We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The investigation of Aeolian foundation myths continues in this chapter, with examination of traditions of the founding of Boeotian Thebes. Ancestral Indo-European tradition is again evident, as is an Anatolian stratum, one which foregrounds technological expertise of Asian origin.
This chapter presents eleven epigrams (forty-nine dodecasyllables) copied in the margins of a number of manuscripts of Herodotus’ Histories, the most important being Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 70.6. The epigrams comment on the text of Herodotus next to which they appear, and thus can be characterized as verse scholia. These poems, which the author of this chapter has critically edited in a recent article, were known to scholars, but they had been misattributed to John Tzetzes. In fact, Tzetzes’ verse scholia on Herodotus survive in another manuscript (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 70.3), whereas our poems have more in common with the verse scholia on Diodorus Siculus in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, gr. 130. The authorial voice of Tzetzes and the attribution of the poems in Vat. gr. 130 to Niketas Choniates are investigated to help determine the context of composition of our verse scholia on Herodotus. On the basis of this comparison and other internal evidence, this chapter concludes that our eleven epigrams were first copied in the model of Laur. Plut. 70.6 at some point between 1204 and 1318, and probably before 1261.
Chapter 1 sketches the events that transpired in eastern Sicily during the turbulent years leading up to Hieron’s ascension to power, as would-be tyrants and bellicose kings grappled for political and military control of the island.
This chapter takes up the volume’s key notion of ‘dialogue’ by comparing – and thus bringing into dialogue – two periploi from the late Hellenistic and the imperial period, the description of the Red Sea in Diodorus’ Bibliotheke 3.38–48 and the island ecphrasis 2.17 in Philostratus’ Imagines. To the volume’s larger themes, the chapter adds the aspects of mediality and reader response. It shows how both texts employ a fairly similar ecphrastic technique characterised by contextualisation, historicisation and narrativisation, in order to afford their readers quite different experiences. The key element is their divergent strategies of mediality: the Bibliotheke is characterised by a marked ‘bookishness’, whereas the Imagines creates a feigned orality. Both strategies have their place in contemporary discourses and contexts. The Bibliotheke situates itself in the late Hellenistic debate on writing and reading history, and particularly in the discourse on the pleasures of reading historiographical texts, while the Imagines is part of a broader trend of enriching texts with structures and elements of oral communication in the imperial period.
The conquest and destruction of Selinus by the Carthaginian army in 409 B.C. and its reoccupation by the Syracusan general Hermocrates the year after provide an excellent case study for exploring two of the main themes of this volume. This chapter focuses on the destruction of 409 B.C., comparing Diodorus Siculus’ account with the archaeological evidence, in an attempt to evaluate both the physical damage sustained by the city and the reliability of the ancient author. This discussion is followed by a brief account of Selinus’ survival and recovery, always on the basis of Diodorus Siculus and the available archaeological evidence.
Taking a look at the preserved works of classical historiography, which for the most part focus on political and military history, one gets the impression that Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism were of rather marginal interest to historians. The earliest historian who mentions Pythagoras is Herodotus, who refers to him and Pythagorean doctrine in two problematic passages. Neanthes of Cyzicus' crucial role as an intermediary can also be seen in the fragments in Diogenes Laertius that relate to the Pythagorean Empedocles. One can able to see that he systematically quoted, corrected and added to the reports of Timaeus of Tauromenium. Book 10 of Diodorus Siculus' Library contains a long section on the life of Pythagoras and the history of Pythagoreanism as a part of the history of the western Greeks. In addition to the fragments of Book 10, Pythagoras is mentioned occasionally in the preserved books of Diodorus.
The source material of the first Classic age of European civilization, the fifth century BC, falls into three sections. For the period from 435 to 411 BC, Thucydides provides a firm framework. For the period from 478 to 435, he gives some relatively full narrative on special points and a sketchy narrative from 477 to 440; the only connected narrative of any size is that by Diodorus Siculus. For 411 to 404, there are two connected narratives, by Xenophon and Diodorus. Xenophon's own attempts at chronological accuracy are sporadic and inefficient. There are events in the Peloponnesian War for which very close dates in the Julian calendar can be plausibly argued on the basis of the inter-relationship between the two Athenian calendars and on epigraphic evidence. Problems do multiply after the end of Thucydides, because of the nature of the sources.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.