The History of the Diadochoi in Book XIX of Diodoros' ›Bibliotheke‹

A Historical and Historiographical Commentary

Alexander Meeus

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9783110743869
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Diodoros of Sicily's book XIX is the main source for the history of the Diadochoi, Alexander the Great's Successors, from 317 to 311 BCE. With the first full-scale commentary on this text in any language Alexander Meeus offers a detailed and reliable guide to the complicated historical narrative and the fascinating ethnographic information transmitted by Diodoros, which includes the earliest accounts of Indian widow burning and Nabataean culture.

Studying both history and historiography, this volume elucidates a crucial stage in the creation of the Hellenistic world in Greece and the Near East as well as the confusing source tradition.

Diodoros, a long neglected author indispensable for much of our knowledge of Antiquity, is currently enjoying growing scholarly interest. An ample introduction discusses his historical methods and sheds light on his language and style and on the manuscript transmission of books XVII-XX. By negotiating between diametrically opposed scholarly opinions a new understanding of Diodoros' place in the ancient historiographical tradition is offered.

The volume is of interest to scholars of ancient historiography, Hellenistic history, Hellenistic prose and the textual transmission of the Bibliotheke.

Part I: Diodoros and His Work

1 Diodoros of Agyrion

For all his later fame and reputation,¹² precious little is known of the author of the Bibliotheke. That this is indeed the title he himself gave to his work is confirmed by the comment on Diodoros’ choice of title in Pliny’s preface to the Naturalis historia.¹³ All we know of Diodoros is what he tells us himself or what can be deduced from his work. The brief Souda entry likewise seems to consist merely of a few basic facts gleaned from a reading of the Bibliotheke.¹⁴ Diodoros was a Sicilian Greek from the small inland polis of Agyrion, proud of his native city and of his island. He learned Latin from his contacts with Romans in Sicily, and journeyed to Rome and to Alexandria; his claim to have travelled the most important regions of the oikoumene may or may not have included other destinations. His work professes geographical as well as chronological universality, covering the entire known world from creation down to the beginning of the Gallic war, which probably means 61 BCE. Along with a stay in Egypt at the beginning of the 180th Olympiad and some references to events in the 40s and 30s BCE, this is our only evidence for the chronology of Diodoros’ life and writings. The common assumption that he lived from ca. 90 to 30 BCE thus seems justified in all its vagueness, but there is much leeway at either end.¹⁵ The combination of datable contemporary events mentioned by Diodoros and his claim to have spent thirty years on his work (I 4.1), even if the latter is taken literally, does not allow for an exact date of composition to be established. There is no need to assume that his stay in Egypt was necessarily connected to or even fell within the time of his historiographical activity.¹⁶ Neither do we know to what extent the references to contemporary events were part of the original composition rather than the last additions whilst revising a previous draft. The commonly accepted date of composition of ca. 60 – 30 BCE can thus likewise be only a very rough estimate.¹⁷ The Bibliotheke does not seem to display any particularly strong attachment to Rome,¹⁸ and if its author held positive opinions on some of its leaders at all, then perhaps Pompeius rather than Caesar. His praise of the latter appears suspiciously repetitive and mechanical even by Diodorean standards, and in political terms the choice of the terminal date reflects the apogee of Pompeius’ career rather than any significant connection to Caesar.¹⁹

2 The Bibliotheke

2.1 Diodoros’ Conception of History

The one aspect of history that Diodoros stresses most strongly in his preface is its didactic and moral utility: to him history is not just a teacher for life, but the very best there is – ‘the metropolis of all philosophy so to speak’.²⁰ It is obvious throughout the Bibliotheke that this was not a mere rhetorical topos and that Diodoros puts the idea into practice consistently.²¹ The reader of the account of the Successors in Book XIX regularly encounters the moralizing teacher: at times very conspicuously and at times rather in the background, but he is always there.²² Furthermore, it is clear that the selection of material is strongly determined by Diodoros’ moral programme (cf. infra, §2.2.3). From the point of view of the modern historian, then, Diodoros does in many ways have ‘unfortunate historiographical objectives’,²³ but they are surely no sign of intellectual laziness or a profound historiographical failing.²⁴ Indeed, well into the eighteenth century moral didacticism was considered history’s highest function,²⁵ and Diodoros was appreciated as an historian by some of the greatest minds in early modern Europe.²⁶

For Diodoros history is much more than a storehouse of useful examples (cf. I 1.3 – 5, χρηματιστήριον), however. He knows full well that the historian is required to present the truth, not only because it reinforces the moral lessons, but also – it would appear – because it is an inherent quality of the genre.²⁷ Furthermore, Diodoros (esp. I 3.2, 3.8) considers chronology to be of central importance to historiography,²⁸ unlike Eunapios (F1 Blockley) who deems it irrelevant because it does not contribute to the moral function. While Eunapios’ criticism of chronological exactitude must not be overstated,²⁹ his claim that it is pointless to know in what time of the year a noble deed was done, contrasts sharply with Diodoros’ regular use of such seasonal markers as ‘when the dog star was rising’.³⁰ Diodoros is likewise very much concerned with narrative continuity and does not just offer a collection of miscellaneous examples or short biographies in which the historical setting is only of marginal relevance. As puzzling and unhistorical as certain aspects of Diodoros’ selection of material may thus appear, it is by no means devoid of historical spirit. Admittedly, the focus in his description of political and military events is often on virtue and vice,³¹ but we equally find much material that has no moral dimension and would conform to historicist understandings of historical relevance just as well.

2.2 Diodoros’ Historical Method

Diodoros is traditionally assumed to have been a slavish epitomator who rather mechanically copied a single source at a time, his own contribution being limited to the chronographic system (containing a great deal of mistakes) and some moralizing comments. The classical statement of this view is to be found in Schwartz’s article in the Realencyclopädie, which has remained very influential during almost the entire twentieth century.³² Even in the nineteenth century some had already argued that the work showed much more independence, but they were hardly heard, in spite of many sound and convincing arguments.³³

In 1955 Palm showed by means of a thorough analysis that, throughout the Bibliotheke, Diodoros has actually imposed his own language and style on the source material. This was a crucial step towards a partial rehabilitation, even though Palm still ruled out any independence of thought.³⁴ Shortly after Palm, however, Spoerri and Pavan argued that Diodoros did have his own ideas which are reflected in his work, while Drews showed that Diodoros might sometimes have used more than one source for the same period.³⁵ In an important series of articles Rubincam demonstrated Diodoros’ independence in the conception and the organization of his work.³⁶

These studies seem to have paved the way for works such as those of Sacks, Chamoux, Wirth and Ambaglio who went rather far in arguing that Diodoros was in all respects an independent author who was not as stupid as is generally thought.³⁷ They have found wide acceptance since many scholars nowadays take Diodoros’ independence largely for granted.³⁸ The latter tendency seems to have found its culmination point in an article by Sulimani who assumes that all references to sources in the Bibliotheke are primary citations by Diodoros, without even the least attempt to prove the point, and argues that Diodoros was an innovator when it comes to source-citations.³⁹

Not everyone is equally convinced, however, as the traditional view has recently been reasserted in the strongest terms by Stylianou, or in a somewhat more moderate manner by Anson.⁴⁰ A most interesting development is found in the views of Ambaglio who has now joined the side of those who deny any serious independence and quality to the Bibliotheke, rejecting some of his own earlier arguments.⁴¹ In recent years a middle view has developed, which argues that Diodoros, while staying close to his sources, should not be considered a mindless compiler without any originality at all.⁴² Particularly important in this respect are several studies demonstrating that Diodoros wished to be seen as a critical historian who has consulted eyewitnesses and documents and has travelled w...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I: Diodoros and His Work
• Part II: Commentary
• Abbreviations
• Index Graecitatis