Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T20:56:26.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. Hellenistic Historians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

The two centuries that separate Thucydides and Polybius saw a vast change in the historical map of Greece. The cosy world of the Aegean, upon which the destinies of Sparta and Athens had played themselves out, became the larger oikoumenê extending from Spain to India. From the north, the mainland Greeks had to contend with the rising power of Macedon, which eventually swept all before it. Then Alexander’s conquests, on a scale never previously seen, opened up the entire world of the Near East and part of the Far East to Greek arms and Greek culture, and this interaction left in its wake a series of kingdoms of varying size in Macedon, Egypt, and Syria, with an appetite amongst themselves for competition and conquest. In the other direction, the Celtic incursions, culminating in the great attack on Delphi in 278, compelled the Greeks to turn their eyes westward. The Sicilian Greeks, of course, had their own varied history during this time, both amongst themselves and against the great power of Carthage. And also from the west, Rome slowly but steadily began to come within the purview of the Greeks. Not surprisingly given such changes, the ways of writing history changed as well. Numerous writers in the fourth and third centuries penned histories of great breadth and variety, and by the time Polybius came to write his own work, he had before him a vast array of approaches to the past. As we shall see, Polybius expressed himself forcefully on these types of historiography, and it will be worth while here to give a brief summary of them.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 31: Greek Historians , 2001 , pp. 105 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Histories of the Hellenistic era: Walbank, F. W., The Hellenistic World (London and Cambridge, Mass., 2 1991)Google Scholar; Will, E., Histoire politique du monde héllenistique, 2 vols. (Nancy 2 1979-82)Google Scholar; Austin, M.M., The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar.

2 For overviews of Hellenistic historiography see Scheller, P., De hellenistica historiae conscribendae arte (diss. Leipzig, 1911)Google Scholar, still useful in parts; Connor, W. R., ‘Historical Writing in the Fourth-Century B.C. and in the Hellenistic Period’, in Easterling, P. E. and Knox, B. M. W., edd., Cambridge History of Classical Literature I (Cambridge, 1985), 426-71Google Scholar; P. A. Brunt, ‘Cicero and Historiography’, in id., Studies in Greek History and Thought (Oxford, 1993), 181–209 (orig. Φιλίας Xápiv. Studies . . . E. Manni (Rome, 1980), i. 311–40) defends Hellenistic historians against charges of frivolity; Murray, O., ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture’, CQ n. s. 22 (1972), 200-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sacks, K., ‘Rhetoric and Speeches in Hellenistic Historiography’, Athenaeum 64 (1986), 383-95Google Scholar; Mendels, D., ‘Preliminary Thoughts on “Creative History” in the Hellenistic Near East in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries B.C.E.’, SCI 10 (1989/90), 78–86 Google Scholar; W. Will, ‘Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrhunderts: Eine Zusammenfassung’, in Alonso-Núñez (1991), 113–35; F. W. Walbank, ‘Profit or Amusement: Some Thoughts on the Motives of Hellenistic Historians’, in: Purposes of History, 253–66. There is much of value on the activities of historians in the Hellenistic world in Chaniotis, A., Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften. Epigraphische Beiträge zur griechischen Historiographie (Wiesbaden, 1988)Google Scholar and especially Meißner, B., Historiker zwischen Polis und Koenigshof. Studien zur Stellung der Geschichtsschreiber in der griechischen Gesellschaft in spätklassischer und hellenistischer Zeit (Göttingen, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Xen. Hell. 7.5.27; Theopompus, FGrHist 115 T 13; Bruce, I. A. F., An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Cambridge, 1967)Google Scholar, 4 (for the Oxyrhynchus historian). There is now a full English translation of the latter: McKechnie, P. R. and Kern, S. J., Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Warminster, 1988)Google Scholar.

4 On Callisthenes see FGrHist 124; Brown (1973), 124–6; Prandi, L., Callistene: uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedoni (Milan, 1985)Google Scholar. For Duris, see FGrHist 76; Pédech (1989), 257–389; Kebric, R., In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos (Wiesbaden, 1976)Google Scholar; Torraca, L., Duride di Samo. La maschera scenica nella storiografia ellenistica (Salerno, 1988)Google Scholar; see also below, n. 30. On Phylarchus see FGrHist 81; Africa, T. W., Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (Berkeley, 1961)Google Scholar; Pédech (1989), 393–493. A tabulation of known Greek continuators is given in Marincola (1997), 289–90.

5 FGrHist 115 F 27, stating the reason for his orientation as the fact that Europe had never before produced a man like Philip.

6 On individual-centred history see Fornara (1983), 34–6.

7 The bibliography on the first-generation Alexander historians is enormous. See Pearson, L., The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Brown (1973), 124–32; Pédech, P., Historiens Compagnons d’ Alexandre: Callisthène – Onésicrite – Néarque – Ptolémée (Paris, 1984)Google Scholar; Meister (1990), 102–22; Goukowsky, P., ‘Die Alexanderhistoriker’, in Alonso-Núñez, (1991), 136-65Google Scholar. There is also much of value on these historians in Bosworth, A. B., From Arrian to Alexander (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar and the same author’s A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander (Oxford, 1980-).

8 On Hieronymus see in general Hornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar, and for his probable arrangement around individuals, 79–80; cf. Meister (1990), 123–6.

9 For the scope of the Persica see Diod. 14.46.6 = FGrHist 688 T 9; besides FGrHist 688, see the edition of König, F. W., Die Persika des Ktesias von Knidos (Graz, 1972)Google Scholar; Auberger, J., Ctésias. Histoires de l’Orient (Paris, 1991)Google Scholar provides a French translation. General treatments of Ctesias may be found in Brown (1973), 77–86; id., ‘Suggestions for a Vita of Ctesias of Cnidus’, Historia 27 (1978), 1–19; Drews (1973), 103–17; some scholarship has begun to take a fresh approach to Ctesias: see Bigwood, J. M., ‘Ctesias as Historian of the Persian Wars’, Phoenix 32 (1978), 19–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ead., ‘Ctesias’ Description of Babylon’, AJAH3 (1978), 32–52; Eck, B., ‘Sur la vie de Ctésias’, REG 103 (1990), 409-34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lenfant, D., ‘Ctesias et Hérodote ou les réécritures de l’histoire dans la Perse achéménide’, REG 109 (1996), 348-80CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the Indica of Ctesias see Bigwood, J. M., ‘Ctesias’ Indica and Photius’, Phoenix 43 (1989), 302-16CrossRefGoogle Scholar and most recently Lenfant, D., ‘L’Inde de Ctésias: Des Sources aux Representations’, Topoi 5 (1995), 309-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with earlier bibliography cited. This same author is also producing a new edition of Ctesias.

10 On Dinon see FGrHist 690; Drews (1973), 116–19; Stevenson, R., ‘Lies and Invention in Demon’s Persica ’, in Sancisi-Weerdenberg, H. and Kuhrt, A., edd., Achaemenid History II (Amsterdam, 1987), 27–35 Google Scholar.

11 Hecataeus’ Egyptian fragments are at FGrHist 264 FF 1–6; on Hecataeus see Jacoby, F., ‘Hekataios (4) von Abdera’, RE VII.2 (1912), 2750-69Google Scholar; Fraser (1972), i. 496–505.

12 Fragments at FGrHist 609; see Fraser (1972), i. 505–11; D. Mendels, ‘The Polemical Character of Manetho’s Aegyptiaca’, in Purposes of History, 91–110; Dillery, J., ‘The First Egyptian Narrative History: Manetho and Greek Historiography’, ZPE 127 (1999), 93–116 Google Scholar.

13 Burstein, S., The Babyloniaca of Berossus (Malibu, Cal., 1978)Google Scholar; Kuhrt, A., ‘Berossus’ Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia’, in ead. and Sherwin-White, S., edd., Hellenism in the East (London, 1987), 32–56 Google Scholar.

14 Fragments at FGrHist 715; see Dihle, A., ‘The Conception of India in Hellenistic and Roman Literature’, PCPS n.s. 10 (1964), 15–23 Google Scholar; Bosworth, A., ‘The Historical Setting of Megasthenes’ Indica’, CP 91 (1996), 113-27Google Scholar; Karttunen, K., India and the Hellenistic World (Helsinki, 1998)Google Scholar.

15 As demonstrated, above all, by Murray (above, n. 2).

16 For Hellanicus’ other works, see above, p. 17. The fragments of his Atthis were reprinted separately by Jacoby at FGrHist 323a; they are also at FGrHist 4.

17 The fragments of the Atthidographers are at FGrHist 323a-328. On Atthidography, Jacoby, F., Atthis. The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford, 1949)Google Scholar remains a masterwork; Pearson, L., The Local Historians of Attica (Philadelphia, 1942)Google Scholar; Harding, P., Androtion and the Atthis (Oxford, 1994), 1–36 Google Scholar gives an excellent overview of the genre and the individual historians themselves. Jacoby’s reading of the political Tendenz in these historians has been questioned of late: see P. J. Rhodes, ‘The Atthidographers’ in Purposes of History, 73–81; Harding, op. cit., 47–51; contra, McInerney, J., ‘Politicizing the Past: The Atthis of Kleidemos’, CA 13 (1994), 17–37 Google Scholar.

18 General treatments of Sicilian historiography: Walbank (1968-69); Fornara (1983), 36–8; Pearson, L., The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and his Predecessors (Atlanta, 1987)Google Scholar; de Sanctis, G., Richerche sulla Storiografia siceliota (Palermo, 1958)Google Scholar; Meister (1990), 68–70, 131–7.

19 FGrHist 556; on Philistus see Walbank (1968-69), 481–2; Zoepffel, R., Untersuchungen zum Geschichtswerk des Philistos von Syrakus (diss. Freiburg, 1965)Google Scholar; M. Sordi, ‘Filisto e la propaganda dionisiana’, in Purposes of History, 159–71.

20 FGrHist 562; very little is known of Athanis: Walbank (1968-9), 482–3.

21 Timaeus’ fragments are at FGrHist 566. Pol. 12.26d.4 (= FGrHist 566 T 7) notes that the earlier part of Timaeus’ work contained ‘colonies, foundations, and family histories’. Important works on him include: Brown, T. S., Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley, 1958)Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., ‘Atene nel III Secolo a. C. e la Scoperta di Roma’, in Momigliano (1955-92) iii. 23–53 Google Scholar (orig. RSI 71 (1959), 529–56; in English in Essays in Ancient and Modem Historiography (Oxford, 1977), 37–66); Meister, K., Die sizilische Geschichte bei Diodor (diss. Munich, 1967)Google Scholar; id. (1975), 3–55; Pearson (above, n. 18), passim’, id., ‘The Role of Timaeus in Greek Historiography’, SCI 10 (1989-90), 55–65; F. W. Walbank, ‘Timaeus’ Views on the Past’, ibid. 41–54; Vattuone, R., Sapienza d’Occidente: il pensiero storico di Timeo di Tauromenio (Bologna, 1991)Google Scholar.

22 Ephorus’ fragments are at FGrHist 70. In addition to Jacoby’s commentary see Barber, E., The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge, 1935)Google Scholar, and the important articles of Schepens, G., ‘Ephore sur la Valeur de l’Autopsie (FGrHist 70 F 110 = Polybe XII 27. 7)’, Ane. Soc. 1 (1970), 163-82Google Scholar; id., ‘Historiographical Problems in Ephorus’ in Historiographia Antiqua. Commentationes . . .in honorem W. Peremans (Leuven, 1977), 95–118.

23 On Ephorus’ structure see Drews, R., ‘Ephorus and History Written кατὰ γένoς , AJP 84 (1963), 244-55Google Scholar; id., ‘Ephorus’ History кατὰ γένoς Revisited’, Hermes 104 (1976), 497–8; Vannicelli, P., ‘L’economia della Storie di Eforo’, RFIC 115 (1987), 165-91Google Scholar.

24 On this type of history see Fornara (1983), 42–6; J. M. Alonso-Núñez, ‘The Emergence of Universal Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries B.C.’, in Purposes of History, 173–92; Breebaart, A. B., ‘Weltgeschichte als Thema der antiken Geschichtsschreibung’, in Alonso-Núñez, (1991), 39–62 Google Scholar (orig. pub. AHN 1 (1966), 1–21); Burde, P., Untersuchungen zur antiken Uni versalgeschichtsschreibung (Munich, 1974)Google Scholar.

25 Cf. above, p. 91, for the way that Thucydides made his evaluations of individuals with particular attention to their role in public life.

26 On Xenophon, H. R. Breitenbach’s ‘Xenophon von Athen’, RE IX.A.2 (1967), 1569–2052, and Historiographische Anschauungsformen Xenophons (Freiburg i.d. Schweiz, 1950) are funda mental. The last few years have seen a wealth of new treatments of Xenophon, many of them moving beyond the narrow question of his accuracy or bias, to a more rounded appreciation of his entire historiographical achievement in the context of his times and interests. Particularly noteworthy are: Gray, V., The Character of Xenophon’s Hellenica (London and Baltimore, 1989)Google Scholar; Tuplin, C., The Failings of Empire: A Reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11-7.5.27 (Historia Einzelschriften 76, Stuttgart, 1993)Google Scholar; Dillery, J., Xenophon and the History of His Times (London and New York, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should also be pointed out that Xenophon was one of the most inventive of writers, playing with a variety of historiographical forms, particularly in the Cyropaedia: see Tatum, J., Xenophon’s Imperial Fiction (Princeton, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gera, D., Xenophon’s Cyropaedia: Style, Genre and Literary Technique (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar.

27 Connor, W. R., ‘History without Heroes. Theopompus’ Treatment of Philip of Macedon’, GRBS 8 (1967), 133-54Google Scholar; Shrimpton, G. S., ‘Theopompus’ Treatment of Philip in the Philippica ’, Phoenix 31 (1977), 123-44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Theopompus has been well served by two recent comprehensive books in English: Shrimpton, G. S., Theopompus the Historian (Montreal, 1991)Google Scholar and Flower, M. A., Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1994; repr. with addenda, 1997)Google Scholar. Shrimpton translates all of the testimonia and fragments (196-274), Flower selected important ones (218-20).

28 See Fornara (1983), 108–9.

29 Meister (1990), 83–94 is representative; see Flower (above, n. 27), 42–4 for a concise discussion of the problem.

30 The bibliography on ‘tragic history’ is enormous; works before 1960 can be found in Walbank, F. W., ‘History and Tragedy’, in Walbank (1985), 224-41Google Scholar (orig. Historia 9 (1960), 216–34), which seems to me right in all essentials; for later work on the topic see Meister (1975), 109–26; id. (1990), 95–102. The phenomenon is usually associated with Duris of Samos, and particularly his remark (FGrHist 76 F 1) that Ephorus and Theopompus lacked μίμησις and ήδονή in their narratives: but this prop seems to me to have been decisively removed by the interpretation of Gray, V. J., ‘Mimesis in Greek Historical Writing’, AJPh 118 (1987), 467-86Google Scholar (where earlier bibliography will be found).

31 See above, pp. 3–8.

32 See above, p. 85.