^{page 137 note 1} The Historian Ephorus, Appendix I, p. 169 especially.

^{page 137 note 2} , P. -W. s. v. Timaios 1150–1161Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 3} c. Q. XXXI, no. 2, p. 79 f.

^{page 139 note 1} For similar mistakes by Diodorus cf. Article I. p. 79 f. In this case Diodorus is also vague about the position of Timophanes, who is represented by Plutarch and by Aristotle Pol. V 1306 a as a tyrant.

^{page 140 note 1} Cf. Article I, p. 84.

^{page 140 note 2} The death of Archidamus is recorded in the digression and again in the narrative (63, 1 and 88, 3), the citations deriving from different sources; but Diodorus fails to make a cross reference.

^{page 140 note 3} Cf. Article I, p. 88.

^{page 140 note 4} The omission by Diodorus of the period 355/4 to 347/6 must be due not to a lack of sources but to his own choice; as in the case of the Sacred War, he may have considered part of the period too chaotic or too insignificant for his universal history.

^{page 141 note 1} Whether Timoleon did in fact legislate twice does not affect my argument that in Diodorus both accounts summarize the legislation of Timoleon, and that the second account mentioning Diocles' laws does not issue from the same source as the first account.

^{page 141 note 2} Barber, G. L., The Historian Ephorus, p. 45Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 3} Ibid., p. 46.

^{page 141 note 4} Hermes XLVI, p. 335.

^{page 141 note 5} , P.-W. s. v. Diodoros 681Google Scholar; s. v. Ephoros 10.

^{page 141 note 6} Cf. Article I, p. 86.

^{page 141 note 7} Volquardsen, , Untersuch, Diod. XI-XVI, p. 102Google Scholar, deduces that Timaeus was the source; Laqueur in , P.-W. s. v. Timaios 1153Google Scholar deduces that Ephorus was the source. Both deductions areequally arbitrary.

^{page 142 note 1} Cf. Article I, p. 85 f.

^{page 142 note 2} Op. cit. p. 101.

^{page 142 note 3} , P.-W. s. v. Timaios 1156Google Scholar.

^{page 142 note 4} E. g. XIV 46, 6; 84. 7; XV 37, 3; 60, 6; 89. 3; 94. 4; 95. 4; XVI 3. 8; 14, 3; 76, 5.

^{page 142 note 5} J. IId, p. 383, gives the reasons for changing the numbers from those given by D. and also advances a probable explanation of D.'s mistake; cf. Laqueur in , P.-W. s. v. Theopompos 2217Google Scholar.

^{page 143 note 1} Cf. Barber, , op. cit. p. 45Google Scholar, for the significance of the year 392 B. C. as marking a dividing point in the history of Dionysius I.

^{page 143 note 2} In II, 2 D. uses the period of fifty years to mark the period of tyranny exercised in Syracuse; but I do not think this bears any relation to 71, 3 where the period of fifty years is used to define the scope of Theopompus' work. The passage in II, 3 is given under 357/6, i. e. the beginning of Dionysius I's tyranny is dated to 406/5; this year we know to have been adopted by Philistus, Timaeus, and Dionys. Hal., whereas Ephorus began the tyranny from 408/7 (cf. J. IId, p. 383). It is not known what date was adopted by Theopompus. If any conclusion as to source may be based on D. II, 2, it can only be the negative one that Ephorus is not eligible.

^{page 143 note 3} Cf. especially J. 115, F 27; T Ig and 20; F 100.

^{page 143 note 4} Op. cit. p. 169.

^{page 144 note 1} Mueller, , F. H. G. II, pp. 81–83Google Scholar; cf. Schwartz in , P.-W. s. v. Athanis, 1939Google Scholar.

^{page 144 note 2} F. H. G. II, pp. 83–84; it is probable that Plutarch is not citing Timonides at first hand but found him cited in his source.

^{page 144 note 3} op. cit. p. 168 f.

^{page 145 note 1} The summary of Timoleon's speech at 79, 2 is similar to Timaeus frag. 134 (Mueller, F. H. G. I)Google Scholar; for the eulogy of Timoleon cf. Timaeus frag. 97 and 143.

^{page 145 note 3} Whether Plutarch was collating these sources himself or was using a Hellenistic biographer who had collated them is immaterial to my argument. I have therefore felt it unnecessary to qualify mention of Plutarch's sources by such a phrase as ‘or ultimate sources’.

^{page 146 note 1} D. and P. also differ in the name they give to the father of Timoleon; it seems more probable that one of them has made a slib than that each followed a different source.

^{page 146 note 2} In the text I have simplified the complex question of Plutarch's sources in the Timoleon by assuming that his material derives from Theopompus and Timaeus, whether immediately or through an interdiate source. It has, however, been maintained that P. used only one source, Timaeus; if that is so, it would at first sight appear that the source common to D. and P. is Timaeus and that, as P. used only one source D. must have imported a second source, namely Theopompus. But the theory that P. used only Timaeus postulates the use by Timaeus of Theopompus, (to explain the citation in Timoleon 4, 6)Google Scholar; thus the ultimate sources of P.'s material are still Theopompus and Timaeus. The element common to D. and P. can then be ascribed to the fact that D. is using Theopompus dirctly and P. is using Theopompus indirectly, i. e. through the medium of Timaeus; the discrepancies between D. and P. can be attributed to the departure of departure reflected in P. following Timaeus. And this deduction is compatible with our identification of Theopompus as the source of Group 2 in D. The latest contribution to the problem of P.'s sources is a lucid article by Westlake, H. D. (The Sources of Plutarch's Timoleon: C. Q. XXXII, no, 2, 04 1938)Google Scholar, who concludes that P. followed a Peripatetic biography of Timoleon itself based on Timaeus and supplemented it by a direct use of Timaeus; if his conclusion is valid, as I think it is, then again, as Timaeus used Theopompus, we can ascribe the points of similarity between D. and P. to Theopompus, used directly by D. and P. to Theopompus, used directly by D. and intermediately through both his sources by P., and the points of discrepancy between D. and P. to the divergence of Timaeus from Theopompus.

^{page 147 note 1} Westlake, , loc. cit. p. 72Google Scholar notes that the descriptions are in substantial agreement. On p. 66, however, he finds discrepancy between the deposition of Hicetas before the Crimisus battle (P. 24, 1) and D. 72, 2–4; but the parallel passage in D. is 77, 5, where Hicetas surrendered his mercenaries to Timoleon. It appears rather that D. and P. both writing compendiously have stressed different aspects of a surrender byHicetas; the discrepancy therefore is not such as to argue a change of source.

^{page 147 note 2} In Moralia, p. 676d, Plutarch in mentioning the omen of the parsley cites Timaeus as hisauthority.

^{page 147 note 3} Parke, , Greek Mercenary Soldiers, p. 173, n. 4, considers Plutarch to have erredGoogle Scholar.

^{page 148 note 1} Cf. Article I p. 91

^{page 149 note 1} That Diyllus Syntxis II comprised the Period 341/0 to 336/5 seems to me to be the meaning of Diod. XVI 76,6, the phrase μέχρι Τς Φιλίππον ΤελενΤς referring to the only Philip who is possible in the context of book XVI. Jacoby (73 T 2), foloowing Schaefer, , Hist. Zeitschr XVIII 173Google Scholar, assumes the statement in D. to refer to the whole of Diyllus' work and therefore equates the name Philip with the son of Cassander; but D. 's context cannot bear this interpretation, and the fact that F I dating to 316/5 is numbered to the ninth book (or Svntaxis suggested by the f eminine gender of έν Τη ένάΤη) implies that the scale of Diyllus' books is such as would admit of his devoting one book to the last years of Philip's reign. If my interpretation of 76, 6 is accepted, then we have another exception to D.'s general practice of a historian's work; this anomaly can best be explained (as in the case of 71. 3) by the hypothesis that D. was excerpting Diyllus Syntaxis II for the period 341/0 to 336/5.

^{page 149 note 2} I have discussed the chronological system of Diodorus, in J.H.S. LVII (1937). P. 54 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 150 note 1} E. g. those noted in Article I, p.79, n. 4, and p. 89 and passim.

^{page 150 note 2} Cf. Article I, pp. 90–91; for the narrative one may add 7, 1; 31, 7; 36, 5; 45, 9.

^{page 151 note 1} Ephorus XXVIII-XXIX: Stcilian affairs 392 B. c. to 357/6.

^{page 151 note 2} Theopompus XXXIX-XLI: Sicilian affairs 392/1 to 343/2.