Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:54:40.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Marcellinus'’ Life of Thucydides: criticism and criteria in the biographical tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Judith Maitland
Judith Maitland
Affiliation:
The University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The focus of this paper will be the critical material in the particular Life of Thucydides which is attributed to ‘Marcellinus’.1 After some preliminary remarks about the extant Lives, I shall identify the critical material to be discussed, and proceed to examine its composition and possible origin. I shall suggest that, like the biographical material, the critical passages are a compilation of material from different sources and show a variety of approaches. In discussing these approaches, I shall show that the critical passages contain different emphases, analytical skills and priorities, and vocabulary.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , December 1996 , pp. 538 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

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

References

1 This paper is a product of a research project undertaken in conjunction with Dr I. M. Plant. I am indebted to him for the opportunity to work on the Lives, and for his comments and suggestions concerning this paper.

2 The manuscript tradition has been exhaustively collated and discussed by Alberti, I.B., Thucydidis Historiae (Rome, 1972).Google Scholar

3 Another account of Thucydides' life is preserved in Suidae Lexicon.

4 Alberti's stemma shows that all existing manuscripts derive from a single archetype, with a proliferation of copies from the twelfth to fifteenth centuries. This is borne out by the way in which E and Gu., while exhibiting a few minor differences one from the other, in the main replicate inconsistencies and dubious passages, and leave the same gaps, presumably where their sources were lacking. However, for chs. 32–49 of the material attributed to ‘Marcellinus’, we must depend on Guelferbytanus alone. For a complete list of the codices containing one or both of the Lives of Thucydides, see Alberti, praefatio p. clxxxix.

5 For the textual variant of this name, see note 15 below. For convenience, I shall use inverted commas when referring to this Marcellinus.

6 G. Oomen, De Zosimo Ascalonita atque Marcellino, Diss. Monasterii Westphalorum, (1926).

7 F. Ritter, Didymi Chalcenteri Opera (Cologne, 1845) pp. 124ff. For discussion with regard to Life 2, 14, and 32–4, see Schmidt, M., Didymi Chalcenteri Grammatici Alexandri Fragmenta (Amsterdam, 1964), pp.324–33.Google Scholar

8 Caecilius Calactinus, Fragmenta, E., Ofenloch (ed.), (Stuttgart, 1967), pp.193–5.Google Scholar

9 E. Bux, RE 1471–3.

10 Cf. entries for , and .

11 Ammianus and Macrobius also mention Didymus.

12 See C. Walz, Rhetores Graeci, pp. 1–211. References to these scholia will be to this edition.

13 Wilamovitz-Möllendorff, U.von, ‘Der Thucydideslegende’, Hermes 12 (1877), 326–67;Google ScholarPetersen, E., De Vita Thucydidis Disputatio (Dorpat, 1873);Google ScholarHaack, C.F., De Thucydidis Vita (Leipzig, 1820);Google ScholarPiccirilli, L., Storie dello storico Tucidide (Genova, 1985). Between them, the entry in RE (1450–87) and Piccirilli's introduction provide an ample survey of the problems and work done.Google Scholar

14 Petersen (n. 13), pp. 5–6.

15 The script is very faint here, but it appears that is missing. has also been written instead of Hemmerdinger, E. Bertrand, Essai sur l'histoire du texte de Thucydide (Paris, 1955), pp.61–3, wishes to emend to on the basis of sch. Anab. ii.6.29, which cites ‘Marcellinus’ 27 but attributes it to the commentator Marcellus, referred to by Gregory of Corinth, De Dialecto Attica 34.Google Scholar

16 Bekker, I., Thucydidis de Bello Peloponnesiaco (Berlin, 1821), p. vii.Google Scholar

17 Petersen (n. 13), p. 10.

18 I follow the conventional chapter divisions; I shall have cause to dispute some of them below.

19 Antyllus is a mysterious figure unknown apart from this Life and the scholia to Thucydides. For discussion, see Piccirilli, (n. 13) pp. 96–7.

20 Any Greek terms to be referred to in discussion are given in brackets in the translation.

21 As for example in his treatise on Thucydides, 2–4, 9–13, 15–16 etc. All references to Dionysius will be to the text of Usener-Radermacher (Stuttgart, 1899, repr. 1965), unless otherwise indicated.

22 Poppo, E.F., Thucydidis de Bello Peloponnesiaco libri octo, (Leipzig, 1866–83), ad loc., p. vi.Google Scholar

23 Poppo ad loc, p. xxiv.

24 I have added the words in pointed brackets to clarify the otherwise inconsequential .

25 See, for example, Prog, ix.3–4, vi.131–92.

26 Piccirilli (n. 13), p. 31, cites the Scholia for this definition, but not Hermogenes.

27 See above, note 8.

28 Krüger (Berlin, 1846) seems to have noted the inconsequentiality of the passage, as he suggests for 41.1.

29 : Ritter wants to add Poppo ad loc, p. xxviii says that means amplum discrimen. I prefer to assume a repetition of after .

30 The writer uses the middle voice here ; it may be a feature of his particular usage.

31 See note 33 below.

32 Casaubon wishes t o insert before .

33 In translating, I have accepted which is attested in the later manuscripts, and Poppo's suggestion of . E and Gu agree on the reading Alberti (Rome, 1972) reads for in E, but the reading is clearly . Hude's suggestion might seem attractive, but the mention of islands is crucial to the point.

34 Alberti, following Krüger, brackets ; there is no need if a comma is assumed after .

35 Poppo ad loc, p. xxxiv.

36 Dr Plant has called my attention to the Latin term poeticus, which does mean poetical

37 Thuc. Hist. 3.11.1.

38 This may refer to Thuc. 34; see comment below p. 22.

39 Poppo ad loc, pp. xxxv-vi gives an exhaustive list of those who believe or discount this anecdote about Herodotus; Wilamowitz' remarks (p. 331 and n. 10), will suffice.

40 Poppo ad loc, p. xxxvii notes the discrepancy and cites Thuc.Hist. 1.133; 3.61; 6.16, 80.

41 So I translate . My reasons will be discussed below. In this passage, the expression refers to one of a number of designed to please the ear.

42 Piccirilli, introduzione pp. xxv-vi, notes the difficulties encountered in simply rearranging the material, for example placing 56–8 after 42, and observes that this strategy could only be effective if the work were by a single author, and it were assumed that it h a d subsequently been tampered with.

43 Ofenloch (n.8), pp. 195–6 notes that Blass considers 56–7 to be derived from Caecilius. This is one way to surmount the inconsistency concerning irony, but not the change of approach.

44 In considering the vocabulary of Caecilius, a distinction must be made between terminology expressly attributed to him in the sources and that contained in late paraphrases.

45 Stephanus offers the meaning pervius.

46 Thuc. 31, p. 378.1; 52, p. 412.10.

47 Quintilian 9.1.3,3.91,23; Tiberius 3 p. 80,13 Sp.; Longinus, De Sublimitate 22.1, may have taken a sub-heading straight from Caecilius.

48 See, for example, Proclus on Plato's Republic, 8.2.10; 8.11.40; 8.16.11, 21;Timaeus 2.260.12, 27; 3.74.21.

49 See Poppo's note ad loc, p. xxxi.

50 Schol. Demosth. 17. p. 254, 5 (Dindorf).

51 Dionysius follows Theophrastus here to some extent—see Isoc. 3. It appears that he adapts his definitions to suit his subject matter.

52 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thucydides, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1974).

53 Poppo ad loc, p. xxiii.

54 See also Dem. 5, p. 136, 12–13, 34, p. 204, 6ff.; Ad Pomp. 2.2.

55 Piccirilli has provided meticulous cross-referencing in his edition, referring also to Suidas, Hesychius, Zosimus and others. He has omitted reference to Hermogenes and the Scholia ad Hermogenem with regard to Life 38, 44, 53, 56–7.

56 For a discussion of the relations between the two, see Ofenloch, prooemium p. XIII. I cannot see that differences of professional opinion necessarily imply that Dionysius and Caecilius were on bad terms. Certainly Dionysius is glad to report an agreement here.

57 Frr. 137, 142 (Ofenloch). See Ofenloch's note ad loc, p. 121.

58 Longinus, De Sublimitate 2.1 p. 3, 12 V; 3.1.p. 5,9 V; 31.1.p. 53, 19 V; Photius specifically mentions Caecilius in Bibl. cod. 259, p. 485b 14, and according to Ofenloch (n. 8) p. 98 is paraphrasing him in Bibl. cod. 159, p. 102a 42 and 262, p. 488b 25.

59 There seems to be a comparison of Thucydides and Herodotus in terms of stylistic method in Tiberius, 3, p. 81, 23 Sp.

60 The texts of Proclus cited are as follows:In Platonis Alcibiadem, L.G., Westerink (ed.), (Amsterdam, 1954)Google ScholarIn Platonis Parmenidem, Cousin, V. (ed.), (Paris, 1864, repr. Hildesheim, 1961)Google ScholarIn Platonis rempublicam commentarii, W., Kroll (ed.), (Leipzig, 1899, 1901, repr. Hildesheim, 1965)Google Scholar

61 Severyns, A., Recherche sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos, tome 1 (Liège, 1938), p. XI, finds that the Chrestomathia is ‘ni une anthologie, ni un recueil…C'etait…un Manuel abrégé de litterature’.Google Scholar

62 References to Hermogenes are to the edition of Rabe (Leipzig, 1913, repr. Stuttgart, 1969).

63 Poppo, ad loc, p. xxv, renders this ut adcertum causae statum revocari possint, and refers to the explanation of /status in Quintilian, 3.6.1–22. Piccirilli ad loc., p. 39: ‘sicché anche i suoi discorsi rientrano in un genere‘.

64 Given Hermogenes' usage, Poppo's deletion of is appropriate.

65 The texts of Cicero cited are as follows:Orator, A., Yon(ed.), (Paris, 1964);Google ScholarBrutus, A.E., Douglas (ed.), (Oxford, 1966);Google ScholarDe Oratore, H., Merklin (ed.), (Stuttgart, 1976).Google Scholar

66 Momigliano, A., The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, MA, 1971).Google Scholar

67 Momigliano (n. 66), p. 67: ‘…biography acquired a new meaning when the Socratics moved to that zone between truth and fiction which is so bewildering to the professional historian’.

68 Momigliano, p. 87: ‘though in its present form not earlier than the fifth century… [the Life] … preserves learned discussion which was going on at the time of Didymus… about the various family connections and about the equally mysterious death of the Athenian historian. These are examples of “Suetonian” biographies, the substance of which must go back to Alexandrian erudition'. Certainly Thucydides is mentioned by Philodemus in terms of both style and origin (S., Sudhaus, [ed.], Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica [Amsterdam, 1971], 151.21, 188.16).Google Scholar

69 See A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon, ad loc.

70 K., Latte (ed.), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (Copenhagen, 1953), prolegomena pp. vi-viii, suggests the sixth rather than the fifth century. Latte comments (p. xi): ‘Fieri quidem potuisse, ut Aeschinis scholiasta, doctus homo eiusdem scholae, quae et Marcellini vitam Thucydidis procreavit saeculo nisi fallor sexto p. Chr., ipsum Hesychium adhiberet, non negaverim.’Google Scholar