Диодор Сицилийский и античная историография
The author examines evidences of Diodorus’ «Library of History» concerning the political situation in South Italy in the early IV century B. C. One of the most important persons in this narrative is Heloris, who was the adoptive father of Dionysios the Elder. The main source for activity of the person seems to be Philistus’ book «Peri Dionysiou». The historian tried to represent Heloris as the enemy of the Syracusan tyrant and the creator of the Italiote League. It seems that Philistus, describing the character of the league from the military point of view only, missed the other features of the Italiote political unity.
The origin of Diodorus' evidences (XIV, 109; XV, 7) on Olympic embassy of Dionysius I, a tyrant of Syracuse, is discussed. The author argues that the both texts go back to Philistus' narrative of the event and that the differences between them are hardly to be explained with Diodorus' using of Timaean and Ephorean accounts. It seems that Timaeus rewrote the original story of Philistus in antityrannical sense and provided it with some doubtful details, and Diodorus in his work fell under influence of his tale, but nevertheless preserved earlier version as well. Moreover, the date of the embassy is under question also.
The chapter describes the peculiarities of the creative method of Strabo and tells about the possibilities and perspectives of the use of his description of the Black Sea region as a source of historical knowledge.
The article considers the reflection of the Egyptian military exploits of the New Kingdom perceived as reaching the boundaries marked with great rivers in the Classical historiography.
The author makes an attempt to detect the sources used by Diodorus for his account of Sicilian affairs in Bibliotheca historica XIII, 85-96. For that purpose he analyses the image of Dexippus, a Spartan mercenary commander, that appeared in this part of Diodorus’ narrative. The main features of the character seem to be negative and simultaneously similar to the Timaean depiction of the another Spartan, Gylippus. The author argues that the denigration of Dexippus in Diodorus’ text was intentional and that it went back to Timaeus’ view of Dexippus.
The article deals with an important problem of the world and Russian Egyptology, i.e. with the interpretation of a statement by the Alexandrian scientist of the 4th-5th centuries A.D. Theon on an era “after Menophris” (ἀπὸ Μενόφρεως) allegedly started at the beginning of the “Sothic period” in 1322/1 B.C. The first part of the article analyses the polemic on the identification of the name *Μενόφρις with a specific Ancient Egyptian royal name, with a special attention towards the positions of the Russian Soviet Egyptologists V.V. Struve and O.D. Berlev. The former one forwarded in 1920s was embedded in the world scholarship and contained a number of errors, which remained unnoticed due to a decline of the scholarly criticism at the period. On the contrary, Berlev’s position (1999) was totally original and in fact trail-blazing for the ultimate solution of the problem. The second part of the article proposes a development of Berlev’s position. The epithet “Memphite” (*Mn-nfry) that backed the name *Μενόφρις and was originally applied to Zoser, the inaugurator of the “Sothic calendar”, could be transferred on an image of a great king that reigned in Egypt after the catastrophe of the Amarna time. This king could be considered the founder of the “Memphite time” in Egyptian history, the creator of the “Sothic’ calendar” and respectively the contemporary of the start of a “Sothic period” (Theon’s “Menophris’ era”).