Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:37:03.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GREEK LOCAL HISTORIOGRAPHY AND ITS AUDIENCES*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2017

Daniel Tober
Daniel Tober*
Affiliation:
Fordham University
*
dtober@fordham.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the ninth book of his Ἀτθίς the Athenian historian and religious expert Philochorus related an omen about which he had himself been consulted in the late fourth century b.c.e. (FGrHist 328 F 67).

When this year was done and the next was beginning, there occurred on the Acropolis the following prodigy: a female dog, having entered the temple of Athena Polias and made its way into the Pandroseion, got up on the altar of Zeus Herkeios, which is under the olive tree, and lay down. It is an ancestral custom among the Athenians that no dog go up on the Acropolis. Around the same time, a star was evident for a while even in the daytime sky, when the sun was out and the weather was clear. And when we were asked about what the portent and the phenomenon meant, we said that both predicted the return of the exiles and that this would happen not as a result of a political change but rather in the existing politeia. And this interpretation actually came to pass.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , December 2017 , pp. 460 - 484
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Nino Luraghi, Michael Flower, John Dillery and John Tully for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the audience that heard an embryonic version of this material at the American Philological Association's 2013 Annual Meeting in Seattle, whose thoughtful questions helped me to hone my argument. Since then, I have benefitted from conversations with David Stromberg about authors and audiences and from the generous and judicious criticism of Andrew Morrison and the three anonymous reviewers at CQ. Any errors or infelicities, however, are my responsibility alone.

References

1 For Philochorus’ religious activity at Athens, see FGrHist 328 T 1 (= Suda s.v. Φιλόχορος [Φ441 Adler]): Φιλόχορος· Κύκνου Ἀθηναῖος, μάντις καὶ ἱεροσκόπος. The Ἀτθίς, which contained τὰς ᾽Αθηναίων πράξεις καὶ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντας, heads the long and varied list of books that the Suda ascribes to Philochorus. For the date of Philochorus’ proclamation (most likely the beginning of 306/305 b.c.e.) and of the composition of the passage (at some point after 292/291 b.c.e.), see Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker IIIB Suppl. Text (Leiden, 1954), 345–6Google Scholar; Smith, L.C., ‘Philochorus F 67 and the return of the exiles’, Phoenix 19 (1965), 111–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Costa, V., Filocoro di Atene. I frammenti degli storici greci (Tivoli, 2007 2), 393–7Google Scholar; and now N.F. Jones, ‘Philochoros of Athens (328)’, in I. Worthington (ed.), Brill's New Jacoby (henceforth BNJ) (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philochoros-of-athens-328-a328), ad loc.

2 = Dion. Hal. Din. 3: Φιλόχορος δὲ ἐν ταῖς Ἀττικαῖς ἱστορίαις περί τε τῆς φυγῆς τῶν καταλυσάντων τὸν δῆμον καὶ περὶ τῆς καθόδου πάλιν οὕτως λέγει· (F 66) ‘τοῦ γὰρ Ἀναξικράτους ἄρχοντος εὐθὺ μὲν ἡ τῶν Μεγαρέων πόλις ἑάλω …’. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τῆς ὀγδόης. (F 67) ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐνάτῃ φησί· ‘τοῦ δ’ ἐνιαυτοῦ τού<του> διελθόντος, ἑτέρου δ’ εἰσιόντος, ἐν ἀκροπόλει σημεῖον ἐγένετο τοιοῦτον· κύων εἰς τὸν τῆς Πολιάδος νεὼν εἰσελθοῦσα καὶ δῦσα εἰς τὸ Πανδρόσειον, ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν ἀναβᾶσα τοῦ ῾Ερκείου Διὸς τὸν ὑπὸ τῇ ἐλαίᾳ κατέκειτο. πάτριον δ’ ἐστὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις κύνα μὴ ἀναβαίνειν εἰς ἀκρόπολιν. περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ χρόνον καὶ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μεθ’ ἡμέραν, ἡλίου τ’ ἐξέχοντος καὶ οὔσης αἰθρίας, ἀστὴρ ἐπί τινα χρόνον ἐγένετο ἐκφανής. ἡμεῖς δ’ ἐρωτηθέντες ὑπέρ τε τοῦ σημείου καὶ τοῦ φαντάσματος εἰς ὃ φέρει, φυγάδων κάθοδον ἔφαμεν προσημαίνειν ἀμφότερα, καὶ ταύτην οὐκ ἐκ μεταβολῆς πραγμάτων ἐσομένην ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ καθεστώσῃ πολιτείᾳ· καὶ τὴν κρίσιν ἐπιτελεσθῆναι συνέβη.’ The designation of the new year in F 67 deviates from the typical Philochorean formula (Jacoby [n. 1], 345), it is true, but there is little reason to suspect Dionysius of paraphrasis or interpolation—indeed, he tends to restrict personal asides, as here, to transitions between direct quotations.

3 By Greek local historiography, I should say at the start, I mean narratives, written in Greek, that are focalized by the real or imagined territory of a single community, take that locality and its occupants as protagonists, and concern themselves in some way with the past, whether diachronically or episodically. The earliest extant narrative of this sort, Herodotus’ Αἰγυπτιακά (the second book of the Histories), dates from the mid fifth century b.c.e., but no subsequent examples survive intact until the mid first century b.c.e., when Dionysius of Halicarnassus published his history of Rome. In order to get a sense of Greek local historiography in the Classical and the Hellenistic periods we must then rely on fragments—references to, summaries of and direct quotations from these lost works—, which are plentiful but frequently brief and inscrutable. In many cases, we have little more than a title. And because even a localized title does not on its own prove that a cited fragmentary work was a local history as defined above (see Marincola, J., ‘Genre, convention, and innovation in Greco-Roman historiography’, in Kraus, C.S. [ed.], The Limits of Historiography: Genre & Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts [Leiden, 1999], 281–324, at 295Google Scholar)—Jacoby certainly included a wide variety of texts in Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker III, the volumes devoted to what he called ‘Geschichte von Städten und Völkern (Horographie und Ethnographie)’—, I am considering here only those works whose focus and contents are clearly delineated by the surviving fragments and testimonia. The last few decades have seen the publication of a handful of excellent overviews of Greek local historiography, many of which address some of the difficulties of working with fragments: see especially Orsi, D.P., ‘La storiografia locale’, in Cambiano, G., Canfora, L. and Lanza, D. (edd.), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica (Rome, 1994), 149–79Google Scholar; Porciani, L., Prime forme della storiografia Greca: prospettiva locale e generale nella narrazione storica (Stuttgart, 1991)Google Scholar; Schepens, G., ‘Ancient Greek city-histories. Self-definition through history-writing’, in Demoen, K. (ed.), The Greek City from Antiquity to the Present: Historical Reality, Ideological Construction, Literary Representation (Louvain & Sterling, Va., 2001), 3–26 Google Scholar; Harding, P., ‘Local history and Atthidography’, in Marincola, J. (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Malden, MA, 2007), 180–8Google Scholar; Clarke, K., Making Time for the Past: Local History and the Polis (Oxford, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thomas, R., ‘Local history, polis history, and the politics of place’, in Parmeggiani, G. (ed.), Between Thucydides and Polybius: The Golden Age of Greek Historiography (Washington, DC, 2014), 239–62Google Scholar.

4 Because I am interested here in narrative voice, I am using as evidence only those fragments quoted by later authors ostensibly verbatim, either introduced by phrases such as οὕτως λέγει/ φησίν (as in FGrHist 328 F 67 above), γράφων τάδε, κατὰ λέξιν and the like, or else written in a language, dialect or form other than that employed by the cover text. Such fragments are scarce, representing only a small portion of the thousands that Jacoby assembled in FGrHist III. Of the 230 fragments that Jacoby assigned to Philochorus, for example, just over 10% purport to have been preserved verbatim, with another 4% likely candidates. Yet, Philochorus was an important source for Didymus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who tended to quote rather than to paraphrase. Other local historians had less luck.

5 As Fowler, R. points out in ‘Early historiē and literacy’, in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, 2001), 95–115, at 111Google Scholar.

6 For Clarke's discussion of local historians as ‘supra-political ambassadors’, see Clarke (n. 3), 304–69. See also, for the particular case of Magnesia, Gehrke, H.-J., ‘Myth, history, and collective identity: uses of the past in ancient Greece and beyond’, in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, 2001), 286–313 Google Scholar; for Gehrke's notion of ‘intentional history’, see n. 100 below.

7 I am relying here on the rubric of Iser, W. in The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore, 1978), 28 Google Scholar, who distinguishes two levels of hypothetical reader, one (the intended) ‘constructed from social and historical knowledge of the time’, the other (the implied) ‘extrapolated from the reader's role laid down in the text’. Both of these putative audiences must be distinguished from the actual audience, the group or groups that in fact received and responded to the work (although knowledge about this last category certainly helps to adumbrate an author's intended audience).

8 Modern criticism of Greek local historiography, inaugurated by the publication of the Aristotelian Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία at the end of the nineteenth century, has largely avoided the issue of audience. Early studies were preoccupied with the reliability of local traditions (see in particular von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Aristoteles und Athen I [Berlin, 1893], 17–33 Google Scholar; Vogt, M., ‘Die griechischen Lokalhistoriker’, Neue Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 27 [1902], 699–786 Google Scholar; and Laqueur, R., ‘Lokalchronik’, RE 13.1 [1927], cols. 1083–110Google Scholar) and with the origins and development of the form ( Jacoby, F., ‘Über die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie und den Plan einer neuen Sammlung der griechischen Historikerfragmente’, Klio 9 [1909], 80–123, at 49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar and id. Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens [Oxford, 1949]Google Scholar). Later treatments (for which, see n. 3) have tended rather to focus on the bifurcation between local and universal approaches to the past or on the role of local history in the formation of political identity. A major exception is Clarke (n. 3), whose concern is primarily with intended audiences (although see 314 n. 35). General studies of nonlocal Greek historiography, on the other hand, do frequently explore the issue of audience: see e.g. Momigliano, A., ‘The historians of the classical world and their audiences: some suggestions’, ASNP 8 (1978), 59–75 Google Scholar; Malitz, J., ‘Das Interesse an der Geschichte: die griechischen Historiker und ihr Publikum’, in Verdin, H., Schepens, G. and de Keyser, E. (edd.), Purposes of History: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries B.C.: Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leuven, 24–26 May 1988 (Leuven, 1990), 323–49Google Scholar; Marincola, J., Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge, 1997), 19–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and id. ‘Ancient audiences and expectations’, in Feldherr, A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians (Cambridge, 2009), 11–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fowler (n. 5), who actually touches briefly on local history (111–12); see also Raaflaub, K.A., ‘Ulterior motives in ancient historiography: what exactly, and why?’, in Foxhall, L., Gehrke, H.-J. and Luraghi, N. (edd.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (Stuttgart, 2010), 189–210 Google Scholar.

9 The term ‘ethnography’ commonly refers to accounts of communities of which the author was not himself a member. Yet, such narratives can be productively considered a subset of local historiography when they are concerned with a territorial community and treat not only present praxis but also the collective past. Jacoby generally emphasized the overlap between what he called Ethnographie and Horographie (see in particular Jacoby [n. 8 (1949)], 100, 106, 112, 118 and 289 n. 110), as have more recent critics (e.g. Fornara, C.W., The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome [Berkeley, 1983], 22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shrimpton, G., History and Memory in Ancient Greece [Montreal, 1997], 197 Google Scholar; and Harding [n. 3], 186–7); but his treatment of ethnographic texts was not entirely consistent (see A. Zambrini, ‘Aspetti dell'etnografia in Jacoby’, in Ampolo, C. [ed.], Aspetti dell'opera di Felix Jacoby [Pisa, 2009 2], 189–200 Google Scholar; Schepens, G., ‘Die Debatte über die Struktur der “Fragmente der griechischen Historiker”’, Klio 92 [2010], 427–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Skinner, J., The Invention of Greek Ethnography from Homer to Herodotus [Oxford, 2012], 32–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

10 For the diverse chronological frameworks through which individual Greek communities articulated their respective pasts, see Tober, D., ‘Greek local history and the shape of the past’, in Pohl, W. and Wieser, V. (edd.), Historiographies of Identity, vol. 1: Historiographies as Reflection about Community: Ancient and Christian Models (Turnhout, forthcoming 2017)Google Scholar. For the distinctive ways in which individual local historians of a particular locality, viz. Athens, interpreted the past, see n. 54 below.

11 Cineas, a local historian of Thessaly, wrote Krannous for Krannon (FGrHist 603 F 1a) and Bodone for Dodone (F 2c); Armenidas in his Θηβαϊκά gave Ariartus for Haliartus (FGrHist 378 F 7); and the Syracusan Philistus referred to Artemision as Artemition (FGrHist 556 F 63).

12 See Fowler (n. 5), 111–13. Ionic was used by early local historians, such as Ion of Chios in his history of Chios (FGrHist 392 F 3) and Antiochus of Syracuse in his work Περὶ Ἰταλίης (FGrHist 555 F 2), although we should be wary of giving an early date to historians (such as Armenidas the writer of Θηβαϊκά [FGrHist 378 F 6] and Aethlius [FGrHist 536 F 2], who wrote Ὧροι Σάμιοι) solely because they used Ionic. We cannot assume that all cover-texts or manuscripts thereof have retained a local historian's original orthography, but some certainly have: Dionysius, for example, preserves not only Philochorus’ koinē, as we have seen, but also Antiochus’ Ionicisms (Ant. Rom. 1.12.3, 1.73.3 = FGrHist 555 FF 2 and 6).

13 See, for example, Lys. 7 (passim) and Theophr. Hist. pl. (Book 1, passim). Both ἐλάα and ἐλαία, it is true, crop up in Attic decrees, which may suggest that the distinction was not always strictly observed; but Philochorus nevertheless notably opts for the unmarked form. The Attic νεών that we note in Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 67, incidentally, appears also in contemporary non-Attic historians, which suggests that it had already lost its Attic flavour by Philochorus’ day.

14 = Lex. Rhet. Cant. s.v. ὀστρακισμοῦ τρόπος (p. 354.1 Nauck): Φιλόχορος ἐκτίθεται τὸν ὀστρακισμὸν ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ γράφων οὕτω· ‘… ὅτε δ᾽ ἐδόκει, ἐφράσσετο σανίσιν ἡ ἀγορά …’. Philochorus seems also to have preferred γίνεσθαι to the Attic γίγνεσθαι (FGrHist 328 F 6 = Harp. s.v. κοβαλεία); and it is worth noting, again on the subject of orthography, that Harpocration, who quotes Philochorus here, retains the Attic form when quoting the Attic orator Isaeus elsewhere (s.v. παλίνσκιον = Isae. F 35 Forster).

15 = Dion. Hal. Pomp. 5.4. See also BNJ 556 F 56a. For Philistus’ style, see Schindel, U., ‘Der Historiker Philistos von Syrakus und die rhetorische Figurenlehre’, in Janka, M. (ed.), ΕΓΚΥΚΛΙΟΝ ΚΗΠΙΟΝ (Rundgärtchen): zu Poesie, Historie und Fachliteratur der Antike (Munich/Leipzig, 2004), 163–9Google Scholar. Local historiography manifested itself uniquely among the Greek communities of Sicily, we should note, where narratives tended to be restricted not by an individual polis but by the island, or indeed by Magna Graecia, as a whole. For the Σικελικά, see Vattuone, R. (ed.), Storici Greci d᾽Occidente (Bologna, 2002)Google Scholar and id. ‘Western Greek historiography’, in Marincola (n. 3), 189–99, as well as Clarke (n. 3), 230–43 and Baron, C., Timaeus of Tauromenium and Hellenistic Historiography (Cambridge, 2013), 202–31Google Scholar.

16 Diogenes Laertius, for example, once refers to a history of Rhodes written in Doric by a certain Epimenides (1.115, a reference that Jacoby addresses in the context of FGrHist 457 T 1); for Doric historiography in general, see Cassio, A.C., ‘Lo sviluppo della prosa dorica e le tradizioni occidentali della retorica greca’, in Cassio, A.C. and Musti, D. (edd.), Tra Sicilia e Magna Grecia (AION 11) (Pisa, 1989), 137–57Google Scholar.

17 For the lexical peculiarities of this text, see Cassio, A.C., ‘Storiografia locale di Argo e dorico letterario: Agia, Dercillo ed il Pap. Soc. Ital. 1091’, RFIC 117 (1989), 257–75Google Scholar and Cassio (n. 16).

18 In all but two cases (FGrHist 305 FF 5–6), Dercylus is cited alongside and directly after a certain (H)agias, who is himself cited alone as author of an Ἀργολικά once (F 1). Despite F. Jacoby's misgivings (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker IIIB Kommentar [Text] [Leiden, 1955], 18), this Agias is best equated to the homonymous epic poet from Troezen (a locality often included in the ambit of the Ἀργολικά), whose work could well have been exploited by Dercylus as a means of authenticating and legitimizing his own historiographical enterprise. For the dates of Dercylus and Agias, see J. Engels, ‘Agias and Derkylos (305)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/agias-and-derkylos-305-a305).

19 On the rare occasion that πατρίς does appear in a verbatim fragment with reference to the focal locality (see e.g. Demon, FGrHist 327 F 1 and Nymphis, FGrHist 432 F 10), it belongs to the viewpoint not of the narrator but of a particular character. Greek local histories are sometimes given the title Patria, it is true, but not before the third century c.e. (see Orsi [n. 3], 59).

20 In this way, as Marincola (n. 8 [1997]), 287–8 notes, Greek local historians differed markedly from their Roman counterparts.

21 = Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀφόρμιον: τόπος Θεσπιέων. Ἀφροδίσιος ἤτοι Εὐφήμιος ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς πατρίδος. ὅθεν καὶ τὸν κυβερνήσαντα τὴν ναῦν τὴν Ἀργὼ Τῖφυν γενέσθαι. ‘καὶ λόγος παρ’ ἡμῖν τῆς νεὼς ἀφορμησάσης ἐντεῦθεν μετὰ τῶν ἀριστέων † ἀφ’ οὗπερ ἀπέπλευσεν ἡ ναῦς’; ὁ ποιητὴς Ἀφορμιεύς. For the date of the text, see Jacoby (n. 18), 181; see also A. Ganter, ‘Aphrodisios (386)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/aphrodisios-386-a386). If the author of the work on Thespiae did indeed write in verse, as is suggested by ὁ ποιητὴς Ἀφορμιεύς, the use of the phrase παρ’ ἡμῖν would be explicable (see below for poetic treatments of local tradition). But we should perhaps read τοπίτης instead (see Billerbeck, M., Gaertner, J.F., Wyss, B. and Zubler, C. [edd.], Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, vol. 1 Α-Γ [Berlin, 2006], 310 Google Scholar). In any case, the context of the quotation is unclear, and the παρ’ ἡμῖν may have belonged originally to a character's speech. There are other verbatim fragments where a local historian uses a first-person verb or pronoun evidently in his own voice, but in no case can we derive them securely from a work of local history or construe them as perforce referring to the focal community alone: Cleidemus, FGrHist 323 F 27 comes most likely from the ᾽Εξηγητικόν not the Ἀτθίς; Ephorus, FGrHist 70 F 97 from the so-called ‘epichoric’ treatise (mentioned explicitly at FGrHist 70 F 1; see n. 77 below), which seems originally to have been an encomiastic oration ( Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker IIC Kommentar [Leiden, 1926], 39 Google Scholar). In Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 35a, meanwhile, a gloss on ὁμογάλακτες that does certainly come from the Ἀτθίς, the first-person plural stands in for the passive voice, a substitution not uncommon in onomastics (cf. Semos, FGrHist 396 F 8).

22 With the so-called plural of modesty, as M. Flower suggests ( The Seer in Ancient Greece [Berkeley, 2008], 203 Google Scholar).

23 = Strab. 14.1.4 634C = F 9 West. There is, however, some debate about the speaker of these lines, whether it is the narrator himself (see e.g. Allen, A., The Fragments of Mimnermus: Text and Commentary [Stuttgart, 1993], 81 Google Scholar) or a character within the text ( Gentili, B., ‘Mimnermo’, Maia 17 [1965], 379–85, at 382–3Google Scholar).

24 FGrHist 580 F 2 = Strab. 8.4.10 362C = F 2 West; FGrHist 580 F 4 = Paus. 4.6.2 = F 5 West; FGrHist 580 F 6 = Strab. 6.3.3 279 = F 5 West. See D'Alessio, G.B., ‘Defining local identities in Greek lyric poetry’, in Hunter, R.L. and Rutherford, I. (edd.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture (Cambridge, 2009), 137–67, at 154CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 … ἐπείδομεν … ἔτι δὲ τὴν δημοκρατίαν δὶς καταλυθεῖσαν καὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πατρίδος κατασκαφέντα. For πατρίς, see also Isoc. 4.25 and 4.46; Dem. 14.32; Aeschin. 3.134; Lyc. 1.26; and Hyp. 6.35–7.

26 Aeschines actually borrowed his problematic account of this period from Andocides (3.3), who also uses the first person.

27 = Didym. Dem. col. 1.13–18: [… Φιλο]χόρῳ μαρτυρεῖ. περὶ μ(ὲν) γ(ὰρ) τῇς π̣ρ̣ὸ̣ς̣ [᾽Ωρεὸν ἐξελθ]ο̣ύ̣σ̣ης βοηθείας προθεὶς ἄρχοντα Σωσ[ι]γ̣έ[νη φησὶ ταῦ]τα· ‘κ(αὶ) σ(υμ)μαχίαν Ἀθηναῖοι πρὸς Χαλκιδεῖς ἐποι[ήσαντο, κ(αὶ)] ἠλευθέρωσαν [᾽Ω̣]ρ̣<ε>ίτας μ(ετὰ) Χαλκιδ<ε>έων μηνὸς [Σκιροφο]ρ̣ιῶνος, Κηφισοφῶντος στρατηγοῦ[ντο]ς …’.

28 = Dion. Hal. Amm. 9: οὗτος δ᾽ ἐπὶ Καλλιμάχου γέγονεν ἄρχοντος, ὡς δηλοῖ Φιλόχορος ἐν ἕκτῃ βύβλῳ τῆς Ἀτθίδος κατὰ λέξιν οὕτω γράφων· ‘Καλλίμαχος Περγασῆθεν· ἐπὶ τούτου ᾽Ολυνθίοις πολεμουμένοις ὑπὸ Φιλίππου καὶ πρέσβεις Ἀθήναζε πέμψασιν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι συμμαχίαν τε ἐποιήσαντο …’.

29 = Dion. Hal. Amm. 11: δηλοῖ Φιλόχορος ἐν τῇ ἕκτῃ τῆς Ἀτθίδος βύβλῳ. θήσω δ᾽ ἐξ αὐτῆς τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα. ‘… ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἀκούσας τῆς ἐπιστολῆς … ἐχειροτόνησε τὴν μὲν στήλην καθελεῖν …’ (cf. FGrHist 328 F 55b = Didym. Dem. col. 1.67–2.2).

30 = Ath. Deipn. 8.62 361c–e: Κρεώφυλος δ’ ἐν τοῖς ᾽Εφεσίων ῞Ωροις ‘… καὶ διαβάντες οἱ ᾽Εφέσιοι ἐκ τῆς νήσου, ἔτεα εἴκοσιν οἰκήσαντες, τὸ δεύτερον [εἴκοσι] κτίζουσι Τρηχεῖαν καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ Κορησσόν …’.

31 = Ath. Deipn. 6.75 258f–259f: ῾Ιππίας δ᾽ ὁ ᾽Ερυθραῖος ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν Περὶ τῆς πατρίδος ἱστοριῶν διηγούμενος ὡς ἡ Κνωποῦ βασιλεία ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκείνου κολάκων κατελύθη φησὶν καὶ ταῦτα ‘… Ἱππότης ὁ Κνωποῦ ἀδελφὸς μετὰ δυνάμεως ἐπελθὼν ταῖς ᾽Ερυθραῖς, ἑορτῆς οὔσης τῶν ᾽Ερυθραίων προσβοηθούντων, ἐπῆλθε τοῖς τυράννοις …᾽.

32 = Ath. Deipn. 4.74 173e: Σῆμος δ᾽ ἐν δ̄ Δηλιάδος ‘Δελφοῖς’ φησὶ ‘παραγινομένοις εἰς Δῆλον παρεῖχον Δήλιοι ἅλας καὶ ὄξος καὶ ἔλαιον καὶ ξύλα καὶ στρώματα’.

33 The fragment is quoted verbatim in a ninth-century lexicon (see now I.C. Cunningham [ed.], Synagoge, Συναγωγὴ Λέξεων Χρησίμων [Berlin, 2003], 533). Jacoby's text for F 1 differs slightly, and he suggests several cogent emendations in his apparatus: Ἄγραι· χωρίον ἔξω τῆς πόλεως Ἀθηνῶν, οὗ τὰ μικρὰ τῆς Δήμητρος ἄγεται μυστήρια… . Πλάτων Φαίδρῳ (229c)· ᾖ πρὸς τὸ τῆς Ἄγρας διαβαίνομεν. καὶ Κλείδημος ἐν πρώτῳ Ἀτθίδος· ‘τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄνω <ταῦ>τα τοῦ Ἰλισοῦ. πρὸς Ἄγραν <δ’> Εἰλείθυια. τῷ δ' ὄχθῳ πάλαι ὄνομα τούτῳ ὃ νῦν Ἄγρα καλεῖται, Ἑλικών, καὶ ἡ ἐσχάρα τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος τοῦ Ἑλικωνίου ἐπ' ἄκρου.᾽ For Cleidemus’ date, see now W.S. Morison, ‘Klei(to)demos of Athens (396)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/kleitodemos-of-athens-323-a323), commentary to F 8.

34 See e.g. Andoc. 1.45; Dem. 54.7–8; and Lyc. 1.112.

35 ᾖ πρὸς τὸ τῆς Ἄγρας διαβαίνομεν. The introduction to the Lysis (203a) offers another good example of Plato's use of Athenian topography to set a dialogue's scene.

36 Herodotus, however, knew of the altar (7.189).

37 Macrob. Sat. 5.19.25: Callias autem in septima historia de rebus Siculis ita scribit: ἡ δὲ Ἐρύκη τῆς μὲν Γελώιας ὅσον ἐνενήκοντα στάδια διέστηκεν. ἐπιεικῶς δὲ ἐχυρός ἐστιν ὁ τόπος καὶ *** τὸ παλαιὸν Σικελῶν γεγενημένη πόλις, ὑφ’ ᾗ καὶ τοὺς Δέλλους καλουμένους εἶναι συμβέβηκεν. οὗτοι δὲ κρατῆρες δύο εἰσίν, οὓς ἀδελφοὺς τῶν Παλικῶν οἱ Σικελιῶται νομίζουσιν, τὰς δὲ ἀναφορὰς τῶν πομφολύγων παραπλησίας βραζούσαις ἔχουσιν. hactenus Callias. For Callias’ provenance, see FGrHist 564 TT 2 and 3. For his connection to Agathocles, see D.W. Roller, ‘Kallias of Syracuse (564)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/kallias-of-syracuse-564-a564). For a similar passage, see FGrHist 376 F 1, from Nicocrates’ work on Boeotia, along with the commentary of A. Schachter, ‘Nikokrates (376)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/nikokrates-376-a376).

38 Deinias was very possibly Argive himself and perhaps even the assassin of the tyrant of Sicyon in 252/251 b.c.e. (see Jacoby [n. 18], 25, but cf. H. Tell, ‘Deinias of Argos [306]’, in BNJ [http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/deinias-of-argos-306-a306]).

39 λέγεται δέ τις ἐν Ἄργει Πρών, ὅπου δικάζουσιν Ἀργεῖοι. ἱστορεῖ δὲ περὶ τοῦ χωρίου Δεινίας ἐν θ τῆς πρώτης συντάξεως, ἐκδόσεως δὲ δευτέρας, γράφων οὕτως· ‘ταχέως δὲ κυριεύσαντες τὸν Μέλαγχρον καὶ τὴν Κλεομήτραν βάλλοντες τοῖς λίθοις ἀπέκτειναν. καὶ τὸν τάφον αὐτῶν δεικνύουσιν καὶ νῦν ἔτι ὑπεράνω τοῦ καλουμένου Πρωνὸς χῶμα † παντελῶς, οὗ συμβαίνει Ἀργείους δικάζειν.’

40 For a similar application of the participle καλούμενος to a local toponym, see FGrHist 424 F 2a, from the Εὐβοϊκά of the Euboean Archemachus, and FGrHist 417 F 1, from Creophylus’ history of Ephesus. For related phrases, see FGrHist 378 F 6 from the Θηβαϊκά of Armenidas and FGrHist 323 F 7 from Cleidemus’ history of Athens.

41 = Schol. on Antimach. = P.Cairo 6574.2.12–23: καὶ Ἀγίας [καὶ Δερκύλο]ς ἐν τοῖς Ἀργολικοῖς φασὶν οὕτως· ‘ὑδ[ρεύονται ἐ]κ μὲν τοῦ ῾Η[ραίου παρ]θένο[ι αἳ] καλοῦνται ῾Ηρεσίδες, καὶ φέ[ροντι τὰ] λοετρὰ τ[ᾶι ῞Ηραι τᾶι] Ἀκρεί[αι]· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Αὐτοματείου φέ[ρουσαι ὑ]δρεύονται π[αρθένοι αἳ] καλοῦ[ν]ται Λοχεύτριαι, ἐπεὶ κέ τις τ[ῶν γυναικῶν] λοχεύητ[αι τῶν δμ]ωίδω[ν]. ἰδία<ι> δ᾽ ἀπὸ τᾶς λοχείας φέρον[τι …….] λοετρά.’ For this passage, see Engels (n. 18) and Fowler (n. 5), who notes that ‘though the Argives did not need to be told this they might have enjoyed being told’ (112 n. 29).

42 = Schol. Pind. Ol. 3.33a: καὶ Κώ(μαρχος) ὁ τὰ περὶ ᾽Ηλείων συντάξας φησὶν οὕτως· ‘πρῶτον μὲν οὖν παντὸς περίοδον [Ἡρακλῆς] συνέθηκεν † ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἄρχειν νουμηνίαν μηνὸς ὃς † Θωσυθιὰς ἐν ῎Ηλιδι ὀνομάζεται …’. Despite the textual difficulties of this passage (for which, see now G. Anderson, ‘Komarchos [410]’, in BNJ [http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/komarchos-410-a410]), by specifying in a work about Elis the name of an Elean month Comarchus (perhaps himself Elean) implied an audience of nonlocals.

43 = Ath. Deipn. 8.12 335a–b: καὶ γὰρ ἐν Δήλῳ φησὶ Σῆμος ὁ Δήλιος ἐν β Δηλιάδος, ὅταν θύωσι τῇ Βριζοῖ—αὕτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν ὕπνῳ μάντις· βρίζειν δ’ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι λέγουσι τὸ καθεύδειν· ἔνθα δ’ ἀποβρίξαντες ἐμείναμεν ἠῶ δῖαν—, ταύτῃ οὖν ὅταν θύωσιν αἱ Δηλιάδες, προσφέρουσιν αὐτῇ σκάφας πάντων πλήρεις ἀγαθῶν πλὴν ἰχθύων διὰ τὸ εὔχεσθαι ταύτῃ περί τε πάντων καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν πλοίων σωτηρίας. For Semos’ provenance, see FGrHist 396 T 1 and FF 1, 3–4 and 11. For his date, see L. Bertelli, ‘Semos (396)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/semos-396-a396).

44 = Ath. Deipn. 14.53 645b: Σῆμος ἐν β Δηλιάδος, ἐν τῇ τῆς ῾Εκάτης [φησὶν] νήσῳ τῇ ῎Ιριδι θύουσι Δήλιοι τοὺς βασυνίας καλουμένους—ἐστὶν δὲ ἑφθὸν πύρινον, σταῖς σὺν μέλιτι—καὶ τὰ καλούμενα κόκκωρα, ἰσχὰς καὶ κάρυα τρία.

45 πολλὰ μὲν δὴ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐστὶ τοιαῦθ᾽ οἷ᾽ οὐχ ἑτέρωθι, ἓν δ᾽ οὖν ἰδιώτατον πάντων καὶ σεμνότατον, τὸ ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ δικαστήριον … . See also Lys. 1.30.

46 καὶ τὰ μὲν ἔτι καὶ νῦν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν δείκνυμεν ….

47 ῥᾴδιον δὲ καὶ ἐντεῦθεν γνῶναι τὸν νόμον πονηρὸν ὄντα· μόνοι γὰρ αὐτῷ τῶν Ἑλλήνων χρώμεθα.

48 See e.g. Dem. 19.87 and 59.104; and Aeschin. 3.14 and 3.158.

49 See e.g. Dem. 20.100 and 37.18. Sometimes shared knowledge is suggested simply by way of a particle such as δήπου (see e.g. Dem. 20.18 and 21.32).

50 = Schol. RV on Ar. Pax 665: Φιλόχορος φησὶν οὕτως· ‘… Κλέωνος δὲ ἀντειπόντος ταῖς διαλύσεσι στασιάσαι λέγεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν· ἐρωτῆσαι δὲ συνέβη τὸν ἐπιστάτην· ἐνίκησαν δὲ οἱ πολεμεῖν βουλόμενοι.’ For the implications of this λέγεται, see Jacoby (n. 1), 502–3. For a similar formulation, see Aristophanes of Boeotia, FGrHist 379 F 3 (= Steph. Byz. s.v. Χαιρώνεια): κέκληται ἀπὸ Χαίρωνος· Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Βοιωτικῶν β̄, ‘λέγεται δ᾽ οἰκιστὴν γενέσθαι τοῦ πολίσματος Χαίρωνα.’

51 = Ath. Deipn. 3.50 96d–e: Δήμων ἐν δ̄ ᾽Ατθίδος, Ἀφείδαντα, φησί, ‘βασιλεύοντα Ἀθηνῶν Θυμοίτης ὁ νεώτερος ἀδελφὸς νόθος ὢν ἀποκτείνας αὐτὸς ἐβασίλευσεν.᾽ For Demon's date, see N.F. Jones, ‘Demon (327)’ in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/demon-of-athens-327-a327).

52 = Ath. Deipn. 12.72 549a–d: Νύμφις γοῦν ὁ ῾Ηρακλεώτης ἐν τῷ <ῑ>β̄ Περὶ ῾Ηρακλείας Διονύσιος φησὶν ‘ὁ Κλεάρχου τοῦ πρώτου τυραννήσαντος ἐν ῾Ηρακλείᾳ υἱὸς καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς πατρίδος τυραννήσας.’ See Jacoby ([n. 18], 264) for the possibility that this explanatory phrase was not part of Nymphis’ original text.

53 = Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.12.3: Ἀντίοχος δὲ ὁ Συρακούσιος, συγγραφεὺς πάνυ ἀρχαῖος … Οἰνώτρους λέγει πρώτους τῶν μνημονευομένων ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικῆσαι, εἰπὼν ὧδε· ‘Ἀντίοχος Ξενοφάνεος τάδε συνέγραψε περὶ ᾽Ιταλίης ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαίων λόγων τὰ πιστότατα καὶ σαφέστατα· τὴν γῆν ταύτην, ἥτις νῦν ᾽Ιταλίη καλεῖται, τὸ παλαιὸν εἶχον Οἴνωτροι.’ For Antiochus, see N. Luraghi, ‘Antiochos of Syracuse (555)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/antiochos-of-syracuse-555-a555).

54 The point was made most forcefully by Jacoby specifically about Atthidography ([n. 8 (1949)], 72–9); see also Bauer, A., Die Forschungen zur griechischen Geschichte (Munich, 1899), 180–1Google Scholar; McInerney, J., ‘Politicizing the past: the ‘Atthis’ of Kleidemos’, ClAnt 13 (1994), 17–37 Google Scholar; and Camassa, G., ‘L'attidografia nella storia degli studi’, in Bearzot, C. and Landucci, F. (edd.), Storie di Atene, storia dei Greci: studi e ricerche di attidografia (Milan, 2010), 29–52 Google Scholar. For reactions to this view, see Harding, P., ‘Androtion's political career’, Historia 25 (1976), 186–200 Google Scholar and ‘Atthis and politeia ’, Historia 26 (1977), 148–60Google Scholar and Rhodes, P., ‘The Atthidographers’, in Verdin, H., Schepens, G. and de Keyser, E. (edd.), Purposes of History: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries B.C.: Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leuven, 24–26 May 1988 (Leuven, 1990), 73–81 Google Scholar. But to downplay the centrality of party politics in Jacoby's conception of Atthidography does not mean denying that a historian intimately involved in the daily affairs of his community infused his writings with beliefs about the past that did not perforce jibe with those of his predecessors.

55 See e.g. Andoc. 3.8 and Lycurg. 1.93 and 1.112. For the Attic orators’ tendency to involve their audience in the collective Athenian past, see Pearson, L., ‘Historical allusions in the Attic orators’, CQ 36 (1941), 209–29, at 212–18Google Scholar; see also Clarke (n. 3), 245–303 and Steinbock, B., Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Uses and Meanings of the Past (Ann Arbor, 2013)Google Scholar, especially 94–9. Orators might implicate their audience also by pointing to the communicative role of oral tradition (see e.g. Dem. 22.13, Din. 1.75, [ps.-]Dem. 60.10, Hyper. 6.2 and Thuc. 2.36.4).

56 = Didym. Demosth. col. 7.11–28: ταύτην γ(ὰρ) οὐ μ̣[όνον οὐκ ἐδέξαντο] Ἀθ[η]ν[αῖοι], ἀλλὰ κ(αὶ) πᾶν τοὐν[αντίον τὰ διδόμ(εν)]᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀ[πε]ώσαντο παρ᾽ [ἤ]ν α̣[ἰτίαν Φιλό]χορος ἀφη[γ̣εῖ]τ̣α̣ι αὐτοῖς ὀνό[μ]ασι, πρ[οθ]ε̣ὶ̣ς ἄρχοντα Φιλοκ[λέ]α Ἀναφλύ[σ]τιον· ‘… ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺ[ς πρέσ]βεις τοὺς ἐν Λακεδαίμονι συγχωρήσα[ντας] ἐφυγάδευσαν, Καλλιστράτου γράψαντος, κ[αὶ οὐ]χ ὑπομείναντας τὴν κρίσιν, Ἐπικράτην Κηφισιέα, ᾽Ανδοκίδην Κυδαθηναιέα, Κρατῖνον Σ[φ]ήττιον, Εὐβουλίδην ᾽Ελευσίνιον.᾽ See Harding, P., Didymos: On Demosthenes (Oxford, 2006), 164–85Google Scholar.

57 κατὰ τουτὶ τὸ ψήφισμ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν πρέσβεων ἐκείνων ὑμεῖς θάνατον κατέγνωτε, ὧν εἷς ἦν Ἐπικράτης, ἀνήρ, ὡς ἐγὼ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀκούω, σπουδαῖος καὶ πολλὰ χρήσιμος τῇ πόλει … .

58 οἷον ἃ πρὸς τοὺς καταράτους Μεγαρέας ἐψηφίσασθ᾽ ἀποτεμνομένους τὴν ὀργάδα, ἐξιέναι, κωλύειν, μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν … .

59 = Didym. Demosth. col. 13.42–58: ὅτι μνημονεύει [Δημοσθένης] τῶν πραχθέντων ᾽Αθηναίοις πρὸς Μεγαρέας περὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς ᾽Οργάδος. γέγονε δὲ ταῦτα κατ᾽ Ἀπολλόδωρον ἄρχοντα, καθάπερ ἱστορεῖ Φιλόχορος οὑτωσὶ γράφων· ‘Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ πρὸς Μεγαρέας διενεχθέντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὁρισμοῦ τῆς ἱερᾶς ᾽Οργάδος εἰσῆλθον εἰς Μέγαρα μετ᾽ ᾽Εφιάλτου στρατηγοῦντος ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν …’.

60 See above (n. 8) for modern discussions of Greek historiography's audiences. Polybius offers the clearest ancient testimony about historiography's audiences (9.1.1), but he is not thinking here specifically of local history.

61 Philochorus allegedly wrote a direct response to Demon's Ἀτθίς (FGrHist 328 T 1 and F 72), and he relied heavily on Androtion (cf. FGrHist 324 F 30 and 328 F 155, for which see Jacoby [n. 1], 249–50 and Harding, P., Androtion and the Atthis [Oxford, 1994], 125–7)Google Scholar. To look outside the Ἀτθίδες, we know that Memnon based the first thirteen books of his history of Pontic Heraclea on the history of Nymphis (FGrHist 432 T 3–4, for which see Jacoby [n. 18], 269–71 and Desideri, P., ‘Studi di storiografia Eracleota I’, SCO 16 (1967), 366–416, at 378–81 and 389–90Google Scholar). Regarding the use of local histories by nonlocal historians, Thucydides certainly read Hellanicus’ recently published history of Athens (1.97.2 = FGrHist 323a T 8); Polybius the Rhodian histories of his older contemporaries Zeno (16.14–20 = FGrHist 523 TT 3–5 and FF 4–6) and Antisthenes (16.14–15 = FGrHist 508 T 1 = F 1), as well as the Σικελικά of Timaeus (e.g. 1.5.1, 12.3.7–12.4.5, 12.5.1–12.11.5 and 12.25.1–12.25.5 = FGrHist 566 T 6a, FF 3, 12, 28b); Dionysius of Halicarnassus the works of Philistus (e.g. Pomp. 5.4 and Ant. Rom. 1.22.3–4 = FGrHist 556 FF 5 and 46), Philochorus (e.g. Amm. 9 and 11, Din. 3 and 13 = FGrHist 328 FF 49–51, 53–6, 66–7, 152–4 and 158), and Ariaethus (Ant. Rom. 1.49.1 = FGrHist 316 F 1); and Diodorus those of Antiochus (12.71.2 = FGrHist 555 T 3) and Zeno (5.55 = FGrHist 523 F 1) as well as a handful of Κρητικά (5.64–80 = FGrHist 457 F 17, 458 F 1, 461 T 2 and 462 T 1).

62 Didymus, we know, read several Ἀτθίδες (FGrHist 324 FF 30 and 53; 325 F 17; 327 F 7; 328 FF 55b, 56b, 144–5, 149a, 151, 155, 157 and 159–61), as well as Theotimus’ history of Cyrene (FGrHist 470 F 1), Creophylus’ history of the Ephesians (FGrHist 417 F 3), and the works of Philistus (FGrHist 556 F 49) and Timaeus (FGrHist 566 FF 18, 39b, 93b, 96, 145) on Sicily. Callimachus, meanwhile, read Xenomedes on the history of Ceos (FGrHist 442 F 1) and Dercylus on Argos (FGrHist 305 FF 4, 8 and 8bis), and he was familiar also with the Samian history of Aethlius (FGrHist 536 F 3 with Ait. F 100 Pf.). And Apollonius evidently used several historians of Pontic Heraclea as sources for his Argonautika, including Promathidas (1.1126–31; 2.815, 2.844–7a, 2.911–14, 2.928–9 = FGrHist 430 FF 1–4) and Nymphis (2.729–35a = FGrHist 432 T 5 = F 3).

63 … ὅσαι διεσῴζοντο παρὰ τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις μνῆμαι κατὰ ἔθνη τε καὶ κατὰ πόλεις, εἴ τ’ ἐν ἱεροῖς εἴ τ’ ἐν βεβήλοις ἀποκείμεναι γραφαί, ταύτας εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἁπάντων γνῶσιν ἐξενεγκεῖν … . For this important passage, see Jacoby (n. 8 [1949]), 79, 86, 136, 147, 178 and 201; Gozzoli, S., ‘Una teoria antica sull'origine della storiografia greca’, SCO 19–20 (1970–1971), 158–211 Google Scholar; Verdin, H., ‘La fonction de l'histoire selon Denys d'Halicarnasse’, AncSoc 5 (1974), 289–307 Google Scholar; Pritchett, W.K., Dionysius of Halicarnassus: On Thucydides (Berkeley, 1975), 50–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Toye, D.L., ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the Greek historian’, AJPh 116 (1995), 279–302 Google Scholar; Fowler, R., ‘Herodotos and his contemporaries’, JHS 116 (1996), 62–87, at 62–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Porciani, L., ‘La storia locale in Grecia secondo Dionigi d'Alicarnasso’, in Bearzot, C., Vattuone, R. and Ambaglio, D. (edd.), Storiografia locale e storiografia universale: forme di acquisizione del sapere storico nella cultura antica (Como, 2001), 287–98Google Scholar.

64 Jacoby (n. 8 [1949]), 289 n. 111. For the term ‘Great History’, see also 1–2, 118, 185 and 201.

65 Ant. Rom. 1.73.1, 1.74.3; see Cic. De or. 2.52 for a similar contemporary viewpoint. What stands out about Roman historiography, aside from its belated appearance, is the priority of the local framework, which prevailed until just about Dionysius’ own day.

66 For criticism of Jacoby's theory of the development of local historiography, see Fowler (n. 63); Humphreys, S.C., ‘Fragments, fetishes, and philosophies: towards a history of Greek historiography after Thucydides’, in Most, G.W. (ed.), Collecting Fragments/Fragmente Sammeln (Göttingen, 1997), 186–205 Google Scholar; Marincola (n. 3); L. Porciani, ‘Il problema della storia locale’, in C. Ampolo (n. 9), 173–84, at 175–6; and Funke, P., ‘Einige Überlegungen zur Genese der antiken griechischen Lokalgeschichtsschreibung’, in Geographia Antiqua 23–24 (2014–2015), 179–86Google Scholar. For a good overview of the issues, see Luraghi, N., ‘Introduction’, in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, 2001), 1–15 Google Scholar.

67 Clarke (n. 3), 109.

68 Clarke (n. 3), 174. Clarke's related contention that local historians tried to mitigate excessive parochialism by appropriating dating systems from other communities is harder to corroborate (see Tober, D., ‘Review of K. Clarke, Making Time for the Past: Local History and the Polis [2008]’, Storia della Storiografia 58 [2010], 147–54)Google Scholar.

69 See Finberg, H.P.R., ‘How not to write local history’, in Finberg, H.P.R. and Skipp, V.H.T. (edd.), Local History, Objective and Pursuit (Newton Abbott, 1967), 71–86 Google Scholar and Elan, G., ‘How to write a dull town history’, Yankee Magazine (March 1986), 169–70Google Scholar.

70 See Russo, D., Keepers of Our Past: Local Historical Writing in the United States, 1820s–1930s (New York, 1988), 42–4Google Scholar. Similar phenomena are evident elsewhere: see Davis, R., Palestinian Village Histories: Geographies of the Displaced (Stanford, 2011), 36–8, 64–6 and 94–6Google Scholar and Papailias, P., Genres of Recollection: Archival Poetics and Modern Greece (New York, 2005), 49–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Local historiography's parochialism, it is important to note, does not make it in ancient Greece, as Momigliano once wrote, a ‘minor’ branch of historiography (‘Tradition and the classical historian’, in Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography [Oxford, 1977], 161–77Google Scholar, at 170–1). The myriad Greek communities that produced local histories and the astounding number of Greeks who chose to direct their historiographical impulses at particular localities suggest that the phenomenon was anything but minor (see Orsi [n. 3]).

71 In his Ἀρκαδικά, for example, Ariaethus of Tegea brings Aeneas from Troy to Orchomenus (FGrHist 316 F 1), and Dieuchidas in his Μεγαρικά buries Adrastus in Megara (FGrHist 485 F 3). In fact, Megarian local histories and the traditions on which they drew seem to have gone out of their way to foreground the nonlocal dead (see D. Tober, ‘Megarians’ tears: localism and dislocation in the Megarika’, in H. Beck and P.J. Smith [edd.], Megarian Moments: The Local World of an Ancient Greek City-State [Teiresias Supplements Online 1] [forthcoming 2017]).

72 The Ἀτθίδες send Theseus to Crete (FGrHist 323a F 17, 327 F 5, 328 FF 17 and 111) and to the Black Sea (FGrHist 328 F 110), the Θεσσαλικά send Jason to Armenia (FGrHist 129 F 1 and 130 F 1), and the Spartan Πολιτεῖαι send Lykourgos to Iberia, Libya and India (FGrHist 591 F 2).

73 Some of the surviving fragments of the Ἀτθίδες, in particular of Philochorus’ Ἀτθίς, show Athenians in the Classical period venturing outside of the polis (FGrHist 324 F 48; 328 FF 49–51, 144–5, 150, 162); and Memnon in his history of Heraclea discussed battles in which the Heracliotae participated far away from the homeland (FGrHist 434 F 1.21).

74 In his history of Boeotia, for example, Aristophanes names the Theban commander at the Battle of Thermopylae (FGrHist 379 F 6).

75 As Fornara has pointed out (n. 9), 20–1. For the idea that there were Panhellenic versions of events circulating orally around the Greek world already in the early fifth century, see Shrimpton (n. 9), 144–5.

76 In addition to his Σαμίων Ὧροι (FGrHist 76 FF 22–6, along probably with FF 45, 60–71, 74–7 and 96), Duris wrote Τὰ Περὶ Ἀγαθοκλέα (FF 16–21 and perhaps also FF 56–9) and a work called either Ἱστορίαι (FGrHist 76 FF 1–2, 10, 12–15) or Μακεδονικά (FF 3–4, 6, 9, 11), which recorded in at least twenty-three books, and without apparent geographical restriction, events from the death of Amyntas in 370/369 (T 5) at least to the Battle of Coroupedium in 281 (F 55). Nymphis, for his part, wrote not only a history of Heraclea but also a work on Alexander, the Diadochi and the Epigoni (FGrHist 432 T 1). Although we have only one fragment, fairly abstruse, that may come from this work (F 17), it was most likely on the general history that Pompeius Trogus relied (see Jacoby [n. 18], 255 and 260; Desideri [n. 61], 391 n. 123; and Gattinoni, F. Landucci, Lisimaco di Tracia: un sovrano nella prospettiva del primo ellenismo [Milan, 1992], 17–27)Google Scholar, and a reading of Justin's potted history of Heraclea (16.3–5) alongside passages from Nymphis (FGrHist 432 F 10) and Memnon (FGrHist 434 F 1.1–8) suggests that Nymphis inserted an abridgement of his local history at the point in his general history where Lysimachus took control of the Black-Sea region.

77 = FGrHist 70 F 236: σκώπτεται δὲ καὶ ὁ ῎Εφορος διότι τῆς πατρίδος ἔργα οὐκ ἔχων φράζειν ἐν τῇ διαριθμήσει τῶν ἄλλων πράξεων, οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἀμνημόνευτον αὐτὴν εἶναι θέλων, οὕτως ἐπιφωνεῖ· ‘κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν Κυμαῖοι τὰς ἡσυχίας ἦγον.’ For the encomium on Cyme (FGrHist 70 FF 1 and probably 97), see n. 21 above.

78 Strabo, it is true, once chides a certain Souidas for trying to gratify (προσχαριζόμενος) the Thessalians by advancing certain claims in his Θεσσαλικά (7.7.12 C329 = FGrHist 602 F 11a), but for the most part such explicit statements are rare.

79 Included in this group are Hellanicus (FGrHist 4, 323a, 601a, 608a, 645a, 687a); Aristotle, to whom are attributed some 158 Πολιτεῖαι; Baton of Sinope (FGrHist 268); Rhianus of Bene (FGrHist 265); and Staphylus of Naucratis (FGrHist 269). There are in addition many other, lesser known, historians of this category, who, as Clarke has shown, frequently inhabit the world of Hellenistic interstate diplomacy ([n. 3], 246–363; see also Erskine, A., ‘O brother, where art thou? Tales of kinship and diplomacy’, in Ogden, D. [ed.], The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives [London, 2002], 97–115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Rutherford, I., ‘Aristodama and the Aetolians: An itinerant poetess and her agenda’, in Hunter, R. and Rutherford, I. [edd.], Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality and Pan-Hellenism [Cambridge, 2009], 237–48)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 See Meißner, B., Historiker zwischen Polis und Königshof: Studien zur Stellung der Geschichtsschreiber in der griechischen Gesellschaft in spätklassischer und frühhellenistischer Zeit (Göttingen, 1992), 215–315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 CID 2.32, 75, 76, 78, 96 and 98. As G. Roux has shown, the men chosen from the Amphictyonic poleis as Naopoioi were very frequently from families locally well positioned and well connected ( L'Amphictionie, Delphes et le temple d'Apollon au IVe siècle [Lyon and Paris, 1979], 107–8Google Scholar). The correlation between the historian Dieuchidas and the Naopoios, while not certain, is strengthened first by the rarity of the name Dieuchidas and second by the fact that the Naopoios’ father happens to share a name (Praxion) with another Megarian local historian (FGrHist 484). For father–son pairs of historians, not so uncommon a phenomenon in the Greek world as it turns out, see P. Liddel, ‘Biographical essay’ in ‘Praxion of Megara (484)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/praxion-484-a484).

82 For Androtion and his exile, see FGrHist 324 TT 1–14 with Harding (n. 61), 13–25; for Phanodemus’ career, see FGrHist 325 TT 2–5; and for Philochorus’ death, see FGrHist 328 T 1 with Jacoby (n. 1), 220–5 and Costa (n. 1), 6–10. Cleidemus, too, may have had a prominent religious role at Athens (see FGrHist 323 FF 14 and 28 with Jacoby [n. 8], 56–7).

83 For Thucydides’ audience, see 1.20.3–1.21.1 with Ridley, R.T., ‘Exegesis and audience in Thucydides’, Hermes 109 (1981), 25–46 Google Scholar; J. Marincola (n. 8 [1997]), 21–2; Luraghi, N., ‘Author and audience in Thucydides’ “Archaeology”. Some reflections’, HSPh 100 (2000), 227–39Google Scholar; Debnar, P., Speaking the Same Language: Speech and Audience in Thucydides’ Spartan Debate (Ann Arbor, 2001)Google Scholar; Morrison, J.V., Reading Thucydides (Columbus, OH, 2006), 172–98Google Scholar; and Greenwood, E., Thucydides and the Shaping of History (London, 2006)Google Scholar, especially 7–17 and 37–47. For Polybius’ audiences, see, along with 9.1.2–5, Walbank, F.W., Polybius (Berkeley, 1972), 3–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sacks, K.S., Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley, 1981), 178–86Google Scholar; Champion, C.B., Cultural Politics in Polybius's Histories (Berkeley, 2004), 30–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McGing, B.C., Polybius’ Histories: Oxford Approaches to Classical Literature (Oxford, 2010), 66–75 Google Scholar.

84 εἰσὶ δ᾽ οὗτοι घήνων καὶ Ἀντισθένης οἱ ῾Ρόδιοι. τούτους δ᾽ ἀξίους εἶναι κρίνω διὰ πλείους αἰτίας. καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τοὺς καιροὺς γεγόνασι καὶ προσέτι πεπολίτευνται καὶ καθόλου πεποίηνται τὴν πραγματείαν οὐκ ὠφελείας χάριν ἀλλὰ δόξης καὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος ἀνδράσι πολιτικοῖς.

85 See Cornell, T., ‘Cato and the origins of Roman autobiography’, in Smith, C. and Powell, A. (edd.), The Lost Memoirs of Augustus and the Development of Roman Autobiography (Swansea, 2010), 15–40 Google Scholar; Candau, J.M., ‘Republican Rome: autobiography and political struggles’, in Marasco, G. (ed.), Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Antiquity (Leiden, 2011), 121–60Google Scholar; and Tatum, J., ‘The Late Republic: autobiographies and memoirs in the age of the Civil Wars’, in Marasco, G. (ed.), Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Antiquity (Leiden, 2011), 161–88Google Scholar.

86 See n. 54 above.

87 See Tober, D., ‘ Politeiai and Spartan local history’, Historia 59 (2010), 412–31Google Scholar.

88 For Duris and his career, see Barron, J.P., ‘The tyranny of Duris of Samos’, CR 12 (1962), 189–92Google Scholar; Kebric, R.B., ‘Duris of Samos: early ties with Sicily’, AJA 79 (1975), 89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and id. In the Shadow of Macedon, Duris of Samos (Wiesbaden, 1977)Google Scholar; Dalby, A., ‘The curriculum vitae of Duris of Samos’, CQ 41 (1991), 539–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gattinoni, F. Landucci, Duride Di Samo (Rome, 1997), 9–38 Google Scholar.

89 These two episodes, it is true, come from Photius’ summary of Memnon's history of Heraclea, which was written perhaps in the late first century b.c.e. But because Memnon based the first part of his history very closely on the work of Nymphis (see n. 61 above), both references to Nymphis as an actor in Heraclean history ultimately must come from Nymphis’ own work, especially since in the context of the embassy to the Gauls Memnon refers to Nymphis as ἱστορικός.

90 For Nymphis’ attitude toward Seleucus and Antiochus, see Desideri (n. 61), 406–12; Primo, A., La Storiografia sui Seleucidi: da Megastene a Eusebio di Cesarea (Pisa, 2009), 109–18Google Scholar; and Tober, D., ‘Ἡρακλῆς κάρρων, Σέλευκε: resistance and history in Pontic Herakleia’, in Kosmin, P. and Moyer, I. (edd.), The Maccabean Moment (Berkeley, forthcoming 2018)Google Scholar.

91 The Suda, meanwhile, is able to name the father of Charon of Lampsacus (FGrHist 262 T 1), among whose many works is attested a four-book history of Lampsacus (FGrHist 262 FF 1–2).

92 This is certainly the case for some of the Atthidographers, such as Phanodemus son of Diyllus (FGrHist 325 TT 2–4 = IG ii3 1.306, 1.349, 1.348 and 1.355) and Androtion son of Andron (FGrHist 324 TT 7 and 12 = IG 12.7.5 and IG ii3 1.298), as well as for Syriscus son of Heracleidas of Chersonesus (FGrHist 807 T 1 = IOSPE i2 344), Leon son of Ariston of Samos (FGrHist 540 T 1 = IG 12.6.1, 285) and Xenophon son of Aristus of Samos (FGrHist 540a T 1 = IG 12.6.308). On ancient historians’ use of patronymics, see Marincola (n. 8 [1997]), 271–5.

93 Ἀντίοχος Ξενοφάνεος τάδε συνέγραψε περὶ ᾽Ιταλίης (see n. 53 above). This is evidently how Pausanias (10.11.3 = FGrHist 555 T 1) and Hesychius (s.v. Χώνην = FGrHist 555 F 3b) knew the name of Antiochus’ father. Antiochus notably does not name his provenance in the opening of his local history, although this was widely assumed to be Syracuse (see FGrHist 555 TT 1–3, F 2).

94 ῾Εκαταῖος Μιλήσιος ὧδε μυθεῖται (FGrHist 1 F 1); Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος/Θουρίου ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε (1.1.1); Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον … (1.1.1). A nonlocal historian might, moroever, change the way in which he advertised his provenance (for the case of Herodotus, see Wilson, N.G., Herodotea: Studies on the Text of Herodotus [Oxford, 2015], 1–2)Google Scholar.

95 The Suda lists three possible names for the father of Hellanicus, an indication that the information was not explicitly preserved in any of his texts (s.v. ῾Ελλάνικος [E739 Adler] = FGrHist 4 T 1). Yet, it tells us also that Hellanicus was the father of a certain Scamon, who did, in fact, write a local history of Lesbos (FGrHist 476 F 1) and who would likely have advertised his lineage in the incipit to this work. While the Suda knows a lot about Rhianus, meanwhile (s.v. ῾Ριανός [Ρ158 Adler] = FGrHist 265 T 1a), it does not name his father. Nothing is known of Staphylus except for his association with Naucratis (FGrHist 269 FF 10 and 13).

96 See Chaniotis, A., Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften: Epigraphische Beiträge zur griechischen Historiographie (Stuttgart, 1988), 290–353 Google Scholar; see also Boffo, L., ‘Epigrafi di città greche: un'espressione di storiografia locale’, in Gabba, E. (ed.), Studi di storia e storiografia antiche (Pavia, 1988), 9–48 Google Scholar and Clarke (n. 3), 338–46.

97 Samos paid similar homage to the historian Xenophon (FGrHist 540a T 1). Local historians of the modern day, despite the beating they took in the early twentieth century from the academy, continue to be honoured by their local communities. As J.A. Amato writes about contemporary local historians of the Midwest ( Rethinking Home: A Case for Writing Local History [Berkeley, 2002], 186 Google Scholar), ‘Local history can even impart a certain level of regional celebrity to its writers… . Speaking engagements become common fare, as do chicken dinners and roast beef suppers on an “eat and talk” speaking tour. At some point, local historians can constitute regional voices and be asked to represent the entire state, or even a larger area—which means larger stipends and more radio and television appearances.’

98 See IPriene 37 for the use made of the Samian histories of Euagon (FGrHist 535 F 3), Olympichus (FGrHist 537 F 2a and 2b), Duris (FGrHist 76 F 25) and Ouliades (FGrHist 538 F 1); see IG 12.6.1.155 (= IPriene 500) for the respective histories adduced by the Prienians. The exchange is well treated by Curty, O., ‘L'historiographie hellènistique et l'inscription 37 des Inschriften von Priene’, in Piérart, M. and Curty, O. (edd.), Historia Testis: Mélanges d’Épigraphie, d'Histoire Ancienne et de Philologie Offerts à Tadeusz Zawadzki (Freibourg, 1989), 21–35 Google Scholar.

99 See Higbie, C., The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek Creation of their Past (Oxford, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in particular 242–88.

100 For a community's ‘constitutive narrative’, see Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A. and Tipton, S.M. (edd.), Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley, 1985), 153 Google Scholar. The concept overlaps with Zerubavel's, Y. ‘master commemorative narrative’ (Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition [Chicago, 1995], 7)Google Scholar and to some extent also with Gehrke's useful category of ‘intentional history’, viz. what ‘a society knows and holds for true about its past’, which directly influences its ‘imaginaire, … its inner coherence and ultimately its collective identity’ ([n. 6], 286; see also Gehrke, H.-J., ‘Bürgerliches Selbstverständnis und Polisidentität im Hellenismus’, in Hölkeskamp, K.-J. [ed.], Sinn (in) der Antike [Mainz, 2003], 225–54Google Scholar; and id. ‘Greek representations of the past’, in Foxhall, L., Gehrke, H.-J. and Luraghi, N. [edd.], Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece [Stuttgart, 2010], 15–33 Google Scholar, as well as that volume in its entirety).

101 For a good account of the various aims of personal autobiography, see May, G., L'autobiographie (Paris, 1979), 40–1Google Scholar.

102 The ‘deepest intentions’ of autobiography, G. Gusdorf famously wrote, ‘are directed toward a kind of apologetics or theodicy of the individual being’ (‘Conditions and limits of autobiography’, trans. and repr. in Olney, J. [ed.], Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and Critical [Princeton, 1980], 28–48, at 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

103 See Misch, G., The History of Autobiography in Antiquity Part I (London, 1950)Google Scholar, especially 19–20, 24, 36–7 and 166 and Bakhtin, M., ‘Forms of time and chronotope in the novel’, in Holquist, M. (ed.), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin (Austin, TX, 1981), 84–258, at 132–3Google Scholar.

104 Philochorus, for example, notably uses imperfect-tense verbs in his discussion of ostracism at Athens (FGrHist 328 F 30, for which see n. 14 above), clearly indicating that the procedure was by his day defunct.

105 For a recent overview of Hecataeus’ output, see F. Pownall, ‘Hekataios of Miletos (1)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/hekataios-of-miletos-1-a1). For Scylax, see P. Kaplan, ‘Skylax of Karyanda (709)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/skylax-of-karyanda-709-a709). For the development of prose, see Goldhill, S., The Invention of Prose (Oxford, 2002)Google Scholar; Grethlein, J., ‘The rise of Greek historiography and the invention of prose’, in Feldherr, A. and Hardy, G. (edd.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 1 (Oxford, 2010), 148–70Google Scholar; and Kurke, L., Aesopic Conversations: Popular Tradition, Cultural Dialogue, and the Invention of Greek Prose (Princeton, 2011)Google Scholar. Prose was tied in its inception to a new intellectualism that sought to elucidate the unknown and unfamiliar (see Thomas, R., Herodotus in Context [Cambridge, 2001]Google Scholar, 219 and 270 and Fowler, R., Early Greek Mythography, vol. 2: Commentary [Oxford, 2013], xii)Google Scholar; as such, it became the medium of choice for a Greek imparting information (about the distant past or indeed a distant land) to which he purported to have an especial claim.

106 For Dionysius, see E. Almagor, ‘Dionysios of Miletos (687)’, in BNJ (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/dionysios-of-miletos-687-a687).

107 Because the Egyptian logos is so disproportionately long and because it has nothing strictly to do with Cambyses’ invasion of Egypt, the event that formally links it to the overarching narrative of Persia's rise (2.1.2), the text appears to have been composed separately and perhaps quite early (see Jacoby, F., ‘Herodotos’, RE Suppl. 2 [1913], cols. 205–520, at 330–3Google Scholar; Fornara, C.W., Herodotus: An Interpretative Essay [Oxford, 1971], 1–3 and 20–1Google Scholar; and Lloyd, A.B., Herodotus Book II [Leiden, 1975], 66–70)Google Scholar. Its apparent autonomy and cohesion, at any rate, allowed it to take on a life of its own even after the Histories had been disseminated as a whole (see Murray, O., ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic culture’, CQ 22 [1972], 200–13, at 202–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

108 The amalgam is evident in the early Περιηγήσεις of Scylax (FGrHist 709 FF 5, 7b, 9, 11–12) and Hecataeus (FGrHist 1 F 100, 115a–b, 119, 127–8, 154, 284, 292a)—and it is worth emphasizing that Hecataeus at any rate seems to have divided his Περιήγησις κατὰ τόπους (see e.g. FGrHist 1 FF 139 and 226)—as well as in Herodotus. Book II commences with a detailed description of the territory of Egypt (2.5.2–2.18.3), surveys the customs and religious practices of Egyptians (2.37–98) and offers a particularly comprehensive record of Egyptian history (2.99–182), which in fact extends beyond anecdotes about the individual dynasts and touches upon the Egyptian community as a whole (2.123, 2.128 and 2.164–8).

109 Local histories could certainly be written in verse (see, for example, the output of Rhianus FGrHist 265); but in the case of Greece such poems were largely a learned and Hellenistic response to prose local histories. Archaic verse treatments of local tradition by e.g. Mimnermus, Tyrtaeus and Semonides, who wrote an Ἀρχαιολογία τῶν Σαμίων in the late seventh or early sixth century b.c.e. (FGrHist 534 T 1a), do indeed appear to have retained episodes of a community's cultural memory, even extended narratives thereof, but their approach to the focal community, as we have seen, differs from that of the prose writers at issue here.

110 I do not mean to suggest that particular etic local histories motivated their emic counterparts, as Jacoby surmised, for example, that Hellanicus’ Ἀττικὴ ξυγγραφή helped engender Atthidography ([n. 8 (1949)], 68–9 and 87–8; see also id. ‘Hellanikos’, RE 7.1 [1912], cols. 104–53). It was, rather, the structure of etic local histories itself that provided an apposite channel for a Greek community's natural autobiographical impulse.

111 See Skinner (n. 9), 245.

112 For which, see Shear, T.L. Jr., Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C. (Hesp. Suppl. 17) (Princeton, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Lines 11–18: ἔδοξεν τεῖ βουλεῖ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ· Εὐχάρης Εὐάρχου Κονθυλῆθεν εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ Κ̣αλλία[ς], γενομένης τῆς ἐπαναστάσεως ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐπὶ τοὺς κατέχοντας τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἄστεως στρατιώτας ἐγβαλόντος … . For a similar passage, see Chremonides’ decree in the early 260s b.c.e. (IG ii3 1.912), lines 4–13.

114 Alongside his ᾽Ατθίς, Cleidemus wrote an ᾽Εξηγητικόν (FGrHist 323 F 14), for which see Jacoby (n. 8 [1949]), 41, 75–6 and 252 n. 70; Phanodemus, meanwhile, wrote specifically on the Eleusinian Mysteries (FGrHist 326 FF 2–4), Demon on sacrifices (FGrHist 327 F 3), Philochorus on the art of divination (FGrHist 328 T 1, FF 76–9), sacrifices (T 1, FF 80–2) and festivals (FF 83–4). Androtion, too, may have written a work On Sacrifices (FGrHist 324 FF 70–1). For the phenomenon, see J. Dillery, ‘Greek sacred history’, AJPh 117 (1996), 217–54.

115 For comparanda, see e.g. Paus. 10.12.8 on Cyme and Plut. Thes. 20, where the Naxians point out the grave of Ariadne.

116 See n. 40.

117 See e.g. Hdt. 2.99.3, 2.122.2 and 2.135.4 and Xen. Lac. 14 and Cyr. 7.1.45, as well as Strabo and Pausanias, passim.

118 = Schol. V on Ar. Vesp. 875: περὶ τοῦ ᾽Αγυιέως ᾽Απόλλωνος Διευχίδας οὕτως γράφει· ἐν δὲ τῷ † ἰατρῷ τούτῳ διαμένει ἔτι καὶ νῦν † ἐστι καὶ ὡς † Ἀγυιεὺς τῶν Δωριέων <τῶν> οἰκησάντων ἐν τῷ τόπῳ ἀνάθημα· καὶ οὗτος καταμηνύει ὅτι Δωριέων ἐστὶ τὰ τῶν ῾Ελλήνων. † τούτοις γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰς στρατιὰς † φάσματος οἱ Δωριεῖς ἀπομιμούμενοι τὰς ἀγυιὰς ἱστᾶσιν ἔτι καὶ νῦν τοὺς Ἀπόλλωνος.

119 = Schol. on Ar. Plut. 972: φησὶ γὰρ Φιλόχορος ‘ἐπὶ Γλαυκίππου καὶ ἡ βουλὴ κατὰ γράμμα τότε πρῶτον ἐκαθέζετο· καὶ ἔτι νῦν ὀμνῦσιν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου καθεδεῖσθαι ἐν τῷ γράμματι ᾧ ἂν λάχωσιν.’ See also Menodotus of Samos, FGrHist 541 F 1.

120 See Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1991), 259–69Google Scholar.

121 2.15.2–6 (Alberti): καὶ ξυνοίκια ἐξ ἐκείνου Ἀθηναῖοι ἔτι καὶ νῦν τῇ θεῷ ἑορτὴν δημοτελῆ ποιοῦσιν. τὸ δὲ πρὸ τοῦ ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἡ νῦν οὖσα πόλις ἦν, καὶ τὸ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον. τεκμήριον δέ· τὰ γὰρ ἱερὰ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει <***> καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ ἔξω πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος τῆς πόλεως μᾶλλον ἵδρυται, τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ τῆς Γῆς καὶ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου, ᾧ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῇ δωδεκάτῃ ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων Ἴωνες ἔτι καὶ νῦν νομίζουσιν. ἵδρυται δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ἱερὰ ταύτῃ ἀρχαῖα. καὶ τῇ κρήνῃ τῇ νῦν μὲν τῶν τυράννων οὕτω σκευασάντων Ἐννεακρούνῳ καλουμένῃ, τὸ δὲ πάλαι φανερῶν τῶν πηγῶν οὐσῶν Καλλιρρόῃ ὠνομασμένῃ, ἐκεῖνοί τε ἐγγὺς οὔσῃ τὰ πλείστου ἄξια ἐχρῶντο, καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχαίου πρό τε γαμικῶν καὶ ἐς ἄλλα τῶν ἱερῶν νομίζεται τῷ ὕδατι χρῆσθαι· καλεῖται δὲ διὰ τὴν παλαιὰν ταύτῃ κατοίκησιν καὶ ἡ ἀκρόπολις μέχρι τοῦδε ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλις.

122 We may juxtapose, for example, the style of his excursus on early Sicilian history (6.1–6).

123 Thucydides adopts a similar attitude to Athenian history in his digression on Cylon's coup (1.126), another passage of unusual tone: ἔστι γὰρ καὶ Ἀθηναίοις Διάσια ἃ καλεῖται Διὸς ἑορτὴ Μειλιχίου μεγίστη ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, ἐν ᾗ πανδημεὶ θύουσι πολλὰ οὐχ ἱερεῖα, ἀλλ᾽ <ἁγνὰ> θύματα ἐπιχώρια … (1.126.6). … τότε δὲ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν πολιτικῶν οἱ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες ἔπρασσον (1.126.8). … καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου ἐναγεῖς καὶ ἀλιτήριοι τῆς θεοῦ ἐκεῖνοί τε ἐκαλοῦντο καὶ τὸ γένος τὸ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνων (1.126.11).

124 Kingsford, C.L., A Survey of London by John Stow, Reprinted from the Text of 1603 (Oxford, 1908)Google Scholar, vol. 1, xcvii–xcviii.

125 Kingsford (n. 124), 59.

126 Kingsford (n. 124), 95.

127 History of Vermont, with Descriptions Physical and Topographical (G.S. Salisbury, 1846), 17–19 Google Scholar.

128 Beckley (n. 127), 48.

129 Beckley (n. 127), 137.

130 Beckley (n. 127), 136.

131 For the author, as Bakhtin remarks, ‘is a constitutive moment of the artistic whole, and as such he cannot coincide, within this whole, with the hero, who represents another constitutive moment of the whole’ (‘Author and hero in aesthetic activity’, in Holquist, M. and Liapunov, V. [edd.], Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M.M. Bakhtin, trans. by Liapunov, V. [Austin, TX, 1990], 4–257, at 151)Google Scholar.

132 Bakhtin (n. 103), 256.

133 Bakhtin (n. 131), 152–3.

134 Bakhtin (n. 131), 153.