Greek Historiography

by Thomas F Scanlon

  but it still aims at the greatest geographical sweep; see Marincola 2007: 171–9; also Liddell and Fear 2010 for a broad discussion).

  the atthidographers

  Of known local historians, by far the most numerous (in terms of

  names and fragments preserved) are those of Attica – the so‐called

  “Atthidographers” (fifty authors and two hundred pages of fragments) –

  followed by those writing about Magna Grecia, South Italy, and Sicily

  (Harding 2007; for a good overview, see also Harding 1994). The latter

  will be discussed in Chapter 6. Accounts of Attica are treated here,

  although their roots are earlier and a strong tradition persists into the third century bc. (Fundamental earlier studies of the Atthidographers are Jacoby 1949 and Pearson 1942.) After Hellanicus’ Atthis, which was a history of Attica – the political region surrounding Athens, discussed

  above in Chapter 1 – there appears a mid‐fourth‐century Cleidemus (or

  Cleitodemus), whom the second‐century ad writer Pausanias credits with

  originating the genre (Paus. 10.15.5). In general, Atthis‐type accounts began with the kings of the mythical period, continued through the

  sequence of archons (civic officials), and covered the origins of festivals and cults, the geography, and the creation of political and cultural institutions up to the time of writing (Harding 2007: 180–8). But their authors were not simply dry recorders of events; they put their own stamp on the narrative, through emphasis and interpretation (Rhodes 1990: 73–81;

  Harding 1994: 47–51; McInerney 1994: 17–37). Cleidemus, for example,

  was an exegete (interpreter) of sacred laws, and thus his work showed

  special interest in cults (Meister 1990: 76; FGrHist 323 Cleidem.). Of particular interest is Androtion, who was also an active politician: his account covers Greek history up to 344/3 bc, and hence his activity can be dated about 340 bc ( FGrHist 324 Androt.; Harding 1994). His work served as a chief source for a Constitution of Athens ( Athe ̄ naio ̄ n politeia) attributed to Aristotle, and also for Philochorus’ Atthis. The invaluable Constitution of Athens, known from a papyrus first published in 1891, is the best early account of the workings of classical Athenian democracy.

  Yet this Aristotelian treatise contradicts the works of Adrotion and other

  170

  HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians

  Atthidographers in perceiving that the Areopagus likely had constitutional control of the state before Solon, while the Atthis accounts incorrectly assume that this body had always been solely a law court, especially for homicide cases; they all reason from mythical cases like that of Orestes, traditionally tried there (Harding 2007: 185). Philochorus, born about

  340 bc, is arguably the most important of the Atthidographers, with his Atthis in 17 books and his additional numerous works on Athenian themes: On the Mysteries of Athens, On Contests in Athens, and The Inscriptions of Attica – remarkably, the first documentary compendium of its kind ( FGrHist 328 Philoch.; Meister 1990: 129–30). He was also a religious official and, it seems, strongly supportive of the old Athenian ideals of freedom and independence. The first four books of Philochorus’ Atthis cover mythical times until at least the battle of Chaeronea (338 bc) and perhaps until Demetrius of Phaleon (317 bc), while the other eleven books cover the period until the rule of Antiochus (possibly II or III) of Syria in the 260s bc. Philochorus is prized for his systematic and rich documentation, evident in the two hundred and thirty or so extant fragments.

  the oxyrhynchus Historian

  No one follows directly in Thucydides’ school of austere method and

  thought, with the possible exception of the anonymous author of a work

  in fragmentary state, conventionally labeled today “the Hellenica

  Oxyrhynchia.” The so‐called “Oxyrhynchus historian” is known only from some two hundred fragmentary papyri discovered in Egypt (mostly

  in 1906). In view of the rare antiquity of the text, this work is an important source for Greek events of 396/5 bc, notably concerning the

  Boeotian League (text in Chambers 1993; full English translation in

  McKechnie and Kern 1988; translation of selected fragments by Marincola 2009: 495–506; discussion in Bruce 1967 and Thomas 2009). It is likely

  that this Hellenica began about 411 bc, like Xenophon’s work, picking up where Thucydides ended, and went at least to 395 bc in the extant fragments – but likely to 394 bc (the battle of Cnidus) or, even more likely, to 386 bc (the Peace of Antalcidas). The work was written in the first

  half of the fourth century, to judge from internal allusions. Though the identity of the author cannot be known for certain on the currently available evidence (many scholars are agnostic), an attractive view is that

  he was Cratippus, on whom we will soon say more. Like Cratippus,

  the Oxyrhynchus author is probably Athenian, has close knowledge of

  Athenian affairs, and sympathizes with Conon. Bleckmann (2006) has

  recently made the case for his being Theopompus; he argues that both

  HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians

  171

  the Oxyrhynchus historian and Theopompus specifically challenged

  Xenophon, copying from him, elaborating different details, and altering his arguments; however, the current consensus is that such an identification is unlikely on stylistic grounds. Without more evidence there can be no certain answer to this puzzle.

  The work evidences a general arrangement of events in a strict winter–

  summer sequence, a fairly objective analysis of motives, and firsthand

  knowledge of the topography of Asia Minor. The style is rather rhetori-

  cally unelaborated, regular, and colorless and uses a restricted vocabulary; the extant sections display neither the regionalism of Herodotus, nor the neologisms of Thucydides, nor the occasional flourishes of Herodotus.

  Yet, given his objective focus, the Oyrhynchus historian is arguably closer to Thucydides in spirit than is Xenophon. He is also closer to Thucydides in his wealth of detail and limited subject matter. Because of this author’s conscientiousness and seeming impartiality, yet lack of a distinct style or thought, Westlake has called him “a second‐rate Thucydides, seeking to

  follow the narrative methods of his master without fully appreciating his subtlety” (Westlake 1960: 209–10). The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia gives many names and places in its narrative, but has no speeches in the extant portions, except for one line of exhortation during a Rhodian coup d’état (which points to Cratippus as author). Like the later Polybius but unlike Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, the Oxyrhynchus historian

  shows an interest in political structures that is exemplified by his discussion of the workings of the Boeotian Federation in Fragment 19.

  Specific passages shed light on his thematic interests. In one, the

  Athenian Demaenetus (like his compatriot Antiochus, below) takes a

  reckless initiative in winter 397/6 or spring 396 bc, in an episode not mentioned by Xenophon or any other ancient historian (Frs. 9 and 11).

  On this occasion Demaenetus sailed out in a trireme from Athens, without the authorization of the demos, to join the renegade Athenian Conon,

  who was in Caunus in Caria (opposite Rhodes) and planned to use Persian naval power to defeat Sparta.

  Thereafter a commotion arose; the wealthy and educated classes were greatly vexed and claimed that the Athenians would destroy their city by beginning a war with Sparta. The members of the Council were frightened by the commotion and summoned the people … [after action against Demaenetus was

  resolved]. Now those Athenians who were moderate and had property were

  pleased with the present situation. The masses and popular leaders at this particular time were afraid and therefore obeyed those who had given

  advice. ( Hell.Oxy. 9
.2–3, Marincola, 2009: 497)

  172

  HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians

  Clearly the author is privy to and gives importance to the inside

  factionalism in Athens, not only the factionalism of the maverick

  Demaenetus, but also that of the elite and the popular dynamics among

  the citizenry. There is a detached cynicism in the account of the fear of the people and the manipulation of the elite. “Wealthy and educated”

  ( gno ̄ rimoi kai charientes) is unusual language; Xenophon uses gno ̄ rimos (“wealthy”) twice (X. Hell. 2.2.6; 4.5) but never charieis (“educated,”

  “accomplished,” “elegant”), either in the Hellenica or in the Anabasis.

  The Hellenica Oxyrhyncha is a valuable parallel to Xenophon’s Books 1

  and 2, which cover the same period, and to Diodorus’ Books 13 and 14,

  which are likely based on Ephorus (on the importance of Diodorus as a

  source, see Rubincam 1987, 1989, and 1998). Oxyrhynchus’ Fragment 8

  (in Chambers 1993) narrates the battle of Notion in 406 bc just prior to the deposing of Alcibiades, which is also told by Xenophon ( Hell. 1.5.12–

  14) and by Diodorus Siculus (13.71.2–4). Diodorus seems to use the

  Oxyrhynchus historian via Ephorus as a chief source for this period. The Oxyrhynchus historian generally agrees with Diodorus and both of them

  differ from Xenophon on points of detail, for example:

  • the adventuresome Athenian Antiochus, with ten ships, harasses

  Lysander’s fleet at Ephesus ( Hell.Oxy. and D.S.) or is “sailing along right past the prows of Lysander’s fleet,” only in his own ship accompanied by a second one (X.);

  • Lysander sinks Antiochus’ ship ( Hell.Oxy. and D.S.) or the latter is not mentioned at all (X.);

  • twenty‐two Athenian ships are lost ( Hell.Oxy. and D.S.) or fifteen Athenian ships are sunk (X.);

  • the Athenian fleet is shut up in Notium ( Hell.Oxy. and D.S.) or it flees to Samos, where Alcibiades opens battle against Lysander (X.).

  The Oxyrhynchus historian may be relying on reports heard in the

  Athenian Council, while Xenophon seems to be using Spartan sources

  and dramatizes the action a bit more.

  Another example contrasts the Oxyrhynchus text with that of Xenophon

  on one issue, namely the account of Persia’s involvement in the origin of the Corinthian War in 395 bc, in order to show possible differences in

  bias. Fragment 10.2 of the Oxyrhynchus text reports the Persians’ send-

  ing of a Greek envoy, Timocrates of Rhodes, to Greek states (Thebes,

  Argos, and Athens) with money to induce (or subsidize) them to go to

  war with Sparta: “all these cities were hostile to the Spartans from long before and had been looking for ways to involve themselves in a war”

  HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians

  173

  (Marincola 2009: 498). Xenophon ( Hell. 3.5.1–2) does not emphasize this deeper motivation and foregrounds the bribe (gold to the value of 50

  talents) and the condition that the states go to war; the Athenians alone

  “would not accept the money, but they were nevertheless eager to wage

  war with Sparta, thinking that it would be their lot to rule [ to archein]”

  (Marincola, 2009: 110, adapted). As one commentator observes, “each

  group of ancient historians accept[s] either the pro‐Spartan (Xenophon) or the anti‐Spartan (the Oxyrhynchus Historian) view of the origins of

  the Corinthian War” (Rung 2004: 415). In fact the two accounts are not

  necessarily contradictory; the “subsidies” can be seen as seed funding

  intended to give incentive to a coalition in the making against Sparta.

  Our interest is in the different emphases of Xenophon pointing up the

  lingering Athenian imperial ambition and the greed of others allied

  against Sparta, and of Oxyrhynchus detecting more deeply seated ani-

  mosities (Rung 2004).

  Fragment 21 of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia recounts the Boeotian invasion of Phocis from an anti‐Spartan perspective; compare Xenophon,

  Hellenica 3.5.3–5 and the Spartan perspective. Fragments 22 and 23 narrate Conon’s ability to quell a mutiny at Caunus against the forces of the king, which he does by putting to death the leaders of the rebellion: “So then the army of the King … put an end to its disorder, thanks to Conon and his energetic resolve [or “proactive zeal,” prothumia] ( Hell.Oxy. Fr.

  23.6, Marincola 2009: 504). Conon seems to be, if not a heroic figure, at least a model of leadership for the historian. Leadership is again a central feature of the campaign of Agesilaus in Asia ( Hell.Oxy. Fr. 24), but this time it is an exercise in errors: the Mysian foe kills a number of his men; he fails to take the town of Leonton Kephalai (Lions’ Heads) in

  Pharnabazus’ territory and cannot capture Gordion or Miletou Teichos,

  both on the Phrygian coast ( Hell.Oxy. Fr. 25). The Agesilaus account contrasts sharply with Xenophon’s adulatory and romanticizing narrative of this period (X. Hell. 4.1), which includes the general’s arranging of a local marriage and omits his strategic failures.

  The Oxyrhynchus historian gives an account of a revolution in Rhodes

  in 395 bc orchestrated by Conon (McKechnie and Kern 1988: 78–9,

  150–1), which is not in Xenophon or any other extant account. When the

  revolt was about to occur, Conon “sailed to Caunus, wanting [ boulomenos] not to be there at the overthrow of those ruling” ( Hell.Oxy. Fr. D XV

  in the London papyrus, lines 355–6). In relation to our thematic interest in how each historian constructs human motivation, we are here made

  privy to Conon’s thinking, though the example may seem banal. The

  term for “wanting” ( boulomenos) occurs eighteen times in the fragments,

  174

  HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians

  and thus shows the author’s interest in motivation in situations where the latter is not readily apparent. The motivation‐revealing word “wanting”

  ( boulomenos) is a favorite one in Thucydides. At the same time we note that the level of analysis in the extant text does not show any deep interest in positing personal fears and desires of individuals. The author seems more interested in collective behavior, for instance of the Boeotians or Athenians, than in individuals, though this is a speculative observation given the limits of our evidence. The collective characterizations are in the good tradition of Thucydides, and are picked up later notably by

  Polybius. A further example of this in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is Fragment 21.1 (Marincola 2009: 501; London papyrus, Fr. D XVIII,

  lines 3–4), when a party in Boeotia succeeds in inciting hostilities with neighboring Phocis to precipitate a war against Sparta, “wishing [ boulo-menoi] to overthrow their [Spartan] rule [ arche ̄ n]” but doing it covertly so that the pro‐Spartan party in Boeotia would not oppose them. (See

  also Conon “wishing to meet” with the Persians “and to get money from

  them” to avert a mutiny in 395 in Fr. 22.1 (Marincola 2009: 502–3).

  If it is correct that the Oxyrhynchus historian was Cratippus, who was

  of Thucydides’ generation, then it is likely that Xenophon could have

  (and probably did) read the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia before writing his own Hellenica. In this case, the later historian chose to differ from the earlier in treatment and perspective (Thomas 2009: xxvi–xxx). Cratippus, an

  Athenian, is referred to only in the Roman imperial period, but he was a younger contemporary of Thucydides and in some way his emulator:

  [Thucydides] seems to have left his history incomplete. Such too is the view of Cratippus, who flourished at the same time as he, and who collected the matter passed over by him, for he says
that not only have the speeches been an impediment to the narrative, but they are also annoying to the hearers [i.e. readers]. At any rate he maintains that Thucydides noticed this and so put no speech in the closing portions of his history, though there were many events in Ionia and many events in Athens that

  called for the use of dialogues and harangues. (D.H. Th. 16, Pritchett) Cratippus’ work is said to cover at least the period until the Athenian naval empire under Conon (394 bc). Plutarch ( Glor. Ath. 345d–e) lists notable events from 411 to 390 bc treated by Cratippus. Even if the

  Oxyrhynchus historian is Cratippus, the positing of a name helps little with understanding the text, and of greater interest is the internal evidence of the text itself. The historian shows us how the method of relying heavily on firsthand evidence remained very much alive after Thucydides, illustrates how he himself strives for objective narration in dealing with a

  HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians

  175

  complex period, and reminds us that the perspective of Xenophon and

  other historians of this period cannot be taken as having produced the

  only or the best accounts.

  ephorus and theopompus

  The two other great names in fourth‐century historical writing, Ephorus and Theopompus, are difficult subjects to assess fairly since we know

  them only from the myriad fragments in Jacoby’s collection and from

  their use as sources by later authors. Ephorus’ History, had it survived, would have filled some eight Oxford text volumes, and Theopompus’

  Philippica about fifteen (Marincola 2007: 104–5). Since antiquity, despite their stylistic differences, Ephorus and Theopompus have often been said to have been students of Isocrates of Athens (437–338 bc), one of the

  most famous rhetoricians of the period: Isocrates is alleged to have said of his “students” that the weak Ephorus needs the spur, while Theopompus

  needs the reins ( FGrHist 70 Ephor. T 28). This desire to schematize intellectual filiation, when applied to other historians and authors, is to be called into question (Dewald and Marincola 2006: 20–1); yet in the case of Ephorus and Theopompus, while direct mentorship cannot be proven,