You appear horribly to have misunderstood. The anniversary was on the day after the battle, not on the day of the battle.
Best wishes,
Andrew

No, you seem to be horribly naive to think that would make any difference to a Greek, in effect he would have taken Asia on the same date he ascended the Macedonian throne. This would be a gift to those who forced a synchronism between news of the Olympic victory, an Illyrian victory and the fall of Potidaea and Alexander's birth.

Further, the society we know most about, to whit the Athenian set their calendar with the first new moon after the summer solstice and yet they do not seem to have a Festival for the solstice itself

Skirophorion (festival of Demeter)


Beginning (3?): Arrhephoria -- This was the hidden rite revolving around two young priestesses of Athene, called the Arrhephoroi (perhaps "Carriers of Unspoken Things"). After living in Athene's temple for two years, they perform various secret rituals, including carrying a package by a secret path to the sanctuary of Aphrodite in the Gardens, and bringing back another secret package. Then they were replaced by two new girls. The Arrhephoroi wore white robes and ate a special light bread.

3: Three Sacrifices -- On this day, a ewe was sacrificed to Athene, a ram to Zeus and a ram to Poseidon.

12: Skiraphoria -- Also called the Skira, the festival of the cutting and threshing of the grain. Priests and priestesses went in procession to the Skiron, the sacred sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, where the first sowing supposedly took place. The festival was celebrated mostly by women, who abstained from sex on this day in order to bring fertility to the land. They threw cakes shaped like snakes and phalluses as well as sucking pigs into the sacred caverns of Demeter. The men had a race carrying vine-branches from the sanctuary of Dionysos to the temple of Athene Skiras. The winner was given the Fivefold Cup, which contained wine, honey, cheese, corn and olive oil. He shared this drink with the goddess, pouring her a libation to request her blessing on the fruits of the season.

14: Dipolieia -- This was a festival of Zeus as god of the city. Barley and wheat were placed on an altar. When the sacrificial bull ate the grain, he was killed by a priest, who immediately threw down his poleax and fled. The poleax was later tried formally for murder. This festival was considered antiquated by the fourth century.

Last Day: Sacrifice to Zeus the Savior and Athene the Savior -- A sacrifice (possibly a bull) was made on the last day of the old year to ensure good health, etc., for the coming year.

Naturally this proves nothing but it does suggestthat the Greeks attached no significance to their 'marker' days.

Taphoi wrote:No. Diodorus puts his year boundaries at the Attic Archon Year divisions, which are at or near the first New Moon after the Summer Solstice. (He does so throughout his Library of History - not just in his Book XVII, which was the only major area where he used Cleitarchus.)

Diodorus actually used the combination of three chronographic methods: Olympiads, Archon years and Roman consuls; the last two being incompatible and the consular years were likely necessitated by his Roman material. Such a system was bound to produce difficulties with material that did not conform to it as is shown by his use of Ephorus. The source for the books 18-20 clearly used a campaigning season of winter to winter (as with Thucydides) which caused problems that Diodorus was clearly aware of and eventually rectified (even if that meant that part of the year was under the wrong Archon).

Taphoi wrote: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.)

I think that rather tenuous and one might want to have particularly dedicated hearing to pick up these “echoes”. Perhaps it would be better to look at these purported Cleitarchan “book divisions” from book 17:

47.6: Now that we have described Alexander's activity, we shall turn our narrative in another direction.
63.5: Now that we have run through the events in Europe, we may in turn pass on to what occurred in Asia.
73.4: That was the situation in Asia.
83.3: Such was the state of Alexander's affairs.
108.3: These were the concerns of Alexander.

At first blush these appear persuasive. Were these isolated – and more particularly to book 17 – they might well be. Unfortunately they are not. The problem for the thesis that these are indicators of Cleitarchan book divisions is that notices such as these are a standard Diodoran literary device. The first two examples (17.47.6; 63.5) are found elsewhere throughout Diodorus’ work and, in book 17, the first is at 5.1 ("Now that we have described what took place in Greece, we shall shift our account to the events in Asia"). This is not cited as a book division as the others are argued to be. This will be because it occurs before the Theban revolt which Athenaeus places in Cleitarchus' first book. It is, though, no different to the others and is simply employed as a method of transferring the narrative. There is no reason why the others must be seen as different.

These devices are not limited to the personal (being used also for geographic areas as in the above examples) and literally litter his work as a quick resume shows.

Geographic (ta men oun kata ton [Asia/Europe/etc.] en toutois ēn)

16.13.3: This was the situation of affairs in Syracuse; 16.20.6: Such was the condition of affairs in Sicily; 16.42.4: Such was the situation in Cyprus; 16.52.8: And this was the state of affairs in Asia; 16.69.7: Such was the state of affairs in Sicily; 16.70.6: Such was the condition of affairs in Sicily; 16.76.4: Such was the situation at Perinthus and Byzantium; 17.7.10: That was the situation in Asia; 18.13.6: Such was the situation in Europe; 18.49.4: This was the state of affairs in Macedonia.

Personal (kai ta men peri [name] en toutois ēn; ta men oun kata ton [name] en toutois ēn):
16.68.3: Such was the situation as regards Hicetas and Dionysius; 16.89.3: This was the state of affairs as regards Philip; 18.47.5: This was the situation in regard to Antigonus; 19.59.6: This was the situation of the affairs of Antigonus and of Phila, the wife of Demetrius; 19.62.9: Such was the state of Antigonus' affairs.

This, whilst exhausting, is far from exhaustive. What is clear is that this is, for Diodorus, a standard device to sum up and/or change theatres. The latter is clearly so for the geographic notations but also applies to the personal notations. Diodorus’ use of it is, moreover, not restricted to book 17. The notations, then, are far from isolated.

Much is made of the title of Cleitarchus’ work given here above as Concerning Alexander. Thus it would appear that the word peri, which counts amongst its meanings “concerning”, is central to the thesis. In the passages adduced to support the thesis this appears three times:

“Now we have described things concerning Alexander (ta peri ton Alexandron), we shall turn our narrative in another direction” (17.47.6); “Such was the state of Alexander's affairs” (83.3) and “These were the concerns of Alexander” (108.3). Both these latter are differing translations of kai ta men peri Alexandron en toutois ēn. Again, this usage might be persuasive if it were limited to book 17 and, further, to Alexander. Unfortunately for the thesis it is not.

In book 16 Diodorus uses precisely the same formulaic device for Alexander’s father, Philip (above, 89.3 – kai ta men peri Philippon en toutois ēn, Hicetas and Dionysius (68.3 –kai ta men peri ton Hiketan kai Dionusion en toutois ēn) and Syracuse (13.3). Diodorus also uses the same formulation for Antigonus (kai ta men peri ton Antigonon en toutois ēn. 18.47.5; 19.59.6 adding Phila to the latter) as well as a variant ( ta men oun kata ton Antigonon en toutois ēn 19.62.9).

There is then nothing peculiar about this utilitarian phraseology either to book 17 or, for that matter, to Alexander. I have not conducted an exhaustive search of book 19 or 20 nor have I checked books below 16. That this same wording is used throughout books 16 to 19, though, means it cannot possibly have been peculiar to Diodorus’ source for book 17 near universally seen as Cleitarchus. It is, though, rather peculiar to Diodorus and serves only to indicate a change of focus.

Taphoi wrote: But he seems not to have followed regnal years for the second half of his work, perhaps because his dating information on the expedition was not sufficiently accurate once it had gone out into the wilds of the East or perhaps because the thirteenth book had to end in the Summer, so his book boundaries needed to migrate into the Summer.

Assuming, for the moment, your 13 books, clearly and unarguably Cleitarchus well knew the date of Alexander's death. This is not something he discovered after recounting Gaugamela. Cleitarchus will have set out to write this history knowing the time of Alexander's death and there is no reason for him to suddenly decide to write summer to summer. This is rather desperate stuff. The "wilds of the East" does not merit consideration.

Taphoi wrote: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.)

As noted above this "short title of Cleitarchus' work" is little more than special pleading. To add to the lexicon above one might add the following:

This was the situation with Lysimachus (ta men oun peri Lusimakhon en toutois ēn) 19.73.10
This was the situation with Demetrius (kai ta men peri Dēmētrion en toutois ēn) 20.103.7
The affairs of Lysimachus were in this position (ta men oun peri Lusimakhon en toutois ēn) 20.107.5

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.