Did Diodorus Siculus take over Cross–References from His Sources?

Abstract

A systematic answer to the question posed in the title of this arti? cle requires, first, a careful analysis of the implications of various differ? ent formulations of the question and, second, a thorough discussion of the evidence relating to all the cross-references in the Bibliotheca. No such systematic approach has ever been attempted, to my knowledge. It will emerge that different formulations of the question produce differ? ent answers on the basis of the evidence surveyed. The slavish dependence of Diodorus on his sources has been a theme repeated relentlessly for more than a hundred years by practitioners of Diodoran source criticism.1 A frequent component of the tra? ditional opinion has been the argument that in composing his Biblio? theca Historica Diodorus reproduced from the more detailed histories which he was condensing not only the narrative of events but also ma? terial which was patently inappropriate to his own work, such as refer? ences to the earlier writer's own experience or lifetime, or cross-refer? ences between different parts of the earlier work. This assertion was not based, however, on a thorough general investigation of this alleged as? pect of Diodorus' practice. Rather, the argument that this contemporary reference or that cross-reference was taken over by Diodorus from his source of the moment tended to be invoked in particular cases, usually in support of a particular hypothesis concerning the source(s) used by Diodorus for a certain part of his Bibliotheca.2 Sporadic challenges have