Greek Historiography
Page 32
The author’s emphasis on the morality and virtue of one man at the
center of the account shows a not very complex but honest analysis of
the ways in which and means by which Alexander built and maintained
allegiance and acquired authority.
The accounts of all these contemporary Alexander historians seem, so
far as we can tell, to lack any insightful analysis of individual or collective political motivation. Alexander’s ambitious aims and imposing authority no doubt inhibited any direct and honest critiques, or any extensive
speeches revealing motivation – as we find in Herodotus, Thucydides,
and Xenophon. The result is a chorus of voices that complement one
another in singing essentially the same story of the great man’s achievements. It took the distance of later authors in the Alexander tradition to rectify this slant, but unfortunately it became all the more difficult to retrieve a critical perspective – one based on firsthand autopsy – on an era that had changed the Greek political landscape.
The Historians of Western Greece
The next most influential Hellenistic historian after Theopompus and
Ephorus was Timaeus of Tauromenium in Sicily (c. 360–264 bc), who
bridged the way to post‐Alexander historians and signaled the transition from Athenian‐centered to Hellenistic‐style historical writing. But, to understand Timaeus, we must go back to the late fifth‐ and earlier fourth-century roots of Sicilian historiography, namely to Hippys of Rhegium’s History of Sicily, whose fifth‐century date and authenticity are shadowy but possible, to Antiochus of Syracuse’s History of Sicily, which dates between Herodotus and Thucydides (c. 425–400 bc), and to Philistus of
Syracuse’s On Sicily (430–356 bc) (for Hippys, see FGrHist 554; for Antiochus, FGrHist 555 and Pearson 1987: 8–18; for Philistus, FGrHist 556 and Pearson 1987: 19–30; also Vattuone 2007: 189–93). Western
Greek historiography, that is, narratives written by Greeks born in Italy or Sicily and Magna Graecia (Southern Italy), took on a kind of colonial perspective (or even a postcolonial one, critical of marginal origins), in antithesis to that produced by mainland and Eastern Greek authors.
Diodorus Siculus was the first‐century bc heir to this tradition, but other
196
DIvErsIty anD InnovatIon In tHE HEllEnIstIc Era
non‐Westerners, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, also benefited much by incorporating it into their works.
Hippys, who may be associated with Hellanicus (see FGrHist 554 F 8; Vattuone 2007:189–90), wrote a work Chronica in five books, which evidences an interest in chronology, and works titled The Foundation of Italy ( Ktisis Italias) and History of Argos ( Argolica). Hippys may have used the Olympiads for dating even before Timaeus. His interests were clearly not parochial and he is possibly quite important in the tradition of historiography, though much is uncertain from the very little evidence available.
The fifth‐century Antiochus of Syracuse ( FGrHist 555; Vattuone
2007:191–3) wrote a work on the settlement of Italy and a History of Sicily in nine books, possibly used by Thucydides, especially in Book 6.
But few fragments remain, and the books of Philistus and Timaeus super-
seded Antiochus’. Fragment 2 interestingly says that “Antiochus … wrote up [ xunegrapse] what follows about Italy, [selecting] the most trustworthy and clearest information from the ancient accounts” ( FGrHist 555 F 2, Vattuone), recalling Thucydides’ use of the same verb at 1.1,
which implies a synthesis of sources. Antiochus similarly emphasized
seeking the clear truth. Mainland and Western history may have shared
some aspects, but in which direction is uncertain.
Philistus of Syracuse (430–356 bc; FGrHist 556; Pearson 1987: 19–30; Vattuone 2007:184–6) authored a work On Sicily, the first seven books of which chronicled the island up to 406/5 bc, while the second part, in six books, dealt with the tyrants Dionysius I and Dionysius II in flattering narratives. Plutarch describes Philistus as “of all men the greatest lover of tyrants and most of all continually emulating and in awe of the tyrants’
luxury, power [ dunamin], wealth, and marriage alliances” (Plu. Dio, ch.
36). Philistus was against the reforms of Plato and Dion during the reign of Dionyius II and served as admiral, unsuccessfully, in a final battle against Dion that resulted in his own death ( FGrHist 556 T 9a, b, c). His infamous pro‐tyrant stance and apparent bias from admiring power represent a
significant stage of historiography, in which a historian serves as a virtual propagandist for the autocratic ruler – a role later elaborated upon under Alexander and by Greek historians of the Roman era. Yet Philistius’ work, so far as we can tell, was reliable in matters of detail and presented a lively narrative, which was used by Timaeus and then by Dionysius of
Halicarnassus – for example the siege of Gela (D.H. 13.108–13), the
building of the wall in Syracuse (D.H. 14.18), and the readying for war against Carthage (D.H. 14.41–6). Philistus also relates the notable detail, omitted by Thucydides, that Nicias disgraced himself by surrendering at Syracuse without attempting to avoid capture, hence Nicias’ name is not
DIvErsIty anD InnovatIon In tHE HEllEnIstIc Era
197
listed on the Athenian inscription of the dead ( FGrHist 556 F 53 = Paus.
1.29.12). In justification of the rise of Dionysius I to power, Philistus cites omens of Dionysus’ mother’s dream and of a swarm of bees in his
horse’s mane ( FGrHist 556 F 57 a, b, F 58).
Stylistically Philistus was much admired by Cicero – who said “the
Sicilian is first‐rate, dense, sharp, concise, almost a mini‐Thucydides”
(Cic . QFr 2.11.4) – and was deemed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus to be, along with Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, “most suitable for
imitation” (D.H. Pomp. 3.1). Dionysius later adds that Philistus lacks the
“seriousness and richness of Thucydides’ thought” (D.H. Pomp. 5), yet he cites Philistus frequently in the account of Sicilian affairs in his own Roman Antiquities.
Timaeus was born in the mid‐fourth century as the son of Andromachus,
the man who arranged the resettlement of Tauromenium in 358–357 bc
(see Baron 2012 for a general study; Vattuone 2007:196–9). About 315
bc Timaeus was
banished for his opposition to tyranny, likely when
Agathocles took Tauromenium (D.S. 21.17.1). He spent at least fifty
years of his exile in Athens, where he studied as a pupil of the Isocratean Philiscus and wrote his Histories. Timaeus’ own magnum opus was the Sicilian Histories ([ Sikelikai] Historiai): an account of Italy and Sicily in 38 books, reaching to 320 bc but extended to 264 bc, with a focus on
Agathocles that included the Pyrrhic War. Today we know him only from
164 fragments, derived mainly from Diodorus Siculus’ and Polybius’ use
of him. Unfortunately Polybius’ Book 12 offers an extensive and virtually entirely negative critique of Timaeus, so modern readers have only a
reflected and perhaps distorted view of this writer. Yet his great contribution to the historiographical tradition is generally agreed to be his role in shaping the highly influential genre of “universal history.” He is also credited with introducing a consistent historical chronology that relied on Olympiads (however we fault that system today). In fact Timaeus’ first work was an annotated list, Olympic Victors ( Olumpionikai), which underlines his concern for chronology; and even Polybius appreciates Timaeus’
care in consulting all known documents to secure a reliable chronology
(Plb. 12.11.1–3). The “universal” genre, adopted next by Polybius,
reflected the gradual cultural tightening of the Mediterranean peoples
after Alexander, which culminated in the Roman imperializing h
egemony
over the “inhabited world” ( ge ̄ oikoumene ̄) (Brown 1958; Meister 2002; Bury 1958: 167–70; Grant 1970: 140–1; Schepens 1994: 249–78;
Alonso‐Núñez 1990: 173–92).
The Sicilian Histories begins with five books on the geography and ethnography of Magna Graecia, the Western Greek regions. Books 6–15 treat
198
DIvErsIty anD InnovatIon In tHE HEllEnIstIc Era
the early history of Sicily down to 406 bc, when Dionysius I came to power; Books 16–33 are on the later tyrannies (406–343 bc); Books 34–38 discuss Agathocles (tyrant of Syracuse c. 360–288 bc), being possibly written when Timaeus returned home to Sicily, in old age (Brown 1958: 6). As one
might expect, the role of Western Greeks such as Empedocles and
Pythagoras in Greek history and culture is emphasized in this account.
Timaeus’ style is florid – “Asianist” in the terminology of Roman rhetoric, in opposition to the plainer “Atticist” mode (Colvin 2006).
The Sicilian tyrants Agathocles, Hiero I, and Dionysius I are all shown in a negative light. Timaeus’ tendency sharply to fault the works of
previous historians and literary figures led to puns, for example his
nickname “the Fault Finder” ( Epitimaios) and his “love of blame and accusation” ( philepitimon kai philenkle ̄ mon, Plb. 12.4a). He was fiercest in his attack on Philistus, his immediate predecessor in Sicilian historiography. Polybius offers an extensive exposé on the targets of Timaeus and asserts that the thematic flaw of Timaeus is his overly academicized
pedantry ( opsimathia, Plb. 12.4b), which makes him collect facts –
including myths, marvels, and fables – regardless of their value for assessing causation. Yet Polybius does allow him a virtue, perhaps an extension of pedantry:
the special characteristic of Timaeus in which he excels and which has won him recognition. I mean his great emphasis on accuracy in the matter of dates, his use of official records, and his attention to this side of his work.
(Plb. 12.10.4 = FGrHist 566 F 12)
Timaeus’ rhetoric dominated his search for the truth, according to
Polybius, and he seemed to lay on top of the facts an overly rigid moralization that wrongdoers always suffer in the end. Polybius says that
Timaeus scurrilously accuses the contemporary Athenian orator,
statesman, and historian Demochares of “so prostituting the upper parts of his body that he was not fit to blow out the sacred flame” (Plb. 12.13), when in fact Demochares was a great general and a cultured and virtuous man. But Timaeus could, says Polybius, also be blinded to faults when he had a personal bias in favor of some statesmen – such as Timoleon, a
statesman and general who fought for Sicily against Carthage. Timaeus
is also accused of geographical and cultural ignorance, due at least in part to his not being well traveled (Plb. 12.25e). Timaeus seems to confess to this fault: “Living away from home at Athens for fifty years continuously, and having, as I confess, no experience of active service in war or any personal acquaintance with places” (Plb. 12.25h, Shuckburgh).
DIvErsIty anD InnovatIon In tHE HEllEnIstIc Era
199
Moreover, Timaeus’ speeches seem to Polybius incapable of a meaningful synthesis of the main issues:
But, without point or occasion, to recite all possible arguments for
everything, as Timaeus, with his talent for invention, does on every subject, is perfectly untrue to facts, and a mere childish sport – to do it has even in many cases been the cause of actual failure and exposed many to contempt – the necessary thing being to choose on every occasion suitable and opportune arguments. (Plb. 12. 25j, Shuckburgh)
An example is his putting into the mouth of Hermocrates, the Syracusan
fifth‐century statesman and general, a simple‐minded speech quoting
Homer and Euripides on the evils of war and blessings of peace (Plb.
12.25k–26). In sum, Polybius accuses Timaeus of mere pedantry unleav-
ened by the skill of the better historians, and thus of being unable to see the forest for the trees, to synthesize, and ultimately to communicate the truth.
We may sense in Polybius at least some jealousy of a successful rival
whom he must discount to enhance his own reputation. Timaeus was
strongly pro‐Sicilian, and thus may have appeared somewhat provincial in outlook to those who had witnessed the great expansion of Rome later.
His Hermocrates was a champion of Sicily against Athenian aggression, in contrast to Thucydides’ characterization of that leader (see Plb. 12.25k =
FGrHist 566 F 22). Timoleon may have been less of a democratizing hero and liberator of Sicily and more of a temperate tyrant than Timaeus portrays him (Green 1990: 219–20). Yet Timaeus is promoting a Western
Greek perspective that proudly appropriates Pythagorean values with
which Timoleon was associated (Vattuone 2002; Marincola 2007: 198).
No writer focusing on Sicily in the following two centuries seems to
have eclipsed Timaeus in importance (Pearson 1987: 263). His fragments
probably include a prefatory “archaeology” on the remote era of colonization, which emphasizes an upheaval when Greek heroes met indigenous
Italian and Sicilian peoples and Carthaginians. Some say that his chief historical contribution was the “discovery” of Rome in the written tradition and an appreciation of how that Latin settlement was pressured between
Etruscans to the north and Greeks to the south (Vattuone 2007: 198). In addition to Timaeus’ universal scope, we can appreciate him as “the most important historian between Ephorus and Polybius” (Pearson 1987: 1).
He was used by many later writers of prose and poetry, including
Callimachus, Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo,
Plutarch, Cicero, Ovid – and, needless to say, Polybius. He was also, significantly, the first one to take a serious interest in Rome, again impinging
200
DIvErsIty anD InnovatIon In tHE HEllEnIstIc Era
on Polybius’ “turf.” Timaeus’ work probably ended with the start of the First Punic War, the first arrival of Rome’s armies in Timaeus’ native Sicily.
Conclusions
Our Janus‐like focus here on the evolution of historical writing in the Eastern and Western Greek regions following Alexander and throughout
the rise of Rome shows above all new perspectives on Greece driven from the former peripheries of the mainland. Yet there seem to be distractions of political authority in the persons of Alexander and his successors in the East and of Sicilian tyrants in the West that inhibit historians from the degree of independent thought found in Xenophon, Thucydides,
Herodotus, and others earlier (Pearson 1987: 263). Of course the frag-
mentary state of the texts does not allow confident scrutiny, but in the extant fragments we find the heroization or villanization of individuals and captivating stories about them, rather than a trenchant analysis of the basis of power politics, of causation, and of what principles of psychology lay behind the characters. With Polybius, causation and a finer focus on the dynamics of hegemony, in this case that of Rome, return to a central focus.
Bibliography
Alonso‐Núñez, J. M. 1990. “The Emergence of Universal Historiography
from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries bc.” In H. Verdin, G. Schepens, and
E. de Keyser, eds., Purposes of History: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries bc, 173–92. (Studia Hellenistica 30.) Leuven, Belgium: Catholic University of Leuven.
Baynham, E. 2010. “Appendix A: Arrian’s Sources and Reliability.” In
Romm, ed., 325–32.
Baron, C. 2012. Timaeus of Taurmenium and Hellenistic Historiography.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, T. S. 1958. Timaeus of Tauromenium. Ber
keley: University of California Press.
Bury, J. B. 1958 [1908]. The Ancient Greek Historians. New York: Dover.
Cancik, H. and H. Schneider, eds. 2002–. Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill (= New Pauly).
Cartledge, P. 2010. “Introduction.” In Romm, ed., xv–xx.
Colvin, S. C. 2006. “Atticist–Asianist Controversy.” In T. O. Sloan, ed., Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press. At http://www.
DIvErsIty anD InnovatIon In tHE HEllEnIstIc Era
201
oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195125955.001.0001/
acref‐9780195125955 (accessed January 27, 2015).
Grant, M. 1970. The Ancient Historians. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Green, P. 1990. Alexander to Actium. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liddell, P. and A. Fear, eds. 2010. Historiae mundi: Studies in Universal History. London: Duckworth.
Marincola, J., ed. 2007. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Meister, K. 2002. S.v. “Timaeus.” In New Pauly, vol. 14, 678–9.
Pearson, L. 1960. The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great. New York: American Philological Association.
Pearson, L. 1987. The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and His Predecessors. (Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association 35.) Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Romm, J., ed. 2010. The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander: Anabasis Alexandrou, trans. P. Mensch. New York: Pantheon.
Schepens, G. 1994. “Politics and Belief in Timaeus of Tauromenium.”
Ancient Society 25: 249–78.
Shuckburgh, E. S., trans. 1962 [1889]. The Histories of Polybius.
Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.
Vattuone, R. 2002. Storici greci d’Occidente. Bologna: Il mulino.
Vattuone, R. 2007. “Western Greek Historiography,” in Marincola, ed.,
189–93.
7
Polybius on the Supremacy
of a Balanced State
This second‐century bc historian attempted a universal account of history from 220 to 146 bc, though the five fully extant books out of the original forty extend only to 216 bc, thus tracing Rome’s early rise to hegemony as far as the Second Punic War (see Hartog 2010 on Polybius as a universal historian). Polybius is notable in several ways in the tradition of Greek historiography (see McGing 2010). Like Xenophon and Thucydides, he