Search Results

The principal source which is examined for the period after the death of Alexander the Great is Hieronymus of Cardia. He is reputed for his supposedly dispassionate narrative of events, his factual accuracy, backed by verbatim citation of documents. However, Hieronymus had a penchant for digression, enlivening his narrative of men and events with picturesque descriptions of engineering and artistic monuments, the social mores of exotic peoples, and the origins of famous cities. Hieronymus' digressions, it may be argued, had a certain sophistication. They were not written solely to break the narrative and add exotic colour. There was on occasion an implied message, moral or political, which the reader might detect beneath the plain text of the excursus. We may see the method at work in two of the lengthiest ethnographic interludes in Diodorus. The first concerns a description of a deeply impressive event that occurred after the Battle of Paraetacene. The commander of the Indian contingent, a prince named Ceteus, had died heroically in battle, and was given a spectacular funeral. It gives the first recorded instance of the Indian institution of sati (widow burning).

This chapter discusses the first surviving part of Velleius Paterculus' history (1.1-8), which covers the period from the Trojan War to the reign of Romulus, with particular reference to the foundations of cities and colonies, and the succession of monarchical power (imperium) in Greece and Asia. The discussion concentrates on Velleius' interest in Hercules, whose apotheosis he even uses as a dating marker like the Trojan War or the foundation of Rome. Comparison with Diodorus's narrative of Hercules' deeds, and with the first Nemean Ode of Pindar (written for a Sicilian patron), suggests that Velleius may have been following a western tradition in which Hercules became a god after the defeat of the Giants in Campania. Velleius himself was Campanian, as was his patron M. Vinicius, whose family's presence there can be traced back to the 5th century BC.

This chapter works outward from the final scene of Virgil's Aeneid in order to examine three interlocking themes. The first is the importance of the Social (or Marsic) War (91-88 BC) as an analogue for the battles waged for Italy in the second half of Virgil's Aeneid. Here historiographical texts (Sallust, Diodorus, Posidonius) are adduced in order to show the issues surrounding the Social War. The second theme is the dilemma between mercy and vengeance, and the difficulty for Roman authors in portraying civil war. It is argued that the ‘open’ endings of both Aeneid and Sallust's Catiline are not accidental, but rather one strategy for dealing with those difficulties. The third theme is the role that spoils play in late Republican discussions of their empire and treatment of their subjects, and the way in which this is related to the question of civil war.

This chapter explores the expression of time in non-polis historiography in order to highlight distinctive features of city-histories. In particular, it examines the synthetic temporal frameworks and strategies of Olympiadic dating and synchronism which were developed by universal historians, such as Ephorus, Timaeus, Polybius, and Diodorus, to overcome the fact that different poleis had different calendars and different histories. It takes Strabo as an example of an author whose presentation of the past spans both local and universal frameworks. It also looks at the way in which time is configured by Greek authors writing about the non-Greek world in order to discern trends and recurring themes in the treatment of time, which throw into relief the Greek city-histories.

The winter of 317/16 BC witnessed what is arguably the most momentous campaign in the entire period after the death of Alexander the Great. Two massive coalition armies led by Eumenes and Antigonus the One-Eyed manoeuvred delicately and skilfully in the desolate terrain of central Iran, and the two great battles they fought were recorded by a participant (Hieronymus of Cardia) who was an intimate both of Eumenes and the Antigonids. That account was used by Diodorus, and his narrative of the campaign is one of the most detailed and colourful in his entire encyclopaedic history. This chapter revisits the campaign in Iran and addresses some of the critical issues which determined the strategy and outcome.

This introductory chapter begins with a discussion of the historians included in this book: Nicolaus, Memnon, Diodorus, Trogus, Posidonius, and the author of 1 Maccabees. They are, consciously or unconsciously, post-Polybian in their choice of subject matter and thematic approach. Although several of the historians in question wrote on diverse matters, even within their histories, their common element is a treatment of contemporary history from 146 BC onwards. Moreover, they all address the role of Rome in the wider Mediterranean.

In the contemporary histories of the Late Republic written by non-Romans, we can find preserved the attitudes of those dispossessed of their power by the establishment of Roman hegemony. The historical texts themselves, like any intellectual product, have a distinctive form. The genre employed by each author and the structural choices made reflect the nature of the historian's objectives and political position. Choices regarding the integration of Rome into the narrative structure are of particular significance. Two categories have been recognized in Hellenistic historical writing: universal history and local chronicles.

As the Romans expanded their hegemony over the Mediterranean basin and beyond, their methods of engagement varied to suit individual situations and shifting objectives. These methods moulded the impressions of the local elite and their attitudes to the new ruling power. In composing the contemporary historical record of Roman dominion, the core authors in this book had the greatest opportunity to express their views on the approach of the new ruling power and its representatives. All the events discussed in this chapter took place within the living memory of the authors and were decisive in shaping the world in which they lived. As members of the provincial elite, the core authors offer unusual perspectives on these events originating from the subjugated peoples.

All the historians developed to a certain degree their characterizations of those peoples who opposed Rome and the nature of the documented objections to her rule. In contrast to the previous chapters where the characterizations have been representative of the authors' own opinions, in this case the minds are hostile. Although the overwhelmingly negative and emotive quality of many of these passages might tempt one to see the passions as a reflection of some part of the author's own experience, judgement must be reserved until adequate analysis has been conducted. The types of enemies which inspired elaborate discussion in the core authors are divided between Eastern kings and ‘barbarians’.

The authors at the core of this analysis — Nicolaus, Memnon, Diodorus, Trogus, Posidonius, and the author of 1 Maccabees — are from geographically diverse origins on the periphery of the Roman world. Nevertheless, scrutiny of their texts has brought to light significant thematic cohesion: all accept Roman rule. This open and clear acknowledgement of Roman hegemony throughout the Mediterranean basin may not seem surprising given the political and military realities of the day. However, in contrast to the scholarly trends towards identifying this type of literature as hostile to the new ruling power, the clear acceptance of Roman rule as the foremost conclusion of the preceding analysis is emphasized.

Chapter 5 considers another book that calls itself a library, the Library of History of Diodorus Siculus. Here the book has a particular world view, which demonstrates that the library may have a particular function in the world. Diodorus espouses a cosmopolitanism that sees all history and all mankind as inextricably linked, with harmony as the ideal and enmity as a non‐ideal. This is the substance of his narrative. At the centre of this cosmopolitan paradigm is Rome, which accepts everyone into itself and governs other nations peacefully. The Library of History is a work that draws together humanity and its experiences of justice and injustice, kindness and cruelty, as the inhabitants of a single, ‘civic’ community.

In the immediate aftermath of Persian withdrawal from Egypt, the Egyptian king Acoris supported Evagoras as proxy commander in the eastern Mediterranean and mounted a wide-ranging, mainly diplomatic offensive which succeeded in detaching the entire Levant and southern Anatolia up to Caria from Persian control. Out of necessity, the Persian response involved deploying a largely Greek force (ships from Asian Greek cities and mercenaries from the Greek mainland). The ensuing “Cypriot War” waged by the Persians was really a war to recover the eastern Mediterranean. This involved successful operations throughout Cilicia, Syria, Phoenicia, and Philistia, but little fighting on Cyprus. Evagoras sought to destroy the effective Persian fleet, but lost the naval battle off Salamis and with this lost Egyptian support. But a breakdown of the Persian command crippled Persian efforts and led to defection and revolt by Glos, who established a base at Leucae and solicited Spartan and Egyptian aid, threatening now to undo Persian recovery achievement. Assassination finally removed him.

It is futile to try and determine to which category of authors most ancient authors, emphatically including Diodorus of Sicily, belong. What is possible, is to value the account of ancient authors as regards the amount of information they provide the current audience with, using a distinct form of ‘Quellenkritik’. As such, the value of Diodorus’ Historical Library -a typical example of Hellenistic literature- is tremendous, in spite of its emphasis on aretê, though hugely undervalued.

Central passages: Boethius On Interpretation II 234–5; Diogenes Laertius 7.75; Plutarch, On Stoic Self‐contradictions 1055d–f; Alexander of Aphrodisias On Fate 176.14–23. In the Stoic debate over fate and determinism, the modalities (in particular necessity and possibility) played a role in a number of different contexts. Chrysippus rejected Diodorus Cronus’ modal theory because of its built‐in necessitarian consequences. He developed his own set of modal notions, which, in themselves, do not lead to necessitarianism and which secure a necessary condition for free action—namely, the existence of occurrences that are both possible and non‐necessary (i.e. are contingent). Chrysippus’ modalities are not epistemic. Some critics of the Stoics developed arguments to show that there is a conflict between Chrysippus’ modal notions and the Stoic theory of fate. Later Stoics replied to such objections by giving an epistemic interpretation of Chrysippus’ modal concepts. Critics of the Stoics objected that fate, qua Necessity, renders all events necessary. However, this objection is not justified within Chrysippus’ philosophy.