Diodorus, the Ho and Xenophon: a Reassessment

chapter 4 Diodorus, the ho and Xenophon: A Reassessment This chapter presents a new reading of the relationship between Diodorus’ Bibliotheke, the ho (London papyrus, Florence papyrus and Cairo papyrus)1 and Xenophon’s Hellenica. Study cases are some accounts pertaining to the Spartan expedition against Persia in the early fourth century (the battle of Sardis,2 395bc) as well as episodes of the last phases of the Peloponnesian war (the battle of Notion, 407/406bc, Thrasyllus’ operations in the Aegean Sea, 409bc, the Thirty under Theramenes). The main objective is to cross-compare historiographical methods and prac- tices of the authors in question in order to revise and reject old-fashioned theories about Diodorus’ way of reworking his source material (in reference to some sections of books 13–15). All the cases examined contain very relevant information and have not hitherto been closely evaluated; the criterion cho- sen is thematic, not chronological, and a good deal of emphasis is placed on papyrological aspects and issues related to the three papyri forming the ho. Several crucial questions are raised here: in what way does Diodorus dis- tance himself from his sources, even when he follows them closely? How does he conciliate fourth-century history, Greek vocabulary and Roman historiographical modes and ideology? What functions do moralism and human chararacterisation have and how are they employed? 4.1 The ho as a Source for Diodorus’Bibliotheke Studying the ho requires us to turn our attention to Diodorean narrative, since we depend on it for much of what is known of mid-fourth-century history. But our attempt to uncover the various strata of the tradition obviously requires great caution since there is the risk of attributing them too easily to one specific source. According to the nineteenth-century approach the value of Diodorean narrative depended on the sources that the historian used, and aside from factual errors and chronological blunders Diodorus was assumed to remain exceedingly faithful to his sources, acting as not much more than a copyist. Recent contributions have tried to restore Diodorus to his proper stature in his 1 Respectively P. Oxy. v 842, psi xiii 1304, and 26 6 sr 3049, 27 1. 2 For the comparison between the ho and Xenophon on the battle of Sardis see ch. 3. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325784_005 58 chapter 4 own times by approaching the issue in different terms, that is by grasping and explaining the historiographical, political and philosophical categories that Diodorus applied to his work, in consideration of both the Roman background of the historian and his moral outlook.3 A common claim within the tradition of Diodorean Quellenforschung is that the ho was among the sources of the Bibliotheke, but was only known to Diodorus through Ephorus’ mediation. In fact, it was considered an established fact for nearly a century that Diodorus used Ephorus as the main authority for books 11 through 16 of his work, and was capable of no more than mechanically reproducing the words of his source. While Ephorus was usually considered the main authority followed by Diodorus for fifth- and fourth-century history, all other historians (Ephorus’ contemporaries or predecessors), according to scholars, were known to Diodorus only through Ephorus’ mediation. Diodorus’ narrative was, therefore, carefully investigated in order to find evidence of Ephorus and, behind that, evidence of Ephorus’ sources. There is, it must be said, a sort of hazardous circularity in assuming that because Diodorus wrote universal history he must have based his work on a universal historian as well (Ephorus), within whose work most fifth- and fourth-century historians would also be traceable. Ephorus himself is highly problematic. After all, his Histories is not extant, with the exception of what is preserved on papyrus (P. Oxy. xiii 1610),4 and we rely solely on the passages that later writers cite under his name (such as Diodorus, Strabo and Plutarch). And in very few cases can we read Ephorus’ own exact words—just a few instances preserved in Strabo, Athenaeus and Stephanus of Byzantium. Furthermore, scholars today are inclined to assume that Diodorus might have gained his knowledge of fifth- and fourth-century history through several other sources rather than through Ephorus alone, and may have read them directly rather than acquiring their material only through Ephorus’ mediation.5 It is therefore time to ask some crucial questions. To what extent might the ho be considered even today a source of Diodorus’ books 14–15? And is it possi- ble that it came directly to Diodorus, without the mediation of any other writer? It is commonly accepted that Diodorus’ accounts of Cyrus’ expedition against his brother Artaxerxes (14.19–31)6 and of Agesilaus’ Asiatic campaign 3 Cf. Sacks (1990), Id. (1994): 213–232, Corsaro (1998): 405–436, Id. (1999): 117–169, Sulimani (2011). Differently Ambaglio (1995). 4 Africa (1962): 86–89. See Occhipinti (2014 a): 25–33. 5 Cf. also Rood (2004 a): 362–365, Parmeggiani (2011): 373–394. 6 Westlake (1987): 241–254. Cf. Stylianou (1988): 463–471, Dillery (1995): 59. Stylianou’s more.

Load more