2. looking for the invisible. theopompus and the roots of historiography. riccardo vattuone

8/18/2019 2. Looking for the Invisible. Theopompus and the Roots of Historiography. Riccardo Vattuone

1/31

2. Looking for the Invisible: Theopompus and the Roots of Historiography

Riccardo Vattuone

. Theopompus and the Historiography of the IVth !entury "!#

It is not only the fragmentary nature of his $ork that hinders a critical

evaluation of Theopompus. The idiosyncratic interests of one of his mostimportant $itnesses% &thenaeus% and the deep'seated ambiguity of (olybius)interpretation have done much to a*ect modern +udgement% $hich oscillatesbet$een negative and positive assessments% bet$een attempts to categori,e

Theopompus as a proponent of so'called -rhetorical historiography) andbalanced appreciations that take stock of the $riter)s broad cultural interests.&part from the -moralism) of &thenaeus) interpretation% $e must also come toterms $ith the shado$ of (olybius% $hich is so often cast over earlierhistoriography% although in this case its impact may be benecial% in a sense%considering that "ook 2 of (olybius) Histories is to a remarkable degreepervaded by re/ections on fourth'century historiography. 01

ust as has been the case $ith #phorus% modern criticism has generally avoidedaddressing Theopompus as a $hole. 021 In part% this is because fourth'century3reek historiography is burdened not only by (olybius) +udgment but also bythe nineteenth'century philological pre+udice% according to $hich Thucydidesstands alone among the scientic historians% $ith his successors attacked asmere elaborators of an established tradition. 041 This position% $e should note%attracts supporters even today. 051 "ut the problem does not% in fact% involveonly fourth'century historiography6 there is a need% by e7tension% for abalanced evaluation of earlier historiography. 8ur interpretation of Thucydides%for e7ample% $ould certainly benet from re+ecting the implausible description

of him as a -scientic) historian% a historian% that is to say% ante litteram. The di9culty in evaluating Theopompus lies essentially in pulling together thecontradictory assessments of ancient authors and the controversial or negativetradition that underlies much modern appreciation. 3uido chepens and ohn;arincola have made considerable progress to this end% the one emphasi,ing

Theopompus) acumen in interpreting events that took place after the(eloponnesian : a history% that is to say% that is spatiallyuniversal but fundamentally contemporary% inter$oven though it is $ithelaborate digressions. 0?1 "ut rehabilitation need not be the aim of a ne$edition of Theopompus) fragments or interpretation of $hat remains of his $ork

and personality. &s @ino &mbaglio has said about @iodorus iculus% the processof looking beyond established pre+udices does not ipso facto mean recogni,ingin an ancient author a ne$ grandeur and stature. 0A1 The point is not torehabilitate a controversial te7t and its author% but to study it as fruitfully aspossible. 0B1

& balanced e7amination of the $orks of #phorus and Theopompus $ould% Ithink% permit us to $rite di*erent pages not only of 3reek historiography but


2/31

also of 3reek and even general history. The fourth'century perspective onevents central to the fth century% e.g. the -(entecontaetia) and the-(eloponnesian


3/31

times% a choice that $ould displease (olybius T J6 2B% $as a profoundstatement about the autonomy of the polis and the ne$ era that had begun%rather than a sign of regret of the sort that lies behind the event i.e. the "attleof ;antinea that Nenophon used to close and contain the narrative of hisHellenica.

It seems obviousOalthough if it is% it is generally to the displeasure of mycontemporariesOthat Theopompus read his o$n time against a backgroundbet$een Herodotus and the battle of !nidus in 4J5 "!# that had certainlyundergone a -deformation) but had also e7perienced an enrichment ofperspective% meaning% and value. ch$art,)s lashing +udgement on #phorus or%in more recent times% that of "leckmann on the anonymous author of theHellenica 87yrhynchia stems from the assumption that -Isocratean) historians$ere in fact practicing another craft% and that their -history) $as in fact a longand tedious epideictic oration. & look at the proemia of these $orks% ho$ever%e7plicitly contradicts this vie$.


4/31

$rites% open to the pages of the proemium% $hich $ere perhaps a little longerthan $e $ould have liked. 0F1 "ut despite his predecessor)s verbosity%@ionysius can appreciate his critical engagement. Had acoby been lesscautious in isolating Theopompus) $ords from @ionysius) comments% everybody$ould agree that @ionysius) praise $as based on the proemium to the(hilippica% $here Theopompus stated the di9culties of his research% thee7penses involved% and the e*ort of assembling the material YSZnecessary for constructing the $ork. 0J1 There $as no needOso% I think%@ionysius means to sayOfor Theopompus to insist too much on the merits ofhis o$n $riting6 the reader $as in a position easily to appreciate the Euality ofthe e*ort the historian had made and the validity of his sources of information.

In the statement of purpose that @ionysius reads in Theopompus) introductionthere is a point of particular importance that recalls another famous fragmentfrom the proemium% $hich has been preserved by (hotius 2?% in $hich

Theopompus declares the superiority of himself and his contemporaries overearlier historians. 02G1 (hotius e7presses surprise and incredulity6 he cannot

understand $hether the historian is measuring himself against Herodotus and Thucydides% against only Hellanicus and (hilistus% or indeed $hether his $ordsactually refer to the famous orators% 3orgias or Lysias. (hotius) di9culty% Ithink% arises from his inability to successfully resolve the ambiguity of thee7pression \ _WXM_W\% $hich lies at the heart of the comparison. X WY |ZY U\} ~YZYWX\ UXz X U\ j\WY\ UUXY XUX% •YWX\ x} U€ ~\U\ j\WSUUX\. This claim% $hich@ionysius read in the lengthy proemium% does not merely underline the factthat in the ancient $orld historiography $as considered inferior to action.(lutarch% for his part% understood not only that many historians $rote their$orks in e7ile but also that the brilliant e7ploits of the &thenians certainlye7ceeded in fame and glory the $riters $ho tried to narrate them. 021 In hise7amination of the proemium of the (hilippica% @ionysius had come uponsomething more important that had to do $ith the nature of the historian)scritical undertaking.

@ionysius) discussion of Theopompus) prologue ad (ompeium 3eminum A.4 T 2Ga directly references a passage from Thucydides% in the rst speech of(ericles .52.J% $here the strategos highlights &thenian naval superiority incomparison $ith parta)s ine7perience% $hich it $ould be impossible toimprove in a short amount of time. The conclusion that (ericles reaches is


5/31

signicant: =navigation is a technical skill% like any other% and so it cannot bepracticed here and there or on the side 0. . .1> U€ x} \US€\ U‚\ U\%|ZY S __X U% S XS \x‚ZU% ƒU\ Uw‚„% S YYWX ]Z_ZU^%j__ ]^__X\ ]x}\ SZ\… ~YZYWX\ __X WW\Z. 0221 The closerelationship bet$een U‚\ -technical skill) and ~YZYWX\ -subsidiary activity) in

Theopompus% follo$ing the e7ample of Thucydides% is further underscored by apassage from (olybius 2.2B.FKJ% in $hich the &chaean historian uses

Theopompus to dene his o$n critical method. 0251 In light of this passagefrom (olybius $hich is for us also 3H ? 452% it seems that in

Theopompus) proemium% X . . . ~YZYWX\ UXz X -not a mere accessory oflife) in the conte7t of history claimed for WWY -$ritten composition) atechnical dimension that had not before been an ob+ect of re/ection. Thepresumption of Theopompus that so irritates (hotius in 2? must be% on theauthority of (olybius% $ho takes it over as his o$n% his meditation on theboundaries of history in a time $hen the cultural con/ict bet$een history andoratory $as particularly marked. &ccording to (hotius% the proemia of #phorusand Theopompus $ere very similar to one another: 02?1 readers of #phoruskno$ also that his decision to $rite about a past no longer veriable byautopsy 3H BG J meant that his historical method $ould be denedprecisely through a contrast $ith epideictic rhetoric. 02A1 The discussion $as tobe resumed by Timaeus and others and $ould be at the center of historicalre/ection in the Hellenistic age. 02B1

3reek historiography acEuired the features of a specic genre through adeepening of its technical characteristics and a corresponding need for an all'abiding commitment. Theopompus $as not arguing against Thucydides orHerodotus6 he $as trying% rather% to -assimilate) them. His claim about theprimacy of the fourth century% $hich astonishes (hotius% has to do in fact $iththe e7tension of the eld of research% the vastness of the civili,ed $orld% and

the obligation to dra$ on disparate sources. &nd this e7pansion of the eld ofhistory stems from the dilation of the inhabited 3reek $orld. I shall not addresshere $hether or not #phorus and Theopompus did in fact accomplish their task%but the signicance of Theopompus) proemial claims should not be ascribedonly to his colossal self'esteem. @ionysius considers Theopompus to have beenverbose% but he never accuses him of promising to do more than he actuallydid. The supremacy YXUZwZ\ that Theopompus so e7alted% referred% ofcourse% to a primacy \ _WX% in rhetorical ability% but above all to cultural


6/31

primacy: as $e sa$ above in the passage from (hotius) "ibliotheca% =inphilosophy and kno$ledge> \ U‡ _XXZ[\ S _X]Z[\. Historybecomes a genre among others through the enunciation and the defense of itso$n technical skills.

4. Hidden !auses

The variety of historical interests that $e can observe in Theopompus is not%according to @ionysius% a result of his erudition in and of itself% although% Ibelieve% Theopompus himself claimed this as an innovation and virtue of hisenterprise% a sort of prokatalepsis against accusations often directed to$ardthose% like himself% $ho possessed lively intellectual curiosity. The accusationthat seems to have been leveled at Theopompus% namely that his use ofdigressions $as e7cessive% seemed inconsistent in the eyes of his ma+or critic%since the boundless diversity jX\ of Theopompus) research actually $asnot simply superimposed on% or appended to the historical narrative: it $as$oven into the very fabric of the action ad (ompeium 3eminum A.5KA T

2Ga. 02F1 In accordance $ith the tastes of his time% @ionysius noted thepresence of an interesting philosophical perspective in the $ealth ofinformation and data% an observation that may also belong to the encomiumthat Theopompus addressed to the culture of his o$n age. 02J1 acoby% for $hatit is $orth% does not take a clear or bold stance on the boundaries of thefragment in the long citation assigned to T 2Ga.

The best'kno$n part of @ionysius) appraisal of Theopompus is the passage thatimmediately follo$s:

UZ_ZU[\ U Uˆ\ •YW\ UXz S ‚YSUYS‰UUX\% Š Y) XxZ\ Uˆ\__\ WWY\ X‹U jSYˆ ZYWU S x\Uˆ XŒUZ Uˆ\

YZUY\ XŒUZ Uˆ\ \ZUY\. U x} UXzUX U6 U€ S) S~U\ Y^\ ]]\X\ U \ZY UX[ X__X[ ŽY^\ S _WZ\% j__) ZU~Z\ S U j\Z[qU Uˆ\ Y~Z\ S Uˆ\ Y~\U\ U S U ~ U ‚% ‘ ]’~x UX[ X__X[ Zqx\% S ~\U SS_wUZ\ U ]UY U UZxXSXw jYZU S U jW\XX]\ SS.

There remains his cro$ning and most characteristic Euality% one $hich is founddeveloped $ith eEual care and e*ect in no other $riter% $hether of the older orthe younger generation. &nd $hat is this Euality“ It is the gift of seeing andstating in each case not only $hat is obvious to the multitude% but of e7aminingeven the hidden motives of actions and actors and the feelings of the soulthings not easily discerned by the cro$d% and of laying bare all the mysteries

of seeming virtue and undiscovered vice. Translation by


7/31

Thucydides .2G.4: U UX[]% $hich renders the search for truth% inasmuch asit is supercial% too easy. This is not the place to discuss in detail the fact that

Thucydides) decision to look beyond appearances necessitates the distinctionof various levels of causation. The events that took place in 3reece bet$een54A and 54 "!# $ere among the causes of the great kinesis% but% to take along'term vie$ that -+usties) the digression termed the -(entecontaetia) .FJKB% it $as above all partan fear in the face of &thenian po$er .24.A. orthe &thenian historian% it $ould have been too easy and perhaps unfair toblame (ericles for the nal disaster% as his contemporaries probably did. 04G1

The cause that $as not evident for the ma+ority $as embedded in a processthat nobody could stop% but that (ericles% more than anyone else% could havecontrolled.

@ionysius certainly kno$s this page of fth'century history and uses it to dene Theopompus) innovation: $e have no proof that Theopompus himself e7plicitlyprofessed this innovation $ith respect to his predecessors% but attentivereaders of @ionysius) minor $orks should not be surprised by this possibility. &s

@ionysius attests% the ma+or characteristic of Theopompus) $ork Uˆ\ •YW\UXz S ‚YSUYS‰UUX\ is that he e7plored the hidden causes of eventsand the motivations of his protagonists.


8/31

absolves% at times going too far $ith observations not pertinent to the mainnarrative. Theopompus% the maledicentissimus% gets carried a$ay: but@ionysius certainly does not reduce the causal perspective of the (hilippica tothis tribunal activity.


9/31

__% (olybius means the same characteristic that he recogni,es% in spiteof all his faults% even in Timaeus% namely the Euality of being accurate in everypage of his research. 0451 &nd it is important to keep in mind that our use ofthe term -rhetorical historiography) does not take into account the +udgment%else$here considered authoritative% of authors $ho $ere very a$are andcritical of their colleagues% and $ho $ere certainly closer to their predecessorsand in a position to read their $orks.

†nlike @ionysius% (olybius does not praise Theopompus) hypotheseis6 that is tosay% he does not appreciate his decision to abandon the Hellenica in order to$rite about (hilip F..4 T J. (olybius makes this claim% alongside otherobservations about Theopompus% in the conte7t of polemic% $here he ndsfault $ith those historians $ho through co$ardice and fear either said nothingabout or else falsied the violent capture of ;essene by (hilip V in 24 "!#.04?1 (olybius) criticism of these omissions and distortions raises% by $ay ofanalogy% the theme of the relationship bet$een Theopompus and (hilip II. Theseries of chapters that follo$s serves to clarify the reasons for (olybius) strong

disapproval: $hy abandon the history of 3reek poleis to $rite about a man andthe events of his time“ &s $e shall see% (olybius also does not tolerate theq‚YX_XW -harsh criticism) that Theopompus in/icts on (hilip and his court%but he is unable to understand the reason $hy his predecessor% after havingdecided to continue Thucydides) $ork% =as he approached the events aroundLeuctra and the most famous deeds of the 3reeks% right in the middle% thre$aside 3reece and the things happening there% to change topics and $rite about(hilip)s deeds.> 04A1 &ccording to (olybius% it $ould have been much better toinclude such matters in the Hellenica rather than incorporate the Hellenica intothe account of an individual)s actions ”ZY \ U –_X U U —__~xX%ho$ever important he may have been. rom this clue% $e understand rst of all

that Theopompus) (hilippica $as not a biography but the history of events thatoccurred in 3reece at the time of (hilip% a history that had as a unifyingelement the a*airs of (hilip and ;acedon. That is to say% Theopompus chose aspecic cheirismos to give an account of 3reek events during the time of the;acedonian king \ U –_X U U —__~xX. \ZWW UX[ ̃ ZSUYSX[ SYX[ S UX[ \ZU~UX Uˆ\ —__\Sˆ\•YW\“ The t$elve books of the Hellenica close at 4J5 "!#: the criticism of(olybius% then% is that Theopompus chose to end his 3reek History $ith apartan date% inadeEuate inasmuch as it preceded a decadence that had yet toreveal the age that emerged from the end of the partan hegemony% $ell


10/31

beyond the brief period of Theban glory. In other $ords% the events aroundLeuctra $ere glorious because parta)s fall could be considered as thebeginning of a ne$% &chaean% history. "ut (olybius) e7pression in itself can onlybe understood if $e assume that he had before him the very passage in $hich

Theopompus had +ustied his narrative choice. In 2.2B% as $e have alreadyseen% (olybius is reading Theopompus. &nd it is typical of the &chaean historianto use the $ords of fello$ historians $hen addressing the limits and faults oftheir $orks6 his critiEue of Timaeus is a case in point% particularly $hen hecritici,es Timaeus) bookish approach to historiography by $ay of a captiouse7egesis of his proemium. 04F1 Timaeus% for $hat it is $orth% had for his parttreated &ristotle along very similar lines% scornfully +udging him an immoderateglutton for his culinary interests. 04J1 (olybius) phrase% =as he approached theevents around Leuctra and the most famous deeds of the 3reeks%> makessense only if it is% in fact% an e7pression taken directly from Theopompus)lengthy introduction to his $ork% about $hich @ionysius of Halicarnassus spoke.

That said% $e can infer that the historian% $hen confronted $ith $hat $ashappening during his o$n dayO$ith the period% $e might say% in $hich he hadbegun $ork on his history% a period ad+acent to the nal days of the partanhegemony 4BGK4AG "!#O understood that the end of the 3reek polis couldnot be represented by the dramatic events of the Theban invasion of the(eloponnesus but could only be described $ithin the history of (hilip and;acedon)s ascent. The fact that the phrase =as he approached the eventsaround Leuctra and the most famous deeds of the 3reeks> comes directly from

Theopompus seems also demonstrated by the comment that (olybius appendsto his critiEue of Theopompus. X ]\j__ Y€ ]}\ UwU\ U\ ™]YU\% S€ ]ZU_Z U\ šZ\% › œ\Z‚ U _WZ\% Z› U U€\ ”YZUX% F..B. 05G1


11/31

humiliation at Leuctra6 in addition% it led him to consider all of fourth'centuryhistory to have been ine7orably linked to the ;acedonian hegemony and theimposing% grandiose gure of (hilip II.

The greater charge that (olybius makes against TheopompusOEuite apart fromhis cultural debt to$ard himO$as that of furnishing an incoherent image of

(hilip II. The conte7t for this criticism is% as $as the case for T J% his reproachof historians) silence in the face of the brutal conduct of (hilip V to$ards;essenia at the end of the third century "!#. or (olybius% (hilip V ought tohave been condemned for his actions% and instead his /atterers dedicated tohim an encomium that naturally omitted any reference to his misdeeds.Indeed% it $ould have been enough for them not to omit anything% or rather toavoid giving false praise and false blame _XxXYZ[\ Zxˆ . . . UXž]X\~Y‚X XŒU) WS]~Z\: it is not that (olybius re+ects all +udgments onthe behavior of great individuals% but rather demands they be consistent $iththe developing narrative and appropriate for the character of each jS_XX\x} UX[ YXWZWY]]\X jZ S U€\ YX\U U[ S~U\ YXYZ

_WX\ Y]Z\ F.F.AKB. Theopompus) $ork is the clearest e7ample% in(olybius) eyes% of the incorrect employment of historical +udgment% inasmuchas it violates both of these reEuirements: his censure of the ;acedonian king isboth inconsistent $ith and ill'suited to the ethos of the character. (olybius)accusations% $e should note% stem from historiographic principles% not onlyfrom a cumbersome moralism: 0541 the description of facts and charactersmust abide by a linearity of assessment that does not admit contradictions andsubtleties. If the decision to $rite about (hilip came from his conviction that=#urope had never before borne a man such as (hilip% the son of &myntas>]xXUZ U\ ŸY‰\ \\X‚\ UXXzUX\ \xY Y~\ XX\ U€\ ¡]w\UX–_X\% then it $ould not have been possible for Theopompus to describe

the king% either in the proemium or in any other part of the $ork% assEuandering his family possessions through his immoderate passion for$omen% as unfaithful and violent against 3reek poleis that had already beensub+ugated to his $ill% or as a drunkard% into7icated on almost every page.(olybius) assessment of Theopompus) (hilip is analogous to that of the iciliantyrants described by Timaeus. 0551 ust as the Timaean &gathocles has noplace in (olybius) rigid deontology that can neither tolerate the use of comicsources to discredit the tyrant in his early childhood nor admit his aischrologia%05?1 so too the (hilip of Theopompus% his court of generals% and his soldiers%$ho are given over to baseness of every kind% are intolerable. 05A1 TheUXXzUX\ \xY in 2B has been discussed at length% too much perhaps and

$ith contradictory results. 05B1 HereO+ust as $ith the events around Leuctra˜ZSUYSX SYXOthe UXXzUX\ must represent an emphasis that (olybiusput on Theopompus) te7t in order to highlight the grandiose gure of (hilip IIand his impressive historical role% not to mention the vicious aspects of hisbehavior. In reading the interminable proemium% (olybius considers hispredecessor)s choice unacceptable.

¢uite apart from his critical choices% (olybius) vie$point is telling: Theopompuscertainly $as violent in his attack of (hilip II% but the problem% for (olybius% $as


12/31

not his use of categories such as blame or encomium% nor his narration ofhistorical events. and =general>. 0?41 (olybius kno$s this% and if he considered#phorus% and not Herodotus% Thucydides% or another historian% to have been therst $riter of †niversalgeshichte% $e must look else$here for the reason. 0?51


13/31

If $e look again at (olybius) criticism of Theopompus) decision to move fromthe Hellenica to the (hilippica% $e are able to observe that (olybius) negativeevaluation is based not only on the underestimation of the so'called ˜ZSUYSXSYX S U \UU Uˆ\ —__\Sˆ\ •YW: the proemium of the(hilippica% in $hich $e kno$ that Theopompus +ustied his choice% must havecontained both the declaration of the threatening grandeur of (hilip and thereason $hy 3reek history $as immersed in and contained by the a*airs of the;acedonian king ]ZY_Z[\ . . . \ U –_X U U —__~xX : (olybiusF..5. The independence of 3reek history of =the times of Leuctra> and thetrue signicance of this period for the birth of the &chaean League% an epochalevent in the conte7t of the third to second centuries "!#% $ere considered in

Theopompus) prologue to be less important than the convergence of all themost signicant events in the unifying ascent of (hilip and ;acedon. Theinclusion of 3reek history in the (hilippica does not merely serve as asupercial organi,ational principle cheirismos6 it gives the $ork meaning anddirection. or Theopompus% U ZY –_X embraces both the crucial battleof !nidus and the dramatic break constituted by the fall of parta)s navalpo$er. Theopompus) perspective and it could not be other$ise is orientedto$ards the great &sian campaign% $hich the 3reek polis% precisely at !nidus$ith the end of partan thalassocracy% had lost. Pot only does this e7plain

Theopompus) praise of Lysander% but it also claries that the structure of the(hilippica is an e7plicit declaration of a universal perspective% $hosecharacteri,ing element has to do $ith its sub+ect and its spatial e7tent% not itschronological completeness. (olybius) irritation perhaps even e7cessive atthis decision is +ust $hat he felt for Timaeus $ho% in $anting to make icily%$hich $as only a tea cup% into the centre of the $orld% could claim to be theauthor of a universal history (olybius 2.24.5KB 3H ?AA Ja6 placing

Timoleon =over the most splendid heroes> and icily% $hich had been liberatedby Timoleon% at the pivot of the entire history% =he% $ho had $ritten only aboutItaly and icily% considered it natural to be $orthy of comparison $ith $riters of universal history> 2.24.B: U€ š}Y £U_ ]\X\ S ¤SZ_YW]UZ]Z\X ZqSU YX_ j\ UX[ š}Y U XqSX]\ SUˆ\ S_X Y~Z\ ZX]\X U \U~Z. This charge against

Timaeus is crucial for our understanding of (olybius) reaction to the (hilippica)sproemium6 for (olybius completely and disdainfully denies $hat both Timaeusand Theopompus had claimed by the e7tent of their interests and the choicesthey made.

(olybius) encomium and ackno$ledgement of #phorus% as $ell as his criticism

of the proemium of the (hilippica% nds its +ustication in one idea: #phorus$as the rst to $rite a spatially and chronologically -universal history)% +ust as(olybius $as the rst to conceive a †niversalgeschichte that certainlycomprised all kno$n space but is limited in time to the rise of Rome% an eventthat absorbs all other history $ithin itself. (olybius grants #phorus a primacythat he denies% in order to confer it on himself% Theopompus% Timaeus% andeven on Herodotus and Thucydides% $ho had been epitomi,ed or resumed by

Theopompus. That is to say% and this is the parado7 in T J and 2B%


14/31

Theopompus made a choice that paralleled that of the &chaean critic: tosubsume 3reek history $ithin U –_X% because only so po$erful anindividual% of so dark and grand stature% could give a meaning to% indeed a $ayof reading% a series of events that $ould other$ise have been scattered in thefundamental crisis of the poleis.

?. The udge and the Historian. 8bservations on the Tradition of Theopompus)ragments.

It is common practice in studies of 3reek historiographyObut also in di*erenteldsOto assign to those dealing $ith U WZWZ\]\ =past events> aphilosophical foundation or to make them disciples of somebody in order to

+ustify their frame$ork% the profound reasons behind their research. orinstance% Hecataeus is linked to Ionic philosophy6 Herodotus and Thucydides tothe sophists6 #phorus and Theopompus% of course% to Isocratean rhetoric% andso on to% limiting ourselves to only a fe$ e7amples% the -&ristotelian) @uris andthe toics% (olybius and (osidonius. &lthough it is certainly hard to deny that an

author% an intellectual% is in/uenced by the culture of his o$n time% and that% inturn% his culture is someho$ a*ected by him% I do not believe that philosophicalthinking determined the orientation and choices of these historians. In anycase% the subordination of historia to philosophia is more appropriate to the ageof Hegel% !olling$ood% or !roce than to the fourth'century 3reece of Isocrates%(lato and &ristotle. #ven if $e admit that Theopompus $as a disciple ofIsocrates% $e should not% at any rate% believe that the $orks of the former arethe necessary and inevitable development of the broad% and not al$ayscoherent% ideology of the latter. 0??1 The Isocratean Theopompus $as unable tofree himself from further debts. The merciless +udge depicted in the critiEue of(olybius and of @ionysius% too% maledicentissimus% as tradition records% musthave been motivated to engage in this censorial activity by some culturaltradition. &nd it is in this $ay that a -cynical) matri7 has been granted to

Theopompus% $ithout adding or detracting from his image as orator andhistorian. 0?A1 &s for #phorus% I think that Theopompus% too% is far more linkedto the tradition of the -genre) inaugurated by him as a techne than dependentupon any cultural stream: that is% Theopompus is more a student of Herodotus%(hilistus% or Thucydides than of Isocrates. 0?B1

To gain a more balanced understanding of Theopompus) historiographicalidentity% it is not enough% of course% to analy,e only the intentions he e7pressesin the proemia and else$here.


15/31

recording here as a sort of leitmotiv that his love for truth e7pressed itself by$ay of the great e7pense he faced in order to obtain all the materials neededfor a scrupulous $ork X__ ‚Y]U SU\_‰\UX Zq U\ ZY UUXY U\ jSY. The conte7t of this fragmentOa discussion ofvarious miraculous herbs that can prevent the e*ects of hemlock and otherpoisonsOis instructive in many $ays. In "ook 4F% &thenaeus tells us%

Theopompus speaks at length xWXw]Z\X about !learchus% the tyrant of(ontic Herakleia% and the habitual use of the medicinal shrub rue by thoseparticipating in the tyrant)s dangerous banEuets. The tale $as kno$n to othersources% as $ell% and $as at some stage even attributed to #uphorion.&thenaeus) te7t suggests here that the account of !learchus% $hich earned hisfavorable +udgment% is much longer and certainly not reducible to theboundaries of the citation. Theopompus is adduced hereOand else$here in the@eipnosophistsObecause of his precision and reliability% to conrm a specicdetail in the history of this tyrant and his cruelty. 8ne may be philalethes even$hen speaking about miraculous events% as Theopompus did in his eighthbook% in the conte7t of a strange continent that ilenus describes to ;idas in afascinating dialogue B?a. Indeed% &elian even describes him as a po$erfulmythologist% in reference to the same event B?c.

Theopompus) reputation as a -lover of truth) is no di*erent from $hat (olybiusis forced to recogni,e in Timaeus and% for that matter% from the attitude that

Thucydides claims against those $hose superciality makes them think thatHipparchus $as tyrant at the time of his murder or that there $as such a thingas a lochos of (itane in the partan &rmy .2G. !ompleteness and e7actnessare values embraced and suggested by jSYZ. 0?J1 The !learchus episode ise7emplary: in Theopompus) history% it is likely that the history of the Herakleiaand its -tyrant) $ent hand in hand% $ritten by $ay of anecdotes portraying the

ethos of the individual.


16/31

2G5. &bove all% it is the barbarians although also the &thenians or Thessalians $ho seem to have borne the brunt of the bitterness that (olybiusdid not tolerate $hen aimed at (hilip6 but he took care not to consider it thepredominate characteristic of Theopompus) historiography. 0AG1

It is possible% ho$ever% to go beyond &thenaeus% by using &thenaeus. In 2

G.555eK55?a% Hegesilochus is depicted as overcome $ith alcohol and foodand deprived of the esteem of the Rhodians6 but% before describing his se7uale7cesses% &thenaeus clearly gives a summary of $hat he $ill not retain from

Theopompus) account: the e7pression% =speaking about the oligarchic regimeestablished by Hegesilochus and his friends in Rhodes> _W\ ZY U¦_WY‚ §\ SUZUUX ]ZU Uˆ\ _\% synthesi,es the broader conte7tin $hich the citations about his mores should be inserted6 it is% of course% onthese mores that &thenaeus focuses% and not on the political situation of theisland in the mid'fourth century. Theopompus) +udgment on Hegesilochus ispolitical6 in any case% it aims to reveal that the tyrant $anted his countrymen toconsider him $orthy of governing the city% adducing as evidence a relatively

unkno$n piece of evidence. That is to say% the tale about Rhodes contains theactions of Hegesilochus and reveals unkno$n sides of his personality% +ust as@ionysius indicates in the ad (ompeium 3eminum. It seems reasonable% then%that here too Theopompus did not conne himself to mere moral +udgment.0A1


17/31

repeat the short'sighted +udgment already applied to Timaeus) &gathoclesOisperfectly consistent $ith Theopompus) vie$. The citation from Timaeus isinstructive since it allo$s us to see that for both historians &thenaeus providesthe same leitmotiv: the tryphe of money $eakens mores and infects neighbors.

This is the case $ith the numerous Timaean fragments that deal $ith the&chaean cities of Italy% and% in the same $ay% $ith Theopompus regarding thefatal contact bet$een the democracies in "y,antium and !halcedon A4.0A?1 "oth historians clearly have a vie$point that is bitter and moralistic%sometimes even cynical% but their narration cannot be reduced to this trait.


18/31

kno$n. Here% the citations from Theopompus dene unkno$n terms or providea story that is uniEue% miraculous% or unattested else$here. trabo says that

Theopompus aimed to narrate myths better then Herodotus% !tesias%Hellanicus% and the authors of Indica 4F. In fact% $hat Theopompusactually said $as that he $ould tell =even myths better than Herodotus%!tesias% Hellanicus% and the authors of Indica> ƒU S ]wX \ U[UXY YZ[% SYZ[UUX\ ` Q ¨YxXUX S ©U S —__~\SX S X U£\xS WWY~\UZ% emphasi,ing a superiority in comparison to hispredecessors of the sort that is contained in (hotius) version of his proemium 2?.

In (lutarch% too% $e can see that the e7clusively moralistic Euotations thatpredominate in &thenaeus are but one aspect of Theopompus) research. Thegure of &gesilaus is illustrative of the relationship bet$een Theopompus)narration of events and his historical +udgment. In the central section of(lutarch)s bios% $e nd several fragments of an account characteri,ed byevaluations similar to those that assail (hilip. &ccording to Theopompus% it $as

agreed that &gesilaus% $ho $as the only one to receive the command of landand sea troops during the $ar in &sia ;inor% $as =the greatest . . . and themost prominent of those then living> ]WUX . . . S Uˆ\ UUZ ‰\U\\UUX% although =he $as prouder of his virtue than he $as of hispo$er> &gesilaus G.J'G 3H ? 42. Pevertheless% there are somecracks% here and else$here% resulting in a more nuanced picture. #ntrusting(isander $ith the /eet $as clearly a mistake not only because% despite hiscourage% (isander had no e7perience Nenophon Hellenica 4.5.2BK2J% but alsobecause &gesilaus privileged the interests of his family over those of the state.&gesilaus) virtue% of $hich he $as so proud% clearly had limits% and

Theopompus $as not prepared to gloss over them in order to paint an ideali,ed

portrait of him. The king)s valor is not at stake% and he very realistically seemsto $ant to prevent the partans from facing #paminondas) army during the

Theban invasion% =against so great% as Theopompus says% a river and $ave of$ar> Y€ UXXzUX\% | ªZX]X% ’Zz] S S_wx\ X_]X6 andbecause of the part he played in causing the invasion% &gesilaus $as forced tobend his virtue to mere calculations and to tolerate o*enses. It is Euiteprobable that the greatness and limitations of &gesilaus% according to

Theopompus) portrayal of him% $ere that of a king $ho recogni,ed the splendorof his city at the time of the e7pedition to &sia% but $as forced to humiliatingterms not long after$ard. The lofty gure of 42 does not only try to limitdamages% but he incautiously pushes a$ay the invaders $ith an o*er of

money% useless inasmuch as they $ere already in the process of leavingLaconia &gesilaus 42.4K44.2 3H ? 424. (lutarch $onders $hy it isonly Theopompus $ho remembers this detail% $hich is ignored by all others&gesilaus 44.. &gesilaus) mistake% namely his responsibility for the invasionof (eloponnesus% did not contradict the fact that the partans o$ed thesalvation of their cityOand on this all $ere agreedOto &gesilaus% through his$ise renouncing of his personal ambitions. It is unclear $hether $e should alsoascribe to Theopompus (lutarch)s discussion of the causes of parta)s fall +ust


19/31

after this passage &gesilaus 44.5% in $hich (lutarch blames parta)s do$nfallon the introduction of a perverse taste for po$er and supremacy. &gesilaus)cautiousness% in any case% $as not able to revive parta: it $as a single error%as (lutarch says +ust after 424% that drove the polis to its end% +ust as in thecase of an other$ise healthy body infected by disease.

Theopompus) depiction of &gesilaus% as preserved in (lutarch% is a privilegedmeans% in my opinion% to understand the comple7ity of his historical +udgmentabout contemporary events. &s (lutarch)s &gesilaus sho$s% Theopompusanaly,ed contemporary events in detail% corrected the tradition regardingthem% and discussed them from a long'term perspective that allo$ed for amore comple7 understanding of their causes. &gesilaus is not a character froman encomium% but a multifaceted politician% +ust as happens in the vivid actionof events and not in the assemblies $here things are described and said inorder to persuade. In Theopompus) description% &gesilaus) errors and virtuesare intert$ined $ithout malice% re/ecting Theopompus) interest in goingbeyond mere celebration. In the same $ay% Theopompus) comple7 and

articulate evaluation of @emosthenes 42F% softened in a $ay that displeases(lutarch he $as not =moody and /ighty>: 42A% takes into account a varietyof actions and% most of all% the dynamis of an orator $ho forces (hilip to peace.

The focus is here on the strength of logos in driving events% of a politician $hocontrols situations through his $ords. The positive portrait of Lysander 442is also not merely a rhetorical encomium but is sub+ected to the criticalmeticulousness that the 3reeks call akribeia. The subversive% innovativecharacter of his politics that could have saved the polis from the (ersian threat%$as re+ected% +ust as in the case of &lcibiades.


20/31

narrates broad historical developments% ably interspersing his narrative $ithdigressions of every sort6 he attacks opponents so as to include both praise andblame in his account. ¢uite apart from &thenaeus) charge of a rhetorical andepideictic moralism% Theopompus seems to be an historian in the full meaningof the term and certainly to have been in/uenced more by Thucydides andHerodotus than by his putative teacher% Isocrates.

"ibliography

&lonso P«¬e,% . ;. 2GG2. The Idea of †niversal History in 3reece fromHerodotus to the &ge of &ugustus. &msterdam.

&mbaglio% @. JJ?. La "iblioteca storica di @iodoro siculo: problemi e metodo.!omo.

&u+ac% 3.% ed. JJ2. @enys d)Halicarnasse. 8puscules rhDtoriEues.V.% te7teDtabli et trad. par 3. &u+ac. (aris.

"arber% 3. J4?. The Historian #phorus. !ambridge.

"ear,ot% !. 2GG?. =(olibio e Teopompo. 8sserva,ioni di metodo e giudi,iomorale.> In chepens and "ollansDe 2GG?:?AKB.

"leckmann% ". JJF. &thens Historyand Theory J:FAKGJ.

"urde% (. JB5. †ntersuchungen ,ur antiken †niversalgeschichtsschreibung.@iss.% ;unich.

!a$k$ell% 3. JJB. Thucydides and the (eloponnesian In chepens and"ollansDe 2GG?:JK?5.

OOO. 2GG. =#chos de Theopompo en la uda.> In Il Lessico uda e gli storicigreci in frammenti. &tti dell)incontro interna,ionale Vercelli% AKB novembre2GGF% ed. 3. Vanotti% 2GBK2AA. Rome.

!h¯ve, Reino% &. and 8ttone% 3. 2GGB. =Les fragments de ThDopompe che,&thDnDe. †n aper±u gDnDral.> In &thDnDe et les fragments d)historiens% &ctesdu colloEue de trasbourg AKF +uin 2GG?% ed. @. Lenfant% 4JKB5. (aris.

!onnor%


21/31

OOO. JF5. Thucydides. (rinceton.

!osta% V.% ed. 2GGB. ilocoro di &tene. I. Testimonian,e e frammenti dell)&tthis% acura di V. !osta. Rome.

@²ring% I. J?B. &ristotle in the &ncient "iographical Tradition. 3teborg.

antasia% †. 2GG5. =jSY.> In Le7icon historiographicum graecum et latinum% ed. !. &mpolo et al.% 4AbKAAa. (isa.

lo$er% ;. &. JJ5. Theopompus of !hios. History and Rhetoric in the ourth!entury "!. 87ford.

ornara% !.


22/31

(Ddech% (. JFJ. Trois historiens mDconnus: ThDopompe% @uris% (hylarEue.(aris.

(elling% !. 2GGB. =The 3reek Historians of Rome.> In ;arincola 2GGBa:255K2?F.

(o$nall% . 2GG5. Lessons from the (ast. The ;oral †se of History in ourth'

!entury (rose. &nn &rbor.Reed% ¥. JBA. Theopompus of !hios: History and 8ratory in the ourth!entury. (h@ diss.% †niversity of !alifornia% "erkeley.

Rood% T. JJF. Thucydides. Parrative and #7planation. 87ford.

Roveri% &. JA5. tudi su (olibio. "ologna.

anti &mantini% L. 2GGJ. =Testimonian,e su Teopompo nei fragmenta +acobiani.>In 3a,,ano 2GGJ:B4KFB.

chepens% 3. JJ4. =L)apogDe de l)arch´ spartiate comme DpoEue historiEuedans l)historiographie grecEue du dDbut du IVe s. av. .'!.> &ncient ociety25:AJK2G4.

OOO. JJB. =Timaeus 3rHist ?AA 2F Revisited: ragmenta or Testimonia“>imblos 2:BKF4.

chepens% 3.% and "ollansDe% .% eds. 2GG?. The hado$ of (olybius.Interte7tuality as a Research Tool in 3reek Historiography. (roceedings of theInternational !olloEuium Leuven% 2K22 eptember 2GG. Leuven.

ch$art,% #. JGB. =#phoros .> R# VI :KA.

hrimpton% 3. . JBB. =Theopompus) Treatment of (hilip in the (hilippica.>

(hoeni7 4:24K55.OOO. JJ. Theopompus the Historian. ;ontreal.

ordi% ;. JF4. La icilia dal 4AFMB al 44BMA. Rome.

Talbert% R. . &. JB5. Timoleon and the Revival of 3reek icily 455K42B ".!.!ambridge.

Vattuone% R. JJ. apien,a d)8ccidente. Il pensiero storico di Timeo di Tauromenio. "ologna.

OOO. JJB. =†na testimonian,a dimenticata di Teopompo (hot.% "ibl.% BA% (.

2 &% 4GK45. Pote sul proemio dei (hilippika.> imblos 2:F?KGA.OOO. JJF. =¥oinai (ra7eis. Le dimensioni -universali) della storiograa grecafra #rodoto e Teopompo.> In L)ecumenismo politico nella coscien,adell)8ccidente "ergamo% FK2 settembre JJ?% ed. L. &igner oresti% et al.%?BKJA. Rome.

OOO. 2GGG. =Teopompo e l)&driatico. Ricerche sui frammenti del libro NNI delleilippiche 3rHist ? 2FK4A.> Hesperia G:K4F.


23/31

OOO. 2GG2. =Timeo di Tauromenio.> In torici greci d)occidente% BBK242."ologna.

OOO. 2GG?. =Timeo% (olibio e la storiograa greca d)8ccidente.> In chepensand "ollansDe 2GG?:FJK22.

OOO. 2GGB. =j\.> In Le7icon historiographicum graecum et latinum 2% ed.!. &mpolo et al.% 5AaK?2b. (isa.


24/31

0 back 1 B. & ne$ edition $ith commentary on Theopompus by 3. 8ttone and &.!h¯ve, Reino is forthcoming in the series I frammenti degli storici greci% editedby #. Lan,illotta. everal interpretative guidelines can be found in 8ttone2GG5:2Jf.% and in 3a,,ano et al. 2GGJ:B4K22.

0 back 1 F. Picolai 2GG5:B5f. see esp. BBKBF on Isocrates (anathenaicus 5Jf..

The mistake is usually to think that Isocrates) ideas are passed on to hisdisciples as tasks to be fullled.

0 back 1 J. Theopompus notoriously critici,es the reliability of the \S$ritten in Ionic script that $ere set up by the &thenians against the (ersians%pointing out that it $as only during the archonship of #uclides 5G4M2 that theybegan to use that alphabet cf. ??. It is not stated in the te7t $hich treatiesare concerned% and so it is not certain that Theopompus is here talking aboutthe (eace of !allias (Ddech JFJ:?f.. The occasion for this remark is alsounclear: it may be a critiEue of the &thenian pride in having forced the (ersiansto agree to unfavorable terms $ith them. (erhaps the conte7t is a critiEue of

the =!imonian> treaty (lutarch !imon 4% $hich $as considered false by!allisthenes too 4.5 3H 25 A.

0 back 1 G. The &thenians are accused of falsifying the oath taken by the3reeks before the battle of (lataea and for the e7cessive magnication of thebattle of ;arathon% $hich did not take place as described in hymns devoted toit. The accusation concerning the falsification of history is more general: Sƒ __ . . . { ¡\\ _ j_X\ZwZU S YSYXwZU UXž µ__\3H ? ?4. 8n the basis of ?A% $here $e nd an e7cursus on theacred


25/31

Thucydides% Timaeus% and Theopompus% particularly because of theconcordance bet$een these last t$o in praising him beyond all others nescioEuomodo in illo uno laudando consenserunt: &lcibiades 3H ? 2FF63H ?AA JJ. It is not clear from Pepos $hether Timaeus and Theopompus%$ho are usually in disagreement% do in fact praise &lcibiades in the same $ayor $hether they both praise him to the e7clusion of anyone else. The secondalternative is in fact impossible% since $e kno$ that% according to (olybius%

Timaeus) encomium of Timoleon $as no less e7aggerated. Pepos goes on tosay that the duo maledicentissimi agree only on the praise of &lcibiades% thatthey disagree% then% on all the rest of their +udgements.


26/31

0 back 1 F. @ionysius of Halicarnassus Roman &ntiEuities .. 3H ? 256 hrimpton JJ:A4KA56 anti &mantini 2GGJ:B?f.

0 back 1 J. @ionysius of Halicarnassus ad (ompeium 3eminum A.2 3H ? T 2Ga 3H ? 2A. acoby cautiously published the te7t in a smallertypeface because of a te7tual problem Zq S ¸ ]x}\ •WYZ. &u+ac JJ2:JB

does not even mention this problem in the apparatus% overlookingRadermacher and Heller)s e*orts% and solving the problem $ith t$o soothingcommas. He $as clearly more convinced than his illustrious predecessors that

TheopompusOas @ionysius attestsOhad spoken too much of his achievementsand could have refrained from $ordiness $ithout precluding the positive

+udgement of posterity =even if he had $ritten nothing>. Pot$ithstanding&u+ac)s souplesse% @ionysius) te7t is di9cult to untangle and $ould merit fromcritical suggestions. This does not keep us from understanding the generaltopic e7pressed by Theopompus in his proemium Vattuone JJB:FFf..

0 back 1 2G. 8n 2?% see lo$er JJ5:4f.% ??f.6 Vattuone JJB:FFKJ2. In 2?%

it is clear that Theopompus did not consider himself to be a disciple ofIsocrates% but% if anything% his contemporary and rival.

0 back 1 2. (lutarch @e gloria &theniensium 45AfK45Bc: inasmuch as they areboth mimetic activities% historiography and painting cannot compete $ith theprotagonists of events.


27/31

0 back 1 2?. (hotius "ibliotheca BA.2a 3H BG B% $hich acoby does notconsider to belong $ith the other proemial fragments of Theopompus% as heshould have done Vattuone JJB6 cf. (armeggiani 2G:45f.

0 back 1 2A. Vattuone JJF:F4f.6 (armeggiani 2G:4Ff.% JJf.% and passim.

0 back 1 2B. (olybius 2.2F.F 3H ?AA B6 Vattuone JJ:22f.0 back 1 2F. Theopompus) variety of interests people% foundations% kings%customs% S Z› U ]U€\ ` Y~xXX\ S~U W S ~_ YZ% $asprobably an ob+ect of Theopompus) self'pride in the long proemium of his(hilippica. It did not% ho$ever% aim only to delight% nor did it serve only as adigression% since the richness of material is integrated into the narration ofpragmata ]ZYZ_Z\ 0\1 U YW]UZº. trabo reminds us that% unlikeothers% Theopompus thought ƒU S ]wX \ U[ UXY YZ[ SYZ[UUX\ ̀Q —YxXUX S ©U S —__~\SX S X U £\xS WWY~\UZ.2.4? 3H ? 4F% i.e. he $anted to narrate even mythical tales $ithinhis historical $ork% and he $anted to do it better than his predecessors%

Herodotus% !tesias% and Hellanicus.


28/31

but it is possible that he cites him to sho$ $here the !umaean di*ered fromhis predecessor% using Herodotean models. ee (armeggiani 2G:4?5f.% 5Bf.%and also in this volume% ?f. @iodorus) citation of comic sources here is not initself a triviali,ation of the causes% but a $ay to sho$ ho$ the decisions of(ericles $ere received and contested cf. Thucydides .5GK55. #phorus JA is very helpful in enabling us to understand the value of @ionysius)discussion of Theopompus% $hich comes% it seems to me% from the e7plicitdeclaration of Theopompus himself.

0 back 1 42. Vattuone 2GGB:?K?2.

0 back 1 44. The structure of (olybius) criticism against Timaeus is based onimages and thoughts found in #phorus and Theopompus. It is enough to read(olybius 2.2BK2F to verify this. The critiEue of the predecessors touches theirtechnical ability in describing military events% but no$here their identity ashistorians.


29/31

$rong $ith continuing to speak about fragments and testimonia% using theclassical denition% as long as $e remember that it is a choice of convenienceonly% $hich often does not correspond to sound hermeneutic principles nor tothe very nature of the passages under discussion.

0 back 1 54. (olybius) unease to$ards Theopompus is meaningful only if he

distinguished in rebus very di*erent aspects of (hilip)s representation cf.;omigliano JB?. &lthough $ell grounded in his cultural amnesia% the ideathat (olybius did not understand the irony of his predecessor in calling (hilip IIa =great man> hrimpton JBB:24f.6 JJ:22% A2KA4 does not take intoaccount the comple7ity of critical +udgement on the ;acedonian% as $ell as onother gures% like Lysander and &gesilaus. (olybius is $ell a$are of thedistinction bet$een history and encomium G.2.F% since it =touches> also hisbeloved (hilopoemen.

0 back 1 55. In Timaeus% &gathocles is the threatening% but great character $hoaspired to kingship% although he $as only a tyrant. The incipit of @iodorus)

"ook J% $hich is devoted to &gathocles) career% looks inconsistent even tomodern readers% $ho are compelled to separate -favorable) from -unfavorable)sources% $here the traces of Timaeus absorbed into the Library re/ect only adark% comple7 evaluation of this character cf. Vattuone 2GG?:42f..

0 back 1 5?. (olybius F..?K4 3H ? 22?a and the parallel 22?b &thenaeus A.2AGdK2Aa6 (Ddech JFJ:25f.

0 back 1 5A. This is the famous case of the pais &gathocles (olybius 2.? 3H ?AA 25b% for $hom Timaeus used =inappropriate sources> such ascomedy to cover both the boy and the adult $ith outrageous +ests. &s


30/31

0 back 1 ?G. &lonso P«¬e, 2GG2:B6 ;arincola 2GGBb:B.

0 back 1 ?. (elling 2GGB:25?f.

0 back 1 ?2. ;arincola 2GGBb:B.

0 back 1 ?4. In the rst proemium% the sentence used to dene the disruption

caused by the -great $ar) ..2: S\ WY ‹U ]ZWU x UX[ µ__\W\ZUX S ]YZ U\ Uˆ\ Y~Y\% Q x} ZqZ[\ S _Z[UX\j\Y‰\ signifies a broad and -general) dimension of the conflict. It is not sostrange to point out that 3reek historiography% beyond the chronological limitsof pastMpresent% aims to a universal dimension. Vattuone JJF:B?f.

0 back 1 ?5. The conclusions of (armeggiani 2G:B2Af. clarify the comple7ity of (olybius) +udgment on the previous historiography. It is from the critiEue of

Theopompus) (hilip that $e are able to understand $hy the &chaean historianrecogni,es in #phorus and not in Theopompus the primogeniture of this $ritingmodel6 the fact that #phorus kept a coherent form $ith his tidy and precise

$ork lies behind (olybius) evaluation. Pevertheless% this may not be enough. Ithink that (olybius) choice% very close to those of Theopompus and even Timaeus% prompts in him the encomium of #phorus and the despise for thee7cessive variety of themes in Theopompus) $ork. ee infra.

0 back 1 ??. lo$er JJ5:52f.

0 back 1 ?A. ;urray)s thesis J5A has often been recycled% $ithout search forfurther proof. (Ddech JFJ:244f. highlights the relationships bet$een themaledicentissimus and the thinking of &ntisthenes% i.e. a philosophicalapproach $hich tends to go beyond supercial causes looking for a greaterdepth. (Ddech is the rst one to Euestion this approach at the end of his $ork

24?f..0 back 1 ?B. lo$er JJ5:AGf. The Herodotean Theopompus is not only theepitomator of the Histories% but also the heir to Herodotus) plurality of interestsand pleasure in narrating. The fact that Theopompus aimed to continue

Thucydides) $ork does not indicate a complete adherence to Thucydides)narrative choices% but rather Theopompus) desire to embrace t$o centuriesthe ?th and the 5th to understand the innovation of (hilip II. cholars havetended% ho$ever% to look for ideological connections $here canonicalconnections are clear.

0 back 1 ?F. &s many as B4 out of 5 fragments or 4JA% to e7clude acoby)s

³$eifelhaftes 4JBK5 of Theopompus come from &thenaeus. This is agreat number% and more than half of these Euotations are -direct)6 ho$ever% theinterests of &thenaeus are specic% and so strongly a*ect our vie$ of

Theopompus.

0 back 1 ?J. antasia 2GG5:?f.

0 back 1 AG. It is not legitimate to get any idea about the comple7 $ork of Theopompus from these fragments of dDbauche. o many scholars agree% from


31/31

6 Reed JBA:?2f.6hrimpton JJ:2F6 lo$er JJ5:F =the result is that our impression of

Theopompus is necessarily distorted>6 !h¯ve, Reino and 8ttone 2GGB:5Af.

0 back 1 A. hrimpton JJ:22K24. (Ddech JFJ:2GBf. prefers to point out

the -psychological) aspect of Theopompus) ethics. The so'called moralism of Theopompus seems very $ell integrated into the historiographical perspectiveof @ionysius of Halicarnassus) ad (ompeium 3eminum A.? 3H ? T 2Ga$here philosophical value and political +udgement are attributed to hissentences.

0 back 1 A2. Vattuone 2GGG:f.

0 back 1 A4. !onnor JAF:Jf.

0 back 1 A5. hrimpton JJ:5G.

0 back 1 A?. hrimpton JJ:?Gf. The conclusion by (Ddech JFJ:25GK25 onhis =ThDopompe mDconnu%> starting from the morali,ing imprint of his $ork% isunacceptable: =#7pliEuer les DvDnements par un encha½nement logiEue ¾ lafa±on de Thucydide ne para½t pas avoir DtD le souci de ThDopompe.> In@ionysius% moralism% mythological taste and mirabilia constitute the characterof Theopompus) tale% $ell inserted in the pragmata. They become here ameans of distinguishing bet$een scientic historiography and rhetorical andnovelistic historiography% going against Thucydides as $ell.

0 back 1 AA. Vattuone JJ:4Jf.

0 back 1 AB. 3H ? 4GB Le7. in @emosthenes &ristocrates% fr. & 3H42F 52. ee !osta 2GGB% 2J2f.

0 back 1 AF. acoby J4:?G6 "ruce JBG:JAf. @ionysius) +udgement ad(ompeium 3eminum A.5KA is considered to be decisive by lo$er JJ5:Af.in conrming the link bet$een the historian and the epitomi,er on the level ofthe narration% the e7cursus% and the choice of sub+ects.

0 back 1 AJ. 3H ? 445% hrimpton JJ:J2. ee (lutarch Timoleon 5.? 3H ?AA A 3H BG 22. ee @iodorus A.A?.?6 Pepos Timoleon .4KA6

Talbert JB5:4Af.6 ordi JF4:2A46 Vattuone JJ:J5.

2. looking for the invisible. theopompus and the roots of historiography. riccardo vattuone

Documents