A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book _15

8/15/2019 A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book _15

1/266

A HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON DIODORUSSICULUS BOOK 15

P. J. Stylianou

CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD 1998

-iii-

Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok BogotaBombay Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur

Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companiesin Berlin Ibadan

Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press

Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York

© J. Stylianou 1998 The moral rights of the author have been asserted

First published 1998

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any

form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press. Within the UK, exceptions areallowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permittedunder the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with theterms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms

and in other countries should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A historical commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15 P.J.Stylianou.

(Oxford classical monographs) Revision of author's thesis (Ph. D.) -- Oxford. Includes bibliographical references andindexes. 1. Diodorus, Siculus. Bibliotheca historica. Book 15. 2. History, Ancient -- Historiography. 3. Greece -- History

-- To 146 B.C. I. Title. II. Series. DF231.S79 1998 938 -- dC21 98-12863 ISBN 0-19-815239-6

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Typeset by Regent Typesetting, London Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd., MidsomerNorton

-iv

PREFACE

THE present book has its origins in an Oxford doctoral thesis which was examined as long ago as December 1981. Bythe beginning of 1982 fate (as Diodorus would have put it) had taken me away from Oxford, and indeed away fromEngland, and into other fields of academic endeavour, and many years were to pass before I could turn seriousattention to the revision of the thesis, above all by the inclusion of the Sicilian portions (excluded in the originalthesis), and its preparation for publication. I am consoled by the fact that this lengthy gap enabled my thinking onDiodorus to mature and that the book may be less imperfect as a consequence.

Little need be said about the importance for Greek history of the Bibliotheke Historike (or Library of History ) ofDiodorus Siculus, in particular of those books of it which cover the fourth century (it emerges plainly enough, I hope, inboth the Introduction and the Commentary). The absence of detailed historical commentaries on any of these bookshas long been felt. If the present study goes a little way towards filling this gap it will have served its main purpose. Inso far as the finished product is aimed at a specific category of reader, it is the undergraduate and graduate studentwith Greek, as well as, of course, the professional Classical scholar and ancient historian. But I trust it may also be ofuse to Greekless students armed with a translation of Book 15.

For a work of this kind naturally much needed to be consulted, in terms of both primary material (the ancientevidence) and secondary literature. With regard to the latter, I should say that with very few exceptions I have notmade use of anything published after 1993. This is regrettable, especially in the case of major new contributions suchas M. Dreher Hegemon und Symmachoi ( 1995), but a line had to be drawn somewhere if I were ever to finish. Tohave made only a hasty and partial use of the most recent books and articles would have been unfair, above all tothem.


2/266

As far as the text employed in the lemmata and in quotations

-v- from Book 15 elsewhere in the Commentary and in the Introduction is concerned, I have used both of the bestpresent-day texts, that of Vogel in the Teubner edition, and that of Vial in the Budé. Professor David Lewisrecommended that Vial should be used for Book 15 (CAH2 vi. 147 n. 123) and there are good reasons for so doing.Vial's work in arranging the various manuscripts which contain Book 15 into two families, and her thorough collation ofthe four principal manuscripts (P and M and their respective descendants X and F) marks a definite advance on thelimited work of Vogel in this direction (on which cf. Chamoux, p. clxi), and in many places her text is to be preferred tothat of Vogel (cf. 13. 1n.; 13. 4-5n.; 22. 2n.; 57. 1n.; 64. 1n.). In other instances, however, her judgement is lesssure and her text is less satisfactory as a result than that of Vogel (cf. 19. 4n.; 30. 3n.; 52. 3n.). Where there isdisagreement between them, therefore, arising out of variant readings or lacunae in the manuscripts, I have followedthe edition I considered more correct and given my reasons for so doing. Occasionally I have preferred other readings(see, e.g., 52. 1; 75. 3 and nn. there). A useful outcome of Vial's work is the observation that MS F (of the fi fteenthcentury) represents what might aptly be described as an 'edited' text. This is seen not only in the case of the lists ofRoman magistrates (Vial, p. xxiii and n. 2; Chamoux, pp. ciiif. and civ n. 74), but elsewhere also (cf. 21. 2n.; 30. 3n.;57. 1n.). It might be apposite to add in this connection that recourse to the great edition of Wesseling of 1746, truly amonument to eighteenth-century scholarship, repays the effort every time. But the definitive text of Book 15 does notyet exist. In favour of Vogel it can also be said that the Teubner text is that used in the Loeb edition of Books 1-20, theversion more generally available in the English-speaking world. It is for this reason that I draw attention in theCommentary to instances of inaccurate or misleading translation of the Greek in this edition of Book 15. For booksother than 15, and especially for Books 16-20, I have relied on the Teubner edition, though often comparing this withthe Budé text where possible. For the fragmentary Books 21-40 I have used F. R. Walton's invaluable edition in theLoeb. It should not be necessary to stress that the present work is not a textual commentary. My comments on thetext, therefore, are confined to instances of historical significance.

In the course of research carried on intermittently over such a

long time I have incurred many debts. The first and greatest debt I owe to the two eminent scholars who supervisedthe writing of my doctoral thesis, Professor Antony Andrewes and Mr George Cawkwell. The contrasting style of the twomen, both acknowledged masters in their respective spheres, was bracing, and to move from New College (later 13

Manor Place) to University College and back was exciting and a constant stimulus. Until his death in 1990, ProfessorAndrewes continued to take a keen interest in my fortunes and to urge, whenever we met, and in a succession of notesand letters, the speedy revision and publication of the thesis. Indeed, in 1985 he very courageously even announcedits not too distant publication (in Essays Starr, 196 n. 6). All this helped to keep 'Diodorus Book 15' alive at a periodwhen I could spare li ttle time for such matters. Professor George Forrest first acted as my internal examiner, but fastbecame a friend and mentor, and proved a sustaining force over the years. The sad news of his death reached mewhile engaged in composing this preface. Similarly I owe no less a debt of gratitude to Mr Robin Lane Fox who arrivedat New College shortly after I began my research.

It was at Professor Andrewes's request, not long before his death, that the late Professor David Lewis read the wholeunrevised thesis and commented on it fully, with the sagacity, exacting scholarship, and attention to detail he was justly famed for. Later, and much to its profit, he also read the first draft of the section on Diodorus' sources for theWest and reciprocated by very kindly allowing me to read his chapter on Sicily between 413 and 368 BC before itspublication in CAH2 vi. Finally, Dr Simon Hornblower, with characteristic generosity and enthusiasm, boldly volunteeredto read the revised version and, a punishingly busy teaching and research schedule notwithstanding, he did so withcustomary speed and efficiency, offering expert advice and saving me from many a pitfall. I am deeply in his debt. Butfor him the book would have been a great deal poorer and even longer in appearing.

Other friends or colleagues who have helped in various ways, whether in discussions or in correspondence, include thefollowing: Professors Michael Osborne, Brian Shefton, John Lazenby, and Antony Woodman, Mr Jeremy Paterson (whofirst guided me towards Diodorus as a research topic), Dr Robin Seager (my

-vii-

external examiner), Dr George Georghallides, Dr Constantine Hadjistephanou, Professor Vassos Karageorghis, Dr IanCarradice, Drs David Davison and Rajka Makjanić, Dr Rowland Smith, and Professor David Potter.

I am especially grateful to the Chairman and Members of the Editorial Committee of the Oxford Classical andPhilosophical Monographs for accepting the book for publication and to the Craven Committee of Oxford University forsubsidizing a lengthy visit to Greece in 1977. I must also express my gratitude to the editorial staff of the OxfordUniversity Press for their adroit handling of the book through the various stages of production.

For his kindness, patience, and fatherly encouragement, His Eminence Archbishop Gregorios of Thyateira and GreatBritain has my heartfelt and respectful thanks.

Revision of the thesis was made possible by a generous grant awarded by the A. G. Leventis Foundation. I am mostgrateful to the Foundation and its Chairman, His Excellency Constantine Leventis, for this as well as their long-standinginterest in my research.

I owe a great debt of gratitude to Sir Reo Stakis for a research grant readily awarded for another purpose, but whichalso proved helpful in the final stages of publication of the present book.

On a personal level, I wish to thank my wife for her steady encouragement and never-failing support, both moral andacademic, without which, I have not the slightest doubt, this book would not exist, and to apologize to our children fordevoting so much of my time to Diodorus rather than to them.

October 1997 P. J. S


3/266

-viii-

CONTENTSAbbreviations xiMaps xviii

INTRODUCTION 11. The Character of the Bibliotheke 1

(a) The setting 1(b) Chance and utility 3(c) Style and diction 15

2. The General Plan and Date of Writing of theBibliotheke 173. The Sources 25

(a) The chronographer 25(i) The framework 25(ii) The other chronographic material: theobvious kind 31(iii) The other chronographic material: theless obvious kind 43(iv) The chronographer's errors 45

(b) The narrative sources 49(i) Ephorus: the oikonomia 84(ii) Ephorus: the sources 104(iii) Ephorus: attitude to states and individuals 110(iv) Ephorus: merits and defects 121

4. Diodorus' Methods 132COMMENTARY 141Appendix 552Bibliography 556Index of Authors and Passages Discussed 581Greek Index 586

General Index 587

http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124490http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124497http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124502http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124502http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124502http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124504http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124516http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124518http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124526http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124526http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124526http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124532http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124544http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124546http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124550http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124585http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124605http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124611http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124622http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124633http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124642http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125053http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125057http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125082http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125087http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125088http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125088http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125087http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125082http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125057http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125053http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124642http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124633http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124622http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124611http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124605http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124585http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124550http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124546http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124544http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124532http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124526http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124526http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124526http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124518http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124516http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124504http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124502http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124502http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124502http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124497http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124490


4/266


5/266

"The Hellenica is for connoisseurs", writes Cawkwell in the introduction to the Penguin translation of Xenophon'sHellenica. For different reasons Diodorus' Bibliotheke Historike is not for the uninitiated. For the cardinal fact aboutDiodorus is that he was a second-rate epitomator who generally used first-rate sources. Had these survived theBibliotheke would have been of interest only as an example of a first-century BC work of compilation. Unfortunately,however, the abridged historians are mostly lost and we must perforce do what we can with Diodorus. The problem isto discover the principles that should be applied. It is imperative to know in each instance if the information isDiodorus' or his source's; and the extent to which he has mishandled it if the latter. This introduction, therefore, aimsat an understanding, on the one hand of Diodorus himself, and on the other of the sources he used. Only then can theevidence of the Bibliotheke be properly evaluated.

The first section is concerned with the character of the Bibliotheke: what and howtypical of its time was it? What is one to make of one of its most conspicuous

characteristics, the constant moralizing? What can we conclude from the language? Thesecond section looks at how and when Diodorus produced the Bibliotheke. In the thirdsection the sources which lie behind Book 15 are examined in detail. The fourth and

final section is concerned with Diodorus' methods.

INTRODUCTION

"The Hellenica is for connoisseurs", writes Cawkwell in the introduction to the Penguin translation of Xenophon'sHellenica. For different reasons Diodorus' Bibliotheke Historike is not for the uninitiated. For the cardinal fact aboutDiodorus is that he was a second-rate epitomator who generally used first-rate sources. Had these survived theBibliotheke would have been of interest only as an example of a first-century BC work of compilation. Unfortunately,however, the abridged historians are mostly lost and we must perforce do what we can with Diodorus. The problem isto discover the principles that should be applied. It is imperative to know in each instance if the information isDiodorus' or his source's; and the extent to which he has mishandled it if the latter. This introduction, therefore, aimsat an understanding, on the one hand of Diodorus himself, and on the other of the sources he used. Only then can theevidence of the Bibliotheke be properly evaluated.

The first section is concerned with the character of the Bibliotheke: what and how typical of its time was it? What isone to make of one of its most conspicuous characteristics, the constant moralizing? What can we conclude from thelanguage? The second section looks at how and when Diodorus produced the Bibliotheke. In the third section thesources which lie behind Book 15 are examined in detail. The fourth and final section is concerned with Diodorus'methods.

1. THE CHARACTER OF THE BIBLIOTHEKE(a) The setting

The second and first centuries BC witnessed the growth of a numerous and wealthy middle class in the towns of Italyand Sicily; what we would today term a bourgeoisie. The conditions of peace established by Augustus were especially

favourable to

-1-

it. 1 There was an accompanying thirst for a smattering at least of higher learning and the booksellers of the late firstcentury were not slow in meeting it. 2 This is the sort of readership that Diodorus of Agyrium in Sicily aimed to reach. 3 It is possible that he was commissioned by a bookseller; or he may have been his own employer. At any rate, the livelytrade in books like the Bibliotheke may be indicated by the speed with which Diodorus worked. There was no finalrevision and indeed he did not even, while writing, take the trouble to correct glaring errors of which he was aware.Perhaps time was short. It is also perfectly possible, of course, that he simply could not be bothered (see pp. 24, 137). This is further proof that Diodorus' prospective buyers would have cared more for the appearance of the rolls andtheir general 'educational' and entertainment value than for the soundness of their historical detail. An impression ofquality had nevertheless to be maintained, for no buyer, however modest his learning, would have been interested in awork of obviously inferior scholarship.

Diodorus, therefore, gave his work the form of a serious universal history such as that of Polybius and a strong didactic

tone calculated to appeal to a first-century reader. And the paraphrased extracts which make up the Bibliotheke derivefrom some of the best ancient historians, now largely or totally lost to us, Ephorus, for example, Timaeus, Hieronymus,Polybius, and Posidonius. Otherwise the Bibliotheke was what its title implies -- a concise history of the world forEveryman. Hence its arrangement: the contents of each book are defined at the beginning as well as at the end, andfor the historical period the narrative is arranged annalistically. If readers desired to know what had occurred in aparticular year all they had to do was to take up the appropriate book and read under the magistrate in question. Thenature of the

____________________1Rostovtzeff, 1957: i. 9ff., 54ff.; Rawson, 1985: 215ff. on D.2Cf. Kenyon, 1951: 81ff.; Reynolds and Wilson, 1969: 22f. Though of the 1st century AD we might profitably bringto mind Petronius' repulsive creation Trimalchio, a member of the Italian bourgeoisie, who prides himself on beingcultured and on possessing two libraries, one Greek and one Latin ( Satyricon48). Also the essay by Lucian ( 2ndcentury AD), Πρòζ τòν ἀπαí ΔεΥτον κα ì Πολλά ßιßλí α, ὠνούμενονa wealthy and vulgar man who collects masses ofbooks for show (I: καὶ. Θζδαυρòδ ἔτοιμοδ ( εἰ) τοÎδσ καΠήοιγ αὑτὡν(τὡ ß ιßλí Ων)).That there were booksellers as aprofession in Rome at the time of D, and that money could be made from the sale of books, cf. Strabo 13 C 609.

3Cf. Sordi, p. vii. For the few biographical facts we possess about him see Schwartz, RE v. 663; Oldfather, pp. vii f.;

http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#1http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#1http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#2http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#2http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#3http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#3http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124525http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124638http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124638http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124525http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#3http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#3http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#2http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#2http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#1http://www.questia.com/read/96124503#1


6/266

Sordi, pp. v f.; Sacks, 1990: 161 ff .

-2-

Bibliotheke as a historical compilation is betrayed by its title and Pliny, two generations later, had no hesitation inclassing Diodorus with the compilers of handbooks ( NH Praef. 24ff.), a thriving profession in the late first century BC .4

(b) Chance and utility

One of the more polished parts of the Bibliotheke is its general preface (I. 1-5);naturally, for the work stood to be bought or rejected on the strength of what was said

there. The beginning is

therefore, purported to be a history of the world and its professed aim was to benefit mankind. Diodorus proceeds toexplain in what way such a work could be of use to the reader. By the examples it provides of good men earning thepraise of their fellows while wicked ones meet with public disgrace or worse, by itself always praising the first andcensuring the second, history encourages men to improve themselves and society; or at least it restrains theirimpulses to do evil. It offers experience and understanding, qualities which can admittedly be gained by associationwith wise and knowledgeable men, but history is far superior to them because of the great number of facts and paradeigmata at its disposal (1. 1. 4). The more of these the better, hence the superiority of the general history overthe local. History, we are told, possesses no value in itself unless it is to instruct.

We are not concerned here with the validity of such a 'philosophy' of history. But it is important to note that it is foundthroughout the Bibliotheke. The moral and didactic purpose of

_ ___________________4Cf. Hornblower, 1981: 22ff. We may compare Pompeius Trogus, a contemporary, who also produced a historicalcompilation in the guise of a unisersal history entitled Historiae Philippicae. D and Trogus appear to have made thesame claims in their general prefaces; cf. D I. 3. 2ff. and Pomp. Trog. praef. 2f.

-3-

repeated elsewhere (15. 88.1; cf. 23. 15; 30. 15; 31. 15. 1) and exemplified on numerous occasions. Divine justice (τòΘε îΟν, τò Δαιμóνιον) in the Bibliotheke always overtakes the arrogant, lawless, and sacrilegious (cf. 14. 63. 1f.; 14.70. 4; 15. 48. 4; 16. 61. 1-64. 3; 21. 16. 5; 22. 11. 2). Such a conception of historical causation could not be simpler.God or Fortune (ἡ τύχζδ) lay at the back of most things and indeed nothing delights Diodorus more than to relate τὰπαλογα τ δ τύχη , those sudden and inexplicable changes in the circumstances of men which intrigued and fascinatedantiquity. Diodorus is in effect writing a history of surprises and reversals (cf. 15. 33. 1; 15. 54. 5; 17. 46. 6-47; 17.66. 2, 4; 17. 108. 6; 18. 53; 19. 11. 7; 20. 13. 3; 31. 10. 2). Also very much in evidence, though Diodorus does notspell this out as one of his aims, is what might be called the 'entertainment' element. He makes a point of relatingwhen he can strange customs and events (τὰπαρά ΔΟζα) for apart from their possible educational value they served asκα ì for his readers (cf. 1. 83. 1; 2. 44. 3; 2. 47. 1; 3. 4. 1; 3. 30. 4; 17. 46. 6; 17. 63. 4; 18. 26. 2; 19. 98).

None of the above characteristics is original or unique to the Bibliotheke. On the contrary, some of these elementswent back a long way. The utilitarian view of history for instance was a commonplac, in antiquity and reached back atleast to Thucydides. 5 The idea that god or fortune intervened in human affairs had much older roots -- it is in fact anecessary concomitant of religious belief. Xenophon in the fourth century was certainly under its sway (cf. H. 5. 4 1;7.5 26). Still, it is a question of degree, and, thesecharacteristics became far more pronounced in late Classical AndHellenistic historiography. A more recent element, which in fact permeates the Bibliotheke, was the sensationalist,highly rhetorical way of writing history which Polybius roundly condemns, but cannot quite free himself from. 6

____________________5Thuc. I 22. 4; 2. 48. 3; cf. Romilly, in Histoire et historiens, 41 ff.; Polyb. 1. 1. 2 with Roveri, 1964: 106; Walbank,1972: 28.

6Walbank, 1972: 34ff. On the 'dramatic' approach to writing history see further, id., 1955: 4ff.; HCP i. 8f.;

Wiseman, 1979: 143ff.; Gabba, 1981: 52f. See also the remarks of Murray, 1972: 211. Though its roots weremuch deeper, paradoxography flourished in the Hellenistic age. Leading practitioners of the genre such asEuhemeruis, Iambulus, and Dionysius Skytobrachion are known to us because they were extensively used by D inthe early books of the Bibliotheke. Alongside genuine historical detail in the works of these Writers there stood thefictional and the fantastic. D's readers would not in general have been able to

-4-

Difficulties arise when one seeks, as one must, the origins of the various moralizing and other trends in theBibliotheke, especially in relation to source criticism. For though Diodorus clearly subscribed to this sort ofhistoriography, this does not necessarily mean that he was responsible for its various manifestations in the Bibliotheke.

As far as the citation of good and bad examples for the purpose of providing ethical instruction is concerned, the factthat it is found in different parts of the Bibliotheke induced Kunz to argue against Laqueur that its origins cannot bepin-pointed. 7 It is a fact nevertheless that the ethical viewpoint is not propounded in precisely the same way or with

http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/read/96124504#4http://www.questia.com/read/96124504#4http://www.questia.com/read/ib712274p0003b.fpxhttp://www.questia.com/read/96124505#5http://www.questia.com/read/96124505#5http://www.questia.com/read/96124505#6http://www.questia.com/read/96124505#6http://www.questia.com/read/96124506#7http://www.questia.com/read/96124506#7http://www.questia.com/read/ib712274p0003b.fpxhttp://www.questia.com/read/96124506#7http://www.questia.com/read/96124506#7http://www.questia.com/read/96124505#6http://www.questia.com/read/96124505#6http://www.questia.com/read/96124505#5http://www.questia.com/read/96124505#5http://www.questia.com/read/ib712274p0003b.fpxhttp://www.questia.com/read/96124504#4http://www.questia.com/read/96124504#4http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077


7/266

the same intensity in all the books. There is an important difference, for example, between Books 11-15 and 17-20.(Book 16 is difficult; Ephorus ran out in the course of it: see pp. 95 ff.) The moralizing judgements on individuals in theform of set epainoi or psogoi are characteristic of the first group and do not occur in the second; cf. 11. 11 (praise ofLeonidas and the Three Hundred); II. 38. 6 (praise of Gelon); 11. 46f. (censure of Pausanias, and praise of Aristides);11. 58. 4ff. (praise of Themistocles); 11. 82. 1-4 (praise of Myronides) 15. 81. 1-4 (praise of Pelopidas); 15. 88 (praiseof Epaminondas). Book 17 and the narratives based on Hieronymus in Books 18-20 are quite different in this respect.History's duty to provide moral instruction is less in evidence here. Alexander is commended for his treatment of thePersian royal captives (17. 38. 4-7) and his great achievement is remarked on twice (17. 1. 3-5; 117. 5), but hereceives no eulogy as such. Demosthenes' death is not even noticed, but what is really surprising is that Eumenes,whose treatment is detailed and highly favourable, is not accorded the epainos of history. The praiseworthy actions ofEumelus of Panticapaeum are enumerated (20. 24. 4-25. 3). Ptolemy, who is no less favourably treated than Eumenes,is said to have been delivered from the greatest dangers by the gods because of his arete, that is, his reverentialtreatment of Alexander's corpse (18. 28. 3ff.). Olympias, on the other hand, got precisely what she deserved in theend because of her cruelty and inability to bear her good fortune with moderation and humanity (19. 11. 4ff.). The

____________________distinguish between the two and D in fact calls such narratives 'history' (5. 41. 4; 42. 4); cf. Gabba, 1981: esp.58f.

7Kunz, 1935: 30ff.

-5-

above is a substantial part of the clearly expressed moralizing in this part of the Bibliotheke. Brief remarks at the endof a person's life seem to be preferred here; cf. 17. 46. 5 (on the Tyrians); 17. 48. 5 (on Amyntas); 19. 51.5 (onOlympias); 20. 37. 6 (on Cleopatra); 20. 42. 5 (on Ophellas).

Books 21-40 survive only in fragments and a proper evaluation of them is thus impossible. But it is evident thatstereotype moral appraisements similar to those in Books 11-15 occurred in some at least of the books of the secondhalf of the Bibliotheke; cf. 23. 15 (censure of M. Atillus Regulus); 29. 18ff. (eulogies of Philopoemen, Hannibal, andScipio Africanus); 34/35. 33 (eulogy of P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio and his family). The praise/blame duty ofhistory is reiterated; Cf. 23. 15. 1; 30. 15; 31. 15. 1; 32. 26. 1; 34/35. 9; 38/39. 18. 1. 8

The most logical explanation for this lack of uniformity in the Bibliotheke is that Diodorus' sources did not all concernthemselves with the purely ethical function of history to the same degree or in the same way. Ephorus was Diodorus'main authority for Books 11-16 (below pp. 49 f.). We shall therefore first look at Ephorus before turning to Diodorus'other and later sources. How much of the moralizing in Diodorus is due to Ephorus? The case for the praise/blame taskof history seems clear enough.

The Evagoras of Isocrates was, as the author himself says, the first ever encomium in prose on a contemporary. 9 Andit set a pattern for imitation. It was meant to praise Evagoras as a good and valiant prince, and Isocrates puts forwardthe view that such men ought to be eulogized because, being contemporaries, the truth could be employed incomposing their encomia, and also because the younger generation would thus be encouraged to emulate and evensurpass them (9. 5ff., 77). The genre proved popular. We possess Xenophon Agesilaus and we hear of encomia onGryllus, Mausolus, Philip, Alexander, and others. 10 The tradition that Ephorus and Theopornpus were the pupils ofIsocrates is a firm one 11 and all we know about these two, the most influential

____________________10Diog. Laert. 2.55; FGH 115 TT6, 8, 48; FF 255 -7; cf. Isocr. 5. 17; Blass, ii. 284.11FGH 70 TT 1ffff., 8, 27f.8The fragments are enumerated according to the Loeb edn. vols. xi and xii.99. 5ff. Before this time prose encomia were on mythical persons; cf. Gorgias' as well as Isocrates' On Helen. Arist.Rhet. 1368 a, however, claims priority for an encomium on a Thessalian called Hippolochus.

-6-

historians of the fourth century, indicates that they incorporated Isocratean features into their historical works, inparticular the kind of moralizing which laid emphasis on praise and censure. 12 Whether Isocrates himself advocated acertain form of historical writing remains uncertain and does not in any case concern us here. 13

For the character of Theopompus' history we have the testimony of an ancient admirer, none other than Dionysius ofHalicarnassus. It is in basic agreement with the surviving fragments. Theopompus wrote about thingsΘαὰρμαδτά or

ΠαρU=1F71ΣΟ⌣α not just because they were entertaining, but also because they were beneficial to his readers.

14

Hewrote about the foundations of cities, the lives of kings, the customs of nations, Greek and barbarian, νóμΟυδ . . .

.Πρά⌣ειδ κα ì τέλ κα ì And he did so voluminously, for the benefit of man. He looked into the souls of men to divinecauses which earned him the reputation of being ßάδ2κανοζ , but really he was performing the duty of a surgeon. Hewas always ready to reproach cities and generals for their villainous designs and unjust deeds, Πολὰδ γάρ ἐν τοάτοιζ . 15 It is thus clear that for Theopompus history had a definite ethical role to play.

The tradition that Isocrates once remarked that Theopompus needed the bridle, Ephorus the spur (FGH 70 T28) isprobably not historical, but its implication seems to be that Ephorus was more restrained than Theopompus, and itindeed appears that he did not exhibit the bitterness and propensity to cheap gossip of Theopompus. Otherwise therecannot have been much difference between the two, and the fragments as well as the assessment of Polybius showthat the ethical character of the Bibliotheke was very much the character of Ephorus' universal history too. Polybiusstates that Ephorus was Δεινóτατοζ . . . ἐν τα îζ παρεκßάδι κα ì. . . γνωμολογí αιζ , κα ì . . . ὅταν που τον ἐπιμετρούντα λóγον Διατí Θζται (12. 28. 10 = FGH 70 T23); and in fact he seems to be following

____________________

http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124596http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#8http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#8http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124550http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#9http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#9http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#10http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#10http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#11http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#11http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#12http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#12http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#13http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#13http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#14http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#14http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#15http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#15http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#15http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#15http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#14http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#14http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#13http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#13http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#12http://www.questia.com/read/96124508#12http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#11http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#11http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#10http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#10http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#9http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#9http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124550http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#8http://www.questia.com/read/96124507#8http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124596


8/266

12Cf. Avenarius, 1956: 157ff. Contra Sacks, 1990: 24ff., but see the present author's review, 1991: 391f.13Cf. Beck, 1964: 277ff.; Bradford Welles in Studies Caplan, 3ff.; Schepens, 1977: 100f.; Hamilton, 1979: 290ff.14Cf. Isocr. 2. 48f. Homer and the tragic poets successfully combined κα ìκα ì with ὠΦέλεια.15Dion. Hal. Ad Pomp. 6. For Theopompus' improper writing see Polybius' criticism at 8. 10 (12). 1-2. On

Theopompus in general, Connor, 1968: chs. 1 and 6.

-7-

the example of Ephorus in his practice of assigning praise and blame whenever and wherever he judges it appropriateto do so. 16 FGH 70 F42 shows the didactic, through paradeigmata, nature of Ephorus' history, while F 191, frr. 2-6, agood instance of the sort of parekbasis praised by Polybius, proves that Ephorus, transferring Isocratean usage to therealm of history, appraised public men morally at the end of their lives. Also that the eulogies and censures in DiodorusBooks 11-15 have their roots in Ephorus: F 191 frr. 2-6=11. 58. 4-59. 17 What of the second half of the Bibliotheke?

Diodorus based Books 28-32 on Polybius, and Polybius as we have seen was a fervent practitioner of the kind of ethicalhistoriography which gave public men their due. At 4. 20. 5 (=FGH 70 F8) he quotes with approval a distinctionbetween history and music from the general preface of Ephorus. Ephorus had probably argued that the duty of historyin contrast to music was not to thrill, but to instruct. Diodorus' eulogies of Philopoemen, Hannibal, and Scipio Africanusare derived from Polybius and are exactly in the Ephoran form (D 29. 18ff. = Polyb. 23. 12-14). Nor did Polybius everfall to draw the moral lesson of history, and Diodorus must have found him fertile ground indeed; cf. D 30. 17 = Polyb.28. 21; 18 30. 18 = Polyb. 28. 18; 32. 26. 1 = Polyb. 38. 4. 8. Occasionally Diodorus would tamper with Polybius' textin order to render the moral lesson more prominent; cf. 31. 15 = Polyb. 30. 18 -- Diodorus repeats the praise/blameduty of history and alters the reaction of the senate to highlight Prusias' worthlessness.

After Polybius, Posidonius formed Diodorus' main authority. It is thought that Posidonius did not bestow epainoi andpsogoi though his history did not lack an ethical side. The moralizing, it has been said, was implicit and subject to thepragmatic concep-

____________________16Cf. 2. 56. 11f.; 6. 11. 10; 10. 21. 8; 18. 41. 1; HCP ii. 223; Avenarius, 1956: 157 ff.17Cf. FGH 70 T23 n. The attribution to Ephorus of P. Oxy. xiii. 1610 (F191) by its first editors, Grenfell and Hunt ( P.

Oxy. xiii. 98 ff.), has found wide support. It has been questioned by Africa, 1962: 86ff. (cf. also Milns, VindexHumanitatis, 56f.) and though his strictures on the editors' over-enthusiastic use of D in restoring the fragmentsare not entirely unjust, the arguments of Grenfell and Hunt for Ephorus remain sufficient.

18I cannot see that D has garbled Polybius' censure of Ptolemy Physcon as Drews, 1962: 384 n. 7 , claims.

-8-

tion of historiography. 19 It is noticeable, however, that Athenaeus found Posidonius very much to his taste. Theimpression one gets from the fragments is of a highly sensationalist historian. 20 Whatever the truth, it would be safeto assume that Diodorus was by this time (he had already written thirty-two books) well accustomed to applyingepainoi and psogoi, and that he did so whenever a suitable opportunity presented itself in Posidonius' narrative; cf.34/35. 9; 34/35. 33; 38/39. 18. 1.

For the similar instances in Books 21-7 (Cf. 21. 1; 23. 15; 24. 5; 25. 10. 5; 26. 1. 3; 26. 4; 27. 6. 2. Chapters 23. 15

and 26. 24 were inspired by Polybius; see n. 21), one must again assume that Diodorus was either following theexample of his authorities or reverting to the didactic habits of Ephorus after the interval of Books 17-20. The problemis that the sources for Books 21-7 are uncertain, with the exception of Philinus and those sections deriving fromPolybius. 21 Philinus probably provided Diodorus with his narrative of the First Punic War. 22 Unfortunately we knowvery little about the character of Philinus' history. 23

Two important points ought to be stressed. First, it should be noted that the elaborate moral appraisements of Books11-15 are really confined to Books 11 and 15. The deaths of such personages as e.g. Cimon, Pericles, and Dionysiusare passed over almost in

____________________19Cf. FGH iic. 160. For Posidonius the historian in general see Strasburger, 1965: 40ff.20This is not to ignore the warnings of Brunt, 1980: 477ff., that mere fragments can be seriously misleading as to the

character of a lost work. FGH 87 F36, however, is long enough to provide us with a genuine flavour of Posidonius'Histories. Brunt cautions that a single long excerpt, like this one, 'might in principle be uncharacteristic. We shouldget a very false impression of Thucydides, if the only substantial part of his work that survived were the stories ofCylon, Pausanias, and Themistocles in 1. 126-38' (1980: 483). And so we should, though the analogy to draw forF36 is not with the stories of Cylon, Pausanias, and Themistocles, but rather with the account of Cleon which is notuncharacteristic of Thucydides. F36, the story of Athenion and the establishment of his 'tyranny' at Athens c.87,was no digression in Posidonius, but central to his main narrative.

21It seems best to accept that D based Books 23 and 24 on Philinus (cf. Schwartz, RE v. 688), and that he did notbegin to rely almost entirely on Polybius till Book 28 ( Schwartz, RE v. 689ff.). But he had already made at least apartial use of Polybius. The Carthaginian Mercenary War in Book 25 is usually thought to derive from Polybius; seeWalbank, HCP i. 130f.

22Both D 23. 15 and Polyb. 1. 35 are thought to have based their similar remarks on Atilius Regulus on Philinus; seeHCP i. 92 f.

23In spite of La Bua, 1966: 262ff.; cf. Badian review, Riv. di filol . 96 ( 1968), 203ff. In fact Philinus may have had notdissimilar historiographical conceptions to those of Polybius; see Walbank, 1945a: 1 ff. and esp. 10f.

-9

http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#16http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#16http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#17http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#17http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#18http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#18http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#19http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#19http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#20http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#20http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#21http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#21http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#22http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#22http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#23http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#23http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#23http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#23http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#22http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#22http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#21http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#21http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#20http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#20http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#19http://www.questia.com/read/96124510#19http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#18http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#18http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#17http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#17http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#16http://www.questia.com/read/96124509#16


9/266

silence. It is difficult to believe that Ephorus did not comment formally on the passing of these men. 24 The conclusionmust, therefore, be that Diodorus, in spite of his promise at 15. 88. 1 and elsewhere, was inconsistent in this respectas in all others. The brief remarks on Pericles (12. 46. 1) and Philistus (16. 36. 3f. may be all that is left of lengthierEphoran appraisements. (I am assuming here what I shall attempt to show below, i.e. that the substance of thewestern narratives in Diodorus is based on Ephorus.)

Second, Diodorus was obviously free to mould the epainoi and psogoi in his own image, though the extent to which hedid so is not always possible to gauge and it should certainly not be exaggerated. Drews is unconvincing when heargues that nearly all of the moralizing in Diodorus Books 11-15 is Diodorus' own and should not be ascribed toEphorus for, as we have seen, all the available evidence indicates that Ephorus was not as devoid of the moralizingelement as Drewsimagines. 25 It is an unproven assumption that 15. 88, the encomium on Epaminondas, is 'apatchwork paragraph which Diodorus may have assembled from his reading of

Ephorus' and from elsewhere. 26 In particular, to claim that the moral qualities of the great man mentioned byDiodorus cannot be due to Ephorus, for Ephorus can only have concerned himself with the military ability ofEpaminondas, is to misunderstand the character of Ephorus work.

The moral qualities and education of public men were very much the concern of Ephorus as of his teacher Isocrates. 27 Indeed, paideia may have been one of the unifying themes of Ephorus' universal history. It would appear that he sawthe possession of paideia or agoge by the citizens of a state, but especially by their leaders, as central to its well-being.28 I am not, therefore, convinced that the paideia of Epaminondas which intrudes repeatedly into the Bibliotheke (10.11. 2; 15. 39. 2; 52. 7; 16. 2. 2f.) is not an

____________________24Alcibiades and Agesilaus were both 'grey areas', good as well as bad, and Ephorus perhaps did not moralize on

their passing, preferring clear instances of good or bad; cf. pp. 119f.251962: 386 and n. 15. Drews' view is now argued further by Sacks, 1990: 25 ff .261962: 389.27Isocrates considered himself an educator if anything. For his proud concept that Athens was the very School of

Hellas see 4. 50; 15. 295f. Cf. too Dion. Hal. Isocr. 1. For the high occurrence of the words παιδεία, παίδευσις, andπαιδεύω in Isocrates see Preuss, Index Isocrateus, s.vv.

28See pp. 112 f. below and cf. Schepens, 1977: 116f.; Burde, 1974: 19ff.

-10-

Ephoran contribution, and there is in fact firm evidence that it is. Strabo 9 C 400f. ( FGH 70 F119) tells us that whileEphorus praised Boeotia for its natural advantages, he had nothing good to say about the Boeotian leaders, for thesemen generally lacked agoge and paideia and thus limited the success their country could have enjoyed. The short-lived

exception was Epaminondas and in s ame opinion is expressed in Diodorus 15. 79. 2 and 88. 4. 29

Nothing could be clearer regarding the Ephoran viewpoint. When of course Diodorus makes Epaminondas and Cononcontemporaries, while Agesilaus is said to have lived a little earlier (15. 88. 2; but see n. there), we should see this asone of Diodorus' frequent blunders, as when Plato and Aristotle are assigned to the pentecontaetia (12. 1. 5). Butthese typically Diodoran confusions should not be seen as proof that the substance of what is being said does not

derive from Ephorus. We should rather see 12. 1-2. 1 and 15. 88 as botched summaries of Ephoran encomia on Athensand Epaminondas respectively. Greek (primarily Attic) learning praised at 12. 1. 4f. was a theme to which Ephorusmust have returned again and again, and at 15. 76. 4 we appear to have the remnants of such an instance (see n.there).

It was seen above that throughout the Bibliotheke divine justice is active in punishing wrongdoing and it is notunreasonable to assume that this reflects Diodorus' own personal beliefs. This should not, however, be taken to meanthat instances of this in the Bibliotheke did not originate in some form in the sources. Whenever checks can be applied,the unwisdom of drawing too sharp a distinction between Diodorus and his sources is seen again and again. While it istrue that in Polybius, for example, C

____________________29Thus also Arist. Rhet . 1398b; Justin 6. 8. 1-3 and Nepos, Epam. 10. 4. And see Polyb. 6. 43. 4ff.; Plut. Pel . 4; Mor.

864d. The Boeotians were proverbially dullwitted and it may well have occurred to many in the educated circles inAthens and elsewhere to associate the 'flash in the pan' Theban hegemony with the meteoric careers ofEpaminondas (who had received philosophical training) and Pelopidas. It is not unlikely that Callisthenes was one ofthese, though the Aristotle passage does not prove it; nor does it prove that Ephorus borrowed his interpretationfrom Callisthenes (as was suggested to me by Simon Hornblower in a letter dated 21 Oct. 1995).

-11-

δαιμόνιον is very rarely mentioned as dealing out retribution, yet Polybius did not really distinguish between τὸδαιμόνιον and τύχη (nor did Diodorus, it would appear), and many instances are to be found in his history of Tyche punishing wrongdoing and sacrilege, instances adopted to a greater or lesser extent by Diodorus. 30 In the case ofEphorus too, it would seem, the gods did not often miss their chance to intervene benevolently in human affairs,punishing the wicked and profane and rewarding the good. Strabo 9 C 422. provides a particularly good example notonly of this aspect of Ephorus, but also of his tendency to rationalize myths and of the high regard in which he held theDelphic oracle. It was in the course of his discussion of the origins and nature of the Spartan constitution (commonlyascribed to an oracular response) that Ephorus stated the view (one with which Xenophon would have agreedwholeheartedly) that a person lacking in proper respect of the gods (εὐσέβεια) was most unlikely to be just in hisdealings with men (7. 12. 7).

http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#24http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#24http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#25http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#25http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#25http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#26http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#26http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#27http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#27http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#28http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#28http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124613http://www.questia.com/read/ib712274p0011.fpxhttp://www.questia.com/read/96124512#29http://www.questia.com/read/96124512#29http://www.questia.com/read/96124513#30http://www.questia.com/read/96124513#30http://www.questia.com/read/ib712274p0011.fpxhttp://www.questia.com/read/96124513#30http://www.questia.com/read/96124513#30http://www.questia.com/read/96124512#29http://www.questia.com/read/96124512#29http://www.questia.com/read/ib712274p0011.fpxhttp://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124613http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#28http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#28http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#27http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#27http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#26http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#26http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#25http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#25http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#24http://www.questia.com/read/96124511#24


10/266

The account of the Sacred War in Book 30 of the Histories was of course written by Demophilus, but there is everyreason to suppose that the minds of father and son worked in the same way in this respect. A major theme of thataccount was the sacrilegious conduct of the Phocian leaders, their families, followers, and allies; and the divinepunishment which befell them all: 16. 14. 3; 16. 61-4; FGH 70 F96 (Athenaeus). Athenaeus' quotation fromDemophilus leaves the fate of the wives of the Phocian leaders incomplete and should not be taken to represent allthat could have been found in Book 30 on the subject. The wives' ultimate fate is given by Diodorus (16. 64. 2). Thereis no need, therefore, to suppose 31 that Diodorus, in this instance at least, having decided that his source did not gofar enough, turned to an alternative source which drove the moral lesson home fully. In contrast to this, Ephorus andDemophilus stressed the good fortune of Philip who had championed the Delphic oracle (16. 1. 4; 16. 64. 3). Widelyheld at the time, this point of view is well and eloquently put by Aeschines in his speech Against Ctesiphon (132ff.),delivered in 330. The attitude of Ephorus to the gods and the supernatural is further illustrated by his treatment of theearthquakes and tidal waves which struck the coast of Achaea in 373.

____________________30Cf. HCP i. e.g. 20f., 20 n. 6, 93, 147.31As does Drews, 1962: 390f.

-12-

While not neglecting to cite the natural explanations of the catastrophe of the physicists, it is clear from Diodorus'account that he was himself inclined to accept a religious interpretation (15. 48f.). Ephorus' piety nevertheless, asbefitted a pupil of Isocrates, was guided by paideia. Mere superstition he seems to have abhorred, as shown byDiodorus' comments on Epaminondas' handling of the omens prior to the battle of Leuctra (15. 52ff.).

A particular problem is the assessment of the incidence of Tyche in Ephorus and its relation to Diodorus. The Ephoranfragments are of no help. Only once does the word occur (F63) and then its meaning is that of an accidentalhappening. But Tyche, viewed as an agent or cause outside human control, whether personal (providence, fate) orimpersonal, 32 can hardly have been absent from Ephorus. It figures very significantly in Isocrates 33 and Demosthenes34 and it was certainly a characteristic of Theopompus (see p. 7 ). It must, therefore, have been present in Ephorustoo. The difficulty is to distinguish between those Tyche references which are Ephoran and those which are Diodoran.The term, it is true, occurs throughout the Bibliotheke and may thus reflect Diodorus' own thinking. But it is clear thatin many, if not indeed most, instances Diodorus did not initiate, but merely adopted the opinion of his sources. Theunaccountability of Tyche at 12. 62. 6, for example, obviously derives from Thucydides (4. 12. 3) through Ephorus. Asfar as the books which are not based on Ephorus are concerned, it is evident that Tyche is very much an integral partof the narrative of Book 17, 35 and it should logically be attributed to the source or sources 'used for that book.Similarly, it is frequently the case that the action of Tyche in Books 18-20 can be traced back to Diodorus' sources withsome confidence. For example, there is no reason why Hieronymus should not be credited with the references to Tyche at 18. 8. 7; 18.

____________________32The definitions are those in the Liddell and Scott Lexicon. Both meanings are well attested in Classical writers and

in Hellenistic writers they are of course ubiquitous.33Cf. 6. 47, the instability of human fortunes because of Tyche. Cf. too the many other instances of Tyche in

Isocrates in Preuss, Index Isocrateus, s.v.34Cf. Preuss, Index Demosthenicus, s.v.35At 6. 3; 20. 1; 29. 4; 31. 6; 35. 7; 38. 5; 46. 2; 46. 6-47; 59. 7; 66. 2, 4; 69. 6; 101. 2; 107. 2; 108. 6; 116. 1.

There are a number of 'ordinary' uses of Tyche too in the sense of the verb τυγχάνω, e.g. at 13. 5;94. 3; 115. 6.

Cf. Sinclair, 1963: 41f. on Tyche in Book 17.

-13-

13. 4; 18. 20. 1; 41. 6; 42. 1; 53. 7; and 67. 4. Sections 59. 4-60. 1 seem to be an instance where Diodoruselaborated Hieronymus. 36

Let us look specifically at Book 15. There are seven instances of Tyche, at 33. 1; 33. 3; 54. 5; 63. 1; 63. 2; 82. 6and 84. 2. Also one of πεπρωμένη at 74. 4 and one of τὸχρεώ ν at 80. 3. The πεπρωμένη is mentioned inconnection with the death of Dionysius. Ch. 74 may not, however, derive from Ephorus, but from Timaeus (see p.84 ). What of 33. 1ff.? It is quite possible that Ephorus, in putting into the mouth of Agesilaus an excuse as towhy the king had not attacked the strong allied positions, included a reference to the workings of Tyche. But thesententious statement at 33. 3, ἀγαθὴγὰ ρ ἡ τύχη τοὺς μέγα φρονου+ ̑ντας παραδόξως σφη+ ̑λαι καὶδιδά ξαι μηδὲν ἄγαν κατελπίζειν, is likely to be an addition by Diodorus to highlight the moral point. At 54. 5 we are told thatJason persuaded the Spartans and the Thebans to respect τὰπαρά λογα τη+ ̑ς τύχης and conclude a truce.

Something similar is stated by Xenophon (H. 6. 4. 23) so that we may assume that the mutability of the humancondition was mentioned in this context by Diodorus' source. The tone of 63. 1f. is eulogistic and quite consistentwith what Ephorus would have written on the Spartan appeal and the Athenian decision to help. Athens enjoyed areputation for always helping the weak and needy which her panegyrists never failed to mention (63. 2n.), andcertainly Ephorus would not have failed to do so when opportunity arose. The references to Tyche are simple andstraightforward (cf. Isocr. 5. 44; X. H. 6. 5. 45), and they may well have occurred in the Ephoran text. The tworeferences at 82. 6 and 84. 2 are likewise simple and unadorned and are paralleled in Polyb. 9. 8. 13 where,however, Polybius cannot resist adding his own comment on the unpredictability of Tyche. διόπερ εἰκότως οἱ συγγραφει+ ̑ς, he says, meaning Callisthenes and Ephorus. Callisthenes was probably the one who blamed Tychefor the failure of Epaminondas. Ephorus adopted this explanation and thus it found its way into the Bibliotheke(see also 82. 6n.).

As a general rule, therefore, we should suspect wordy expositions of the power of Tyche. But there is no reasonwhy we should reject as non-Ephoran simple and to-the-point references to Tyche such as those found inIsocrates (see n. 33.

http://www.questia.com/read/96124513#31http://www.questia.com/read/96124513#31http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#32http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#32http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#33http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#33http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#34http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#34http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124508http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#35http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#35http://www.questia.com/read/96124515#36http://www.questia.com/read/96124515#36http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124585http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124585http://www.questia.com/read/96124515#36http://www.questia.com/read/96124515#36http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#35http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#35http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124508http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#34http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#34http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#33http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#33http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#32http://www.questia.com/read/96124514#32http://www.questia.com/read/96124513#31http://www.questia.com/read/96124513#31


11/266

____________________36Hornblower, 1981: 106 and passim, agrees that Tyche played a part in the Histories of Hieronymus though

she thinks that he 'perhaps gave less prominence' to its role than Polybius.

-14-

c) Style and diction

In a fundamental study J. Palm has shown that Diodorus' late Hellenistic Greek has stamped itself on the entire workindependently of the sources used. 37 This does not nevertheless mean that the language of the sources has beentotally obliterated. Far from it. Diodorus did not abridge uniformly and systematically. Sometimes he copied from asource verbatim; more frequently he paraphrased (see p. 132 ). But even when paraphrasing Diodorus was not beyondbeing influenced by the diction of his sources. At times, when struck by a word or phrase, he would retain it. Κοινὴἀναρχία at 45. 1 is almost certainly Ephoran, as is ἡμερατηγοί at 82. 6 (cf.n. ad loc.) and σατράπαι καὶστρατηγοί at 90.1, 3. Similarly, the description of Sparta as ἀπόρθητος at 15. 65. 1 and 81. 2. 38 Much of the Ephoran terminology isretained too; see 19. 2 n.; 34. 4n. One might further point to the proximity in language sometimes exhibited betweenDiodorus, Polybius, and Plutarch, certainly the result of the use of a common source (see p. 105 ). On the other handhe would sometimes replace obscure terms with more up-to-date ones intelligible to his readers. Section 62. 2 may beone such case (but see n. ad loc) and cf. 22. 2n. and 54. 5-56n. for instances of Diodorus both retaining Ephoranterminology and substituting his own.

In spite of Photius' praise 39 Diodorus' is not an attractive style. The empty and inept rhetoric and the poverty ofvocabulary are its most irritating characteristics. It is an almost formulaic way of writing. Embassies, militarypreparations, campaigns, battles, sieges are related repeatedly, but with little variation in their description. Diodorus is

not interested in an event per se, but only in what that event can offer by way of moral instruction or entertainment.Hence it does not really matter to him if that event is narrated in very much the same way as other events. OneDiodoran battle, for example, is very much like another. They are frequently described as ἰσχυραί or καρτεραί --certainly not Ephoran words 40 for they are found throughout the Bibliotheke; cf. 11. 7. 1 11. 12. 6; 11. 32. 2; 12. 6.2; 15. 3. 6; 16. 86. 2; 18. 14. 3; 18. 44. 4;

____________________37Palm, 1955; see also Hornblower, 1981: 263ff. and cf. Chamoux, pp. lxix ff.38Cf. ML no. 95; Lys. 33. 7.39Bibliotheke cod. 70, Budé edn., R. Henry, i. 103.40As Jacoby thought: FGH iic. 12.

-15-

19. 83. 4; 19. 89. 2; 20. 87. 3; 20. 89. 2. 41 They often begin with trumpets sounding the charge; cf. 15. 55. 3; 85. 3;17. 33. 4; 19-30. 1; 41. 3. There is almost always a high point when victory hangs in the balance and can go either

way. Then something occurs, the death of a general or the intensified efforts of his opponents, and the issue isdecided; cf. at random 15. 3. 6; 15. 17. 1; 16. 4. 5ff.; 16. 12. 3ff.; 16. 86. 2f.; 17. 11. 4ff.; 17. 33. 6ff.; 18. 32. 1;19. 41. 3-42; 19. 83f. 42 The height of absurdity is reached when the Athenian fiasco before the walls of Amphipolis in422 is given this treatment, both sides being said to have fought λαμπρω+ ̑ς, the battle being ἰσόρροπος to begin with,and both leaders exhibiting ἀνυπέρβλητον φιλοτιμίαν (12. 74. 1f.)! This surely cannot be Ephorus.

Many of the words and phrases, often mere clichés, making up Diodorus' descriptions are monotonously similar if notprecisely the same. Successful statesmen and generals, for instance, are invariably described as διάφοροι in ἀνδρεία orἀρετή and στρατηγικὴσύ νεσις; cf., again at random, 15. 16. 2; 15. 21. 1; 15. 29. 2; 15. 56. 3; 16. 18. 1; 16. 48. 2;16. 65. 2; 17. 7. 2; 18. 13. 6. When they fall in battle they do so μαχόμενοι ἡρωικω+ ̑ς or ἀγωνισάμενοι λαμπρω+ ̑ς; cf.15. 17. 1; 15. 21. 2; 15. 55. 3; 16. 48. 5; 16. 63. 1; 17. 63. 4; 18. 15. 3. These and countless other such expressionsare so stereotyped that they are meaningless in themselves.

Such repetitive language of course facilitated the task of an epitomator, though historical accuracy could suffer in theprocess. To give some examples, Diodorus is inaccurate when he says that the Spartans ἐξέπεμφαν Cleombrotus in371 and Polytropus in 370 (51. 4; 62. 1; see nn.). But in this way he saves himself the trouble of explaining theprecise circumstances of the events. Of course, we should not treat every instance of ἐξέπεμφαν as hiding further

detail. ἐξέπεμφαν at 45. 4 and 46. 3 (cf. 46. 2 ἔπεμφαν) means just that. Also, Diodorus is very fond of the adverbπανδημεί which he uses frequently, even when inappropriate in the context; cf. 13. 19. 4; 47. 4; 52. 1; 61. 2; 63. 4;15. 21. 2; 25. 4; 26. 2; 36. 1f.; 52. 2; 20. 31. 5. Some of these instances are factual; others are not. (For two moreexamples of Diodoran usage see p. 133.)

It might be worth noticing one or two characteristics of Diodorus' poor, epitomator's style. The heavy reliance onadverbs

____________________41FGH 70 F191 proves that the expression is not Ephoran; see pp. 132 f.42Barber, 1935: 143f. and Meister, 1975: 74, ascribe these standardized descriptions to Ephorus. F191 (see previous

n.) proves otherwise.

-16-

http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#37http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#37http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124633http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#38http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#38http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124606http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#39http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#39http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#40http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#40http://www.questia.com/read/96124517#41http://www.questia.com/read/96124517#41http://www.questia.com/read/96124517#42http://www.questia.com/read/96124517#42http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124634http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124633http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124633http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124634http://www.questia.com/read/96124517#42http://www.questia.com/read/96124517#42http://www.questia.com/read/96124517#41http://www.questia.com/read/96124517#41http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#40http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#40http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#39http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#39http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124606http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#38http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#38http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124633http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#37http://www.questia.com/read/96124516#37


12/266


13/266

as proof that Book I was already being written in that year. 45 But this cannot be. How could Diodorus start writingin the 50s and intend to bring his history down to 46/5 BC? 46 The problem of 1. 44. 4 disappears if we ignore theprecise figure of 276 years and appreciate that the computations in 1. 44 are not done down to a specific year ofany significance, but to the 180th Olympiad when Diodorus visited Egypt. That is all. There is no hint that he waswriting at that time. As he puts it, 'they say that the country has been ruled by men for almost 5,000 years downto the 180th Olympiad during which we visited Egypt when Ptolemy the so-called New Dionysus was king' (1. 44.1). Sixty-nine Olympiads intervened (reckoning inclusively) between the 112th Olympiad when Alexanderconquered Egypt and the 180th, i.e. 276 years. It was, of course, misleading of Diodorus, as well as unnecessary,to translate the sixty-nine Olympiads into years. As it happens, the figure of 5,000 years itself is that of theoriginal chronology of his source (almost certainly Hecataeus) which Diodorus has neglected to bring up to date, 47 in the same way that he neglected to correct the figures in 1. 5. 1. 48

2. Sections 1. 4. 7; 4. 19. 2; 5. 21. 2; 5. 25. 4; 32. 27. 1, 3: The deification of Julius Caesar is mentioned. The

wording seems to point to the official recognition of Caesar as a god by the senate on 1 January 42 BC. (Hegained the eponymia of god for his arete: 32. 27. 3.) The first passage comes from the general preface whichDiodorus wrote and appended to Book 1 of the Bibliotheke at the work's completion. The rest of the passages, onthe other hand, are part of the narratives of Books 4, 5, and 32. At 3. 38. 2 Diodorus mentions Caesar, but nothis deification. This has therefore been

____________________45Oldfather, p. ix; cf. Burton, 40 n. 3.46Burton indeed sees this, but because of her insistence that Book 1 was being written as early as 56 she

creates considerable difficulties for herself: 40 f.47Murray, 1970: 145 n. 3: cf. n. 139.48Oldfather, p. viii, seems correct that D was in Egypt in the first year of the 180th Ol. On the other hand there

is no reason to assume that the Roman citizen killed by a mob was connected with a Roman embassy, orindeed that there was a Roman embassy at all in Egypt at the time: τοὺς παρεπιδημου+ ̑ντας τω+ ̑ν ἀπὸτη + ̑ς Ι+ ̔ταλίας (1. 83. 8) need not mean an embassy. And, pace Sacks, 1990: 165, ἐπιδημία (1. 83. 9) could be of ashort duration.

-19-

taken by some as an indication that Books 1, 2, and 3 were written before Caesar's deification and the rest of theBibliotheke after that date. 49 It would be nice if we could rely on this observation because it would provide us with aterminus ante quem as well as a terminus post quem for the writing of the Bibliotheke. Unfortunately for the viewCaesar is also mentioned at 5. 22. 1 without being called a god. Diodorus is inconsistent if he is anything and weshould not make too much of 3. 38. 2. Those who would have Diodorus writing the early books at least in the 50s (seeabove) need to prove that the passages in question are all later additions, added perhaps at the time the Bibliotheke was being revised. 50 Not only is there no such proof, but the indications are that Diodorus never did revise his work(witness e.g. the inappropriate figures discussed above and see pp. 137 ff.).

3. Section 12. 26. 1: Diodorus refers to the rostra which had 'at that time' (τοι+ ̑ς . . . τότε) stood in front of the Curia.As these were removed by Caesar c. 45 BC, Book 12 must have been written some years after that date. 51

4. Section 16. 7. 1: the Roman colony at Tauromenium mentioned here was almost certainly sent out in 36 BC. 52

5. Sections 13. 35. 3 and 16. 70. 6: in the first passage Diodorus says that Diocles' laws remained in force in manySicilian cities until the time all the Siceliots were granted Roman citizenship. In the second, that the amphipoly (aneponymous magistracy) retained its importance at Syracuse for more than 300 years, from 343/2 when it wasinstituted by Timoleon, until the Romansn shared their citizenship with the Siceliots, which was the time theBibliotheke was being written. It would appear then that Diodorus is not here referring to the grant of ius Latii to thecommunities of Sicily by Caesar ( Cicero, Ad Atticum 14. 12. 1), but to a full enfranchisement by Sextus Pompeiusafter 43 BC. 53 The references thus provide us with a terminus post quem for Books 13 and 16 ( 43 BC), though notwith a terminus ante quem, 54 even if we accept

____________________49Cf. Sartori, 1983: 547; accepted by Sacks, 1990: 171, who, however, points out that Caesar was being called a

god from the day of his funeral. If so, this would push the terminus back to spring 44.50Thus e.g. Burton, 41 n. 1, though referring only to 5. 21. 2 and 5. 25. 4.51Cf. Casevitz, p. xi n. 1.52Cf. Rubincam, 1985: 521 f.53Sacks, 1990: 207ff .54As Sacks, 1990: 162 n. 6, 208, thinks.

-20-

that Augustus in 36 Bc deprived all or most Sicilians of their recently gained citizenship: in 13. 35. 3 and 16. 70. 6Diodorus is concerned not with the fortunes of the Roman franchise in Sicily, but with those of the laws of Diocles andthe Syracusan amphipoly.

The above evidence leads to the conclusion that Diodorus began writing some time in the late 40s at the earliest, withthe initial intention of bringing his work down to 46/5. How long did the project last? The claims at 1. 4. 1, oftentreated with more respect than they deserve, are not to be countenanced, even if a large part of the thirty-year periodwere assigned to preparation. 55 The Bibliotheke is entirely derivative and Diodorus' methods slipshod, so much so thatthe work could have been dashed off in a very few years. A superior writer like Dio Cassius wrote eighty books intwelve years: 72. 23. 5. 56

http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#45http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#45http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#46http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#46http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#47http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#47http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#48http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#48http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#49http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#49http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#50http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#50http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124638http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#51http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#51http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#52http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#52http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#53http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#53http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#54http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#54http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#55http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#55http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#56http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#56http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#56http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#56http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#55http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#55http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#54http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#54http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#53http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#53http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#52http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#52http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#51http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#51http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124638http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#50http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#50http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#49http://www.questia.com/read/96124521#49http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#48http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#48http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#47http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#47http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#46http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#46http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#45http://www.questia.com/read/96124520#45


14/266

A closely related question concerns the point at which Diodorus decided to stop with the year 60/59, contrary to hisoriginal intention, and the reason for so doing. Sacks develops rather an interesting theory. 57 The abandonment of theinitial terminal date of 46/5, he thinks, was not fortuitous, but f orced on Diodorus, a 'Greek émigré' living in Rome who'venerated Caesar', but 'had reason to abhor Caesar's nephew', 58 by a deteriorating political climate. Long before hereached it, Diodorus had judged it unwise to treat the contentious period of 60-46 BC. Argued at length the thesisappears unnecessarily contrived and oversubtle for a writer of the level of Diodorus, even if we agreed with Sacks thatthe decision to stop with 60/59 was taken well in advance of it. And this does not quite follow from 32. 27. 3 whereDiodorus attached to his description of the destruction of Corinth in 146 a eulogy of Caesar apropos of his laterrebuilding of the city. Sacks

____________________55Cf., most recently, Chamoux, p. xxxiii. Similarly Sacks, 1990: 161 ff. , following Rubincam, 1987: 324 ff.,

envisages D as engaged in 'research' from 60/59 down to 46/5 and then as settling in Rome and writing until c.30when the Bibliotheke was published. And see p. 77 : D 'spent years of research in Alexandria, possibly working inthe Great Library'! What, in any case, is the evidence that he began writing in 46/5?

56Though ten years are also said to have been spent on gathering the necessary material. Nicolaus of Damascus, acontemporary of D, may have taken no more than ten years to write his massive universal history of 144 books:Wachsmuth, 1895: 105. But Nicolaus' dates are rather uncertain: Jacoby, FGH iic. 231.

571990: 160ff., esp. 172ff. Cf. also Rubincam, 1987: 327ff.581990: 183.

-21-

insists 59 that the account of the actual refoundation of Corinth was the correct place for such a eulogy andconcludes that Diodorus must already have decided to go no further than 60/59. Perhaps, but as Diodorus neverintended to take his narrative down to 44 when Caesar was assassinated (and epainoi in Diodorus commonly comeat the end of a man's life: see pp. 5 ff.) any suitable point might do. Similar eulogistic comments which precede aperson's death and serve to herald a fuller treatment of the subject further on are not unknown in the Bibliotheke,though generally Diodorus concludes his remarks with a promise to return to the matter in due course (cf. 15. 39;16. 1. 3-6; 65. 9). Such a statement would not of course have been relevant to the purpose of the Byzantine

excerptor who may therefore have omitted it. Why, in any case, should a fervent admirer of Caesar hesitate todescribe his achievements, as he had promised (almost certainly several years after Caesar's death), in a Romedominated by the dictator's nephew? The real reason why Diodorus decided to stop with 60/59 may be a great dealsimpler. 60 It may well be that his chronographer ran out and at the same time he could not procure an account ofcontemporary events suited to his methods and purposes. It may even be that he had decided on forty for hisnumber of books (see below), and having miscalculated (not for the first time: see p. 24 ) the length of one or moreof those dealing with events in the first century, he decided to bring the work to an end with 60/59, as convenient aclosing point as any. Such mundane reasons are far from impossible in the case of Diodorus. 61

The annalistic history of Books 11-40 presumably began when Diodorus had enough dated events at his disposal tomake such a system practicable. That, however, is not likely to have been the case before the beginning of theseries of Athenian archons. For the interval between the return of the Heraclids and the 1st Olympiad Diodorusclaims to have reckoned by the reigns of the Spartan kings (cf. FGH 244 F63b, 64). From the 1st Olympiad to thebeginning of the archon series, the list of Olympiads would have sufficed for his purposes (cf. 2. 32. 3). Whennecessary, with the aid of the chronographer, he would doubtless have resorted to

____________________591990: 175 f.60Cf. also Stylianou, 1991: 394f.61For various other suggestions see Schwartz, RE v. 665; Oldfather, i, pp. xviii f.; Perl, 1957: 6f.; Laqueur, 1958:

285ff.; Burton, 39ff.

-22-

reckoning by intervals from an epochal event, the Trojan War in his case. Indeed, he is not averse to using this methodin later books too (cf. 14. 2. 4; 19. 1. 10; 20. 2. 3). Certainly Diodorus' annalistic system began before Book 10 (see10. 3. 1 -- Pythagoras' floruit is dated by archon Thericles and the 61st Olympiad) and Book 9 may have been in thatform in its entirety, to judge from the contents (Athenian sixth-century history, Croesus, Cyrus the Great, etc.). Book8, however, can only have been so in part. It covered the Messenian Wars, some early tyrants, foundations, etc.Diodorus may have commented on his system as it was gradually introduced -- first the Olympiads, then the archons,and finally the consuls.

Having decided on the overall plan Diodorus would then have turned his attention to the subject matter of theindividual books; not necessarily all forty at once, and one might even question that Diodorus made up his mind onforty books from the beginning. But that is not at all unlikely. He may have adopted the number forty from Polybiuswhose work he tried to imitate in other respects. 62 To facilitate his task he must have divided the great length of timehe had to cover into periods. That was only sensible. At 1. 4. 6f. he tells us that the Bibliotheke was divided into threemajor parts and this must be what he planned in broad outline at the outset. Certainly the hexad of pre-Trojan deeds,three Greek and three barbarian, represents his original plan. He must also have divided the period from the TrojanWar to the death of Alexander, and that from the latter event to the end of the work, into smaller, more manageableunits, though we can only guess what these were and how many books he assigned to each. The relevant statementshe makes at various points are only of limited help as they refer to what has already been written and not to hisoriginal intentions. Nevertheless, it would be very surprising if Diodorus departed significantly from the original plan.

From the anticipatory remarks found scattered throughout the Bibliotheke it is evident that Diodorus must have read, ifonly superficially, most of his sources, both the narrative and the chronographic, before he began writing. 63 Inaddition he had his

http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#57http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#57http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#58http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#58http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#58http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124578http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#59http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#59http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124506http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#60http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#60http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124525http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#61http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#61http://www.questia.com/read/96124524#62http://www.questia.com/read/96124524#62http://www.questia.com/read/96124524#63http://www.questia.com/read/96124524#63http://www.questia.com/read/96124524#63http://www.questia.com/read/96124524#63http://www.questia.com/read/96124524#62http://www.questia.com/read/96124524#62http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#61http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#61http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124525http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#60http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#60http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124506http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#59http://www.questia.com/read/96124523#59http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96124578http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96125077http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#58http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#58http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#57http://www.questia.com/read/96124522#57


15/266

____________________62Cf. Walbank, 1945b: 41; Hornblower, 1981: 25. His attempt to present his accounts in a year-by-year, region-by-

region, form was probably borrowed from Polybius.63There are a great many of these remarks scattered throughout the Bibliotheke; see now Rubincam, 1989: 39 ff. To

her tabulation on p. 56 add 16. 50. 8.

-23- own knowledge, however deficient, of the past. It would not, therefore, have been particularly difficult to decide inadvance, almost certainly with the aid of the chronographer, on the number of books for each period and even on theircontents. For some of the books these would have been immediately obvious, for example, αἱ του+ ̑ Φιλίππου πράξεις (360-336) naturally belonged in one book, as did αἱ του+ ̑ Α+ ̔λεξάνδρου (336-323). The period from the Peace ofAntalcidas (certainly a landmark and the beginning of Callisthenes' Hellenica) to the reign of Philip would readilysuggest another. The less obvious books would in the end be defined by the more obvious ones.

This method of working would have made for some inflexibility, but that would not have worried Diodorus; hisframework constructed, the narrative material would simply have to fit it. Certainly on a number of occasions Diodorusexplains that he cannot deal even with important events at length as that would destroy the symmetry of his work (cf.1. 8. 10; 1. 29. 6; 2. 31. 10; 8. 12. 15). This does not constitute evidence for the above hypothesis and unfortunatelythere is no such evidence to be had. 64 However, it seems most probable that Diodorus decided on the number ofbooks from the beginning and even on the specific contents of many of these books though obviously he was able tointroduce modifications as he went along if necessary. For example, it appears that the fact that the pentecontaetia issplit between two books, 11 and 12, is due to Diodorus' having run into difficulties with the size of Book 10 (see p. 104). The same is true of Book 13. Diodorus had intended to conclude with the beginning of Dionysius' SecondCarthaginian War, that is, with the year 398, and he said so at 13. 1. 3. As, however, Book 13 grew to a length beyondthat of the average book, he decided to finish instead with the end of the Peloponnesian War in Greece and the end ofthe First Carthaginian War in Sicily. Yet he did not hesitate to lie that the original intention had been fulfilled (13. 114.3). The fact that this concluding paragraph is worded differently from all the others (almost as if by way of an apology)indicates that Diodorus was aware of the inconsistency. 65

____________________64D occasionally refers back to books, twice by number too (at 16. 46. 5; 20. 57. 6), but almost never ahead (the

one exception is 11. 90. 4); but then neither does Polybius who certainly revised his work. See Rubincam, 1989.65Cf. ἐπιτετελεσμένης τη+ ̑ς προθέσεως at 13. 114. 3 with κατὰτὴ ν ἐν ἀρχῃ+ ̑ πρόθεσιν at 11. 92. 5; 12. 84. 4; 14.117. 9; etc.; see Laqueur, 1958: 282. I cannot, however,

-24-

It should be noted that Diodorus is always anxious to define his books at the beginning and usually at the end ofeach too. For the historical period he was able to do so exactly: Book 10 ended with the year previous to Xerxes'crossing from Asia to Europe (11. 1. 1). Book 11 began with the year of Xerxes' invasion of Greece when Calliadeswas archon at Athens and the 75th Olympiad was celebrated (11. 1. 1-2) and ended in the year before Cimon'scampaign against Cyprus (11. 1. 1; 92. 5; 12. 2. 3), and so on. These dated events were of course derived fromthe chronographer. 66

3. THE SOURCES

(a) The chronographer(i) The framework

The most obvious indication that Diodorus used a chronographic source is the series of Athenian archons, Romanconsuls, and Olympiads which provides a chronological framework for the Bibliotheke. The archons and Olympiadsquite evidently derive from a Greek chronographic source based ultimately on the system of Eratosthenes andApollodorus. 67 What though is the origin of the colleges of Roman magistrates and indeed of the rest of theRoman material? The amount of this in Book 15 is so insignificant that it might as well be dealt with here as awhole. It is not impossible that Diodorus found the colleges in a Greek chronographer, perhaps even in the verysame Greek chronographer he used for everything else. The Chronica of Castor of Rhodes is the obviouscandidate, 68 especially as the work very conveniently reached down to 61/60 BC. Schwartz objects that

____________________agree with his complicated explanation, 281 ff., based on D's misuse of different sources. I see thecontradiction as evidence that the Bibliotheke was not revised. See also the preface to Book 17 (another largebook) where D says that at the same time as the deeds of Alexander he intends to

Documents

A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book _15