Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Portents, prophecies, and dreams in Diodorus books 14-17
Hammond, N G L
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1998; 39, 4; ProQuest
pg. 407

Portents, Prophecies, and Dreams 
in Diodorus Books 14-17 

N. G. L. Hammond 

E
ORTENTS AND PROPHECIES were generally reported as 
historical events by the ancient historians; for they were a 

part of everyday life. l Herodotus and Thucydides both 
reported earthquakes at Delos, for instance, and oracles uttered 
at Delphi. They differed in their attitude towards them. Herodo­
tus said of the earthquake as follows: "and in this I suppose the 
god showed to mankind a portent of the evils to corne" (6.98.1). 
And he regarded Amphilytus, "an utterer of oracles," as in­
spired by a deity (1.62.4-63.1 8dq,1toJ.l1t1l XpWJ.lEVO~). In the be­
lief of Herodotus the deities were active in human life and in the 
natural world (3.40.2, 108.2). Thucydides had reservations. The 
earthquake at Delos "was said and was thought to be a sign of 
future events" (2.8.3); and the report of Apollo saying at Delphi 
that the Spartans would win if they used their full strength was 
qualified by the phrase "so it is said" (1.118.3). He revealed his 
own scepticism, when he commented on the oracles about the 
length of the Peloponnesian War being "thrice seven years" and 
in these instances only were oracles securely confirmed by the 
event.2 He did not include the deities in his history. 

1 Portents are well defined by E. Keams in OeD 3 1227 as "phenomena seen 
as in some way indicating the future." Prophecies include unknowing casual 
statements which proved to be prophetic. I omit omens obtained by human 
initiative, e.g. in making a sacrifice and analysing the parts of the victim. 

2ThuC. 5.26.3 'tOt<; elltO XPT]O,!-lWV 'tl icrxuplcra~Evol<; ~6vov 01, 1:Ou'to EXUPW<; 
~w~av. At 2.17.2 he gave a rationalising explanation of a Delphic oracle. 

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 39 (1998) 407-428 
© 2000 GRBS 

407 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

408 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

Dreams were in a different category. Herodotus believed that 
certain dreams were divinely sent. Thus the dream of Croesus 
about his son foreshadowed the dreadful vengeance of the deity 
and was duly fulfilled (1.34.1 f.K 8eo1> Velle(n~; 1.43.3). And he 
reported at length the dreams which Xerxes and Artabanus ex­
perienced (7.12.1-19.1). Thucydides, however, did not include 
dreams in his history.3 

After this preliminary review I consider the position in the 
Greek sections of each of the books of Diodorus individually as 
regards reports of portents, prophecies, and dreams. 

1. Reports of these items 
Diodorus 14, covering the years 404-386, is remarkable in 

that it does not have any mention of portents, prophecies, or 
dreams in the account of Greek affairs. Because it is very 
different, as we shall see, in Book 15, the absence of them must 
be due to the source which Diodorus was following.4 

Book 15 has an extraordinary number of portents and 
prophetic utterances in the account of Greek affairs. Earth­
quakes and tidal waves destroyed two cities in Achaea (15.48). 
A comet of exceptional brilliance was seen in the heavens for 
many nights (50.2). There was a total eclipse of the sun (80.2); 
it occurred on 13 July 364. Various sayings were thought to have 
been prophetic. In 378 Agesilaus justified his avoidance of 
battle with the Boeotians on the grounds that such a battle 

3In the Hellenica Xenophon follows the views both of Herodotus and of 
Thucydides. Thus he stated his belief that the gods pay attention to punishing 
the unrighteous (5.4.1) and that the god caused the Battle of Mantinea to be 
inconclusive (7.5.26). Sometimes he <iualified his statements by adding "as it 
seems" (6.4.3 w~ EOtICE, to OCll~6vtOV T\yEV) and "they say" (7.1.31 of thunder 
and lightning AEYO\)(J\ aicrio\)~ autii> IPavilvCll). He reported the scepticism of 
some who said that some portents before the Battle of Leuctra were "tricks" 
by the Theban leaders (6.4.7 tExvacr~ata) but without expressing his own 
opinion. 

4Although there were dramatic events and an eclipse in Xen. Hell. 4.3.10 
and Plut. Ages. 17. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 409 

might be disastrous for Sparta (33.2). "An ancient saying," that 
Helice in Achaea would be in danger when Ionians should 
sacrifice on the altar of Posidon, was thought to foreshadow its 
destruction (49.2 1taA<Xtov AOyWV). Another "ancient saying," it 
was thought, foreshadowed Sparta's loss of hegemony (54.1). 
Oracular utterances from Delphi were reported: one to the 
citizens of Clazomenae and Cyme (18.2), and another to the 
Ionians (49.1). Some Boeotian "oracle-mongers" stated that the 
Lacedaemonians must be defeated by the tomb of the daughters 
of Leuctrus and Scedasus (54.2 XPT1allOAOYOl nv£s).5 "Many 
other such sayings were reported" (54.4). 

Diodorus reported most of these matters with the initial 
comment that they were divinely inspired. The earthquakes and 
tidal waves were "devised by some divine force" (48.1 Sda~ 
nvo~ £vcpyda~ ).6 The comet was a divine indication that Sparta 
was about to lose her hegemony (50.2 'to SclOV 1tpOEa~jl<XtvE). 

According to some diviners the eclipse of the sun foretold the 
death of Pelopidas (80.3 'tmv jla.V'tEroV 'ttVE~). The saying of 
Agesilaus was thought to have been a divine oracle (33.2 SEO)v 

nva XPT1ajlov). The other sayings and oracular utterances were 
reported without comment but obviously with respect. 

However, a very different attitude was reported by Diodo­
rus also. The earthquakes and the tidal waves which destroyed 
two cities in Achaea were attributed by "the physicists" (oi 
<pUcrtKOi) "not to the divine will but to certain physical circum­
stances" (15.48.4). The appearance of the comet was due to 
physical causes "according to some of the physicists" (50.3); 

5"Leuctrus" is a mistaken addition by Diodorus; see P. J. Stylianou, A 
Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15 (Oxford 1988) 394-395. 
The oracle was "spoken of" at the time according to the contemporary 
Xenophon (Hell. 6.4.7 XPT\(J~o<; 0 AEY6~EVO<;), and was retold with varying 
details by Plutarch (Pel. 20.4-21.1, Mor. 856F), Pausanias (9.13.5-6), and 
Aelian (fr.77). 

6 Later, in 15.49.3-6, there is a more specific statement, namely "they say" 
that Posidon was taking his revenge for an act of sacrilege. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

410 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

for they maintained that such appearances occur of necessity at 
certain times and that they are foretold for instance by the 
Chaldaeans. A remarkable scepticism was shown by Epaminon­
das in the preliminaries to the Battle of Leuctra, when the 
Thebans were undecided whether to stay in their city or to go 
out and fight a battle. It was then that a blind herald, meeting 
Epaminondas, urged the citizens to capture runaway slaves and 
keep them in the city (52.3); and a breeze blew a ribbon from a 
spear and deposited it on a grave of some Lacedaemonians 
(52.5). While many took these portents to mean that they 
should stay in the city, Epaminondas disregarded them and led 
his army out. But because his soldiers were superstitious, he 
tried to overcome their fears by arranging a set of omens which 
favoured a march out of the city. Agents of Epaminondas 
reported that the weapons in the temple of Heracles had dis­
appeared and had been taken by heroes going forth from the 
city to fight. Another agent said he had come from the cave of 
Trophonius, and that the god had ordered the Thebans to 
institute a festivaF in his honour after winning a victory at 
Leuctra (53.4). 

These two attitudes-of belief in divine providence and of 
attribution to physical causes-appear side by side in some 
passages. Thus "the older men took the words of the blind 
herald to be an omen of the future," but the younger men kept 
silent (15.52.4). When the breeze dislodged the ribbon, "some of 
the elderly protested, forbidding any advance by the army"; but 
Epaminondas advanced, reckoning the principles of honour and 
justice to be superior to the omens (52.6). The elderly were de­
scribed as "the piously inclined" (48.4 01. £ucr£~&~ ~h<X1c£iIl£V01) 
and they were contrasted with "the physicists" (01 Q)Ucrl1coi). 

In Book 17, covering the Greek events of 360-336, portents 
were reported and standard explanations were given. Most of 

7That such a festival was celebrated at Thebes is known from inscriptions 
(e.g. IG VII 155, 1711). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 411 

them were associated with the Third Sacred War and its 
aftermath. In 356 when Philomelus seized Delphi, an eagle flew 
down from the temple and preyed upon the pigeons, taking 
some from the very altars. This was interpreted to be a sign that 
Philomelus and the Phocians would control the situation at 
Delphi (16.27.2 (HlIlElov). But in 347/6, when Phocians dug for 
treasure round the tripod, there were great earthquakes, the 
gods foretelling the punishment of the sacrilegious robbers (56.8 
q>avEpros 'trov SEroV 1tP0<J11!lCllVOV'tffiV). During the aftermath light­
ning struck the siege-engines which Phalaecus and his mercen­
aries were erecting in Crete; they were set on fire and Phalaecus 
with some mercenaries were burnt to death by "the divine fire" 
(63.3 'tou Sdou 1tUpos). A large number of Phocians who took 
refuge in a temple of Apollo at Abae in Phocis were burned 
alive by a fire. This was one of many "divine events" and was 
due to "some divine foresight" (58.5 SEta and Sci~ 'ttvt 1tpO­
voi~). The Phocian general Onomarchus had a dream which he 
thought to be favourable to himself, whereas in fact it fore­
shadowed the greater sufferings of the Phocians (33.1). 

The other portents concern the last acts of Philip and his 
death. Early in 336 he asked the Pythian priestess at Delphi 
whether he would conquer the King of Persia. The oracular re­
sponse was interpreted by him as favourable, whereas in fact it 
indicated his assassination (91.2-3 O'UIlq>EPOV E~EOEXE'tO 'to 1...0-
ytov). A speech by an Athenian herald in honour of Philip 
contained a remark, whereby "the supernatural power indicated 
the impending attack on Philip through some divine fore­
thought" (92.2 Sci~ 'ttvt 1tpovoi~ OtEO'~IlCllVE 'to OCllIlOVtoV 'tl1v 
EO'OIlEvllV E1tt~OUAl1v EUSUS 'to ct>tAi1t1tcp). There were other 
divinely inspired words (bEpai 'ttvEs WO'1tEP EvSEa~ouO'Cll 

q>ffivai). One of them was uttered at a state banquet (92.3). 
Book 17, dealing with the career of Alexander, has a great 

number of portents. In the interval between the arrival of Alex­
ander outside Thebes and the beginning of his attack Diodorus 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

412 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

reported "certain sayings of diviners and signs of the gods 
(17.10.2 <P~IlCW; ncrt Ilclvu:WV Kat ScOW crT\lldot~). The portents 
were a spider's web, large and iridescent like a rainbow, in the 
temple of Demeter; the statues in the market-place sweating; the 
marsh at Onchestus bellowing; a bloody ripple on the surface of 
the spring at Dirce; and not in Boeotia but at Delphi blood­
stains on the roof of a shrine dedicated by Thebes from the 
spoils of the war against Phocis.8 The spider's web had been 
observed three months earlier, and when consulted the Delphic 
oracle had confirmed then that it was a sign from the gods "to 
all men and especially to the Boeotians."9 "Those who busied 
themselves with the interpretation of portents" said that the 
gods were clearly indicating the coming disaster to the city ('tow 
Scow <pavcp&~ O"llllatvov'twv). Total destruction of Thebes fol­
lowed (10.6). 

Tyre was the scene of further portents. When Alexander's 
mound was within bowshot of the city walls, a tidal wave cast 
a sea-monster of incredible size onto the edge of the mound, 
from which it later swam away. When the loaves of bread for 
the Macedonians were broken apart, the edges had a bloody 
appearance. Each side thought that the sea-monster indicated 
support by Posidon. Diodorus made no comment on the bloody 
bread. Then a Tyrian had a vision of Apollo saying that he 
would leave the city. Thereupon the Tyrians tied down the 
statue of Apollo with golden cords (41.6-8). 

8The identity of this shrine is uncertain: see C. B. Welles in the Loeb edition 
(VIII 146-147 n.1) and P. Goukowsky, Diodore de 5icile XVII (Paris 1976) 
173. 

9The three months takes us back to July 335. At that time there were 
rumours that Alexander had been killed in the Balkans Gust. 11.2.8; Arr. An. 
1.7.2; Ael. VH 12.57), and the Thebans then approached Athens and some 
Peloponnesian states for help in the rising which they were planning. But 
Alexander was first in the field in October 335, and help did not reach Thebes 
in time. The accuracy of Diodorus supports the argument for the authenticity of 
the Delphic oracle which is advanced by H. W. Parke, A History of the Delphic 
Oracle (Oxford 1939) 253. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 413 

As Alexander was leaving Troy, he entered the precinct of 
Athena. There the sacrificing priest noticed that a statue of a 
former governor of Phrygia was lying on the ground in front of 
the temple. There were other favourable portents. The priest 
reported them to Alexander (17.6). During the journey across 
the desert to the shrine of Zeus Ammon a rainstorm relieved the 
drought, and when they lost their way two crows cawing on 
their righthand side indicated the route (49.4-5). In southern 
Pakistan, when the enemy used a lethal poison and the 
wounded were dying, Alexander had dream, in which a snake 
appeared and showed to him a plant which would be a cure. 

The interpretation of the fallen statue was that Alexander 
would be victor in a great cavalry battle, and that this was 
being revealed to him by the gods, and especially by Athena 
who would collaborate with him in his successes. The portents 
on the journey to Siwa were thought to be due to "divine provi­
dence" and to the desire of Zeus Ammon to welcome Alexander 
(49.4 9£rov 1tpovolq.). Alexander found the plant which the 
snake had revealed to him and used it to effect a cure for the 
wounded, including Ptolemy. This too was attributed to "divine 
providence" (103.7). 

After the death of Hephaestion in 324, "the divine power 
began to indicate the end of Alexander with many strange por­
tents and signs" (116.1 "to 9£tov Ecr~~<XtV€ "tflV "t£A£U'tflV au'tou, 
1tOAArov Kat 1tapa06~wv oiwvrov Kat cr1Wdwv crUV't£AOU~£vwv). 
Diodorus described two of them: an Asian prisoner putting on 
the royal dress and diadem and sitting on the royal chair, and a 
sailor rescuing the king's diadem which had fallen into the water 
and swimming back with the diadem on his own head (116.2-
6). Alexander consulted his diviners (Ot ~av't£t(;). They bade him 
execute the prisoner, and on the second occasion to sacrifice at 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

414 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

once to the gods.1O He did not sacrifice; for he began drinking 
with Medius, fell ill and died (117.1-3). 

2. The sources of Diodorus for these reports 
When we compare the geographical and military details in 

the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 4.2-8 and those details in Diodorus 
14.79.8-80.8, it is evident that the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia was 
being very closely followed by Diodorus for the events of 
396-395. Since Diodorus sometimes followed one main source 
throughout one of his own books, it is probable that the Hel­
lenica Oxyrhynchia was his source for the whole of Book 14. This 
is the opinion of Bruce in his Commentary, and it is accepted in 
OCD2 766 and OCD3 1088 and by Buck (lithe Oxyrhynchus His­
torian seems to be the principal source for the Greek material in 
Books 13 and 14 of Diodorus").l1 

We can check this opinion in the matter of portents etc. in 
Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. They are indeed absent in the surviving 
fragments of that work. There is one sacrifice, of which the 
adverse omens dissuaded Agesilaus from crossing the river 
Meander. Since this sacrifice is mentioned both in Hell.Oxy. 7.4 
and in Diod. 14.80.5 at the same point, it is certain that the 
Hellenica Oxyrhynchia was indeed being followed by Diodorus 
at that point. 

What source or sources was Diodorus following in his Book 
IS? His use of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia ended with Book 14 at 
386; for the character of Book 15 was entirely different. More­
over, it is generally believed that the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 

lOThe order to sacrifice was emphatic: "to complete sacrifices to the gods on 
a magnificent scale with all speed." But it is almost neglected by critics; for in 
the same sentence Diodorus had Alexander called away to join Medius. 

11 I. A. F. Bruce, An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 
(Cambridge 1967) 21; R. J. Buck, Boiotia and the Boiotian League 421-371 B.C. 
(Alberta 1994) xvii. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 415 

ended with the King's Peace of 386.12 On the positive side it has 
been maintained, continually from the time of C. A. Volquard­
sen (1868) to the latest writer P. J. Stylianou (1998), that the 
principal source for the Greek affairs of Book 15, which ended 
with the events of 362/1, was EphorusP I have added a 
further point in favour of Ephorus from my analysis of the 
sources of Book 16;14 for it is clear that Diodorus followed the 
last part of Ephorus 22 for some of the opening chapters and 
also Ephorus 24 for the Persian narrative in 16.40.3-52.8. This 
is explicable only if Diodorus had been following Ephorus for 
the last part of Book 15. 

That Diodorus used a secondary source for Greek affairs in 
Book 15 has been maintained for instance by Vial in her 
Commentary (x: /lil est certain que pour les affaires de Grece il a 
consulte au moins deux sources distinctes"). This is clearly the 
case with the great number of portents and oracular utterances, 
and with the contrasting views of the pious and of the 
scientists; for in the numerous fragments of Ephorus' Histories, 
there are no portents and the only oracles are concerned with 

12It has been proposed by Stylianou (supra n.S) 119, citing other authors, 
that the direct source of Diodorus was Ephorus and that the resemblance 
between Diodorus and the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia was due to Ephorus having 
copied a passage of that work. But this proposal is not compatible with two 
passages in Diodorus 14 which show that Ephorus was not his main source 
but his secondary source. In 14.2 Diodorus wrote that in killing A1cibiades 
"Phamabazus wished to gratify the Lacedaemonians" but "Ephorus having 
reported other reasons for the plot" Diodorus went on to give a summary of 
the account in Ephorus 17. Then in 14.22.2 Diodorus gave the number of 
Artaxerxes' troops as "400,000 including cavalry as Ephorus says." In the 
first passage Diodorus began with the version of his main source, and he then 
added the version of his secondary source, Ephorus. In the second passage the 
citation of Ephorus is best explained if one supposes that Diodorus distrusted 
the figure in his main source and therefore cited the figure from his secondary 
source, Ephorus. 

J3See C. Vial, Diodore de Sicile XV (Paris 1977) ix, "Depuis C. A. Vol­
quardsen ... on admet que la source principale de Diodore est Ephore pour Ie 
livre XV." 

14 In "The Sources of Diodorus XVI," CQ 31 (1937) 79-91. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

416 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

the period of the returning Heracleidae and with the foundation 
of Halieis (FGrHist 70 FF 16, 56). 

We must consider also the destruction of Bura and Helice 
which is described by Diodorus in 15.48-49 under 373/2, a 
date confirmed by Aristotle, Meteor. 343b19. A contemporary 
writer, Callisthenes, dated the appearance of a comet before the 
destruction (Sen. QN 7.5 antequam). However, Diodorus placed 
it after the destruction in his year 372/1, and he was thus able 
to describe it as a divine portent foretelling the defeat of Sparta 
in 371/0 at Leuctra ('to 8£lov 1tpo£crrU,W,tv£). The fullest 
surviving description of the destruction of Helice is that of Hera­
elides Ponticus, a contemporary (Strab. 8.7.2 = fr.46a Wehrli). 
His date, namely in the winter two years before the Battle of 
Leuctra, agrees with that of Aristotle. Heraclides attributed the 
destruction to "the anger of Posidon" (Ku'ta IlllV1V). That anger 
had been incurred as follows according to Heraclides: Ionian 
refugees from Helice asked the people of Helice to let them have 
the statue of Posidon or at least a copy (a<piopucrtv) of his 
temple in Helice. The people of Helice refused. Thereupon the 
Ionians appealed to "the council of the Achaeans" ('to K01VOV 
'trov 'AXatrov), and the council approved the request of the 
Ionians. Even so the people of Helice did not comply (ouo' &~ 

U1tUKOUcrUl). Polyaenus attributes the destruction of Helice to 
the anger of Posidon but for a different reason (8.46). 

Our concern is to identify the source used by Diodorus in his 
description. The first claimant is Heraclides Ponticus.15 His ac­
count is echoed in that of Diodorus in the following points. The 
destruction was at night. The Ionians sent envoys to take copies 
(a<ptopuf.1a'tu) of the altars (of Posidon) at Helice. These envoys 
obtained the approval of the council of the Achaeans ('to K01VOV 

'trov 'AXatrov), but the people of Helice opposed the request 

15That Heraclides was Diodoms' source was held so strongly by F. 
Wehrli, that he printed Diod. 15.48 as a fragment of Heraclides: Die Schule des 
Aristoteles VII (Basel 1953) fr.46b. Stylianou was prepared to consider the 
possibility (supra n.5: 378). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 417 

(un£A.eyov). This excited the anger of Posidon (llllVtO'uvtu), 
and it brought about the destruction of Helice. These re­
semblances are compatible with Heraclides being the source 
followed by Diodorus. But they are not conclusive. For the 
destruction of Helice was "the subject of much enquiry" (48.4 
,.u:yaAll~ ~lltfJO'EOO~), and other writers in their accounts will have 
mentioned the same points as Heraclides did. 

Moreover, the differences between the two accounts show 
that Diodorus was not following Heraclides' account. The order 
of the events was different. Diodorus began with a consultation 
of Apollo at Delphi and the issuing of an oracle to the Ionians. 
Next came a consultation of the council of the Achaeans. It was 
only after the council's approval that the people of Helice 
refused to grant the request. On the other hand Heraclides made 
the envoys of the Ionians go first to Helice. There the request 
was refused. The envoys then obtained the approval of the coun­
cil of the Achaeans. Even then the people of Helice continued to 
refuse. These differences indicate that Diodorus was not draw­
ing on the account of Heraclides.16 

The most remarkable feature of Diodorus' account is the 
contrast between a physical interpretation and a pious inter­
pretation (15.48.4 Ot <pUO'tKOt as contrasted with Ot EUO'E~&~ 
OtaKE1IlEVOt). The same contrast is made in response to the 
appearance of the comet: it was called "a divine portent" (50.2 
to 8EtOV 1tpoEO'fJIlUtvE), but "for some of the physicists" (t&v 

<pUO'tK&V) it was due to physical causes (<puO'tKa~ uhlu~) which 
occur "of necessity at appointed times." There is nothing of this 
in Heraclides' fragments. But the same contrast appears in 
Plutarch's Lysander 12. There too the subject is the appearance 
of a comet, which fell to the earth at Aegospotami, probably ca 
467,17 It was later thought to have been "a portent foretelling 

16 Wehrli did not notice these differences in his book. 

17This date is proposed by M. Schofield in OCD3 85. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

418 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

the defeat of Athens" in 405. But at the time Anaxagoras 
declared that the fall of the comet was due to an interruption in 
the circular motion which had been keeping it in the heavens 
(Lys. 12.2). That view was supported by Daimachus of Plataea 
in his On Piety (DEpt EucrEpda-;), in which he described the be­
haviour of the comet and its fall to earth where it was seen as a 
large stone. It is clear from the title of the treatise that Daima­
chus reported the view of the piously inclined as well as that of 
Anaxagoras, one of the early physicists whom Aristotle called 
oi. </mcrtKot. It is then probable that Diodorus was drawing on 
Daimachus of Plataea for his account in 15.48.1-50.3, except 
that Diodorus placed the appearance of the comet after the 
destruction of Helice and thus made it a portent for the fall of 
Sparta at Leuctra in 371. 

My conclusion, then, is that for Greek affairs in Book 15 
Diodorus followed as his principal source Ephorus, and as his 
secondary source Daimachus of Plataea; and that he obtained 
his plethora of portents etc. from the latter. IS 

In Book 16 Diodorus used a single source for his continuous 
report of the portents which occurred during the Sacred War 
and during the punishment of the sacrilegious participants 
(16.61- 64.3). That source was the monograph of Demophilus, 
the son of Ephorus. His work was described by Diodorus as 
running "from the capture of the shrine at Delphi ... for eleven 
years down to the annihilation of those who divided the sacred 
property among themselves"(14.3). Other writers made it a war 
of ten years (e.g. Aeschin. 2.131, 3.148; Duris FGrHist 72 F 2; 
Paus. 9.6.4, 10.3.1). Since the narrative of Diodorus extended 
over eleven years (from 357/6 in 16.14.2 to 346/5 in 59.4 and 

IBEphorus borrowed material from the works of Daimachus, Callisthenes, 
and Anaximenes (of Lampsacus who lived ea 380-320 B.C.): see FGrHist 70 T 
17. This implies that the elder Daimachus was writing around the central part 
of the fourth century. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 419 

64.3), it is certain that Diodorus followed the monograph of 
Demophilus.19 

The source from which Diodorus derived his reports of the 
Pythian oracle and the remarks by an Athenian herald con­
cerning Philip was most probably the History of Diyllus of 
Athens, who flourished around 300 B.C. Diodorus reported that 
his History began in 357/6, was in 26 books (~U~AOt 14.5), and 
of them the second volume (cruv'WStC; 76.5) began in 341/0. 
Such details were unusual in Diodorus. The explanation for 
them is evidently that Diodorus was using Diyllus at the time 
and noted these details himself. 

In Book 17 the portents began three months before the de­
struction of Thebes. I have argued20 that the chapters concerning 
Thebes, namely 17.8.2-14, were derived from Cleitarchus' 
Histories of Alexander. Within the account the description of the 
portents in 17.10 and the Theban reaction to them are firmly 
embedded. Thus whereas "those who busy themselves with the 
interpretation of portents" declared that the gods were fore­
telling the destruction of the city, and that a solution should be 
sought by diplomacy, "the Thebans' spirits were undaunted." 
This short-sighted courage was characteristic of the resistance 
which Diodorus following Cleitarchus described.21 

On the other hand Diodorus reported in a restrained style 
the fallen statue at Troy "together with some other favourable 
omens" (17.17.6 OiffiVroV aicriffiv). The interpretation by the 
sacrificant that a victory was being foretold by the gods and 

19 Diodorus resumed the length of eleven years at 16.59.1: "after lasting ten 
years (c5ta~Eiva<; ('tTl 8h;a) it came to an end (Ka'tEAU8Tl)," i.e. in the eleventh 
year. Diodorus was thoroughly confused in 16.28.1 under his year 355/4 
when he wrote that the Sacred War lasted for nine years, i.e. on inclusive 
reckoning down to 347/6. See my remarks (supra n.14) 84-85. 

20Three Historians of Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1981) 15-16 (here­
after THA). 

21 The portents which Diodorus mentioned except for the bloodstains on a 
building at Delphi (10.5) are reported also by other writers: e.g. Paus. 9.6.~, 
Arr. 1.9.8, Ael. VH 12.57. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

420 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

"especially by Athena who would cooperate in his [Alex­
ander's] successes" is historically sound in that the victory at 
the Granicus followed, and that Alexander paid particular 
honour to Athena after the battle and subsequently.22 The 
probable source of this account was the history of Diyllus, as I 
suggested in THA 38. 

The portents at Tyre as seen by the Tyrians are fully in­
tegrated into the narrative. The tidal wave and the enormous 
sea-monster were sent "by the gods to them in their peril," as 
were other strange happenings (napa 'tow Stillv). The latter 
included the vision by a Tyrian of Apollo saying that he would 
leave the city. This Tyrian narrowly escaped being stoned as a 
traitor "by the younger men," but the god-fearing Tyrians tied 
the statue of Apollo to its plinth with golden cords (17.41.7-8). 
In my analysis I identified the source as Cleitarchus. This 
identification is supported by such sensational details as the 
threatened stoning.23 There was also a sensational portent for 
the Macedonians in the form of bloody-looking loaves. This 
portent was mentioned also by Curtius (4.2.14), who added the 
interpretation by Aristander, and another portent-streams of 
blood flowing within flames-was thought by the Tyrians to 
foreshadow Macedonian losses (4.2.13). 

Accounts of the portents which occurred during the journey 
to Siwah were written by contemporaries of Alexander, namely 
Aristobulus (Arr. 3.3.3, 3.3.6, 3.4.5), Callisthenes (Strab. 
17.1.43 [813]), and Ptolemy (Arr. 3.3.5, 3.4.5). The account of 

22 After the battle Alexander himself went to Troy, adorned its temple with 
dedications, and promised to build there a most magnificent temple (Strab. 
13.1.26 [593)). He made the same promise in his last plans (Diad. 18.4.5). 

23Curtius reported the sea-monster (4.4.3-4) and the vision of Apollo 
(4.3.21-22); he gave further details including the statue of Apollo having come 
as spoil from Syracuse to Tyre. Since the origin of the statue according to 
Timaeus was Gela (Diad. 13.108.4 = FGrHist 566 F 106), this passage in Cur­
tius cannot be drawn from Timaeus. Plutarch described the vision of Apollo 
and the binding of his statue to its plinth, and he added another dream by 
Alexander concerning a satyr (Alex. 24.6-9). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 421 

Aristobulus seems to have been followed by Curtius and by 
Arrian; for both start their account by attributing to Alexander 
a strong desire (ingens cupido and 1t680<;), and they ended with 
a spring running hot and cold and Alexander returning to the 
Mareotic Lake. Strabo reported that Callisthenes described two 
crows as guides; this was evidently the common version as in 
the account of Aristobulus (Arr. 3.3.6 6 1tAElO)v A6YO<;).24 And 
Plutarch cited Callisthenes for the behaviour of the crows at 
night (Alex. 27.4). Ptolemy substituted snakes for crows and 
made Alexander return direct to Memphis (Arr. 3.3.5, 3.4.5). 
The account of Diodorus for the journey resembles that of 
Curtius, but his description of the Bitter Lake and of the Cities 
of Ammon (17.49.6) is unique. Diodorus seems to have taken 
that description from another-unknown-source.25 He did not 
draw on Ptolemy's account. 

The dream of Alexander which enabled him to cure Ptolemy 
and others was reported by Diodorus (17.103.3-104.2), Strabo 
(15.2.17 [723]), Justin (12.10.2-3), and Curtius (9.8.20-27). The 
incident was placed in southern Pakistan by Diodorus, Justin, 
and Curtius, but "among the Oreitae" by Strabo, who cited 
Aristobulus as his source repeatedly for the coastal region of 
southwestern Asia.26 Therefore Diodorus did not use the ac­
count of Aristobulus. On the other hand, since both Diodorus 
and Curtius gave fulsome praise of Ptolemy and had Alexander 
see in his dream a snake carrying a plant, they had a common 
source. This source was in my opinion Cleitarchus; for the style 
is characteristically sensational, Cleitarchus when residing in 

24Curtius wrote of complures corvi rather than of two crows, probably 
through carelessness, not through a change of source (4.7.15). 

25In particular "the cities of Ammon" is hardly compatible with "the huts 
of the Ammonii (tuguria)" in Curt. 4.7.20. For a full discussion of the visit to 
Siwah see P. A. Brunt, Arrian I (Cambridge [Mass.j1976) 467-480. 

26 For Aristobulus' interest in poisonous and curative plants see Strab. 
15.1.1-21 (694). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

422 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

Egypt had a motive for flattering Ptolemy, and Cleitarchus is 
cited by Curtius at 9.8.15.27 

The portent of a man sitting on the vacant throne of Alex­
ander was narrated not only by Diodorus but also by Plutarch 
(Alex. 73.7-74.1) and by Arrian citing Aristobulus as his source 
(7.24.1-3). Since Diodorus and Plutarch agreed in attributing 
the absence of Alexander to his playing ball and then being 
rubbed down with oil, whereas Aristobulus had Alexander 
absent holding a military parade, it is evident that Diodorus 
and Plutarch did not follow Aristobulus. The man who sat on 
the throne was according to Diodorus a local, that is a Baby­
lonian, prisoner whose chains fell apart of their own volition; 
according to Plutarch a Messenian called Dionysius, whose 
chains were loosened by the god Sarapis and who was then 
ordered by the god to sit on the throne; and according to Arrian 
a quite obscure person, "some say a prisoner under arrest.,,28 
The source of Plutarch was evidently Cleitarchus; for he liked to 
introduce the Egyptian god Sarapis into the account, and he is 
surely responsible for the sensational portents-crows in the air 
killing one another and a donkey kicking a lion to death. Dio­
dorus, then, did not use Cleitarchus. The conclusion is that he 
followed the account of Diyllus for this episode.29 

In Diodorus 17.116.4 the man who had sat on the throne 
was executed lCUta. t~V (nov IlUvt£ffiV) lCpicrlV a1t£lCt£lVEV, "ac­
cording to the judgement" of the diviners. This may be accepted 
as historically correct, since the source was Diyllus. Plutarch 

27See THA 67. Goukowsky (supra n.S) 142 n.1 "cet eloge de Ptolemee ... 
provient sans doute de Clitarque"; see also his article in REA 71 (1969) 
320-337. Cleitarchus may have invented the plant-carrying snake; for Aristo­
bulus according to Strabo said that it was a bystander who showed the plant 
to Alexander. 

28In citing this version as a report (A6yo~) Arrian in his Preface indicates 
that it was not the version of either Ptolemy or Aristobulus. 

29See my arguments in THA 76 and Sources for Alexander the Great 
(Cambridge 1993) 143. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 423 

cited the judgement of the diviners as an order, whereupon Alex­
ander "made away with him," i.e. had him killed; for that is the 
meaning of u<po.vi~(t) (LSJ s.v. I.1). Arrian, citing Aristobulus, re­
ported that the man was tortured (7.24.3). 

The portent of the swimmer wearing Alexander's diadem is 
told by Diodorus (17.116.5-117.1) and by Arrian (7.22.1-5). 
Their accounts differ. According to Diodorus Alexander was 
lost in one of the skiffs (uKano.) for three days and three nights, 
alone and afraid that he would never escape from the marshes; 
and according to Arrian a part of the fleet was lost and 
Alexander sent a pilot to retrieve it. According to Diodorus 
Alexander's diadem was detached by a branch; but according 
to Arrian Alexander was steering his trireme when his cap 
(Ko.Uo-to.) and diadem were blown off by a gust of wind. 
According to Diodorus Alexander was advised by his diviners 
to "make magnificent sacrifices with all speed." According to 
Arrian "most writers" reported that Alexander gave the 
swimmer a talent but had him decapitated, as the diviners 
prescribed; and he added that the swimmer was said by 
Aristobulus to have been a Phoenician sailor and that he was 
given a talent and a flogging, and further that some writers said 
the swimmer was Seleucus. This account by Arrian agrees with 
the account given in Syr. 56 by Appian, a contemporary of 
Arrian, but without mention of a flogging. Arrian and Appian 
evidently used a common source. 

That common source was Aristobulus. For Arrian's remark 
that Alexander was steering his own trireme (7.22.2) echoes the 
statement in Strabo that Aristobulus had Alexander steering his 
own ship (16.1.11 [741]). On the other hand,the account of 
Diodorus is much more sensational and his timing of the 
episode is different; for whereas Arrian placed it some weeks 
before the onset of Alexander's fatal illness (7.22.1, 7.24.4), 
Diodorus placed the order to sacrifice and Alexander's de­
parture to join Medius in the same sentence (17.117.1 ). His 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

424 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

implication is that his failure to make the sacrifice was 
punished by the gods forthwith.30 

The account of Arrian is certainly the correct one, since it is 
based on the History of Aristobulus, a contemporary observer. 
The largely fictitious account of Diodorus should be attributed 
to Cleitarchus, for the sensational details are typical of his 
writing, and the changing of the date of the episode is an 
example of that disregard for historical accuracy, of which Clei­
tarchus was held guilty by Curtius and Quintilian.31 

The order of the two portents-first the vacant throne and 
then the swimmer wearing the diadem-was given by Arrian 
correctly, since he was following the account of Aristobulus 
(7.22.2, 7.24.1). Cleitarchus, however, reversed the order of the 
portents, so that the account was more sensational (in Diod. 
17.116.2, 5). 

3. The method of Diodorus in selecting and using his sources 
Let us start with the narrative of the Peloponnesian War 

from 431 to 411 in Book 12.38 to Book 13.42.4. He tells us 
unusually that his source for the causes of the war was Ephorus 
(12.41.1).32 The implication is that for the start at least of the 
hostilities he followed a source other than Ephorus. That in fact 
he used other sources is stated by M. Casewitz. There are close 
resemblances between the text of Diodorus and that of 
Thucydides which indicate that Diodorus was making use of 
Thucydides. The identity of other sources is uncertain. 

Of portentous events Diodorus described the plague at 
Athens, and the purification of Delos in language reminiscent of 

30There was the same inference in the case of Cleitus. For Cleitus failed to 
complete his sacrifice (Plut. Alex. 50.4), and Alexander also did not sacrifice to 
Dionysus (Arr. 4.8.2, 4.9.5; Curt. 8.2.6). 

31 See also my arguments in THA 76. 

32He probably obtained the name of the engineer Artemon at 12.28.3 from 
Ephorus, since that name was attributed to Ephorus by Plutarch (Per. 27.3). 
See M. Casewitz, Diodore de Sicile XII (Paris 1972) xiii-xv. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 425 

Thucydides. The difference is that Diodorus said that the 
Athenians attributed the plague to "the deity" (58.6 'to 8EtOV), 
i.e. Apollo, whereas Thucydides treated it as a secular event 
(2.47.3-53) while recording the beliefs of some others in some 
oracles (2.54). In 426, when great earthquakes and tidal waves 
occurred, the Lacedaemonians turned back at the Isthmus of 
Corinth "being afraid of the divine powers" (12.59.1 OEt(HOC£t­
llovfJ<JavtE~), whereas Thucydides commented on the physical 
causes of the tidal waves in relation to the earthquakes (3.89). 
When there was an eclipse of the moon on 27 August 413 and 
the diviners33 said the Athenians must delay their departure, 
both Diodorus and Thucydides attributed the agreement of 
Nicias to his "fear of the gods" (OEt<J10C£tIlOvia); but Diodorus 
was alone in reporting that Demosthenes and his associates 
"were also compelled to agree out of respect for the divine 
power" (13.12.6). 

Our conclusion is that for Greek affairs Diodorus used three 
or more sources for the events of 431 to 411. One was Thucydi­
des, another was Ephorus, and a third made its own comments 
on the portentous events. We may note that in the numerous 
fragments of Ephorus' History there is no mention of such events 
or of oracles for the historical period, and that his work was un­
sensational; it is then a certain inference that he did not record 
portentous events. 

In Books 13.45 to 14.110.4, covering the events of 411 to 
386, Diodorus followed one principal source for Greek affairs 
(Thucydides having ended at 411), namely the Hellenica Oxy­
rhynchia as we have seen (section 2 above). Portents, prophe­
cies, and oracles are not present in the fragments of that work; 
therefore they do not occur in these chapters of Diodorus. As a 
secondary source he used Ephorus' History either to supplement 

33These officials attended every army, much as chaplains do today. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

426 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

his principal source, as at 13.41.3, or to provide a variant ac­
count, as at 14.11.2.34 He made no use of Xenophon's Hellenica. 

For Book 15, covering the years 385 to 361, Diodorus had to 
choose a new principal source, since the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 
ended in 386, and his choice was Ephorus (see section 2). Since 
the work of Ephorus was dull,35 Diodorus adopted a livelier 
secondary source, namely Daimachus of Plataea, whose treatise 
On Piety provided plenty of portentous events. Hence the 
plethora of portents, for instance before the Battle of Leuctra, in 
Book 15. Because Diodorus was using this treatise, he reported 
the differing views of the pious and the physicists, although 
they were not relevant to his own history. 

Book 16 covered the years 360 to 336. In his Proem Diodorus 
declared that the central theme was to be the deeds of Philip. 
The most comprehensive work on that subject was the Philippica 
of Theopompus. Diodorus did indeed mention it as comprising 
58 books of which 5 were no longer extant in his time (16.3.8); 
but he did not adopt it as his principal source, presumably be­
cause radical abbreviation would have been laborious. Instead 
he continued with Ephorus as long as he was available for 
Greek affairs (at 16.2-4, 7.2-8.7, 14.1-2). He then abbreviated 
the monograph of his son Demophilus on the Sacred War and 
its aftermath (noted in 16.14.3). He now needed a source which 
would provide the history of Greek affairs apart from the 
Sacred War for the years 356 to 345 and then the history of 
events to the death Philip in 336. His choice was the work of 
Diyllus of Athens, which consisted of 26 books covering events 
in Greece and in Sicily from 357 to 297 (as noted in 16.14.5 and 
21.5). It fitted his chronological need, and it was of a convenient 

34Concerning the death of Alcibiades there were several variant accounts 
according to Plutarch (Ale. 39 fin.). 

35Isocrates as teacher of Ephorus and Theopompus said that Ephorus 
needed the spur (FGrHist 70 F 28). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N. G. L. HAMMOND 427 

length for him to abbreviate.36 The account of the Delphic oracle 
and of the corresponding Athenian song before Philip's death 
were appropriate to Diyllus, whose centre was Athens and who 
studied the memoirs of kings (FGrHist 73 T 4). For the assassi­
nation of Philip Diodorus did not include the allegation of com­
plicity by Olympias and even Alexander which was made in 
Justin 9.7 and in Plutarch Alex. 10.6-7. I have argued elsewhere 
that the source used by Justin and Plutarch was Satyrus.37 

Thus in Book 16 Diodorus moved successively from one 
source to another-namely from Ephorus to Demophilus to 
Diyllus-and there is no indication that he used any secondary 
source to each of these. 

In Book 17 the central theme was the career of Alexander. 
Since Diodorus regarded Alexander as the greatest figure in 
history down to his time of writing ca 30 B.C. (17.117.5), he 
intended this book to be the centrepiece of his History. What 
source should he follow? There were three full-length accounts 
by contemporaries of Alexander: by Cleitarchus who had not 
been on the expedition, and by Ptolemy and by Aristobulus, 
who had served with Alexander. The account by Cleitarchus 
was the most popular in the time of Diodorus; Cicero judged 
him to be "a better orator than historian." Diodorus, however, 
did not adopt any of these as his principal source. No doubt he 
found them unduly long for his purpose, and in addition they 
did not include events in Greece during the absence of Alex­
ander. Instead, he continued with the History of Diyllus , which 
gave a shorter account of Alexander's career and included 
events in Greece. It was relatively unsensational. For instance, 
as reflected in the narrative of Diodorus, Diyllus attributed the 
death of Alexander to illness, and not "as some authors" did38 

36 For my arguments see THA 32-35 and Philip of Macedon (London 1994) 
13-14. 

37In THA 88-89 and Sources (supra n.29) 9. 
3850 Justin 12.14, Curt. 10.10.14-19, Plut. Alex. 77.1 and Mor. 849F. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

428 PORTENTS, PROPHECIES, AND DREAMS 

to poisoning by one of Antipater's sons (17.117.5f; cf. Arr. 
7.27). 

As a secondary source Diodorus used the History by Cleitar­
chus. The identification is revealed by two figures: the 440 
talents of loot from the sack of Thebes in Diod. 17.14.4 occurs 
as a fragment of Cleitarchus in Athenaeus 4.148D-F, and the 
80,000 Indians slain in Diod. 17.102.6 occurs in Curtius 9.8.15 
as a citation from Cleitarchus (FGrHist 137 FF I, 25). It may be 
inferred also from the extravagant praise of Ptolemy in Diod. 
17.103.7; for Ptolemy was king when Cleitarchus lived in Egypt. 

The conclusion of this final section is that Diodorus did not 
follow any preconceived principle in selecting and using his 
sources for Greek affairs. Thus for the period 411 to 386 he 
followed the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia closely, and he made only 
occasional use of Ephorus to supplement his narrative in Book 
13.45-107. On the other hand, for the period 386 to 361, when 
he was using Ephorus as his principal source, he made large 
additions from his secondary source, namely Daimachus of 
Plataea. Then for the reign of Philip he moved from Ephorus to 
Demophilus to Diyllus, and there was no question of a 
secondary source. The result was an uneven and unsatisfactory 
account. Finally for the reign of Alexander he reverted to his 
original method, following Diyllus as a principal source and 
drawing liberally on his secondary source, Cleitarchus. Thus his 
method varied to meet each situation. It is this which makes the 
study of his selection and his use of sources so interesting, 
especially in regard to portents, prophecies, and oracles. More­
over, the study of these items sheds a new light on the sources 
used by Diodorus in the four books 14-17.39 

January, 2000 Clare College, Cambridge 

39 1 have not discussed the article of Ph.-J. Derchain and J. Hubaux, "Le 
fantome de Babylone," Antelass 19 (1950) 367-382, because it required the 
emendation of l]<paVHJEV in Plut. Alex. 74.1 to l]<pa.vlcr9rJ.