Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:21:03.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How many books did Diodorus Siculus originally intend to write?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Catherine Rubincam
Catherine Rubincam
Affiliation:
University of Toronto at Mississauga
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Diodorus Siculus was notoriously inconsistent in his statements about the terminal date of his survey of history, the Bibliotheca Historica. In the ‘table of contents’ (1.4.7) which he included in the general preface to the whole work, written apparently when he was preparing his manuscript for publication (probably about 30 b.c.), he specifically names the year 60/59 (‘the first year of the 180th Olympiad, when Herodes was archon at Athens’) as the last year of his narrative. Elsewhere, however, he not only gives a figure for the period of history encompassed by his work which would bring it down to 46/5, but he also on several occasions expresses the intention of including within his narrative some account of Julius Caesar's activities in Gaul, which implies a terminal date later than c. 52 B.C. How can this discrepancy be explained? The most economical hypothesis would be that Diodorus set out at first to compose a work that should go down to 46/5, but at some later stage in the composition changed his mind, and set back his terminus to 60/59. His originally intended terminus was most likely the triple triumph of Julius Caesar, whom Diodorus clearly admired beyond all other contemporary leaders. The decision in favour of an earlier terminus will have been due either to simple fatigue or to disillusionment with the course followed by Caesar's heir after 44 b.c. and anxiety about the dangers of dealing with events of a too recent and controversial past.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , May 1998 , pp. 229 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I have discussed the probable publication date of the Bibliothecain ‘The organization and composition of Diodoros’ Bibliotheke', Classical Viewsn.s. 6 (1987), 313–328, esp. 322–328Google Scholar, and ‘The chronology of the punishment and reconstruction of Sicily by Octavian/Augustus’, AJA 89 (1985), 521–522Google Scholar. The whole of 1.4 appears to look back at the process of composition of the Bibliothecafrom the time of its completion (note especially 1.4.6: ‘ my undertaking is now completed, although the volumes are as yet unpublished’). It will be clear from what follows that I share the opinion expressed by Laqueur, R. (‘Diodorea’, Hermes 86 [1958], 257–290, esp. 285–290)that 1.5.1 is a relic of an earlier stage in the composition of the preface.Google Scholar

2 A terminus of 4645 is implied by the figures at 1.5.1. Promises to discuss Julius Caesar's exploits are found at 3.38.2 (promise to describe Caesar's advancement of Roman rule into Britain-55 B.C.), 5.21.2 (promise to describe Caesar's conquest of Britain-55 B.C.), and 5.22.1 (promise to describe the customs of the Britons). In addition, 4.19.2 alludes to Caesar's sack of Alesia (52 B.C), and 5.25.4 to his bridging of the Rhine (55 or 53 B.C.). A further complication in the use of these passages to establish a terminus post quern for the composition of the Bibliotheca is the fact that three of them (4.19.2, 5.21.2, and 5.25.4) refer to Julius Caesar with a formula that translates the title Divus, which was bestowed on him only late in 42 B.C. See the discussion in Rubincam, ‘Organization’ (above, n. 1), 322–328.

3 This is the hypothesis presented in Rubincam, ‘Organization’ (above, n. 1), 324–328. See also Sartori, M., ‘Note sulla datazione dei primi libri della Bibliotheca Historicadi Diodoro Siculo’, Athenaeum 71 (1983), 545–552.Google Scholar

4 It has long been accepted that Diodorus used Polybius as a major source for the first half of the second century B.C., as well as a few episodes in the previous century: see Schwartz, E., ‘Diodoros’, no. 38, RE 5 (1903), 688–690Google Scholar. Stylistic influence is also documented by Palm, J., Ueber Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien(Lund, 1955), esp. pp. 76–93. Imitation of Polybian sentiments by Diodorus has often been suggested: see, e.g., Schwartz, ‘Diodoros’, col. 663. K.S. Sacks (Diodorus Siculus and the First Century [Princeton, 1990], pp. 10, 37–40, 121–122, 132–140) examines this question thoroughly and concludes that there were general similarities, but also significant differences, between their attitudes on many questions.Google Scholar

5 Editions of Thucydides with more than the canonical eight books were known in antiquity (Marcellinus, Life of Thucydides57; Diod. 12.37.2).

6 See F. Jacoby, FGrHist 70 T 10 (Diod. 16.76.5).Google Scholar

7 Theopompus' Philippica had fifty-eight books (FGrHist115 T 1), Timaeus apparently wrote thirty-eight (FGrHist566 T 1), and Poseidonius 52(FGrHist87 T 1).

8 On Polybius' original plan and its revision see Walbank, F.W., Polybius(Berkeley, 1972), pp. 13–27.Google Scholar

9 See Luce, T. J., Livy: The Composition of His History(Princeton, 1977).Google Scholar

10 For example, 5.1.4,16.1.1–16.1.3, 17.1.1–17.1.2.

11 The discrepancy between 1.4.7 and 1.5.1 concerning the terminus of the Bibliotheca can best be explained, as Laqueur pointed out (above, n. 1), by assuming that 1.5.1 is an unrevised section from an earlier version of the preface.

12 See Rubincam, , ‘Organization’ (above, n. 1), 324–328. Luce's work on Livy is cited above (n. 9); Barnes discussed Cassius Dio's working method in ‘The Composition of Cassius Dio's Roman History’, Phoenix 38 (1984), 240–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 The following list tabulates the period of history encompassed by each of the last thirty books of the Bibliotheca The first six books, since they consist of a mixture of archaeology and mythology, cannot be included. For books 7–10 we lack sufficient evidence for the book boundaries. The figures for books 21–40, which survive only in fragments, are obviously no more than tentative estimates. It will be observed that the average for the last 20 books, which we know to have covered the years 301–360 B.C., is 12.1 years per book, but that some books deviate widely from that figure: the extremes are book 30, which covers only four years, and book 29, which covers twenty-;two. (Note that the fragments from books 34 and 35 and from books 38 and 39 cannot be certainly separated.)

14 See, e.g., Luce, , Livy, p. 18.Google Scholar

15 The sources upon which Diodorus may have drawn for the theoretical discussions in his prefaces have been much discussed. Sacks, K. S., ‘The Lesser Prooemia of Diodorus Siculus’ (Hermes 110 [1982], 434–441), discusses the older literature, and argues that, whatever their ultimate inspiration, the prefaces are an integral part of Diodorus' own conceptual scheme for the Bibliotheca In any case, the ‘tables of contents’ of the individual books are clearly Diodorus' own work.Google Scholar

16 The preface to book 11 is missing.

17 Sentences reminding the reader of the contents of the immediately preceding book are found at: 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.1.5, 11.1.1, 12.2.2, 13.1.2–13.1.3, 14.2.3–14.2.4, 15.1.6, 17.1.1, 18.1.5–18.1.6. The prefaces to books 13 (1.2–1.3) and 19 (1.9–1.10) are unique in stopping to sum up explicitly the contents of the preceding six books (namely 7–12) and the preceding 18 books (namely 1–18), respectively. The prefaces to 14 and 20 give summary descriptions of the contents of the preceding seven and nineteen books, respectively, but without specifying the number of books referred to in each case.

18 On the first six books see 1.4.6, which sets out in advance the division between ‘events and myths’ of the barbarians and of the Greeks, while 4.1.5 summarizes in particular detail the barbarian myths that were the subject of the preceding three books, as a prelude to embarking on the complementary topic of Greek myths.

19 Walbank, Polybius, pp. 97–99, discusses, without apparently endorsing, the suggestion that Polybius arranged his ‘forty books roughly in groups of six’ (p. 98).Google Scholar

20 See the discussion of Luce, , Livy, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar

21 Book 7 began with the sequel to the Trojan War, which Ephorus had chosen as the beginning of his koine historia (FGrHist70 T 8 = Diod. 4.1.2). Book 13 began with the Athenian attack on Syracuse (415), 19 with Agathocles' rise to power in Sicily (317), 25 with the sequel to the First Punic War (240–significantly, the beginning of Roman rule in Sicily, her first province), 31 with the sequel to the Roman conquest of Perseus (167–the beginning of the first Roman take-over of a great Hellenistic kingdom, Macedonia), and 37 with the ‘Marsic’ or Social War (91–the war which forced the Romans to extend their citizenship to the Italian allies).

22 The ‘table of contents’ in the general preface (1.4.6) specifies the following large divisions: the first six books, containing ‘events and myths before the Trojan War’ (the first three ‘those of the barbarians’, the next three ‘more or less the archaeologies of the Greeks’); the following eleven books, containing ‘events following the Trojan War told in a common scheme... down to the death of Alexander’; the subsequent 23 books, containing ‘all the remaining events down to the beginning of the war that broke out between the Romans and the Celts...’.

23 On these connections in Diodorus' thought see Sartori (art. cit.) and id, ‘Storia, “utopia” emito nei primi libri della Bibliotheca Historicadi Diodoro Siculo’, Athenaeum 72 (1984), 492–536. Laqueur (art. cit.) also emphasizes the significant difference in the conception behind 1.4 and 1.5, which he attributes to the evolution of Diodorus' ideas during the composition of the Bibliotheca.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Classical Association of Canada in Calgary, June 1994. I am grateful to those who contributed to the discussion on that occasion.