Advertisement

Introduction

  • Jeffrey S. Rusten
Chapter
  • 15 Downloads
Part of the Papyrologica Coloniensia book series (ARAW, volume 10)

Abstract

The present study aims to add to the hitherto known fragments of the mythographer Dionysius Scytobrachion three papyrus texts, and to examine their significance for the tradition of that author’s date and works. Before proceeding to that task it is necessary to summarize those conclusions reached by others, primarily on the relationship between Dionysius’ work and Diodorus, which form the basis of the following chapters. More controversial problems, including Dionysius’ date, are only mentioned briefly here; a full treatment of them is possible only after the evidence of the new fragments on papyrus has been evaluated, and it is therefore reserved for Part II, Chapters iv – vi below.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 2.
    As with Matris of Thebes, who is cited in passing on Heracles at Diod. 1.24.4, then followed (without acknowledgement) later for a full account of Heracles (Diod. 4.818). See the discussion and bibliography in Jacoby’s Commentary on FGrHist 39. 3 Chr. G. Heyne, Apollodori Bibliotheca II, Observationes (2nd ed. Göttingen, 1803) 354–5, id. De fontibus Diodori,in the preface to the editio Bipontina of Diodorus (1793) lxvii; but in assigning the Argonauts to Dionysius the “cyclographer” Heyne was surely mistaken (see below).Google Scholar
  2. 12.
    Der epische Kyklos (2nd ed. Bonn, 1865) I, 70 ff. Of the studies which followed Welcker’s, K. E. Hachtmann, De Dionysio Mytilenaeo seu Scytobrachione (Diss. Bonn, 1865) adds little of value, but O. Sieroka, Die mythographischen Quellen für Diodors 3. und 4. Buch (Lyck, 1878) contains some worthwhile observations.Google Scholar
  3. 13.
    On such Schwindelliteratur see my note Pellaeus Leo, AJP 1980 (forthcoming). 14 See Chapter vi, p. 91 ff below.Google Scholar
  4. 15.
    Bethe spoke of a common “mythological handbook” of the first century B.C. at the latest, in which full variants of different myths were cited, and which has been excerpted in a variety of different works. This hypothesis has since been generally abandoned (Wendel, RE XVI, 1367 note) on what I believe are insufficient grounds. The whole question can only be treated on the basis of a complete collection of the parallel mythographic material in Greek and Latin (which has never been attempted) including the papyri; I hope to offer at least the beginning of such a collection elsewhere, but it is clearly beyond the scope of the present study. As far as the Argonauts are concerned, Bethe’s collection of parallels clearly points to a common source (whatever its nature may have been); since this remains unchallenged, I have taken Bethe’s analysis as a basis for the comments offered on Diodorus in Appendix 2 below.Google Scholar
  5. 16.
    Tacitly in his RE article on Dionysius Scytobrachion, then explicitly in an autobiographical sketch written in 1932 (“Wissenschaftlicher Lebenslauf”, Gesammelte Schriften II [Berlin, 1956] 2): “Im Herbst 1879 kehrte ich nach Bonn zurück and wurde am 14. Juli 1880 zum Doktor promoviert; meine Dissertation de Dionysio Scytobrachione ist bald widerlegt, ohne daß es mich geschmerzt hätte.” See also Susemihl II, 46–47 n. 66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey S. Rusten

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations