Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:55:42.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theopompus and Herodotus: A Reassessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. R. Christ
M. R. Christ
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

W. R. Connor has argued that Theopompus' critical attacks on almost all the leading figures in Greek history suggest he was writing a ‘history without heroes’. This article will argue that a similar principle applies to Theopompus' attitude towards Herodotus and other earlier historians: all fell short of his ideal, and, in the final analysis, Theopompus had but one literary hero: himself. Theopompus' mysterious Epitome of Herodotus, I will suggest, is best taken not as an independent work, but as a portion of the Philippika in which Theopompus incorporated and adapted a significant body of Herodotean material. This fact, taken together with Theopompus' polemical statements about his predecessors, suggests that Theopompus boldly challenged Herodotus on his own turf, confident he could improve upon him.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , May 1993 , pp. 47 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1993

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 Connor, W. R., ‘History without Heroes: Theopompus' Treatment of Philip of Macedon’, GRBS 8 (1967), 133–54Google Scholar.

2 On Theopompus' Epitome as the earliest-known abridgement of a great literary work, see Laqueur, R., ‘Theopompos’, RE V.A2 (1934)Google Scholar, col. 2188. Although Philochorus (c. 340–263/2 B.C.) is credited with an epitome of his own Atthis (Suda s.v. Φιλ⋯χορος), F. Jacoby, in his commentary on FGr Hist 328 T 1, rightly challenges this attribution and assigns the epitome instead to Pollio (1st c. B.C.). Theophrastus is reported to have written a number of epitomes, e.g. of Plato's, Republic (D.L. 5.43)Google Scholar and Aristotle's περ⋯ ζᾡων (D.L. 5.49). What form these epitomes took, however, is open to debate, especially in light of Diogenes Laertius' loose use of the term ‘epitome’ (see below, n. 15). Regenbogen, O., ‘Theophrastus’, RE Suppl. VII (1940)Google Scholar, col. 1430, suggests, for example, that Theophrastus' epitomes of Aristotle's περ⋯ ζᾡων were not bare abridgements, but his own lectures commenting on and criticizing his predecessor's work. On the later popularity of epitomes, see Fornara, C. W., The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 191–3Google Scholar.

3 On Herodotus' popularity at this time and in later centuries, see Jacoby, F., ‘Herodotos’, RE Suppl. II (1913)Google Scholar, cols. 504–15, Riemann, K.-A., Das herodoteische Geschichtswerk in der Antike (Diss., Munich, 1967)Google Scholar, and Murray, O., ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture’, CQ 22 (1972), 200–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 On the Anti-Atticist and his floruit, see esp. Schmid, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius bis aufden zweiten Philostratus (Stuttgart, 1887), i.208–10Google Scholar, and Tolkiehn, , ‘Lexikographie’, RE XII.2 (1925)Google Scholar, col. 2461.

5 Photius and the Suda appear to be doing just this in FGr Hist 115 F 37, where they have the same entry as the Anti-Atticist.

6 The words cited yield no useful information about where they might have appeared in an epitome of Herodotus. The fact that the words quoted in FF 1, 3 and 4 do not appear at all in Herodotus suggests that Theopompus was not following Herodotus' language closely. Although κακ⋯βιος (F 2) appears only once in Herodotus (4.95), this may be Theopompus' rendition of a different word in Herodotus.

7 Jacoby, in his app. crit. on T 1, suggests that the seventy-two books the Suda attributes to the Philippika are actually the total of all three works (2+58+12). Appealing as this suggestion may appear, it assumes that the Epitome was two books in length, a fact in doubt given the Suda's patently wrong count of the books in the Hellenika and Philippika.

8 On Dionysius' admiration for Theopompus, see esp. Roberts, W. R., ‘Theopompus in the Greek Literary Critics’, CR 22 (1908), 120–2Google Scholar.

9 Oxy. Pap. 857 (4th c. A.D.). Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S., The Oxyrhyncus Papyri, Part VI (London, 1908), p. 162Google Scholar, suggest the author may be Theopompus, but note ‘the occurrence of at least two examples of hiatus (lines 20 and 21–2), which is very rare in the extant quotations from Theopompus, does not favour the view that he was the author, though his earliest literary efforts may have shown less care in this respect.’ Jacoby (n. 3), col. 514, rightly labels the papyrus ‘very dubious’ and omits it from the fragments of the Epitome in his FGr Hist.

10 See Cic, . De Or. 3.9 (36)Google Scholar= Quint. 2.8.11, [Zos, .] Vit. hoc. 3.90–105Google Scholar(Westermann, , Vit. Script., pp. 256–7)Google Scholar, and Suda s.v. EΦορος (Vit. Script., p. 213), all collected and translated by Shrimpton, G. S., Theopompus the Historian (Montreal and Kingston, 1991), pp. 199 and 203–4Google Scholar.

11 For the view that the Marvels do not constitute a single section of the Philippika, but are excerpts collected from the entire work, see esp. Ziegler, K., ‘Paradoxographoi’, RE XVIII.3 (1949)Google Scholar, cols. 1144–5, and more recently, Dušanić, S., ‘On Theopompus Philippica VI–VIII’, Aevum 51 (1977), 27–36Google Scholar. Dušanić, p. 30, maintains unconvincingly that F 67b and T 20a ‘imply that Theopompus' Θαυμ⋯σια followed a geographical pattern resulting from the author's historical narrative’. The passages cited imply only a geographical organization for the Marvels and do not suggest that this arose from their being collected from Theopompus' narrative.

12 Jacoby, commentary on FF 247–8. Earlier editors who took it as part of the Philippika (Book 26) include Wichers, R. H. E., Theopompi Chii Fragmenta (Leiden, 1829)Google Scholar, and , C. and Müller, T. et al. , Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vols. (Paris, 1841–1870)Google Scholar.

13 The Anti-Atticist cites Theopompus only six times: thrice he cites the Epitome (FF 1–3), twice the Philippika (F 37, referring to Book 1, and F 264, without a book number), and once ‘Theopompus’ with no particular work named (F 265). By contrast, he cites Herodotus sixty-one times and Thucydides forty-one times (these last figures are from Schmid (n. 4), i.208–9).

14 The Anti-Atticist uses the vague title Epitome of Herodotus (FF 1–3), which need not imply an abridgement of all of Herodotus. Although the late Suda uses the title Epitome of the Histories of Herodotus (T 1; cf. F 4), this may just be an expansion of the title found in the Anti-Atticist.

15 Note, e.g., Diogenes Laertius' application of the title ⋯πιτομ⋯ τ⋯ν ῥητ⋯ρων (2.104 = F 138 Rose) to Aristotle's τεχν⋯ν συναγωγ⋯. This work was no mere abridgement, but a polished adaptation whose style Cicero admired (De Inv. 2.2 = F 136 Rose).

16 Euseb, . PE 10.3.1–12Google Scholar= Porph. On the Greeks as Plagiarists, from Book 1 of The Study of Philology (Mras, , ed.), conveniently included in Shrimpton (n. 10), pp. 210–11Google Scholar, whose translation I follow here. Jacoby's T 27 is a short excerpt from this passage. On the charge of plagiarism in antiquity, see Peter, H., Wahrheit und Kunst: Geschichtschreibung und Plagiat im klassischen Altertum (Leipzig/Berlin, 1911), pp. 450–2Google Scholar, and Stemplinger, E., Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur (Leipzig/Berlin, 1912)Google Scholar.

17 For the extensive borrowing of fourth-century historians from Herodotus, see esp. Murray (n. 3), pp. 204–7.

18 That Herodotus was, in a certain sense, Theopompus' literary forebear is clear from the latter's marked interest in ethnography, geography and the natural world, marvels, and the Delphic oracle.

19 Shrimpton (n. 10), p. 285 n. 4, takes a similar view of the passage.

20 Duns, (FGr Hist 76Google Scholar F 1 = 115 T 34) in turn criticized Ephorus and Theopompus on rhetorical grounds, asserting that ‘they cared only for the formal elements of writing’. On this much-debated passage, see esp. Walbank, F. W., ‘History and Tragedy’, Historia 9 (1960), 218Google Scholar.

21 Later writers remarked on the rhetorical character of Theopompus' historical writing: see esp. T 21 (Quint. 10.1.74) and T 45 (D. Chr. 18.10).

22 Jacoby, in his commentary on F 66, argues persuasively that Theopompus follows Hdt. 3.153ff. rather than Ktesias, (Phot. Bibl. 39a7ffGoogle Scholar.). If we include FF 78–80 on Tempe in the Marvels, the Herodotean connection is more pronounced. On Hdt. 7.128–30 as a model for Theopompus here, see Jacoby, commentary on FF 78–80.

23 Jacoby, commentary on FF 24–246 (Vol. IIB, p. 359). For detailed discussion of these books, see Pédech, P., Trois historiens méconnus: Théopompe–Duris–Phylarque = Collection d'éludes anciemes 119 (Paris, 1989), pp. 147–60Google Scholar, and Shrimpton (n. 10), pp. 72–8. Walbank, F., Polybius (Berkeley, 1972), p. 2Google Scholar, suggests that ‘one of Theopompus’ aims was to restore Persia to her due place of prominence in the historical scene and to draw attention to the threat she presented to Greece'. Although Shrimpton, pp. 76 and 286 n. 15, may be correct that the focus of the digression was not so much on Persia, as ‘on areas of Greek–Persian interaction’, there was still ample space here for Persian ethnography and history.

24 Perhaps Artaxerxes Ochus' conquest of Egypt recalled for Theopompus Cambyses' earlier conquest, as recounted by Herodotus. For Theopompus' general interest in Egypt, see F 46, on Sesostris (cf. Hdt. 2.102ff.), F 293, on the Nile, and F 368, on Bubastus.

25 A youthful venture: Meyer, E., Theopomps Hellenika (Halle a. S., 1909), p. 141Google Scholar, Laqueur (n. 2), col. 2188, Pedech (n. 23), pp. 27 and 40, Shrimpton (n. 10), p. 5. A later work: after the Hellenika, but before the Philippika – Momigliano, A., ‘Studi sulla storiografia greca del IV secolo a.C 1: Teopompo’, in Terzo contribute alia storia degli studi classici (Rome, 1966), i.378–9Google Scholar; for Fox, Philip – R. Lane, ‘Theopompus of Chios and the Greek World, 411–322 BC’, in Boardman, J. and Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C. E. (eds.), Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios (Oxford, 1986), p. IIIGoogle Scholar, Murray (n. 3), p. 206 n. 1; for Alexander – Shrimpton (n. 10), pp. 277–8 n. 6.

26 Jacoby, F., commentary on FGr Hist 115Google Scholar FF 1–4; Bruce, I. A. F., ‘Theopompus and Classical Greek Historiography’, History and Theory 9 (1970), 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.