Diodorus’ Historical Library (Bibliotheke Historike) is the only universal history to (largely) survive from antiquity. Diodorus was born in Agyrion (1.1.4), but spent a great amount of time in Rome, where he learned Latin and availed himself of the excellent research facilities there (1.4.2-4). He says (1.4.1) that he traveled through much of Europe and Asia to inspect the sites of his history, and he mentions (1.44.1) a specific visit to Egypt during the 180th Olympiad (i. e., 60-57 bce). He worked thirty years on his history (1.4.1), and, although his birth and death dates are uncertain, it is likely that this activity lasted from approximately 60 to 30 bce. His history was probably not fully revised at the time of his death (1.4.6; cf. Green 2006: 30 with n. 145).
Diodorus’ history comprised forty books, from the origins of the world down to his own day, ending probably in the year 60 (Sacks 1990: 169-184; Green 2006: 237-241). Books 1-5 survive complete, as do 11-20, with the rest in fragmentary state, a situation that hampers our ability to see Diodorus’ true worth as a historian since (as with Livy) we have mainly the earliest times and not the more contemporary portions of his work. Not surprisingly, he claimed (4.1) Ephorus as his inspiration, but felt he surpassed his predecessor by including the earliest ‘‘mythical’’ times (and, unlike Ephorus, he did not simply rationalize myth but placed original and rationalized versions side by side: Marincola 1997: 119-121; cf. Ambaglio 1995: 39-57). Books 1-3 treated earliest non-Greek history (Egypt, Assyria, Media), 4-6 that of the Greeks (Book 5 focuses largely on islands and the myths that surround them). Books 7-17 went from the Trojan War to Alexander (though early Roman history is included), 18-40 from Alexander’s death to Diodorus’ time. In Books 7 through 22, it was Greek history that stood in the foreground, while thereafter Roman history became predominant.
Diodorus followed a twofold arrangement. For events before the Trojan War, where accurate chronology was lacking (1.5.1), he arranged his material, like Ephorus, by category, treating events of this or that nation in this or that part of the world. From 776 onwards, however, Diodorus decided to arrange events annal-istically, and what is more, he attempted to integrate different chronological systems within his history, dating events by Athenian archons, Roman consuls, and Olympic victors. For this he used Apollodorus of Athens (below, p. 522), among others, but it was perhaps inevitable that many errors would be made (though whether by Diodorus or his sources cannot always be known). For one thing, the Athenian archon-year began in mid-summer, while the Roman consuls took office on March 1 (January 1 from 152 bce on). Add to this that Diodorus often succumbed to the temptation to tell a story from beginning to end in one place (even if the events took place over several years) and you have all the ingredients for chronological disaster. Diodorus recognized the problem, but only in a general way, not as it applied to his specific situation (20.43.7):
[O]ne might find fault with history, when one sees that in life many different actions end at the same time, but that it is necessary for those who record them to interrupt the narrative and to parcel out different times to simultaneous events contrary to nature; and so the experience of the events contains truth, but the narrative account, lacking similar power, imitates the events, but falls far short of true arrangement (mimeisthai men ta gegen'emena, polu de leipesthai tes aleithous diatheseos).
This is an important point about historical narration, one that continues to be debated by historiographical theorists today, but Diodorus’ is largely an aesthetic judgment, unconcerned with the pragmatic difficulties ofcombining sources in an era before a universal calendar existed.
Like Ephorus, Diodorus was dependent on written sources for the bulk, if not the entirety, of his work. The title of Library suggests a collection of excerpts from historians, and indeed, from the nineteenth century on, Diodorus has been thought a ‘‘scissors-and-paste’’ historian, one who, page after page, blithely and uncritically transcribed his sources, even when they contradicted one another. The style in which he cast his predecessors is certainly his own (Palm 1955), but even so, some scholars have held that his interventions in the sources are minimal, and that therefore he, more than any other historian, provides a window onto several lost historians. Indeed, in certain cases it seems fairly certain that this source can be identified: Hecataeus of Abdera for much of Book 1; Ephorus for the Greek history in Books 11-20; Hieronymus of Cardia for the history of the Diadochs in Books 18-19.
Two issues, however, complicate the matter. The first question is whether or not Diodorus followed a single source for long periods of time, a question to which some scholars give an unqualified yes (e. g., Hornblower 1981: 18-75; Stylianou 1998: 49-50, with reff. to earlier works). If this is the case, then we can be pretty certain that (to take one example) it is all pretty much Ephorus for the Greek history of the fifth and fourth centuries. But what if Diodorus used a primary source for long parts and consistently referred to one or more secondary sources? That would make the attribution of any particular passage more difficult (Drews 1962; Meister 1990: 178). The second issue is to what extent the opinions and evaluations expressed in the Library belong to Diodorus or his sources. Earlier scholars did not hesitate to attribute even the material of Diodorus’ prefaces to his sources (Posidonius being the favorite for the general preface of Book 1). The matter is of importance not only for those who would use Diodorus to reconstruct lost histories, but also for those interested in the work of Diodorus that we actually have (admittedly, a far smaller number). For this question really concerns the extent to which Diodorus shaped his own work, giving (or trying to give) thematic unity to a vast account that embraced many different nations and many different types of action over a long period of time.
Although some scholars continue to believe that even the opinions expressed by Diodorus are those of his source (see, e. g., Meister 1973/1974; Canfora 1990), some now give Diodorus greater credit for the shaping of particular themes and interests in his work. In this approach, much of the narrative proper - the actions, motivations, even the speeches of the historical actors - is owed to Diodorus’ source, while the selection of incidents for highlighting, the lessons drawn from the events, and the larger interpretive framework into which the events are slotted are those of Diodorus himself. The fact that certain themes recur with great frequency throughout Diodorus’ work strongly argues against a single source for them.
Sacks, who has most energetically argued this position, has pointed out, for example, that Diodorus is concerned throughout his history with benefactors (euer-getai) of mankind, and the ways in which they have helped humans to advance and prosper (Sacks 1990: 61-82). Perhaps not coincidentally, Diodorus sees the historian’s work in this light (1.1.3):
It is right that all people offer great thanks to those who compose universal histories (koinai praxeis), because they have tried to benefit by their individual efforts our common life (koinon bion). By offering an education without danger in what is beneficial they give their readers, by their presentation, an experience which is the finest. [ ...]Asif servants of divine providence, they have tried to present in one and the same account all peoples, who, although separated by place and time, have a kinship with one another.
Another interest exhibited by Diodorus is in the nature and success of empires, an appropriately ‘‘universal’’ theme for such a long work. Here again Diodorus takes an independent line from his predecessors, arguing that kind actions by ruling states inspire loyalty in their subjects, but that when this turns to harsh or overbearing actions, disaffection arises, which eventually leads to the empire’s downfall (Sacks 1990: 42-54; 1994: 216-220). Living, as he did, during the ravages of the late republic (Sacks 1990: 161-168), Diodorus does not hesitate to criticize the ruling power, Rome (32.4.5), and to assimilate her to this pattern of rise and fall of previous empires. Naturally, the format of universal history is ideal for creating patterns of just this sort, where later events and individuals can be interpreted in light of their predecessors.
World History
