Shaping the canons of ancient Greek historiography : imitation, classicism, and literary criticism 9783110475128, 311047512X

Citation preview

Ivan Matijašić Shaping the Canons of Ancient Greek Historiography

Beiträge zur Altertumskunde

Herausgegeben von Susanne Daub, Michael Erler, Dorothee Gall, Ludwig Koenen und Clemens Zintzen

Band 359

Ivan Matijašić

Shaping the Canons of Ancient Greek Historiography Imitation, Classicism, and Literary Criticism

ISBN 978-3-11-047512-8 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-047627-9 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-047543-2 ISSN 1616-0452 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Matijašić, Ivan, author. Title: Shaping the canons of ancient Greek historiography : imitation, classicism, and literary criticism / Ivan Matijašić. Other titles: Beiträge zur Altertumskunde ; Bd. 359. Description: Berlin ; Boston : Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2018. | Series: Beiträge zur Altertumskunde ; Band 359 | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2018014907| ISBN 9783110475128 (print) | ISBN 9783110475432 (e-book (epub) | ISBN 9783110476279 (e-book (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Greece--Historiography. | Historians--Greece. Classification: LCC DF211 .M38 2018 | DDC 938.0072--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018014907 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Druck und Bindung: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

A nono Mano (1928‒2013)

Acknowledgements This book stems from a PhD thesis written in Italian and defended at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa in July 2015. Carmine Ampolo, Luigi Battezzato, Didier Marcotte, Astrid Möller, Leone Porciani, Maria Serena Funghi, and Anna Santoni were the members of the committee that awarded my PhD: my gratitude is due to them all for the invaluable insights and suggestions that emerged during and after the discussion. My supervisor, Carmine Ampolo, kindly and steadily encouraged my research during my years in Pisa, where I also enjoyed the friendly and helpful support of Anna Magnetto and Donatella Erdas. During my PhD, I spent the academic year 2012‒2013 at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau, where I benefitted from Astrid Möller’s hospitality and Hans-Joachim Gehrke’s renowned humanitas: I wish to thank them both for their help and encouragement during those two semesters in the Schwarzwald. I also benefitted greatly from the seminars they organised (“International Network Historiai”), which were held both in Freiburg and Munich. I am likewise grateful to Didier Marcotte (Paris, formerly Reims) who gave me the opportunity to participate in research seminars in Reims and Madrid, where I also presented some of the results of my research on the canons of Greek historiography. Finally, I was invited to present some of the chapters of this book in Perugia: I warmly thank Francesco Prontera for the invitation and hospitality. The publication of a book is rarely a solitary and isolated effort and I am fortunate enough to have many friends and colleagues who read and commented on the book (or portions of the book) and helped at different stages of the work. Aude Cohen-Skalli (Aix/Marseille) and Carlo Franco (Venice) read the whole manuscript and offered extremely useful suggestions on both single points and general dispositio: I do not think I will be able to repay this debt, and the least I can do is to use these lines to thank them warmly. The philological acumen of Filippomaria Pontani (Venice) has always represented a valuable benchmark for my own work: this book is no exception. Many of the topics that appear in the following pages were discussed in a low voice in the library of the Scuola Normale in Pisa: there I often met Leone Porciani (Pavia), whose insightful observations guided me through some debated ancient passages. Aldo Corcella (Potenza) kindly read my PhD thesis and offered his valuable advice. I had the opportunity to discuss my work with Roberto Nicolai (Rome), Fausto Montana (Pavia), and Irene Pajón Leyra (Seville) whose remarks were extremely helpful. Franco Montanari (Genoa), Pietro Liuzzo (Hamburg),

VIII

Acknowledgements

Claudio Biagetti (Rome), and Vera Grossi (Verona) generosly shared their published and unpublished work. I take the time here publicly to thank all of these. In Venice, I have the privilege to number among my friends Stefania De Vido, Luca Mondin, Olga Tribulato, and Francesco Valerio. They have all encouraged me throughout these years and offered their unconditional support. The book itself was conceived and written between Italy, Germany, and the UK. I had the opportunity to work as Postdoctoral Fellow first in Venice, under the supervision of Claudia Antonetti and Giovanella Cresci Marrone, then in Münster with Peter Funke, and in Berlin with Klaus Geus: to all of them I send my warmest gratitude. I also wish to thank the Gerda Henkel Foundation and the Center for International Cooperation of the Freie Universität Berlin for supporting my research. The School of History, Classics and Archaeology of the Newcastle University generously funded the publication of this book. Federico Santangelo (Newcastle), who was extremely supportive during a short but difficult period, enthusiastically read the whole book in one of its latest versions: his comments were extremely valuable and I wish to express to him my deepest gratitude. My parents Klara and Robert, and my whole family, have never failed to encourage me in every possible way, expressing their love through pantagruelian meals and excellent wines. My wife Irene, with whom I share many common interests, except, fortunately, Classical Studies, has always been my strongest supporter. When I told her I was going to re-write my thesis in English for publication, she exclaimed: “Why do you always have to choose the hardest way?” Despite her reservations, my hope is that native speakers will not get too annoyed with any error or infelicities of language that might still linger here and there, for which I am solely responsible. This book is dedicated to the memory of my grandfather Herman Buršić, who taught me the essence of history and the pleasure of hard work.

Contents Abbreviations and Translations Introduction  . . . . .

 . . . . .  . . . . . . .

XIII

1

Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day 7 The Idea of Literary Canons in Ancient Thought 7 Canon: A Brief History of the Word 13 Greek Literature in the Hands of a Latin Grammarian: Quintilian’s 18 Selection The Polemic on Ancient Canonical Literature from David Ruhnken to the First Half of the Twentieth Century 23 Approaching Literary Canons from Different Perspectives: 31 Weltliteratur and Distant Reading Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians 39 Hellenistic Treatises on Greek Historiography 39 What was Cicero’s Knowledge of the Greek Historians? 46 Cicero’s Worthy Opinion (digna vox) on Greek Canonical 49 Historians Minor Greek Historians in Cicero’s Writings 55 Xenophon princeps philosophorum 58 66 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays Introduction on Dionysius’ Literary Circle and Critical Essays 66 The Letter to Pompeius and the Canon of Greek Historiography 72 How is a Historian Supposed to Write? Herodotus vs. 73 Thucydides Worthy and Unworthy Historians: Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus 78 A Telling Absence: Ephorus and his Exclusion 86 Thucydides in the Dock: Dionysius’ Judgement 88 Dionysius’ Legacy: Challenging his Judgement on Thucydides 97

X

 . . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . .. .

 . . .

Contents

In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical 103 Athens Classicism and Classical: A Diachronic Overview 103 Dionysius’ Classicism and the Revival of Rhetoric 106 The Canons of Greek Historiography Through the Lens of 112 Classicism πραγματικὸς τόπος in Dionysius 117 120 Dionysius’ Ιdeal Ηistorian: Theopompus Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria 123 Thucydides’ Continuators and the Historical Cycle: Its Impact on 123 Canon-Formation Isocrates and the Greek Historians 128 135 The Peripatetic Tradition and Greek Historiography A Hellenistic Source for the First Century BC Canons? 142 The Greek Historians in Alexandria 147 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata 161 Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime and Demetrius’ 161 On Style Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata 168 Late Antique Progymnasmata and Some Rhetorical 173 Treatises The Greek Historians in Hermogenes and the Caesura in the Historiographical Canons 179 One Exception to the Rule: Theopompus in Menander Rhetor 183 Hecataeus of Miletus’ Appearance in the Rhetorical Tradition and his Role in Hermogenes’ On the Categories of Style 185 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity: A Diachronic Analysis of the 189 Canons of Greek Historiography The Narrowing Canon and the Effect of the Historical Cycle 189 Roman Emperors and Classical Education in the Fourth Century AD 194 Ausonius, Jerome, and the Greek Historians in a Latin Environment 200

Contents

. .

The Papyri and the Circulation of the Greek Historians in Roman 205 Egypt Byzantine Lists of Ancient Canonical Authors 217

Conclusions

222

Bibliography

233

Index of Names and Subjects Selective index of Greek terms Index locorum

277

265 276

XI

Abbreviations and Translations Abbreviations for ancient authors and works mostly follow those of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (fourth edition, 2012). However, see § 3.1 for the slightly different abbreviations adopted for Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ rhetorical treatises. For journals, I have followed the abbreviations of L’Année philologique, while for inscriptions those of the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. For each papyrus mentioned throughout the book, I have included the references to the CEDOPAL number (Mertens-Pack3) in the index. Throughout this book I have used the following English translations of Greek and Latin texts, sometimes slightly modified: May/Wisse (2001) for Cicero’s On the Orator; Hendrickson/Hubbel (1939) for Cicero’s Brutus and Orator; Russell (2002) for Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory; Usher (1974‒1985) for Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ critical essays. There are also other instances where I have relied on published translations: these are duly reported in the text. Unless otherwise noted, all remaining translations of Greek and Latin texts are my own. For modern languages, I have used English translations where suitable, but, where nothing else is reported, translations are also my own.

Introduction This book focuses on the development of the canons of ancient Greek historians in antiquity. Its aim is to illustrate the changing nature of a cultural and literary phenomenon. It is structured as a diachronic historical analysis based on textual sources. Even if ancient canonical literature has attracted the attention of modern scholars at least from David Ruhnken’s work in the eighteenth century, it is difficult to find a book or article specifically dedicated to the general issue of ancient literay canons, while to my knowledge there is only a portion of a book on ancient education in ancient historiography which deals explicitly with the canons of Greek historiography.¹ The notion of literary canon is familiar to scholars and laymen alike, yet it needs some preliminary explanation. I use the word canon throughout this book to signal the “selection of the best authors in a given literary genre” or “authoritative list of books.” Mostly I have preferred the plural canons, since this terminology highlights the contemporary presence of different selections made by different individuals for different purposes. This feature has been labelled by Robert Nicolai as one of the paradoxes of the idea of canon.² The other paradox exists in the non-canonicity of the canon, in other words the flexibility and mutability of canonical selections. Hence, a fundamental premise is that, even if some common traits are discernible, there existed not one single canon of Greek historiography in antiquity, but many. This claim can be extended to all literary canons, whose inherent characteristic is their openness, as Ernst Curtius already recognised seventy years ago.³ My interest in ancient canonical literature arose when, as a student, I read Giorgio Pasquali’s Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (1952), in my opinion the most compelling book on the history of the tradition of Greek and Latin texts. At the same time, I was fascinated by the famous ratio on the survival of Hellenistic historiography of 1 to 40 put forward by Hermann Strasburger in his celebrated article Umblick im Trü mmerfeld der griechischen Geschichtsschreibung. ⁴ A question started to take shape in my mind. How is it possible that only a min-

 I refer to Nicolai (1992) esp. 250 340.  Cf. Nicolai (2013) 28: “Il secondo paradosso, connesso al primo, è la non unicità del canone: il termine andrebbe usato sempre al plurale, a indicare la contemporanea presenza di selezioni diverse, elaborate da personaggi diversi e per fini diversi.”  Curtius (1948) 354.  Strasburger (1977) 14 15. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 001

2

Introduction

imal portion of Classical and Hellenistic Greek historiography – namely only Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon in their full shape – came to us, while a whole host of other representatives of this genre were lost? Discussing my concerns with some friends and colleagues, mainly graduate students in Italian Studies and American Literature, they all pointed out that the most productive way forward would be to evaluate all the contemporary historians against the canonical ones. They thought that one could easily understand the reasons for this strict selection from a lexical, subject matter or even ideological point of view. They were not aware of the Trümmerfeld I was facing, and I had to explain patiently that not even one of these contemporary authors was available, except for a few fragments. My aim was to grasp the reasons for canonical selections even if I had no direct access to non-canonical literature, which highlights one of the main difficulties in working on classical texts: the lack of a direct medieval tradition for a great portion of ancient literature. As Luke Pitcher wrote in Writing Ancient History: “There are big problems in working out what game someone was playing when time has effaced the touchlines and stolen the goalposts.”⁵ To make things worse, not only have non-canonical texts not survived, but many texts that were considered canonical in antiquity were not transmitted through the medieval tradition either. All in all, from Xenophon to Diodorus Siculus (whose work survives only partially), we possess only Polybius’ Books 1‒5, while the rest of the work is preserved through excerpts.⁶ It must be stressed that later historical texts cannot be exploited for the analysis of the canons of historiography because most of the works of history written after Alexander’s death were not considered canonical in any ancient selection. Moreover, imperial Greek historians do not provide any firm clue for the existence of canonical selection within the historiographical genre. All of these various considerations emphasised for me the fact that I could not rely directly on ancient historians, but had to turn to those who judged historiography in antiquity: ancient rhetors, literary critics, and school teachers. Generally speaking, I had to turn to literary criticism, as suggested in the subtitle of this book. Other keywords were essential in my investigation: Classicism and imitation. Classicism refers to a cultural, literary, and political movement that spread in the age of Augustus and has since been embedded in Western culture.⁷ In the history of the historiographical canon, Classicism expresses itself in many different  Pitcher (2009) 157.  See Moore (1965). On the tradition of historiographical texts in general: Canfora (1995a) 184 199.  See Settis (2010).

Introduction

3

ways, which I have tried to expound in chapter four. On the other hand, imitation (mimesis) is a wide and multifaceted notion, whose core can be summarized as the representation of the real world through works of art.⁸ In literature, the notion is tied to Aristotle’s Poetics and its legacy, while in the age of Augustus, literary critics, and among them Dionysius of Halicarnassus, considered mimesis to be the stylistic and ideological imitation of literary models, always represented by the Athenian orators of the fourth century BC. The relationship between mimesis of literary models and canon-formation has been highlighted by Helmut Flashar in a very influential paper on Classicism in Rome. According to Flashar, the creation of literary canons (Kanonbildung) by the Alexandrian scholars Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samothrace was the essential prerequisite for the emergence of a mimetic theory. In other words, the canons established by the scholars of Alexandria were the models for a mimesis based on Classicism, which was shaped in the first century BC in a Roman environment. The Hellenistic lists of canonical authors provided a selection of auctores imitandi. ⁹ Canonical selection functions as the premise for a literary Classicism. Or is it the other way around? Some possible answers to this question will be provided in the course of the book. Here it suffices to say that a classicistic attitude was already operating in the age of Isocrates. Imitation, Classicism, and literary criticism: all of these notions collide in the analysis of literary canons and each contributed to the shaping of the canons of ancient Greek historiography in antiquity. However, since “une œuvre où il y a des théories est comme un objet sur lequel on laisse la marque du prix,”¹⁰ I will not linger any further on theoretical premises. A much more fruitful approach is to consider the literary and historical context that lies beneath the canon-formation processes of any given age.¹¹ The first chapter of this book deals with all issues related to terminology, starting with the idea of canons in antiquity and then dealing with the modern history of

 For a linguistic and a lexical analysis, see Koller (1954); the chapter on La doctrine de la mimé sis in Bompaire (1958) 12 154 is a classic treatment of this argument; for a recent contribution, see Halliwell (2002).  Flashar (1979b) 83 87.  These are Proust’s words: Ronald Syme quoted them in an unpublished paper written in French, “Tacite et Proust,” recently published by Federico Santangelo: the citation should prob ably be linked with Syme’s well known dislike for theoretical and methodological statements: Syme (2013) 136.  See Heldmann (1982) 131 146 for a rhetorical perspective of this problematic.

4

Introduction

the word. When Ruhnken in 1768 described the selections of ancient authors in different literary genres with the Latin word canon, he used a word that was already extensively employed in a religious context. Since the canons of the Church were (supposed to be) unchanging, the word itself led to a series of misinterpretations of ancient literary canons, which I have tried to expound. The debate on the origin and nature of literary canons lasted until the beginning of the twentieth century, and its echoes can still be heard today. Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory was among Ruhnken’s principal sources for the analysis of ancient literary canons: therefore, I have considered this influential Latin author alongside Ruhnken and the modern polemic on ancient literary canons. In the second chapter I have ventured to consider Cicero’s writings, especially those where he discussed ancient Greek historiography at length, such as the On the Orator, the Orator, the Brutus, and the fragmentary philosophical dialogue Hortensius. His writings reveal a thorough familiarity with ancient Greek historians, even if he probably did not have a direct knowledge of all the works he mentions. Nevertheless, Cicero is the earliest testimony for the history of the canons of ancient Greek historians, and his insights are extremely relevant to the topic of this book. Chapter three tackles the rhetorical works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the rhetor and historian of the Augustan age. In the introduction to his treatises on ancient orators, Dionysius states that he will also consider the ancient historians, which he did in the essay On Imitation, a work preserved only through a much abbreviated epitome; fortunately, Dionysius himself included a large portion of the On Imitation in the Letter to Pompeius. Here Dionysius discussed various historians he considered worthy of imitation: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Philistus, and Theopompus. However, in Dionysius’ opinion, they are not equally worthy, an opinion he elucidated at length. His treatment of Thucydides is remarkable, since Dionysius, against most ancient and modern critics, did not approve of many of the historian’s distinctive traits. For this reason, a final section of the third chapter focuses on the reception of Dionysius’ negative assessment of Thucydides’ historical work, concentrating mainly on an anonymous commentary on papyrus, on Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides, and on Thomas Hobbes. Chapter four is again focused on Dionysius, this time from a different perspective, namely his contribution, especially through his rhetorical treatises, to the idea of Classicism and the way this idea shaped the canons of historiography. There are many clues that point us to think in this direction, from matters of chronology, to the content of historical works, to Isocrates’ shadow over Greek historiography.

Introduction

5

I have exploited Isocrates’ presence in Dionysius to take a chronological detour and get back to fourth-century-BC Athens and the first steps in the creation of historiographical canons. The first and foremost authors included in later canonical selections are also the authors whose combined narrative created a continuous history: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Theopompus, who continued Thucydides’ work with the Hellenica. I have ventured to show that the notion of historical cycle contributed to the formation of the canons of historiography. Two influential figures of the fourth-century-BC intellectual milieu, Isocrates and Aristotle, also played their part in this history: I have considered their writings in searching for clues on their judgement of history and historiography. Finally, after recognizing that the selections of Greek historians in Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian rely on a common tradition, I have attempted an analysis of the (meagre) evidence provided by Hellenistic-age sources. Hence in chapter five I have tried to get a glimpse of the history of the canons of Greek historiography before the fundamental testimonies of the first century BC and first century AD, while in chapter six I have considered what happened after them, by analysing imperial-age rhetorical treatises and school-texts (Progymnasmata). My analysis culminates with a remarkable passage in Hermogenes’ On the Categories of Style, where this influential and highly appreciated second-century-AD rhetorician recommended to his readers the study and imitatation of some Greek historians and advised against the imitation and emulation of certain others. It is evident from Hermogenes’ vocabulary that he knew about and utilized a canonical selection that already existed before him (but not earlier than pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime, Demetrius’ On Style, and Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata). The history of the canons, however, is not straightforward, since in the second half of the third century AD the rhetorician Menander of Laodicea on the Lycus, or Menander Rhetor, expressed warm appreciation for some of the historians previously excluded from Hermogenes’ canon of historiography. This is one example of a trait common within the history of literary canons: each authority that issued canonical lists of authors influenced the subsequent tradition only to a certain degree. In other words, each of the sources that define the history of the canons needs to be thoroughly and individually considered in order to grasp the motives behind the selection it proposes. This approach guided me throughout the writing of this book, and especially in chapter seven, where a great variety of sources have been considered, from Dio Chrysostom to Ausonius and Jerome. This final, diachronic chapter shows the way in which different authors reacted to the canons and at the same time helped to shape them, from the emperor Julian in the East to the Latin poet Ausonius in the West, passing through the pap-

6

Introduction

yrological documentation in imperial Egypt, and concluding with the lists of authors preserved in a few Byzantine manuscripts. The topic is not, as it might seem, merely restricted to the domain of theoretical literary enquiry. Each ancient author considered in this book contributed to the shaping of the canons in his own way, offering distinctive perspectives on various historians and ancient historiography in general. In turn, the canons shaped the reception and the history of the tradition of the authors therein included. I have included and discussed numerous authors and different eras with the aim of providing the fullest possible picture. My analysis, however, does not aspire to completeness. My hope is only that it will stimulate further research on a fascinating, complex, and manifold subject.

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day 1.1 The Idea of Literary Canons in Ancient Thought Des buecher schreibens ist zuvil, wer kan sy all lesen? Martin Luther, Schriften (1543)

At the Athenian festival of Lenaia in the month of Gamelion of 405 BC (approx. January), when Athens was about to lose the thirty-year-long war against Sparta, Aristophanes staged the Frogs, a comedy focused on Dionysius’ journey in the underworld: his task was to resurrect, as it were, Euripides or Aeschylus in order to save Athens from the impending defeat. The fact that Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were the best representatives of tragic poetry was understood by Aristophanes and his audience. As it happens, the Frogs preserve the most ancient testimony for a literary canon in Greek literature. However, there were ancient traditions concerning the collection and performance of the Homeric epic poems in fixed sequence in sixth century Athens,¹ which shows that Homer was already canonical at this stage of the history of the text’s reception. It is not by mere chance that the Iliad and the Odyssey – the epic poems praised by Aristotle for their uniformity and for their appropriate subject matter² – prevailed among the epic cycles of the Archaic age.³ In an oral tradition, such as Greek Archaic poetry, the selection of the most valuable literary works is simple and direct: if a work does not gain immediate success, it is destined to be forgotten within the next generation. On the other hand, where a written tradition perdures, even if a work is ignored for many generations, it can nonetheless be recovered and reassessed after hundreds of years.⁴ The canon of Greek writers of tragedies and epic poetry was often a consequence of the tastes and opinions of the public. Genres that were admitted to fes-

 According to Plat. Hipp. 228b c it was Hipparchus, son of the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus, that ordered such fixed performance, while Diog. Laert. 1.57 reports almost the same words, but this time in connection to the lawgiver Solon. On the possibility of an edition of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey in the age of the Pisistratides see Catenacci (1993); a more cautious overview, with fur ther bibliography and discussion of the problem, in Nagy (1996) 69 80. On the relationship be tween epic cycles and canon formation, see Nicolai (2013) 32 34.  See Arist. Poet. 1451a19 30 and 1459a30 b7. Cf. Broggiato (2014) 50.  On the epic tradition in the sixth century BC: Sbardella (2012).  Cf. Most (1990) 43. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 002

8

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

tivals and agones rose above all other genres. This mechanism has been labelled performative canon.⁵ But not all genres of Greek literature could have benefitted from such a direct connection with the audience. In both ancient and modern canons, there are at least three selection criteria: aesthetic excellence; fear of extinction; the abundance of books. The most obvious metric of canonical merit gauges excellence in style and form, even if standards of excellence change synchronically and diachronically and are determined by aesthetic values. There are different cultural and literary standards for any single epoch and for each literary genre: this will be apparent throughout this study. The second fundamental issue in canonical selection was highlighted by Jan Gorak: the fear for oblivion in a moment of crisis. This is exactly the scheme operating in Aristophanes’ Frogs in the late fifth century Athens.⁶ It portrays the importance of political environment in the selection process of canonical literature. On a personal and illustrative level: if there were a fire in your house and you were given a few minutes to save only a dozen books from your own library, wouldn’t you try to save those books that you consider the most valuable in economic as well as emotional terms? Opposite, but related to the previous criterion, is the rule of the abundance of books. “Quand je pense à tous les livres qu’il me reste à lire, j’ai la certitude d’être encore heureux,” wrote the French novelist and dramatist Jules Renard in his diary.⁷ At first glance it seems that the author is delighted by the future prospect of having still many books to read. But the phrase is ambiguous, as Glenn Most has amusingly pointed out,⁸ and another grammatical interpretation cannot be excluded. It displays anxiety towards the present: Renard can still be happy as long as he does not read all those books, and the mere idea of reading them will destroy his present happiness.⁹ No ambiguity, on the other hand, is recognisable in one of Seneca’s letter to Lucilius, when the author recalls that Cicero is reported to have said that even two lives would not have been enough to read all the lyric poets.¹⁰ Here we face the uneasiness prompted by a great

 Nicolai (2014a) 35.  Gorak (1991); Gorak (1997) 561; Nicolai (2007a).  Renard (1965) 763: the phrase was written on 24 June 1902.  Most (1990) 35 36.  The ambiguity could have been avoided, had Renard used the future (“je serai encore heur eux”) or the present (“je suis encore heureux”); but the infinitive “être heureux” leaves the phrase open to interpretation.  Sen. Ep. 49.5 (= Cic. Hort. fr. 35 Straume Zimmermann, fr. 12 Grilli): Negat Cicero, si duplicetur sibi aetas, habiturum se tempus quo legat lyricos.

1.1 The Idea of Literary Canons in Ancient Thought

9

abundance of books which cannot be mastered in an entire lifetime. Many centuries after Cicero, at the dawn of the spread of mechanical type printing in Europe, Martin Luther in 1543 complained of the excessive number of writers of books: “Too many are the books which are being written; who can read them all?”¹¹ The selection process becomes emphasized when the abudance of texts exceeds the time we are given to read them all: “Who reads must choose, since there is literally not enough time to read everything, even if one does nothing but read.”¹² An analysis published in the scientific journal Science has calculated that if you attempted to read only English-language books published in the year 2000 alone, considering a reasonable pace of 200 words per minute and without any interruption for food and sleep, it would take 80 years.¹³ A similar apprehension to Cicero’s and Martin Luther’s, even if on a different scale, must have been felt by the Alexandrian scholars when dealing with the totality of Greek literary production. The first attested collection and cataloguing of literary works in the history of libraries belongs to the Alexandrian cultural environment, the most famous example being the Pinakes of Callimachus. The poet-scholar of Alexandria compiled an inventory of “tables (pinakes) of men distinguished in every branch of education, and their works, in 120 books.”¹⁴ We face here not a selection, but only a systematic gathering of all available literature.¹⁵ Seneca complained about the Alexandrian sovereigns’ “learned luxury” since they collected an enormous number of books, not for the sake of learning, but to make a show, just like those who use books to decorate their dining rooms.¹⁶  Luther (1928) 3: “Des buecher schreibens ist zuvil, wer kan sy all lesen?”  Bloom (1994) 15.  See Michel et al. (2011) 176. See also the quantitative approach to literature in Moretti (2000a) and Moretti (2005) 3 33. Moretti’s approach and its usefulness for the study of canonical liter ature is discussed below § 1.5.  Suda κ 227 (Call. test. 1 Pfeiffer): Πίνακες τῶν ἐν πάσῃ παιδείᾳ διαλαμψάντων, καὶ ὧν συνέγραψαν, ἐν βιβλίοις κ´ καὶ ρ′. Pfeiffer (1968) 128 suggested that the whole lemma of the Suda, the tenth century Byzantine encyclopaedia, was originally the introduction to an edition of Callimachus’ poems. All the fragments of the Pinakes are collected in Call. fr. 429 453 Pfeiffer. Blum (1977) 169 198 claimed that Callimachus’ Pinakes coincided with the Alexandrian library’s catalogue, but this possibility was recently rejected with the publication of P.Oxy. 1241: cf. Otran to (2000) XVII; Houston (2014) 40 n. 4. An example of similar pinakes are to be found in the famous inscription from the library of Tauromenium dated to the beginning of the second cen tury BC: Manganaro 1974; Blanck 1997; Battistoni 2006 (see below § 3.4).  Regenbogen (1950) 1420: “Jedenfalls waren die 130 [an error for 120, which is the number reported by Suda κ 227] Bücher dieses Werkes kein Katalog, sondern eine Bestandsaufnahme der gesamte erhaltenen griechischen Literatur.”  Sen. Tranq. 9.5.

10

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

quo innumerabiles libros et bybliothecas, quarum dominus vix tota vita indices perlegit? on erat discentem turba, non instruit, multoque satius est paucis te auctoribus tradere, quam er rare per multos (Sen. Tranq. 9.4). What is the use of having countless books and libraries, whose titles their owners can scarcely read through in a whole lifetime? The learner is, not instructed, but burdened by the mass of them, and it is much better to surrender yourself to a few authors than to wander through many.

A younger contemporary of Seneca, Pliny the Elder, made use of the countless books Seneca was complaining about to produce the most important encyclopaedic work of antiquity, the Natural History. But even if this learned author read and reviewed a great amount of material, he was aware that his reader could not possibly do the same. Hence he appended to the prefatory letter a table of contents that the reader could exploit to look for specific points, being thus dispensed from having to read through the whole, colossal Natural History. ¹⁷ Pliny’s aim was to provide the reader with a subdivision of knowledge that responded to a thematic choice.¹⁸ It was a possible solution to the abundance of books in the first century AD. Another was put forward by Pliny’s homonymous nephew in one of his letters. After having expounded upon the benefits of translating Greek into Latin and Latin into Greek, he concludes with a concise but effective comment on what his addressee, Fuscus Salinator, should read: “Remember,” Pliny says, “to make a careful selection from representative authors in each genre, for they say that one should be deeply, not widely, read” (Plin. Ep. 7.9.15: tu memineris sui cuiusque generis auctores diligenter eligere. aiunt enim multum legendum esse, non multa). The need for a selection, as suggested by Seneca and Pliny the Younger, must have already been felt in Alexandria. Only one generation after Callimachus, the scholar and grammarian Aristophanes of Byzantium wrote a work entitled Against the Tables of Callimachus (Πρὸς τοὺς Καλλιμάχου πίνακας): it had primarily a grammatical scope, but was also intended as a response to Callimachus’ collection.¹⁹ Even more significant is Quintilian’s testimony on Aristarchus

 Plin. preaf. 33: quia occupationibus tuis publico bono parcendum erat, quid singulis continer etur libris, huic epistulae subiunxi summaque cura, ne legendos eos haberes, operam dedi. tu per hoc et aliis praestabis ne perlegant, sed, ut quisque desiderabit aliquid, id tantum quaerat et sciat quo loco inveniat.  On Pliny’s encyclopaedic project and his indexes: Naas (2002) 22, 172 192, etc.  Only two fragments of Aristophanes’ Πρὸς τοὺς Καλλιμάχου πίνακας survive, frr. 368 369 Slater, transmitted respectively in Athen. 9.408 f and in a text preserved in the codex Parisinus suppl. gr. 1238 assigned to the pseudo Ammonios: see the edition in Nickau (1967) 348 349. Cf. also Slater (1976) and Slater (1989). Despite these meagre remains, it can be suggested

1.1 The Idea of Literary Canons in Ancient Thought

11

of Samothrace and Aristophanes of Byzantium as those who judged the poets and included or excluded them from their selections.²⁰ As these exemples show, the collection of all available texts is a necessary premise to selection and, consequently, to canonization. Evidence for canon-formation in Hellenistic Alexandria comes not only from Aristophanes’ criticism of Callimachus’ Pinakes, but also from various papyrological documentation. A famous Berlin papyrus of the first century BC (P.Berol. 13044r) offers important clues on the Hellenistic cultural environment that produced canonical lists. The first part of the recto (1‒6.9) preserves the Dialogue of Alexander and the Gymnosophists, the wise men of India, the earliest version of this fictional encounter.²¹ The second section is occupied by a list of names of famous men (lawgivers, painters, ἀγαλματοποιοί and ἀνδριαντοποιοί, architects, and engineers: 6.10‒8.21), followed by the seven wonders of the ancient world and lists of islands, mountains, rivers, springs, and lakes (8.22‒12.17).²² This portion of P.Berol. 13044r has been called Laterculi Alexandrini by its first editor, Hermann Diels, who simply dismissed it as a product of Hellenistic erudition, as it clearly displays geographical and paradoxographical interests.²³ The text on the recto was written by the regular and elegant hand of a teacher and belongs to a group of cartonnage papyri from Abusir el-Melek, but was probably created in Alexandria.²⁴ According to Bernard Legras, the author of the text was familiar with the geographical works of Eratosthenes, Hipparchus of Bithynia and Agatharchides of Cnidus: hence the papyrus had a scholarly rather than didactic purpose.²⁵ There is no clear evidence for direct references to Eratosthenes or other geographical authors in the text, but Giambattista D’Alessio has inciden-

that Aristophanes’ Πρὸς τοὺς Καλλιμάχου πίνακας was an anagraphe where single problems of Wortunterscheidung were considered, but at the same time the opinions of previous grammari ans were criticized.  Quint. Inst. 10.1.54: Apollonius in ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Aristarchus atque Aristophanes poetarum iudices neminem sui temporis in numerum redegerunt (for a discus sion of this passage see below § 1.3).  Editio princeps in Wilcken (1923); text reproduced in FGrHist 153 F 9. See Stramaglia (1996) 113 114, Bosman (2010), and Pajón Leyra (2017) for further bibliography.  The verso of P.Berol. 13044, which was written later than the Laterculi and the Dialogue, pre serves a paraphrase of an Orphic poem on the rape of Persephone (BKT 5.1, 7 18; cf. 383, 387 389, 392 393, 396 397 T Bernabé); cf. Jiménez San Cristóbal (2015) for further bibliography.  Diels (1904). See also Fraser (1972) 1.452.  For the hand: Cribiore (1996) 270 nr. 380. Cf. Reiter (2007). For the origin: Salmenkivi (2002) 42 44.  Legras (1997) 591 593.

12

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

tally remarked that the presence of the Balearic Islands in the papyrus coincides with the opinion of Timaeus on their size, which was criticized by Strabo.²⁶ Moreover, presence of some less-known Athenian artists in P.Berol. 13044r could point to an Athenian source,²⁷ while the names of the islands find a direct parallel in a popular song attested on a metrical inscription from Chios published in 1960, as pointed out by Irene Pajón Leyra.²⁸ As it appears from this brief overview, many sources coalesced in the composition of the Laterculi Alexandrini. This miscellaneous work from Alexandria displays a taste for learned lists of both people and places. P.Berol. 13044r has often been compared to another document, P.Oxy. 1241, an alleged “characteristic product of Alexandrian erudition,” as its first editors suggested.²⁹ This papyrus, assigned to the first half of the second century AD, displays lists of mythological, biographical, and historical material.³⁰ A recent study has called into question the assumption that the text represents a reliable work of ancient scholarly compilation, and considered the numerous chronological and factual errors that occur in the papyrus: since P.Oxy. 1241 does not conform to Quintilian’s ideal of good compendia and grammarians’ notes (see Inst. 1.8.18‒21), and since the mythical accounts referred to are either obscure or do not occur anywhere else, it is likely that the text exemplifies a literary parody rather than a learned, paraliterary compendium.³¹ However, there is no clear proof to confirm the possibility that the text represents a literary parody. Giuseppe Solaro has thoroughly reconsidered a section of P.Oxy. 1241 and concluded: “si tratta probabilmente dei resti di un taccuino, di annotazioni fugaci destinate forse ad un contesto scolastico.”³² This conclusion goes back to the hypothesis of a paraliterary compendium, which still retains a high degree of plausibility. Examples of lists of authors, phenomena or events occur in many sources of the Roman Imperial age, from Pliny’s Natural History to Hyginus’ Fabulae down to Ampelius’ Liber memorialis and Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata. ³³ Some of  See Timae. FGrHist 566 F 65 apud Strabo 14.2.10 C 654. Cf. D’Alessio (2012) 308, followed by Pajón Leyra (2014) 87.  Hebert (1986).  Pajón Leyra (2014).  First edition in Grenfell/Hunt (1914): quotation comes from 99 100.  For a discussion see van Rossum Steenbeek (1998) 137 139.  Murray (2012).  Solaro (2016).  Plin. NH 7.200 202 (list of protoi heuretai), 34.84, 35.15 (list of sculptors and painters); Quint. Inst. 12.10.3 10 (lists of painters and artists in general); Hyg. Fab. 221 (Septem sapientes), 222 (Septem lyrici), 223 (Septem opera mirabilia), 273 (Qui primi ludos fecerunt), 274 (Quis quid inve

1.2 Canon: A Brief History of the Word

13

these sources include mythographical compilations, some others refer to catalogues of authors, while the most significant typology is represented by lists of inventors that go under the label of protoi heuretai (πρῶτοι εὑρεταί) and, generally, heuremata (εὑρήματα). Heurematographical literature is concerned with inventions and discoveries in the broadest sense. It represents a response to a quest of the origins through a theory of invention (Theorie der Erfindungen) that belonged initially to the fifth century BC.³⁴ Literary canons display some similarities with heurematographical literature, since the authors included in canonical lists are often considered, implicitly or explicitly, the first to have invented a genre, or at least the first to have excelled in it.

1.2 Canon: A Brief History of the Word The history of the word canon, meaning “a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works” or “an authoritative list of books,” is a relatively recent one.³⁵ It is universally assumed that the word was first employed by David Ruhnken (1723‒1798) in his 1768 edition of Publius Rutilius Lupus’ De figuris. In the introduction, entitled Historia critica oratorum Graecorum, Ruhnken delivered a short history of the texts of the ancient orators. According to his interpretation, the renowned selection of the ten Attic orators occurred in the library of Alexandria and was one of the philological efforts of Aristarchus of Samothrace and Aristophanes of Byzantium. In the key passage of his interpretation, Ruhnken used the Latin word canon, which usually meant “norm” or “rule,” with the new meaning of “selection of a given number of authors within different literary genres:”

nerit), 275 (Oppida qui quae condiderunt), 276 (Insulae maximae), 277 (Rerum inventores primi); Amp. 6 (De orbe terrarum, where Ampelius describes the known world and its regions and in cludes lists of ethnic names, mountains, rivers, islands), 8 (mythographical material); Ath. Mech. 10.5, 27.2, 29.9 (lists of protoi heuretai related to machines); Ael. VH 3.38 (inventions of the Athenians); Clem. Al. Strom. 1.16.74 76 (protoi heuretai); Tatianus, Ad Gr. 1 (inventions ascri bed to barbarians). For the practice of learned citations in the works of mythographers of the Roman Imperial age: Cameron (2004) 89 163; for an analysis of paraliterary (or subliterary) pa pyri that includes lists of mythographical material: van Rossum Steenbeek (1998).  Kremmer (1890); Kleingünther (1933); Regenbogen (1950) 1466 1472; for the Theorie der Er findungen: Thraede (1962) 166 170. For earlier bibliography: van Rossum Steenbeek (1998) 120 121.  See the Merriam Webster online dictionary (https://www.merriam webster.com) for its differ ent meanings in English.

14

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

For Aristarchus [of Samothrace] and Aristophanes of Byzantium, two critics of outstanding intellect and extraordinary learning, made their appearance, and, having realised that a great crowd of writers could harm rather than benefit good literature, they carried out a firm review of writers of all kinds, following their own judgement. Therefore, from a great abundance of orators they brought only ten into the canon [in canonem] (…).³⁶

These words are followed by the list of the ten greatest Athenian orators (Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Hyperides, Dinarchus), of the epic, iambic, elegiac, lyric, tragic and comic poets. Last comes the canon of historiography: In the judgement [censura] of the historians, only Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Theopompus, Ephorus, Anaximenes, and Callisthenes are approved.³⁷

The keyword here is censura, from the verb censeo, a Latin word for judgement, something that comes after proper evaluation. Here it refers specifically to the judgement of the works of the Greek historians by ancient grammarians. Ruhnken, born in Stolp in Pomerania (present-day Słupsk in Poland) in 1723, attended university in Wittenberg, excelling in Latin eloquence and Roman antiquities, customary subjects at the university level during the eighteenth century.³⁸ However, his interests in Greek literature and language, a neglected field in German universities at the time, encouraged him to move to Leiden where he became the assistant of Tiberius Hemsterhuys, one of the most prominent classical scholars in Europe, and later took over the Chair of Latin and History. In 1763, after Johann Matthias Gesner’s death, he turned down the prestigious Chair of Eloquence in Göttingen, but recommended for it Christian Gottlob Heyne, who became a leading figure of German Neuhumanismus (Heyne will appear again in the following pages). Ruhnken’s fame was such that he was the dedicatee

 Ruhnken (1768) XCIV XCV: “Exorti enim sunt duo summo ingenio et singulari doctrina crit ici, Aristarchus et Aristophanes Byzantius, qui, cum animadvertissent, ingentem scriptorum tur bam plus obesse bonis literis, quam prodesse, suum judicium secuti, certum omnis generis scriptorum delectum haberent. Itaque ex magna Oratorum copia tanquam in canonem decem duntaxat retulerunt (…).”  Ruhnken (1768) XCV: “In historicorum censura probati sunt Herodotus, Thucydides, Xeno phon, Theopompus, Ephorus, Anaximenes, Callisthenes.” Ruhnken’s canon of historiography differs from the sources he employed: see § 1.4.  David Ruhnken’s biography, published in 1799, was written by one of his favorite pupils, Daniel Wyttenbach, while Ruhnken himself wrote an Elogium of his teacher Hemsterhuys: both texts are collected in Bergman (1824). On Ruhnken’s life, writings, and fame see also Sandys (1908) 2.456 461; on Hemsterhuys see Sandys (1908) 2.447 453. Moreover, see Nicolai (2015b) 206 208.

1.2 Canon: A Brief History of the Word

15

of Friedrich August Wolf’s Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795), where Wolf called him princeps criticorum. ³⁹ Ruhnken’s use of the Latin word canon, a transliteration of the Greek κανών, was not a casual choice: “it was the Greeks who bequeathed to the West the practice of singling out certain writers as the best, as the ones most worthy of serious, prolonged, and repeated attention.”⁴⁰ However, ancient critics did not use κανών or any derivative term to define a selection of authors. Instead they used the verb ἐγκρίνω, and the selected writers were called ἐγκριθέντες.⁴¹ In the grammatical exegesis of the Hellenistic and later times, the Greek κανών means “rule” or “model” (like the Latin regula).⁴² Because of these semantic mismatches of the word, Ruhnken’s unconventional use of canon was fiercely reproached by Rudolf Pfeiffer in the History of Classical Scholarship: “One should be aware that this is not the proper significance of the Greek κανών but a modern catachresis that originated in the eighteenth century.”⁴³ Only in the religious context of Late Antiquity did the word gradually acquire a meaning that resembles the modern use of canon. Among Christian authors, it occurs for the first time in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (second/third century AD). After quoting Jesus’ words, he goes on to say: “living accordingly to the laws of evangelical message [i. e. the Gospel]” (Strom. 4.15: κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου πολιτευσάμενος). Phrases like ὁ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς κανών or ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας in early Christian writers convey the meaning of law or

 Wolf (1884) (cf. Grafton/Most/Zetzel [1985]); moreover, in § 31 Wolf praises Ruhnken’s valid verdict on the Homeric authorship of the Iliad. However, Ruhnken was sceptical of Wolf’s thesis, as testified by a letter sent to the author of the Prolegomena on 3 August 1795 (see Mahne [1834] 90). Incidentally, it is interesting to mention that Wilamowitz, who was later known as the princeps philologorum, did not exhibit great sympathy for Ruhnken in his Geschichte der Philo logie and wrote that the Historia critica oratorum Graecorum “does not deserve to be called a his tory:” Wilamowitz (1921) 39 40 (English transl. [1982] 88 89).  Most (1990) 38.  A significant example is Phot. Bibl. cod. 61, 20b25: τὸν μέντοι Λυσανίου Αἰσχίνην ἄλλοι τε καὶ Φρύνιχος μᾶλλον (…) εἰς τοὺς ἀρίστους ἐγκρίνει, κανόνα μετά γε τοὺς πρώτους ᾿Aττικοῦ λόγου τοὺς ἐκείνου ἀποφαινόμενος λόγους. The word κανών means “model” among those who used the Attic language. For the participle ἐγκριθέντες, see Suda δ 333: Δείναρχος, Κορίν θιος, ῥήτωρ, τῶν Δημοσθένου ἐγκριθέντων εἷς. Cf. Pfeiffer (1968) 206.  See Steffen (1876) 12 n. 7, and especially Oppel (1937). The word appears also in the rhetorical treatises of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, discussed in § 3 and § 4, where κανών means linguistic rule or norm (see Lys. 2.1, Pomp. 3.16, Dem. 41.2), while once it is referred exclusively to Thucy dides as a “model of historical narrative (…) and deliberative oratory” (Th. 2.2).  Pfeiffer (1968) 207.

16

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

rule in accordance to the teaching of the Church.⁴⁴ For a meaning directly connected to the holy scripture, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Historia ecclesiastica, published after Constantine’s victory over Licinius in AD 324, provides a significant clue. Dealing with Origen’s comment on the Gospel of Matthew, the Bishop of Caesarea says: “preserving the canon of the Church, he [Origen] testifies that he knows only four Gospels” (Hist. eccl. 6.25.3: τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φυλάττων κανόνα, μόνα τέσσαρα εἰδέναι εὐαγγέλια μαρτύρει). Another such instance comes in Athanasius’ On the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, written shortly after AD 350, where the text by a certain Hermas is mentioned as “not being part of the canon” (μὴ ὂν ἐκ τοῦ κανόνος).⁴⁵ The same Christian author, in one of his Festive letters of AD 367, discerns between canonized texts (κανονιζόμενα) and well-known texts (ἀναγινωσκόμενα), while both are opposed to apocryphal works (ἀπόκρυφα).⁴⁶ From the middle of the fourth century AD onwards, the Greek verbal forms κανονίζειν and ἀποκανονίζειν (“put into the canon” and “take out of the canon”), as well as the adjective κανονικός (“canonical”), and of course the noun κανών, are all terms that refer to the Bible and belong to the Church tradition. Despite a general idea of holy canonical texts as closed and unchanging, there were different stages in their respective histories. The Greek version of the Jewish laws (Torah), also known as the Septuagint, purportedly translated from the Hebrew in Hellenistic Alexandria, might be considered the first attempt to a canonized religious text of the Jewish community in second-century-BC Alexandria. The canon of the Hebrew Bible is still a debated issue. As Timothy H. Lim puts it, “by the end of the first century AD, there was a canon that most Jews accepted. I emphasize most and not all because the search for a universally accepted canon is illusory. Disagreements existed in the past and continue in the present. When this canon actually closed is not clear, but a rough estimate of between 150 and 250 CE would not be far off the mark.”⁴⁷

 See e. g. Clem. Al. Strom. 6.15; Athan. Apol. contra Ar. 29.1, 30.1; Socrates, Hist. eccl. 2.37.82; etc. Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 6.13.3) cites a work of Clement of Alexandria with the title of Κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός.  Athan. De decr. Nic. syn. 18.3. Both Oppel (1937) 70 72 and Souter (1953) 142 143 quote this passage of Athanasius, but they didn’t notice Eusebius’ use of κανών, which was identified only by Pfeiffer (1968) 207 n. 4.  Athan. Ep. fer. 39.75.  Lim (2013) 180, cf. 178 188 where the complex issue of the formation of the Jewish canon is summarized; see also Lim (2017). For a slightly different perspective and the proposal to gener ally avoid the term canon when discussing the formation of the Hebrew Bible, see Dempster (2016).

1.2 Canon: A Brief History of the Word

17

The New Testament is the product of an elaborate selection that occurred between the second and the fourth century AD.⁴⁸ Athanasius’ distinction between canonized, well-known, and apocryphal holy texts shows that the process was still ongoing in AD 367. The collection of sacred texts known as the Vedas can be compared to the texts of the Jewish and Christian traditions. The Vedas also display a strong contrast between the idea of immutable canons and the constant modifications that these alleged canons underwent.⁴⁹ Moreover, the distinction between Greek and Latin usage should be emphasized: “The canon was closed, complete, and authoritative in the way that the κανών never was, and, indeed, never has been.”⁵⁰ When Ruhnken employed the Latin word canon to define a selection of the best classical Greek authors, he could not have ignored the tradition of the canonical holy scriptures. Despite the inherent paradox of the canon as both changing and immutable, in modern European languages the word has acquired the idea of something that is fixed, unchanging, and unalterable, just like God’s word is supposed to be.⁵¹ But if a selection of holy texts has a great political relevance and is not supposed to be modified – at least not without serious consequences – a literary canon is never fixed or irrefutable. It is rather the product of different historical, political, and cultural conditions. A final remark before concluding this section. A few years before the publication of Ruhnken’s Historia critica, a work clearly meant for the academic world, the word canon was used by a learned Italian writer, the Venetian Gasparo Gozzi (1713‒1786). In the short-lived periodical Gazzetta veneta, founded by Gozzi himself and aimed at a well-read audience, he compared Latin and Italian literature claiming that among the Italians there have been “cultured and barbarian centuries:” in those centuries when culture excelled there were “universally accepted good writers and poets, according to the canon received by all cultured nations.”⁵²

 The textual history of the New Testament is summarized in Maisano (2014) 80 83.  On the Vedas, see Ferrara (2012) 52: “Alla luce degli studi recenti e contrariamente alla dif fusa e penalizzante visione di un ‘corpus dei Veda’ monolitico e statico, è oramai chiaro che il materiale vedico è frutto di una progressiva messa in forma del canone con ricorrenti fasi di ria pertura, modifica e chiusura dei contorni del canone, dunque con ricorrenti fasi di selezione, manipolazione, negoziazione, riqualificazione.”  Souter (1953) 143.  On this paradox of the canon, see Nicolai (2013).  Gozzi (1760 1761) nr. LXXXV: “È stato il buon secolo degli scrittori e de’ poeti appresso i Lat ini, e vi sono le età dell’oro, di argento ecc. L’autore del Nuovo segreto non può negare questo, né può negare che fino al giorno d’oggi sussita questa distinzione, né può negare che appresso gl’Italiani non siano corsi i secoli colti e i secoli barbari, né può negare che fra gli autori dei se

18

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

The meaning of the Italian canone in this sentence is the same as the Latin canon employed by Ruhnken less than ten years later. The age of Enlightenment and encyclopaedism was clearly the most appropriate time to rethink ancient literary canons.

1.3 Greek Literature in the Hands of a Latin Grammarian: Quintilian’s Selection The most authoritative surviving testimony on the formation of ancient literary canons is represented by Quintilians’ Institutes of Oratory, one of the main sources for Ruhnken’s history of ancient Greek oratory. In the first book of the Institutes, Quintilian lingers on the judgement (iudicium) of the ancient grammarians (veteres grammatici) that have not only marked some spurious Homeric verses and dismissed whole books falsely ascribed to such and such a writer, but have also “selected some authors according to their rank, while some others were dismissed altogether.”⁵³ Who are the veteres grammatici mentioned by Quintilian? The answer lays in the tenth book of the Institutes, where Quintilian gives a detailed analysis of the most remarkable ancient authors that should be exploited for didactic purposes.⁵⁴ The discussion begins with epic poetry and its most significant representative, Homer, who “provides the model and origin of every branch of eloquence” (10.1.46: omnibus eloquentiae partibus exemplum et ortum dedit). Following Homer, Quintilian’s catalogue continues with Hesiod, Antimachus of Colophon, Panyassis of Halicarnassus, and goes down to Apollonius Rhodius. Of the latter poet, Quintilian observes: Apollonius in ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Aristarchus atque Aristophanes poetarum iudices neminem sui temporis in numerum redegerunt (Quint. Inst. 10.1.54).

coli colti non sieno universalmente riconosciuti i buoni scrittori ed i buoni poeti, secondo il can one ricevuto da tutte le più colte nazioni.” Cf. Tatti (2015) 85 86.  Quint. Inst. 1.4.3: nam et scribendi ratio coniuncta cum loquendo est et enarrationem praecedit emendata lectio et mixtum his omnibus iudicium est: quo quidem ita severe sunt usi veteres gram matici ut non versus modo censoria quadam virgula notare et libros qui falso viderentur inscripti tamquam subditos summovere familia permiserint sibi, sed auctores alios in ordinem redegerint, alio omnino exemerint numero.  Quint. Inst. 10.1.37: credo exacturos plerosque, cum tantum esse utilitatis in legendo iudicemus, ut id quoque adiungamus operi, qui sint legendi, quae in auctore quoque praecipua virtus; 10.1.44 45: interim summatim quid et a qua lectione petere possint qui confirmare facultatem dicendi vo lent attingam. paucos (sunt enim eminentissimi) excerpere in animo est.

1.3 Greek Literature in the Hands of a Latin Grammarian: Quintilian’s Selection

19

Apollonius does not appear in the grammarians’ list, because Aristarchus and Aristo phanes, who evaluated the poets, included none of their own contemporaries.

Thus, the veteres grammatici mentioned in the first book are precisely the Alexandrian scholars Aristarchus of Samothrace and Aristophanes of Byzantium.⁵⁵ After discussing the greatest Greek epic poets, Quintilian criticizes a few Archaic and Hellenistic poets, from Pisander and Tyrtaeus, to Aratus, Theocritus, Nicander, and Euphorion (Inst. 10.1.55‒56). Callimachus and Philitas of Cos are then praised as representatives of elegiac poetry, while Archilochus is mentioned as the only truly admirable poet “among the three authors of iambic poets considered by Aristarchus.”⁵⁶ Finally, Pindar, within the canon of the nine lyric poets, is considered by far the greatest, for inspiration, magnificence, figures, and many other qualities.⁵⁷ The nine lyric poets, a number that can be traced back with certainty to the selection of Aristophanes of Byzantium, appears already in an epigram of an anonymous author in the Anthologia Palatina (9.184) dated approximately to 100 BC.⁵⁸ Here we find Bacchylides, Sappho, Anacreon, Stesichorus, Simonides, Ibycus, Alcaeus, Alcman, and Pindar in the foremost position. The sequence closes with the words: “you all, who fasten the beginning and end to lyric poetry” (Anth. Pal. 9.184.9‒10: πάσης / ἀρχὴν οἳ λυρικῆς καὶ πέρας ἐστάσατε). The same series of canonical lyric poets appears also in some first or second century AD epigrams: see Anth. Pal. 9.571 and the anonymous epigram entitled Εἰς τοὺς

 The words poetarum iudices in the passage just quoted, appear only in four codices recen tiores of the Institutes, a fact that has brought some doubts on their authenticity. Osann (1858) 4.8 9, in his critical annotations on Quintilian, was the first modern scholar to suggest the possibility of an interpolation: from a marginal note, which explained to the uninformed reader the role of Aristarchus and Aristophanes, the words could have been integrated in the text. This suggestion has been accepted by many editors and commentators of Quintilian’s tenth book (see Bassi [1899] 126; Peterson [1903] 35; Radermacher [1907] ad loc.; Winterbottom [1970] ad loc.), but it was formulated before Giorgio Pasquali’s Storia della tradizione e critica del testo and especially his chapter Recentiores non deteriores: the fact that the words poetarum iu dices appear only in later manuscripts is not a valuable proof to expel them from Quintialian’s text; he might well have referred to Aristarchus and Aristophanes as “judges of the poets,” be cause of their efforts in the exegesis of poetic texts (even if prose works were not completely ex cluded: see § 5.5).  Quint. Inst. 10.1.59: itaque ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum ad hexin maxime pertinebit unus Archilochus.  Quint. Inst. 10.1.61: novem vero lyricorum longe Pindarus princeps spiritu magnificentia, sen tentiis, figuris, beatissima rerum verborumque copia et velut quodam eloquentiae flumine.  On the dating of the epigram: Wilamowitz (1900a) 5 followed by Pfeiffer (1968) 205. On Aristophanes’ role in the selection process: Wilamowitz (1900a) 17 and Gallo (1974) 105 106.

20

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

ἐννέα λυρικούς found in some Pindaric manuscripts (schol. Pind. 1.10‒11 Drachmann).⁵⁹ Finally Horace, in the first century BC, in the dedicatory verses of his Odes, hopes to be included among the ranks of the Greek lyric poets: Quod si me lyricis vatibus inseres (Hor. Carm. 1.1.35). Even if he doesn’t give the exact number, we can suppose that his reader knew it. Quintilian, however, mentions only three lyric poets by name – Stesichorus, Alcaeus and Simonides (Inst. 10.1.62‒64) – but knew that their canonical number was nine (see Inst. 10.1.61). Within the genre of ancient comedy, “almost unique in preserving intact the grace of the Attic language” (Inst. 10.1.65: cum sinceram illam sermonis Attici gratiam prope sola retinet), Quintilian’s choice includes Aristophanes, Eupolis and Cratinus, three representatives that were already praised by Horace in the Satires. ⁶⁰ On the other hand, tragedy has only three possible names, the canonical triad from the end of the fifth century BC: Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. After mentioning the importance of the poets of the New Comedy (Menander and Philemon), Quintilian deals with Greek historiography: historiam multi scripsere praeclare, sed nemo dubitat longe duos ceteris praeferendos, quo rum diversa virtus laudem paene est parem consecuta. densus et brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides, dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus: ille concitatis, hic remissis adfectibus me lior, ille contionibus, hic sermonibus, ille vi, hic voluptate. (74) Theopompus his proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis, ut qui, antequam est ad hoc opus sollici tatus, diu fuerit orator. Philistus quoque meretur qui turbae quamvis bonorum post eos auc torum eximatur, imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior, ita aliquatenus lucidior. Ephorus, ut Isocrati visum, calcaribus eget. Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur. (75) longo post intervallo temporis natus Timagenes vel hoc est ipso probabilis, quod intermissam historias scribendi industriam nova laude reparavit. Xenophon non excidit mihi, sed inter philosophos reddendus est (Quint. Inst. 10.1.73 75). History has been written by many with distinction, but no one questions that there are two far superior to the rest, whose very different excellences have won them almost equal praise. Thucydides is close textured, concise, always pressing himself hard: Herodotus is pleasing, transparent, expansive. Thucydides is better at the tenser emotions, Herodotus at the more relaxed; Thucydides at set speeches, Herodotus at dialogue; Thucydides excels in force, Herodotus in giving pleasure. Next to these comes Theopompus, inferior as a his torian to these two, but more like an orator, having indeed been one for a long time before he was diverted into history. Among the crowd of later historians, good though they were, Philistus deserves to be singled out; he imitated Thucydides, but was much feebler than his model, though somewhat more lucid. Ephorus, or so Isocrates thought, needed the spur. Clitarchus’ talents are respected, his veracity is impugned. Timagenes, born long after these, deserves respect for having revived the lapsed tradition of historical writing with

 Cf. Labarbe (1968); Gallo (1974); Barbantani (1993).  Hor. Sat. 1.4.1: Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae / atque alii, quorum comoedia prisca virorum est.

1.3 Greek Literature in the Hands of a Latin Grammarian: Quintilian’s Selection

21

fresh lustre. I have not forgotten Xenophon; he has his proper place among the philoso phers.

As it seems evident from this passage, Quintilian’s canon of Greek historians includes Thucydides, Herodotus, Theopompus, Philistus, Ephorus, Clitarchus, and Timagenes. Xenophon, on the other hand, is deliberately included among the philosophers and considered together with Plato, Aristotle and Theophrastus (Inst. 10.1.81‒84: for Xenophon’s exclusion from the historiographical genre see below § 2.5). According to Quintilian, the best representatives of Greek historiography are Thucydides and Herodotus: the latter pleasing and relaxed, the former concise and tense. This judgement coincides with the doctrines of style and especially with the genus subtile (Herodotus) and grande (Thucydides) as described by Quintilian:⁶¹ altera est divisio, quae in tris partis et ipsa discedit, qua discerni posse etiam recta dicendi genera inter se videntur. namque unum subtile, quod ἰσχνόν vocant, alterum grande atque robustum, quod ἁδρόν dicunt, constituunt, tertium alii medium ex duobus, alii floridum (nam que id ἀνθηρόν appellant) addiderunt (Quint. Inst. 12.10.58). There is another division also into three parts by which distinctions can be made even between correct styles of speaking. One style is defined as plain (ischnon, the Greeks call it), a second as grand and robust (Greek hadron), and to these has been added a third, called by some ‘intermediate,’ and by others ‘flowery’ (for the Greeks call it antheron).

In Quintilian’s Institutes, historiography is followed by rhetoric: the number of ten Attic orators is explicitly mentioned, but only six out of ten are discussed.⁶² The analysis of the most notable Greek poets and prose writers closes with philosophy, where we find Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Theophrastus.⁶³

 Quintilian does not list any historiographical representative of the intermediate or flowery style (medium). For the genera dicendi in Quintilian’s selection of Greek poetry: Mérot (2016).  Quint. Inst. 10.1.76: sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis aetas una tulerit. In Inst. 10.1.76 80, Quintilian discusses Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides, Lysias, Iso crates, and Demetrius of Phalerum; the latter is not included in other sources for the ten canon ical orators.  Quint. Inst. 10.1.81 84: philosophorum, ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae M. Tullius confitetur, quis dubitet Platonem esse praecipuum sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate divina quadam et Homerica? (…) (82) quid ego commemorem Xenophontis illam iucunditatem in adfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut ipsae sermonem finxisse Gratiae vi deantur, et quod de Pericle veteris comoediae testimonium est in hunc transferri iustissime possit, in labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam. (83) quid reliquorum Socraticorum elegantiam? quid Aristotelen? quem dubito scientia rerum an scriptorum copia an eloquendi [usu] suavitate an

22

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

The whole section of the tenth book between chapters 46 and 84 has been aptly defined as a stilkritische Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, a history of literature based on stylistic judgement.⁶⁴ Quintilian’s critique has a clear educational purpose and differs greatly from the historical considerations in some of Cicero’s writings, which will be discussed in the next chapter. For Quintilian, literary history, based on the optimi auctores, did not coincide with a historical development of the different genres, but was mainly determined by the great models that his readers should imitate.⁶⁵ These same models were subject to changes and each canon, from its origins to its transformation, belongs to different times and distinct context. We have seen at the beginning of this chapter that tragedy had its three canonical poets already in the fifth century, while the authors of epic, lyric and iambic poetry were probably canonized by the Alexandrian scholars who did not include any contemporary authors (Quint. Inst. 10.1.54). Since Quintilian included Timagenes, an Augustan-age author, in his list of canonical historians, it seems evident that this selection cannot belong entirely to the Hellenistic age (cf. § 5.4). Although Quintilian relied on a previous tradition, his list in Inst. 10.1.73‒75 appears as his own contribution to the canon of historiography. Quintilian’s list of historians will be discussed from different perspectives in the following chapters of this book. Here I would like to pause on a passing observation made by the Latin rhetor on the presence of catalogues of Greek poets in Roman libraries: “Surely no one can be so clueless about the poets as not to be capable of copying out a library catalogue and putting it into his own books!” (Inst. 10.1.57: nec sane quisquam est tam procul a cognitione eorum remotus ut non indicem certe ex bibliotheca sumptum transferre in libros suos possit). Were these authors actually accessible in libraries in the age of Quintilian? Is Quintilian referring to the authentic works or simply to critical treatises dealing with ancient Greek poetry? An answer lies perhaps at the end of his broad discussion of the history of Greek literature, where he admits: “There are other good writers too, but I am only sampling the various genres, not searching whole libraries” (Inst. 10.1.104: sunt et alii scriptores boni, sed nos genera degustamus, non bibliothecas excutimus). The opposition between degusto and excutio gives the sense of picking at single literary genres, not of a meticulous analysis. Quintilian seems to imply that there were many more ancient poets and prose writers that could have

inventionum acumine an varietate operum clariorem putem. (84) nam in Theophrasto tam est lo quendi nitor ille divinus ut ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur.  See Steinmetz (1964).  Rosenmeyer (1985) 81 82; see also Flashar (1979b). On poetic genres in Quintilian’s selection: Citroni (2005) and Citroni (2006b).

1.4 The Polemic on Ancient Canonical Literature

23

been considered. His scope, however, was not completeness, but rather a selection meant to improve the future orator’s style, as it is implied in Inst. 10.1.38.⁶⁶ Quintilian, in the second half of the first century AD, is in fact the collector of a long and fruitful tradition, which began with Homeric exegesis and, through Athenian oratory and Alexandrian scholarship, came down to the Roman imperial age. He was aware of all the work of his predecessors, but at the same time did not slavishly follow the previous tradition.⁶⁷ As Harold Bloom wrote: “Tradition is not only a handing-down or process of benign transmission; it is also a conflict between past genius and present aspiration, in which the prize is literary survival or canonical inclusion.”⁶⁸

1.4 The Polemic on Ancient Canonical Literature from David Ruhnken to the First Half of the Twentieth Century The theory developed by Ruhnken in the Historia critica oratorum Graecorum that all the canons of Greek literature were created in Alexandria by Aristarchus and Aristophanes, based primarily on Quint. Inst. 10.1.54 and 59,⁶⁹ was initially well received. The first to quote Ruhnken’s opinion was Christian Gottlob Heyne, professor eloquentiae et poeseos in Göttingen, who was appointed on Ruhnken’s suggestion in 1763.⁷⁰ In an essay on Ptolemaic cultural history, Heyne mentioned with great approval Ruhnken’s opinion.⁷¹ A few decades later, in the Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795), Friedrich August Wolf, Heyne’s ungrateful pupil,⁷² not only dedicated  Cf. Schwindt (2000) 153 159.  Quintilian’s opinion on Latin literature, which is considered in Inst. 10.1.85 131, has not been discussed because it does not affect directly the analysis of the Greek historians. However, one should at least mention that Quintilian’s canon of Latin historians includes a comparison of Thucydides with Sallust and Herodotus with Livy: Inst. 10.1.101. For Quintilian’s opinion on Latin Literaturgeschichte: Schwindt (2000) 153 173; Citroni (2005); Citroni (2006b); Nicolai (2014b).  Bloom (1994) 8 9.  Ruhnken (1768) XCVI: “Primum vero delectum ab Aristarcho et Aristophane institutum esse [the canon], ejusdem Quinctiliani testimonio confirmatur, etc.”  A summary of Heyne’s biography in Fornaro (2004) 9 11.  Heyne (1785) 102. Heyne’s essay De genio saeculi Ptolemaeorum was initially delivered as a public lecture for the beginning of the academic year on 17 September 1763. Erudite references and footnotes, including the allusion to Ruhnken’s Historia critica, published only in 1768, were added later, probably when reworking his notes for the publication in the Opuscula academica in 1785.  For their relationship, professional as well as personal, see Grafton (1981) 102 105.

24

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

his work to Ruhnken, but also quoted his Historia critica with great esteem, and in particular his opinion on canon-formation: “Indeed (if I may give a brief account of large matters), aside from the extremely useful choice and evaluation of the best writers of every sort which was undertaken by Aristophanes and completed by Aristarchus, he was the first to investigate with any care the authenticity of the remains of earlier times.”⁷³ In the 1830s, Friedrich Schoell in the Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, as well as Friedrich Gustav Kiessling in his work on Hyperides, agreed on the Alexandrian origin of the canonical lists.⁷⁴ Many other nineteenth century products of learned scholarship could be cited, from Bode’s Commentatio de Orpheo poetarum Graecorum antiquissimo (1824) to the Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte by Baumgarten-Crusius (1832) to Mützell’s De emendatione Theogoniae Hesiodeae (1833): all of them quoted Ruhnken’s opinion favourably.⁷⁵ The first scholar to raise some doubts was the same Daniel Wyttenbach that published Ruhnken’s biography in 1799. In the Vita Ruhnkenii, Wyttenbach summarized Ruhnken’s theory and commented on the sources for the canonical lists of authors in the Historia critica: the tenth book of Quintilian’s Institutes, the tabula M (i. e. the codex Parisinus Coisl. 387, edited by Montfaucon and reprinted in Fabricius’ Bibliotheca graeca) and finally Proclus’ Chrestomathy. ⁷⁶ A significant footnote was added as a gloss to Ruhnken’s theory of the Alexandrian origin of all Greek literary canons: “Credam igitur, fuisse quidem antiquitus talem canonem auctorum ab Aristophane Byzantio et Aristarcho confectum, sed eumdem sensim ita auctum et mutatum a sequentibus Grammaticis.”⁷⁷ Even if Wyttenbach wrote with enthusiastic excitement of his teacher’s accomplishments in the Historia critica, these words throw an alarming doubt on its central thesis: the literary canon established by Aristophanes and Aristarchus underwent some serious changes in the hands of later ancient critics and grammarians. Ferdinand Ranke’s criticism was comparable, but much more direct. In the essay De Aristophanis vita commentatio, published in the first volume of Bernard Thiersch’s edition of Aristophanes comedies (1830), Ranke argued that the Alexan-

 Wolf (1884) 168 (English transl. in Grafton/Most/Zetzel [1985] 183): “Etenim ille, ut summas res generatim persequar, praeter delectus et censuras scriptorum cuiusque classis optimorum, quas ab Aristophane utilissime institutas absolvit Aristarchus, maiore diligentia primus inquis ivit, quid genuinum aut spurium esset in monumentis priorum temporum;” see also n. 89 on the same page, where Ruhnken’s Historia critica is cited, and 146 n. 60.  Schoell (1830) 107; Kiessling (1837).  For a discussion and for further bibliographical references see Nicolai (2015b) 214.  Wyttenbach (1846) 145; the sources were briefly mentioned in Ruhnken (1768) XCV XCVI.  Wyttenbach (1846) 145.

1.4 The Polemic on Ancient Canonical Literature

25

drian canon must have been limited to poetry. But the real issue was the authority of the canons. According to Ranke, the canonical lists selected by the Alexandrian scholars did not enjoy widespread recognition: the whole of Ruhnken’s discussion was nothing more than a hypothesis.⁷⁸ Not very different was Gustav Parthey’s considerations in a monograph on the Mouseion of Alexandria: “the work of Aristarchus alone was already modified and interpolated at an early age.”⁷⁹ In the words of these nineteenth century scholars, there is a latent and indirect critique of the use of the word canon, which recalls the indisputable authority of the Biblical tradition. Around the same years Gottfried Bernhardy published the first volume of his monumental Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur (1836). He discussed Callimachus’ Pinakes and the exegetical work of the scholars of Alexandria displaying the problems and inconsistencies of the canon Alexandrinorum, as it was called at the time. First of all, Bernhardy considered that Ruhnken relied almost exclusively on Quintilian and a few later sources, principally Proclus and the list of authors in the Tabula M. These were sources that reflected an earlier tradition, but at the same time modified the lists according to their own tastes, and could even at certain points have reported the wrong text as a result of ignorance. Furthermore, Bernhardy considered the specificity of each literary genre: “Yet the selection of historians is an invention, while the corpus of the ten orators cannot have been established before the age of Augustus.”⁸⁰ If the first statement on the fictitiousness of the selection of historians seems too radical, the one on the impossibility of demonstrating that the corpus of the ten orators emerged before the age of Augustus deserves close attention. To support his claim, Bernhardy cited a passage of the De Dinarcho where Dionysius of Halicarnassus says that neither Callimachus nor the grammarians in Pergamon wrote any detailed study on the orator Dinarchus.⁸¹ This testimony forces us to consid-

 Ranke (1830) CIV, CVII CIX, CXII CXVI; especially Ranke (1830) CVII: “Nititur autem tota Ruhnkenii narratio mera coniectura.” Cf. Nicolai (2015b) 215 216 who quotes extensively from Ranke’s essay.  Parthey (1838) 122: “allein Aristarch’s Arbeit wurde schon in früher Zeit verändert und inter polirt.”  Bernhardy (1876) 188: “Wenn schon die Auswahl der Historiker eine Fiktion ist, so kann man das Corpus der zehn Redner nicht vor den Zeiten des Augustus nachweisen.” I quote from the fourth edition: the first was published in Halle in 1836 (vol. 1) and 1845 (vol. 2).  Dion. Hal. Din. 1.2: ἅμα δὲ ὁρῶν οὐδὲν ἀρκιβὲς οὔτε Καλλίμαχον οὔτε τοὺς ἐκ Περγάμου γραμματικοὺς περὶ αὐτοῦ [περὶ Δεινάρχου] γράψαντας. Athen. 8.336e should also be considered here, where it is testified that the scholars of Alexandria (Callimachus and Aristophanes of By zantium are mentioned) and Pergamon handed down only lists of comedies, implying that they did not work on each specific play.

26

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

er that the ten Attic orators were not canonized in Alexandria or Pergamon in the Hellenistic age: canonization belongs to a later period, most probably to the age of Augustus. In his analysis, Bernhardy depreciates Ruhnken’s hypothesis and rejects the existence of ancient canons altogether.⁸² August Gräfenhan, in the second volume of his Geschichte der klassischen Philologie im Alterthum, drew together the most recent publications on Alexandrian literary canons and remarked, quoting Ranke and Bernhardy, that in recent years Ruhnken’s assumption has been almost dismissed.⁸³ August Nauck, in his edition of Aristophanes’ fragments, agreed with this opinion.⁸⁴ Just a few years later, Diederich Volkmann published a Latin dissertation on the τάξεις of the ancient poets in the Suda lexicon. He supported Bernhardy’s and Nauck’s criticism of Ruhnken’s theory, but did not exclude the possibility of the existence of an Alexandrian selection of canonical poets as it is testified by Quintilian.⁸⁵ Even if some scholars denied the existence of literary canons altogether, the main issue was the different origin of each canon. One of the most significant and impressive products of classical scholarship of the second half of the nineteenth century, Theodor Bergk’s Griechische Literaturgeschichte (voll. 1‒4, 1872‒1887) tackles this subject with great awareness. After a brief observation on Aristophanes’ and Aristarchus’ role in the selection and critical interpretation of epic and lyric poetry, Bergk expressed the opinion that the canon of the ten Attic orators was the product of the Augustan Classicism; on the other hand, there was no close canonical selection of Greek historians.⁸⁶ Following both Bernhardy and Bergk, Georg Steffen, in the dissertation De canone qui dicitur Aristophanis et Aristarchi, clearly distinguished between poetry and prose in the creation of canonical lists.⁸⁷ A wide debate arose around the canon of the ten Attic orators. If on the one hand, the Alexandrian origin of this canon was quickly dismissed, there were many other possibilities due to a lack of unilateral testimony. Paternity was ascribed in turn to the grammarians and scholars at Pergamon, to Didymus of

 Bernhardy (1876) 186 196.  Gräfenhan (1844) 188.  Nauck (1848) 67 68: “Iam vero, quod Bernhardy recte monuit, nunquam grammaticus noster eiusque discipulus id consilium secuti sunt (…) quoniam neque erant tunc qui orationis elegan tiae unice intenti essent, nec librarii classicos potissimum scriptores propagarunt.”  Volkmann (1861).  Bergk (1872) 282 291.  Steffen (1876).

1.4 The Polemic on Ancient Canonical Literature

27

Alexandria, or to a more generic pre-Augustan era.⁸⁸ But these hypotheses were rejected by Richard Weise and later by Paul Hartmann: they believed that the creator of the canon of the ten Attic orators belonged to the Roman circles of the Augustan age and pointed a finger at Caecilius of Calacte.⁸⁹ Seemingly a friend of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, he was the author, according to Suda κ 1165, of a Περὶ τοῦ χαρακτῆρος τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων, which could be translated On the style of the ten orators. However, the Suda is often an unreliable source of information,⁹⁰ and nothing points with certainty to Caecilius’ role in the creation of the canon of the ten Attic orators. The extant fragments of Caecilius, recently re-edited by Frédérique Woerther, are too scattered and insufficient to erase all doubt from this controversial issue.⁹¹ Significantly, in Dionysius’ critical essays, where Caecilius is mentioned as a friend and colleague (T 38 Woerther), only six orators are treated extensively: an ancient triad (Lysias, Isocrates and Isaeus) and a more recent one (Demosthenes, Hyperides and Aeschines).⁹² Moreover, Quintilian, who knew Caecilius’ rhetorical and critical works quite well,⁹³ does not mention him as the author of the selection, even when referring explicitly to the ten Attic orators.⁹⁴ Dionysius’ and Quintilians’ evidence proves that, even if Caecilus could somehow be responsible for the selection of a certain

 For the origin in Pergamon: Brzoska (1883); for Didymus’ paternity: Ballheimer (1877) 32 n. 1 and Hampe (1877) 16; some cautious suggestions were expressed by Studemund (1867).  Weise (1888); Hartmann (1891).  “Still the world’s most confused source of biographical and bibliographical information,” wrote West (1983) 20.  Cf. Radermacher (1919); a general treatment in Worthington (1994b). Douglas (1956) 39 40 and Pernot (2006a) 47 49 are both very sceptical about the possibility of identifying the exact origin of the canonical selection. Testimonies and fragments of Caecilius are collected in Woer ther (2015) who cautiously declares at XXXII: “En tout état de cause, aucun témoignage conservé ici ne permet de tirer de conclusion concrète sur le rôle que certains critiques ont voulu accorder à Caecilius dans l’élaboration du fameux Canon des orateurs attiques dont l’origin et la data tion restent encore un sujet de multiples désaccords;” cf. also Woerther (2015) 46 47 for further discussion.  See Dion. Hal. Orat. vett. 4. A concise comparison: Cicero mentions eight orators, Isocrates, Lysias, Demosthenes, Hyperides, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Dinarchus and Demades (Cic. Brut. 32 36), but he concludes with the expression aliique plures which implies that he was not referring to any fixed canon.  See Caecilius, TT 4 5, 11 17 Woerther.  Inst. 10.1.76: sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis aetas una tulerit. In Quint. Inst. 10.1.76 80 only six Attic orators are discussed; curiously, Quintilian seems to consid er Demetrius of Phalerum among the Attic orators, even if he is usually not included in the canon; an analysis of the ancient tradition of the ten Attic orators in Canfora (1995a) 164 184.

28

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

number of canonical Attic orators, he was not regarded as the author of the selection of ten Attic orators. The issue of the list of the ten Attic orators and its origin is prone to give rise to debates and disagreement. The important point for our analysis of nineteenth century polemic on ancient canon-formation is the fact that an Alexandrian origin of the canon of the ten Attic orators was completely rejected. An authoritative figure, who reconsidered some of Ruhnken’s opinions, was Hermann Usener, the editor, together with Ludwig Radermacher, of Dionysius’ Opuscula rhetorica and a great historian of Roman religion. In a monograph on the partly lost On Imitation of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Usener attempted to prove that the lists of canonical authors were not Dionysius’ own creation: the origin of the lists – and therefore of the canons – belonged, according to Usener, to Alexandrian scholarship and could be traced back to Aristotle and Theophrastus. However, even if Usener supported Ruhnken’s opinion of the Alexandrian origin of the canons, he admitted that the canons were subject to changes in the later tradition.⁹⁵ Only a couple of years later, Franz Susemihl, the author of the influential Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexadrinerzeit, was much more cautious when treating the issue of ancient canons and was sceptical of Usener’s conclusions.⁹⁶ Otto Kröhnert’s dissertation on ancient literary canons, Canonesne poetarum scriptorum artificium per antiquitatem fuerunt? (1897), marks a fundamental turning point in this debate. His contribution resides in the publication and meticulous analysis of two documents, only partially considered by Ruhnken: the lists of canonical authors transmitted by some Byzantine manuscripts, the so-called tabulae M and C. The tabula M, preserved in the famous Parisinus Coisl. 387 (tenth century), was published by Bernard de Montfaucon, and later by Fabricius,⁹⁷ while the tabula C was edited in Cramer’s Anecdota Graeca according to the text of the Bodleianus Auct. T. 2. 11 (Misc. 211) (fifteenth century).⁹⁸ Both tabulae were collated and re-edited by Kröhnert, giving him a vantage point overlooking a much debated issue: for the tabula C Kröhnert collated also the codex Vaticanus gr. 1456 (eleventh-twelfth century).⁹⁹ It is worth remarking that only tabula M was known to Ruhnken.

 Usener (1889) 110 142, in part. 141 142.  Susemihl (1891) 1.444 n. 56 and Susemihl (1892) 2.694 696.  See Montfaucon (1715) 596 598; Fabricius (1706 1728) 9.599 602. See also Steffen (1876) 8 10 and de Lagarde (1877) 173 176.  Anec. Graec. Paris. 4.195 197 (Cramer [1841]).  However, the best edition of these texts so far is still Hugo Rabe’s (1910), who identified and used also the codex Bodleianus Barocc. 125 (late sixteenth century); moreover, see Rabe (1907b).

1.4 The Polemic on Ancient Canonical Literature

29

In both of these tabulae there are different lists of ancient poets, grammarians, philosopher, orators, and historians. The list of historians contains the names of Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus, Ephorus, Anaximenes, Callisthenes, Hellanicus, and Polybius.¹⁰⁰ This list will be considered in a later chapter (§ 7.5). Here it suffices to say that even if the manuscripts of the lists of ancient authors goes back only to the tenth century, the selection, and hence canonization, belongs almost certainly to Late Antiquity. Given that these later lists are quite different from the so-called Alexandrian canons, Kröhnert concluded that the Alexandrian scholars did not exert any authority over literary canons. Kröhnert’s study shows that the only fruitful way to analyse ancient literary canons, their development and constant changes, is to differentiate the canonization of each literary genre. Going back to Quintilian’s Book Ten of the Institutes and Dionysius’ On Imitation, Wilhelm Heydenreich, even if supporting some of Kröhnert’s arguments, rejected a common Alexandrian origin of the canons.¹⁰¹ A partial end to the whole debate was issued by the princeps philologorum himself, Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. In a brief digression in his Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker, Wilamowitz criticised Ruhnken’s hypothesis and at the same time attacked Usener (their correspondence shows a friendly, but sometimes polemical tone).¹⁰² Wilamowitz turned the problem inside out: the issue was not who selected the best authors and when were the canons created, because, on the contrary, at the moment when the lists were compiled (between the late Hellenistic era and the first century AD) those authors that became canonical were the only ones still preserved and read. Thus the nine lyric and three iambic poets who, according to Quintilian, were allegedly selected by Aristarchus and Aristophanes of Byzantium, were actually the only lyric and iambic poets still preserved in the Alexandrian library.¹⁰³ The same goes for the ten Attic orators: according to Wilamowitz, when Caecilius wrote his Περὶ τοῦ χαρακτῆρος τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων, he did not have to perform any selec-

 Kröhnert (1897) 7; Rabe (1910) 342.  Heydenreich (1900) 21: “Quibus omnibus perlustratis dilucidissime apparet communem fontem omnium iudiciorum, quae tractavimus, non fuisse; varii ordines, varii canones hic illic variis temporibus orti sunt.”  See Usener/Wilamowitz (1934).  Wilamowitz (1900a) 65: “Es kann also in dem Verzeichnis Aristarchs nicht eine Auswahl, sondern nur eine Aufzählung der Vertreter der Gattung, freilich der classischen, d. h. vorhellenis tischen Vertreter stecken, und dass er allein gennant wird, darf nicht so gedeutet werden, dass Aristophanes eine andere ‘Auswahl’ getroffen hätte.”

30

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

tion (Auswahl), but only highlighted that there were only ten orators of the Classical age; the boundary was already set.¹⁰⁴ Even though a clever and ingenious hypothesis, Wilamowitz’s view is open to some objections: he dismissed the ancient testimonies of scholars and grammarians concerning the selection of canonical authors, while at the same time ignoring the ancient textual tradition of some texts. For example, fragments of non-canonical lyric poets were known and available in the age of Aristarchus, while Quintilian quoted with admiration the orations of Demetrius of Phalerum, an author not included among the ten Attic orators. Rudolf Pfeiffer, with unfailing accuracy, noticed that Wilamowitz’s hypothesis, even if probable for some canonical lists, cannot be generalized to include all literary genres.¹⁰⁵ Given his authority, Wilamowitz brought the discussion to an end and for two decades nobody dared to raise the issue again. It was only with Ludwig Radermacher, professor of Classical Philology in Vienna and a pupil of Herman Usener in Bonn, that a final word was delivered, at least in German-speaking academic circles. Radermacher, author of the entry Kanon for the Real-Encyclopädie, offered some balanced and thoughtful observations on the canonization of classical texts. Beyond the specific points related to each genre and the problematic interpretation of the well-known sections of Quintialians’ Institutes (10.1.54 and 59), Radermacher went to the core of the problem and pointed out with great clarity that ancient grammarians and authors of rhetorical treatises were responsible for the selection of literary canons. The selection had didactic purposes and was based on an aesthetic judgement: “taste and inclination left free rein to subjectivity.”¹⁰⁶ The torch of canon-debate passed from Germany to France, where scholars did not ignore previous results, but at the same time developed some opinions of their own. Jean Cousin, in a work on the sources of Quintilian’s Institutes, distinguished clearly between the study of grammar at Alexandria and the role of rhetoric at Pergamon: Who were these teachers? Critics and grammarians, because, at Pergamon, rhetoric and grammar went at the same pace and were taught by the same teacher. The example of the Pergamenes was followed by the Romans, according to the testimony of Suetonius

 Wilamowitz (1900a) 70: “es gäbe nur zehn Redner der classischen Zeit, deren Grenze als solcher wol schon fixirt war.”  Pfeiffer (1968) 204 206; see also Steinmetz (1964) 455 456.  Radermacher (1919) 1878: “Geschmack und Neigung leißen der Subjektivität freien Raum.”

1.5 Approaching Literary Canons from Different Perspectives

31

[Gram. et rhet. 2]. The Alexandrian scholars, on the contrary, worked exclusively on gram mar.¹⁰⁷

Cousin’s opinion, somewhat radical, but not completely new, was accepted by two great French scholars, Henri-Irénée Marrou and Jacques Bompaire, in their influential works.¹⁰⁸ So far, I have considered the modern debate on the origins and the nature of the canons of ancient Greek literature. In the following section I will deal with the changing scholarly world of the second half of the twentieth century: the contemporary age requires a different, global perspective.

1.5 Approaching Literary Canons from Different Perspectives: Weltliteratur and Distant Reading French debate on ancient canons ran out of steam quite quickly, but in the same years when Marrou was working on his seminal Histoire de l’éducation dans l’Antiquité, originally published in 1948, a German scholar of Jewish descent was writing a book that would revolutionize comparative studies. Eric Auerbach published Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur in 1946 during his stay in Istanbul as a political refugee.¹⁰⁹ But Auerbach’s contribution to the understanding of contemporary literary canons through cultural history comes from Philologie der Weltliteratur, an essay published in 1952.¹¹⁰ In an age of great changes, at the beginning of the Cold War, Auerbach examined the contemporary implications of Goethe’s famous dictum about Weltliteratur. Goethe, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, contemplated the end of national literature and advocated the advent of a World Literature. A few decades later, in 1848, Marx and Engels acknowledged that the exploitation of the world market by the bourgeoisie – that is, by the modern capitalists, the owners of the

 Cousin (1935) 567: “Qui étaient ces maîtres? Des critiques et des grammairiens, car, à Per game, rhétorique et grammaire marchaient de pair et étaient enseignées par le même maître; et l’exemple des Pergameniens fut suivi par les Romains, selon le témoignage de Suétone. Les Alexandrins, au contraire, ne s’occupaient que de grammaire.”  Marrou (1965) 233; Bompaire (1958) 87 89.  Auerbach worked on Mimesis from May 1942 to April 1945. On Auerbach’s so called exile, see the fascinating account in Konuk (2010).  Auerbach (1952); the essay was significantly published in the Festschrift for Fritz Strich, au thor of Goethe und die Weltliteratur.

32

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

means of social production – had given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption; at the same time, it radically changed literature: “National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.”¹¹¹ Auerbach was aware of the end of Goethe’s historical humanism, but at the same time believed in humanism as an approach to the understanding of men and societies. The concept of Weltliteratur, however, needed a radical change in order to operate in a contemporary framework. In 1952 the cultural framework was dramatically different from Goethe’s times and was closer to Marx and Engels’ predicament: its boundaries had been extremely expanded and it had acquired a global character. Despite the overabundance of materials, the different methods, and the variegated theoretical conceptions to be employed, Auerbach believed a world literature was still possible. The question was how to summarize the overwhelming quantity of problems these materials and methods would pose. The solution resided in single or multiple points of departures (Ansatzpunkte): A good point of departure must be exact and objective; abstract categories of one sort or another will not serve (…). For a point of departure should not be a generality imposed on a theme from the outside, but ought rather to be an organic inner part of the theme it self.¹¹²

Philologie der Weltliteratur was one of Auerbach’s last papers. In that study he attempted to express his vision of a worldwide philology focusing on his personal experience. Two books have had a great importance on his conceptions of philology, world literature, and humanism. One was Mimesis by Auerbach himself. The other was Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter by Ernst Robert Curtius, an analysis of the Classical and Medieval rhetorical traditions.¹¹³

 Marx/Engels (1848) 16: “Die nationale Einseitigkeit und Beschränktheit wird mehr und mehr unmöglich, und aus den vielen nationalen und lokalen Literaturen bildet sich eine Welt literatur.”  Auerbach (1952) 48 49 (English transl. [1969] 15 16): “Ein guter Ansatz muß genau und ge genständlich sein; abstrakte Ordnungskategorien und Merkmalsbegriffe eignen sich nicht dafür (…). Der Ansatz soll nichts Allgemeines sein, was von außen an den Gegenstand herangetragen wird er soll aus ihm herausgewachsen sein, ein Stück von ihm selbst.”  Auerbach reviewed Curtius’ book in 1950. Significantly, Europäische Literatur und Latei nisches Mittelalter is the only book mentioned in Philologie der Weltliteratur: see Auerbach (1952) 46 47 (English transl. [1969] 13).

1.5 Approaching Literary Canons from Different Perspectives

33

Auerbach was trained as a Romanist in the German philological tradition. His perspective was entirely Eurocentric and anchored to the knowledge of some ancient (Greek, Latin, Hebrew) and modern languages (Neo-Latin languages, German, and English). But how can we seriously talk about Weltliteratur if we exclude literatures that do not belong to Western culture? A canon of world literature becomes a mirage that goes beyond the historical and social contexts that characterizes any given age. Besides, many of the contemporary academic literary critics, who influence the canons one way or another, cannot claim a thorough knowledge of languages such as the knowledge displayed by Auerbach in Mimesis. Often these critics have only a superficial understanding of languages other than their own, which is too often English. This fact was already acknowledged by Edward W. Said in 1975: Our fate as scholars today is precisely that of our students, for how many of us can do clas sical philology? At best we learned Greek or German to pass reading exams, and for most of us Romance philology was something we read about while we took courses in the acceler ated reading of French or Italian. The bookstore, with its rack upon rack of translated works (Freud, Nietzsche, Proust, Hesse, Baudelaire) brings us closer and faster to the world of knowledge than any other means readily available.¹¹⁴

Said is here implicitly denouncing the Anglophone cultural hegemony and the fact that nobody ventures anymore to learn languages other than English.¹¹⁵ This is a cultural and linguistic problem which did not bother the Greek and Roman world: Greek culture was proudly monolingual throughout all its history, while the Romans absorbed the Greek language in the second century BC and its elite was for a few centuries bilingual.¹¹⁶ According to Said, from the time of the École des Annales, history and tradition did not communicate in an organic narrative any more. This change of perspective has been vigorously theorised in Michel Foucault’s essays. In L’archéologie du savoir, Foucault stressed the importance of ruptures, not of continuity, in recent historical analyses and interpretations.

 Said (1975) 7. It is noteworthy that Edward Said wrote the introduction to a new edition of Mimesis in 2003, fifty years after the first English translation; he also translated (together with Marie Said) the essay Philologie der Weltliteratur into English.  A recent critical analysis of these issues in Arac (2002).  For further bibliographical references on ancient bilingualism see Adams/Janse/Swain (2002) and Adams (2003). On the knowledge of Latin in the Greek speaking provinces of the Roman empire: Rochette (1997). On speaking Greek in Rome: Dupont/Valette Cagnac (2005).

34

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

Beneath the great continuities of thought, beneath the solid, homogeneous manifestations of a single mind or of collective mentality, beneath the stubborn development of a science striving to exist and to reach completion at the very outset, beneath the persistence of a particular genre, form, discipline, or theoretical activity, one is now trying to detect the in cidence of interruptions.¹¹⁷

And it is exactly from the point of view of the French Annales and of the longue durée, which were at the centre of Foucault’s analysis, that Franco Moretti has recently proposed some ground-breaking thoughts for an approach to World Literature. Founder of the Standford Literary Lab, he published in 2000 his new, provocative manifesto: Conjectures on World Literature. In this witty and fascinating essay, Moretti meditates primarily on the role of the contemporary literary critic. Take a professor of English literature working on Western European narrative between 1790 and 1930: we ought to consider that he actually works only on a canonical fraction of this period’s literature, since he publishes and teaches on some one hundred novels out of a totality of sixty thousand novels published in the nineteenth century. There is an immense unevenness between canonical literature and total production. World Literature? What are we actually talking about? A solution for a practicable Weltliteratur is the distance from the object under analysis, distant reading not as ignorance, but as a condition of knowledge: “Still ambitious, and actually even more so than before (world literature!); but the ambition is now directly proportional to the distance from the text: the more ambitious the project, the greater must the distance be.”¹¹⁸ As opposed to close reading, which takes into consideration only a limited number of texts, a narrow canon, Moretti’s proposal aims at a greater range of texts in order to gather greater quantities of data to be analysed and interpreted.¹¹⁹ The same year Conjectures appeared, Moretti published a complementary paper: The Slaughterhouse of Literature. Here Moretti tests his approach to world literature on Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective stories. A preliminary observation is that it is the market, in its economic sense, that defines contemporary literary canons, not the academic world:

 Foucault (1969) 6 (Engl. transl. [1972] 4).  Moretti (2000a) 57 (the italic is by Moretti himself).  Besides his preliminary paper (re published in Moretti [2013]), Franco Moretti published a collection of essays in 2005. His new approach has brought to a constructive polemic and dis cussions, primarily in different issues of the New Left Review, and then in various papers in Goodwin/Holbo (2011).

1.5 Approaching Literary Canons from Different Perspectives

35

The slaughter of literature. And the butchers readers: who read novel A (but not B, C, D, E, F, G, H,…) and so keep A “alive” into the next generation, when other readers may keep it alive into the following one, and so on until eventually A becomes canonized. Readers, not professors, make canons: academic decisions are mere echoes of a process that unfolds fundamentally outside the school.¹²⁰

A book that gains interests, sells all its issues, and is reprinted is more likely to be known to successive generations – and, why not, become part of the canon. We know from statistics of sales and editions that the narrative writing of Arthur Conan Doyle yielded instantly an enormous success among readers. But the real question is: why did Conan Doyle enjoy such immediate popularity, knock out all his rivals, and become part of the canon? The only way to answer the question is to linger on the rivals. Detective stories possess a specific device essential to the genre and thus of immense visibility: clues.¹²¹ Moretti and the participants in his graduate seminar at Stanford investigated about twenty detective stories of Conan Doyle’s time in order to understand their usage of clues as opposed to those of Conan Doyle.¹²² It emerges that the latter used clues in a much more functional and sophisticated way. Some rivals did not use clues at all, some others used them in the wrong way, and finally some rivals used hidden clues, which were inefficient. The outcome: they didn’t get many readers, didn’t sell, and were excluded from the canon. Arthur Conan Doyle, on the other hand, exploited clues with great effectiveness in the construction of the plot of his narrative. His method became the standard form of detective stories from the following generation until today.¹²³

 Moretti (2000b) 209.  When mentioning Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective stories and its relationship to the histor ical method, one cannot fail to quote Carlo Ginzburg and his famous essay Spie. Radici di un paradigma indiziario: Ginzburg (1979).  Moretti (2000b) 212. Here I see a substantial inconsistence between theory (Conjectures on World Literature) and practice (The Slaughterhouse of Literature): how can we talk about distant reading when the survey considers only a few texts? That’s a problem that has not escape Carlo Ginzburg’s accurate reading: Ginzburg (2012) 114. For a more exhaustive practical analysis of dis tant reading, see Moretti 2005 and the website of the Stanford Literary Lab (http://litlab.stanford. edu). A paper published in Science in 2011 expounds the possibilities of quantitative research on literature with the use of Google’s Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams), a database that allows to survey all digitised books on Google, see Michel (2011).  Franco Moretti is very honest in displaying the weakness of his analysis. He even goes so far as to quote the opinion of Jessica Brent, a graduate student: “Clues, fine: they offer a good general sense of the genre. And no objection to the idea that Conan Doyle’s narrative structure may be better designed than that of his rivals (although of course one could argue forever on that ‘better’). But if this approach is generalised as the method for the study of non canonical liter

36

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

Clues as a specific device investigated through contemporary non-canonical literature. If we were to apply this method to the inquiry of the ancient Greek historiographical canon, we would come across overwhelming difficulties. There are many and entirely different specific devices in ancient historiography which would require too many disparate and contrasting analyses. But most importantly, there are no rivals to evaluate. As Theodor Bergk recalls in his 1872 Griechische Literaturgeschichte, those texts from Classical antiquity that did not became part of a canon were not preserved and did not come down to us.¹²⁴ This is clearly an oversimplification of a complex issue, and it’s not completely true,¹²⁵ but it provides a useful reminder of the loss of the greater part of ancient Greek literature. To make things worse, not only is most non-canonical literature lost: a great number of texts which were considered canonical in antiquity were not transmitted through the Middle Ages and are lost as well. No rivals, only scattered fragments. This detour between Weltliteratur and Moretti’s Distant Reading was necessary to place the study of canonical literature in historical perspective. In the last three decades, the debate on contemporary literary canons has acquired the magnitude of a cultural struggle. From gender studies to colonial literature, from an elitist approach to the emergence of literature in developing countries, debate on literary canons has evolved into a political clash. Marxists, feminists, new historicists, lacanians, semioticians, deconstructionists, afrocentrists… all have proposed their own canons in opposition to each other and primarily against a conservative tradition that privileged a limited set of authors in the school curricula and within the academy. It was Harold Bloom, the famous literary critic, who stood up as defender of classical texts from Homer to Dante, from Shakespeare to Beckett, and offered, in his The Western Canon (1994), a list of twenty-six authors worth reading, studying and remembering. His choices are

ature (…), then there is a problem: if we search the archive for one device only, and no matter how significant it may be, all we will find are inferior versions of the device, because that’s really all we are looking for. No matter what our intentions may be, the research project is a tautological one:” Moretti (2000b) 225 226. Moretti’s attempt is in any case instructive, even if it doesn’t pres ent a universal method for dealing with non canonical literature. But is there any universal method for the study of different literary genres? Most probably not. Some of the issues tackled by Moretti, together with Auerbach’s Philologie der Weltliteratur, have been considered in Ginz burg (2012), an invaluable essay on historical method.  Bergk (1872) 284: “wie es denn Thatsache ist, dass kein Schriftwerk der classischen Zeit, welches vom Kanon ausgeschlossen war, sich erhalten hat.”  For those texts there were never part of any canon, and yet managed to come down to us, the concept of submerged literature has been used, a term coined by Luigi Enrico Rossi and ex ploited in a series of seminars and recent publications, see Colesanti/Giordani (2014).

1.5 Approaching Literary Canons from Different Perspectives

37

sometimes obvious and mostly personal: in general, Bloom presents no clear explanation for his selection, apart from his own taste, thus enhancing the judgement of the modern critic at the expense of the readers and the market. This is the reason behind the fact that one reviewer suggested polemically that Bloom’s book should have been entitled My Great Books. ¹²⁶ Given the relevance of the debate in the Anglo-Saxon world, the lack of any study of ancient literary canons in English in the second half of the twentieth century is a curious fact. An exception is a paper by Alan E. Douglas, the editor of Cicero’s Brutus for the Oxford Claredon Press, which focuses on the canon of the ten Attic orators. Apart from his conclusions – which question the role of Caecilius of Calacte as the creator of the canon and express the opinion that this canon “slowly developed through the activities of the Roman and Greek Atticising movements”¹²⁷ – Douglas pointed to a terminological issue: “a list which fluctuates as to number and composition through the ages is not a ‘canon’ – indeed it is not even a list, but a series of lists.”¹²⁸ His point requires further discussion in order to clear away some doubts on the definition of ancient canonical texts. The word canon and the adjective canonical are used throughout this book with the meaning of “selection of the best authors in a given literary genre.” This definition implies that a canon can be represented by a different set of circumstances: a series of reading suggestions with stylistic remarks; a comparison of different authors within a given genre with the aim of identifying the most remarkable and the most suitable authors for imitation; a commented list of authors in an educational context, for example a school-teacher writing for his pupils or for a wider audience; and finally, a bare and unadorned catalogue of names with an erudite or didactic background. Of course, to define these lists and catalogues as canons is often a modern assumption, but it is also the result of a critical and conscious analysis. This overview of more than two centuries of scholarship on ancient literary canons gives us awareness of the historical perspective. Rudolf Pfeiffer correctly remarked that every ancient list of canonical authors “has its special problems of chronology and locality.”¹²⁹ In other words, each list belongs to a specific age and a given geographical environment. In this book, each list, catalogue, comparison, and discussion of ancient Greek historians will be evaluated within its historical and cultural context. What is es French (1994) 118.  Douglas (1956) 40.  Douglas (1956) 31.  Pfeiffer (1968) 206 n. 1. The same opinion is maintained by Fraser (1972) 1.453 456, Nicolai (1992) 262, and Canfora (1995a) 129.

38

1 Ancient Literary Canons from Antiquity to the Present Day

sential is the authority that facilitated the issuing of these lists and encouraged qualitative discussion about the works of ancient Greek historians. Ancient rhetorical treatises and school textbooks were authoritative enough to allow the study of the development of the canons of ancient Greek historians from the first century BC to the end of antiquity. The word canon will be employed repeatedly throughout this book, always with the awareness of its modern meaning. Douglas, when complaining about the use of the word, did not consider with due attention that a canon is not simply a closed and exclusive selection of authors, like the biblical canon (at least ideally). It is instead a flexible, open, and ever-changing cultural process.¹³⁰

 For criticism of Douglas’ remarks, see Nicolai (1992) 262; cf. also Nicolai (2013).

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians 2.1 Hellenistic Treatises on Greek Historiography Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus. Bernard of Cluny, De contemptu mundi (ca. 1144)

Before going through the explicit ancient testimonies on the canons of Greek historians, which go back to Cicero’s rhetorical treatises, we must clear the path of any potential obstacles. One preliminary statement is necessary: no treatise, or any other kind of critical work on Greek historiography from the Hellenistic age has come down to us. Recalling a verse written in the twelfth century by the monk Bernand of Cluny,¹ exploited by Umberto Eco for the title of his most famous book, The Name of the Rose: nomina nuda tenemus, we have only naked names of these Hellenistic treatises. Most of these names sound like this: Peri historias ² (Περὶ ἱστορίας). Historia, however, is a wide-ranging word with different meanings. It is not related uniquely to historical research, but instead represents inquiry tout court, especially scientific (botany, medicine, geometry, etc.), and can gloss as knowledge, search or account.³ What kind of historia was implied in Democritus’ Peri historias (Vors. 55 A 33 D.-K.) is almost impossible to know, but it was probably connected to his philosophy of nature. Theophrastus, in his immense production, was also an author of Peri historias, according to Diogenes Laertius’ catalogue of his writings (Diog. Laert. 5.47). At the same time, there is Cicero’s testimony of Theophrastus’ opinion of the narrative style of Herodotus and Thucydides: quo magis sunt Herodotus Thucydidesque mirabiles; quorum aetas cum in eorum tempora quos nominavi incidisset, longissime tamen ipsi a talibus deliciis vel potius ineptiis afuerunt. Alter enim sine ullis salebris quasi sedatus amnis fluit, alter incitatior fertur et de bellicis

 The verse appears in Bernard’s De contemptu mundi (1.952) in a gnomic context on the caduc ity of the world: Nunc ubi Marius atque Fabricius, inscius auri? / Mors ubi nobilis et memorabilis actio Pauli? / Diva Philippica vox ubi coelica nunc Ciceronis? / Pax ubi civibus atque rebellibus ira Catonis? / Nunc ubi Regulus, aut ubi Romulus, aut ubi Remus? / Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus. / Quam cito labilis atque volubilis orbita sphaerae, / Corda valentia, corpora fortia praeteriere. / Et breve floruit, et cito corruit unda priorum, / Gloria finiit, area transiit omnis eorum.  I have avoided a translation of the title on purpose, since in the cases discussed in this section the title Περὶ ἱστορίας can be interpreted in different ways.  See LSJ, 842, s.v. ἱστορέω; Beekes (2010) 602, s.v. ἵστωρ. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 003

40

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

rebus canit etiam quodam modo bellicum; primisque ab his, ut ait Theophrastus, historia commota est, ut auderet uberius quam superiores et ornatius dicere (Cic. Orat. 39 [Theophr. fr. 697 Fortenbaugh]). Therefore Herodotus and Thucydides are the more admirable because, though contempo rary with those whom I have just mentioned, they are far removed from such tricks, or I might better say, from such folly. Herodotus flows along like a peaceful stream without any rough water; Thucydides moves with greater vigour, and in his description of war, sounds, as it were, the trumpet of war. These were the first, as Theophrastus says, to rouse history to speak in a fuller and more ornate style than their predecessors had used.

Many scholars have simply connected Cicero’s remarks with Theophrastus’ Peri historias attested in Diogenes Laertius, and at the same time supposed that Theophrastus elaborated a theory of ancient historiography. However, there are two important points to be made. The first is the slippery meaning of the Greek word historia, which comes closer to denoting a wide idea of inquiry than to our understanding of ‘history,’ and especially so in philosophical writings.⁴ The second is related to the content of Cicero’s passage in the Orator: the author is clearly highlighting the stylistic features of the works of Herodotus and Thucydides and Theophrastus’ paraphrase follows the same pattern. Even if only the last sentence (primisque ab his, ut ait Theophrastus, historia commota est, ut auderet uberius quam superiores et ornatius dicere) belonged to Theophrastus, the focus on style in Theophrastus’ judgement would still be paramount. Hence, Theophrastus’ quotation in Cicero does not imply in any way that the fourthcentury-BC philosopher discussed Herodotus and Thucydides in his Peri historias: it is possible, but not demonstrable.⁵ Despite the lack of any certainty on the content of Theophrastus’ Peri historias, Cicero’s above-quoted paraphrase of Theophrastus is of great interest for the history of historiographical canons. The quotation displays unquestionably the paramount importance of both Herodotus and Thucydides in ancient history-writing in the opinion of a leading figure of the Peripatetic school. Moreover,

 Fortenbaugh (1992 2005) 8.318 320.  Given the stylistic feature of Theophrastus’ paraphrase in Cicero’s Orator, it is possible that this fragment belongs to a work such as On Style (Περὶ λέξεως) or, less probably, to On Inventions (Περὶ εὑρημάτων): the list of Thephrastus’ works is reported in Diog. Laert. 5.47. Rose (1863) and Regenbogen (1940) 1526 included the Peri historias among the rhetorical and poetical works of Theophrastus. Fortenbaugh (1992 2005) 8.318 320, who believes that Theophrastus’ Peri histo rias focused on the investigations related to the natural sciences, states that “an interest in the origin of technical writings on style is not identical with an interest in the development of artful prose.” Cf. also Sollenberger (1984) 315. Following this reasoning, it seems plausible to ascribe Theophrastus’ fr. 697 to the work On Style.

2.1 Hellenistic Treatises on Greek Historiography

41

what sets these two historians apart from their contemporaries and later historians, according to Theophrastus/Cicero, is their style, which makes us wonder whether Theophrastus ever considered the content of their work. It seems that already in the second half of the fourth century BC, among the Peripatetics, there was little doubt about who the best representatives of historical narrative were: Theophrastus probably raised Herodotus and Thucydides to a hyper-canon of historiography, i. e. the undisputed models for history-writing in antiquity. The concept of hyper-canon will be expanded in the course of this book, since it is often recognizable within different canons of historiography. Another author of a work entitled Peri historias is Praxiphanes, a pupil of Theophrastus, and just like Theophrastus’ Peri historias, Praxiphanes’ survives only in one quotation: συνεχρόνισε δ᾽, ὥς φησι Πραξιφάνης ἐν τῷ περὶ ἱστορίας, Πλάτωνι τῷ κωμικῷ, ᾿Aγάθωνι τραγικῷ, Νικηράτῳ ἐποποιῷ καὶ Χοιρίλῳ καὶ Μελανιππίδῃ. καὶ ἐπεὶ μὲν ἔζη ᾿Aρχέλαος, ἄδο ξον ἦν ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον, ὡς 〈ὁ〉 αὐτὸς Πραξιφάνης δηλοῖ, ὕστερον δὲ δαιμονίως ἐθαυμάσθη (Marcellin. 29 30 [Praxiph. fr. 18 Wehrli; fr. 21 Matelli]).⁶ Thucydides was the contemporary of Plato Comicus, Agathon the tragic poet, Niceratos the epic poet, Choerilus, and Melanippides, as Praxiphanes says in his work On history. The same Praxiphanes declares that until Archelaus was alive, Thucydides was unknown to many, but later he was admired as a god.

This biographical passage on Thucydides has attracted the attention of many scholars. Hirzel, as far back as 1878, put forward the following hypothesis. He imagined that the authors mentioned in Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides were the main characters of a dialogical work set at the court of the Macedonian king Archelaus, treating the relationship between history and poetry.⁷ Praxiphanes’ Peri historias would thus belong to a dialogical-philosophical tradition, well known through Xenophon, Plato, and later authors. As attractive as this idea seems, it rests on very thin ground, as Graziano Arrighetti has pointed out.⁸ A different hypothesis has been expressed by Wolfgang Aly: Marcellinus’ text is incomplete and unclear, but in Praxiphanes’ original Thucydides did not go to Archelaus’ royal court because he was not famous until Archelaus’

 On this fragment of Praxiphanes, see also Matelli (2012a) 186 191, 277 281, translated into English in Matelli (2012b) 94 99, cf. also Matelli (2012c) 545 549.  Hirzel (1878). Hirzel developed his ideas with an eye to Wilamowitz (1877) 353 361. See also Ulman (1942) 28 n. 14; Brink (1946) 22; Wehrli (1947) 68 71; Wehrli (1957) 112; Canfora (1999) 51, passim.  Arrighetti (1987) 213 214.

42

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

death.⁹ Aly’s convincing suggestion points to a simple fact: Marcellinus does not say anywhere that Thucydides went to the court of Archelaus in Pella. It is not the purpose of this study to examine in depth all of the possible answers to the many questions this fragment raises. It is, however, significant to acknowledge that among the direct (Theophrastus) and indirect (Praxiphanes) pupils of Aristotle, there was an interest in the most famous representatives of historiography, namely Herodotus and Thucydides. Aristotle’s own opinions on history and history-writing will be examined in one of the next chapters (§ 5.3). The fact that we possess only ‘naked names’ of ancient treatises on historiography is confirmed by some other testimonies relating to the following authors: Metrodorus of Scepsis, Zeno of Sidon, Theodorus of Gadara, and eventually a philosopher and sophist named Tiberius. Metrodorus, a philosopher of the Academic school, lived between the second and the first centuries BC. He later took up rhetoric and became a representative of the Asianic trend. He was also the author of a history of the Armenian king Tigranes, as well as of a Peri historias. ¹⁰ The nature of both works is very uncertain: they are known exclusively from the scholia to Apollonius Rhodius, where only some meagre geographical information is reported. Zeno of Sidon, a first-century-BC Epicurean philosopher and teacher of Philodemus, was also the author of a Peri historias, a title attested in a Herculaneum papyrus (P.Herc. 1005, col. 7.16).¹¹ Almost nothing is known of the content of this work, but it is very unlikely that Zeno worked on history and/or historiography, and his Peri historias can be dismissed from our discussion.¹² Just as with Metrodorus’ and Zeno’s works, little can be inferred from Theodorus of Gadara’s Peri historias. A pupil of Apollodorus of Pergamon, who was also the teacher of Augustus, Theodorus instructed the emperor Tiberius.¹³ Ac-

 Aly (1954) 1777 followed by Matelli (2012a) 277 279 and Matelli (2012b) 99.  Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 4.131 (FGrHist 184 F 1); schol. Apoll. Rhod. 4.834 (FGrHist 184 F 2). See Bux/ Kroll (1932).  The text coincides with col. 10.16 in Angeli (1988) 176.  See Angeli (1988) 285 286; Matelli (2012c) 546 549. Gigante (1998) 94 argues that Zeno’s Περὶ ἱστορίας focused on the prose style of the historians and was intended as a polemic against Praxiphanes’ homonymous work: “un Περὶ ἱστορίας (…) mi piace affermare che il contenuto era la prosa degli storici, i λόγοι ἱστορικοί forse in polemica col dialogo Περὶ ἱστορίας di Pras sifane il quale nell’orma aristotelica che aveva scarsamente apprezzato la storia lasciava giudi care sfavorevolmente Tucidide.” However, Gigante’s reasoning is very conjectural and cannot be accepted.  See Quint. Inst. 3.1.17 18 (T 6 Woerther); Suet. Tib. 57.1; Suda θ 151, s.v. Θεόδωρος (T 1 Woer ther). Some testimonies in FGrHist 850, while for the most recent edition of all the fragments of

2.1 Hellenistic Treatises on Greek Historiography

43

cording to a later tradition, Theodorus and Apollodorus established two opposing schools of rhetoric: the Apollodoreans were rigid in the interpretation of rhetoric as a set of rules and a science which did not include exceptions; on the other hand, the Theodoreans believed rhetoric to be only a techne with rules that could be interpreted and adapted to different circumstances.¹⁴ He was a famous rhetor in his age and wrote many works whose titles are listed in Quintilian’s Institutes and in the Suda. ¹⁵ Among these, one can detect a work on Coele Syria (Περὶ Κοίλης Συρίας), two books devoted to the State (Περὶ πολιτείας), and finally a work entitled Peri historias. As with the previous author, nothing certain is known of this latter work. Finally, a namesake of the emperor Tiberius was, according again to the Suda, the author of different works of rhetoric: from texts on the composition of speeches to epideictic oratory, from a Peri historias to works on the comparison between Plato and Xenophon on the one hand, and between Herodotus and Thucydides on the other.¹⁶ The common denominators in this list of works are rhetoric and philosophy, but there is not much more we can say about it, or about their author (who lived between the first and the third century AD). However, the fact that Metrodorus, Theodorus and Tiberius were all teachers of rhetoric and at the same time authors of works that were called Peri historias is yet another remarkable piece of evidence of the influence of rhetoric upon historiography in the late Hellenistic and early Roman imperial age. There is yet another representative of this alleged interest of orators and school teachers in historiography. Caecilius of Calacte, a leading figure in the polemic on Atticism and Asianism and a friend of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, was not only the author of several critical works on the Attic orators (see above § 1.4), but also, according to the Suda, of a Περὶ τῶν κατὰ ἱστορίαν ἢ παρὰ ἱστορίαν εἰρημένων τοῖς ῥήτορσι, a possible translation being On things said by the ora-

both Apollodorus and Theodorus, see Woerther (2013). See also Stegeman (1934); Bowersock (1965) 35 36.  See Schanz (1890), the first scholar to offer a convincing overview of these issues; cf. Grube (1959).  See Suda θ 151, s.v. Θεόδωρος (T 1 Woerther); Strabo 16.2.29 C 759 (T 2 Woerther); Quint. Inst. 3.1.18 (T 6 Woerther).  Suda τ 550, s.v. Τιβέριος, φιλόσοφος καὶ σοφιστής. Περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου βιβλία γ´, Περὶ παρα σκευῆς, Περὶ μεταποιήσεως, Περὶ ἱστορίας, Περὶ λόγου τάξεως καὶ συνθέσεως, Περὶ διαιρέσεως λόγου, Περὶ μεταβολῆς λόγου πολιτικοῦ, Περὶ λόγων ἐπιδεικτικῶν, Περὶ προλαλιῶν καὶ προοι μίων, Περὶ ἐπιχειρημάτων, Περὶ Δημοσθένους καὶ Ξενοφῶντος, Περὶ Ἡροδότου καὶ Θουκυδίδου. The Peri historias is overlooked in Solmsen (1936) 804.

44

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

tors according to history or against history. ¹⁷ Moreover, Caecilius apparently wrote a history of the war of slaves in Sicily as well as a Peri historias: both works are mentioned by Athenaeus.¹⁸ Nothing more is known of these works. We cannot follow the path suggested by Friedrich Blass: in his work on the history of eloquence between Alexander and Augustus, Blass cursorily remarked that Caecilius’ Peri historias was centred on the theory of historiography (“Theorie der Geschichtschreibung”).¹⁹ As we have seen above, such a title could actually be very approximate in its description of the content of a work, and by no means did historia always correspond to Geschichtscherbung. Since we do not have any fragment or short account on the subject matter, we cannot judge clearly and without a prejudice. All the tiles I have gathered so far convey only a blurry idea of the whole mosaic. One thing, however, seems to be clear: the testimonies on the treatises on historiography in the Hellenistic age, as well as in the first centuries of the Roman imperial age, evince a very strong relationship between historiography, oratory, and the teaching of rhetoric. We can identify some of the reasons that such a state of things materialized in those periods. First and foremost, historiography was a literary genre that belonged only partially to rhetoric and had rules of its own. Modern historical investigation was shaped by the scientific revolution of the modern era and by the age of positivism. Before that, narrative and rhetoric were essential features in the historiographical discourse. In ancient Greek historiography, which represents a starting point for Western historiography, the struggle was set off between rhetorical features and the representation of truth. Another issue attending the shortage of critical studies on ancient historiography in antiquity, and especially in the Hellenistic age, is the total absence of a formal instruction in history in the school curriculum in the ancient world. The schools of grammar and rhetoric were in charge of literary education from the fifth century BC to the end of antiquity and beyond. In a seminal work on history as an academic subject, Arnaldo Momigliano wrote: “the Greeks who invented history, as we understand it, in the fifth century BC never regarded history as

 Suda κ 1165 (FGrHist 183 T 1; T 1 Woerther). Woerther (2015) 44 translates Sur ce qui a été dit par les orateurs conformément à l’histoire ou contrairement à l’histoire.  Athen 6.272 f (FGrHist 183 F 1; T 7 Woerther): σύγγραμμα δὲ ἐκδέδωκε περὶ τῶν δουλικῶν πο λέμων Καικίλιος ὁ ῥήτωρ ὁ ἀπὸ Καλῆς ἀκτῆς; Athen 11.466a (FGrHist 183 F 2; T 8 Woerther): Και κίλιος δὲ ὁ ῥήτωρ ὁ ἀπὸ Καλῆς ᾿Aκτῆς ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἱστορίας ᾿Aγαθοκλέα φησὶ τὸν τύραννον ἐκπώ ματα χρυσᾶ ἐπιδεικνύντα τοῖς ἑταίροις φάσκειν, ἐξ ὧν ἐκεράμευσε κατεσκευακέναι ταῦτα. For a commentary on both passages of Athenaeus: Woerther (2015) 53 56.  Blass (1865) 175, followed by Stegeman (1934) 1849.

2.1 Hellenistic Treatises on Greek Historiography

45

a specific subject for instruction in school at any level.”²⁰ Even if there were no formal lessons dedicated to history in antiquity, the works of ancient historians were widely read in the ancient schools, mainly for rhetorical purposes. History had an exemplary role to the extent that it offered models of political behaviour, narrative of military deeds, and exempla for judges and lawyers alike. We cannot expect modern institutions and attitudes to resemble ancient approaches. Given the controversial situation pertaining to ancient approaches to the history of historiography, we are compelled to turn to the Roman world, and especially to Latin rhetoric, to gain a firmer grip on both ancient Greek historiography and historians. There is an isolated piece of evidence, provided by Aulus Gellius (NA 16.9.5), that Varro wrote a logistoricus with the title of Sisenna vel de historia. It dealt certainly with Sisenna, the most significant Roman historian of the first half of the first century BC, but nothing more is known about it. Later texts such as Lucian’s How to Write History (Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγραφεῖν) or a How Can We Recognize True History (Πῶς κρινοῦμεν τὴν ἀληθῆ ἱστορίαν) ascribed to Plutarch in the so-called catalogue of Lamprias,²¹ were written when the canons of Greek historiography had already been through many enlargements and reductions, and we shall deal with some of these texts in later chapters. Finally, there are a few noteworthy historians who discussed the method of history-writing in their own works, namely Thucydides and Polybius.²² Yet the purpose of the present book is the analysis of the canons of historiography, not of the method of ancient historians. The preserved texts of the Classical and Hellenistic age have not yielded any valuable testimony for a critical approach to ancient Greek historiography, and the scanty and scattered clues for canon-formation in the Hellenistic age will be reviewed in § 5. I shall now turn to the late Roman Republic for the most ancient explicit reference to a canon of Greek historiography. That is, I shall here turn to the rhetorical works of Marcus Tullius Cicero.

 See Momigliano (1983) 1. Cf. Strasburger (1966) 9 11.  See nr. 124 in vol. 7 of Plutarch’s Moralia in the Teubner edition (ed. Sandbach [1967] 6). The work is translated in Latin as Qua ratione veram historiam discernere liceat by the Jesuit scholar David Hoeschel (1579) nr. 122. For the catalogue of Lamprias, the main source is Suda λ 96, s.v. Λαμπρίας, Πλουτάρχου τοῦ Χαιρωνέως υἱός. ἔγραψε Πίνακα ὧν ὁ πατῆρ αὐτοῦ ἔγραψε περὶ πάσης Ἑλληνικῆς καὶ Ῥωμαϊκῆς ἱστορίας. On its dubious authenticity: Ziegler (1951) 696 702; on its textual transmission: Irigoin (1986).  See esp. Thuc. 1.22 and Polyb. 9.1 2 and Polybius’ famous Book Twelve.

46

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

2.2 What was Cicero’s Knowledge of the Greek Historians? Cornelius Nepos, the author of De viris illustribus, believed that with the death of the great Roman orator and politician, the opportunity for Latin literature to approach the grandeur of Greek historiography was lost forever.²³ Cornelius Nepos in libro de historicis Latinis de laude Ciceronis: non ignorare debes unum hoc genus Latinarum litterarum adhuc non modo non respondere Graeciae, sed omnino rude atque inchoatum morte Ciceronis relictum. ille enim fuit unus qui potuerit et etiam debuerit historiam digna voce pronuntiare (…). ex quo dubito, interitu eius utrum res publica an his toria magis doleat (Nep. De viris illustribus, fr. 17 Peter; fr. 57 Malcovati; fr. 58 Marshall apud cod. Guelf. Gud. lat. 278). Praise of Cicero in the book on the Latin historians by Cornelius Nepos: You ought not to be unaware that this is the only branch of Latin literature that even in my own time cannot be compared with what the Greeks accomplished, and that it was left wholly rude and unfin ished by the death of Cicero. For he was the only man who could, or even sought to, give history a worthy utterance (…). Which leads me to doubt whether his loss brought greater grief to our country or to history.

Despite Nepos’ lament that Cicero could have raised Latin historiography to a higher degree, it is a well-known fact that Cicero never wrote any proper historical work.²⁴ However, his enthusiasm and concern for historiography is well attested. In a famous (and abused) reference in the On the Orator, Cicero declares that history is a teacher of life (magistra vitae).²⁵ At the same time, however, Cicero proposed to Lucceius to write a work of history with the purpose of praising Cicero’s own political accomplishments in the years 63‒57 BC, apparently regardless of the truthfulness of the account.²⁶ These and other passages have been exploited to perpetrate contrasting views on Cicero’s attitude towards the methods and practices of ancient historiography.²⁷ Nonetheless, methodological issues are only marginal in the investigation of the canons of Greek historians.

 On Nepos and his praise of Cicero: Cornell (2013) 1.401.  For an overview of historiography in the Roman intellectual world of the first century BC: Rawson (1985) 215 232.  Cic. De or. 2.36: historia vero testis temporum, lux veritatis, vita memoriae, magistra vitae, nun tia vetustatis, qua voce alia nisi oratoris immortalitati commendatur?  Cic. Fam. 5.12 Cf. Shackleton Bailey (1977) 1.320.  Two opposed opinions have developed on Cicero’s approach to history and historiography. Wiseman (1979) § 1 and Woodman (1988) § 2 believed that historiography for Cicero was only a lower branch of rhetoric. On the other hand, Brunt (1980) and before him also Rawson (1972) reassessed that truth was essential to historiography, while rhetoric was a component part of the representation of that truth. An overview of the polemic in Flach (1998) 92 95. Other scholars

2.2 What was Cicero’s Knowledge of the Greek Historians?

47

Before going through the single texts that might enable an assessment of Cicero’s canon of Greek writers of history, we need to ask a fundamental preliminary question: what was Cicero’s knowledge of Greek historians? I believe that a productive approach, which will enable us to answer this question, will be to examine Cicero’s access to books and libraries since “the culture of Cicero’s generation would have been impossible without ownership of, or access to, libraries.”²⁸ There were three major events that changed the fate of Greek texts and made them available to the Roman audience. The first of these events is recounted in the Plutarchean biography of Aemilius Paulus. After his victory over Perseus in 168 BC, Aemilius donated the library of the Macedonian king to his sons, one of them being Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, the conqueror of Carthage and learned friend of Polybius.²⁹ The second event was the conquest and sack of Athens by Sulla in 86 BC. The Roman general thus laid his hands on the library of Aristotle, where a great number of philosophical, rhetorical, and historical texts were preserved. Aristotle’s library was brought to Italy and bequeathed to Sulla’s son, Faustus Cornelius Sulla.³⁰ In April 55 BC Cicero wrote to Atticus from Cuma: “I’m here feeding on Faustus’ library” (Att. 4.10.1: ego hic pascor bibliotheca Fausti). Only a few months later, in November 55 BC, Cicero finished the On the Orator – which represents the paramount source for Cicero’s understanding of Greek historiography – and sent a copy of the text to his friend Atticus.³¹ Faustus, burdened by financial problems, was compelled to sell his books at an auction.³² Some scholars have supposed that Cicero himself might have taken advantage have recently debated on these issues: Feldherr (2003), Fox (2007), and Northwood (2008). See also Woodman (2008) for a reply against the two latter scholars. Lastly, see Montecalvo (2013) 98 106.  Fantham (1989) 230.  Plut. Aem. 22, 28. See also Isid. Etym. 6.5.1: Romae primus librorum copiam advexit Aemilius Paulus, Perse Macedonum rege devicto; deinde Lucullus e Pontica praeda. Cf. Canfora (2005) and (2006) 722 723; Houston (2014) 35.  Strabo 13.1.54 C 608 609; Plut. Sull. 26. The history of Aristotle’s library has attracted the cu riosity of many scholars, mainly for the fame of its original owner, but also for its importance in the history of ancient books and on the transmission of philosophical texts in antiquity. On Sul la’s acquisition of the corpus Aristotelicum, see Wendel/Göber (1955) 60 62; Düring (1957); Gigon (1959); Düring (1968) 194 190; Lord (1986); Gottschalk (1987) 1083 1088. An overview in Dix (2004) and Houston (2014) 34 37. On Cicero’s knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy: Forten baugh/Steinmetz (1989). On the corpus Aristotelicum in a Roman context: Barnes (1997); Tutrone (2013) 160 166.  Cic. Att. 4.13.2; Fam. 1.9.23; for the chronology of these biographical and bibliographical events: Marinone (2004) 126, 190 192.  Plut. Cic. 27; Reg. imp. apophth. 205C.

48

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

of the auction to purchase some books, which would imply that he got his hands on a portion of Aristotle’s library.³³ Finally, the third historical event was the victory of Lucius Licinius Lucullus, consul in 74 BC, over Mithridates, king of Pontus. The king’s library was brought to the famous villa at Tusculum, a meeting place for many Roman intellectuals and Greeks residing in Rome.³⁴ Cicero was among the regular visitors of the villa.³⁵ Two of his dialogues are set in the villa at Tusculum: De finibus and the lost, albeit fragmentary, Hortensius. In the first one Cicero speaks explicitly of multi libri Stoicorum and of his search for the commentarii Aristotelii. The villa must have been full of philosophical texts, such as the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, but other literary genres were surely not neglected. Moreover, some fragments of the Hortensius point to the presence of many books of poetry and rhetoric, most of them in Greek, at Lucullus library at Tusculum.³⁶ Apart from these libraries in Rome and its surroundings, Cicero’s private library needs to be considered, and especially the presence of Greek books in his possession. In Cicero’s correspondence between 67 and 66 BC, he asks Atticus to buy for him a whole library in Greece. Clearly this library consisted exclusively of Greek texts.³⁷ In 60 BC the grammarian Servius Clodius bequeathed his library, consisting of Greek and Latin texts, to Cicero, who moved heaven and earth to lay his hands on these books.³⁸ Suetonius says of both Clodius and his father-in-law,

 See Münzer (1900) 1516; Wendel/Göber (1955) 112; Shackleton Bailey (1965 1970) 2.195; Can fora (2006) 729. Dix (2013), the most recent analysis of Cicero’s private library, has some doubts on Cicero’s acquisition of Aristotle’s library and remarks: “that Cicero could make so little com ment on an acquisition such as the ‘library of Aristotle’ strikes me as unlikely” (216); but in his conclusion Dix oddly seems to agree with the general opinion: “Cicero may have purchased the library of Faustus Sulla at auction in 55” (232).  The fact that Lucullus seized Mithridates’ library and took it to Rome is only attested by Isid. Etym. 6.5.1: Romae primus librorum copiam advexit Aemilius Paulus, Perse Macedonum rege de victo; deinde Lucullus e Pontica praeda. Plut. Luc. 42 is explicit on the presence of Greek intel lectuals at Tusculum. On Lucullus’ library: Dix (2000) 441 444; Tutrone (2013) 157 160; Houston (2014) 35 37.  See Cic. Fin. 3.7 10.  Dix (2000) 444 446. For the setting of the Hortensius: Gigon (1962).  Cic. Att. 1.7; 1.10.4; 1.11.3. See also Dix (2013) 209 213. On private libraries in Rome: Houston (2014) 12 34.  Cic. Att. 1.20.7: nunc, ut ad rem meam redeam, L. Papirius Paetus, vir bonus amatorque noster, mihi libros eos, quos Ser. Claudius reliquit, donavit. cum mihi per legem Cinciam licere capere Cin cius, amicus tuus, diceret, libenter dixi me accepturum, si attulisset. nunc, si me amas, si te a me amari scis, enitere per amicos, clientes, hospites, libertos denique ac servos tuos, ut scida ne qua depereat; nam et Graecis iis libris, quos suspicor, et Latinis, quos scio illum reliquisse, mihi vehe menter opus est. Cf. Att. 2.1.12. Dix (2000) 217 219.

2.3 Cicero’s Worthy Opinion (digna vox) on Greek Canonical Historians

49

Lucius Aelius Stilo of Lanuvium: “both were Roman knights and men of wide and varied experience in scholarship and politics” (Suet. Gram. et rhet. 3: uterque eques Romanus multique et varii et in doctrina et in re publica usus). Hence, it is difficult to suppose that Servius Clodius’ library involved only grammatical works.³⁹ Moreover, Cicero had access to some other private libraries in Rome, notably that of his friend and correspondent Titus Pomponius Atticus. In one of the letters sent to Atticus, Cicero asks for free access to these books in Atticus’ absence (Att. 4.14.1). There was also his brother Quintus’s library, which however lacked Greek texts (Qfr. 3.4.5: de bibliotheca tua Graeca supplenda), a problem that Cicero hoped to solve with the help of Tyrannio, a Greek grammarian famous for his role in the history and fate of Aristotle’s library.⁴⁰ As clearly shown in the previous pages, various events and circumstances concurred to Cicero’s knowledge of Greek texts and their availability in and around Rome. Particular emphasis should be placed on his direct contact with Faustus Sulla’s library in April 55 BC (Cic. Att. 4.10.1). On the Orator, Brutus, Orator and Hortensius, Cicero’s works where an opinion on Greek historiography is displayed, were all written after that date. Moreover, the latter dialogue was set in Lucullus’ villa at Tusculum, a place where Cicero might have had access to many Greek texts. After this preliminary investigation of Cicero’s direct knowledge of Greek literature, we can now turn to Greek historiography in Cicero’s writings.

2.3 Cicero’s Worthy Opinion (digna vox) on Greek Canonical Historians Many Greek historians are mentioned throughout Cicero’s corpus, from his correspondence to the philosophical works, but among his writings there are three fundamental texts which help to define Cicero’s canon of Greek historiography, namely the rhetorical treatises On the Orator, Brutus and Orator. In the On the Orator, set in 91 BC at Crassus’ villa at Tusculum, Quintus Lutatius Catulus, consul in 102 BC, declares that if someone wanted to write history as the Greeks did, then an orator with supreme qualities was required, while to

 See Rawson (1972) 34.  For Tyrannio’s testimonies and fragments: Haas (1977). See also Dix (2013) 213 216.

50

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

write history the way the Romans did, it was sufficient not to tell lies.⁴¹ These might have been representative thoughts on historiography in the early first century BC, but were probably still familiar to Cicero’s contemporaries, approximately one generation after the time in which the On the Orator is set. After Lutatius Catulus’ statement, Marcus Antonius Orator, the triumvir’s grandfather, consul in 99 BC, replies that “in the beginning the Greeks themselves also wrote like our [M. Porcius] Cato, [Q. Fabius] Pictor, and [L. Calpurnius] Piso. History was nothing more than the compilation of yearly chronicles [annales].”⁴² These Latin authors, the first Roman annalists, are compared with the ancient Greek logographers Pherecydes of Athens, Hellanicus of Lesbos, and Acusilaus of Argos. According to Marcus Antonius, early Roman and Greek historiography are not very different: their style was unadorned and they have left only a bare record of dates, names, places, and events.⁴³ It might appear that Cicero was acquainted with these ancient Greek logographers as it is reflected in Marcus Antonius Orator’s account. The criticism of Pherecydes, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus is only the prelude to the most important representative of ancient Greek historiography. The authors that deserve to be read and studied are discussed in the following sections of the dialogue: ‘minime mirum,’ inquit Antonius ‘si ista res [i. e. historia] adhuc nostra lingua inlustrata non est; nemo enim studet eloquentiae nostrorum hominum, nisi ut in causis atque in foro eluceat; apud Graecos autem eloquentissimi homines remoti a causis forensibus cum ad ceteras res inlustris tum ad historiam scribendam maxime se applicaverunt: namque et Herodotum illum, qui princeps genus hoc ornavit, in causis nihil omnino versatum esse accepimus; atqui tanta est eloquentia, ut me quidem, quantum ego Graece scripta intellegere possum, magno opere delectet; (56) et post illum Thucydides omnis dicendi artificio mea sententia fac ile vicit; qui ita creber est rerum frequentia, ut is verborum prope numerum sententiarum nu mero consequatur, ita porro verbis est aptus et pressus, ut nescias, utrum res oratione an verba sententiis inlustrentur. atqui ne hunc quidem, quanquam est in republica versatus, ex numero accepimus eorum, qui causas dictitarunt: et hos ipsos libros tum scripsisse dicitur, cum a republica remotus, atque, id quod optimo cuique Athenis accidere solitum est, in exsi lium pulsus esset. (57) hunc consecutus est Syracosius Philistus, qui, cum Dionysi tyranni fa miliarissimus esset, otium suum consumpsit in historia scribenda maximeque Thucydidem

 Cic. De or. 2.51: ‘age vero,’ inquit Antonius ‘qualis oratoris et quanti hominis in dicendo putas esse historiam scribere?’ ‘si, ut Graeci scripserunt, summi,’ inquit Catulus; ‘si, ut nostri, nihil opus est oratore; satis est non esse mendacem.’  Cic. De or. 2.51 52: ‘atqui (…)’ inquit Antonius, ‘Graeci quoque sic initio scriptitarunt, ut noster Cato, ut Pictor, ut Piso. erat enim historia nihil aliud nisi annalium confectio.’  Cic. De or. 2.53: hanc [sc. annalium maximorum] similitudinem multi secuti sunt, qui sine ullis ornamentis monumenta solum temporum, hominum, locorum gestarumque rerum reliquerunt. Ita que qualis apud Graecos Pherecydes, Hellanicos, Acusilas fuit aliique permulti, talis noster Cato et Pictor et Piso (…). A thorough commentary of De or. 2.51 53 in Leeman et al. (1984) 253 255.

2.3 Cicero’s Worthy Opinion (digna vox) on Greek Canonical Historians

51

est, ut mihi videtur, imitatus. postea vero ex clarissima quasi rhetoris officina duo praestantes ingenio, Theopompus et Ephorus ab Isocrate magistro impulsi se ad historiam contulerunt; causas omnino numquam attigerunt. (58) denique etiam a philosophia profectus princeps Xenophon, Socraticus ille, post ab Aristotele Callisthenes, comes Alexandri, scripsit historiam, et is quidem rhetorico paene more; ille autem superior leniore quodam sono est usus, et qui illum impetum oratoris non habeat, vehemens fortasse minus, sed aliquanto tamen est, ut mihi quidem videtur, dulcior. minimus natu horum omnium Timaeus, quantum autem iudicare possum, longe eruditissimus et rerum copia et sententiarum varietate abundantissimus et ipsa compositione verborum non impolitus magnam eloquentiam ad scribendum attulit, sed nullum usum forensem’ (Cic. De or. 2.55 58). ‘Small wonder,’ said Antonius, ‘if this subject [history] has not yet been treated with any brilliance in our language. None of our countrymen devotes himself to eloquence except to play a conspicuous role in pleading cases and in the forum in general. Among the Greeks, on the other hand, the most eloquent people, being far removed from such public activities, applied their energies not only to every other splendid subject, but especially to the writing of history. We have been told that Herodotus, the man who first gave distinction to this genre, did not concern himself with court cases at all. Yet he is so enormously elo quent that I at least, as far as I am able to comprehend things written in Greek, take tre mendous pleasure in reading him. (56) Thucydides, who came after him, in my opinion easily surpassed everyone in his skillful use of language. His tightly packed content makes him so dense that the number of his ideas almost equals the number of his words. Moreover, he is so accomplished and compact with his words that it is hard to tell whether the content is illuminated by the language, or the words by the ideas. Yet we have been told that not even he, although he was active in the state, was among those who regularly pleaded cases, and he is reported to have written these very books at the time he was far removed from the state, and in fact had been driven into exile a fate that used to befall precisely the most excellent citizens in Athens. (57) After him came Philistus of Syracuse. Though a very close friend to the tyrant Dionysius, he spent his leisure time writing history, and to a large extent, as it seems to me, he took Thucydides as his model. Afterward, moreover, Theopompus and Ephorus, two pre eminently talented men, products, so to speak, of the most celebrated of rhetoricians’ workshops, concentrated their efforts on history, urged on by their teacher Isocrates; they never so much as touched real cases. (58) Finally, there were even people coming from a philosophical background who wrote history: first Xenophon, the follower of Socrates, and then Aristotle’s pupil Cal listhenes, who accompanied Alexander. Callisthenes wrote almost like a rhetorician, while Xenophon used a somewhat gentler tone and, lacking the vigor of an orator, is perhaps less powerful, but nevertheless, at least so it seems to me, a little more agreeable. Timaeus was the youngest of all of these, but, as far as I can judge, he was easily the most learned, the richest in terms of wealth of material and variety of ideas, and not without polish in actual arrangement of his words. He brought great eloquence to his writing, but no practical ex perience in public speaking.’

After Marcus Antonius’ stunning display of familiarity with the great names of Greek historiography, Julius Caesar Strabo exclaims: “Where are the people who say that Antonius doesn’t know Greek? He mentioned such a great number

52

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

of historians! And he spoke with so much knowledge and discriminating appreciation about each and every one of them!”⁴⁴ The setting and the characters of the dialogue must always be considered in the first place. Even if fictional, the On the Orator was nonetheless built upon historical characters: Lucius Licinius Crassus and Marcus Antonius were only a generation older than Cicero.⁴⁵ In the prologue to the second book of the On the Orator, Cicero asserts, recalling also his personal experience, that both men were among the most learned of their time.⁴⁶ Hence Julius Caesar Strabo’s surprise for this meticulous and comprehensive account of Greek historians might reflect the genuine wonder of an educated man of his generation, while it is difficult to assert whether Cicero’s audience was also impressed.⁴⁷ In the previous section, I have surveyed Cicero’s reading-habits during the months that preceded the publication of the On the Orator, and it might be inferred that direct knowledge of a great number of Greek historians reached Roman learned circles only around the middle of the first century BC. Since the On the Orator is set in 91 BC, Marcus Antonius’ list of historians might have appeared rather impressive for that time. Another perspective to interpret the above-quoted passage is that of the modern student of historiography, who might be awestruck by Marcus Antonius’ insistence on the lack of law-court experience among the ancient Greek historians. Of Herodotus’ attitude, Marcus Antonius says: “we have been told that Herodotus (…) did not concern himself with court cases at all” (namque et Herodotum illum (…) in causis nihil omnino versatum esse accepimus); of Thucydides’ political involvement: “Yet we have been told that not even he, although he was active in the state, was among those who regularly pleaded cases” (atqui ne hunc quidem, quamquam est in re publica versatus, ex numero accepimus eorum, qui causas dictitarunt); of Ephorus and Theopompus: “they never so

 Cic. De or. 2.59: haec cum ille dixisset, ‘quid est,’ inquit ‘Catule?’ Caesar; ‘ubi sunt, qui Anto nium Graece negant scire? quot historicos nominavit! quam scienter, quam proprie de uno quoque dixit!’  Lucius Licinius Crassus (ca. 140 91 BC) was consul in 95 BC. Marcus Antonius Orator (143 87 BC) was consul in 99 BC: cf. Fantham (2004) 26 48. Julius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus (ca. 130 87 BC) was an orator and tragic poet, aedile in 90 BC.  Cic. De or. 2.1 6; for Marcus Antonius, see esp. De or. 2.3: de Antonio vero, quamquam saepe ex humanissimo homine patruo nostro acceperamus, quem ad modum ille vel Athenis vel Rhodi se doctissimorum hominum sermonibus dedisset, tamen ipse adulescentulus, quantum illius ineuntis aetatis meae patiebatur pudor, multa ex eo saepe quaesivi. Cf. Hall (1994) 211 215; Fantham (2004) 26 32.  For the complexities of Roman intellectual life in Cicero’s time and through Cicero’s writings, see Wisse (2002a).

2.3 Cicero’s Worthy Opinion (digna vox) on Greek Canonical Historians

53

much as touched real cases” (causas omnino numquam attigerunt); of Timaeus: “…but no practical experience in public speaking” (sed nullum usum forensem).⁴⁸ Such an approach to historiography should be set in the context of both the dialogue and Cicero’s reasons for writing it: it is meant to define the ideal orator whose main ambition was actively to participate in public life.⁴⁹ A similar understanding of historiography to the one expressed by Marcus Antonius in the On the Orator can also be traced in the Orator, a rhetorical treatise on the polemic against Atticism: Cicero praises the sweetness (dulcis) of Xenophon’s language, but remarks that his prose is not suitable for the law court.⁵⁰ And in the same treatise, Cicero excludes Thucydides from the rank of the orators,⁵¹ even if in Marcus Antonius’ analysis of Greek historiography Thucydides is the most praised because “in my opinion [he] easily surpassed everyone in his skillful use of language” (De or. 2.56: omnis dicendi artificio mea sententia facile vicit). In the Brutus, basically a history of ancient oratory, Thucydides is summoned as an excellent model for someone engaged in the writing of history, but he is also described as an awful teacher for court speeches: ‘Thucydidem,’ inquit, ‘imitamur.’ optime, si historiam scribere, non si causa dicere cogitatis. Thucydides enim rerum gestarum pronuntiator sincerus et grandis etiam fuit; hoc forense con certatorium iudiciale non tractavit genus (Cic. Brut. 287). ‘Thucydides,’ you say, ‘we strive to imitate.’ Very good, if you are thinking of writing history, but not if you contemplate pleading cases. Thucydides was a herald of deeds, faithful and even grand, but our forensic speech with its wrangling, its atmosphere of the court room, he never used.

In this passage, Cicero refers specifically to historical facts (res gestae) in the work of Thucydides, while in some other cases he mentions only the speeches.⁵² It should be noted that in the opening lines of the Brutus, Cicero includes Thucydides among his sources for the early history of oratory in Greece. Focusing on Athens, Cicero lists a few significant political figures such as Pisistratus, Solon, Clisthenes, Themistocles, Pericles, Cleon, as well as the more recent Alcibiades,

 All these quotations are extracted from Cic. De or. 2.55 58 quoted above.  Cf. Leeman et al. (1985) 249 252. On the On the Orator see, in general, Wisse (2002b).  Cic. Orat. 32: nactus sum etiam qui Xenophontis similem esse se cuperet, cuius sermo est ille quidem melle dulcior, sed a forensi strepitu remotissimus.  Cic. Orat. 30: Thucydides autem res gestas et bella narrat et proelia, graviter sane et probe, sed nihil ab eo transferri potest ad forensem usum et publicum. ipsae illae contiones ita multas habent obscuras abditasque sententias vix ut intellegantur; quod est in oratione civili vitium vel maximum. And then referring to Thycidides, Orat. 32: itaque numquam est numeratus orator.  For a general overview of Cicero’s opinion of Thucydides, see Binot (2010).

54

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

Critias, and Theramenes: “the style and eloquence that flourished in their time may be learned best from the writings of Thucydides, their contemporary.”⁵³ The Athenian historian is mentioned alongside Pericles and Alcibiades, whose texts (scripta) were, according to Cicero, still extant in his time.⁵⁴ It is highly improbable that in Cicero’s time authentic speeches of Pericles circulated in Rome or anywhere else: in the Flavian age, Quintilian assures that no such thing was available.⁵⁵ With the word scripta, therefore, Cicero refers to the speeches of Pericles and Alcibiades reported and rearranged in Thucydides.⁵⁶ Following Thucydides, there are many other historians in Cicero’s On the Orator which are worth considering. Philistus is defined through his friendship with the tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse; from the literary standpoint, he tried to emulate Thucydides.⁵⁷ Next come two historians which belong to the school of Isocrates (ex clarissima quasi rhetoris officina),⁵⁸ Ephorus and Theopompus. Historians with a philosophical education are also mentioned, among them Xenophon, a pupil of Socrates, and Callisthenes, a disciple of Aristotle and companion of Alexander. The last historian in this list is Timaeus, who is praised for his learning, his elaborate thoughts, and his style.⁵⁹ In conclusion, the list of authors reported in De or. 2.55‒58 represents a selection of ancient Greek historians, judged according to their excellence in style. They are: Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Ephorus, Theopompus, Xenophon, Callisthenes, Timaeus. In the dialogue, neither Marcus Antonius nor any other participant ever mentions the word canon or any other term that could be interpreted as such. However, to list and discuss a series of authors of historical works, judging their styles and, sometimes, the content of their histories, entails the presence of a literary canon. The authors that did not comply with Marcus Antonius’ (or Cicero’s?) stylistic prerequisites were automatically excluded

 Cic. Brut. 29: quibus temporibus quod dicendi genus viguerit ex Thucydidi scriptis, qui ipse tum fuit, intellegi maxume potest.  Cic. De or. 2.93: antiquissimi fere sunt, quorum quidem scripta constent, Pericles atque Alci biades et eadem aetate Thucydides, subtiles, acuti, breves, sententiisque magis quam verbis abun dantes.  Quint. Inst. 12.2.22: haec si rationi manifesta non essent, exemplis tamen crederemus, si qui dem et Periclem, cuius eloquentiae, etiam si nulla ad nos monumenta venerunt, vim tamen quan dam incredibilem cum historici tum etiam liberrimum hominum genus, comici veteres tradunt, Anaxagorae physici constat auditorem fuisse, et Demosthenen, principem omnium Graeciae orato rum, dedisse operam Platoni.  See Nicolai (1994) 95 97.  On Philistus, see Bearzot (2002); Vattuone (2007) 194 196; Fromentin (2010).  For the textual difficulties of this passage, see Leeman et al. (1985) 260.  Cf. Leeman et al. (1985) 261 262.

2.4 Minor Greek Historians in Cicero’s Writings

55

from the discussion and hence from this canon. To show even more clearly that the list of Greek historians in Cicero’s On the Orator should be considered his canon of Greek historiography, an analysis of the presence of other Greek historians in Cicero’s writings is needed.

2.4 Minor Greek Historians in Cicero’s Writings In a passage that follows the list of historians in De or. 2.55‒58, Cicero makes it clear, through the words of Marcus Antonius Orator, that there are also many other Greek historians that one ought to be familiar with: “I make my habit… of reading the works of these authors and a few more” (De or. 2.59: horum libros et non nullus alios… legere soleo). However, these historians are not discussed in this dialogue. We have already seen that in De or. 2.53 Cicero lists the logographers Pherecydes, Hellanicus and Acusilaus, only to criticise their raw and unpolished style. This is the main reason for their absence in Cicero’s supposed canon. A similar conclusion can be claimed for Clitarchus and Duris of Samos. The former is blamed for his childish style (Cic. Leg. 1.7) and is mentioned, together with the orator Stratocles, for his embellished story of the death of Themistocles, which was allegedly full of rhetorical and tragic fiction.⁶⁰ ‘si quidem uterque, cum civis egregius fuisset, populi ingrati pulsus iniuria se ad hostes con tulit conatumque iracundiae suae morte sedavit. nam etsi aliter apud te est, Attice, de Corio lano, concede tamen ut huic generi mortis potius adsentiar.’ at ille ridens: ‘tuo vero,’ inquit, ‘arbitratu; quoniam quidem concessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis, ut aliquid dicere possint argutius. ut enim tu nunc de Coriolano, sic Clitarchus, sic Stratocles de Themistocle finxit’ (Cic. Brut. 42). ‘For both, though great men in their respective states, were unjustly exiled by an ungrateful people, and, going over to the enemy, made an end to their plans of revenge by a voluntary death. I know, Atticus, that in your book the story of Coriolanus is related otherwise, but grant me the privilege of giving my assent rather to a death of this kind.’ At this he smiled and said: ‘As you like, since the privilege is conceded to rhetoricians to distort history in order to give more point to their narrative. Like your story of Coriolanus’s death, Clitarchus and Stratocles both have invented an account of the death of Themistocles.’

The passage is worth considering not only for the presence of Clitarchus, but also for Cicero’s idea of historical facts in rhetoric. According to Cicero, a rhetorical discourse was allowed to tell lies, or at least partial truth. But history, it  See Fleck (1993) 72 73.

56

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

seems, was something different, where truth played an important role, and Thucydides’ account on the death of Themistocles was most trustworthy, both because he was an Athenian and lived not long after the event.⁶¹ Thucydides reported merely a natural death and a secret burial in Attica, adding only a few words on the suspicions about his poisoning, while Clitarchus and Stratocles invented many a story about his poisoning: “that’s a kind of death that gave them the chance for rhetorical and tragic treatment; the ordinary natural death gave them no such opportunity.”⁶² This is a very significant passage to our understanding Cicero’s attitude towards historical truth: he does not seem to support the idea that truth can be manipulated by rhetoric in historical accounts.⁶³ Very little is known about Stratocles, probably a contemporary of Demosthenes,⁶⁴ while Clitarchus’ history of Alexander was quite influential in antiquity. His historical account is praised for its style, but significantly blamed by Quintilian for its lack of accuracy.⁶⁵ Similar reasons are taken into account to express a critical attitude towards Duris, the alleged inventor of tragic history. ⁶⁶ In a letter to his friend Atticus, Cicero discusses some commonly accepted opinions concerning well-known historical events, some of which are wrong: quis enim non dixit Εὔπολιν τὸν τῆς ἀρχαίας ab Alcibiade navigante in Siciliam deiectum esse in mare? redarguit Eratosthenes; adfert enim quas ille post id tempus fabulas docuerit. num idcirco Duris Samius, homo in historia diligens, quod cum multis erravit, irridetur? (Cic. Att. 6.1.18 [FGrHist 76 T 6]). Everybody spoke of Eupolis (him of the Old Comedy) as having been thrown into the sea by Alcibiades on the voyage to Sicily. Eratosthenes disproved the story by instancing plays which he says were produced by him after that time. We don’t on that account laugh at Duris of Samos, a conscientious historian, because he made the same mistake as others (transl. D. R. Shackleton Bailey).

 Cic. Brut. 43: nam quem Thucydides, qui et Atheniensis erat et summo loco natus summusque vir et paulo aetate posterior. The death of Themistocles is told in Thuc. 1.138.  Cic. Brut. 43: hanc enim mortem rhetorice et tragice ornare potuerunt; illa mors volgaris nullam praebebat materiem ad ornatum.  But see, on the other hand, Cic. Fam. 5.12 mentioned above.  He was probably a member of the board of Demosthenes’ adversaries in the Harpalus affaire. No historical work is attested for Stratocles. See Douglas (1966) ad loc.; Marchese (2011) 268.  Quint. Inst. 10.1.74: Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur. See Prandi (1996) 33, 53 55 and below § 4.3 for a discussion.  On the label tragic history: Schwartz (1905) 1855; Walbank (1955); von Fritz (1958); Torraca (1988); Landucci (1997) 51 55; Marincola (2013).

2.4 Minor Greek Historians in Cicero’s Writings

57

The definition of Duris as homo in historia diligens entails that Cicero is focused upon content and historical facts.⁶⁷ No praise is added for Duris’ style, which was severely criticized by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.⁶⁸ Moreover, there are three obscure ancient Greek historians that Cicero mentioned without much praise, Dinon, Silenus and Agathocles.⁶⁹ Together with the previously mentioned Clitarchus and Duris, it seems that Cicero was acquainted with a fairly great number of Greek historians. However, not all of them are mentioned in Marcus Antonius’ list of canonical writers of history in the On the Orator: only those who excelled in style and language could be included. After this analysis, we can refer once again to Wilamowitz’s opinion that ancient literary canons were simply lists of authors whose works were available at the time when the lists were drafted. Cicero’s case shows that Wilamowitz was completely off track, since the Roman orator and politician could make full use of a set of historians much greater in extent than the limited list of canonical authors praised in the On the Orator (for the Hortensius see below § 2.5). The only Greek historian not mentioned in De or. 2.55‒58, but nonetheless admired by Cicero, is Polybius. In the De re publica, written between 54 and 52 BC, but set in 129 BC, Polybius is referred to in some crucial passages (Rep. 1.34; 2.27; 4.3): this is not surprising, since Polybius was a member of the so-called Scipionic circle and accompanied the general during the third Punic War. Cicero’s theory of anakyklosis (ἀνακύκλωσις) is based, on the one hand, on Aristotle’s Politics, and on the other, on Polybius himself. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that Cicero made extensive use of this Hellenistic historian for fine points of detail, thereby displaying a great familiarity with his text.⁷⁰ Polybius appears also in Cicero’s famous distinction between authors of historiae perpetuae and historians that wrote of single events: among the latter representatives Callisthenes, Timaeus, and Polybius are mentioned.⁷¹ It seems that Cicero held Polybius in great regard for his reliability, integrity, and rigour in the recon-

 Fleck (1993) 85 unconvincingly suggests that in this case the adjective diligens conceals a subtle criticism of Duris: it allegedly points to the fact that this historian followed the ancient tradition uncritically. The suggestion, however, is not supported by the meaning and use of the word diligens.  See Dion. Hal. Comp. 4.15, discussed below § 3.2. Cf. Landucci (1997) 44 46; Knoepfler (2001) 30 35, 43 44.  For the references and a brief discussion: Fleck (1993) 86 87.  See Berti (1963); Fleck (1993) 78 82.  Cic. Fam. 5.12.2: ut multi Graeci fecerunt, Callisthenes Phocium bellum, Timaeus Pyrrhi, Poly bius Numantinum, qui omnes a perpetuis suis historiis ea, quae dixi, bella separaverunt. Cf. Shack leton Bailey (1977) 1.318 320.

58

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

struction of the past.⁷² However, a fundamental requirement for excellence in historiography is not only the content of the work, but also style, for historians were mostly considered as models for imitation. Polybius’ style is never considered throughout Cicero’s surviving literary production, which hints that he was not completely worthy of inclusion in the canon of Greek historiography that Cicero subtly expresses in the On the Orator. To sum up, Cicero’s On the Orator, published in November 55 BC, displays a comprehensive and accurate account of Greek historiography. Many other historians are mentioned by Cicero in his letters, dialogues, treatises, in most cases for polemical purposes. Polybius, on the other hand, is referred to for the reliability of his historical accounts. There is, however, an interesting case that needs to be investigated more accurately: namely, that Xenophon was regarded by Cicero and many other ancient authorities as a representative of the philosophical genre.

2.5 Xenophon princeps philosophorum In the passage already quoted and discussed from the On the Orator, Xenophon is associated with the philosophical school of Socrates,⁷³ while in the Orator Cicero discussed the rhetorical ability of philosophers, including among them Theophrastus, Aristotle, Plato, and Xenophon: quamquam enim et philosophi quidam ornate locuti sunt si quidem et Theophrastus a di vinitate loquendi nomen invenit et Aristoteles Isocratem ipsum lacessivit et Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt et longe omnium quicumque scripserunt aut locuti sunt exstitit et suavitate et gravitate princeps Plato , tamen horum oratio neque nervos neque aculeos ora torios ac forensis habet (Cic. Orat. 62). Certain philosophers, to be sure, had an ornate style, for example Theophrastus received his name from his divinely beautiful language, and Aristotle challenged even Isocrates, and the Muses were said to speak with the voice of Xenophon, and Plato was, in dignity and grace, easily the first of all writers or speakers yet their style lacks the vigour and sting necessary for oratorical efforts in public life.

An almost identical opinion on Xenophon is expressed by Quintilian. In a famous passage of the Institutes, he includes Xenophon inter philosophos and dis-

 Fleck (1993) 82 83.  Cic. De or. 2.58: denique etiam a philosophia profectus princeps Xenophon, Socraticus ille, etc.

2.5 Xenophon princeps philosophorum

59

cusses him alongside Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus, exactly the same names that appear in Cic. Orat. 62.⁷⁴ In the fragmentary dialogue Hortensius, written between October 46 and March 45 BC,⁷⁵ there appears a clear definition of canonical Greek historians based on brief stylistic considerations. The fragment at issue is a patchwork of three passages taken from the De compendiosa doctrina of Nonius Marcellus (fourth/fifth century AD).⁷⁶ The three passages were united by Piero Vettori (Petrus Victorius, 1499‒1585), “possibly the greatest Greek scholar of Italy [of the sixteenth century],”⁷⁷ in his miscellaneous criticisms known as Variae lectiones (volume 10.10). The result was taken for granted in Carlo Sigonio’s (Carolus Sigonius, ca. 1524‒1584) editio princeps of Cicero’s Hortensius in 1559⁷⁸ and thus published: quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius, aut Philisto brevius, aut Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest? (fr. 10 Sigonius; fr. 29 Straume Zimmermann). What can we find that is sweeter than Herodotus, more solemn than Thucydides, more con cise than Philistus,⁷⁹ sharper than Theopompus or quieter than Ephorus?

The fragment is probably connected to the praise of history expressed by Lucullus, one of the characters of the Hortensius, where he spoke of the many examples history could give to legal cases and political debates (aut ad agendum aut ad dicendum), as well as to knowledge of bellicae res and omnis rei publicae disciplina. ⁸⁰ A stylistic approval of the most important Greek historians fits well in such a discussion on historiography. Despite Xenophon’s apparent absence in this fragment of the Hortensius, Hermann Usener, in his fundamental work on Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ On Imitation, proffered a different opinion. His suggestion was to add the name of Xenophon followed by the adjective iucundius, on the basis of Quint. Inst.  Quint. Inst. 10.1.75: Xenophon non excidit mihi, sed inter philosophos reddendus est. Xenophon is then discussed in Inst. 10.1.81 84. See above § 1.3.  For the date of the Hortensius see Philippson (1939) 1125 1126. Grilli (1990) 175 177 has slight ed antedated the composition to April 46 BC, but his conclusions are not considered in Marinone (2004) 213, where the Hortensius is dated between the end of 46 BC and February 45 BC.  1) Nonius 241.10 11 Lindsay: acre, vehemens, saevum. M. Tullius in Hortensio: ‘aut Philisto [philippo Ba] brevius aut Theopompo acrius’. 2) 315.26 29: grave, sapiens cum auctoritate. M. Tul lius de Officiis lib. I (…). et in Hortensio: ‘quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius?’. 3) 343.10 11: M. Tullius in Hortensio: ‘aut Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro [Victorius : aut eoforo Aa : aut teoforo LBa] mitius inveniri potest?’  See Sandys (1908) 2.135.  Sigonius (1559). On Sigonius: McCuaig (1989).  For Philistus’ presence in this Hortensius fragment: Vanotti (2012).  Cic. Hort. frr. 26, 27, 28 Straume Zimmermann; frr. 11, 13, 14 Grilli.

60

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

10.1.82: quid ego commemorem Xenophontis illam iucunditatem inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ⁸¹ Usener believed that the passage was composed originally of three couples of historians: Herodotus-Thucydides, Xenophon-Philistus, Theopompus-Ephorus. The suggestion was accepted in Hortensius’ most recent edition by Alberto Grilli. Altering Usener’s iucundius with copiosius,⁸² Grilli printed the following text: quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius, 〈aut Xenophonte copiosius〉 aut Phil isto brevius, aut Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest? (fr. 15 Grilli). What can we find that is sweeter than Herodotus, more solemn than Thucydides, richer than Xenophon, more concise than Philistus, sharper than Theopompus or quieter than Ephorus?

However, considering Cicero’s statements in De or. 2.58 and Orat. 62, as well as Quintilian’s inclusion of Xenophon among the philosophers, the supplement seems unnecessary and perhaps erroneous.⁸³ Many other ancient authors held a similar view of Xenophon and considered his literary production to be the work of a philosopher rather than a historian. In the Augustan age, the author of the On the Sublime (Περὶ ὕψους), known as pseudo-Longinus, asserted that Xenophon, together with Plato, was a member of the Socratic school:⁸⁴ this belief was also supported by the Apologies of Socrates written by both Xenophon and Plato. Another author that sets Xenophon among philosophers is Diogenes Laertius. In his Life of the philosophers, Xenophon – whose biography significantly follows that of Socrates (Diog. Laert. 2.47) – is introduced as “the first of the philosophers to write a history” (Diog. Laert. 2.48: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱστορίαν φιλοσόφων πρῶτος ἔγραψε). Diogenes Laertius was the source of Hesychius of Miletus’ lost Onomatologos (sixth century AD), which is partly preserved in the Byzantine encyclopaedic work known as the

 Usener (1889) 123.  Grilli saw the whole fragment as a contrasting judgement on the historians (dulcius vs. grav ius, acrius vs. mitius) and thus stated that copiosius fits better in contrast to the following brevius than Usener’s iucundius: see the apparatus criticus in Grilli (2010) 34.  The same opinion is briefly expressed by Nicolai (1992) 302 n. 137: “L’integrazione [di Grilli] tuttavia non mi sembra del tutto necessaria, perché Cicerone potrebbe far riferimento alla clas sificazione di Senofonte tra i filosofi.” Bandini (2015), in his balanced analysis of Cic. Hort. fr. 15 Grilli, concludes: “A mio parere, dunque, né la proposta di Usener, né quella di Grilli colgono nel segno; meglio rinunciare alla presenza di Senofonte nel frammento dell’Hortensius” (89).  [Longin.] Subl. 4.4: (…) Ξενοφῶντα λέγω καὶ Πλάτωνα, καίτοιγε ἐκ τῆς Σωκράτους ὄντες παλαίστρας. See below § 6.1.

2.5 Xenophon princeps philosophorum

61

Suda (tenth century AD). The entry on Xenophon in the Suda begins with the words “son of Grylus, Athenian, Socratic philosopher.”⁸⁵ Apuleius, boasting his close acquaintance with philosophy in the Florida, an anthology of rhetorical passages, lists a group of philosophers who have also worked on different literary genres: canit enim Empedocles carmina, Plato dialogos, Socrates hymnos, Epicharmus mimos [corr. Reich : codd. modos], Xenophon historias, Crates [corr. Rohde : codd. Xenocrates] satiras: Apuleius vester haec omnia novemque Musas pari studio colit, maiore scilicet voluntate quam facultate (Apul. Flor. 20.5 6).⁸⁶ Empedocles gives us poems; Plato, dialogues; Socrates, hymns; Epicharmus, mimes; Xen ophon, histories; Crates, satires: your Apuleius cultivates all of these and the nine Muses with equal zeal, but with more enthusiasm than ability (transl. J. Hilton).

Xenophon is included in this list as one who wrote histories.⁸⁷ Lingering upon the judgments of Latin writers, we may note that Tacitus, in the Dialogus de oratoribus, lists Xenophon among the Academici and characterizes his style for its iucunditas, just like his teacher Quintilian did in the Institutes of Oratory. ⁸⁸ Lastly, Dio Chrysostom in his eighteenth oration, dealing with the most suitable ancient authors for a politician and public orator to imitate, mentions only a few exemplary historians: Herodotus, who seems to deal more with fables (τὸ μυθῶδες) than historical facts (ἱστορικός), Thucydides, the most prominent of all, and Theopompus; Ephorus is mentioned only as a negative example (Or. 18.10). Moreover, Xenophon is treated as a Socratic author (Σωκρατικός) and much praised for his speeches (Or. 18.17): “Xenophon alone among the an-

 Hesychius apud Suda ξ 47: Ξενοφῶν, Γρύλου, ᾿Aθηναῖος, φιλόσοφος Σωκρατικός· ὃς πρῶτος ἔγραψε βίους φιλοσόφων καὶ ἀπομνημονεύματα. παῖδας ἔσχεν ἀπὸ Φιλησίας Γρύλον καὶ Διόδω ρον, οἳ καὶ Διόσκουροι ἐκαλοῦντο· αὐτὸς δὲ ᾿Aττικὴ μέλιττα ἐπωνομάζετο. γέγονε δὲ συμφοιτη τὴς Πλάτωνος καὶ ἤκμαζε κατὰ τὴν ϟε´ ὀλυμπίαδα. ἔγραψε βιβλία πλείονα τῶν μ´, ὧν καὶ ταῦτα· Κύρου παιδείας βιβλία η´, Κύρου ᾿Aναβάσεως βιβλία ζ´, Ἑλληνικῶν βιβλία ζ´, Συμπόσιον· καὶ ἄλλα πολλά. The fact that Hesychius’ source for the life of Xenophon was Diog. Laert. 2.48 is evident if we compare Suda ξ 47 with Diog. Laert. 2.48, 52, 55 57.  For the textual corrections: Hunink (2001) 204 205; La Rocca (2005) 286.  See John Hilton’s translation and the commentaries in Harrison (2001) 173 and La Rocca (2005) 285 286.  Tac. Dial. 31: alios fusa et aequalis et ex communibus ducta sensibus oratio magis delectat: ad hos permovendos mutuabimur a Peripateticis aptos et in omnem disputationem paratos iam locos. dabunt Academici pugnacitatem, Plato altitudinem, Xenophon iucunditatem. See Quint. Inst. 10.1.82: quid ego commemorem Xenophontis illam iucunditatem inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? For the approach to literary history in the Dialogus: Levene (2004). On the Dialogus, its settings and context, see van den Berg (2014).

62

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

cients can satisfy all the requirements of a man in public life” (Or. 18.14: Ξενοφῶντα δὲ ἔγωγε ἡγοῦμαι ἀνδρὶ πολιτικῷ καὶ μόνον τῶν παλαιῶν ἐξαρκεῖν δύναθαι).⁸⁹ This statement stands in sharp contrast to Cicero’s opinion expressed in Orat. 32: sed a forensi strepitu remotissimus. These testimonies clearly demonstrate that a whole biographical tradition, together with many ancient literary critics, characterized Xenophon as an author of philosophical works.⁹⁰ Usener suggested that Xenophon as “the first of the philosophers to write a history” (Diog. Laert. 2.48) was the product of antiquarian erudition.⁹¹ This leads us back to Alexandrian scholarship and Callimachus’ famous Pinakes, where the poet-scholar collected and catalogued all previous Greek literature. Actually, considering Xenophon’s writings, only the Hellenica, a formal continuation of Thucydides’ history, has a strict historical character. Perhaps the Anabasis could be included in the historiographical genre, even if it is a history with a strong autobiographical character.⁹² The other works of Xenophon could not fit into the historiographical genre and were appreciated for their philosophical allure. A consequence of this attitude towards Xenophon’s works was that plausibly, at the moment when the learned scholars of the library at Alexandria catalogued this author, his philosophical character was preponderant and his attachment to Socrates sprung immediately to mind. Such a classification is still extant in Cicero, pseudo-Longinus, Quintilian, Tacitus, Diogenes Laertius and Dio Chrysostom. It is interesting, however, to recall once again Quintilian’s words when he apologised for considering Xenophon a philosopher, not a historian (Quint. Inst. 10.1.75: Xenophon non excidit mihi, sed inter philosophos reddendus est). He was clearly defending his opinion against other literary critics who considered Xenophon a historian. Hence, it appears that there were two distinct traditions: one treated Xenophon as an author of philosophical works, the other as a historian. Before turning to Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his own treatment of Xenophon and of the other ancient Greek historians, my investigation will focus briefly on Cicero’s acquaintance with Xenophon’s works.⁹³

 Cf. Bowie (2017) 403 406. For a further discussion of Dio’s Oratio 18, see below § 7.1.  Cf. Münscher (1920) 90 91, passim.  Usener (1889) 113: “quod enim Xenophontem non in rerum scriptores sed in philosophos rettulit, certe antiquiori eruditioni debet.”  See for example Pellé (2010), where the papyri of the Hellenica and the Anabasis are both considered works of history.  For a schematic analysis of Xenophon’s quotations in Cicero see Fleck (1993) 58 63. See also, even if outdated, Münscher (1920) 70 84.

2.5 Xenophon princeps philosophorum

63

In the Cato Maior, a philosophical dialogue published just before the Ides of March,⁹⁴ there are various quotations from Xenophon: a brief reference to the Symposium, a quotation from the Cyropaedia, and a long translation again from the same work.⁹⁵ Among the characters of the dialogue, it is always Cato who quotes Xenophon. Moreover, in the same dialogue, Cato recommends reading Xenophon’s Oeconomicus – a work he had translated at a young age – to anyone with an interest in agriculture.⁹⁶ The references to Xenophon that Cicero inserted in sections where Cato is speaking are probably meant to signal Cato’s authentic interest in the Athenian writer: Xenophon is mentioned in fr. 1 of Cato’s Origines, and a direct influence of Xenophon’s Oeconomicus is evident in the De agricultura. ⁹⁷ Finally, Plutarch, in his biography of Cato, claims that his writings were “adorned,” “intricated” (διαπεποίκιλται) with Greek ideas and stories, while in the Apophthegmata and Maxims there were many verbatim translations of Greek authors (see Plut. Cat. Mai. 2.5‒6). Cicero’s familiarity with the Cyropaedia is also well attested,⁹⁸ but his concern for the education of the Persian king is related to the political and philosophical character of Xenophon’s work, as testified in a letter to his brother Quintus: “Cyrus was described by Xenophon not according to historical truth but as the depiction of a just ruler” (Cic. Qfr. 1.1.23: Cyrus ille a Xenophonte non ad historiae fidem scriptus sed ad effigiem iusti imperi).

 Between January and March 44 BC: see Powell (1988) 268, Appendix 1.  See respectively: Cic. Cato maior 46 referring to Xen. Symp. 2.26; Cato maior 30 quoting Xen. Cyr. 8.7.8; Cato maior 79 81 for the translation of Xen. Cyr. 8.7.17 22. On the latter reference, Cic ero’s translation, see Powell (1988) 258: “Cicero keeps reasonably closely to the original, though he expands the argument in some places (…) and obscures it in one or two others by abbrevia tions.” For the comparison between Cicero’s translation and the Greek original, see Powell (1988) 256 257.  Cic. Cato maior 46: multas ad res perutiles Xenophontis libri sunt, quos legite, quaeso, stu diose, ut facitis. quam copiose ab eo agri cultura laudatur in eo libro, qui est de tuenda re familiari, qui Oeconomicus inscribitur! For Cicero’s translation of Xenophon, or at least what is still extant of it, see Garbarino (1984) 65 83. On Latin translations of Greek texts: Traina (1989).  For the references in Cato’s writings, see Powell (1988) 223.  See Cic. Qfr. 1.1.23; Fam. 9.25.1; Leg. 2.56; Brut. 112; Fin. 2.92; Tusc. 5.99; Sen. 22. The fame of the Cyropaedia in the Roman literary world is also attested by the exaggerated anecdote accord ing to which Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus had always in hands the Socratic Xenophon, Cic. Tusc. 2.62: itaque semper Africanus Socraticum Xenophontem in manibus habebat, cuius in primis lau dabat illud, quod diceret eosdem labores non esse aeque gravis imperatori et militi, quod ipse honos laborem leviorem faceret imperatorium. The same anecdote is reported in Qfr. 1.1.23: quos quidem libros [i.e. the Cyropaedia] non sine causa noster ille Africanus de manibus ponere non solebat. See also Münscher (1920) 45, 91, etc.

64

2 Cicero, History-Writing, and Canonical Greek Historians

Xenophon surely enjoyed great fame in Cicero’s time precisely for his philosophical dialogues: “The dialogues of Xenophon were also admired by Cicero, and by other Romans; they perhaps provided a clearer precedent than Plato for the attribution of imaginary discourses to historical characters; and, with their practical ethical outlook and pleasant, uncomplicated style, they would have constituted a more accessible model than the heights of Platonic philosophy.”⁹⁹ Cicero and the members of his literary circles were clearly more interested in the rhetorical perspective of historical texts, since ancient historians provided the orator with numerous examples for the political debate and the courtroom. This fact is testified not only in Lucullus’ words in Cicero’s dialogue Hortensius (quoted above), but also in a passage in Plutarch’s Life of Cato Maior, where it is reported that Cato made a wide use of Thucydides and Demosthenes as examples of oratory.¹⁰⁰ Knowledge of Xenophon’s Anabasis is attested in Cicero’s De divinatione. ¹⁰¹ More complicated is the Roman orator’s relationship with the Hellenica. In the brief history of rhetoric in Brutus 27‒29, Cicero begins with sixth-century-BC figures such as Solon, Pisistratus, and Clisthenes, followed chronologically by Themistocles, Pericles, and Cleon. It is probable that when Cicero sketches the personalities of Themistocles and Cleon, he was actually quoting and abbreviating Thucydides.¹⁰² Eventually, Cicero quotes Alcibiades, Critias, and Theramenes, and refers cursorily to the writings of Thucydides (Brut. 29: ex Thucydidi scriptis) as the source for the speeches of these men. However, it is noteworthy to recall that there are no speeches of Critias or Theramenes in Thucydides: they appear only in Xenophon’s Hellenica (2.3.24‒49). Hence, in Brut. 29, even if Cicero does  Powell (1988) 6. For an overview on the fortune of Xenophon’s figure in medieval and mod ern times, see Marsh (1992) 79 86; Marsh (2010).  Plut. Cat. Mai. 2.5: ἄλλως δὲ παιδείας Ἑλληνικῆς ὀψιμαθὴς λέγεται γενέσθαι, καὶ πόρρω παντάπασιν ἡλικίας ἐληλακὼς Ἑλληνικὰ βιβλία λαβὼν εἰς χεῖρας, βραχέα μὲν ἀπὸ Θουκυδίδου, πλείονα δ᾽ ἀπὸ Δημοσθένους εἰς τὸ ῥητορικὸν ὠφεληθῆναι. For Lucullus and the Hortensius: Cic. Hort. frr. 26, 27, 28 Straume Zimmermann; frr. 11, 13, 14 Grilli.  Xen. An. 3.1.11 13 in Cic. Div. 1.52.  Themistocles is described with the following words in Cic. Brut. 28: (Themistocles) cum pru dentia tum etiam eloquentiam praestitisse, which recalls Thuc. 1.138.3: τῶν τε παραχρῆμα δι᾽ ἐλα χίστης βουλῆς κράτιστος γνώμων καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τοῦ γενησομένου ἄριστος εἰκαστής (…), καὶ τὸ ξύμπαν εἰπεῖν φύσεως μὲν δυνάμει, μελέτης δὲ βραχύτητι κράτιστος δὴ οὗτος αὐτοσχεδιάζειν τὰ δέοντα ἐγένετο. Moreover, The first section of Thuc. 1.138.3 (τῶν εἰκα στής) is quoted in Cic. Att. 10.8.7, a proof of Cicero’s intimate knowledge of this passage. Accord ing to Shackleton Bailey (1965 1970) 4.410, the inaccuracies in Cicero’s quotation of Thucydides in Att. 10.8.7 are due to citation by heart. Cleon, on the other hand, is thus defined in Cic. Brut. 28: turbulentum illum quidem civem, sed tamen eloquentem, a passage that resembles Thuc. 1.36.6: ἐς τὰ ἄλλα βιαιότατος τῶν πολιτῶν τῷ τε δήμῳ παρὰ πολὺ ἐν τῷ τότε πιθανώτατος.

2.5 Xenophon princeps philosophorum

65

not quote from him directly, he was probably referring to Xenophon’s Hellenica. ¹⁰³ Another reference to Xenophon’s Hellenica probably emerges in the words Xenophon… scripsit historiam (De or. 2.58), but this historia could refer equally well to the Hellenica as to the Anabasis, or even to both works.¹⁰⁴ This allusion, together with the implied reference in Cic. Brut. 29, constitute the only (meagre) evidence of Cicero’s knowledge of Xenophon’s Hellenica. Moreover, it seems that when Cicero dealt with the history of Epaminondas’ death in Fam. 5.12.5, he did not rely on Xenophon’s account of the event (Hell. 7.5.25), but on some other sources.¹⁰⁵ It points to the fact that Cicero, even if he knew the Hellenica, did not hold it in great esteem. So far Xenophon’s presence in Cicero has been outlined, from which the conclusion must be that Xenophon’s historical works are all but ignored; but at the same time Cicero made an extensive use of Xenophon’s philosophical dialogues and moral writings. It seems that Xenophon’s intellectual relationship with Socrates influenced his afterlife much more than his continuation of Thucydides’ history or his role in leading the Ten Thousand out of peril through Asia Minor. The perspective that considers Xenophon a philosopher rather than a historian, and which excludes him from the short list of canonical Greek historians in the Hortensius, is a noteworthy aspect in the history of the reception of the Athenian writer in the late Roman Republic.

 Canfora (2005) 60 64 (same opinion expressed in Canfora [2006] 731 732) supposed that Cicero testifies here the existence of a complete Thucydides, i. e. our eight books of Thucydides together with Xenophon’s paraleipomena which coincide with the first two books of the Hellen ica (up to 2.3.9). However, chronologically speaking, Thucydides’ history was supposed to en compass the Peloponnesian war down to the Athenian loss and the demolition of the long walls (404 BC), which is an event that occurs in Xen. Hell. 2.3.9. The speeches of Critias and Ther amenes are set at a later date in Xen. Hell. 2.3.24 49: Canfora’s hypothesis is thus not entirely convincing.  Fleck (1993) 60.  See Fleck (1993) 60 61.

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays 3.1 Introduction on Dionysius’ Literary Circle and Critical Essays In 29 BC, at the end of the Roman civil war and the beginning of a new era for Rome and the Mediterranean world as a whole, Dionysius, a native of Halicarnassus, a small town on the west coast of Asia Minor, also known as Herodotus’ birthplace, came to Rome. Twenty-two years after the event, Dionysius himself recalls emphatically this episode as the moment when he started writing his magnum opus, the Roman Antiquities. ¹ Strabo, a contemporary of Dionysius, mentions him with the epithet ὁ συγγραφεύς, “the historian” (14.2.16 C 656).² This latter passage has been exploited to suggest that Dionysius was principally a historian and that his educational role and rhetorical writings were only incidental.³ But on the one hand, Strabo’s reference is directly connected to his own – and his audience’s – historical and geographical interests, while on the other, Dionysius’ claim that he worked on his first book for twenty-two years is a literary topos appropriate for the opening of a work of history. Eunapius in his Lifes of the Sophists (4.1.3) describes Dionysius as the most eminent ancient critic before Longinus. For successive generations, Dionysius was known simply as ὁ κριτικός.⁴ Indeed, even before he became famous for his historical work, which encompassed Roman history from the origins to the death of Pyrrhus, Dionysius was a teacher of rhetoric. In On Literary Composition he refers to his “everyday lessons” with the expression αἱ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν γυμνασίαι,⁵ thus displaying his daily routine and principal activity as a teacher. He is in fact the author of many influential rhetorical treatises: from the analysis of the style and content of fourth-century-BC orators and historians, to texts on prose-composition, to

 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.7.2. For biographical data, see also Hidber (1996) 1; de Jonge (2008) 1. Below § 4.2. Dionysius published the first book of the Roman Antiquities in 7 BC, while the sub sequent books came later, see Ant. Rom. 1.90.2; 2.1 2; 7.70.2. See also Schultze (1986) 122 n. 4; Hogg (2013) 145 146. For the difference in subject matter between the first book and the rest of the Roman Antiquities see Schultze (2000) 30 32, followed by Luraghi (2003) 269 270. In this chapter and the next chapter, quotations of ancient texts where the name of the author is missing refer to Dionysius.  See LSJ, 1661, s.v. συγγραφεύς.  Schultze (1986) 123 125, esp. n. 31.  See references in Radermacher (1905) 970.  Dion. Hal. Comp. 20.23. Cf. Comp. 26.17, where Dionysius, in the final sentences of the treatise, recommends “daily exercises” for the pupils. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 004

3.1 Introduction on Dionysius’ Literary Circle and Critical Essays

67

an important (even if lost) treatise on imitation.⁶ His rhetorical treatises are the main sources for any insight into his circle of friends and colleagues: from his Roman patron, the historian Quintus Aelius Tubero,⁷ to Metilius Rufus, proconsul of Achaea and legatus of Galatia during Augustus’ reign,⁸ from the grammarian and literary critic Caecilius of Calacte,⁹ to the unknown Greeks Gnaeus Pompeius Geminus,¹⁰ Ammaeus, Zeno, and Demetrius.¹¹ From this concise list, it is clear that Dionysius was in contact with both Roman and Greek intellectuals, even if his personal and literary relationships must have been much more complex and manifold.¹² He must have operated at a relatively high educational level: as much is evident from his literary circle and from the Nachleben of his rhetorical treatises, which will become apparent in the final section of this chapter.¹³ In order to approach Dionysius’ essays with a critical eye, it is essential to devote a little space to their relative chronology. It is a long-debated issue

 A general introduction on Dionysius as a literary critic in Pritchett (1975) XVIII XXXIV.  The essay On Thucydides is dedicated to Tubero: Dion. Hal. Th. 1.1, 55.5; Amm. II, 1 (cf. Th. 25.2, 35.4). See also Bowersock (1965) 129 130; Hidber (1996) 5 6. For Tubero’s fragments: HRR 1.308 312; the most recent edition, with introduction, translation and commentary, in: FRHist 38 (S. P. Oakley in Cornell [2013]).  See Bowersock (1965) 132 n. 2; Bowersock (1979) 70; Hidber (1996) 6; Delcourt (2005) 33; Wiat er (2011) 23 n. 84.  Caecilius is mentioned in Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.20. For their relationship see: Ofenloch (1907) XIII XIV; Hidber (1996) 5 n. 43, 41 n. 184; Fornaro (1997) 226; Woerther (2015) XXIX XXX and T 38.  Between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this Pompeius has been identified with the famous Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, i. e. Pompey (see Fornaro [1997] 4 n. 7), while more recent hypothesis include: the identification with the mathematician and astronomer Geminus, the au thor of the Phenomena (thus Aujac [1975] XXII XXIII); the possibility that Pompeius Geminus was a libertus of Pompey (see Krüger [1823] 3; Roberts [1900] 439; Bonner [1939] 4; Schultze [1986] 122, the latter of whom doesn’t actually reject Aujac’s hypothesis). Both suggestions are rejected by Hidber (1996) 7 n. 50, Fornaro (1997) 4 n. 7, and Wiater (2011) 23 n. 82, because they are totally hypothetical. What we know is that he must have been of Greek origin, surely a well read and educated man, as is clear from Dionysius’ own letter (Pomp. 1.1).  Ammaeus is the addressee of two letters by Dionysius. Zeno was a mutual friend of Diony sius and Pompeius Geminus (see Pomp. 1.1). Finally, the treatise on imitation was dedicated to Demetrius (see Pomp. 3.1).  See Gabba (1991) 30 31; cf. de Jonge (2011) 456 458. It is not easy to agree with Stephen Ush er’s statement that Dionysius “confined himself strictly to his Greek microcosm, an island popu lated by a few learned Hellenes in a vast ocean seething with cultural activity of an alien kind” (Usher [1974 1985] 1.XIX); this opinion is criticised also by Hidber (1996) 6.  On the educational level of Dionysius, Schultze (1986) 123 124 describes it as “fairly high,” followed by Hogg (2013) 144 n. 41; contra Weaire (2005) 249.

68

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

which started all the way back with Friedrich Blass’ dissertation, De Dionysii Halicarnassensis scriptis rhetoricis (1863),¹⁴ but a clear and certain chronology for each of Dionysius’ rhetorical essays seems out of reach. In fact, if on the one hand the internal cross references could be misleading, on the other, to assume a hypothetical ascending development in Dionysius’ own rhetorical system is not methodologically correct.¹⁵ It is not essential for the purpose of this book to tackle this controversial issue at face value. It will be sufficient to consider the treatises which represent the most important sources for the definition of Dionysius’ canon of ancient Greek historians: On Imitation (Imit.), Letter to Pompeius (Pomp.), On Thucydides (Th.), and On the Character of Thucydides’ Style, commonly referred to as Second Letter to Ammaeus (Amm. II).¹⁶ Among the above quoted texts, only the former, On Imitation, a treatise which consisted originally of three books, is not preserved through direct medieval tradition. However, an epitome has survived in the codex Parisinus gr. 1741 (tenth century) and in some later manuscripts.¹⁷ In the opening section of the On Thucydides, Dionysius mentions the reproach he had to put up with for his criticism of Thucydides in the work On Imitation: “in the previously published treatise on imitation” (Th. 1.1: ἐν τοῖς προεκδοθεῖσι περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ὑπομνηματισμοῖς). This means that the On Imitation was already circulating, if not in an official form, at least among Dionysius’ friends by the time the On Thucydides was written.¹⁸

 After Blass, we can list the following scholars: Rabe (1893); Wilamowitz (1899); Roberts (1901) 4 7; Egger (1902) 29 33; Kalinka (1922 1923); Kalinka (1924 1925); Bonner (1939) 25 38; Usher (1974 1985) 1.XXIII XXVI; Aujac (1978 1992) 1.22 28; Sacks (1983) 83 87; Weaire (2002); de Jonge (2008) 20 n. 100.  The latter method was employed by Kalinka (1922 1923) and Kalinka (1924 1925); but see de Jonge (2008) 20 21 quoting Goudriaan (1989) 21 23, a work I was unable to check personally.  For practical purposes, I have employed the number system of Aujac’s edition (1978 1992), while the Greek text has been checked in Usener/Radermacher (1899 1929). For the English translation, I have relied on Usher (1974 1985), modified here and there to adhere more closely with the Greek original.  For the remaining manuscripts and the manuscript tradition in general, see Cohn (1890); Battisti (1988) 103; Battisti (1997) 33; Aujac (1978 1992) 5.23; Fornaro (1997) 27 31. The first edi tion of the epitome is by Henri Estienne (1554) 35 43. In the final letter of the editor (Henricus Stephanus lectori), he mentions this text as “elogia de scriptoribus Graecis” (57). Even if H. Es tienne noticed the relation between Dionysius and this epitome, he didn’t identify it as the lost On Imitation: only Sylburg in his 1586 Frankfurt edition of Dionysius will actually point to this fact.  On the publication of books in antiquity and on their circulation: van Groningen (1963); Dor andi (2007) 83 121.

3.1 Introduction on Dionysius’ Literary Circle and Critical Essays

69

However, it is fairly clear that the treatise was not complete, and was probably still unpublished when Dionysius wrote the Letter to Pompeius. Here Dionysius transcribes copious portions of the On Imitation (Pomp. 3‒6), which shows that the work was not circulating at the time. Moreover, Dionysius provides an overview of its contents (Pomp. 3.1): the first book was focused on the study of imitation (τούτων ὁ μὲν πρῶτος αὐτὴν περιείληφε τὴν περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ζήτησιν); the second book dealt with single authors worthy of imitation: poets, philosophers, historians, and orators (ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τοῦ τίνας ἄνδρας μιμεῖσθαι δεῖ ποιητάς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους, ἱστοριογράφους 〈τε〉 καὶ ῥήτορας); the last book, where Dionysius was supposed to show how to apply imitation of the ancient writers, was actually not finished when he published the Letter to Pompeius: “the third, where the question of how imitation should be accomplished, is as yet incomplete” (ὁ δὲ τρίτος περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι μέχρι τοῦδε ἀτελής). The word ἀτελής is very significant in this context, and has a range of possible meanings, “unaccomplished,” “incomplete,” “unfinished,” “indeterminate.”¹⁹ The word ἀτελής occurs a few times in Dionysius’ rhetorical writings: in two cases, it indicates the incompleteness of Thucydides’ History,²⁰ while in the essay on imitation, ἀτελής is used to refer to Philistus’ unfinished historical work.²¹ Evidently, Dionysius uses the word in the context of book-production and publication. Hence, in Pomp. 3.1 the expression μέχρι τοῦδε ἀτελής means that the third book of the treatise on imitation was, at that moment, incomplete.²² To sum up, books one and two of the On Imitation were written, but not yet published, before the publication of the Letter to Pompeius. Book Three was still

 See LSJ, 269, s.v. ἀτελής. Cf. especially Hom. Od. 17.546, Thuc. 5.46.4, 8.27.6, 8.40.3, and Xen. Hell. 4.8.15. In an economic discourse, it means “free from tax” or “without deduction.”  See Dion. Hal. Pomp. 4.1: καὶ τρίτην ἔτι τὴν ‘Ελληνικὴν καὶ ἣν κατέλιπεν ἀτελῆ Θουκυδίδης, referred to Xenophon’s Hellenica. Similar expressions in Th. 16.2, where Dionysius speaks of Cra tippus’ continuation of Thucydides: ὧν προνοούμενος ἔοικεν ἀτελῆ τὴν ἱστορίαν καταλιπεῖν, ὡς καὶ Κράτιππος ὁ συνακμάσας αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ παραλειφθέντα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ συναγαγὼν γέγραφεν. Cra tippus is a much debated figure in ancient historiography: Plut. De glor. Ath. 345D mentions him as a continuator of Thucydides. See Gomme (1954b); Pritchett (1975) 66 69; Schepens (1993) 175 n. 20; Nicolai (2006) 708 with further references. Luciano Canfora has brought forward different hypotheses concerning Cratippus: see Canfora (1990) 76, 85 86; Canfora (2006) 741 743. Cf. also below § 5.1.  See Pomp. 5.6: μικρός τε παρὰ πᾶσαν ἰδέαν ἐστὶ καὶ ἀτελής [codd. : εὐτελής corr. Usener], and Imit. 3.6: ἐζήλωκεν δὲ πρῶτον μὲν τὸ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ἀτελῆ καταλιπεῖν τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ τρό πον. Usener’s correction (εὐτελής for ἀτελής of the manuscripts in the Letter to Pompeius) is un necessary.  Similar conclusions in Bonner (1939) 36 37 and Sacks (1983) 66.

70

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

incomplete, but would Dionysius ever get to finish it? There are some clues that point to the fact that he did not. In the first place, the text of the epitome focuses on the authors worthy of study for imitation, but it does not say how one should imitate them, which was exactly the content of the third book (Pomp. 3.1: ὁ δὲ τρίτος περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι).²³ Moreover, among the dozen indirect quotations of the treatise on imitation, mostly from Syrianus’ commentary on Hermogenes’ Περὶ στάσεων,²⁴ not even one belongs to the third book. Even if these are arguments e silentio, there is no hard proof that the third book was ever written. This conclusion also casts doubt on Dionysius’ statement in the On Thucydides regarding the already published treatise on imitation (Th. 1.1: ἐν τοῖς προεκδοθεῖσι περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ὑπομνηματισμοῖς). It is possible that the participle passive of προεκδίδωμι does not refer to the entire treatise, but only to the first two books. On the relative chronology, we can conclude that the Letter to Pompeius precedes the treatise On Imitation and On Thucydides, the second section of the On Demosthenes (§§ 34‒58), the Second Letter to Ammaeus, and the essay on Dinarchus, possibly the last of all of Dionysius’ rhetorical works. Finally, the essay on the language of Thucydides (Second Letter to Ammaeus) cannot be considered an independent work: it is a supplement to the On Thucydides. ²⁵ Before going through the evidence for the canon of Greek historians in Dionysius rhetorical essays, a few remarks should be devoted to the complicated textual relationship between the two most important sources for the topic of this book: On Imitation and Letter to Pompeius. The Letter is actually an answer to a set of questions – addressed to Dionysius by Gnaeus Pompeius Geminus²⁶ – on the most suitable Greek historians for literary imitation. Dionysius, for the sake of clarity, includes in the Letter a section from his treatise on imitation: “In the second book [of the On Imitation] concerning Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Philistus, and Theopompus – these being the writers whom I judged to be most suitable for imitation – I write as follows, etc.” (Pomp. 3.1: ἐν δὴ τῷ δευτέρῳ περὶ Ἡροδότου τε καὶ Θουκυδίδου

 According to Usener/Radermacher (1929) 2.217, the final section of the epitome belongs to the third book of the On Imitation (5.7 in Aujac’s edition; p. 213.17 214.2 in Usener/Radermacher’s edition); however, the section appears as a brief conclusion to the epitome itself, not as the sum mary of the missing third book.  The collection of the fragments varies between Usener/Radermacher’s edition (a total of 11 fragments) and Aujac’s text (only 7 fragments, with the inclusion of the whole quotation from the Letter: Aujac [1978 1992] 5.26 30).  On this claim, see Bonner (1939) 94 96.  See above n. 10.

3.1 Introduction on Dionysius’ Literary Circle and Critical Essays

71

καὶ Ξενοφῶντος καὶ Φιλίστου καὶ Θεοπόμπου (τούτους γὰρ ἐκκρίνω τοὺς ἄνδρας εἰς μίμησιν ἐπιτηδειοτάτους) τάδε γράφω, etc.). From this point, down to almost the end of the Letter, Dionysius transcribes whole sections of his On Imitation, which means that the treatise was still unpublished at the time.²⁷ The On Imitation, as already mentioned above, is also transmitted in an abridged form through medieval tradition. It is interesting to compare the epitome, only three Teubner-pages in Usener and Radermacher’s edition, with the text that Dionysius himself puts in the Letter, which amounts to sixteen pages in the same edition.²⁸ A close reading of both texts reveals some inconsistencies, which has resulted in different and almost opposing solutions. Usener suggested that the model used for the epitomised text differed substantially from the one that Dionysius transcribed when writing the Letter to Pompeius, since the former was not yet ready for publication: Dionysius himself might thus have changed the text of the On Imitation before formal publication.²⁹ It needs to be stressed that in antiquity the publication of books differed significantly from modern practice: a written text could be limited in the first place to friends and acquaintances of the author, while a definitive publication (ἔδκοσις) might occur only later.³⁰ According to Sacks, Dionysius in the Letter to Pompeius changed his conception of historiography as expressed in the treatise on imitation.³¹ Finally, Weaire believes that both previous hypotheses are to be dismissed, since the blame for the inconsistencies is to be addressed to the author of the epitome.³² Sacks’ opinion is the most difficult to accept, because it goes against the textual evidence (Dionysius introduces the selected passages from the treatise on imitation in the Letter to Pompeius with the words τάδε γράφω) and is very speculative (Dionysius’ conception of historiography is far from clear from the fragments of the treatise on imitation). On the other hand, Usener’s proposal is very interesting, even if Weaire’s objection is perfectly understandable: the differences could well enough belong to the epitomiser’s intervention, as will be clear regarding certain passages in the subsequent analysis.  See Fornaro (1997) 6 and 162 163. According to Weismann (1837) 20, Dionysius published Books One and Two of the On Imitation in Greece and the treatise was hence not available to the Roman Pompeius Geminus; he based the hypothesis on the sole fact that the treatise was dedicated to a Greek, Demetrius, but didn’t consider that this Demetrius could have lived in Rome as well. Weismann’s curious hypothesis rests on very thin ground.  Usener/Radermacher (1929) 2.232 248 for the text in the Letter to Pompeius; Usener/Rader macher (1929) 2.207 210 for the epitome of the On Imitation.  Usener (1889) 6 8, followed by Heath (1989b) and Fornaro (1997) 164.  See Dorandi (2007) 83 121.  Sacks (1983) 66 80.  Weaire (2002).

72

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

Since the portion of the epitome of the treatise on imitation which deals with the Greek historians is very short, I will deal now with the section preserved in the Letter to Pompeius exclusively.

3.2 The Letter to Pompeius and the Canon of Greek Historiography The Letter to Pompeius, where a large portion of the treatise on imitation is to be found, is the most significant source for Dionysius’ canon of ancient Greek historiography. In the final section of the generic and programmatic introduction to his treatises on the ancient orators (Περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ῥητόρων), Dionysius lingers on the authors he will consider in his analysis: τῶν δὲ ῥητόρων τε καὶ συγγραφέων, ὑπὲρ ὧν ὁ λόγος, πολλῶν πάνυ ὄντων καὶ ἀγαθῶν τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων γράφειν μακροῦ λόγου δεόμενον ὁρῶν ἐάσω, τοὺς δὲ χαριεστάτους ἐξ αὐτῶν προχειρισάμενος κατὰ τὰς ἡλικίας ἐρῶ περὶ ἑκάστου, νῦν μὲν περὶ τῶν ῥητόρων, ἐὰν δὲ ἐγχωρῇ, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἱστορικῶν (Dion. Hal. Orat. Vett. 4). As to my subject, I realise that there are so many good orators and historians that to write about all of them would be a long task. I shall not attempt, but shall select the most elegant of them and examine them chronologically, beginning with the present work on the orators and then proceeding to the historians, if I have the time.

From this statement, it is clear that Dionysius expects to devote single essays not only to the orators, but also to the ancient historians. One of the latter must clearly be the On Thucydides (together with the Second Letter to Ammaeus), but other treatises dedicated to authors of historical works have not come down to us, neither from medieval nor from indirect tradition: we can conclude that, despite his hopes, Dionysius did not manage to write and publish essays on the ancient Greek historians, apart from the one on Thucydides. Be that as it may, the programmatic statement in the preface to the Ancient orators displays Dionysius’ strong interest in ancient Greek historiography. The second part of the Letter (§§ 3‒6) is dedicated to a proper evaluation of historians, an answer to Pompeius’ explicit request.³³ A list of five historians is given, namely Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Philistus, and Theopompus, the best models for imitation in Dionysius’ judgement.³⁴ Significantly, we can  Pomp. 3.1: περὶ δὲ Ἡροδότου καὶ Ξενοφῶντος ἐβουλήθης μαθεῖν τίνα περὶ αὐτῶν ὑπόληψιν ἔχω, καὶ γράψαι με περὶ αὐτῶν ἐβουλήθης.  Pomp. 3.1: τούτους γὰρ ἐκκρίνω [Aujac : ἐκκρίνων codd. : ἔκρινον Usener] τοὺς ἄνδρας εἰς μίμησιν ἐπιτηδειοτάτους.

3.3 How is a Historian Supposed to Write? Herodotus vs. Thucydides

73

also identify which Greek historians Dionysius unmistakeably excludes from his selection, i. e. from his canon. In his treatise on literary composition, he criticizes Hellenistic historians because their works, which he, perhaps disapprovingly, calls συντάξεις (“compilations”), are almost impossible to read from cover to cover: Dionysius refers to Phylarchus, Duris, Polybius, Pason, and many others.³⁵ His selection is thus mostly based on stylistic grounds, but we shall see that content also played an important role. The statement on Hellenistic historians can be compared with the long preface to the Roman Antiquities. In a list of different historiographical subgenres, Dionysius asserts that the authors of Atthides, the local historians of Attica, are “uniform and become quickly boring to the audience.”³⁶ The stress is here on the audience, those who listen (ἀκούω), while in the letter to Pompeius the addressee is the reader and future writer of history. But the general idea is clear: a boring and repetitive style is never appropriate in historiography, even less so in other literary genres. The fact that Dionysius advises against Hellenistic authors of historical works is per se significant and it will be treated more appropriately in a later chapter (§ 4). In the following pages, the scheme followed by Dionysius in his assessment of the most suitable Greek historians will be outlined.

3.3 How is a Historian Supposed to Write? Herodotus vs. Thucydides In those days we associated style with substance, beauty with intelligence. Iosif Brodskij, Watermark. An Essay on Venice (1992)

The section of the Letter to Pompeius dealing with ancient Greek historians – which is actually, as already discussed, part of the second book of the On Imitation – develops around a pivotal issue: the identification of the characteristics of successful historians through the analysis of style and subject matter. The structure is clear and linear. At first Herodotus and Thucydides are evaluated; Xenophon, Philistus, and Theopompus are considered only later, and much more briefly. The core of the discussion concerns the most representative examples

 Comp. 4.15: τοιγάρτοι τοιαύτας συντάξεις κατέλιπον οἵας οὐδεὶς ὑπομένει μέχρι κορωνίδος διελθεῖν, Φύλαρχον λέγω καὶ Δοῦριν καὶ Πολύβιον καὶ Ψάωνα καὶ τὸν Καλλατιανὸν Δημήτριον Ἱερώνυμόν τε καὶ ᾿Aντίγονον καὶ Ἡρακλείδην καὶ Ἡγησιάνακτα καὶ ἄλλους μυρίους.  Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.8.3: (…) οἱ τὰς ᾿Aτθίδας πραγματευσάμενοι· μονοειδεῖς γὰρ ἐκεῖναί τε καὶ ταχὺ προσιστάμεναι τοῖς ἀκούουσιν.

74

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

from the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, with a twofold perspective: content, or subject matter, and style; in Dionysius’ own words: πραγματικός and λεκτικὸς τόπος. In expressing his opinions, Dionysius makes wide use of quotations from the works of the authors he is considering, as well as from other ancient literary sources. This method belongs to the rhetoric of proof and is used as a paradigm for the theory of imitation.³⁷ Dionysius offers five different categories for the evaluation of subject matter. First and foremost is the selection of the most suitable topic, which ought to be beautiful and delightful for the reader: “The first, and one might say the most necessary task for writers of any kind of history is to select a noble subject which will please their future readers. Herodotus seems to me to have done this better than Thucydides” (Pomp. 3.2: πρῶτόν τε καὶ σχεδὸν ἀναγκαιότατον ἔργον ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τοῖς γράφουσιν πάσας [codd. : πᾶσιν Usener] ἱστορίας ὑπόθεσιν ἐκλέξασθαι καλὴν καὶ κεχαρισμένην τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις. τοῦτο Ἡρόδοτος κρεῖττόν μοι δοκεῖ πεποιηκέναι Θουκυδίδου). In rhetorical treatises and scholia, the word ὑπόθεσις stands for “topic” or “subject matter.”³⁸ It is also a noteworthy term within Dionysius’ own thinking about historiography: it reappears in the opening section of the Roman Antiquities, where he speaks of the necessity, for the writer of history, to select beautiful, magnificent, and suitable topics.³⁹ Another significant word in Dionysius analysis is the adjective καλός, which refers to historical oeuvres. The term, together with the derivative noun κάλλος, appears in different contexts in the Letter: it is used to describe Herodotus’ work in Pomp. 4.3, it defines both Herodotus and Thucydides at the end of their comparison in Pomp. 3.21, but Thucydides lacks it in choosing the subject of his history, i. e. the Peloponnesian war (Pomp. 3.4); it also, significantly, defines Theopompus’ historical works (Pomp. 6.2, see below § 4.5).⁴⁰ Finally, the idea of a beautiful narrative or a beautiful selection of the subject matter looms large in Dionysius’ introduction to his own historical work.⁴¹

 Thus Payen (2004) 123.  See Meijering (1987) 107 111: “ὑπόθεσις is the overall term for the subject that someone com posing a text of any kind has in mind” (111). The word is usually more generic compared to οἰκο νομία, see Nünlist (2009) 24 n. 5 and 66 67; cf. also Fornaro (1997) 169 170.  Ant. Rom. 1.1.2: πρῶτον μὲν ὑποθέσεις προαιρεῖσθαι καλὰς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς καὶ πολλὴν ὠφέλειαν τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις φερούσας, ἔπειτα παρασκευάζεσθαι τὰς ἐπιτηδείους εἰς τὴν ἀνα γραφὴν τῆς ὑποθέσεως ἀφορμὰς μετὰ πολλῆς ἐπιμελείας τε καὶ φιλοπονίας. The keywords are here the same as in the Letter. Cf. also Comp. 5.12: ἐπάνειμι δὴ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπόθεσιν ἀφ᾽ ἧς εἰς ταῦτ᾽ ἐξέβην.  Both καλός and κάλλος are also frequently employed in the other treatises of Dionysius.  Apart from the above mentioned Ant. Rom. 1.1.2, see also Ant. Rom. 1.2.1; 1.6.3.

3.3 How is a Historian Supposed to Write? Herodotus vs. Thucydides

75

As clearly stated by Dionysius in the passage quoted above, Herodotus is preferred to Thucydides for his selection of subject matter and, as we shall see in due time, throughout the whole treatise. The beginning and end of the selected subject matter should always be considered: “The second task required of a writer of an historical work is to decide where to begin and how far to go” (Pomp. 3.8: δεύτερόν ἐστι τῆς ἱστορικῆς πραγματείας ἔργον γνῶναι πόθεν τε ἄρξασθαι καὶ μέχρι τοῦ προελθεῖν δεῖ). Here again, just as in his previous point, Dionysius applies this rule, at least theoretically, in his own historical work (see Ant. Rom. 1.4.1‒3). An important factor is the selection (inclusion and exclusion) of historical events: “A third question which a historian must consider is which events he should include in his work, and which he should omit” (Pomp. 3.11: τρίτον ἐστὶν ἀνδρὸς ἱστορικοῦ 〈ἔργον σκοπεῖν〉 [add. Herwerden] τίνα τε δεῖ παραλαβεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γραφὴν πράγματα καὶ τίνα παραλιπεῖν). The fourth point is the arrangement of the collected and selected material: “The historian’s next function is to distribute the material of his account and arrange each item in its proper place” (Pomp. 3.13: μετὰ τοῦτο ἔργον ἐστὶν ἱστορικοῦ διελέσθαι τε καὶ τάξαι τῶν δηλουμένων ἕκαστον ἐν ᾧ δεῖ τόπῳ). The fifth and last point is the attitude of the author towards his subject matter: “I shall mention one further feature of the treatment of subject matter, one which we look for in all histories no less than for the other features which have been mentioned: I mean the historian’s own attitude to the events he describes” (Pomp. 3.15: μιᾶς δ’ ἰδέας ἐπιμνησθήσομαι πραγματικῆς, ἣν οὐδεμιᾶς τῶν εἰρημένων ἧττον ἐν ἁπάσαις ἱστορίαις ζητοῦμεν, τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ συγγραφέως διάθεσιν, ᾗ κέχρηται πρὸς τὰ πράγματα περὶ ὧν γράφει). Here ends the first contest between Herodotus and Thucydides, where the former always wins. Dionysius concludes this section by marking again his appreciation for Herodotus: “These are the reasons why Thucydides is inferior to Herodotus regarding the subject matter” (Pomp. 3.15: καὶ κατὰ μὲν τὸν πραγματικὸν τόπον ἥττων ἐστὶν Ἡροδότου διὰ ταῦτα Θουκυδίδης). A textual-comparative excursus is needed here. The text of the epitome of the On Imitation squeezes the whole analysis I have so far discussed into a single sentence where Thucydides’ name is totally erased: “Among the historians, Herodotus is better for subject matter” (Imit. 3.1: τῶν μέντοι συγγραφέων Ἡρόδοτος μὲν ἐξείργασται βέλτιον τὸ πραγματικὸν εἶδος). After that, the text of the epitome deals exclusively with matters of style (Imit. 3.1‒3), which is perhaps an evidence of the epitomiser’s interests. After discussing the subject matter, Dionysius in the Letter to Pompeius examines style. Here Herodotus is considered sometimes better, sometimes worst, sometimes equal to Thucydides: “In style, he is sometimes inferior, some-

76

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

times better, sometimes equal” (Pomp. 3.15: κατὰ δὲ τὸν λεκτικὸν τὰ μὲν ἥττων, τὰ δὲ κρείττων, τὰ δ᾽ ἴσος). The fundamental stylistic feature is, according to Dionysius, purity of vocabulary, a prerequisite for the preservation of the Greek language: πρώτη τῶν ἀρετῶν γένοιτ’ ἄν, ἧς χωρὶς οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν περὶ τοὺς λόγους ὄφελός τι, ἡ καθαρὰ τοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ τὸν Ἑλληνικὸν χαρακτῆρα σῴζουσα διάλεκτος. ταύτην ἀκριβοῦσιν ἀμφότεροι· Ἡρόδοτός τε γὰρ τῆς Ἰάδος ἄριστος κανὼν Θουκυδίδης τε τῆς ᾿Aτθίδος (Pomp. 3.16). We may regard as the supreme virtue that without which no other literary quality is of any use language that is pure in its vocabulary and preserves the Greek idiom. Both writers meet this requirement exactly: Herodotus is the perfect model of the Ionic language, and Thucydides of the Attic.

In text of the Letter, these words are followed by some considerations on the third characteristic of the λεκτικὸς τόπος (Pomp. 3.16). Already in his 1586 edition of Dionysius’ historical and rhetorical works, Friedrich Sylburg noticed the absence of the second feature of style.⁴² Usener identified the missing text in the epitome of the treatise on imitation: “On clarity, Herodotus is unquestionably the most successful” (Imit. 3.1: τῆς σαφηνείας δὲ ἀναμφισβητήτως Ἡροδότῳ τὸ κατόρθωμα δέδοται).⁴³ Therefore, we can integrate the lacuna in the text of the Letter and acknowledge the importance of clarity, a feature where Herodotus is judged better than Thucydides, who is obscure and hard to follow.⁴⁴ A third characteristic is brevity (Pomp. 3.17: τρίτην ἔχει χώραν ἡ καλουμένη συντομία), a fundamental issue mentioned also in Dionysius’ historical work.⁴⁵ Brevity is followed swiftly by ἐνάργεια (“vividness,” “vivid description”), by imitation of the ἔθος, i. e. of the character, and by πάθος (“emotion”) (Pomp. 3.17‒ 18). These stylistic traits are followed by the virtues of construction (τῆς κατασκευῆς ἀρεταί) and the excellence of expression (τῆς φράσεως ἀρεταί), which produces strength, tone and similar qualities, finishing with the ability to excite pleasure, persuasion and delight.

 Sylburg (1586) 28.  Usener (1889) 57. Aujac inserts in her text of the Letter the content of Imit. 3: δεύτερα τῶν ἀρετῶν ἡ σαφήνεια· ταύτῃ Ἡρόδοτος Θουκυδίδην ἀναμφισβητήτως ὑπερβάλλει (Aujac [1978 1992] 5.92).  Cf. Pomp. 3.13: καὶ γίνεται Θουκυδίδης μὲν ἀσαφὴς καὶ δυσπαρακολούθητος.  Ant. Rom. 5.75.1: συντόμως πειράσομαι διεξελθεῖν, ταῦτα ἡγούμενος εἶναι χρησιμώτατα τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις. For the importance of brevity in ancient rhetorical treatises, see the testimo nies collected in Fornaro (1997) 218 220.

3.3 How is a Historian Supposed to Write? Herodotus vs. Thucydides

77

After listing these categories, Herodotus is praised for being κατὰ φύσιν, while Thucydides’ style is characterized as δεινός (“powerful,” “vehement”) (Pomp. 3.18‒19). At last, “of all the virtues in literature, the most important is the appropriateness (τὸ πρέπον)” (Pomp. 3.20), the distinctive feature that the Romans, and especially Cicero, called decorum: “In an oration, as in life, nothing is harder than to determine what is appropriate. The Greeks call it πρέπον, let us call it decorum [appropriateness].”⁴⁶ With the concept of appropriateness, the short list of stylistic qualities of both Herodotus and Thucydides comes to an end: ἵνα δὲ συνελὼν εἴπω, καλαὶ μὲν αἱ ποιήσεις ἀμφότεραι (οὐ γὰρ ἂν αἰσχυνθείην ποιήσεις αὐτὰς λέγων), διαφέρουσι δὲ κατὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα ἀλλήλων, ὅτι τὸ μὲν Ἡροδότου κάλλος ἱλαρόν ἐστι, φοβερὸν δὲ τὸ Θουκυδίδου (Pomp. 3.21). To be brief, the poetical compositions (as I should not be ashamed to call them) of both are beautiful. The main point of difference between them is that the beauty of Herodotus is cheerful, while that of Thucydides is awe inspiring.

Words are, as usual, very significant in this setting. In the final section of the sentence, Thucydides’ style is defined as φοβερός (“awe-inspiring”), which is very similar to the term δεινός previously mentioned; it derives from the verb φοβέω (“to terrify,” often in the middle-passive: “to be afraid of,” “stand in awe of,” “dread”). For those unfamiliar with ancient Greek rhetoric, the choice of words could sound odd. But the adjective φοβερός is also employed in Demetrius’ On Style to define Homer’s description of the episode of Odysseus and Polyphemus: αὗταί εἰσιν αἱ λεγόμεναι σεμναὶ χάριτες καὶ μεγάλαι. χρῆται δὲ αὐταῖς Ὅμηρος καὶ πρὸς δεί νωσιν ἐνίοτε καὶ ἔμφασιν, καὶ παίζων φοβερώτερός ἐστι, πρῶτός τε εὑρηκέναι δοκεῖ φοβε ρὰς χάριτας (Demetr. Eloc. 129 130). This is the charm called imposing and dignified. Homer uses sometimes these means to make a scene more forceful and intense. When he is jesting, he is awe inspiring, and he seems to have been the first to invent the grim joke.

 Cic. Orat. 70: ut enim in vita sic in oratione nihil est difficilius quam quid deceat videre. πρέπον appellant hoc Graeci, nos dicamus sane decorum. The same feature, appropriateness, is defined in Dion. Hal. Lys. 9 as κρατίστην ἁπασῶν ἀρετὴν καὶ τελειοτάτην, and extensively discussed in Comp. 20. All these considerations on appropriateness in rhetorical discourses derive from Aris totle’s Rhetoric, especially 1404b1 4 (ἔστω οὖν ἐκεῖνα τεθεωρημένα, καὶ ὡρίσθω λέξεως ἀρετὴ σαφῆ εἶναι (…), καὶ μήτε ταπεινὴν μήτε ὑπὲρ τὸ ἀξίωμα, ἀλλὰ πρέπουσαν) and 1408a10 11 (τὸ δὲ πρέπον ἕξει ἡ λέξις, ἐὰν ᾖ παθητική τε καὶ ἠθικὴ καὶ τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πράγμασιν ἀνάλογον). Cf. also Pohlenz (1933).

78

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

In conclusion, the analysis conducted by Dionysius in relation to the λεκτικὸς τόπος is not thrown together at random; on the contrary, it follows a very schematic pattern: “in fact the critical study of Herodotus and Thucydides amounts to little more than a series of notes informing the reader that they do or do not possess each particular virtue.”⁴⁷ For the sake of clarity, I will conclude this section by listing the principal virtues of style that Dionysius applies in his judgement of the works of Herodotus and Thucydides: purity of language, clarity, brevity, vividness, imitation of character, virtues of construction and expression, creation of pleasure, persuasion and delight, and, the most important virtue of all, appropriateness (Greek: τὸ πρέπον, Latin: decorum).

3.4 Worthy and Unworthy Historians: Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus After the analysis of both style and content of Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ historical writings, Dionysius tackles the remaining historians he has listed at the beginning. Xenophon and Philistus are included, even if the style and subject matter of their respective histories are criticized. Finally, Theopompus, Dionysius’ ideal writer of history, is discussed. But let us consider in detail Dionysius’ reasoning. In the opening section of Pomp. 4.1, Xenophon is defined as an imitator of Herodotus in both aspects of subject matter and style (Ξενοφῶν μὲν γὰρ Ἡροδότου ζηλωτὴς ἐγένετο κατ᾽ ἀφμοτέρους τοὺς χαρακτῆρας, τόν τε πραγματικὸν καὶ τὸν λεκτικόν). Even in recent scholarly works, Xenophon’s borrowings from his predecessor have been recongnized to adhere to style, narrative, and character.⁴⁸ Among the writings of Xenophon, Dionysius discusses only the following texts: Cyropaedia, Anabasis, and the Hellenica, which he considers a continuation of Thucydides.⁴⁹ We can assume that, in Dionysius’ categorisation, these where Xenophon’s works that belonged to the historiographical genre. Great prominence and praise is imputed to the choice of subject (ὑπόθεσις) and the arrangement of material (οἰκονομία: Pomp. 4.1‒2). On the other hand, Xenophon’s style is sometimes similar, sometimes inferior compared to Herodotus (Pomp. 4.3: ὁ δὲ λεκτικὸς πῇ μὲν ὅμοιος Ἡροδότου, πῇ δὲ ἐνδεέστερος). Clarity and purity of language are almost always respected, and his language possesses charm. None   ταί

Bonner (1939) 41. See Gray (1989) 3 9, 14 16, passim; Hornblower (2006) 311 312. Pomp. 4.1: καὶ τρίτην ἔτι τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν καὶ ἣν κατέλιπεν ἀτελῆ Θουκυδίδης, ἐν ᾗ καταλύον τε οἱ τριάκοντα καὶ τὰ τείχη τῶν ᾿Aθηναίων, ἃ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καθεῖλον, αὖθις ἀνίσταται.

3.4 Worthy and Unworthy Historians: Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus

79

theless, Xenophon is often inferior to Herodotus because he lacks sublimity, beauty, and magnificence (ὕψος, κάλλος, μεγαλοπρέπεια). The appropriateness of his characters (τοῦ πρέποντος τῶν προσώπων) is also considered inconsistent (Pomp. 4.4). If on the one hand Xenophon is an imitator of Herodotus, on the other Philistus is the imitator of Thucydides. He has chosen a similar subject for his works, but at the same time his style is clearly inferior to the great Athenian writer (Pomp. 5.1‒6). Similar considerations of Philistus are expressed by Cicero: “Philistus of Syracuse (…) spent his leisure time writing history, and to a large extent, as it seems to me, he took Thucydides as his model.”⁵⁰ Quintilian describes Philistus as an imitator of Thucydides, “but was much feebler than his model, though somewhat more lucid.”⁵¹ while Aelius Theon, the author of Progymnasmata in the second century AD, presses charges of plagiarism against Philistus, probably exaggerating a consolidated critical tradition.⁵² The fact that all these critics – Cicero, Dionysius, Quintilian, and Theon – emphasize Philistus’ imitation of Thucydides, is a clue suggesting the existence of a Hellenistic critical tradition regarding Philistus, and perhaps historiography in general (which will be discussed in § 5.4). Plutarch, in the introduction to the Life of Nicias, does not stress Thucydides’ imitation of Philistus, but rather their different style, and compares their history of the Athenian Sicilian expedition with Timaeus’: “He [Timaeus], confidently hoping to excel Thucydides in skill, and to make Philistus seem altogether tedious and clumsy, pushes his history along through the conflicts and sea-fights and harangues which those writers had already handled with the greatest success.”⁵³ Plutarch continues with a verbose critique of Timaeus’ style, but the significant point is that in Plutarch’s eyes, Philistus’ history of the events of the fifth and fourth century BC was worth reading alongside Thucydides.

 Cic. De or. 2.57 (FGrHist 556 T 17b): Syracosius Philistus (…) otium suum consumpsit in historia scribenda maximeque Thucydidem est (ut mihi videtur) imitatus. Cf. Qfr 2.11.4; Brut. 66. Cf. Fro mentin (2010).  Quint. Inst. 10.1.74 (FGrHist 556 T 15c): Philistus (…) imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior, ita aliquatenus lucidior.  Theon, Prog. 63.22 24 (FGrHist 556 T 14): καὶ μέντοι γε ὁ Φίλιστος τὸν ᾿Aττικὸν ὅλον πόλεμον ἐν τοῖς Σικελικοῖς ἐκ τῶν Θουκυδίδου μετενήνοχε. Cf. also below § 6.2. A general assessment of Philistus’ ancient reception in Vattuone (2007) 195.  Plut. Nic. 1: ὃς ἐλπίσας τὸν μὲν Θουκυδίδην ὑπερβαλεῖσθαι δεινότητι, τὸν δὲ Φίλιστον ἀποδεί ξειν παντάπασι φορτικὸν καὶ ἰδιώτην, διὰ μέσων ὠθεῖται τῇ ἱστορίᾳ τῶν μάλιστα κατωρθωμένων ἐκείνοις ἀγώνων καὶ ναυμαχιῶν καὶ δημηγοριῶν κτλ.

80

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

The text of the epitome of the On Imitation regarding Philistus differs from the opinions we read in the Letter to Pompeius, but it generally agrees with the hostility for Philistus’ style: “Philistus is an imitator of Thucydides, except regarding moral character (ἦθος).” The latter remark on ethos is related to the historian’s close friendship with the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius I.⁵⁴ The Sicilian historian must have been very popular in antiquity, or at least in the Hellenistic age. Plutarch (Alex. 8.3) reports a letter that Alexander sent to Harpalus while on military campaign in Asia. Having at his disposal only the Iliad, the Macedonian king requested that other books be sent to him. Plutarch offers a detailed list: among the tragedies of Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus, and the poems of Telestes and Philoxenos, Harpalus sent also the complete historical work of Philistus for the Macedonian king to read. He is the only prose author in the short list reported by Plutarch. Philistus’ name occurs also in the famous fragmentary catalogue of authors inscribed on the wall-plastering in the library of the gymnasium of Tauromenium in Sicily.⁵⁵ In this inscription, dated to the late third or second century BC, the section on Philistus (fr. 3, col. B) comprises a few biographical notes (“native of Syracuse, a pupil of Euenos, the writer of elegies”)⁵⁶ and some considerations on the character of his historical work.⁵⁷ The Sicilian historian is preceded by a lemma on Callisthenes and one on Quintus Fabius Pictor, while two other fragments published in 1997 preserve a section on Anaximander and, perhaps, one on Anaxagoras.⁵⁸ These latter fragments have shown that the library in Taurome-

 Imit. 3.2: Φίλιστος δὲ μιμητής ἐστι Θουκυδίδου, ἔξω τοῦ ἤθους. Cf. Sanders (1981); Bearzot (2002) 91 98; Vattuone (2007) 194.  The inscription, divided initially into three columns, was published by Manganaro (1974); cf. SEG 26.1123. Blanck (1997) published new readings of previously unnoticed lemmata, numbered as columns 4 and 5. Battistoni (2006) provided new readings and a thorough reconsideration of Manganaro’s conjectures to columns 1 3. Further bibliographical references in SEG 51.1390; 52.936bis.  The latter note on his education corroborates, despite modern doubts, the information pro vided in two different entries in the Suda: 1) Suda φ 361: Φιλίσκος ἢ Φίλιστος, Συρακούσιος, ἱστορικός. ἦν δὲ συγγενὴς Διονυσίου τοῦ τυράννου Σικελίας καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Καρχηδονίους ναυ μαχίᾳ ἐτελεύτησε. μαθητὴς δὲ ἦν Εὐήνου τοῦ ἐλεγειοποιοῦ. ἔγραψα Σικελικά. κτλ. 2) Suda φ 365: Φίλιστος, Ναυκρατίτης ἢ Συρακούσιος, ᾿Aρχωνίδου υἱός. μαθητὴς δὲ ἦν Εὐήνου τοῦ ἐλεγειο ποιοῦ· ὃς πρῶτος κατὰ τὴν ῥητορικὴν τέχνην ἱστορίαν ἔγραψε. κτλ. On these entries and the confusion between Philistus and Naucrates, which brought to the doubt in Suda φ 365 on Phil istus’ hometown (Ναυκρατίτης ἢ Συρακούσιος): Vanotti (1990).  See Battistoni (2006) 172 175.  Blanck (1997); cf. SEG 47.1464.

3.4 Worthy and Unworthy Historians: Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus

81

nium was not limited to historiography,⁵⁹ but included different genres. Philistus’ presence in Tauromenium might have been related to a feeling of Sicilian Lokalpatriotismus, but given the wide spectrum of authors inscribed on the wall-plastering, it is probable that his historical work was well received in the Hellenistic age and read in the context of a gymnasium. Moving from Tauromenium back to first century BC Rome, Cicero, in a letter to his brother Quintus, shows clear appreciation for Philistus’ On Dionysius (Cic. Qfr. 2.11.4: me magis “de Dionysio” delectat). Cicero, it has been argued, might have modelled some of his opinions in the De re publica on Philistus’ historical work.⁶⁰ As opposed to Cicero, Dionysius was not a supporter of Philistus. He criticizes the choice of the subject matter, the division of the topic into two parts (even if it was one and the same),⁶¹ the struggles the reader encounters in trying to follow his narrative, and, finally, Philistus’ ὁμοειδής (“monotony,” “tediousness”), a word which could be interpreted as opposed to ποικιλία, “variety,” a stylistic trait highly praised in Herodotus and Xenophon.⁶² ὁμοείδεια (from which ὁμοειδής derives) is known in Latin rhetorical writings as vitium elocutionis and is despised by Quintilian; Cicero uses it to define geographical writings.⁶³ Dionysius goes on to criticise Philistus’ for being a tyrant-lover, which is the accusation expressed also by Plutarch (Plut. Dion 36.3 [FGrHist 556 T 23a]). In order to demonstrate that Philistus’ language is terribly uniform, Dionysius quotes a passage from the beginning of the second book of the work On Sicily, which does actually appear rather dull (see Pomp. 5.5 [FGrHist 556 F 5]). Eventu It was suggested by Manganaro (1974), but he had at his disposal only the lemmata with Cal listhenes, Philistus, and Quintus Fabius Pictor.  Sanders (1986).  It seems that Philistus’ historical work, known as Sikelika, was divided in two syntaxeis: Dion. Hal. Pomp. 5.1 (FGrHist 556 T 12): διῄρηκε δ᾽ αὐτὴν εἰς γραφὰς δύο, Περὶ Σικελίας μὲν τὴν προτέραν ἐπιγράφων, Περὶ Διονυσίου δὲ τὴν ὑστέραν· ἔστι δὲ μία· καὶ τοῦτο γνοίης ἂν ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους τῆς Σικελικῆς. On this division see also Cic. Qfr. 2.11.4 (FGrHist 556 T 17a) (duo enim sunt corpora) and Diod. 13.103.3; 15.89.3 (respectively FGrHist 556 T 11a and 11b). See, in general, Bearzot (2002) 102 103.  See Pomp. 3.11 12; 4.2.  Quint. Inst. 8.3.52: peior hac ὁμοείδεια; quae nulla varietatis gratia levat taedium atque est tota coloris unius, qua maxime deprehenditur carens arte oratio, eaque et in sententiis et in figuris et in compositione longe non animis solum sed etiam auribus est ingratissima. Cic. Att. 2.6.1: a scri bendo prorsus abhorret animus. etenim γεωγραφικὰ quae constitueram magnum opes est. ita valde Eratosthenes, quem mihi proposueram, a Serapione et ab Hipparcho reprehenditur. quid cen ses si Tyrannio accesserit? et hercule sunt res difficiles ad explicandum et ὁμοειδεῖς nec tam pos sunt ἀνθηρογραφεῖσθαι quam videbantur et, quod caput est, mihi quaevis satis giusta causa ces sandi est (…). Cf. Celentano (1996).

82

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

ally, Philistus’ natural grace of expression and intelligence are praised, with a brief reference to his usefulness in deliberative oratory: “for actual pleadings, he is a more suitable model than Thucydides” (Pomp. 5.6: πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀληθινοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐπιτηδειότερος Θουκυδίδου). So far we have seen a well-defined scheme in Dionysius reasoning. He has set Herodotus and Thucydides at the top of his personal podium of historians, with a clear preference for the Halicarnassian. Each of these two has a corresponding, second-rate imitator: for Herodotus, Xenophon; for Thucydides, Philistus. Xenophon is praised for the content of his historical writing, but criticised for his style, while Philistus is always blamed as a lesser historian in relation to his model, Thucydides. If we consider that, from Dionysius’ perspective, Herodotus is superior to Thucydides, it seems natural that the imitator of Herodotus, Xenophon, should be a better writer in comparison to the imitator of Thucydides, Philistus. We come thus to the conclusion that Dionysius’ criticism works on a schematic, twofold system: a positive model, represented by the couple Herodotus-Xenophon, and a negative model, embodied in the Thucydides-Philistus pair. A historian who appears to be above these categorisations is Theopompus, the last author considered by Dionysius in the Letter to Pompeius: Θεόπομπος δὲ Χῖος ἐπιφανέστατος πάντων 〈τῶν〉 [add. Herwerden] Ἰσοκράτους μαθητῶν γενόμενος καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν πανεγυρικούς, πολλοὺς δὲ συμβουλευτικοὺς συνταξάμενος λόγ ους ἐπιστολάς τε τὰς Χιακὰς⁶⁴ ἐπιγραφομένας καὶ ὑποθήκας ἄλλας λόγου ἀξίας, ἱστορίαν πεπραγματευμένος ἄξιος ἐπαινεῖσθαι πρῶτον μὲν τῆς ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἱστοριῶν (καλαὶ γὰρ ἀμφότεραι, ἣ μὲν τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ Πελοποννησιακοῦ πολέμου περιέχουσα, ἣ δὲ τὰ Φιλίππῳ πεπραγμένα), ἔπειτα τῆς οἰκονομίας (ἀμφότεραι γάρ εἰσιν εὐπαρακολούθητοι καὶ σαφεῖς), μάλιστα δὲ τῆς ἐπιμελείας τε καὶ φιλοπονίας τῆς κατὰ τὴν συγγραφήν, κτλ. (Pomp. 6.1 2). Theopompus of Chios was the most illustrious of all the pupils of Isocrates. He composed many eulogies and many deliberative speeches, as well as letters which are entitled ‘Chian,’ and some noteworthy hortatory treatises; he is also the author of works of history that de serve to be praised on several grounds: firstly, his historical subjects are both good, one of them comprising the closing stages of the Peloponnesian war, the other the career of Philip; secondly his arrangement, since both works are lucid and easy to follow; particularly com mendable are the care and industry which mark his historical writing, etc.

 Westermann corrects ἀχαικάς of the manuscript tradition with Χιακάς: only the codex Vati canus Palat. gr. 58 (fifteenth century), with the editio princeps by Henri Estienne, has ἀρχαικάς. But Westermann’s correction seems to be safe: see Pomp. 6.10 (τῶν Χιακῶν ἐπιστολῶν), and FGrHist 115 F 254a with Jacoby’s commentary, ad loc.

3.4 Worthy and Unworthy Historians: Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus

83

From this point up to the end of the treatise, Dionysius praises Theopompus wholeheartedly: “In none of Dionysius’ critical works does any author receive more fulsome praise than Theopompus in this letter.”⁶⁵ The structure is the same as in the previous sections of the Letter: an analysis of the features related to the subject matter (τὸ πραγματικὸς χαρακτήρ, Pomp. 6.1‒8) is followed swiftly by some brief considerations on style (Pomp. 6.9‒10). Quite significant is the fact that, among Theopompus’ characteristics, Dionysius should include autopsy: “He was an eye witness to many events” (Pomp. 6.3: καὶ πρὸς τούτοις πολλῶν μὲν αὐτόπτης γεγενημένος). This is an evident reference to Polybius’ polemic against Timaeus and Theopompus, not only for its content, but also for wording and lexical range.⁶⁶ Dionysius thus shows his preference for Theopompus, in a silent debate with Polybius. But Theopompus is not merely a diligent historian, he is much more than that. He has not considered the study of history as a subordinate feature of life, but as the most necessary of all human deeds: “For he did not consider the writing of history a part-time occupation in his life, as some regard it, but as the most necessary of all activities” (Pomp. 6.3: οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ τινὲς πάρεργον τοῦ βίου τὴν ἀναγραφὴν τῆς ἱστορίας ἐποιήσατο, ἔργον δὲ τὸ πάντων ἀναγκαιότατον). His writing is manifold (τὸ πολύμορφον τῆς γραφῆς), his works valuable to the reader (Pomp. 6.3‒4). According to Dionysius, the historian from Chios is undoubtedly the best example of historical writing: “All these qualities of the historian are worthy of imitation” (Pomp. 6.6: πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ζηλωτὰ τοῦ συγγραφέως). A few shortcomings of Theopompus are briefly discussed in the final sections of the Letter. First of all, he was too eager to follow Isocrates’ rules on style: the forced suppression of the hiatus (already noted in Cic. Orat. 151); a constant search for rhythm; the tediousness of his figures. If he had avoided these excesses, he would have represented even a better writer (Pomp. 6.10). The second weak point is the superfluous and frequent use of digressions (τὰς παρεμβολάς, Pomp. 6.11).⁶⁷ The same criticism of the digressions in Theo-

 Usher (1974 1985) 2.365.  Polybian polemic against Timaeus in Polyb. 12; for his criticism of Theopompus, see Polyb. 8.10.1 2. Avenarius (1956) 161 162, followed by Gozzoli (1976). For autopsy in ancient Greek his toriography: Nenci (1955); Schepens (1980). For general overview of polemic in ancient histori ography, see Marincola (1997) 218 224; specifically, on Timaeus and polemic in the Hellenistic age, see Baron (2013) 113 137.  The text actually says παραβολάς, but it has been corrected by Kiessling, and accepted in their editions by both Usener and Aujac. The epitome has the much more common παρέκβασις (Imit. 3.12).

84

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

pompus is to be found in later writers: from Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata to the Byzantine Photius.⁶⁸ The latter also mentioned, as a curious but instructive anecdote, that Philip V of Macedon, interested in the military exploits of his predecessor Philip II, ordered that the superfluous digressions be removed from the text of Theopompus’ History of Philip: the result was allegedly that out of fifty-three total books, only sixteen were extracted. Dionysius lists also a few imaginary anecdotes reported by Theopompus, such as the Silenus, which appeared in Macedonia,⁶⁹ or the story of a dragon fighting against a trireme, closing this negative point with the benevolent words: καὶ ἄλλα τούτοις οὐκ ὀλίγα ὅμοια (Pomp. 6.11).⁷⁰ It is remarkable that the author of the epitome of the On Imitation (3.11‒12) appears to be much more critical of Theopompus than Dionysius himself. The frequent suppressions of the hiatus, the excessive search for rhythm and the tediousness of the figures are marked as “bad” or “useless” (πονηρά) characteristics,⁷¹ while these same negative traits are introduced with much more empathy by Dionysius himself: “if, in these passages over which he has taken the greatest trouble, he had paid less attention to the blending of vowels (…), he would have expressed himself far better than in fact he did” (Pomp. 6.10: εἰ δ᾽ ὑπερεῖδεν ἐν τούτοις ἐφ᾽ οἷς μάλιστα δὴ ἐσπούδακε τῆς τε συμπλοκῆς τῶν φωνηέντων γραμμάτων καὶ τῆς κυκλικῆς εὐρυθμίας τῶν περιόδων καὶ τῆς ὁμοειδείας τῶν σχηματισμῶν, πολὺ ἀμείνων ἂν ἦν αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ κατὰ τὴν φράσιν). Moreover, introducing a series of disapproving considerations on Theopompus, the author of the epitome uses the verb διαμαρτάνω (“to miss entirely, fail utterly”), while Dionysius himself in the Letter to Pompeius uses the slightly milder ἀμαρτάνω (generally “fail, miss the mark”).⁷² The comparison between the epitome and the text of the Letter could thus lead us to suppose that the author of the epitome did not share Dionysius’ enthusiasm and appreciation for Theopompus, thus revealing some of his personal considerations. Among the opinions on Theopompus expressed by ancient historians, orators, literary critics, we could single out some noteworthy examples. Athenaeus, the author of the Deipnosophistae, refers to Theopompus as “a man who was devoted to truth (φιλαλήθης) and spent a great deal of money on the accurate in-

 Theon, Prog. 80.31 81.4 (FGrHist 115 T 30); Phot. Bibl. cod. 176, 121a35 41 (FGrHist 115 T 31).  The same anecdote is reported also in Theon, Prog. 66.21 22.  Theopompus is criticised for his excessive use of anecdotes also by Cic. Att. 2.6.2 (FGrHist 115 T 25b), Nep. Alc. 11, and Luc. Hist. conscr. 59 (FGrHist 115 T 25a).  Dion. Hal. Imit. 3.11: πονηρὰ δὲ ἡ πολλὴ τῆς τῶν φωνηέντων φυλακὴ συγκρούσεως καὶ 〈αἱ〉 κατεπιτετηδευμέναι κυκλικαὶ περίοδοι καὶ 〈οἱ〉 ὁμοειδεῖς τῶν σχηματισμῶν.  Compare Imit. 3.12 with Pomp. 6.11.

3.4 Worthy and Unworthy Historians: Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus

85

vestigation of history.”⁷³ However, Athenaeus’ judgement is focused on content and does not deal with style, a feature that is considered with disapproval by Duris of Samos, pseudo-Longinus, and Pollux.⁷⁴ Demetrius, the author of the treatise On Style, asserts that even if Theopompus’ style could appear strong and powerful (δεινός), it is actually the facts that he describes that are powerful: his style, on the contrary, is weak (ἀσθενής).⁷⁵ Cicero is also very harsh with Theopompus. In the famous passage of the De legibus, where the characteristics of history and poetry are defined, Cicero mentions the historian from Chios: Quintus: intellego te, frater, alias in historia leges obseruandas putare, alias in poemate. Marcus: quippe, cum in illa ad veritatem 〈omnia〉, Quinte, referantur, in hoc ad delectationem pleraque; quamquam et apud Herodotum, patrem historiae, et apud Theopompum sunt innu merabiles fabulae (Cic. Leg. 1.5).⁷⁶ Q: If I understand well, dear brother, you assert that different principles are to be followed in history and in poetry. M: Of course, Quintus, because in history the standard by which everything is judged is truth, in poetry pleasure; however, in Herodotus, the father of history, and in Theopompus, innumerable fabulous tales are to be found.

Finally, Polybius’ harsh criticism cannot be omitted. In his view, Theopompus dealt in a childish and inaccurate way with the history of king Philip II of Macedon (Polyb. 8.9‒11). Great emphasis is given on Theopompus’ bitterness (πικρία) of judgement, a feature highlighted also by subsequent critics.⁷⁷ However, Polybius’ blame of the bitterness coincides perhaps with Dionysius’ praise of his “frankness” (παρρησία, Pomp. 6.8).⁷⁸ We should possibly consider that much of the later negative criticism on Theopompus could go back to Polybius’ hostile judgement, and that Dionysius critical analysis aims, through a positive assessment, at opposing an adverse tradition.

 Athen. 3.85a: τούτοις εἴ τις ἀπιστεῖ, μαθέτω καὶ παρὰ Θεοπόμπου τοῦ Χίου, ἀνδρὸς φιλαλή θους καὶ πολλὰ χρήματα καταναλώσαντος εἰς τὴν περὶ τῆς ἱστορίας ἐξέτασιν ἀκριβῆ.  Duris, FGrHist 76 F 1 apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 176, 121a41 b3; [Longin.] Subl. 43.1; Poll. 4.93. For a more detailed discussion, see Mazzucchi (2010) 295 296.  Demetr. Eloc. 75 and 240.  The quotation is marked by some textual issues; for the sake of brevity, I have followed the latter Oxford Classical Text edition: Powell (2006) ad loc.  See Polyb. 8.10 as well as Cic. Att. 2.6.2; Nep. Alc. 11; Luc. Hist. conscr. 59.  Cf. Gozzoli (1976) 173.

86

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

3.5 A Telling Absence: Ephorus and his Exclusion Theopompus is the last ancient Greek historian considered in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ On Imitation and consequently in the Letter to Pompeius. The Letter ends with this sentence: “the comparison of these historians will be sufficient to provide students of civil oratory with a basic stock of suitable examples for every variety of setting” (Pomp. 6.11: οὗτοι παραληφθέντες οἱ συγγραφεῖς ἀρκέσουσι τοῖς ἀσκοῦσι τὸν πολιτικὸν λόγον ἀφορμὰς ἐπιτηδείους παραδειγμάτων παρασχεῖν εἰς ἅπασαν ἰδέαν).⁷⁹ Cicero and Quintilian, when defining a canon of Greek historians, associate Theopompus with Ephorus of Cyme.⁸⁰ The ancient biographical tradition that combines these two historians is very strong, since they were both considered pupils of Isocrates.⁸¹ However, in Dionysius’ treatment of ancient Greek historians, especially since he lingers on Theopompus, Ephorus’ absence is an odd fact. Dionysius himself is aware of the tradition of Theopompus and Ephorus being pupils of Isocrates and refers to it at different occasions in his rhetorical treatises.⁸² This means that he has removed Ephorus on purpose. Let us consider what may have led to this intentional choice. Ephorus is commonly considered the first author of a universal history, according primarily to a famous statement by Polybius.⁸³ And it is always Polybius who praises Ephorus, together with Xenophon, Callisthenes, and Plato, as the

 Some modern scholars, believing that this closure is too abrupt, have supposed that there was a lacuna at the end of our text: Krüger (1823) 58: “ad finem epistolae nonnulla videntur deesse;” van Herwerden (1861) 46 n. 5: “a finae epistolae quaedam deesse non improbabiliter idem statuisse mihi videtur;” Egger (1902) 183: “la fin de la Lettre sembre perdue, car elle se ter mine, sans conclusion, sur un phrase qui appartient visiblemente au traité Sur l’imitation.” But if one considers it as a letter essay, according to Stirewalt’s definition (1991), the ending can be contextualized more appropriately: the letter essay uses the exterior form of the letter, but ad dresses a wider audience; a didactic closing such as the one of the Letter to Pompeius is typical of a letter essay. Cf. Fornaro (1997) 4 7, 265 266 and Wiater (2011) 30 n. 97. On Greek and Latin letters in general: Trapp (2003) 1 46; Gibson/Morrison (2007).  Cic. De or. 2.57 and Quint. Inst. 10.1.74; cf. also Cic. De or. 2.94; 3.36; Orat. 172.  See especially Ephor. FGrHist 70 TT 1 5, 8, 24a, 27, 28a b; Theop. FGrHist 115 TT 1, 5a, 6a b, 20a, 24.  Dion. Hal. Isoc. 1; Isoc. 19; Comp. 23.9.  Polyb. 5.33.2 (FGrHist 70 T 7): παραιτησάμενος Ἔφορον τὸν πρῶτον καὶ μόνον ἐπιβεβλημένον τὰ καθόλου γράφειν. Cf. Vattuone (1998); Alonso Núñes (2002) 38 41. Tully (2014) has recently reconsidered the label “universal historian” as it is applied to Ephorus in modern treatment of his work.

3.5 A Telling Absence: Ephorus and his Exclusion

87

most erudite of the ancient writers.⁸⁴ Diodorus refers to his history with the words αἱ κοιναὶ πράξεις, “common deeds,” and suggests that he excluded ancient myths and began with the return of the descendants of Heracles, the legendary Heraclidae.⁸⁵ Great portions of Ephorus were probably inserted into Diodorus’ historical work⁸⁶ and in Pompeius Trogus’ Philippic Histories (known only through Justin’s epitome), both being examples of universal histories.⁸⁷ It is Diodorus himself who applauses Ephorus’ historical work not only for his style (λέξις), but also for the content and the arrangement (οἰκονομία): each book represented a thematic whole.⁸⁸ Ephorus’ legacy in the ancient historiographical tradition must have been much stronger than Eduard Schwartz allowed: he thought that Ephorus’ work fell into oblivion and was lost much earlier than Theopompus’.⁸⁹ Such a negative assessment was quickly reversed in Barber’s book on Ephorus: “Schwartz’s contention that he was quickly thrust on one side by his more illustrious contemporary Theopomp is not justified by modern investigation.”⁹⁰ Perhaps Ephorus’ universal history was not appreciated for its stylistic features, as attested by Dio Chrysostom: “Ephorus hands down a lot of information about events, yet the tediousness and carelessness of his narrative is not suitable for your purpose” (Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10: Ἔφορος δὲ πολλὴν μὲν ἱστορίαν παραδίδωσι, τὸ

 Polyb. 6.45.1: ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν Κρηταιῶν μεταβάντας ἄξιον ἐπιστῆσαι κατὰ δύο τρόπους πῶς οἱ λογιώτατοι τῶν ἀρχαίων συγγραφέων, Ἔφορος (FGrHist 70 T 13), Ξενοφῶν, Καλλισθένης (FGrHist 124 T 28), Πλάτων, πρῶτον μὲν ὁμοίαν εἶναί φασι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τῇ Λακεδαιμονίων, δεύ τερον δ’ ἐπαινετὴν ὑπάρχουσαν ἀποφαίνουσιν· ὧν οὐδέτερον ἀληθὲς εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ.  Diod. 4.1.3 (FGrHist 70 T 8): Ἔφορος μὲν γὰρ ὁ Κυμαῖος, Ἰσοκράτους ὢν μαθητής, ὑποστη σάμενος γράφειν τὰς κοινὰς πράξεις, τὰς μὲν παλαιὰς μυθολογίας ὑπερέβη, τὰ δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἡρα κλειδῶν καθόδου πραχθέντα συνταξάμενος ταύτην ἀρχὴν ἐποιήσατο τῆς ἱστορίας. ὁμοίως δὲ τούτῳ Καλλισθένης (FGrHist 124 T 24) καὶ Θεόπομπος (FGrHist 115 T 12), κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἡλικίαν γεγονότες, ἀπέστησαν τῶν παλαιῶν μύθων. On this Diodorus passage and Ephorus’ historio graphical agenda: Luraghi (2014).  The first scholar to suggest that Diodorus’ Books 11 16 derived from Ephorus was Volquard sen (1868); his thesis was accepted by Schwartz (1903) and became canonical (cf. Meister [1997]; Stylianou [1998] 49 50). Ephorus, however, was not the only source of Diodorus: the Sicilian his torian exploited the works of many predecessors: cf. Ambaglio (2008) with previous references.  On universal history in general: Alonso Núñes (2002).  Diod. 5.1.4 (FGrHist 70 T 11): Ἔφορος δὲ τὰς κοινὰς πράξεις ἀναγράφων οὐ μόνον κατὰ τὴν λέξιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἐπιτέτευχε· τῶν γὰρ βίβλων ἑκάστην πεποίηκε περιέχειν κατὰ γένος τὰς πράξεις. Cf. the thorough analysis of these words in Parmeggiani (2011) 155 179, with further bibliography.  Schwartz (1907) 16: “sein Werk [of Ephorus] ist viel früher selten geworden und verlorenge gangen als das Theopomps.”  Barber (1935) 157.

88

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

δὲ ὕπτιον καὶ ἀνειμένον τῆς ἀπαγγελίας σοι οὐκ ἐπιτήδειον).⁹¹ It seems that his main strength was the gathering of historical facts, while his style was not particularly brilliant. Ephorus’ absence in Dionysius’ historiographical canon follows two different patterns. On the one hand, his style was not suitable for rhetorical imitation; on the other hand, he was the author of a universal history, which did not fall into the scheme of the above-mentioned πραγματικὸς εἶδος / τόπος. In order to write the history of mankind from its mythical origins to the present-day, a historian is not confronted with the difficult task of selecting the subject matter, nor does he have to decide where to begin and where to end his narrative. In a universal history, the subject and the chronology are already arranged: one only needs to gather the facts. We can infer that Dionysius did not consider Ephorus’ universal history proper history.⁹² To begin with the return of the Heraclidae and to conclude with the present day did not entail any choice of subject, while for Dionysius the choice of the most suitable topic, which ought to be beautiful and delightful for the reader, was the most important characteristic of a work of history (Pomp. 3.2‒10). Ephorus’ is a telling absence in Dionysius’ canon, but it is justified and supported by his strong opinions concerning the importance of style and the selection of a suitable subject matter.

3.6 Thucydides in the Dock: Dionysius’ Judgement In the On Imitation, and consequently in the Letter to Pompeius, Dionysius deals primarily with a comparison between Herodotus and Thucydides (see above § 3.3). Even if both historians are recognized as canonical, it is also clear that Thucydides is considered inferior to Herodotus. Dionysius, in fact, does not

 Such a negative opinion on Ephorus’ style is also expressed in Suda ε 3953: Ἔφορος Κυμαῖος (…) ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἔφορος ἦν τὸ ἦθος ἁπλοῦς, τὴν δὲ ἑρμηνείαν τῆς ἱστορίας ὕπτιος καὶ νωθρὸς καὶ μηδεμίαν ἔχων ἐπίτασιν. Dio Chrysostom might be the Suda entry’s source or the latter might draw on the same rhetorical and biographical tradition as Dio Chrysostom, given that the term ὕπτιος (“flat,” “tedious”) appears in both texts. This adjective is also used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus referred to those who used Isocrates as a model of style (Din. 8.4); at the same time, Isocrates’ style is labelled as flat in Dion. Hal. Isoc. 2.3 (cf. also Isoc. 15.3). One need not even stress the fact that Ephorus was unanimously considered Isocrates’ pupil.  Some scholars have considered Herodotus as the first author of a universal history, see Alonso Núñes (2002) 15 25 and Marincola (2007b) 171 with further references. However, from Dionysius’ point of view, Herodotus’ subject matter is specified in his proemium: it is limited to the war be tween Greeks and barbarians that brought to the Persian wars, allowing for his rich digressions.

3.6 Thucydides in the Dock: Dionysius’ Judgement

89

miss a chance to point out the negative aspects of Thucydides’ choice of subject, narrative, and style.⁹³ Not everyone shared this view. The treatise On Thucydides, focused exclusively on the Athenian historian, is actually Dionysius’ reply to negative reactions to his treatment of Thucydides. At the beginning of this essay, he admits to have contradicted a common attitude that considered Thucydides the best representative of Greek historiography questioning the testimonies (μαρτυρίαι) of the most illustrious philosophers and orators that have praised Thucydides as a model (κανών) of both historical narrative (ἱστορικὴ πραγματεία) and deliberative oratory (πολιτικὸς λόγος).⁹⁴ These same testimonies are summoned again to underline Thucydides’ concern with truth (ἀλήθεια), and “history (ἱστορία) is,” in Dionysius’ words, “the high priestess of truth.”⁹⁵ In these opening chapters of the On Thucydides, Dionysius uses a language influenced by judicial oratory, with the defendant Thucydides (or rather his historical work) in the dock and Dionysius himself as prosecutor. In the On Thucydides Dionysius challenges the Athenian writer’s historical work according to the categories already employed in the On Imitation. Compared to the previous work, however, Dionysius appears less critical on the πραγματικὸς τόπος, especially in Th. 5‒7, where Thucydides’ superiority against his predecessors is confirmed by his choice of subject. Still, Dionysius is not persuaded by Thucydides’ arrangement (οἰκονομία),⁹⁶ especially because “it is required in every kind of writing, whether one selects philosophical or rhetorical subjects.” The arrangement consists of subdivision, order, and method of development (Th. 9.1: ταῦτα δὲ ἐστὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν διαίρεσιν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς ἐξεργασίας). The subdivision (διαίρεσις) of Thucydides’ historical work in summers and winters is, according to Dionysius, difficult to follow (Th. 9).

 Cf. Strebel (1935) 42 50; Meister (2013) 69 71.  Dion. Hal. Th. 2.2: ὑποπτεύω γὰρ ἔσεσθαί τινας τῶν ἀναγνωσομένων τὴν γραφὴν τοὺς ἐπι τιμήσοντας ἡμῖν ὅτι τολμῶμεν ἀποφαίνειν Θουκυδίδην τὸν ἁπάντων κράτιστον τῶν ἱστοριο γράφων καὶ κατὰ τὴν προαίρεσίν ποτε τῶν λόγων ἁμαρτάνοντα καὶ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἐξασθε νοῦντα (…), οὐ ταῖς κοιναῖς μόνον ἐναντιούμενοι δόξαις ἃς ἅπαντες ἐκ τοῦ μακροῦ χρόνου παραλαβόντες ἀναφαιρέτους ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῖς ἰδίαις τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων φιλοσόφων τε καὶ ῥητόρων μαρτυρίαις ἀπιστοῦντες οἳ κανόνα τῆς ἱστορικῆς πραγματείας ἐκεῖνον ὑποτίθενται τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τῆς περὶ τοὺς πολιτικοὺς λόγους δεινότητος ὅρον.  Dion. Hal. Th. 8.1: μαρτυρεῖται δὲ τῷ ἀνδρὶ τάχα μὲν ὑπὸ πάντων φιλοσόφων τε καὶ ῥητόρων, εἰ δὲ μή, τῶν γε πλείστων, ὅτι καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, ἧς ἱέρειαν εἶναι τὴν ἱστορίαν βουλόμεθα, πλείστην ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, οὔτε προστιθεὶς τοῖς πράγμασιν οὐδὲν ὃ μὴ δίκαιον οὔτε ἀφαιρῶν, οὐδὲ ἐνε ξουσιάζων τῇ γραφῇ, ἀνέγκλητον δὲ καὶ καθαρὰν τὴν προαίρεσιν ἀπὸ παντὸς φθόνου καὶ πάσης κολακείας φυλάττων, μάλιστα δ᾿ ἐν ταῖς περὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν γνώμαις.  For this term in the ancient rhetorical tradition, see Pritchett (1975) 59.

90

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

The problem of the subdivision of events within a work of history is discussed in Diodorus Siculus’ Book Twenty, where he faced the end of an already well-structured narrative such as the one represented by Ephorus’ history, one of his main sources up to that point. Diodorus highlights the difficulties with representing reality in historiography: in real life different events happen simultaneously in different places, while historiography needs to partition these events (μερίζειν) in order to be able to offer a continuous narrative.⁹⁷ This specific passage is probably modelled after Duris of Samos’ polemic against both Ephorus and Theopompus.⁹⁸ When Dionysius writes disapprovingly of Thucydides’ subdivision of the narrative into summers and winters, he is actually recalling a debate between Hellenistic historians. On order (τάξις), Dionysius recalls that some unnamed critics complained of Thucydides’ choice of the beginning and end of his history (Th. 10.1), which points to the fact that Dionysius was not the only one who dared to disapprove of the great Athenian historian. Thucydides is rebuked for having started his history not from the true cause, i. e. Athens’ growing imperialistic power, but from a false cause (οὐκ ἀληθῆ): Corcyra’s civil war and the subsequent clash between Athens and Corinth. ἐχρῆν δὲ αὐτὸν ἀρξάμενον τὰς αἰτίας τοῦ πολέμου ζητεῖν πρώτην ἀποδοῦναι τὴν ἀληθῆ καὶ ἑαυτῷ δοκοῦσαν· ἥ τε γὰρ φύσις ἀπῄτει τὰ πρότερα τῶν ὑστέρων ἄρχειν καὶ τἀληθῆ πρὸ τῶν ψευδῶν λέγεσθαι, ἥ τε τῆς διηγήσεως εἰσβολὴ κρείττων ἂν ἐγίνετο μακρῷ, τοιαύτης οἰκονομίας τυχοῦσα (Th. 11.1). But he ought to have stated at the beginning of his enquiry into the true causes of the war the cause which he considered to be the true one: for not only was it a natural requirement that prior events should have precedence over later ones, and true causes be stated before false ones, but the start of his narrative would have been far more powerful if he had adopt ed this arrangement.

 Diod. 20.43.7: ταύτῃ δ᾽ ἄν τις καὶ τὴν ἱστορίαν καταμέμψαιτο, θεωρῶν ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ βίου πολ λὰς καὶ διαφόρους πράξεις συντελουμένας κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν, τοῖς δ’ ἀναγράφουσιν ἀναγ καῖον ὑπάρχον τὸ μεσολαβεῖν τὴν διήγησιν καὶ τοῖς ἅμα συντελουμένοις μερίζειν τοὺς χρόνους παρὰ φύσιν, ὥστε τὴν μὲν ἀλήθειαν τῶν πεπραγμένων τὸ πάθος ἔχειν, τὴν δ’ ἀναγραφὴν ἐστε ρημένην τῆς ὁμοίας ἐξουσίας μιμεῖσθαι μὲν τὰ γεγενημένα, πολὺ δὲ λείπεσθαι τῆς ἀληθοῦς δια θέσεως. See Achilli (2012) with further references.  Schwartz (1905) 1855; see Duris, FGrHist 76 F 1 apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 176, 121a41 b3: Δοῦρις μὲν οὖν ὁ Σάμιος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν αὑτοῦ ἱστοριῶν οὕτω φησίν· “Ἔφορος δὲ καὶ Θεόπομπος τῶν γενομένων πλεῖστον ἀπελείφθησαν· οὔτε γὰρ μιμήσεως μετέλαβον οὐδεμιᾶς οὔτε ἡδονῆς ἐν τῷ φράσαι, αὐτοῦ δὲ τοῦ γράφειν μόνον ἐπεμελήθησαν.” Schwartz’s opinion is generally accepted: see especially Meister (1990) 97 and Canfora (2005) 77. On the implications of Duris’ F 1 for the modern concept of tragic history: Landucci (1997) 51 55. On Duris’ criticism of both Ephorus and Theopompus: Parmeggiani (2016) with further references.

3.6 Thucydides in the Dock: Dionysius’ Judgement

91

Another unsuitable choice was to leave the work purposely unfinished, despite the clear statements that the author expresses in Book Five (Thuc. 5.26.3‒6, a passage quoted extensively in Dion. Hal. Th. 12). This accusation has influenced the modern debate on Thucydides’ unfinished work, on the absence of speeches in Book Eight, and on Xenophon’s continuation of Thucydides’ history in his Hellenica (1‒2.3.9).⁹⁹ Dionysius expresses his opinion on Thucydides’ Book Eight as well, when he quotes Cratippus, “his [Thucydides’] contemporary and the editor of the history as he left it.”¹⁰⁰ Here Dionysius acts like a modern literary critic: he believes that a comparison of Books One and Eight of Thucydides shows that the author has changed his mind and dismissed speeches from his narrative because he understood that they impeded the action and annoyed the audience.¹⁰¹ The whole problem of Thucydides’ Book Eight is related to Dionysius treatment of the elaboration (ἐξεργασία) of his subject matter. According to the Augustan scholar, the most evident shortage of ἐξεργασία is represented by the long preface in Thuc. 1.1.3‒1.21.1. The purpose of this section was to demonstrate that events preceding the Peloponnesian war were of no real importance, but this subject, Dionysius argues, could have formed a work of history on its own.¹⁰² Dionysius goes so far as to propose its exclusion from Thucydides’ history altogether (see Dion. Hal. Th. 20): luckily enough, no subsequent copyist followed Dionysius’ suggestion. A major focus in Dionysius’ approach to Thucydides’ work is style (λεκτικὸς τόπος), which takes up the greater part of the essay (Th. 21‒50). The discussion begins with a comparison between Thucydides and the earlier authors of historiographical accounts, whom he calls logographers. Dionysius admits that these writers are known to him only by their names and that their writings do not survive in his days (Th. 23.2‒4). Nonetheless, he goes on to expose the features of their style: pure, clear, and concise; but they failed to express sublimity, eloquence, dignity and grandeur, as well as gravity, intensity, and the ability to arouse the spirit. But how could he display this knowledge, if these writings

 See Canfora (1970), Gray (1991), Grigolon (2002), and Rood (2004) with further references.  Dion. Hal. Th. 16.2: ὧν προνοούμενος ἔοικε ἀτελῆ τὴν ἱστορίαν καταλιπεῖν, ὡς καὶ Κράτιπ πος ὁ συνακμάσας αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ παραλειφθέντα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ συναγαγὼν γέγραφεν. Cratippus is usually considered one of Thucydides’ continuators, even if Plut. De glor. Ath. 345C E asserts that he wrote about Theramenes’ intervention in the defeat of oligarchy in 411, an event recount ed in Thuc. 8.89 92. On Thucydides’ continuators in general see Luschnat (1970) 1267 1276. Cf. below § 5.1.  Dion. Hal. Th. 16.3 4. Dionysius analysis is meant to show the accuracy of Cratippus’ con clusions.  Th. 19.2: γέγονέ τε αὐτῷ τὸ προοίμιον (…) ἱστορία τις αὐτὴ καθ᾽ αὑτήν.

92

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

were not extant in his days?¹⁰³ The easiest solution is to suppose that Dionysius was exploiting some rhetorical treatises of the Hellenistic age which offered information on the style of these ancient logographers. The nature of these texts, however, remains obscure. Among the predecessors of Thucydides, the sole exception is Herodotus, “far superior to the rest in his choice of words, his composition and his varied use of figures of speech” (Th. 23.6‒7). It is evident that here Dionysius, as in the On Imitation, did not want to miss a chance for praising his beloved Herodotus. Dionysius also enumerates the stylistic innovations produced by Thucydides. For example, in his choice of words (ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς ἐκλογῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων), Thucydides used metaphorical, and archaic expressions; in his construction of shorter and longer clauses (ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς συνθέσεως τῶν τ᾽ ἐλαττόνων καὶ τῶν μειζόνων μορίων), he preferred a severe, compact, and firm arrangement, instead of melodious and smooth sounds. Moreover, to figures of speech (ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν σχηματισμῶν) he devoted great attention, and many examples are given to prove this statement (Th. 24.1‒10 > Amm. II, 2). Finally, four instruments (ὄργανα) are listed as the most significant features of Thucydides’ style: “artificiality of vocabulary, variety of figures, harshness of word-order, rapidity of signification.”¹⁰⁴ Chapters 29‒33 focus on the criticism of solecisms, obscurities, and tortuousness of Thucydides’ prose. In the course of the whole treatise, and especially in these chapters, Dionysius quotes extensively from the work of the Athenian historian in order to strengthen his arguments. It has been observed that “the text of Thucydides given in quotations by Dionysius of Halicarnassus was an abnormally good one, superior to that of any extant MS.”¹⁰⁵ The speeches of Thucydides are then tackled: even if highly praised by previous scholars and critics,¹⁰⁶ Dionysius takes some negative notes on this issue because he believes the speeches lack τὸ πρέπον, appropriateness (see above § 3.3). If on the one hand the speech of the Plataeans defending their rights in front of the Lacedaemonians, in Thucydides’ Book Two, is extolled as splendid and remarkable (Th. 36‒37), on the other hand the notorious Melian dialogue in

 Th. 23.3: οὔτε γὰρ διασῴζονται τῶν πλειόνων αἱ γραφαὶ μέχρι τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνων. See, however, Th. 5.4, where Dionysius states that some of these texts survive in his own time.  Dion. Hal. Th. 24.11: ἵνα δὲ συνελὼν εἴπω, τέτταρα μέν ἐστιν ὥσπερ ὄργανα τῆς Θουκυδίδου λέξεως· τὸ ποιητικὸν τῶν ὀνομάτων, τὸ πολυειδὲς τῶν σχημάτων, τὸ τραχὺ τῆς ἁρμονίας, τὸ τάχος τῆς σημασίας.  Maurer (1995) 209, with the evidence to support this statement summarized in 209 210.  Th. 34.1: ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν δημηγοριῶν αὐτοῦ τὰ δοκοῦντά μοι φανερὰ ποιήσειν ὑπε σχόμην, ἐν αἷς οἴονταί τινες τὴν ἄκραν τοῦ συγγραφέως εἶναι δύναμιν, etc.

3.6 Thucydides in the Dock: Dionysius’ Judgement

93

Thuc. 5.84‒114¹⁰⁷ is condemned for a lack of truthfulness and credibility (εἰκός). The historian presents the facts as a direct witness to the whole debate. But how could Thucydides, inquires Dionysius, have been a member of the Athenian delegation on Melos when he was exiled in Thrace at the time? He could not even have listened to the representatives when they came back to Athens (Th. 41.3). The second fundamental issue is that the Athenian delegates do not speak appropriately when they use brutal arguments against the Melians, and at the same time the Melians, called μικροπολῖται, are not likely to have been so daring when dealing with Athenian military superiority (Th. 41.4‒6). It is interesting to recall that Dionysius, criticizing Thucydides’ speeches, quotes Thucydides’ own remarks upon the general sense of what was actually said in the speeches (ξύμπασα γνῶμη) expressed in Thuc. 1.22.1.¹⁰⁸ The Augustan scholar does not expect each speech to be a faithful transcription of what was actually said, which would amount to total nonsense within the ancient approach to historiography, but he insists on the appropriateness of the speeches according to the characters involved and the different circumstances outlined in each speech.¹⁰⁹ Other speeches in Thucydides are then considered, from Pericles’ discourse in Thuc. 1.140‒144, to Nicias’ in Books Six and Seven, to Hermocrates’ in Thuc. 6.76‒80 (Th. 42‒48). These celebrated speeches were later the focus of Greek handbooks of prose composition, especially Theon’s Progymnasmata (61.11‒13), and were also employed in Aelius Aristides’ Sicilian Discourses. ¹¹⁰ But Dionysius’ main preoccupation is finally disclosed in Th. 50.4, where he admits that, even if Thucydides’ speeches are marvellous examples of rhetoric, they are not suitable for deliberative and forensic oratory. Thucydides’ language is too obscure and unpleasant to listen to: it sounds like a foreign language that requires a translator.¹¹¹ He concludes with some very strong remarks on the difficulty of the Thucydidean language: “For the number of men who can understand the whole of Thucydides can easily be counted, and even these cannot understand certain passages without a linguistic commentary” (Th. 51.1: εὐαρίθμητοι γάρ τινές  The Melian dialogue was discussed already in antiquity, see schol. Thuc. 5.81.1. Cf. Horn blower (1991 2008) 3.216 225 for a general treatment of the problem and for further bibliogra phy.  The famous and most debated passage is quoted in Dion. Hal. Th. 41.4.  Cf. Sacks (1986) 387 388.  On the relationship between the Sicilian Discourses and Thucydides: Bompaire (1976) 1 7; Pernot (1981); Gibson (2004) 127; Iglesias Zoidos (2012) 403, 407 409.  Th. 49.3: ἐῶ γὰρ λέγειν, ὅτι τῶν οὕτως διαλεγομένων οὐδὲ αἱ μητέρες ἂν καὶ οἱ πατέρες ἀνάσχοιντο διὰ τὴν ἀηδίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἀλλοεθνοῦς γλώσσης ἀκούοντες τῶν ἑρμηνευσόντων ἂν δεηθεῖεν. A similar harsh judgement of the language of Thucydides in Dion. Hal. Lys. 4.2. Cic ero also expressed some opinion on the difficulty of Thucydides’ language in Orat. 29.

94

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

εἰσιν οἷοι πάντα τὰ Θουκυδίδου συμβαλεῖν, καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὗτοι χωρὶς ἐξηγήσεως γραμματικῆς ἔνια). The On Thucydides closes with a brief comparison with Demosthenes (Th. 53‒55) and a general disapproval of the rhetorical pieces of Thucydides’ work, while the narrative portions “deserve to be admired and used for every sort of purpose.”¹¹² There also appear other, brief considerations on Thucydides in the remaining rhetorical production of Dionysius. The work known as the Second Letter to Ammaeus (Περὶ τῶν Θουκυδίδου ἰδιομάτων πρὸς ᾿Aμμαῖον, On the Character of Thucydides’ Style) is a supplement to the On Thucydides. It opens with a self-quotation of the description of Thucydides’ style (Th. 24 > Amm. II, 2), a passage that Dionysius intends to defend against the negative opinions of some readers. The quotation is followed by a thorough analysis of Thucydides’ style, from chapter 3 to 17, where Dionysius reveals all his rhetorical and grammatical knowledge with the purpose of adding new elements to his opinion of the work of Thucydides. It is not necessary to summarize all the points expressed in the Second Letter to Ammaeus, which are technical and closely comparable to the ones expounded in the On Thucydides. Of much more interest are the judgements on Thucydides found in the Dionysian treatises on Lysias, Demosthenes, Dinarchus, and in his work on literary composition. The main issue in these treatises is essentially language. For example, Dionysius praises Lysias as the best model for Attic (τῆς ᾿Aττικῆς γλώττης ἄριστος κανών), and in the same sentence reproaches both Thucydides and Plato for their archaic language (ἀρχαίας), which was not used in their time (Lys. 2.1). If in the Letter to Pompeius, written before both the On Thucydides and the Second Letter to Ammaeus, Dionysius asserted that “Herodotus is the perfect model of

 Th. 55.4: οἳ δ᾽ ἐκβάλλομεν ἐκ τῶν δικαστηρίων καὶ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἅπασαν τὴν Θουκυδίδου λέξιν ὡς ἄχρηστον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦμεν τὸ διηγηματικὸν μέρος αὐτῆς πλὴν ὀλίγων τινῶν πάνυ θαυμαστῶς ἔχειν καὶ εἰς πάσας εἶναι τὰς χρείας εὔθετον, τὸ δὲ δημηγορικὸν οὐχ ἅπαν εἰς μίμησιν ἐπιτήδειον εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ μέρος γνωσθῆναι μὲν ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποις εὔπορον, κατασκευασθῆναι δ᾽ οὐκ ἅπασι δυνατόν; This final rhetorical question tackles an issue which was already raised in Th. 50.4: χρήσιμος δ᾽ οὗτος ὁ χαρακτὴρ οὔτ᾽ εἰς τοὺς συμβουλευτικοὺς 〈οὔτ᾽ εἰς τοὺς δικανικοὺς〉 [add. Sylburg] ἀγῶνας, ἐν οἷς οἵ τ᾽ ἐκκλησιάζοντες καὶ οἱ δικάζοντες (…) συνέρχονται. Dionysius’ opinion on the rhetorical portions in Thucydides is shared by Cic. De or. 2.56: et post illum Thucydides omnis dicendi artificio mea sententia facile vicit; qui ita creber est rerum frequentia, ut is verborum prope numerum sententiarum numero con sequatur, ita porro verbis est aptus et pressus, ut nescias, utrum res oratione an verba sententiis inlustrentur.

3.6 Thucydides in the Dock: Dionysius’ Judgement

95

the Ionian language, and Thucydides of the Attic” (Pomp. 3.16: Ἡρόδοτός τε γὰρ τῆς Ἰάδος ἄριστος κανὼν Θουκυδίδης τε τῆς ᾿Aτθίδος), now it seems that he has changed his mind and that the most suitable model for Attic is Lysias. This negative assessment of Thucydides in the On Lysias is strictly related to the ideals of Atticism, as they were understood and shaped by Dionysius and his circle of Roman friends. This passage highlights the fact that Atticism is not defined solely in opposition to the later Asianism and the negative example of Hellenistic oratory, especially Hegesias, but also through a negative evaluation of earlier writings.¹¹³ But even more significant in the judgement of Thucydides are the doctrines of style, usually referred to as χαρακτῆρες λέξεως in Greek¹¹⁴ and genera dicendi in Latin rhetorical tradition. A distinction is commonly made between genus subtile, grande, and medium according to the author of the Rhetoric for Herennius, Cicero, and Quintilian.¹¹⁵ Dionysius follows the same scheme in his rhetorical works and calls the different styles “plain, grand, and intermediate” (Dem. 33.3: διελόμενος μὲν τὴν λέξιν εἰς τρεῖς χαρακτῆρας τοὺς γενικωτάτους τόν τε ἰσχνὸν καὶ τὸν ὑψηλὸν καὶ τὸν μεταξύ; cf. Dem. 1‒3). Lysias exemplifies plain and simple style, while Thucydides embodies the grand, sublime style in oratory and prose writing. Dionysius advocates for an intermediate style, whose best representative is Demosthenes (Dem. 33‒34).¹¹⁶ It is according to the doctrines of style that Thucydides is evaluated. Thus Pericles’ epitaph, and Thucydides’ deliberative speeches in general, are referred to in Lys. 3.6 only to point to the fact that Thucydides used an elevated tone and embellished his speeches with unusual words.¹¹⁷ At one point, Dionysius goes so far as to state that Thucydides, and curiously Demosthenes as well, were both “brilliant narrators, but much of what they say is enigmatic and obscure, and requires an interpreter.”¹¹⁸ Thucydides’ style has already been accused, in the On Thucydides, of being so difficult as to require a paraphrase (Th. 49.3). But

 See e. g. Dion. Hal. Comp. 18.22 29. Atticism, Asianism, and Classicism are treated below § 4.2.  On Theophrastus’ theory of style: Innes (1985).  The most synthetic definition is given in Quint. Inst. 12.10.58: altera est divisio, quae in tris partis et ipsa discedit, qua discerni posse etiam recta dicendi genera inter se videntur. namque unum subtile, quod ἰσχνόν vocant, alterum grande atque robustum, quod ἁδρόν dicunt, consti tuunt, tertium alii medium ex duobus, alii floridum (namque id ἀνθηρόν appellant) addiderunt. See also Rhet. Her. 4.11 16, Cic. Orat. 20 and 69. Cf. also above § 1.3.  An accurate analysis in Pohl (1968).  Similar considerations are to be found also in Dem. 1.3; 10.1 4; 15.1.  Lys. 4.2: τεκμαίρομαι δέ, ὅτι τῆς μὲν Θουκυδίδου λέξεως καὶ Δημοσθένους, οἳ δεινότατοι πράγματα ἐξειπεῖν ἐγένοντο, πολλὰ δυσείκαστά ἐστιν ἡμῖν καὶ ἀσαφῆ καὶ δεόμενα ἐξηγητῶν.

96

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

the same accusation directed at Demosthenes seems inappropriate, especially because, in Dionysius’ conception of ancient eloquence, Demosthenes’ mature style embodied the supreme example of Attic eloquence. However, despite his harsh criticism, Dionysius has also words of admiration for Thucydides as the most brilliant exponent of the austere and archaic tone (ἡ ἀρχαία καὶ αὐστηρὰ ἁρμονία), which is represented in epic poetry by Antimachus of Colophon, in the natural philosophy by Empedocles, in lyric poetry by Pindar, in tragedy by Aeschylus, and in civil oratory by Antiphon.¹¹⁹ It must be said that austere tone is not the most suitable for Dionysius’ students and readers, but at least the Augustan scholar shows some admiration for Thucydides. Finally, in the De Dinarcho, the last treatise of his rhetorical production, Dionysius offers some considerations on the imitation of great literary models, which can be accomplished in two ways: the natural one, acquired by continuous learning and familiarity with these texts, and the one that is accomplished by following the precepts of the art (προσεχὴς ἐκ τῶν τῆς τέχνης παραγγελμάτων). This latter approach is artificial, unnatural, and is easily recognizable as mere imitation (Din. 7). From this perspective, Dionysius criticizes those who try unsuccessfully to emulate Thucydides’ vigour and intensity, only to imitate his solecisms and obscurities.¹²⁰ This last thought on Thucydides is very significant, since it represents Dionysius’ overall opinion: if on the one hand he acknowledges Thucydides’ formidable and powerful style, his grandeur, and the beauty and austerity of his tone, on the other hand he cannot avoid a critical treatment of Thucydides as a model of oratory and plain prose writing. It is, however, significant that Dionysius in his own historical work modelled some of his speeches after Thucydides: the speech of Appius Claudius (Ant. Rom. 6.59) follows the Periclean speech in Thuc. 1.140‒144, and Coriolanus’ words (Ant. Rom. 8.5) correspond to Alcibiades’ oration in Thuc. 6.89‒92.¹²¹ Even if he is far from an enthusiastic supporter of the Athenian historian, it is surprising

 See Comp. 22.7: ταύτης δὲ τῆς ἁρμονίας πολλοὶ μὲν ἐγένοντο ζηλωταὶ κατά τε ποίησιν καὶ ἱστορίαν καὶ λόγους πολιτικούς, διαφέροντες δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἐν μὲν ἐπικῇ ποιήσει ὅ τε Κολο φώνιος ᾿Aντίμαχος καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁ φυσικός, ἐν μελοποιίᾳ Πίνδαρος, ἐν τραγῳδίᾳ δ᾽ Αἰσχύλος, ἐν ἱστορίᾳ δὲ Θουκυδίδης, ἐν δὲ πολιτικοῖς λόγοις ᾿Aντιφῶν (the discussion on Thucydides fol lows at Comp. 22.34 45). See also Dem. 38 39, esp. 39.7: καὶ παραδείγματα δὲ αὐτῆς ποιητῶν καὶ μελοποιῶν ἥ τ᾽ Αἰσχύλου λέξις ὀλίγου δεῖν πᾶσα καὶ ἡ Πινδάρου (…). συγγραφέων δὲ λαμπρότα τός τε καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων κατορθῶν περὶ ταύτην τὴν ἰδέαν Θουκυδίδης.  Dion. Hal. Din. 8.2: οἱ δὲ Θουκυδίδην ζηλοῦν λέγοντες καὶ τὸ μὲν εὔτονον καὶ στερεὸν καὶ δεινὸν καὶ τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια χαλεπῶς ἐκλαμβάνοντες, τοὺς δὲ σολοικοφανεῖς σχηματισμοὺς καὶ τὸ ἀσαφὲς προχειριζόμενοι, πάνυ εὐχερῶς ἂν εὑρίσκοιντο ἐκ τούτου τοῦ παραγγέλματος.  Cf. Strebel (1935) 48; Lévy (2010); Meister (2013) 72 73.

3.7 Dionysius’ Legacy: Challenging his Judgement on Thucydides

97

after all to find out that Dionysius considered Thucydides a suitable model for his own speeches.

3.7 Dionysius’ Legacy: Challenging his Judgement on Thucydides As already stated above, when Dionysius published his critical opinions on the Athenian historian, he was going against a common view of Thucydides as the best and greatest of all Greek historians. During his own lifetime, he managed to reply to some of his critics and explain his negative assessment in more elaborate terms (see Th. and Amm. II). However, many successive sources show that his opinion was often challenged in an effort to restore Thucydides’ dignity as a historian, both in the selection and presentation of events and in the defining features of his style. Among later historians and prose writers, a general appreciation for the contents of Thucydides’ history emerges with clarity. Flavius Josephus, in his apologetic Against Apion, insisting on the polemical nature of ancient Greek historiography, honours Thucydides for his accuracy: “On many points even Thucydides is accused of error by some critics, notwithstanding his reputation for writing the most accurate history of his time.”¹²² Plutarch, in the On the Malice of Herodotus, where the wickedness, insincerities, and deliberative falsifications of Herodotus are exposed, shows high esteem for Thucydides’ narrative choices.¹²³ But besides these and many other authors of the Roman imperial and Byzantine age that relied upon the work of the Athenian historian,¹²⁴ there are some authors that specifically refer to Dionysius’ critique of Thucydides. The most significant is definitely an anonymous commentary of Thucydides preserved in P.Oxy. 853 of the second century AD. The content of the papyrus has been assigned to the early decades of the Christian era by the first editors, Grenfell

 Joseph. Ap. 1.18: πολλὰ δὲ καὶ Θουκυδίδης ὡς ψευδόμενος ὑπό τινων κατηγορεῖται καίτοι δοκῶν ἀκριβεστάτην τὴν καθ᾽ αὐτὸν ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν. Cf. the commentary in Barclay (2007) 19 20. The influence of Thucydides on Josephus’ historiography was very strong: Canfora (2006) 749 751; Yvonneau (2010). For polemic, which appears very clearly in the Against Apion, as a characteristic feature in Greek historiography: Marincola (1997) 218 224.  Plut. De Her. mal. 855C; see also 855F and 870F. For further references to Thucydides in Plu tarch’s corpus, Meister (2013) 76 78. Cf. also Strebel (1935) 53 54.  See the various articles in Fromentin et al. (2010); Meister (2013) 69 103.

98

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

and Hunt.¹²⁵ The most significant feature of P.Oxy. 853 is the explicit reference to Dionysius’ On Thucydides (Διονύσιος [ὁ] Ἁλικαρνασσεὺς ἐν τῷ περὶ Θουκυδίδο[υ] συντάγματι κτλ, 1.7‒9). The papyrus-commentary deals with the beginning of the second book of Thucydides up to the end of Pericles’ funeral oration. The author tackles in minute detail three principal arguments that Dionysius used in his criticism of Thucydides’ work: the chronology, which follows an uncommon subdivision in summers and winters (P.Oxy. 853, 1.12‒15); the arrangement of the narrative, which is divided up into single events (1.15‒20); the fact that, although he declares that the true cause of the war was the growing power of Athens, he began his narrative with secondary causes, i. e. the events at Corcyra and Potidea (1.21‒33).¹²⁶ The reply is well-constructed and is based on a solid knowledge of rhetorical theories, which is evident from some traits in common between the papyrus and Quintilian’s Institutes. ¹²⁷ The length of the anonymous reply, which occupies one sixth of the whole commentary, even if it deals only with Thuc. 2.1 (1.7‒4.9), leads to two conclusions: on the one hand, it shows the author’s commitment to Thucydides’ side in the struggle for dominion of the historiographical genre, and on the other hand it demonstrates Dionysius’ immediate authority as an author of rhetorical treatises and critic of Thucydides. Another significant text is the Life of Thucydides, attributed to Marcellinus, which includes materials from the late Hellenistic and imperial age, but was written, or rather assembled, around 450 AD.¹²⁸ Discussing previous critical approaches to Thucydides, Marcellinus mentions Dionysius by name and singles out his opinion on the Athenian historian: τὴν μέντοι ἰδέαν αὐτοῦ τῶν λέξεων καὶ τῶν συνθέσεων αἰτιῶνται οἱ πλείονες, ὧν ἐστὶ Διο νύσιος ὁ Ἁλικαρνασσεύς· μέμφεται γὰρ αὐτῷ ὡς πεζῇ καὶ πολιτικῇ λέξει χρῆσθαι μὴ δυνα μένῳ, οὐκ εἰδὼς ὅτι δυνάμεώς ἐστι ταῦτα πάντα περιττῆς καὶ ἕξεως πλεονεξίας (Marcellin. 53).

 Grenfell/Hunt (1908) 109. Cf. Maehler (2007); Montanari (2013) 21 23.  On Thucydides’ first book and the arrangement of the narrative, see Heath (1989a) 78 80; Rood (1998) §§ 9 10; see also a recent reconsideration in De Vido/Mondin (2012 2013).  See P.Oxy. 853, 4.4 6 and Quint. Inst. 7.10.11 13. Cf. Heath (1989a) 79 n. 14.  Schissel (1930); Luschnat (1954); Piccirilli (1985) XV XLII; Luzzatto (1993); Maitland (1996); Damschen (1999). The text of the Life of Thucydides is preserved in the manuscript tradition of Thucydides: see Alberti (1972) CLXXXIX. The manuscripts assign the work to a certain Marcelli nus, probably the same Marcellinus known as the author of the scholia to Hermogenes’ Περὶ στά σεως. A different opinion in Hemmerdinger (1955) 61 63, which is mentioned with approval by Kleinlogel (1965) 138 n. 57: Marcellinus would be an error for Marcellus, mentioned by Gregorius of Corinth in a scholium recentius to Xenophon’s Anabasis. A hypothesis which should not be excluded, even if the reasoning appears twisted.

3.7 Dionysius’ Legacy: Challenging his Judgement on Thucydides

99

However, many reproach his style and disposition of words, such as Dionysius of Halicar nassus: he blames Thucydides for not being capable of using plain and common language, but he [Dionysius] ignores that all this is a sign of vigour and superior disposition.

The author of the Life of Thucydides argues throughout the work with many previous authors on issues related to the biography of the Athenian historian. Dionysius, however, is the sole authority he explicitly mentions when dealing with Thucydides’ style.¹²⁹ Apart from this specific reference to Dionysius, Marcellinus mentions implicitly Dionysius’ critical treatment of Thucydides in various passages. Matters related to the arrangement (οἰκονομία) and the obscurity (ἀσαφής) of Thucydides’ language are considered in order to contradict Dionysius, and the same happens with the alleged poetic character of the Athenian writer.¹³⁰ Finally, a reference to the sophist Gorgias of Leontini curiously appears in both Dionysius and Marcellinus. Dionysius mentions the excessive use (οὐκ ὀλίγα) of the balancing of clauses (παρίσωσις) and antithesis in Gorgias’ writings, while Marcellinus says “(Thucydides) imitated to a limited extent (ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγα), as reported by Antyllus, the balancing of the clauses and the antithesis of words used by Gorgias of Leontini.”¹³¹ The alteration of a simple ἐπί instead of οὐκ in Marcellinus’ text could highlight a polemic against Dionysius and, consequently, the defence of Thucydides from the attacks of the Augustan-age rhetorician.¹³² In Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides a strong engagement with the rhetorical works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus emerges with clarity: he is often critical

 The authors mentioned in the Life of Thucydides are: Timaeus (§ 25, 33; cf. FGrHist 566 FF 135 136); Zopirus (§ 33) and Cratippus (§ 33, cf. FGrHist 64 F 2). The dispute is related to Thucy dides’ place of death and burial. Thucydides’ style takes up the following chapters in the Vita: 35 42, 48 53, 56 57.  For the arrangement and obscurity see Marcellin. 35 with the diverging opinions expressed in Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.11 and Th. 50 51. For the reference to the poetical character of Thucydides, Dionysius says that “both Herodotus and Thucydides are beautiful works of poetry” (Pomp. 3.21), while Marcellin. 41 rejects this interpretation referring to a banal argument: Thucydides work cannot be labelled as poetry since it does not respect metrical norms.  Dion. Hal. Th. 24.9 (= Amm II, 2): εὕροι δ᾽ ἄν τις οὐκ ὀλίγα καὶ τῶν θεατρικῶν σχημάτων κείμενα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ, τὰς παρισώσεις λέγω καὶ παρομοιώσεις [Amm. II, 2 : om. Th. 24.9] καὶ παρο νομασίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις, ἐν αἷς ἐπλεόνασε Γοργίας ὁ Λεοντῖνος καὶ οἱ περὶ Πῶλον καὶ Λικύμνιον καὶ πολλοὶ ἄλλοι τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀκμασάντων. And, on the other hand, see Marcellin. 36: ἐζή λωσε δὲ ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον, ὥς φησιν Ἄντυλλος, καὶ τὰς Γοργίου τοῦ Λεοντίνου παρισώσει καὶ τὰς ἀντι θέσεις τῶν ὀνομάτων. Antyllos is one of the sources of Marcellinus, who praises Antyllos as ἀξιόπιστος ἀνὴρ μαρτυρῆσαι καὶ ἱστορίαν γνῶναι καὶ διδάξαι (Marcellin. 55), but not much is known about him: see Piccirilli (1985) 96 97 and Pagani (2013) for further references.  This hypothesis is already expressed in Esposito Vulgo Gigante (1981 1982) 13 14.

100

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

of the opinions of the Augustan scholar, even if he keeps within the range of topics covered by Dionysius.¹³³ In the rhetorical tradition of school treatises (Progymnasmata), where the aim was to instruct the pupils in the art of rhetoric, Thucydides was widely read and quoted. His presence in these treatises, along with other ancient Greek historians, will be thoroughly analysed in § 6. However, two references should be briefly considered here. On the one hand, Aelius Theon, the earliest author of Progymnasmata that has come down to us (first/second century AD, see below § 6.2), refers to the subdivision of Thucydides’ narrative in summers and winters and discusses it at length, coming to the conclusions that this way of exposing facts makes them obscure and hard to remember.¹³⁴ Even if he does not mention explicitly the name of Dionysius, it is quite probable that the Augustan author lies behind the generic τινες. Theon appears to have accepted Dionysius’ negative assessment of Thucydides’ chronological division. On the other hand, an eleventh-century Byzantine teacher of rhetoric, Doxopatres, in his lectures (ὁμιλίαι) on the Progymnasmata of Aphthonius,¹³⁵ while discussing clarity and obscurity, comes yet again at Thucydides’ summer-and-winter choice.¹³⁶ Just like Theon, Doxopatres doesn’t mention Dionysius explicitly, but clearly refers to his analysis and agrees with it. Finally, a direct attack against Dionysius’ critical treatment of Thucydides comes from a much later authority: Thomas Hobbes (1588‒1679). Hobbes is the author of the first English translation of Thucydides’ Histories made on the basis of the original Greek text. In 1452 Lorenzo Valla published his famous Latin translation, which was used by Claude de Seyssel for his French translation in 1527; this, in turn, was the base for the English translation by Thomas Niccols (1555).¹³⁷ In 1629 Hobbes published his own translation of the work of the Athe-

 See Maitland (1996) esp. 552 553.  Theon, Prog. 80.16 26: ὅπερ ἐγκαλοῦσί τινες τῷ Θουκυδίδῃ· διελὼν γὰρ ἱστορίας κατὰ θέρη καὶ χειμῶνας πολλάκις ἀναγκάζεται, πρὶν τελεσθῇ τὸ ὅλον πρᾶγμα, μεταβαίνειν ἐφ᾽ ἕτερόν τι γεγονὸς ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. (…) ὥστε ἅμα μὲν ἀσαφῆ, ἅμα δὲ δυσμνημόνευτα γενέσθαι τὰ πράγματα.  On Doxopatres: Radermacher (1905).  Doxopatr. Hom. in Aphth. Prog. 220.25 221.1 Walz: τοῦτο γοῦν καὶ τὸν Θουκυδίδην τινὲς αἰτιῶνται καὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν, ὅτι κατὰ θέρος καὶ τὸν χειμῶνα καὶ τῶν καιρῶν τοὺς λοιποὺς τὰ πράγματα διελὼν πολλὰ ὁμοῦ κατὰ ταὐτὸν διηγεῖσθαι καὶ ἱστορεῖν ἀναγκάζεται, ὥστε καὶ εἰς πολλὰ διηγήματα τὸν ἀκροατὴν μεριζόμενον συγχέεσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν.  Hobbes was very much aware of the faults of Niccols’ translation, as is clear from his open ing note To the Reader: “Hereupon I resolued to take him [i. e. Thucydides] immediately from the Greeke, according to the Edition of Æmilius Porta” (Hobbes [1843] IX). The edition of Æmilius Porta referred to by Hobbes is the text of Thucydides published in Frankfurt in 1594: Θουκυδίδου

3.7 Dionysius’ Legacy: Challenging his Judgement on Thucydides

101

nian historian: Eight Books of the Peloponnesian Warre. ¹³⁸ The translation was introduced by an essay, On the Life and History of Thucydides, where Hobbes deals with the biography of Thucydides, the relevance of truth in his history, and, finally, the analysis of the elocution in Thucydides’ literary work. Elocution, in turn, is divided up in “disposition or method, and style,” according to Hobbes’ own words,¹³⁹ which is the same arrangement Dionysius employs when discussing ancient Greek historians in the Letter to Pompeius: content, or subject matter, and style; in the Greek original, πραγματικός and λεκτικὸς τόπος. Dionysius’ influence on Hobbes is already evident in this general approach to Thucydides. But what is also significant in On the Life and History of Thucydides is the detailed discussion of Dionysius’ opinion. In the first place, Dionysius is mentioned along the analysis of purity and propriety: “I cite Dionysius Halicarnassius: whose testimony is the strongest in this point, because he was a Greek rhetorician for his faculty, and for his affection, one that would no further commend him than of necessity he must.”¹⁴⁰ After these opening words of praise, Hobbes criticizes Dionysius on every single point he discusses, in a polemic that alternates accurate paraphrase or quotations from Dionysius and Hobbes’ detailed confutatio. The discussion covers the following points: the selection of the argument, the beginning and end of the work, the subdivision of chronology into summers and winters, the archaeology in Thucydides’ first book, the authenticity of the Periclean funeral oration in the second book, and the reliability of the Melian dialogue.¹⁴¹ After a long quotation of Pomp. 3.8‒10, where Dionysius expressed a severe disapproval of the beginning and τοῦ Ὀλόρου, περὶ τοῦ Πελοποννησιακοῦ πολέμου βιβλία ὀκτώ. Thucydidis Olori filii, de bello Pe loponnesiaco libri octo. iidem Latine, ex interpretatione Laurentii Vallae, ab Henrico Stephano nuper recognita, quam Æmilius Portus ab infinita gravissimorum errorum multitudine repurgavit, Francofurti, apud heredes Andreæ Wechelii, 1594. This book appears in the catalogue of the li brary at Chatsworth (see Lacaita [1879] 4.37), the private library of the Cavendish family where the young Hobbes was appointed secretary: Skinner (1996) 216 222.  Hobbes’ translation of Thucydides has attracted much attention, especially for Thucydides’ influence on Hobbes’ political and philosophical writings, in the first place in the Leviathan (see e. g. Strauss [1952]; Diesner [1980]; Slomp [1990]; Sommerville [1992]; Skinner [1996]; Scott [2000]); at the same time, Hobbes, through his introductory essay and his translation, founded the modern conception of Thucydides as a rationalist historian (Schlatter [1975]; Canfora [1992]; Iori [2012]; Iori [2015]).  Hobbes (1843) XXI XXXII (= [1975] 17). Quotations come from the edition of Hobbes’ works edited by Sir William Molesworth: Hobbes (1839 1845); Of the Life and History of Thucydides is published in vol. VIII (1843), while Hobbes’ translation of Thucydides cover voll. VIII and IX (1843). See also Schlatter’s edition: Hobbes (1975).  Hobbes (1843) XXIII (= [1975] 19).  Hobbes (1843) XXIV XXIX (= [1975] 19 25).

102

3 Shaping the Canons: Dionysius’ Critical Essays

end of Thucydides’ history, Hobbes is harsh on the Augustan-age critic: “I think there was never written so much absurdity in so few lines. He is contrary to the opinion of all men that ever spake of this subject besides himself, and to common sense.”¹⁴² In Of the Life and History of Thucydides, Hobbes follows the rules of classical rhetoric, as expressed in the Rhetoric for Herennius, a popular work in Renaissance England.¹⁴³ He provides the reader with an informed view of Dionysius’ criticism of Thucydides and then dismisses accurately each point. Quotations from different ancient authorities – Plutarch, Lucian’s How to Write History, Demosthenes, Cicero, as well as the Life of Thucydides of Marcellinus – belong as well to the rules of rhetoric. If, on the one hand, these ancient texts are used to prove an opinion expressed by Hobbes, on the other hand, Dionysius’ opinion is entirely discredited. This direct attack is highly significant for the history of the reception of Dionysius’ rhetorical treatises, since it displays their prominence as far as seventeenth century England. Having reviewed the reception of Dionysius’ opinion on Thucydides in a long-term perspective, the next chapter will focus again on Dionysius: I will attempt an investigation of the motives behind Dionysius’ selection of canonical Greek historians, which resides in the concept of cultural and literary Classicism.

 Hobbes (1843) XXVI (= [1975] 22).  Skinner (1996) 244 249. For Hobbes’ rhetoric, see also Thouard (1996).

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens 4.1 Classicism and Classical: A Diachronic Overview In the essay Of the Life and History of Thucydides, which introduces his English translation of Thucydides (1629), Thomas Hobbes tried to explain the motives that drew Dionysius of Halicarnassus to despise and criticize so fiercely the work of the great Athenian historian, “whom he himself acknowledgeth to have been esteemed by all men for the best by far of all historians that ever wrote (…).” The answer provided by Hobbes is twofold: on the one hand, Dionysius preferred Herodotus because of an alleged Lokalpatriotismus,¹ since both were natives of Halicarnassus; on the other hand, Dionysius hoped, through a substantial criticism of Thucydides’ work, to achieve a great fame and uncontested authority for his own historical work, the Roman Antiquities: For having first preferred Herodotus, his countryman, a Halicarnassian, before Thucydides, who was accounted the best; and then conceiving that his own history might perhaps be thought not inferior to that of Herodotus: by this computation he saw the honour of the best historiographer falling on himself.²

Hobbes’s reasoning seems appropriate and ingenious, especially in highlighting a process of historiographical authority in antiquity.³ But he fails to consider another fundamental issue: the notion of Classicism that shaped Dionysius’ selection. Before dealing specifically with Dionysius’ historiographical canon, we must begin with the idea of Classicism and the terminology related to it. Classicism is a wide and multifarious cultural phenomenon, deeply rooted in the Greek and Roman world. Western literature, music, and art have been shaped by it throughout all epochs.⁴ The words Classicism, classical, classic, etc., derive all from the Latin adjective classicus (in turn a derivative of the

 Momigliano’s witty remarks on Dionysius’ attitude towards Herodotus are worth quoting: “I have always felt rather sorry for Dionysius of Halicarnassus. How embarrassing it must have been for a budding historian to have the father of history as his fellow citizen. No wonder that Dionysius left Halicarnassus and emigrated to Rome where the name of Herodotus, if adroit ly used, could even become an asset” (Momigliano [1958] 1).  Hobbes (1843) xxx [= Hobbes (1975) 26].  On authority in ancient historiography: Marincola (1997).  Cf. Curtius (1948) 253 276; Riemer (1999); Settis (2004); Citroni (2006a); Settis (2010). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 005

104

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

noun classis) which means “belonging to the first social class” according to Aulus Gellius (NA 6.13). This second-century-AD Latin grammarian and antiquarian uses the same word with a different meaning in another passage of his Attic Nights. Quoting his teacher Fronto, Gellius claims that quadrigae in the singular and harena in the plural were not attested in any classicus scriptor, “first-rate or outstanding writer,” as opposed to a proletarius. ⁵ Fronto’s use of classicus, reported by Gellius, is not attested in any contemporary work. Most probably, Fronto was recycling an archaic word originally belonging to the social and military vocabulary. As Mario Citroni pointed out discussing this exact passage of Gellius (19.8.15), this is a new and original use of the word classicus. ⁶ Classicus, referring to scriptor or auctor – as attested in Gellius quoting the grammarian Fronto – does not appear in any other ancient author, and there is no trace of it in medieval Latin literature. It shows up again only at the end of the fifteenth century in the works of Filippo Beroaldo il Vecchio, the author of the Commentarii quaestionum Tusculanarum (1469) and of a commentary on Apuleius (1500). In both instances, Beroaldo doesn’t refer to a previous critical tradition, but instead goes back directly to the authority of Aulus Gellius.⁷ Successive to Beroaldo’s use of classicus are many other humanistic scholars, such as Guillaume Budé (1508), Beatus Rhenanus (1512) and Philip Melanchthon (1519).⁸ Following the humanistic reuse of an ancient grammatical term, classicus spread in European literature through French, and especially Sébillet’s Art poétique (1548), where the author refers to “les bons et classiques poètes françois.” With the foundation of the Académie française in 1635, the word classique was unquestionably assimilated in French vocabulary. In Italian, classico is attested for the first time in the work of Orazio Ricasoli Rucellai (1604‒1673) and, from the seventeenth century onwards, it spread within the circle of European literati. ⁹ The history of the word, as it has been described so far, is almost unique: from a Latin archaic word originally designating social classes mentioned in Gel-

 Gell. NA 19.8.15: (…) quaerite, an “quadrigam” et “harenas” dixerit e cohorte illa dumtaxat anti quiore vel oratorum aliquis vel poetarum, id est classicus adsiduusque aliquis scriptor, non prole tarius.  Citroni (2007) 195: “ci troviamo di fronte a un uso nuovo e originale del termine, non a una metafora già ‘lessicalizzata’.” Cf. also Citroni (2003).  Rizzo (1986) identified Beroaldo’s most ancient humanistic use of classicus; see also Citroni (2007) 201 202; Settis (2010).  For an analysis of sixteenth century use of classicus, beginning with Beatus Rhenanus, see Schmidt (2000).  Curtius (1948) 255 256; Wellek (1970).

4.1 Classicism and Classical: A Diachronic Overview

105

lius, through a recovery by learned humanistic scholars writing in Latin, to a common expression used in everyday life in Western culture. Classicism, which has a more specific meaning than the adjective classical and is strictly connected to the topic of this book, referred to aesthetic and literary values opposed to Romanticism between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.¹⁰ The notorious definition of Stendhal in Racine et Shakespeare (1823) is worth citing extensively: Romanticism is the art of presenting to the people the literary works that, at the current state of their habits and beliefs, are likely to give them the greatest possible pleasure. Clas sicism, on the contrary, presents the literature that gave the greatest possible pleasure to their great grandfathers.”¹¹

Even if Classicism as a cultural concept is critically recognized only in the modern era, it has nonetheless ancient roots. The idea of Classicism has its origin in a specific historical and cultural environment, Augustan Rome, and it represents the result of specific political choices.¹² As Thomas Gelzer pointed out, Classicism is not the consequence of the classical, as chronology suggests; on the contrary, Classicism is the precondition for the notion of classical.¹³ Helmut Flashar has explored the literary milieu of Classicism, and Dionysius’ own contribution to the creation of Classicism has not passed unnoticed.¹⁴ Thomas Hidber has translated and commented upon Dionysius’ introduction to his rhetorical essays on the ancient orators, which he called fittingly the manifesto of Classicism, while Nicolas Wiater has recently published a monographic study on Dionysius’ ideol-

 See Wellek (1970) 66 88. The first use of Classicism belongs to the Italian language (classi cismo) and is attributable to Giovanni Berchet and Ermes Visconti: cf. Tatti (2015).  Stendhal (1925) § 3: “Le romanticisme est l’art de présenter aux peuples les œuvres littéraires qui, dans l’état actuel de leurs habitudes et de leurs croyances, sont susceptibles de leur donner le plus de plaisir possible. Le Classicisme, au contraire, leur présente la littérature qui donnait le plus grand plaisir possible à leurs arrière grands pères.” The passage is also quoted in Wellek (1970) 67.  On Classicism and the age of Augustus, see Gelzer (1979) and Spawforth (2012). On the Au gustan age in general, see Galinsky (2005). See also Wallace Hadrill (2008), who showed how the Roman society underwent a cultural revolution under Augustus.  Gelzer (1975) 166: “Wichtig und für die Erfassung des inneren Zusammenhangs wesentlich ist schließlich vor allem: festzustellen, daß nicht der Klassizismus eine Folgeerscheinung der Klas sik ist, wie das der rein zeitlichen Reihenfolge nach scheinen könnte, sondern daß im Gegenteil der Klassizismus die Voraussetzung fü r die Vorstellung von einer Klassik ist” (italics in the original text).  Flashar (1979a).

106

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

ogy of Classicism.¹⁵ These works will provide a starting point for the analysis of the mechanisms of Classicism in the selection of canonical Greek historians. But in order to explain these mechanisms, it is essential to start the discussion with an overview of Dionysius’ own Classicism.

4.2 Dionysius’ Classicism and the Revival of Rhetoric The autobiographical statement that Dionysius inserts at the beginning of his historical work, which has already been recalled in § 3.1, ought now to be quoted extensively: ἐγὼ καταπλεύσας εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἅμα τῷ καταλυθῆναι τὸν ἐμφύλιον πόλεμον ὑπὸ τοῦ Σεβα στοῦ Καίσαρος ἑβδόμης καὶ ὀγδοηκοστῆς καὶ ἑκατοστῆς ὀλυμπιάδος μεσούσης, καὶ τὸν ἐξ ἐκείνου χρόνον ἐτῶν δύο καὶ εἴκοσι μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος γενόμενον ἐν ῾Ρώμῃ διατρίψας, διάλεκτόν τε τὴν ῾Ρωμαϊκὴν ἐκμαθὼν καὶ γραμμάτων ἐπιχωρίων λαβὼν ἐπιστήμη, ἐν παντὶ τούτῳ χρόνῳ τὰ συντείνοντα πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ταύτην διετέλουν πραγματευόμενος (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.7.2). I arrived in Italy at the very time that Augustus Caesar put an end to the civil war, in the middle of the one hundred and eighty seventh Olympiad [30/29 BC]; and have from that time to this present day [approx. 7 BC], a period of twenty two years, lived at Rome, learned the language of the Romans and acquainted myself during all that time to matters bearing upon my subject.

The reference to the end of the civil war due to Augustus’ victory is emblematic of the cultural and literary change involved in this event. Dionysius became a member of Rome’s literary community and embraced a polemic that was already thriving in the city’s intellectual circles: the contrast between Atticism and Asianism. The definition of these modern terms defining ancient notions is slippery and I will provide only a general characterization. Atticism can be described as a reaction against the excesses of Hellenistic prose style, originally represented by Greek orators from Asia Minor, especially Hegesias of Magnesia, which was labelled ‘Asianism.’ Those in favour of a return to the language and style of the Classical period looked at fourth-century-BC Athenian orators as their models. Even if supporters of both tendencies exploited Greek authors, the whole polemic was born and evolved in a Latin environment in the first century BC.¹⁶ It was

 Hidber (1996); Wiater (2011).  See especially the history of rhetoric in Cic. Brut. 67: sed ea in nostris inscitia est, quod hi ipsi, qui in Graecis antiquitate delectantur eaque subtilitate, quam Atticam appellant, hanc in Catone ne noverunt quidem. Hyperidae volunt esse et Lysiae. laudo: sed cur nolunt Catones? Cf. Brut. 284

4.2 Dionysius’ Classicism and the Revival of Rhetoric

107

later adopted by Greek authors living in Rome, notably Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Caecilius of Calacte. In the first and second century AD the archaizing trends within Atticism, which became the linguistic core of the Second Sophistic, urged a purification of the Greek language from any linguistic feature not exclusively attested in fifth- and (especially) fourth-century-BC Athenian writers.¹⁷ In the second half of the eighteenth century, the opposition between Atticism and Asianism resulted in a long diatribe among the most illustrious representatives of German Altertumswissenschaften. This modern polemic, which appears futile today, seems to have gone too far in trying to elucidate subjective aesthetic categories from very scanty sources.¹⁸ What needs to be stressed here is the fact that the Atticising movement, since it looked back to Classical fourth-century-BC models, was intertwined with Classicism. “Der ‘Attische’ ist zwar der Leitbegriff des antiken Klassizismus.”¹⁹ But the concepts are not identical. There is no need not push further this discussion, which would fall outside the scope of this book. Rather, it suffices to distinguish between Roman Atticism and Dionysius’ Classicism.²⁰ If the first notion is related essentially to a rhetorical style, Dionysius’ involvement is much deeper. In the following pages, I will try to elucidate this idea through one of the most programmatic and ideologically characterized texts of Dionysius: the introduction to his analysis of the ancient orators (Orat. Vett.). Dionysius’ aim is to provide a history of rhetoric subdivided in clear cut epochs, even if he indulges in pretentious personifications with a strong rhetorical flavour. I will provide a paraphrase and commentary of the most significant sections of this text in order to synthesize the whole issue. Ancient and philosophical rhetoric (ἡ μὲν ἀρχαία καὶ φιλόσοφος ῥητορική), writes Dionysius, has suffered abuses and mistreatments from the age of

285. Cicero himself was accused of being a Asianus, see Quint. Inst. 12.10.12: quem tamen et suo rum [Cicero’s] homines temporum incessere audebant ut tumidiorem et Asianum et redundantem et in repetitionibus nimium et in salibus aliquando frigidum et in compositione fractum, exultan tem ac paene, quod procul absit, viro molliorem. The works of the representatives of Asianism have unfortunately not survived.  An overview in: Kennedy (1963) 301 303, 330 336; Gelzer (1979); Luzzatto (1988) 237 240; Innes (1989). For a more in depth analysis of the Augustan age debate: Dihle (1977); Bowersock (1979) 57 65; Calboli (1987); de Jonge (2008) 11 13. For later developments focusing on the Sec ond Sophistic: Anderson (1993) 86 100; Swain (1996) 39 64. From a strictly linguistic perspec tive: Palmer (1980) 174 198; Horrocks (2010) 24 37.  For an accurate analysis of this polemic, which started with Erwin Rhode and ended with Wilamowitz’s significant article on Asianismus und Attizismus (1900b), see Sirago (1989) 43 48.  Gelzer (1979) 13.  The relation between Roman Atticism and Greek Classicism is a much debated topic: Dihle (1977); Gelzer (1979); Hidber (1996) 25 44; Wiater (2011) 114 116.

108

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

Alexander of Macedon down to Dionysius’ time (ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς): its decline has almost brought it to extinction. Another rhetoric, shameless and ill-mannered, has taken its place, like the household of a lawful and free wife taken over by a senseless courtesan. In every city, the ancient and native Attic Muse (ἡ ᾿Aττικὴ μοῦσα) had lost its civil rank in favour of her antagonist, a wicked Mysian, Phrygian or Carian creature that came out of some Asiatic death-hole, claiming the right to rule over the Greek cities (Orat. Vett. 1). This opening section is constructed around two linguistic elements. On the one hand, the despised rhetorical tradition from Asia Minor; on the other, the noble and virtuous Attic Muse. However, even if Dionysius alludes to the contrast between Atticism and Asianism,²¹ his main concern is the rebirth of rhetoric in his own time. The principal cause of change in the above-mentioned decline of Attic oratory was, according to Dionysius, Rome. αἰτία δ’ οἶμαι καὶ ἀρχὴ τῆς τοσαύτης μεταβολῆς ἐγένετο ἡ πάντων κρατοῦσα Ῥώμη πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἀναγκάζουσα τὰς ὅλας πόλεις ἀποβλέπειν καὶ ταύτης δὲ αὐτῆς οἱ δυναστεύοντες κατ’ ἀρετὴν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ κρατίστου τὰ κοινὰ διοικοῦντες (Dion. Hal. Orat. Vett. 3.1). I think that the cause and origin of this great revolution has been the conquest of the world by Rome, causing every city to turn attention upon her: her leaders are chosen from merit and administer the state according to higher principles.

The ancient and sober rhetoric, thanks to Rome’s victories, has thus come back to reclaim her dominion over culture and politics. The victories refer to the submission of the cities of Greece and Asia Minor to Rome’s authority, but at the same time it is a clear praise for the princeps Augustus, who ended the civil war in 30/29 BC. Dionysius does not simply propose a history of rhetoric: his brief introduction displays a cultural history. The epochs are divided up into three core sections: ancient times, when Attic oratory prevailed – that is the fifth and fourth century BC; a period of decline, that followed Alexander’s

 When Dionysius uses the word ‘Attic’ he refers only to a linguistic feature of an author or a text. In his rhetorical treatises, he uses it only in a few instances: Thucydides’ predecessors used the Ionic language or the “archaic Attic, which is not very dissimilar from the Ionic” (Th. 23.4: οἱ δὲ πρὸ τοῦ Πελοποννησιακοῦ γενόμενοι πολέμου καὶ μέχρι τῆς Θουκυδίδου παρεκτείναντες ἡλι κίας, ὁμοίας ἔσχον ἅπαντες ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ προαιρέσεις, οἵ τε τὴν Ἰάδα προελόμενοι διάλεκτον τὴν ἐν τοῖς τότε χρόνοις μάλιστα ἀνθοῦσαν καὶ οἱ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ᾿Aτθίδα μικράς τινας ἔχουσαν δια φορὰς παρὰ τὴν Ἰάδα). Thucydides used the Attic language in contrast to Herodotus, the repre sentative of the Ionic language in historiography (Pomp. 3.16), while Lysias used a purer and more suitable Attic language than Thucydides’ (Lys. 2.1). See also Dem. 41.5, where Dionysius states that he has “converted, transposed” (μετακομίζω) a passage from Herodotus, namely 7.8, “into the Attic,” εἰς τὴν ᾿Aτθίδα διάλεκτον.

4.2 Dionysius’ Classicism and the Revival of Rhetoric

109

death, which coincides with our Hellenistic era; and finally, a renaissance of rhetoric and politics in the age of Augustus. Moreover, a comparison between this short introduction and other rhetorical essays of Dionysius shows that the epoch before Thucydides, i. e. before the fifth/fourth century BC, didn’t produce valuable texts and consequently was of no importance for his culturally-oriented view.²² Dionysius’ legacy in the periodisation of history is evident in our own perspective of ancient culture and in the practical separation of the academic fields of Ancient History and Greek Literature: the Classical age centred on the history of Athens and on its literary production; the Hellenistic age, which Dionysius despised and which was reassessed only in modern times, mainly through Droysen’s Geschichte des Hellenismus;²³ and, finally, the age of Augustus, when the history of imperial Rome begins. Even if the approach to Greek and Roman history in the interval between Dionysius’ age and our own has changed, the central idea in the partition of ancient history and literature is essentially the same as that expressed by Dionysius himself. In Dionysius’ opinion, the revival of a φιλόσοφος ῥητορική was due to Rome and its political and military supremacy over the Greek world. This introduces an evident ambiguity for Dionysius’ readers, who were clearly aware that Roman power overshadowed the once free Greek poleis. However, Dionysius resolves this ambiguity by submitting Roman politics to the rubric of values of Greek philosophical rhetoric, thus reasserting “the importance of the Greek classical past for contemporary Roman power.”²⁴ A pivotal figure in Dionysius’ construction of the ideology of Classicism is Isocrates. In his rhetorical essays, he exploited and reshaped Isocrates’ role as a teacher not only of philosophical rhetoric, but also of πολιτικοὶ λόγοι, civil oratory with a strong social and political component.²⁵ In the essay On Isocrates, Dionysius focuses on the cultural, political, and educational commitment of Isocrates’ rhetoric. After a brief biographical introduction (Isoc. 1.1‒2), Dionysius distinguishes between the sophists of Isocrates’ time, who exploited the knowledge of rhetorical rules for trivial and selfish purposes, from Isocrates himself, whose issues were centred on “Hellenic and royal affairs and constitutional matters, the study of which he believed would enable

 See especially Dion. Hal. Th. 5, discussed in § 3.6 and § 6.6.  Cf. Kassel (1987): an overview of the reception on the Hellenistic age from G. I. Vossius (sev enteenth century) to the twentieth century.  Wiater (2011) 110.  On πολιτικοὶ λόγοι, see Kennedy (1972) 350 354; Hidber (1996); Eucken (2003); Wiater (2011) 65 77.

110

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

cities to be managed better, and individuals to improve their character.”²⁶ The expression τὰ Ἑλληνικά (“Hellenic affairs”) refers to the relations between Greek cities, while royal affairs (τὰ βασιλικά) relate to the Greek cities’ involvements and disputes with the Persians and their king. The double focus on cities (αἱ πόλεις) and individuals (οἱ ἰδιῶται) is also important, since it represents the dual nature of Isocrates’ educational program: to shape an intellectual elite, a ruling class that could successfully manage Athenian public affairs and improve the city’s international relationships.²⁷ Isocrates took over from Gorgias, Protagoras, and their followers, whom Dionysius labels with the negative term “sophists;” however, he then turned away from their sophisms and their natural philosophies, and concentrated on the writing of political discourses (Isoc. 1.4). His students came not only from the best Athenian families, but also from all the regions of the Greek world. They excelled in judicial oratory (ἐν τοῖς δικανικοῖς λόγοις), in politics (ἐν τῷ πολιτεύεσθαι), in the administration of public life (τὰ κοινὰ πράττειν), while some of his pupils wrote the histories of both Greek cities and barbarian countries (Isoc. 1.5: καὶ ἄλλοι δὲ τὰς κοινὰς τῶν Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ βαρβάρων πράξεις ἀνέγραψαν). These latter words are a clear reference to the historians Ephorus and Theopompus, especially to Ephorus, since his universal or general history was known in the first century BC as αἱ κοιναὶ πράξεις, as attested by Diodorus Siculus.²⁸ Another significant point in Dionysius’ argumentation is that Isocrates “made his own school, modelling it after the city of Athens, a coloniser of eloquence” (Isoc. 1.6: τῆς ᾿Aθηναίων πόλεως εἰκόνα ποιήσας τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σχολὴν κατὰ τὰς ἀποικίας τῶν λόγων).²⁹ The construction of Isocrates as the ideal teacher of discourses emerges from the metaphorical and unusual expression ἀποικία

 Dion. Hal. Isoc. 1.3: ἐπιθυμῶν δὲ δόξης καὶ τοῦ πρωτεῦσαι παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ, κα θάπερ αὐτὸς εἴρηκεν, ἐπὶ τὸ γράφειν ἃ διανοηθείη κατέφυγεν, οὐ περὶ μικρῶν τὴν προαίρεσιν ποιούμενος οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν ἰδίων συμβολαίων οὐδὲ ὑπὲρ ὧν ἄλλοι τινὲς τῶν τότε σοφιστῶν, περὶ δὲ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν καὶ βασιλικῶν 〈καὶ πολιτικῶν〉 [add. Radermacher] πραγμάτων, ἐξ ὧν ὑπελάμβανε τάς τε πόλεις ἄμεινον οἰκήσεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ἰδιώτας ἐπίδοσιν ἕξειν πρὸς ἀρετήν. Dio nysius is summarizing the content of the Panathenaicus, as he himself admits (ταῦτα γὰρ ἐν τῷ Παναθηναϊκῷ λόγῳ περὶ αὑτοῦ γράφει).  Marrou (1965) 131 139; Too (1995) 200 234; Hidber (1996) 45; Hadot (2005); Most (2006).  Diod. 5.1.4 (FGrHist 70 T 11): Ἔφορος δὲ τὰς κοινὰς πράξεις ἀναγράφων, etc. Cf. Parmeggiani (2011) 155 179 with previous bibliography. On the concept of ‘universal history:’ Tully (2014).  Cf. Aujac’s translation of the passage (“À l’image de la cité d’Athènes, Isocrate fit de son école une colonisatrice d’éloquence:” Aujac [1978 1992] 1.116), more appropriate than Usher’s (“his school came to represent Athens herself in the eyes of literate men abroad,” Usher [1974 1985] 1.107). Wiater (2011) 69, even if following slavishly Usher’s translation, properly high lights the importance of the expression ἀποικία τῶν λόγων.

4.2 Dionysius’ Classicism and the Revival of Rhetoric

111

τῶν λόγων. Just like Athenian political power was manifest through colonisation, Isocrates’ school conquered the whole Greek world, not with military endeavours, but through eloquence. Athenian identity is clearly outlined according to the idealistic representation of Isocrates and his notion of paideia. Only a few decades before Isocrates, Thucydides had used similar expressions in Pericles’ funeral oration, stressing the importance of Athens as the school of Greece (Thuc. 2.41.1: ξυνελών τε λέγω τήν τε πᾶσαν πόλιν τῆς Ἑλλάδος παίδευσιν εἶναι). In Dionysius’ essay, Isocrates is praised for his ability to transform Pericles’ words into reality. A crucial issue in Dionysius’ construction of Classicism is the distance between his audience and the model it is supposed to be embracing. In order to reduce the gap between fourth-century-BC Greek orators and his own audience, Dionysius needs to give Isocrates’ teaching a universal flavour which cannot be corroded by time. ἐξ ὧν [of Isocrates’ orations] οὐ λέγειν δεινοὺς μόνον ἀπεργάσαιτ’ ἂν τοὺς προσέχοντας αὐτῷ τὸν νοῦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἤθη σπουδαίους, οἴκῳ τε καὶ πόλει καὶ ὅλῃ τῇ Ἑλλάδι χρησί μους. κράτιστα γὰρ δὴ παιδεύματα πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἐν τοῖς Ἰσοκράτους ἔστιν εὑρεῖν λόγοις. καὶ ἔγωγέ φημι χρῆναι τοὺς μέλλοντας οὐχὶ μέρος τι τῆς πολιτικῆς δυνάμεως ἀλλ’ ὅλην αὐτὴν κτήσασθαι τοῦτον ἔχειν τὸν ῥήτορα διὰ χειρός (Dion. Hal. Isoc. 4.3 4). The influence of Isocrates’ orations would make any who applied themselves to his work not only good orators, but men of sterling character, of positive service to their families, to their state and to Greece at large. The best possible lessons in virtue are to be found in the discourses of Isocrates: I therefore affirm that the man who intends to acquire ability, not only in a part, but in the whole field of politics, should make Isocrates his constant companion.

The temporal distance between classical model and contemporary audience is thus reduced, and this allows Dionysius to focus on mimesis. To achieve mimesis, one needs to study closely each classical model, learn about his surroundings and environment, his oeuvres and his style (see Orat. Vett. 4.2).³⁰ The most significant orations of Isocrates are accurately discussed in the On Isocrates, emphasising the moral and political value of their content.³¹ Each oration is introduced by rhetorical questions such as: “Who could fail to become a patriotic supporter of democracy and a student of civic virtues after reading his Panegy-

 Cf. Wiater (2011) 90 91.  Panegyricus: Dion. Hal. Isoc. 5; Philippus: Isoc. 6; De pace: Isoc. 7; Areopagiticus: Isoc. 8; Ar chidamus: Isoc. 9.

112

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

ricus?”³² According to Nicolas Wiater, these introductory questions display the key elements of a Classical identity and give Dionysius’ On Isocrates the character of a “handbook of Classical identity which provides the readers with a standardized, easily accessible definition of what it means to be Classical.”³³ To write according to the Isocratean model³⁴ means to embrace the moral and political values of Classicism, which is not only a literary movement, but a way of life.

4.3 The Canons of Greek Historiography Through the Lens of Classicism Now that a frame for a discussion of Classicism has been outlined, how does Classicism apply to historiographical texts? The first obvious element is chronology. As discussed above, Dionysius identifies Alexander’s death with the beginning of decadence within Greek culture and rhetoric: it coincides with the beginning of the Hellenistic age. Dionysius selected and discussed only those ancient Greek historians that belong to the age that precedes Alexander’s death: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Philistus, and Theopompus. The same chronological criterion is recognisable in both Cicero and Quintilian. To make my point clear, I have provided a table with a list of canonical Greek historians in sources discussed in the previous chapters: Cicero’s On the Orator and Hortensius, the rhetorical treatises of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory. The names of the Greek historians are listed in the order in which they appear in each of these sources: Cicero, De or.

Cicero, Hort.

Dionysius Hal.

Quintilian, Inst.

Herodotus Thucydides Philistus Theopompus Ephorus Xenophon Callisthenes Timaeus

Herodotus Thucydides Philistus Theopompus Ephorus

Herodotus Thucydides Xenophon Philistus Theopompus

Thucydides Herodotus Theopompus Philistus Ephorus Clitarchus Timagenes

 Isoc. 5.1: τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο φιλόπολίς τε καὶ φιλόδημος ἢ τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐπιτηδεύσειε τὴν πολιτικὴν καλοκἀγαθία ἀναγνοὺς αὐτοῦ τὸν Πανηγυρικόν;  Wiater (2011) 73.  On the written form of Dionysius’ teaching, see Hidber (1996) 47.

4.3 The Canons of Greek Historiography Through the Lens of Classicism

113

From this table, it is easy to discern the exclusion of Ephorus in Dionysius’ canon (discussed above § 3.5). Moreover, differences in these lists include the presence of Callisthenes and Timaeus in Cicero, and Clitarchus and Timagenes in Quintilian. Callisthenes and Clitarchus, as it is well known, are both contemporaries of Alexander the Great and authors of historical works on the Macedonian conqueror.³⁵ The reason for their inclusions in, respectively, Cicero’s and Quintilian’s lists, lies in their twofold nature and is thus defined through chronology and the content of their works. It has also to be considered that, since Alexander was a popular figure in Latin literarature and culture, a learned Roman was supposed to be acquainted with the historians that recounted his military deeds. Another significant issue that emerges from this overview is the presence of Timaeus in Cicero’s and Timagenes in Quintilian’s canons. Each case needs to be discussed separately. Timaeus is the last author mentioned in Cicero’s On the Orator. He is praised for his style and erudition, while the utility of his writings for forensic oratory is questioned.³⁶ Timaeus can be considered an early Hellenistic author (he died around 260 BC),³⁷ but his presence in Cicero’s canon is probably connected to his Nachleben and fortune in Roman intellectual circles. Cicero quotes Timaeus in different circumstances throughout his works,³⁸ and even considered his friend Atticus a φιλοτίμαιος: a Timaeo tuo familiari, writes Cicero to Atticus.³⁹ In the second century AD, Timaeus was still regarded as a valuable historian, especially for his role in recounting Rome’s deeds in Greece and the shift of Roman power to the East, as Aulus Gellius briefly attests: “Timaeus in the Histories,  Pédech (1984); Prandi (1985); Prandi (1996). A recently published papyrus, P.Oxy. 4808, which will be discussed in detail below § 7.4, preserves the information that Clitarchus was the tutor of Ptolemy IV Philopator, who reigned at the end of the third century BC; however, Prandi (2012) believes the papyrus gives inaccurate information and argues for the reassesse ment of the communis opinio, which dates Clitarchus to the end of the fourth/beginning of the third century BC.  Cic. De or. 2.58: minimus natu horum omnium Timaeus, quantum autem iudicare possum, longe eruditissimus et rerum copia et sententiarum varietate abundantissimus et ipsa composi tione verborum non impolitus magnam eloquentiam ad scribendum attulit, sed nullum usum fore nsem. Cf. Leeman et al. (1985) 262.  On Timaeus’ biography: Vattuone (2002b) 177 184; Baron (2013) 17 22.  Timae. FGrHist 566 TT 9a, 20, 21; FF 40, 119c, 130a b, 138, 150a. Taifacos (1980) has examined the fragments of Timaeus in Cicero and concluded that the references on the historian’s style derived “from various handbooks on rhetoric that he [Cicero] had at his disposal” (186), while the quotations of historical facts were quoted through Polybius (187 189): in both cases, Taifacos believes that Cicero had only an indirect knowledge of Timaeus.  Cic. Att. 6.1.18 (Timae. FGrHist 566 T 29).

114

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

which he composed in Greek about the affairs of the Roman people (…)” (Gell. NA 11.1.1 [Timae. FGrHist 566 T 9c and F 42a]: Timaeus in historiis, quas oratione Graeca de rebus populi Romani composuit…). The idea behind Gellius’ words shows that Timaeus was considered the first Greek historian to write about Rome, even before Polybius.⁴⁰ Timaeus’ presence in Cicero cannot be explained with reference to Classicism alone. His role as the first Greek historian to write about Rome must have represented an important factor in his canonization. The second point which needs to be discussed is Timagenes’ presence in Quintilian’s canon. His life and historical work are known only through scanty indirect quotations. We can nonetheless tentatively retrace his biography: born in Alexandria in Egypt, brought to Rome as a slave in 55 BC, he belonged to Faustus, Sulla’s son. Timagenes’ activity can be set in the second half of the first century BC: he was a direct contemporary of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Just like Dionysius, he was a teacher of rhetoric and historian. He knew Augustus personally, but lost the princeps’ favour because of his outspokenness and was eventually forced to leave Rome.⁴¹ His historical work is known as Περὶ βασιλέων to Stephanus of Byzantium and simply as Historiae to some Latin authors.⁴² It was approvingly quoted by both Senecas and Ammianus Marcellinus; Hyginus, Strabo, and Pompeius Trogus made extensive use of the historical content of his work; and, finally, Livy often argued with Timagenes, displaying a good knowledge of his history.⁴³ In Quintilian’s Insitutio, the wide gap between the early Hellenistic Clitarchus and the Augustan Timagenes is strongly stressed: “Clitarchus’ talents are respected, his veracity is impugned. Timagenes, born long after these, deserves respect for having revived the lapsed tradition of historical writing with fresh lustre” (Inst. 10.1.74‒75 [Timag. FGrHist 88 T 6]: Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur. longo post intervallo temporis natus Timagenes vel hoc est ipso probabilis, quod intermissam historias scribendi industriam nova laude reparavit). With these words, Quintilian promotes the idea of a decadence of Greek historiography in the Hellenistic age. It reflects his general subdivision of preceding

 See Momigliano (1959), a classic work on Timaeus. Cf. also Vattuone (2002b) 217 222, who supported Momigliano’s opinion that the history of Rome was in the first place “discovered” by Timaeus. Recently, Baron (2013) 43 52 has pointed out the different scopes of Timaeus’ his torical works: on the one hand the Histories, which focused on Greek affairs, on the other, the work on Pyrrhus, where Rome actually steps in and interferes with Greek history.  Timag. FGrHist 88 TT 1 3. Cf. Sordi (1982) 775 778.  Timag. FGrHist 88 T 2 3 and F 1.  See Timag. FGrHist 88 TT 2, 3, 7 10 and the fundamental critical study by Sordi (1982). See also Bowersock (1965) 109 110; Janiszewski et al. (2015) 367 368 nr. 1053.

4.3 The Canons of Greek Historiography Through the Lens of Classicism

115

eras according to his own Literaturgeschichte. ⁴⁴ For Quintilian, it was Timagenes who saved historiography from decline and elevated it again to the splendour of prose writing. For Dionysius, it was his own historical oeuvre, the Roman Antiquities, that could rival and surpass ancient historians.⁴⁵ A few more words on Dionysius’ selection of a historiographical canon. There is a clear lower chronological limit that coincides with the end of a “golden age” of eloquence expressed in the introduction to the essays on the ancient orators (Orat. Vett.): this limit can be identified with Alexander’s death. Historians that belong chronologically to the Hellenistic age are excluded from Dionysius’ canon: he makes this clear in the On Literary Composition, expressing a negative opinion on the style of Phylarchus, Duris, Polybius, and many others.⁴⁶ At the same time, there is also an upper chronological limit that discerns between canonical and non-canonical Greek historians. In the On Thucydides, Dionysius introduces his analysis with some considerations on the predecessors and contemporaries of Thucydides: his aim is to highlight the choice (προαίρεσις) and the strength (δύναμις) of Thucydides against other historians, or rather logographers.⁴⁷ The list of fifth-century-BC historians that follows this statement is very controversial and has raised many discussions on the origins of Greek historiography.⁴⁸ The authors mentioned in Th. 5 are now only known through indirect tradition, and Dionysius himself is inconsistent on their survival in his own time (compare Th. 5.4 with Th. 23.3). Nonetheless, he still states that they wrote histories much inferior to Herodotus and Thucydides, both because of the content of their narrative and because of their styles. His criticism targets: stories of Greeks and barbarians without a unitary vision of history; split up and incongruous local histories; superfluous collection of historical anecdotes

 See Flashar (1979b); Heldmann (1982) 131 146; Rosenmeyer (1985).  This was also Hobbes’ interpretation, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.  See Comp. 4.15: τοιγάρτοι τοιαύτας συντάξεις κατέλιπον οἵας οὐδεὶς ὑπομένει μέχρι κορωνί δος διελθεῖν, Φύλαρχον λέγω καὶ Δοῦριν καὶ Πολύβιον καὶ Ψάωνα καὶ τὸν Καλλατιανὸν Δημή τριον Ἱερώνυμόν τε καὶ ᾿Aντίγονον καὶ Ἡρακλείδην καὶ Ἡγησιάνακτα καὶ ἄλλους μυρίους.  Th. 5.1: μέλλων δὲ ἄρχεσθαι τῆς περὶ Θουκυδίδου γραφῆς ὀλίγα βούλομαι [add. Usen er] τῶν ἄλλων συγγραφέων εἰπεῖν, τῶν τε πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀκμασάντων ἐκείνῳ χρόνους, ἐξ ὧν ἔσται καταφανὴς ἥ τε προαίρεσις τοῦ ἀνδρός, ᾗ χρησάμενος διήλλαξε τοὺς πρὸ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ δύναμις.  Starting with Felix Jacoby’s programmatic article for a collection of the fragments of Greek his torians (1909), down to the arrangement of his Fragmente. On Jacoby, see the various contributions in Ampolo (2006). The most valuable recent interpretations of Dion. Hal. Th. 5 are Fowler (1996) and Porciani (2001). Cf. also Luraghi (2001).

116

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

and mythological material; that all these historians had the same clear, ordinary, and concise style (Th. 5.3‒4). Only Herodotus represents a change in this tendency regarding content and style (Th. 5.5‒6). At Th. 5.1, Dionysius refers to both predecessors and contemporaries of Thucydides (τῶν τε πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀκμασάντων ἐκείνῳ χρόνους), while at Th. 5.2 he includes in his discussion only ancient logographers preceding the Peloponnesian war (ἀρχαῖοι μὲν οὖν συγγραφεῖς πολλοὶ καὶ κατὰ πολλοὺς τόπους ἐγένοντο πρὸ τοῦ Πελοποννησιακοῦ πολέμου). It is thus evident that the upper chronological limit for canonization of historiography in Dionysius is represented by the historians preceding Thucydides, with the sole exception of Herodotus.⁴⁹ Dionysius’ approach to classical texts differs from Gellius’ and Fronto’s perspective. For these two Latin authors the scriptores classici coincide with antiquiores, writers that today we call archaic: indeed, the Antonine age was characterized by archaising trends.⁵⁰ Pausanias, a contemporary of Aulus Gellius, expresses a view of Classical and Hellenistic age that is very close to Dionysius’ approach. He was a great admirer of Classical Athens and interpreted the following Hellenism as an age of decadence in both political and cultural terms.⁵¹ Historiography as well, according to Pausanias, suffered in the age following Alexander’s death. If the age of the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars can be studied on the basis of the works of Herodotus (Pausanias’ model)⁵² and Thucydides, and the fourth century BC has been recounted in the works of Xenophon, Theopompus, Philistus, and other historians, it is the end of the fourth and the third century BC that lack historiographical authorities: τὰ δὲ ἐς Ἄτταλον καὶ Πτολεμαῖον ἡλικίᾳ τε ἦν ἀρχαιότερα, ὡς μὴ μένειν ἔτι τὴν φήμην αὐτῶν, καὶ οἱ συγγενόμενοι τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἐπὶ συγγραφῇ τῶν ἔργων καὶ πρότερον ἔτι ἠμε λήθησαν (Paus. 1.6.1). As to the history of Attalus [I] and Ptolemy [I Soter, son of Lagus], it is more ancient in point of time, so that tradition no longer remains, and those contemporary of these kings who recorded their deeds have fallen into oblivion even before tradition failed.

 Th. 5.5 6: ὁ δ᾽ Ἁλικαρνασεὺς Ἡρόδοτος, γενόμενος ὀλίγῳ πρότερον τῶν Περσικῶν, παρεκτεί νας δὲ μέχρι τῶν Πελοποννησιακῶν, τήν τε πραγματικὴν προαίρεσιν ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον ἐξήνεγκε καὶ λαμπρότερον, etc.  See La Penna (1992) 514 520, Rutherford (1998); Citroni (2003) 6 7; Citroni (2006a).  Musti (1982) XLVIII XLIX; Habicht (1985) 118 141; Ameling (1994).  Cf. Musti (1994).

4.4 πραγματικὸς τόπος in Dionysius

117

Since the historians of the diadochoi were long forgotten in his age, it is Pausanias’ own effort to narrate the early history of Ptolemaic Egypt, of Pergamon, and the rest of the Hellenistic kingdoms. He summarizes the history of Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Paus. 1.6.2‒1.7.3) and carries on with Attalus I of Pergamon (1.8.1), hence implying that the works of those historians that narrated their histories were not popular, but still available. The ill-fated reception of Hellenistic historiography in the age of the Antonines was also a matter of style: Pausanias, however, was not interested in style, but rather in the content of their works.⁵³ This is also evident from his approach to Atticism: he consciously and deliberately avoids the Attic form of words.⁵⁴ Although Pausanias emphasizes a negative perception of Hellenistic historiography, he manages to exploit many of these works for his geographical description of Greece.⁵⁵ At the same time, his intellectual and cultural approach to antiquity resembles Dionysius’ classicistic view where Classical Athens stands out for the great accomplishments and the high literature it produced. It would be superfluous to list here other examples on the different perspectives of Classicism. It suffices to say, that any given epoch has its own concept of what is classical and of Classicism, depending on different cultural and political circumstances.⁵⁶

4.4 πραγματικὸς τόπος in Dionysius So far we have seen that the fundamental prerequisite to becoming a canonical historian – not only for Dionysius, but also for Cicero and Quintilian – is to belong to an age that goes from the second half of the fifth century BC down to Alexander’s death in 323 BC. Another essential factor is the chosen subject matter (πραγματικὸς τόπος), which is expounded in the Letter to Pompeius. ⁵⁷ According to Dionysius, the foremost characteristic for the author of a historical work is to choose an argument (ὑπόθεσις) which ought to be beautiful and pleasurable to the readers.⁵⁸ Herodotus shows a superior understanding of this mechanism,

 See Habicht (1985) 136 137; Bearzot (1992).  Hutton (2005) 181 190.  See in general Bearzot (1992).  A useful overview in Curtius (1948) 253 276.  These matters were already discussed, from a different perspective, in a previous chapter: see above § 3.3.  Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.2: πρῶτόν τε καὶ σχεδὸν ἀναγκαιότατον ἔργον ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τοῖς γράφου σιν πᾶσιν ἱστορίας ὑπόθεσιν ἐκλέξασθαι καλὴν καὶ κεχαρισμένην τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις.

118

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

since he describes the deeds of the Greeks and barbarians.⁵⁹ Thucydides, on the other hand, has decided to write of a single war, neither glorious nor fortunate.⁶⁰ We see a contrast between the immortal deeds of the Greeks fighting the barbarians and the Peloponnesian War, which led to the decline of the Greek poleis due to massacres, earthquakes, droughts, plagues and other disasters.⁶¹ The topic chosen by Thucydides is thus described through Thucydides’ own words: οὔτε γὰρ πόλεις τοσαίδε ληφθεῖσαι ἠρημώθησαν, αἱ μὲν ὑπὸ βαρβάρων, αἱ δ᾽ ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν ἀντιπολεμούντων (εἰσὶ δ᾽ αἳ καὶ οἰκήτορας μετέβαλον ἁλισκόμεναι), οὔτε φυγαὶ το σαίδε ἀνθρώπων καὶ φόνος, ὁ μὲν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν πόλεμον, ὁ δὲ διὰ τὸ στασιάζειν. τά τε πρότερον ἀκοῇ μὲν λεγόμενα, ἔργῳ δὲ σπανιώτερον βεβαίουμενα οὐκ ἄπιστα κατέστη, σει σμῶν τε πέρι, οἳ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἅμα μέρος γῆς καὶ ἰσχυρότατοι οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐπέσχον, ἡλίου τε ἐκλείψεις, αἳ πυκνότεραι παρὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ πρὶν χρόνου μνημονευόμενα ξυνέβησαν, αὐχμοί τε ἔστι παρ᾽ οἷς μεγάλοι καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ λιμοὶ καὶ ἡ οὐχ ἥκιστα βλάψασα καὶ μέρος τι φθεί ρασα ἡ λοιμώδης νόσος· ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα μετὰ τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμου ἅμα ξυνεπέθετο (Thuc. 1.23.2 3). There had never been so many cities captured and depopulated, in some cases by barbar ians and in others by the two sides fighting against one another (and some cities after they had been taken suffered a change of inhabitants); nor so many people exiled and slaugh tered, either in the actual course of the war or through dissension. What was previously re ported by hearsay but more rarely confirmed in fact became not unbelievable: with regard to earthquakes, which attacked over the greatest extent of territory and with the greatest violence; and eclipses of the sun, which occurred with greater frequency than was remem bered from earlier time; great droughts in some places and famines resulting from them; and, what caused not the least harm and to some extent death, the disease of the plague. All these things attacked together in conjunction with this war (transl. P. J. Rhodes).

Another fundamental issue is the beginning and ending of the selected topic. Again, Dionysius considers Herodotus superior to Thucydides: δεύτερόν ἐστι τῆς ἱστορικῆς πραγματείας ἔργον γνῶναι πόθεν τε ἄρξασθαι καὶ μέχρι τοῦ προελθεῖν δεῖ. φαίνεται δὴ κἀν τούτῳ Θουκυδίδου πολὺ Ἡρόδοτος φρονιμώτερος· ἄρχεταί

 Pomp. 3.3: ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ κοινὴν Ἑλληνικῶν τε καὶ βαρβαρικῶν πράξεων ἐξενήνοχεν ἱστορίαν, “ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων μήτε ἔργα,” καθάπερ αὐτὸς εἴρηκε. Some words are missing from Herodotus’ famous preface: τῷ χρώνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται (Hdt. 1.1). Aujac (1978 1992) 5.87 n. 3 suggests that any reader of Dionysius would have been able to grasp the allusion despite of the omission.  Pomp. 3.4: ὁ δὲ Θουκυδίδης πόλεμον ἕνα γράφει, καὶ τοῦτον οὔτε καλὸν οὔτε εὐτυχῆ, ὃς μάλιστα μὲν ὤφειλε μὴ γενέσθαι, etc.  Pomp. 3.4 6: ὅτι δὲ πονηρὰν εἴληφεν ὑπόθεσιν, καὶ αὐτός γε τοῦτο ποιεῖ φανερὸν ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ· πόλεις τε γὰρ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ἐξερημωθῆναι φησι πολλὰς Ἑλληνίδας, τὰς μὲν ὑπὸ βαρ βάρων, τὰς δ᾽ ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ φυγαδείας καὶ φθόρους ἀνθρώπων ὅσους οὔπω πρότερον γενέσθαι, σεισμούς τε καὶ αὐχμοὺς καὶ νόσους καὶ ἄλλας πολλὰς συμφοράς.

4.4 πραγματικὸς τόπος in Dionysius

119

τε ἀφ’ ἧς αἰτίας ἤρξαντο πρῶτον κακῶς ποιεῖν τοὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ βάρβαροι, καὶ προελθὼν εἰς τὴν 〈τῶν〉 βαρβάρων κόλασιν καὶ τιμωρίαν λήγει. (9) ὁ δὲ Θουκυδίδης ἀρχὴν μὲν ἐποι ήσατο ἀφ’ ἧς ἤρξατο κακῶς πράττειν τὸ Ἑλληνικόν· ὅπερ Ἕλληνα ὄντα καὶ ᾿Aθηναῖον οὐκ ἔδει ποιεῖν (…) καὶ οὕτω γε φθονερῶς, ὥστε καὶ τῇ πόλει τῇ ἑαυτοῦ τὰς φανερὰς αἰτίας τοῦ πολέμου περιάπτειν, ἑτέραις ἔχοντα πολλαῖς ἀφορμαῖς περιάψαι τὰς αἰτίας, καὶ ἄρξα σθαί γε τῆς διηγήσεως μὴ ἀπὸ τῶν Κερκυραϊκῶν, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῶν κρατίστων τῆς πατρίδος ἔργων, ἃ μετὰ τὸν Περσικὸν πόλεμον εὐθὺς ἔπραξεν (ὧν ὕστερον οὐκ ἐν ἐπιτηδείῳ τόπῳ μνήμην ἐποιήσατο φαύλως πως καὶ ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς), διελθόντα δὲ ταῦτα μετὰ πολλῆς εὐνοίας ὡς ἄνδρα φιλόπολιν ἔπειτ’ ἐπενεγκεῖν, ὅτι τούτων φθόνῳ καὶ δέει προελθόντες Λακεδαι μόνιοι προφάσεις ὑποθέντες ἑτεροίας ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸν πόλεμον (…) (Pomp. 3.8 9). The second task required of a writer of an historical work is to decide where to begin and how far to go. In this, too, Herodotus shows far better judgement than Thucydides: he be gins with the reasons why the barbarians injured the Greeks in the first place, and proceeds until he has described the punishment and the retribution which befell them, at which point he ends. But Thucydides made his beginning at the point where Greek affairs started to decline. This should not have been done by a Greek and an Athenian (…); and such is his malice, that he actually attributes the overt causes of the war to his own city, though he could have attributed them to many other sources. He might have begun his narrative not with the events at Corcyra, but with his country’s splendid achievements immediately after the Persian War (achievements which he mentions later at an inappropriate point and in a rather grudging and cursory way). After he had described these events with all the good will of a patriot, he might then have added that it was through a growing feeling of envy and fear that the Lacedaemonians came to engage in the war (…).

These passages communicate a fierce critique of Thucydides’ choice of the beginning and ending of his history. The most significant and ideologically-pregnant phrase is the following: ὁ δὲ Θουκυδίδης ἀρχὴν μὲν ἐποιήσατο ἀφ’ ἧς ἤρξατο κακῶς πράττειν τὸ Ἑλληνικόν. In Germaine Aujac’s translation, the passage retains its power: “Thucydide a pris pour point de depart le commencement de la décadence pour le monde grec.”⁶² The word decline (“décadence”) catches the implication of Thucydides’ choice, and at the same time displays Dionysius’ opinion on the negative outcome of the Peloponnesian War not only for Athens, but also for the Greek world. Dionysius identifies the beginning of the decline for the Greeks (τὸ Ἑλληνικόν) with the end of the Peloponnesian War. This decline is fulfilled, less than one century later, with Alexander’s death. There seems to be an overlap in Dionysius’ view: the historical and cultural vision of the Greek world collides with the development of rhetoric in the fourth century BC. But this contradiction is not essential, because there is a difference between the political context in the discussion of Thucydides’ work and the maturity of oratory represented by Isocrates. If Thucydides was unable to find a better subject and to choose a more

 Aujac (1978 1992) 5.89.

120

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

appropriate beginning and ending to his history, at least Herodotus was more judicious and recounted the endeavours that resulted in the establishment of the Athenian imperial power. A Classicising reading of Dionysius’ opinion on the ancient Greek historians allows us to better understand his criticism of Thucydides and his comprehensive praise of Herodotus.

4.5 Dionysius’ Ιdeal Ηistorian: Theopompus There are several further thoughts on Dionysius’ classicistic view of ancient historiography that fall outside the Herodotus-Thucydides contrast: these are strictly connected with the work and character of Theopompus of Chios.⁶³ This historian is labelled as “the most illustrious of the pupils of Isocrates.”⁶⁴ It is precisely his close relationship with Isocrates that explains Dionysius’ admiration for Theopompus in the final section of the Letter to Pompeius. The subjects of Theopompus’ historical works, the Hellenica and Philippica, are described as beautiful (καλαὶ γὰρ ἀμφότεραι, Pomp. 6.2), an adjective that Dionysius employs in the Letter only when dealing with Herodotus and Thucydides.⁶⁵ This seems a significant proof of Dionysius’ high consideration of Theopompus, who can be associated with these two great predecessors. However, a comparison between Theopompus’ and Thucydides’ choice of subject matter, shows that the latter decided, unwisely, to conclude his history with Athens’ defeat and the demolition of the Great Walls, while Theopompus in the Hellenica ended more aptly with the renewal of Athenian power in 394 BC.⁶⁶ One cannot avoid mentioning that the leader of Athens’ rebirth was Conon, the father of Timotheus. Isocrates was a close friend of Timotheus, whom he praised in the Antidosis. The bond between Isocrates and Theopompus is also conjured by the claim that Theopompus was not merely a historian, but also a successful orator, the author of panegyrics, deliberative speeches, letters, and other treatises (Pomp. 6.1‒2). Unfortunately, we cannot enjoy the same privilege as Dionysius and read Theopompus’ literary production from cover to cover, since it has not come

 Some considerations on Dionysius’ opinion of Theopompus have already been expressed in § 3.4. This chapter differs from the previous one in the divergent perspective it offers.  Pomp. 6.1: Θεόπομπος δὲ Χῖος ἐπιφανέστατος πάντων 〈τῶν〉 Ἰσοκράτους μαθητῶν γενόμε νος. Wiater (2011) 151 154 discusses the relationship between Isocrates and Theopompus in Dio nysius’ treatises.  Especially in Pomp. 3.2 and 4.3; see also Pomp. 3.21. See above § 3.3.  See Pomp. 6.2 and Pomp. 3.4 5 and 3.8 9.

4.5 Dionysius’ Ιdeal Ηistorian: Theopompus

121

down to us. We have to rely on Dionysius’ own assessment when he remarks that in style, Theopompus resembles Isocrates above all (ὁ δὲ λεκτικὸς Ἰσοκράτει μάλιστα ἔοικε, Pomp. 6.9). Moreover, he is admired for the philosophical comments reflected in his observations on justice, piety, and other virtues. But there is one feature of his writing that no other historian has managed to rival: τὸ καθ’ ἑκάστην πρᾶξιν μὴ μόνον τὰ φανερὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς ὁρᾶν καὶ λέγειν, ἀλλ’ ἐξετάζειν καὶ τὰς ἀφανεῖς αἰτίας τῶν πράξεων καὶ τῶν πραξάντων αὐτὰς καὶ τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς, ἃ μὴ ῥᾴδια τοῖς πολλοῖς εἰδέναι, καὶ πάντα ἐκκαλύπτειν τὰ μυστήρια τῆς τε δοκούσης ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς ἀγνοουμένης κακίας (Pomp. 6.7). It is the ability, in the case of every action, not only to see and to state what is obvious to most people, but to examine even the hidden reasons for actions and the motives of their agents, and the feelings in their hearts (which most people do not find it easy to discern), and to reveal all the mysteries of apparent virtue and undetected vice.

From these words, it seems that Theopompus distanced himself from Thucydides’ historiographical method and emphasized moral instead of pragmatic values.⁶⁷ Expressions such as “feelings in their hearts,” “the mysteries of apparent virtue,” and “undetected vice” signal moral and ethical issues that can be related directly to Theopompus’ teacher, Isocrates, the representative of a political, civic, and moral education. Dionysius suggests that Theopompus’ historiography can be exploited as an instrument of civic education, just as Isocrates aimed, through his political and moral speeches, at the education of the Athenian elite and consequently of the whole Greek world. It seems that the moral component of Theopompus’ work was paramount in the outline of his characters. The historian’s severe judgement of some of the politicians of his age earned him the criticism of Polybius and some later historians.⁶⁸ Dionysius, however, appreciates Theopompus’ style and the content of his historical works precisely because of the moral values he upholds. From this perspective, Theopompus’ literary production is intertwined with his teacher’s idea of paideia. In Dionysius’ critical considerations, Theopompus appears as an “Isocrates of historiography.”⁶⁹ This explains the reason for a separate and lengthy analysis of Theopompus in the Letter to Pompeius. The suitable choice of subject matter, the moral component of his historical works, and the close relationship with Isocrates represent different but related elements of the idea of Classicism expressed by Dionysius in his introduction to the ancient or Franco (1991) 125 127 identified an echo of Dionysius’ words in Plutarch’s preface to the Life of Nicias.  See Gozzoli (1976) 173.  Thus Wiater (2011) 153.

122

4 In the Wake of Classicism: Dionysius, Rome, and Classical Athens

ators and in the On Isocrates. This idea finds a perfect historiographical representative in Theopompus. So far, I have considered primarily three sources for the history of the canons of Greek historiography in antiquity: Quintilian in the first place, since the tenth book of his Institutes of Oratory provided a fundamental text for Ruhnken’s hypothesis on ancient canonical literature and for all the scholars that have tackled this issue (§ 1); in § 2, I considered Cicero’s rhetorical works as valuable testimonies for the canons of historiography, while the main character of §§ 3 and 4 was Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Since the lists of canonical Greek historians identified in these three ancient authors do not differ substantially from one another, there is the possibility that they preserve a previous tradition on the most valuable Greek historians. In the following chapter, I will attempt to define this tradition going backwards from the Hellenistic age to fourth-century-BC Athens.

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria It is part of the business of the critic to preserve tradition where a good tradition exists. T. S. Eliot, The Sacred Wood (1920)

In this chapter, I will investigate the possibility that a canon or different canons of Greek historians existed before the fundamental testimonies of Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian. A first section will consider the impact of the so-called historical cycle on canon-formation: I believe it is useful to clarify the beginnings of the canons of Greek historiography from the point of view of the historiographical genre (§ 5.1). The following sections will deal with two fundamental figures of ancient Greek culture and literature, Isocrates (§ 5.2) and Aristotle (§ 5.3). Neither of the two provide any clear list of canonical Greek historians and, worse still, they do not even mention previous or contemporary historians, apart from a few scattered references in the Aristotelian corpus. Nevertheless, their different approaches to history and historiography contributes to our understanding of the formation of the canons of historiography. I will then discuss the possibility of a Hellenistic source for the canons of historiography defined by Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian (§ 5.4). In the final section of this chapter (§ 5.5), I shall consider the fragmentary and scattered Hellenistic sources, mainly the Homeric scholia, with the aim of understanding the role played by Greek historians in erudite Alexandrian circles. Up to this point, mainly non-historiographical sources have been discussed, whereas in the following section the analysis will focus on the historiographical genre, hence employing an internal perspective.

5.1 Thucydides’ Continuators and the Historical Cycle: Its Impact on Canon-Formation When Thucydides set out to explain the subject matter he chose for his history, he compared the Peloponnesian War with previous great conflicts, the Trojan and Persian Wars, respectively described by Homer and Herodotus. Stating that the war which he had chosen as the subject of his history was the greatest

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 006

124

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

of all time, Thucydides was undervaluing the work of his predecessors and creating the premises for the canonization of his own historical narrative.¹ Moreover, famously expressing the sentiment that his work was not intended as a showpiece for a single hearing, but as a possession for all time,² Thucydides created a direct polemic against Herodotus, as commentators of Thucydides already noticed in antiquity.³ The narrative that follows the proem and that covers the greatest part of Book One is called the Pentecontaetia: it coincides with the period of fifty years between the end of the Persian Wars and the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. In the structure of his work, Thucydides includes the Pentecontaetia as the means by which he fills the gap between the end of Herodotus’ narrative and the point in time at which his narrative begins.⁴ Implicitly, Thucydides’ choice indicates that no previous historian met his expectations, and at the same time he recognizes Herodotus’ paramount role as the historian of the Persian Wars. In fact, the only historian explicitly mentioned by Thucydides, Hellanicus of Lesbos, is recalled only to be criticized for his faulty chronology and lousy historical account.⁵ Later biographical tradition embellished Thucydides’ special relationship with Herodotus and made up a story where a young Thucydides cries with joy listening to Herodotus’ public reading of his Histories. ⁶ The fact that Thucydides continued Herodotus’ historical work can be interpreted as the first step of a typical feature of Classical historiography which Luciano Canfora labelled ciclo storico, i. e. the historical cycle.⁷ Modelled on the concept of the epic cycle, the historical cycle aims ideally at a continuous historical narrative from one writer of history to another. The concept is not a modern one, but goes back to Cicero, who speaks of historia perpetua as referring to a continuous narrative of historical events in Callisthenes, Timaeus, and Polybius

 See Thuc. 1.1.2 as well as all the beginning of the first book up to 1.12. Thucydides engages repeatedly with Herodotus’ history of the Persian Wars: cf. Zali (2016) 35 47.  Thuc. 1.22.4: κτῆμά τε ἐς αἰεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα ἐς τὸ παραχρῆμα ἀκούειν ξύγκειται.  See schol. Thuc. 1.20.3, 1.21.1, 1.22.4. Cf. Nünlist (2009) 227; Priestly (2014) 200. On polemic in ancient historiography: Marincola (1997) 217 236.  See De Vido/Mondin (2012 2013) where the structure of the book is discussed and further ref erences provided.  Thuc. 1.97.2. On Hellanicus’ ᾿Aττικὴ ξυγγραφή (History of Attica), the work cited by Thucydides: Ottone (2010). On Hellanicus: Ambaglio (1980); Caerols Pérez (1991).  The anecdote is reported primarily in Marcellin. 54. For further (later) references to the same anecdote, see Picirilli (1985) 158 161, with some well balanced observations. On the audience of the Classical historians: Momigliano (1978). For the publication of Herodotus’ work: Porciani (2005) with further references. For the oral component of his work: Evans (2008).  Canfora (1971). Cf. also Strasburger (1966) 19.

5.1 Thucydides’ Continuators and the Historical Cycle

125

(Cic. Fam. 5.12.2‒6). The lack of a preface in Xenophon’s Hellenica and the rough opening of the work could be explained only if we consider it a continuation of Thucydides’ unfinished history.⁸ Xenophon himself expected his Hellenica to be continued by later historians. He ends his work with these words: “I have written thus far: the following events will perhaps be the concern of another.”⁹ Xenophon openly suggests a cyclical continuation of his work: his expectations were not met by fellow writers of history.¹⁰ If Xenophon did not have any continuator, Thucydides had at least two.¹¹ Apart from Xenophon himself, Thucydides’ History was continued by Theopompus in his Hellenica, as clearly stated by Polybius, who criticizes Theopompus’ change of subject: “Having set himself the task of writing the history of Greece from the point at which Thucydides leaves off, just when he was approaching the battle of Leuctra and the most brilliant period of Greek history, he abandoned Greece and her efforts and, changing his plan, decided to write the history of Philip.”¹² Even if none of Theopompus’ writings survive, the fact that he continued with the Hellenica from where Thucydides left off and went as far as the battle of Cnidus in 394 BC, is testified by Diodorus Siculus and the Late Antique author of the Life of Thucydides. ¹³ Cratippus, whose historicity has often been called into question, is mentioned as a contemporary of Thucydides and continuator of his unfinished historical work by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.¹⁴ Plutarch, on the other hand, after a description of Thucydides’ History, offers a brief summary of Cratippus’ work (De glor. Ath. 345C‒E): it seems that the latter went as far as Conon’s resto Xen. Hell. 1.1.1: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὐ πολλαῖς ἡμέραις etc. Niebuhr (1827) was the first modern scholar to point out that Xen. Hell. 1 2.3.9 is actually a continuation of Thucydides. For further references, see above § 3.6 n. 99.  Xen. Hell. 7.5.27: ἐμοὶ μὲν δὲ μέχρι τούτου γραφέσθω· τὰ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα ἴσως ἄλλῳ μελήσει.  Nicolai (2006) 702 703.  A whole chapter in Luschnat’s article on Thucydides in the Realencyklopädie is dedicated to Die Fortsetzer des thukydideischen Geschichswerkes: Luschnat (1970) 1267 1276. Marincola (1997) 289 290 offers a schematic overview of the “Greek continuators.” See also Darbo Peschanski (1995) and Cohen Skalli (2012) 425 427.  Polyb. 8.11.3 (FGrHist 115 T 19): ὅς γ᾿ ἐπιβαλόμενος γράφειν τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις ἀφ᾿ ὧν Θου κυδίδης ἀπέλιπε, καὶ συνεγγίσας τοῖς Λευκτρικοῖς καιροῖς καὶ τοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτοις τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἔργων, τὴν μὲν Ἑλλάδα μεταξὺ καὶ τὰς ταύτης ἐπιβολὰς ἀπέρριψε, μεταλαβὼν δὲ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τὰς Φιλίππου πράξεις προύθετο γράφειν.  See Diod. 13.42.5 (FGrHist 115 T 13) and 14.84.7 (FGrHist 115 T 14); Marcellin. 45 (FGrHist 115 T 15).  Dion. Hal. Th. 16.2: ὡς καὶ Κράτιππος ὁ συνακμάσας αὐτῷ [of Thucydides] καὶ τὰ παραλει φθέντα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ συναγαγών γέγραφεν. This passage of Dionysius and the scepticism on Cratip pus’ historicity are discussed above § 3.1, esp. n. 20.

126

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

ration of the Athenian power on the sea in 393 BC.¹⁵ However, if we are to take credit of Plutarch’s testimony, he told of the overthrow of the oligarchy by Theramenes in 411 BC,¹⁶ which is already recounted in Thucydides (8.89‒92): it implies that Cratippus was not simply Thucydides’ continuator, but also an integrator of his history. Just like Theopompus, the author of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia continued Thucydides at least to 394 BC. He arranged his history by summers and winters and was labelled by Guido Schepens as “le plus thucydidéen” of all the continuators of Thucydides.¹⁷ His identity, however, is still a matter of debate: many scholars believe that the author of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is Theopompus, but there is no conclusive proof to support this ascription.¹⁸ The historical cycle did not end with Theopompus, Cratippus or the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Diyllus of Athens continued both Callisthenes and Ephorus.¹⁹ Athanis (or Athanas) of Syracuse supplemented and continued the work of Philistus.²⁰ Polybius took up the histories of both Aratus and Timaeus.²¹ Polybius himself was continued by two writers who were not exclusively historians: the philosopher Posidonius of Apamea and the geographer Strabo of Amasia.²² The idea of a continuous history endures in the Greek historiographical tradition in Late Antiquity among the historians deeply embedded in the Classical tradition, such as Eunapius, Agathias, and Priscus, as well as among the Church historians of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries AD: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoretus, and Evagrius Scholasticus.²³ Evagrius included in his work a

 Plut. De glor. Ath. 345D E: καὶ Κόνωνα πάλιν ἐμβιβάζοντα τὰς A ᾿ θήνας εἰς τὴν θάλατταν.  Plut. De glor. Ath. 345D: τὴν ὑπὸ Θηραμένους τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας κατάλυσιν.  Schepens (1993) 183.  Eduard Meyer was the first scholar to ascribe irrefutably the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, known to him only from the London papyrus (see below § 7.4), to Theopompus’ Hellenica: Meyer (1909). The paternity of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia to Theopompus has been strongly fostered by Lucia no Canfora: Canfora (1991); Canfora (2002/2003); Canfora/Otranto (2013). Occhipinti (2016) 2 5 offers a summary of the previous opinions and cautiously avoids the question of authorship; cf. also Biagetti (2017) 153 154.  See Diod. 16.14.5 (FGrHist 73 T 1) and 16.76.6 (FGrHist 73 T 2).  See Diod. 15.94.4 (FGrHist 556 T 11b; FGrHist 562 T 2). Cf. Gray (1991) 202 205; Costa (2011).  Polyb. 1.3.2 and 1.5.1 (cf. also Polyb. 34.8.4).  Knowledge of both Posidonius’ and Strabo’s continuation of Polybius comes from the Suda, respectively π 2108 (Posid. FGrHist 87 T 1) and π 1941 (Strabo, FGrHist 91 T 2). On Posidonius’ historical work: Pelling (2007) 250 252; Dowden (2013). On Strabo’s Historical Commentary (Ἱστορικὰ ὑπομνήματα): Malinowski (2017).  On late antique historiography in general: Rohrbacher (2002); Marasco (2003); Brodka (2004); Treadgold (2007). On the fifth century AD Greek pagan historians: Bleckmann/Stickler (2014). For the Church historians: Chesnut (1978). A European Research Council funded project

5.1 Thucydides’ Continuators and the Historical Cycle

127

summary of the previous historiographical tradition, quoting both Christian and Classical historians (Hist. eccl. 5.24): Greek history is represented uniquely by Charax (FGrHist 103), Theopompus, and Ephorus, while a much greater space is understandably dedicated to the historians of Rome from Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Polybius to Diodorus, Appian, and Herodian.²⁴ Since Evagrius’ interest lays uniquely in historical content, the absence of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon is justified by the presence of many universal historians: with their narrative, they covered a wide chronological range that made the narrative of many previous historians unnecessary. The explicit reference to one or more predecessors displays both homage and competition: homage, because only authoritative historians were worth continuing; competition, because writing the continuation implies that one’s own work will be part of the canon.²⁵ Thucydides’ paramount role in the canon of Greek historiography is obvious from the above-mentioned fact that he had at least two continuators. Those who took up from the point where he left his unfinished history – Xenophon and Theopompus, perhaps also the author of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and Cratippus – expected their own works to enter the canon. The revealing fact for the history of the canon of Greek historiography is that the same historians included in later canons were also the ones that constituted the earliest stages of the historical cycle: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Theopompus. Only historians dealing with the history of the Greek world feature in this group. Philistus, included in Dionysius’ canon, is naturally excluded, since he focused on the history of Sicily and the Western world. On the other hand, Ephorus’ work comprised a comprehensive history of the Greek world: his narrative was outside the scope of the historical cycle. A further interpretation might be suggested. If the canons of historiography focused primarily, if not exclusively, on the style and literary qualities of the historians, on the other hand the constitution of the historical cycle was centred around subject matter. Perhaps the combination of these two factors – style and content – influenced the formation of both canons and the historical cycle. This analysis of the historical cycle, and its intertwining relation with canonformation, displays the first, revealing clue that the history of the canons of Greek historiography began at a very early stage, in the first half or middle of the fourth century BC. Later additions to the alleged original core of canonical historians illustrate its flexibility and will to expound its narrow boundaries. on Late Antique historiography directed by Peter Van Nuffelen is under way at Ghent University: http://www.late antique historiography.ugent.be.  On Evagrius’ summary: Canfora (1995a) 245 250.  Marincola (1997); Pelling (2007) 250.

128

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

5.2 Isocrates and the Greek Historians This section and the following one deal with two fundamental figures in fourthcentury BC Athens: Isocrates and Aristotle. Before embarking on the analysis of their contribution to the canons of historiography, the cultural milieu of both Isocrates and Aristotle needs to be illustrated, for there was an important phenomenon that took place in Athens between the fifth and fourth centuries BC: a shift from a predominantly oral to a somewhat-literary culture, even if such literacy confined mostly to upper-class males.²⁶ Evidence for a history of literacy in the fifth and fourth century BC is disproportionately Athenian. However, since the production of historical works in the same age is also confined almost exclusively to Athens, Athenian evidence provides a significant benchmark for the reception of the Greek historians. Athenian society of the fifth century BC was centred around oral communication: politics, law, education, entertainment (i. e. the theatre). The first decades of the fourth century saw a rise of written records among the Athenian elite. Plato’s Republic, composed early in the second quarter of the fourth century, reveals an educational system (paideia) still embedded in the oral tradition.²⁷ But at the time when the students of the Academy listened to Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Isocrates was revolutionizing Greek paideia. At the beginning of his career, he purposefully did not take part in the political debate,²⁸ but instead wrote forensic speeches to be delivered in the courts by his clients, a common practice by fellow logographers such as Lysias. He later opened his own school of rhetoric which was very different from the rest of the philosophical and rhetorical schools, including Plato’s. The aim of his educational programme was not centred around the affairs of private citizens, but instead was about the wellbeing of Athens and consequently of the entire Greek world.²⁹ Significantly, Isocrates favoured the written instead of the oral form. He also shows a close acquaintance with written testimonies.³⁰ Friedrich Blass was quite adamant on Isocrates’ relation with history. He asserted that, even if we know that some of Isocrates’ students, namely Theopom-

 See Harris (1989) § 4; Thomas (1992); Robb (1994) §§ 8 9; Pownall (2004) § 1.  Robb (1994) 214 217; Usener (1994) § 2.  This fact is repeatedly stressed by Isocrates himself, likely emphasizing a rhetorical topos: Isoc. Phil. 81; Panath. 9 10; Ep. 8.7. Cf. Usener (1994) § 1.  This is mostly evident in the Antidosis, one of Isocrates’ latest works. See Jaeger (1944) § 2 and § 6; Nicolai (2004) 96 105; Ober (2004).  See Isoc. Euag. 73 79; Ad Nic. 3, 36, 43. Cf. Nouhaud (1982) 109 110. For Isocrates’ library and the use of books in fourth century BC Athens: Pinto (2006).

5.2 Isocrates and the Greek Historians

129

pus and Ephorus, had an interest in ancient and contemporary history, we cannot impute the same interest for history to the teacher and are not entitled to suppose that he discussed matters related to history in his lessons.³¹ If, on the one hand, it cannot be confidently stated that “the analytical study of history as a subject of education really begins with Isocrates,” as the author of a book on Greek Education did,³² on the other hand, Blass’ sharp judgment should be reassessed with reference to Isocrates’ own writings. Isocrates has often been blamed for his alleged role in the creation of a rhetorical historiography. The premise is that he, as a teacher of Ephorus and Theopompus, introduced a new way of writing history which was concerned with style and paradeigmata (“examples”), while neglecting truth. However, the label rhetorical historiography, apart from being unfounded, is misleading: every historical narrative is a rhetorical construct and there is no real opposition between rhetoric and historical research for truth.³³ There are many modern examples of distinguished historians who are unanimously considered great stylists: Edward Gibbon is the most obvious of these; Theodor Mommsen’s Römische Geschichte earned him a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1902; Ronald Syme’s style was unsurpassed among English-speaking historians of the twentieth century; Carlo Ginzburg’s prose combines historical accuracy with matchless lucidity. Even if Isocrates clearly stated in the opening lines of the Panathenaicus that he did not devote his energies to the writing of history, at the same, after criticizing mythic and fictitious accounts, he praises those who wrote of ancient deeds and wars fought by the Greeks.³⁴ His interest in the writing of history and in historical facts has recently been reconsidered by John Marincola, who noticed that Isocrates was engaged in the same issues that troubled fourth-century historians: Athenian hegemony, the role of Sparta in contemporary history, Persian interference in Greek politics, and the rising power of the Macedonians.³⁵ A passage of the oration To Nicocles represents an important step in the debate on Isocrates’ approach to history and historiography:  Blass (1887 1898) 2.48: “Es wäre nämlich ebenso falsch, deshalb weil Isokrates’ Schüler in der Archäologie und Geschichte so hervorragedens leisteten, auch bei dem Meister selbst eine bedeutende Neigung für diese Disciplinen anzunehmen, oder gar zu meinen, dass dieselben einen Theil seines Unterrichts gebildet hätten.”  Beck (1964) 277.  Marincola (2001) 111 112; Marincola (2014) 40 44; Gehrke (2014) § 4.  Isoc. Panath. 1 2: νεώτερος μὲν ὢν προῃρούμην γράφειν τῶν λόγων οὐ τοὺς μυθῶδεις οὐδὲ τοὺς τερατείας καὶ ψευδολογίας μεστοὺς, οἷς οἱ πολλοὶ μᾶλλον χαίρουσιν ἢ τοῖς περὶ τῆς αὐτῶν σωτηρίας λεγομένοις, οὐδὲ τοὺς τὰς παλαιὰς πράξεις καὶ τοὺς πολέμους τοὺς Ἑλληνικοὺς ἐξη γουμένους, καίπερ εἰδὼς δικαίως αὐτοὺς ἐπαινουμένους. Cf. Roth (2003) 72 77.  Nickel (1991); Marincola (2014) 57 58.

130

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

ὅ τι ἂν ἀκριβῶσαι βουληθῇς ὧν ἐπίστασθαι προσήκει τοὺς βασιλεῖς, ἐμπειρίᾳ μέτιθι καὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ φιλοσοφεῖν τὰς ὁδούς σοι δείξει, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων γυμνάζε σθαι δύνασθαί σε χρῆσθαι τοῖς πράγμασι ποιήσει. θεώρει τὰ γιγνόμενα καὶ τὰ συμπίπτοντα καὶ τοῖς ἰδιώταις καὶ τοῖς τυράννοις· ἂν γὰρ τὰ παρεληλυθότα μνημονεύῃς, ἄμεινον περὶ τῶν μελλόντων βουλεύσει (Isoc. Ad Nic. 35). Whenever you desire to gain a thorough understanding of such things as it is fitting that kings should know, pursue them by experience as well as by philosophy; because philos ophy will show you the way, but training yourself in the actual doing of things will give you power to deal with affairs. Observe the deeds and accidents which befall both common men and kings, for if you are mindful of the past you will plan better for the future.

The passage represents a valuable testimony for the role of history in Isocrates’ paideia. “Here for the first time historical writing begins to influence political thought and the general culture of the whole era,” wrote Werner Jaeger emphatically.³⁶ In this passage Isocrates distances himself from Platonic paideia, centred around the abstract study of dialectics and mathematics, and offers his own philosophia, which provides the highest possible intellectual and moral education.³⁷ Moreover, he recommends training through experience (ἐμπειρία) where the knowledge of historical facts can be used to judge the future. In Isocrates’ educational system – which became predominant in the GraecoRoman world and was rediscovered and exploited in the European Renaissance – rhetoric is not an abstract notion meant to impress the audience, as it could be for the sophists, but it has a direct effect on politics and the management of the public affairs. The ultimate goal of Isocrates’ paideia is to create a ruling class that could successfully tackle the complex political issues of fourth-century-BC Athens.³⁸ In order to achieve this goal, the student of rhetoric should rely on history. The rhetorical discourse, says Isocrates in the Panathenaicus, should be “packed with history and philosophy.”³⁹ He also implies that the ability to express proper judge-

 Jaeger (1944) 101. Jaeger identifies the phrase τὰ παρεληλυθότα μνημονεύειν (“to be mindful of the past,” “to keep the past alive in memory”) as the essence of all historical study: Jaeger (1944) 311 n. 99.  Isocrates constantly refers to his own educational activity as φιλοσοφία; the use of this word in Isocrates is analysed in Livingstone (2007); cf. Brunello (2015) 4 n. 6.  Marrou (1965) 131 139; Hadot (2005).  Isoc. Panath. 246: ἐδόκεις μοι σπουδάζειν περὶ αὐτῶν, ὅτι δὲ προελομένου σοῦ συνθεῖναι λόγον μηδὲν ὅμοιον τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν ῥᾳθύμως ἀναγιγνώσκουσιν ἁπλοῦν εἶναι δόξοντα καὶ ῥᾴδιον καταμαθεῖν, τοῖς δ’ ἀκριβῶς διεξιοῦσιν αὐτὸν καὶ πειρωμένοις κατιδεῖν ὃ τοὺς ἄλλους λέληθεν, χαλεπὸν φανούμενον καὶ δυσκαταμάθητον καὶ πολλῆς μὲν ἱστορίας γέμοντα καὶ φιλο σοφίας, παντοδαπῆς δὲ μεστὸν ποικιλίας καὶ ψευδολογίας, οὐ τῆς εἰθισμένης μετὰ κακίας βλάπ τειν τοὺς συμπολιτευομένους, ἀλλὰ τῆς δυναμένης μετὰ παιδείας ὡφελεῖν ἢ τέρπειν τοὺς ἀκούοντας.

5.2 Isocrates and the Greek Historians

131

ment on a given fact is connected to a knowledge of history and mentions the accuracy of previous historians of Spartan history.⁴⁰ However, Isocrates was not concerned with the truth of historical narrative or its methodology. The approach of ancient historians to historical facts was very different from Isocrates’: history represents, for Isocrates, an instrument for moral and political education.⁴¹ Even if historical facts appear very often in Isocrates’ writings, he never mentions previous or contemporary historians by name, and never refers to a specific historian or to a work of history.⁴² This fact is not entirely surprising, given the limited number of quotations of predecessors one finds in fifth- and fourth-centuryBC Greek prose authors generally. However, despite the absence of direct quotations, the works of Herodotus, Thucydides, and (to a different degree) Xenophon were well known to Isocrates and other fourth-century-BC orators. There is, of course, no reason to believe that the orators made a direct and systematic use of works of history: a general influence and some textual analogies are, however, discernible. Scholarly efforts have concentrated on Isocrates’ knowledge of Thucydides. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, Blass demured on this issue, while Wilamowitz denied any direct influence of Thucydides on Isocrates.⁴³ But neither of them examined the matter in depth. Only in 1918 did the French scholar George Mathieu review many passages where Isocrates’ and Thucydides’ views seem to coincide. He concluded that Isocrates did not depend directly on Thucydides’ work, but borrowed general ideas (“d’idées générales”) from the Athenian historian.⁴⁴ Similar conclusions were adopted by other scholars,⁴⁵ but one should always keep in mind, with Luschnat, that the danger behind a comparison of passages from Isocrates and Thucydides is that often similarities are misinterpreted as dependencies, and thereon new hypothesis are built.⁴⁶ The purpose of this section is not to re-examine this controversial issue. However, one cannot deny that in some specific passages Isocrates shows familiarity with the text of Thucydides. One recalls immediately Isocrates’ Panegyricus (especial Isoc. Panath. 156, 177.  Nouhaud (1982) 109; cf. Schmitz Kahlmann (1939).  Cf. Nouhaud (1982) 121.  Blass (1887 1898) 1.113; Wilamowitz (1893) 99.  Mathieu (1918) 128.  Bodin (1932); Schmitz Kahlmann (1939); Jaeger (1944) 75 77; Nouhaud (1982) 115 117; Nicolai (2004) 84 85. An opposing view was expressed by Hudson Willams (1948): he suggested that the Isocrates passages interpreted as depending on Thucydides are actually the result of common rhetorical rules.  Luschnat (1970) 1277: “Die Gefahr bei solchen Vergleichen ist, daß man zu schnell Ähnlich keiten als Abhängigkeit deutet und darauf weitere Hypothesen baut.”

132

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

ly 23‒50) and Pericles’ funeral oration in Thucydides’ second book: the similarities between their arguments were already noticed by the erudite Byzantine reader of classical texts, Photius.⁴⁷ Thucydides’ text resembles also Lysias’ Funeral Oration,⁴⁸ and some kind of intertextual dependence had already been envisaged between Thucydides, Lysias, and Isocrates.⁴⁹ There are also other significant parallels between Thucydides and Isocrates: for instance, the Athenian’s speech to the Lacedaemonians in Thuc. 1.73‒78 resembles Isocrates’ Panegyricus (97‒106);⁵⁰ moreover, when Isocrates discusses the different devices used by poets and prose writers in Euag. 9‒10, the words he uses recall the beginning of Thucydides’ (most notably 1.10.3 and 1.21.1).⁵¹ This proves that Isocrates directly knew Thucydides’ historical work, which influenced his reasoning and his knowledge of the past, even if he used many other sources, written and oral, in the composition of his speeches. Among the extant orators, no clear predecessor of Isocrates has been identified, even though ancient and modern commentators have proposed the names of Protagoras, Prodicus, Thrasymachus, and Gorgias. However, as Stephen Usher rightly pointed out, “the deliberative speeches in Thucydides’ History provide more substantial models than any of those shadowy figures.”⁵² A common view assumes that Herodotus and Xenophon, unlike Thucydides, were appreciated and widely read in the fourth century BC and in the Hellenistic age.⁵³ However, this view is not supported by undisputed testimonies and is in any case difficult to prove, given the fragmentary state of a great portion of Hellenistic literature.

 Phot. Bibl. cod. 260, 487b31 35: Ἰσοκρατικὴ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ὑποστάσεων ἡ συνέ χεια. τάχα δ᾽ ἄν τις αὐτὸν αἰτιάσαιτο κλοπῆς, ἐξ ὧν ἐν τῷ πανηγυρικῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ πολλὰ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἐπιταφίους λόγους εἰρημένων ᾿Aρχίνῳ τε καὶ Θουκυδίδῃ καὶ Λυσίᾳ ὑπεβάλετο. Cf. Buchner (1958) 45 65; Most (2006) 383 385.  See esp. Thuc. 2.41.4 (πᾶσαν μὲν θάλασσαν καὶ γῆν ἐσβατὸν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ τόλμῃ καταναγ κάσαντες γενέσθαι, πανταχοῦ δὲ μνημεῖα κακῶν τε κἀγαθῶν ἀίδια ξυγκατοικίσαντες) and Lys. 2.2 (οὔτε γὰρ γῆς ἄπειροι οὔτε θαλάττης οὐδεμιᾶς, πανταχῇ δὲ καὶ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις οἱ τὰ αὑτῶν πενθοῦντες κακὰ τὰς τούτων ἀρετὰς ὑμνοῦσι). Other, less evident, similarities have been recognized by Pearson (1943); a better assessment in Buchner (1958) passim.  Nouhaud (1982) 113 116.  Bodin (1934).  Cf. Nünlist (2009) 174.  Usher (1999) 297.  Hornblower (1995) 47: “Such transparent and accessible charmers as Herodotus and Xeno phon were widely read and known in the fourth century and early Hellenistic periods, in a way that the difficult Thucydides was surely not.”

5.2 Isocrates and the Greek Historians

133

Despite the harshness of Thucydides’ prose, attested in later authors such as Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, his work, before representing a model for history-writing, was highly esteemed by orators and teachers of rhetoric for the speeches it contained. At the same time, Herodotus’ significance for historians of the Hellenistic age is unquestionable: Alexander’s conquests in the East widened the geographical perspective of historians and Herodotus provided a reference point for any historian dealing with distant and somewhat exotic lands.⁵⁴ Moreover, anyone treating the history of the Persian Wars was compelled to deal with Herodotus’ account. Isocrates in the Panegyricus, published around 380 BC, was probably influenced by Herodotus,⁵⁵ while the geographical description of Egypt in Isocrates’ Busiris finds many parallels in his second book.⁵⁶ The third and last of the canonical historians that can be related to Isocrates is his younger contemporary Xenophon: both were born in the 430’s BC. Only this time the enquiry does not concern the issue of Isocrates’ acquaintance with Xenophon’s works, but the reciprocal interdependence of their writings. The only existing general survey of this issue belongs to an old, but still valuable German dissertation by Karl Münscher, Xenophon in der griechisch-römischen Literatur. ⁵⁷ He considered each of Xenophon’s works and its dependence of or influence on Isocrates. However, a re-examination of their relationship, which can be accomplished only after an analysis of the publication of Xenophon’s works together with Isocrates’ orations, is desirable. Here I can only briefly consider several points. First, there were no fixed boundaries between genres in fourthcentury-BC prose writings, and this is especially true for Xenophon, who was a prolific and experimental author. As already stated in § 2.5, his literary status in antiquity was only partially related to historiography. However, these considerations do not undermine the fact that a common background has been identified between Xenophon’s Hellenica and Isocrates’ Panegyricus. ⁵⁸ There is also a short biographical anecdote worth mentioning. The battle of Mantinea in 362 BC is generally remembered for the death of the Theban strate-

 Murray (1974); Priestley (2014) passim.  Compare Isoc. Paneg. 18 with Hdt. 9.27 and Paneg. 97 with Hdt. 8.87, 90, 91, 95.  Nouhaud (1982) 119 120; Livingstone (2001) 75 79, 129 132, 157 159. A list of parallels be tween Isocrates and Herodotus goes back to a very brief article by Spencer (1924); Maass (1887) 581 595 compares Hdt. 3.80 82 with Isocrates’ Nicocles to prove a common source in Pro tagoras.  Münscher (1920) 6 24. Münscher concluded: “Zahlreich sind also di nachweisbaren Wech selbeziehungen in den Werken des Isokrates und X[enophon].” See also Nouhaud (1982) 120 121.  Münscher (1920) 8 12.

134

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

gos Epaminondas. There were many casualties on both sides, and among them that of the son of Xenophon, Gryllus, who fought with the Athenians and Spartans against the Thebans, Arcadians, and Boeotians. Aristotle reports that a great number of eulogies and epitaphs were written to honour Gryllus’ death, partly to please his father. Moreover, the Hellenistic biographer Hermippus states that Isocrates himself composed an encomium for Gryllus.⁵⁹ The anecdote is revealing of Xenophon’s fame at old age. It also shows that Isocrates and Xenophon probably knew each other personally: it is highly possible that they also read each other writings. Up to this point, a general survey of Isocrates’ relationship with Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon has been sketched. It seems appropriate to conclude this section with a quotation from the Panegyricus, where Isocrates is highlighting the significance of “the deeds of the past (αἱ πράξεις αἱ προγεγενημέναι), an inheritance common to all; however, the ability to make good use of them, to conceive the proper sentiments about them in each case, and to set them in a finished phrase, that is the peculiar gift of the wise.”⁶⁰ The focus is here on the reworking of the predecessors’ accounts, possibly implicating both orators and historians. But most significantly, Isocrates believes that the deeds of the past, being in common (κοιναί), are not subject to a specific authority, which leaves room for a stylistic reworking of the past. This does not entail, however, that the past should be falsely manipulated. Such an approach to history belongs clearly to the point of view of rhetoric, where persuasion of the audience was the main purpose. But it should not be forgotten that these considerations were only possible because of the previous historical tradition.⁶¹ Marrou, discussing Isocrates’ significance for historiography, asserted that his works represent “a consequence of the development of contemporary culture which included in its field the works of the historians and promoted Herodotus

 Both Aristotle and Hermippus are quoted in Diogenes Laertius’ biography of Xenophon (2.55): φησὶ δ᾽ ᾿Aριστοτέλης (fr. 68 Rose) ὅτι ἐγκώμια καὶ ἐπιτάφιον Γρύλλου μυρίοι ὅσοι συνέγρα ψαν, τὸ μὲρος καὶ τῷ πατρὶ χαριζόμενοι. ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἕρμιππος ἐν τῷ Περὶ Θεοφράστου (FGrHistC 1026 F 34) καὶ Ἰσοκράτην Γρύλλου φησὶ ἐγκώμιον γεγραφέναι. Cf. the commentary in Bollansée (1999) 331 333. On Gryllus’ death see also Ephor. FGrHist 70 F 85 and Paus. 1.3.4, 8.11.6 (cf. An derson [1974] 192 196).  Isoc. Paneg. 9: αἱ μὲν γὰρ πράξεις αἱ προγεγενημέναι κοιναὶ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν κατελείφθησαν, τὸ δ᾿ ἐν καιρῷ ταύταις καταχρήσασθαι καὶ τὰ προσήκοντα περὶ ἑκάστης ἐνθυμηθῆναι καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν εὖ διαθέσθαι τῶν εὖ φρονούντων ἴδιόν ἐστιν. Cf. Buchner (1958) 20 23, who connects the “deeds of the past” to the logoi epitaphioi.  Nicolai (2004) 76; Gehrke (2014) esp. § 3.

5.3 The Peripatetic Tradition and Greek Historiography

135

and Thucydides to the rank of classics.”⁶² Even if Marrou’s claim seems to exaggerate the significance of Herodotus and Thucydides for Isocrates, it is undeniable that the Athenian orator held in great esteem both history and the writers of history, including them in his educational programme, and thus making his contribution to the creation of the canon of Greek historiography.

5.3 The Peripatetic Tradition and Greek Historiography The Peripatetic tradition represents yet another set of sources that needs to be evaluated for the study of canon-formation in the pre-Hellenistic and Hellenistic age. In fact, Aristotle’s own writings cannot be avoided when dealing with the early reception of Greek historiography, even though his interest in this domain of knowledge has often been swiftly dismissed because of his remarks in the famous passage in the Poetics. Here Aristotle considers poetry more philosophical and more elevated than history, because one relates to the things that might occur (τὸν δὲ οἷα ἂν γένοιτο), the other to actual events (τὸν μὲν τὰ γενόμενα λέγειν).⁶³ Consequently, history focuses on particulars (τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον), while poetry on the general (τὰ καθόλου). To clear any doubts, Aristotle explains what he means by τὰ καθόλου: “the kind of things which suits a certain kind of person to say or to do, in terms of probability and necessity.” He then concludes with his considerations on τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον: “what Alcibiades did or experienced.”⁶⁴ This juxtaposition between history and poetry is very telling for the student of ancient historiography, since on the one hand it implies that Aristotle could be referring to Thucydides’ account of what Alcibiades did or experienced, but at the same time it could also refer to many other contemporary historians whose works have not come down to us.⁶⁵ On the other hand, in the definition of the universal, which is the object described by poetry, the philosopher uses

 Marrou (1965) 137. “un reflet du progrès de la culture contemporaine qui avait inclus dans son domaine l’œuvre des historiens et promu au rang de classiques Hérodote et Thucydide.”  Cf. Gomme (1954a) 178; von Fritz (1958) 115 124. Both scholars pointed out that if history is “less philosophical” than poetry, it does not mean that it is not philosophical at all. The contrast is less clear than some other scholars have suggested, e. g. Finley (1975) 11 12.  Arist. Poet. 1451b8 11: ἔστιν δὲ καθόλου μέν, τῷ ποίῳ τὰ ποῖα ἄττα συμβαίνει λέγειν ἢ πράττειν κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον (…) τὸ δὲ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον, τί A ᾿ λκιβιάδης ἔπραξεν ἢ τί ἔπαθεν.  See de Ste. Croix (1975) 50 51: “(Aristotle) must at least have had Thucydides in mind among others, and indeed was probably thinking mainly of Thucydides (…).”

136

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

two words: eikos and anankaion. Both words are representative not only of poetry, but also of rhetoric and historiography. Eikos (“plausibility,” “probability”) was the main argumentative device in Greek law: when hard evidence was unavailable, forensic orators argued from probability, ideally to uncover the truth, or, as was more likely, to pursue their own agendas.⁶⁶ The eikos was thus used as one of the means of persuasion in judicial oratory. A theory of the eikos as a device to achieve persuasion is expounded in Aristotle’s Rhetoric and in Anaximenes’ Rhetoric to Alexander,⁶⁷ but the earliest known example of eikos-argument comes from the Homeric hymn to Hermes (composed around 500 BC). The new-born god, to defend himself from the accusations of Apollo on the disappearance of his sacred cows, uses an eikos-argument to suggest that a new-born baby could not have stolen the cows – avoiding to mention that he, as a god, had supernatural strength.⁶⁸ Aeschylus in the Eumenides (458 BC) fills his verses with terms borrowed from judicial rhetoric, focusing on persuasive arguments based on plausibility.⁶⁹ Fifth-century-BC deliberative and judicial speeches have not come down to us, but it is attested that Tisias and Corax were the first to employ argumentation based on plausibility.⁷⁰ It is in Antiphon’s First Tetralogy that the complex mode of eikos-argumentation is explained and codified.⁷¹ Thucydides, who unreservedly praises Antiphon for the strength of his character and the brilliance of his speeches (Thuc. 8.86.1‒2), was considered one of his pupils already in antiquity.⁷² The Athenian historian, too, uses eikos-argumentation not only in the speeches he inserted into his work, but throughout his History. ⁷³ This has led many scholars to suppose that Thucydides learned to  See Wohl (2014b).  Arist. Rh. 1357a32 b1; 1402b12 16. Anaximen. Rhet. ad Alex. 7.4 6, passim. Cf. Gagarin (2014); Allen (2014).  See esp. h.Merc. 265: οὐδὲ βοῶν ἐλατῆρι κραταιῷ φωτὶ ἔοικα. The whole defensive speech of Hermes before Apollo (h.Merc. 260 277) and Zeus (h.Merc. 320 ff.) is full of legal argumentations. See Kennedy (1963) 40; Càssola (1975) 171 174; Richardson (2010) 21 24; Vergados (2013) 130 147.  For an explicit reference to the idea of εἰκός see Aesch. Eum. 194; for the use of τεκμήριον: Aesch. Eum. 447, 485, 662; for τέκμαρ: Eum. 244; for μαρτύρια, μάρτυρες, and μαρτυρέω: Eum. 318, 485, 576, 594, 608, 643, 664, 794 797. See Kennedy (1963) 41 43 and the commentary to this tragedy in Sommerstein (1989) passim.  Kennedy (1963) 58 61; Cole (1991) 82 83.  Kennedy (1963) 90; Gagarin (1990); Butti de Lima (1996) 71 72; Bearzot (2015).  See Marcellin. 22; Anon. Vita Thuc. 2 (published in Piccirilli 1985, 45); Suda α 2745 (s.v. ᾿Aντι φῶν); θ 414 (s.v. Θουκυδίδης); schol. Thuc. 4.135.2, 8.68.1. Cf. Piccirilli (1985) 21. It is possible, of course, that the biographic tradition on Thucydides being a pupil of Antiphon originated from the Thucydidean praise.  For the value of eikos in Thucydides’ speeches: Danninger (1931). See also Westlake (1958); Tordoff (2014); Bearzot (2015).

5.3 The Peripatetic Tradition and Greek Historiography

137

exploit persuasiveness through the eikos-argumentation precisely from Antiphon.⁷⁴ Herodotus uses the eikos-argumentation (in the Ionic form οἰκός), even if not as frequently as Thucydides and often with the meaning of “convenient,” “natural,” “just.”⁷⁵ Notwithstanding, the historian from Halicarnassus is aware of the rhetorical argumentative methods and especially of the concept of probability and plausibility expressed in the word eikos. The logic of probability works through analogy,⁷⁶ and since it is employed when clear evidence is unavailable, it is not by mere chance that many occurrences have been identified in the book dedicated to Egyptian matters.⁷⁷ There are also other significant examples of the use of eikos in Herodotus, such as the story of Cambyses’ folly and the debate on the best forms of government between three noble Persians, Otanes, Megabyzos, and Darius.⁷⁸ Necessity (ἀναγκαῖον, ἀνάγκη, ἀναγκάζω), mentioned in Aristotle’s Poetics as a component part of poetry, is another significant concept in Greek historical writing. It helps to clarify human responsibilities and the causality of events. There is a clear distinction in Herodotus between divine necessity, which is the result of human wrongdoings, and natural necessity. The latter is often related to an authority (king, queen, tyrant, military commander) and its despotic coercion.⁷⁹ For Thucydides, the concept of necessity is central in his historical account. Necessity triggered the Peloponnesian War in Thucydides’ account since, as he clearly recalls, the growth of the Athenian power and the fear it produced among other communities necessarily brought the Lacedaemonians to begin the conflict.⁸⁰ Pericles, in the funeral oration, declares that it is foolish to engage in a war, except when it is necessary.⁸¹ The investigation of the numerous occurrences of the concept of necessity in Thucydides has already yielded a complex

 See Finley (1947) 46 54; Westlake (1958); Gommel (1966); Ginzburg (1994); Gagarin (1997) 9.  Bearzot (2015).  See Corcella (1984) esp. 220 235.  See: Hdt. 2.22, 2.25.2; 2.27; 2.43.2 3; 2.45; 2.49.2 3; 2.56; 2.93. See Lloyd’s commentary in Asheri/Lloyd/Corcella (2007).  Cambyses: Hdt. 3.38.2; debate at the Persian court: Hdt. 3.80 86. Some further examples are listed in Westlake (1958) 448 and Butti de Lima (1996) 155 158.  Vignolo Munson (2001) 36 38.  Thuc. 1.23.6: τοὺς ᾿Aθηναίους (…) μεγάλους γιγνομένους καὶ φόβον παρέχοντας τοῖς Λακεδαι μονίοις ἀναγκάσαι ἐς τὸ πολεμεῖν.  Thuc. 2.61.1: καὶ γὰρ οἷς μὲν αἵρεσις γεγένηται τἆλλα εὐτυχοῦσι, πολλὴ ἄνοια πολεμῆσαι· εἰ δ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον ἦν (…).

138

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

wealth of material for the interpretation of the historian’s method, accuracy, and borrowings from rhetoric and tragedy.⁸² When Aristotle speaks of εἰκός and ἀναγκαῖον as typical features of poetry in Poet. 1451b8‒11, he appears to be deliberately ignoring the significance that these words bear in historiographical discourse. There is yet another clue in the Poetics which is quite revealing of Aristotle’s approach to previous historiography. In the above-mentioned passage in the Poetics, Aristotle declares that the difference between a historian and a poet is not the use of verse or prose, since “Herodotus’ work could be versified and would be just as much a kind of history in verse as in prose.”⁸³ This passage is not to be dismissed as a banal and general reference to Herodotus: it displays that Herodotus was the representative of historiography for Aristotle and his readers. Apart from the Poetics, there are some other works of the philosopher that need to be briefly considered. Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Ephorus are among the sources of the Athenaion Politeia (not written by Aristotle, but clearly the product of the Aristotelian school). However, their presence in this work is meagre, and its main sources are the authors of Atthides, the local historians of Attica: Androtion, Clidemus, and perhaps even Phanodemus.⁸⁴ Both the Athenaion Politeia (and the remaining lost works on the constitutions of the Greek poleis of the Aristotelian school) and Aristotle’s Politics rely on local historiography, a branch of ancient historical writing that does not intersect with canonical texts. A fundamental text that must be considered when evaluating Aristotle’s relation with historiography is his Rhetoric. Together with Anaximenes’ Rhetoric to Alexander,⁸⁵ it represents the earliest example of ancient Greek treatises devoted to rhetoric.⁸⁶ The strict relation between the Aristotelian treatment of technical and nontechnical proofs (ἔντεχνοι and ἄτεχνοι πίστεις) and the narrative of historical accounts cannot be ignored. For instance, the μαρτύρια (“testimonies”), which be See de Romilly (1971); Ostwald (1988); Gengler (2007). The general lexical analysis of ἀνάγκη in Schreckenberg (1964) needs to be slightly modified: see Wooley (1967).  Arist. Poet. 1451b2 4: εἴη γὰρ ἂν τὰ Ἡροδότου εἰς μέτρα τεθῆναι καὶ οὐδὲν ἧττον ἂν εἴη ἱστο ρία τις μέτα μέτρου ἢ ἄνευ μέτρων (transl. S. Halliwell).  That the author of the Athenaion Politeia used the Atthidographers, the local historians of Attica, was suggested already in Wilamowitz (1893) 1.260 290. Cf. Jacoby (1949) passim; Lusch nat (1970) 1284 1288; Rhodes (1993) 15 30. On the Atthidographers see Rhodes (1990); Harding (2007); Bearzot/Landucci (2010).  For Anaximenes’ paternity of the treatise: Patillon (1997).  See in general Kennedy (1963) 82 124; Gastaldi (1993). For the Greek text of Aristotle’s Rhet oric I have relied on Kassel (1976).

5.3 The Peripatetic Tradition and Greek Historiography

139

long to the non-technical proofs and feature typically in judicial oratory,⁸⁷ are also employed in historiography, especially by Herodotus and Thucydides.⁸⁸ Technical proofs, on the other hand, such as persuasion through πάθος and ἤθος,⁸⁹ have been recognized in some of the speeches of both Herodotus and Thucydides.⁹⁰ Despite Quintilian’s sharp opinion that history scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum (Inst. 10.1.31),⁹¹ Aristotle’s theorization of judicial oratory are embedded in fifth- and fourth-century-BC Greek historiography.⁹² Even if the analysis of Aristotle’s Rhetoric as a fundamental text in the systematization of the discipline for both rhetoric and historiography does not involve a canonization of any given historian, a close examination of isolated passages produces some fruitful results. To elucidate Aristotle’s attitude towards historiography I here pursue further the Aristotelian opposition between a lawgiver (νομοθέτης) and a member of a public assembly (ἐκκλησιαστής) or a judge (δικαστής). The lawgiver’s judgment applies to things in general (περὶ καθόλου) and the future (περὶ μελλόντων), while a member of an assembly or a judge must decide on present and definitive issues.⁹³ The sources that a lawgiver can exploit to judge the general are: “travel reports, since they help us to understand the laws of other populations, and, for political debates, the investigations of those who write on the deeds of men [i. e. historical works]. However, all these things pertain to politics, rather than rhet-

 See Arist. Rh. 1355b35 39; 1375a22 25.  For Thucydides: Gommel (1966); for both historians: Butti de Lima (1996) 127 170.  See Arist. Rh. 1356a1 35 and 1377b16 1378a29.  See Gommel (1966) 17 36; Kennedy (1963) 45 51; Carey (1994); Gagarin (1994).  There appears to be a contradiction between this statement and the previous est [history] enim proxima poetis, et quodam modo carmen solutum est (10.1.31) and the following discussion of Sallust, Livy, Thucydides, and Xenophon as valuable models for every orator (Inst. 10.1.32 33).  Cf. Desideri (1994); Ginzburg (1994); Ginzburg (2000); Pelling (2012).  Arist. Rh. 1354b5 11: τὸ δὲ πάντων μέγιστον, ὅτι ἡ μὲν τοῦ νομοθέτου κρίσις οὐ κατὰ μέρος ἀλλὰ περὶ μελλόντων τε καὶ καθόλου ἐστίν, ὁ δ’ ἐκκλησιαστὴς καὶ δικαστὴς ἤδη περὶ παρόντων καὶ ἀφωρισμένων κρίνουσιν. Similar considerations are to be found also in Arist. Rh. 1374b10 16: καὶ τὸ τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις συγγιγνώσκειν ἐπιεικές. καὶ τὸ μὴ πρὸς τὸν νόμον ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν νομοθέτην, καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν τοῦ νομοθέτου σκοπεῖν, καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὴν πρᾶξιν ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν προαίρεσιν, καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὸ μέρος ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, μηδὲ ποῖός τις νυν, ἀλλὰ ποῖός τις ἦν ἀεὶ ἢ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ. According to Aristotle, rhetoric, like med icine and law, should deal with general, universal issues (Rh. 1356b30 34). On the relationship between rhetoric, historiography, and medicine: Momigliano (1985). For the points of connection between Herodotus and the Hippocratic corpus: Thomas (2006). On judges and historians: Ginz burg (1991) with some adjustments in Desideri (1994).

140

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

oric.”⁹⁴ The clear distinction between travel reports (γῆς περίοδοι) and works of history (referred to with the circumlocution αἱ τῶν περὶ τὰς πράξεις γραφόντων ἱστορίαι) is significant, for it concerns two different historiographical approaches: the description of the laws and customs (νόμοι) of non-Greek populations and, on the other hand, the works of history that are useful for political debates. One could be tempted to identify these two approaches with the two canonical historians and imagine that Aristotle was actually referring to Herodotus and Thucydides. But I will cautiously recall that we do not possess the writings of the many historians and authors of γῆς περίοδοι that Aristotle may have had in mind when discussing the sources for lawgivers. Other passages of the Rhetoric prompt further interesting considerations. For instance, Thucydides is implicitly quoted in Aristotle’s treatment of the enthymeme, a kind of syllogism, deduced from few premises: “if one of these premises is already known, it is unnecessary to mention it: the hearer can add it himself. Hence, to prove that Dorieus has won a contest where the prize was a crown, it is sufficient to say that he won at the Olympic games; there is no need to add that the prize at the Olympic games is a crown: everybody knows it.”⁹⁵ The example chosen by Aristotle to illustrate the enthymeme is very significant, since Thucydides, referring to the events of the year 428 BC, wrote: “it was the Olympiad where Dorieus won his second victory” (Thuc. 3.8: ἦν δὲ Ὀλύμπιας ἡ Δοριεὺς Ῥόδιος τὸ δεύτερον ἐνίκα). The mention of Dorieus in the Rhetoric cannot be casual, and it connects Aristotle’s treatise with the Thucydidean text.⁹⁶ Herodotus’ presence in the Rhetoric is also well attested, albeit ambiguous. For instance, Aristotle refers specifically to a passage in Herodotus’ Book Two as an example of cruelty in a speech.⁹⁷ However, the words reported by Aristotle do

 Arist. Rh. 1360a33 37: ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι πρὸς μὲν τὴν νομοθεσίαν αἱ τῆς γῆς περίοδοι χρήσιμοι (ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ λαβεῖν ἔστι τοὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν νόμους), πρὸς δὲ τὰς πολιτικὰς συμβουλὰς αἱ τῶν περὶ τὰς πράξεις γραφόντων ἱστορίαι· ἄπαντα δὲ ταῦτα πολιτικῆς ἀλλ᾽ οὐ ῥητορικῆς ἔργον ἐστίν. Cf. Desideri (1994) 45, 51 53.  Arist. Rh. 1357a16 21: τὸ δ’ ἐνθύμημα συλλογισμόν, καὶ ἐξ ὀλίγων τε καὶ πολλάκις ἐλαττόνων ἢ ἐξ ὧν ὁ πρῶτος συλλογισμός· ἐὰν γὰρ ᾖ τι τούτων γνώριμον, οὐδὲ δεῖ λέγειν· αὐτὸς γὰρ τοῦτο προστίθησιν ὁ ἀκροατής, οἷον ὅτι Δωριεὺς στεφανίτην ἀγῶνα νενίκηκεν· ἱκανὸν γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Ὀλύμπια νενίκηκεν, τὸ δ’ ὅτι στεφανίτης τὰ Ὀλύμπια οὐδὲ δεῖ προσθεῖναι· γιγνώσκουσι γὰρ πάντες.  Cf. Ginzburg (1994) 8 9.  Arist. Rh. 1417a4 7: (…) ἢ θατέρου κακίαν· “ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατό μοι ὅτι, οὗ ἂν ᾖ αὐτός, ἔσται ἄλλα παιδία,” ὃ τοὺς ἀφισταμένους Αἰγυπτίους ἀποκρίνασθαί φησιν ὁ ‘Ηρόδοτος.

5.3 The Peripatetic Tradition and Greek Historiography

141

not correspond to Herodotus’ text and are rather misleading.⁹⁸ It presupposes, perhaps, that Aristotle’s readers were familiar with Herodotus’ work and especially with the Egyptian logos. There are a few words in Aristotle’s discussion of the continuous style (εἰρομένη λέξις) that have attracted the attention of Herodotean scholars. Continuous style is defined as “unpleasant due to its boundlessness” and, since it was typical of ancient authors, it was already outdated in the age of Aristotle. The passage of the Rhetoric is the following: “The continuous style is the ancient one; for example, ‘This is the exposition of the investigation of Herodotus of Thurii’; it was formerly used by all, but now only a few use it” (Rh. 1409a27‒29: ἡ μὲν οὖν εἰρομένη λέξις ἡ ἀρχαία ἐστίν “Ἡροδότου Θουρίου ἥδ᾽ ἱστορίης ἀπόδειξις”· ταύτῃ γὰρ πρότερον μὲν ἅπαντες, νῦν δὲ οὐ πολλοὶ χρῶνται [the description of the continuous style follows these words]). All the manuscripts of the Rhetoric, as well as some ancient commentaries of Aristotle,⁹⁹ preserve the words Ἡροδότου Θουρίου ἥδ᾽ ἱστορίης ἀπόδειξις, the opening words of Herodotus’ work, with the variant reading Θουρίου instead of Ἁλικαρνησσέος (‐έως, ‐ῆος, etc.) of the Herodotean manuscript tradition.¹⁰⁰ However, Alfred Schöll, in his 1855 edition of Herodotus,¹⁰¹ marked these words as a spurious, and many scholars followed his example.¹⁰² The reason behind this hypothesis was that Herodotus’ opening words do not fit in this context: they are not representative of the continuous style. The words might have been added as a marginal note to Aristotle’s text and later inserted in the text itself. However, it cannot be denied that Herodotus’ style was considered εἰρομένη (“continuous,” also

 Hdt. 2.30.4: Ψαμμήτιχος δὲ πυθόμενος ἐδίωκε· ὡς δὲ κατέλαβε, ἐδέετο πολλὰ λέγων καί σφεας θεοὺς πατρωίους ἀπολιπεῖν οὐκ ἔα καὶ τέκνα καὶ γυναῖκας. τῶν δὲ τινὰ λέγεται δέξαντα τὸ αἰδοῖον εἰπεῖν, ἔνθα ἂν τοῦτο ᾖ, ἔσεσθαι αὐτοῖσι ἐνθαῦτα καὶ τέκνα καὶ γυναῖκας.  Anonymi in Artem Rhetoricam Commentarium and Stephani in Artem Rhetoricam Commenta rium: see Rabe (1896) 194 and 318.  Aristotle’s passage, if considered authentic, displays the most ancient testimony for the label “Herodotus of Thurii” instead of “Herodotus of Halicarnassus.” Ancient testimonies recall the fact that Herodotus participated in the foundation of Thurii in Magna Graecia and was sub sequently referred to as Thurian: cf. Duris, FGrHist 76 F 64 apud Suda π 248; Strabo 14.2.16 C 656; Plut. De Her. mal. 868 A; Plut. De exil. 604F (τὸ δὲ Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνασέως ἱστορίης ἀπόδειξις πολλοὶ μεταγράφουσιν Ἡροδότου Θουρίου); Jul. Ep. 152 Bidez; Steph. Byz. θ 55 Billerbeck (s.v. Θούριοι; cf. Page, FGE 154). See Asheri/Llody/Corcella (2007) 72 and Wilson (2015) 1 2 with fur ther references to the debate on Herodotus’ self description as a native of Halicarnassus or of Thurii. Cf. also below § 7.2, p. 196 n. 32.  Schöll (1855) 26.  Most notably Jacoby (1913) 205 209 and two eminent editors of Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Ross (1959) 159 and Kassel (1976) 164.

142

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

called διῃρημένη) in antiquity.¹⁰³ This leads to the conclusion that the alleged interpolator was not far away from the truth, that is, that Aristotle, when discussing the ancient continuous style, was actually referring to Herodotus. Significantly for the topic of this book, Aristotle defines this style as “unpleasant due to its boundlessness,” which shows that Aristotle didn’t hold Herodotus’ style in great esteem.¹⁰⁴ If we compare this conclusion with the negative assessment of historiography as opposed to poetry in the Poetics (1451b.5‒7), it will be clear that Aristotle, despite quoting both Herodotus and Thucydides, was not directly concerned in the formation of the canons of Greek historiography. On the other hand, Aristotle’s attitude can illuminate and enhance Theophrastus’ praise of Herodotus and Thucydides in the words reported by Cicero: “[Herodotus and Thucydides] were the first, as Theophrastus says, to rouse history to speak in a fuller and more ornate style than their predecessors had used.”¹⁰⁵ In conclusion, it appears that Theophrastus distanced himself from his teacher’s opinion regarding the style of Herodotus, and was truly the first ancient critic to make Herodotus and Thucydides the canonical authors of Greek historiography.

5.4 A Hellenistic Source for the First Century BC Canons? Now that the potential fourth-century-BC sources for the formation of the canons of Greek historiography have been considered, I would like to focus on the Hellenistic age. Before embarking on this winding road, it must always be kept in mind that a wide chronological gap exists in our sources between the great majority of canonical historians and the first testimonies which define the canons, namely Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian. In other words, there is no clear testimony for the existence of historiographical canons before Cicero in the first century BC. The obvious question is: did Cicero, Dionysius, and Quin-

 See Demetr. Eloc. 13: ἡ δὲ τις διῃρημένη ἑρμηνεία καλεῖται, ἡ εἰς κῶλα λελυμένη οὐ μάλα ἀλλήλοις συνηρτημένα, ὡς ἡ Ἑκαταίου, καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν Ἡροδότου, καὶ ὅλως ἡ ἀρχαία πᾶσα. Further examples are quoted in Spengel (1867) 391 392. The εἰρομένη λέξις is defined as “con tinuous, running style, i. e. not antithetic or with balanced periods” in LSJ, 491, s.v. εἴρω.  Cf. Priestley (2014) 199, where, however, the possibility of an interpolation is not discussed and the presence of Herodotus’ proem in Arist. Rh. 1409a27 29 is taken for granted.  Theophr. fr. 697 Fortenbaugh apud Cic. Orat. 39: primisque ab his [Herodotus and Thucy dides], ut ait Theophrastus, historia commota est, ut auderet uberius quam superiores et ornatius dicere.

143

5.4 A Hellenistic Source for the First Century BC Canons?

tilian work out the canon of historiography on their own, or did they rely on previous sources? To answer this question, one needs to compare systematically the lists of canonical historians provided by Cicero, Dionysius, and Quintilian. The following table – which includes a list of Greek historians in Cicero’s On the Orator and Hortensius, the rhetorical treatises of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory – albeit monotonous and dry, will enable a clear analysis of this problem. Cicero, De or.

Cicero, Hort.

Dionysius. Hal.

Quintilian, Inst.

Herodotus

●

●

●

●

Thucydides

●

●

●

●

Xenophon

●

Philistus

●

●

●

●

Theopompus

●

●

●

●

Ephorus

●

●

Callisthenes

●

Timaeus

●

●

●

Clitarchus

●

Timagenes

●

From these tables, Dionysius’ strict selection, which includes only five historians, is easily discernible: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Philistus and Theopompus. Cicero in the Hortensius is also very selective, but, comparing his list with Dionysius’, he excludes Xenophon and includes Ephorus. If the historians mentioned in Cicero’s Hortensius are compared with the first five historians discussed in the relevant passage of the On the Orator, it is evident that the list includes the same historians: Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus. This displays Cicero’s narrow selection of Greek canonical historians. His broad selection, on the other hand, includes Callisthenes and Timaeus (discussed above § 2.3). Quintilian, just like Cicero, excluded Xenophon from his canon, but felt the need to justify his selection, claiming that Xenophon non excidit mihi, sed inter philosophos reddendus est (Inst. 10.1.75). This means that he relied on one or more previous sources to discuss Greek historians in his Institutes of Oratory. And it appears that his source(s) included Xenophon in the narrow circle of the most valuable Greek historians.

144

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

The relationship between Dionysius’ On Imitation and the canons of Greek literature in the tenth book of Quintilian’s Institutes (10.1.46‒84) was already tackled in the mid-sixteenth century by the French scholar and editor of classical texts Henri Estienne, also known by the Latin name Henricus Stephanus (1531‒ 1598).¹⁰⁶ In the essay that closes his 1554 edition of some of Dionysius’ treatises, Estienne suggested that Quintilian depended on Dionysius’ On Imitation: “Quintilianum profecto qui quam plurima alia e libris Dionysii in suas institutiones transtulit, multa hinc etiam mutuatum constat.” Next to a useful list of passages on Greek historians from both Dionysius and Quintilian, Estienne added also some quotations from Cicero. Hence, the French sixteenth-century scholar had already located the most important sources for the “elogia de scriptoribus Graecis,” as he called them, the same scriptores that more than two centuries later David Ruhnken would label as canonical. Many scholars followed the steps of Henri Estienne and acknowledged that Dionysius was Quintilian’s source for the definition of historiographical canons.¹⁰⁷ Only Hermann Usener rejected this simplistic hypothesis in the final pages of his work on the On Imitation. ¹⁰⁸ He pointed out the inconsistencies between Quintilian’s evaluation of Greek historians (Inst. 10.1.73‒75) and Dionysius’ treatises, concluding with a peremptory phrase: “ergo fieri nequit ut a Dionysii de imitatione libro Quintilianus pendeat.”¹⁰⁹ Usener suggested that the similarities were to be ascribed to a common source, which was used as a model by both Dionysius and Quintilian, and this source went back to Alexandrian erudition. Thus, Usener in 1889 revaluated Ruhnken’s hypothesis on the Alexandrian origins of the canons of Greek historiography. The idea of a common source is very attractive and explains the similarities and differences in the canonical lists of Cicero, Dionysius, and Quintilian. However, Usener employed the same methods that are still used today to determine the manuscript tradition of ancient authors: he searched for an archetype of the historiographical canons through mechanical consistencies and inconsistencies of names. Such an old-fashioned approach should be reconsidered, because it implies that ancient literary canons had a single, monolithic origin and were corrupted by later authors such as Cicero, Dionysius, and Quintilian.¹¹⁰ The first chapter of this book has shown the flaws of such premises. Even if there was

 Cf. Kecskeméti/Boudou/Cazes (2003).  A great number of editors of Dionysius’ rhetorical treatises followed Estienne’s conclusions: Sylburg, Hudson, Howell, Reiske. Cf. Steffen (1876) 27 31.  Usener (1889) 110 142.  Usener (1889) 114.  Cf. Nicolai (1992) 331.

5.4 A Hellenistic Source for the First Century BC Canons?

145

a common starting point, there were many canons and many authorities that issued them. It is worth remembering that Dionysius, when beginning his treatment of Thucydides, refers to previous philosophers and orators who praised Thucydides as the best representative of historical narrative and deliberative oratory (Dion. Hal. Th. 2.2; cf. above § 3.6): whether these authorities were slightly earlier contemporaries of Dionysius or Hellenistic authors cannot be determined. Another clue that points to a Hellenistic source is Cicero’s and Quintilian’s treatment of Ephorus and Theopompus. Considering all the testimonies of these two historians collected in Jacoby’s Fragmente that are transmitted through Cicero and Quintilian, it is easy to detect that these Latin authors had a very superficial knowledge of Ephorus’ and Theopompus’ works.¹¹¹ All the passages that mention them refer to threadbare biographical information of the two historians as pupils of Isocrates and mark only a few considerations on their style. Turning to the fragments, both Cicero and Quintilian refer to Ephorus’ Περὶ λέξεως, a work that does not belong to the historiographical tradition,¹¹² but do not preserve any fragment from his historical work. Almost the same goes for Theopompus. Cicero claims the possession of a letter to Aristotle by Theopompus, but the nature of this text cannot be determined.¹¹³ The only possible reference to a passage in a historical work by Theopompus is preserved in Cic. Off. 2.40 (FGrHist 115 F 286): Bardulis Illyrius latro, de quo est apud Theopompum. Bardylis is the Illyrian king defeated by Philip II of Macedon in 359/8 a.C. who probably appeared in the Philippica. ¹¹⁴ Yet the reference is general and vague: Cicero could have relied on an epitome or an intermediate source that referred to Theopompus as the source on the Illyrian Bardylis. This single fragment does not prove that Cicero had a direct knowledge of the Philippica.

 Ephorus’ testimonies in Cicero and Quintilian: FGrHist 70 TT 3b (Cic. De or. 2.57, 94; Orat. 172); 28b (cf. Cic. Brut. 204; De or. 3.35 36; Att. 6.1.12; Quint. Inst. 2.8.11; 10.1.74); 29 (Cic. Orat. 191). Theopompus’ testimonies in the same Latin authors: FGrHist 115 TT 5a (Cic. De or. 2.57, 94, 3.36; Quint. Inst. 2.8.11); 21 (Quint. Inst. 10.1.74); 25b (Cic. Att. 2.6.2); 26a (Cic. Leg. 1.5); 36 (Cic. Brut. 66); 37 (Cic. Orat. 207); 38 (Cic. Orat. 151; Quint. Inst. 9.4.35); 39 (Cic. De or. 3.36); 40 (Cic. Hort. fr. 29 Straume Zimmermann, fr. 15 Grilli).  Ephor. FGrHist 70 F 107a b (Cic. Orat. 191, 194, 218; Quint. Inst. 9.4.87). A more accurate col lection of the fragments of Ephorus’ Περὶ λέξεων in Radermacher (1951) 195 197.  Theop. FGrHist 115 F 251 apud Cic. Att. 12.40.2: συμβουλευτικὸν saepe conor. nihil reperio, et quidem mecum habeo et ᾿Aριστοτέλους et Θεοπόμπου πρὸς ᾿Aλέξανδρον. sed quid simile? illi et quae ipsis honesta essent scribebant et grata Alexandro. ecquid tu eius modi reperis? mihi quidem nihil in mentem venit. On Theopompus’ letter(s) see also Athen. 6.230e, 13.595e.  Cf. Theop. FGrHist 115 T 29 apud Polyb. 38.6.4. On Bardylis: Kaerst (1897); Matijašić (2015) 139 143.

146

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

This brief analysis displays that there is nothing to support the opinion that Cicero and Quintilian had a direct knowledge of either Ephorus or Theopompus: the Latin authors probably relied on a previous biographical and/or rhetorical tradition that discussed the life and works of these two historians. The possibility that Quintilian used Cicero as the source of his remarks on Ephorus and Theopompus cannot be excluded, especially if we consider also the similar phrasing used to define Herodotus in both Cicero’s Hortensius-fragment and in Quintilian’s treatment of canonical Greek historians.¹¹⁵ However, other Greek sources report the same biographical anecdotes on Ephorus and Theopompus as pupils of Isocrates, and contain a very similar pattern to Cicero’s and Quintilian’s.¹¹⁶ This partially supports the idea of a previous source or sources: whether Hellenistic or chronologically closer to Cicero, is difficult to determine. Apart from Ephorus and Theopompus in Cicero and Quintilian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus might conceal another unnoticed clue for a pre-Augustan source of the canons of Greek historiography. It has already been noticed that Philistus of Syracuse is described in the Letter to Pompeius as an imitator of Thucydides and the whole chapter dedicated to Philistus is built around a comparison with Thucydides.¹¹⁷ It is no coincidence that the rest of the sources that refer to Philistus’ imitation of Thucydides are Cicero and Quintilian.¹¹⁸ It appears that all these authors relied on the same tradition.

 See especially the adjective dulcis referred to Herodotus in Cic. Hort. fr. 29 Straume Zimmer mann: quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius, aut Philisto brevius, aut Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest? and in Quint. Inst. 10.1.73: densus et brevis et semper in stans sibi Thucydides, dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus. See, however, Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10, where the same word, although in Greek (γλυκύς), is again used to define Herodotus: Ἡροδότῳ μὲν οὖν, εἴ ποτε εὐφροσύνης σοι 〈δεῖ〉 [add. Geelius], μετὰ πολλῆς ἡσυχίας ἐντεύξῃ. τὸ γὰρ ἀνει μένον καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ τῆς ἀπαγγελίας ὑπόνοιαν παρέξει μυθῶδες μᾶλλον ἢ ἱστορικὸν τὸ σύγγραμμα εἶναι. On the other hand, Cicero uses dulcis again in De or. 2.58 to express Xenophon’s sweetness of language.  See Vita Isoc. 257.98 108 Westermann (FGrHist 70 T 28b) and Suda ε 3953 (FGrHist 70 T 28a; 115 T 28b).  See in general Dion. Hal. Pomp. 5. Cf. also Dion. Hal. Imit. 3.2: Φίλιστος δὲ μιμητής ἐστι Θουκυδίδου ἔξω τοῦ ἤθους, etc. The attitude expressed in Pomp. 5 follows the pattern used by Dionysius to define Xenophon as an imitator of Herodotus throughout Pomp. 4, which leads to a schematic evaluation of ancient historians in Dionysius (see above § 3.4).  Quint. Inst. 10.1.74 (FGrHist 556 T 15c): Philistus (…) imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior, ita aliquatenus lucidior. Cic. De or. 2.57 (FGrHist 556 T 17b): Syracosius Philistus, qui, cum Dionysi tyranni familiarissimus esset, otium suum consumpsit in historia scribenda maximeque Thucydi dem est, ut mihi videtur, imitatus. Cf. Cic. Qfr. 2.11.4 (FGrHist 556 T 17a) and Brut. 66 (FGrHist 556 T 21). There is also Theon, Prog. 63.22 24 (FGrHist 556 T 14, F 51), where Philistus’ is accused of plagiarism: καὶ μέντοι γε ὁ Φίλιστος τὸν ᾿Aττικὸν ὅλον πόλεμον ἐν τοῖς Σικελικοῖς ἐκ τῶν Θου

5.5 The Greek Historians in Alexandria

147

In the On Thucydides, however, Dionysius offers a different opinion. At the end of the treatise, he sets out to discuss Thucydides’ imitators among orators and historians.¹¹⁹ If on the one hand, “alone among the orators, Demosthenes imitated Thucydides in many ways,” on the other “no ancient historian, as far as I know, has imitated Thucydides in those qualities that make him stand out among the rest.”¹²⁰ It can be suggested that in the Letter to Pompeius Dionysius followed a previous scheme that provided a list of canonical Greek historians with some considerations on their style and the subject matter of their histories, while in the later On Thucydides, Dionysius expressed his own opinion and was not influenced by previous traditions that linked Philistus with Thucydides. Despite these testimonies, the search for a specific source for the canons of historiography seems to be vain: it is much more fruitful to contextualize the reception of each Greek historian in the Hellenistic age. This approach will at least contribute to clarifying the shaping of Greek historiographical canons in the age that predates Cicero and Dionysius.

5.5 The Greek Historians in Alexandria Even if the Hellenistic age has not yielded lists of canonical Greek historians or any apparent selection of preferred historiographers, and since alleged Hellenistic treatises on historiography (Peri historias and the like) provide no clue whatsoever of the canons (see above § 2.1), in this section I will investigate the presence of historians in the work of Alexandrians scholars. Since there is no comprehensive study which focuses on this issue, the aim of the following pages is to offer an overview of the historians’ reception in the Hellenistic age and to suggest, if not the presence of canons, at least the fact that some historians enjoyed a far greater reception than other historians, or, in Orwellian terms, that even if all historians are equal, some historians are more equal than others.

κυδίδου μετενήνοχε. In fact, in his Progymnasmata, Aelius Theon relied on Dionysius of Halicar nassus when discussing ancient Greek historians (see below § 6.2).  Dion. Hal. Th. 52.1: εἷς ἔτι μοι καταλείπεται λόγος ὁ περὶ τῶν μιμησαμένων τὸν ἄνδρα ῥητόρων τε καὶ συγγραφέων.  Dion. Hal. Th. 52.4: συγγραφέων μὲν οὖν ἀρχαίων, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι, Θουκυδίδου μιμητὴς [add. Sylburg] ἐγένετο κατά ταῦτὰ γε καθ᾽ ἃ δοκεῖ μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων διαφέρειν. For De mosthenes as imitator of Thucydides: Th. 53.1: ῥητόρων δὲ Δημοσθένης μόνος, ὥσπερ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσοι μέγα τι καὶ λαμπρὸν ἔδοξαν ποιεῖν ἐν λόγοις, οὕτω καὶ Θουκυδίδου ζηλωτὴς ἐγένετο κατὰ πολλὰ καὶ προσέθηκε τοῖς πολιτικοῖς λόγοις παρ᾿ ἐκείνου λαβών.

148

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

In the final sections of the Dionysian On Thucydides, the author refers explicitly to previous exegetical works on the Athenian historian: “Few are those who understand the whole of Thucydides, and even these few would be unable [to understand the whole of his text] without the support of grammatical exegesis.”¹²¹ What did Dionysius have in mind when he mentioned grammatical exegesis (γραμματικαὶ ἐξηγήσεις), i. e. linguistic interpretation, of the Thucydidean text? Was it a philological work on single words? Or could it perhaps refer to a continuous commentary of Thucydides focused on language, rather than historical content? And finally, a crucial question refers to chronology: was Dionysius referring to the works of his contemporaries? Or is he suggesting that there were Hellenistic, i. e. Alexandrian, interpretations of Thucydides? In his Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie (1889), Wilamowitz briefly remarked that “no exegetical work on Demosthenes or Thucydides was carried out in Alexandria.”¹²² His peremptory conclusion was contradicted by Hermann Usener, one of Wilamowitz’s teachers, in the same year when the Einleitung appeared.¹²³ Usener suggested that Dionysius, when writing his On Thucydides, fruitfully exploited exegetical commentaries written by Alexandrian scholars in the Hellenistic age.¹²⁴ For this interpretation, he relied heavily on Dionysius’ reference to linguistic interpretation in the above-quoted passage (Th. 51.1). The lack of material necessary for understanding this crucial issue has produced the contrasting and simultaneous opinions of Wilamowitz and Usener. But if on the one hand Wilamowitz’s view appears today to be untenable, Usener’s suggestion was supported by Otto Luschnat, who produced what is still today the definite work on the Thucydides scholia. ¹²⁵ He concluded that Diony Dion. Hal. Th. 51.1: εὐαρίθμητοι γάρ τινές εἰσιν οἷοι πάντα τὰ Θουκυδίδου συμβαλεῖν, καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὗτοι χωρὶς ἐξηγήσεως γραμματικῆς ἔνια. There is also another reference to these interpre tations where Dionysius is advising against an imitation of the most difficult and allusive pas sages in Thucydides that require a “linguistic interpretation” of the text, Dion. Hal. Th. 55.2: τὰς δὲ αἰνιγματώδεις καὶ δυσκαταμαθήτους καὶ γραμματικῶν ἐξηγήσεων δεομένας καὶ πολὺ τὸ βεβα σανισμένον καὶ τὸ σολοικοφανὲς ἐν τοῖς σχηματισμοῖς ἐχούσας μήτε θαυμάζειν μήτε μιμεῖσθαι. Cf. de Jonge (2011) 451 452.  Wilamowitz (1889) 164: “Exegese des Demosthenes oder Thukydides hatte man in Alexan dria nicht getrieben.”  An overview on Usener’s career and his place in Classical scholarship appears in Bremmer (1990). In general, on Wilamowitz’s and Usener’s “irreconcilable approaches:” Fowler (1990) 491.  Usener (1889) 71 74.  Dickey (2007) 55: “The definitive study of Thucydides scholia is that of Luschnat [1954].” The only available critical edition of the Thucydides scholia is Hude (1927), which was criticized already by Powell (1936). Alexander Kleinlogel produced preliminary works for a new edition of the scholia: Kleinlogel (1964), Kleinlogel (1998), Kleinlogel (2011). After his death, the edition has

5.5 The Greek Historians in Alexandria

149

sius’ reference to γραμματικαὶ ἐξηγήσεις could represent ancient commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) belonging to the Hellenistic age. He also proposed to set the author(s) of commentaries before the age of Didymus of Alexandria, the “literary executor of the previous Alexandrian scholars.”¹²⁶ Rudolf Pfeiffer accepted Luschnat’s hypothesis on the Alexandrian origin of the Thucydides scholia and even suggested that Aristarchus of Samothrace might have written a commentary on Thucydides.¹²⁷ In a different context, Germaine Aujac, in her introduction to the edition of the On Thucydides for the Collection Budé, approvingly quoted a previous conclusion by Denis Roussel who believed that the Alexandrian scholars did not engaged with Thucydides at all (“Les professeurs alexandrins ne se sont guère occupés de Thucydide, et ce n’est qu’au dernier siècle de l’ère païenne qu’on commença à s’intéresser à lui dans les écoles”). And Aujac herself commented after the citation: “It is probable that Dionysius projected in the past the popularity that Thucydides enjoyed in Dionysius’ own Roman intellectual circles”.¹²⁸ Both Roussel and Aujac retained Wilamowitz’s opinion, but were unaffected by the later studies of Luschnat and Pfeiffer. Finally, Casper de Jonge recently suggested that Dionysius in the Second Letter to Ammaeus, which differs in its linguistic terminology from other Dionysian treatises and resembles some portions of the Thucydides scholia, exploited the

been taken over by Klaus Alpers and publication is expected in 2018. Vera Grossi’s PhD disser tation tackles the scholia to Thuc. 1.1 67: Grossi (2015).  Luschnat (1954) 23: “Diese Exegesen zu Thukydides dürften wohl Kommentare (ὑπομνή ματα) gewesen sein und müssen aus einer Zeit stammen, die vor Dionys, also auch vor dem etwa gleichzeitigen Didymos, dem Nachlaßverwalter der älteren Alexandriner, liegt.” Cf. Schmidt (1854) 333 334. The same scholar (1854, 321 333) collected the testimonies of Didymus’ biography of Thucydides (Βίος Θουκυδίδου), which probably relied on previous (i. e. Hellenistic) works on Thucydides. However, there is a considerable difference between a biography and a commentary (ὑπόμνημα). Another possibility is that Aristophanes of Byzantium, the author of ᾿Aττικαὶ λέξεις (ffr. 337 347E Slater), was the author of a commentary on Thucydides, since the historian was considered a model for the Attic language in later literary criticism (cf. Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.16: Ἡρόδοτός τε γὰρ τῆς Ἰάδος ἄριστος κανὼν Θουκυδίδης τε τῆς ᾿Aτθίδος). Taking Aristophanes’ ᾿Aττικαὶ λέξεις as a starting point, Hemmerdinger (1955) 15 22 suggested that Aristophanes was the author of an Alexandrian edition of Thucydides, but his conclusions are untenable: cf. Lewis (1957) and Dover (1957).  Pfeiffer (1968) 225.  Aujac (1978 1992) 4.148 n. 1: “Il est probable que Denys projette dans le passé la popularité dont jouissait Thucydide dans les milieux intellectuels romains qu’il fréquentait.”

150

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

linguistic interpretations that he mentions in the On Thucydides. ¹²⁹ This fascinating suggestion does not prove that the linguistic interpretations or commentaries on Thucydides were actually Hellenistic: Dionysius could well refer to the works of some of his contemporaries. To sum up, there is no conclusive evidence to claim the existence of Hellenistic commentaries on Thucydides.¹³⁰ In general the interest of the Alexandrian scholars in historical works per se, not merely as sources for the exegesis of poetry, is still a blind spot in our knowledge. There is, however, one exception. An Amherst papyrus of the third century AD preserves a portion of Aristarchus’ commentary on Herodotus’ Book One (P.Amh. 2.12). There is no doubt on the original authorship of the text, since the subscription runs: ᾿Aριστάρχου Ἡροδότου α´ ὑπόμνημα.¹³¹ The papyrus represents the only clear testimony on the existence of an Alexandrian commentary of a Greek historian. The commentary relates to the final chapters of Herodotus’ first book, namely 183‒194 and 215. It is significant that in so few lines Aristarchus quoted both Homer and Sophocles as parallels to the Herodotean text.¹³² This fact has been interpreted as a proof that even the exegesis of prose writers followed the traditional patterns employed for poetical texts.¹³³ From P.Amh. 2.12 it can be undoubtedly inferred that Aristarchus wrote a commentary on Herodotus’ first book. Even if it cannot be stated that he com-

 See de Jonge (2011) 453 454. Maehler (2007) has compared the Thucydides scholia with the commentary on Thucydides in P.Oxy. 853 (cf. above § 3.7): he suggests that both made use of the same source, possibly an Alexandrian commentary on Thucydides. Cf. Montanari (2013) 24 25.  There are a couple of testimonies that ought to be mentioned. First of all, a reference in the Thucydides scholia to an obelized passage (τὰ ὠβελισμένα), namely Thuc. 3.84, “that none of the interpreters believed to belong to Thucydides” (schol. Thuc. 3.84: τὰ ὠβελισμένα οὐδενὶ τῶν ἐξη γητῶν ἔδοξε Θουκυδίδου εἶναι). Unfortunately, the date of these interpreters (exegetai) cannot be determined with certainty and there is no clear evidence that they belonged to the Hellenistic age. Moreover, Aristoph. Byz. fr. 33 Slater, where the term ἀμύνεσθαι in Thuc. 1.42.1 is discussed, is often adduced to suggest that Aristophanes of Byzantium wrote a commentary on Thucydides; however, there is no proof to support this claim, especially since Thucydides is quoted in the Aristophanic fragment alongside Alcman. Cf. Montanari (2013) 26 27, who is much more positive on the existence of Hellenistic exegetical works on Thucydides.  P.Amh. 2.12 (subscription: col. 2.17 20). Apart from Grenfell and Hunt’s editio princeps, see also Viljoen (1915) 17 22, nr. 5; Paap (1948) 37 40, nr. 10; Vannini (2009); Montana (2012). Cf. Priestly (2014) 223 229.  In P.Amh. 2.12, col 2.6 10 the Massagetae’s use of horses described in Herodotus is com pared with the same custom in Homeric combat, while Soph. fr. 500 Radt is quoted at col. 2.13 16.  Pfeiffer (1968) 224 225. See below n. 171 for a reassessment of Pfeiffer’s general idea that ancient scholarship was the result of the Alexandrians’ efforts on poetry.

5.5 The Greek Historians in Alexandria

151

mented on the whole work, an entry in the Byzantine geographical lexicon of Stephanus of Byzantium (sixth century AD) offers a further clue. In the entry dedicated to Μώμεμφις, both Herodotus and Aristarchus are mentioned: “Momemphis: a city in Egypt. Herodotus in the second book. It inflects Momempheos (in the genitive), as Aristarchus (wrote).”¹³⁴ Aristarchus’ morphological observation on the genitive form of the toponym Momemphis could belong originally to his commentary on Herodotus’ second book (since the toponym is mentioned in Hdt. 2.163.2 and 2.169.1), perhaps throught an intermediary source, such as Herodian’s Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων.¹³⁵ Besides P.Amh. 2.12, other ancient commentaries on papyrus of both Herodotus and Thucydides are attested, but they belong invariably to the Roman imperial age.¹³⁶ Apart from the papyri, erudite sources that belong originally to the Hellenistic age should be considered to grasp the historians’ presence in Alexandria: scholiastic corpora preserving exegetical material, lexicographical works, grammatical treatises. The historians’ presence in these sources has not yet been systematically surveyed for a number of methodological reasons: the potentially immense material; the lack of reliable editions of corpora of scholia and other learned works; the fact that quotations of historians could be indirect or come from learned collections of quotations or some other paraliterary work; finally,

 Steph. Byz. μ 269 Billerbeck: Μώμεμφις· πόλις Αἰγύπτου. Ἡρόδοτος δευτέρᾳ. κλίνεται Μωμέμφεως, ὡς ᾿Aρίσταρχος.  See Matijašić (2013). The possibility that Steph. Byz. μ 269 preserves a fragment of Aris tarchus’ commentary on Herodotus is accepted in Billerbeck et al. (2006 2017) 3.355 and posi tively mentioned in Montanari (2013) 5. Very sound and cautious objections were recently raised by Montana (2016), who argues that Stephanus’ reference to Aristarchus in Steph. Byz. μ 269 be longed originally to an exegetical work on an Attic author and suggests Aesch. Pers. 36 37 as the commented locus. However, his reasoning collides with the faulty tradition and the scanty frag ments of Aristarchus’ work: if the hypothesis that Steph. Byz. μ 269 belonged originally to Aris tarchus’ commentary on Herodotus is supported by the attested existence of such a commentary in P.Amh. 2.12, Montana’s suggestion that Aristarchus’ presence in Stephanus derived from a commentary on an Attic author such as Aeschylus cannot make the same claim (no clear clue points to the existence of Aristarchus’ commentary on Aeschylus: Pfeiffer [1968] 222 223; Dickey [2007] 35 38). Hence, the possibility that Steph. Byz. μ 269 preserves a fragment of Aristarchus’ commentary on Herodotus’ second book is not ruled out. This debate will hopefully stimulate further research on the work of Alexandrian grammarians on Greek historians.  I refer to P.Oxy. 4455 (commentary on Hdt. 5.52 55 of the third century AD: see Montana 2009b), the above mentioned P.Oxy. 853 (commentary on Thucydides’ second book, 2.1 45), P.Vindob.Gr. 29247 (commentary on Thuc. 1.1 9 of the third century AD), and P.Berol. 21313 (short fragment of a commentary on Thuc. 3.83.4). Cf. Montana (2009a) 167 168; Montanari (2013) 8 11, 18 19.

152

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

the fragmentary state of most of ancient historical works make the investigation even more challenging.¹³⁷ Therefore, in the following pages I will only attempt an overview of the issue with a few examples pointing out any general pattern that might emerge. The scholia vetera (or old scholia) to Aristophanes, which derive from a variety of sources and go back to the beginning of Alexandrian scholarship, preserve probably the largest number of quotations from Greek historians among this type of text. Thucydides and the Atthidographer Philochorus feature with more than thirty quotations, followed by Theopompus of Chios, Herodotus, Xenophon, Androtion, and other authors.¹³⁸ It is perhaps worth mentioning that the total number of quotations of historians in the whole of the Aristophanes scholia (more than 130) doubles the number of quotations of philosophers (60 ca.) and is four times that of the orators (30 ca.).¹³⁹ Two sets of problems arise with the quotations of ancient historians in the Aristophanes scholia. The first one involves chronology. It is attested to various degrees that Hellenistic scholars edited and commented upon the plays of Aristophanes, starting with Lycophron and including Callimachus, Eratosthenes, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Callistratus, Aristarchus, Demetrius Ixion, and Timachidas of Rhodes. Didymus of Alexandria combined the work of previous scholars into a single commentary, which was used by Symmachus in the first century AD to compile another continuous commentary, which, in turn, was copied on the margins of a manuscript with the plays of Aristophanes: this latter stage represents the archetype of the extant scholia. ¹⁴⁰ Even if much of the content of the old scholia goes back to the Hellenistic age, it is not possible to ascribe it with certainty to an age preceding Didymus of Alexandria. Regarding Symmachus, an example is worth quoting. At the beginning of the Knights, two slaves discuss the manliest way to die and one of them suggests

 This last point raises a general problem: fragments of historians preserved uniquely through indirect tradition can be identified with certainty only when their names are explicitly mentioned or when the content of one source coincides with a fragment known from another source. Hence, even if many quotations of ancient historians are preserved anonymously in the scholia, lexica, and other erudite works, it is difficult and often vain to attempt to ascribe these quotations to certain historians.  Cf. Montana (1996a) 173 174; Montana (1996b) 19 20; Montana (2009) 159 160. For the Ar istophanes scholia as the most important collector of the Atthidographers’ indirect tradition especially for Philochorus: Jacoby (1954) 1.239 248 and 2.177.  See Montana (1996b) 19.  See Dickey (2007) 28 31 with previous references. Besides, see also Muzzolon (2006) and Matijašić (2014b) 131 137. For the complex issue of the making of Greek scholiastic corpora, see Montana (2011) and Montana (2014).

5.5 The Greek Historians in Alexandria

153

the drinking of bull’s blood: “our best choice is to drink bull’s blood: the death of Themistocles is the one to choose!”¹⁴¹ Thucydides ascribed the death of the Athenian general Themistocles to natural causes, but he referred also to the opinion that Themistocles committed suicide by poison.¹⁴² This alternative opinion must have been circulating in Athens in the age of Thucydides and Aristophanes. It could have been the most popular one, given its grim and macabre character.¹⁴³ Now, the whole issue of Themistocles’ death is discussed in the scholia to the Knights, which at the end reports Symmachus’ opinion: “Symmachus says that the story of Themistocles is false. Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides describe it.”¹⁴⁴ This displays that in the first century AD Symmachus considered Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ histories canonical at least for the story of Themistocles (but also, it could be suggested, for many other historical facts). But it is also possible that when Symmachus expressed an opinion on the falsehood of Themistocles’ story he relied on the authors of previous commentaries on Aristophanes. This example shows that this corpus of scholia should be treated with caution. The other problem when dealing with historians in the Aristophanes scholia is the nature of the plays and of their ancient commentaries. Aristophanes lived in Athens and wrote for an Athenian audience. In order to understand the jokes and the references in his plays, subsequent commentators quoted the authority of Athenian historians or historians who dealt with Athens in their works. Hence the Atthidographers, Thucydides, and other historians that happened to mention Athens’ mythical and historical past, are quoted. Ancient commentators of Aristophanes were generally not interested in non-Athenian historians and non-Athenian narrative. This is perhaps the reason behind the omission of any reference to Ephorus. Even if – along with the Atthidographers – Thucydides, Herodotus,

 Aristoph. Equ. 83 84: βέλτιστον ἡμῖν αἷμα ταύρειον πιεῖν· / ὁ Θεμιστοκλέους γὰρ θάνατος αἱρετώτερος.  Thuc. 1.138.4: νοσήσας δὲ τελευτᾷ τὸν βίον· λέγουσι δέ τινες καὶ ἑκούσιον φαρμάκῳ ἀποθα νεῖν αὐτόν.  In the first century BC, Diodorus Siculus (11.58.2 3) offers a more detailed account of The mistocles’ death reporting the opinion of “some historians” (ἔνιοι τῶν συγγραφέων) who report ed that he drank the bull’s blood because he was not able to fulfil a promise he had made to king Xerxes that he would conquer Greece on behalf of the Persians. It appears that the histor ians anonymously referred to by Diodorus were Clitarchus and Stratocles, mentioned by Cicero as authors who wrote fictitious accounts on Themistocles death (Brut. 42 43, cf. FGrHist 137 T 7, F 34). Cicero himself regarded Thucydides’ as the most trustworthy testimony on this episode, see above § 2.4. On the topos of drinking bull’s blood: Campanile (2000).  Schol. Aristoph. Equ. 84b Mervyn Jones / Wilson: Σύμμαχος δὲ φησι ψεύδεσθαι περὶ Θεμι στοκλέους. οὔτε γὰρ Ἡρόδοτος οὔτε Θουκυδίδης ἱστορεῖ.

154

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

and Theopompus were sources of historical information for ancient scholars commenting on the plays of Aristophanes, it is still evident that the Aristophanes scholia cannot be used to establish a valuable set of sources for the history of the canons of Greek historiography before the first century BC and the fundamental testimonies of Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. A similar discourse can be located within other scholiastic corpora, such as the scholia to Apollonius Rhodius and Euripides. Both preserve a fair number of quotations of historians, but the chronology of these sources (or even the chronology of single entries or of set of entries) is difficult to ascertain. At the same time the specific interest of the commentators implies that ancient historians, geographers and mythographers were mainly quoted to elucidate aetiological and ekphrastic passages.¹⁴⁵ Therefore, very little can be inferred about the canons of the ancient Greek historians in the Hellenistic age from these sources. The Homeric scholia, a fundamental source for our knowledge of the ancient critics’ work, include many quotations of ancient historians. Again, the problem of chronology arises: most of the material contained in the Homeric scholia belongs to the Roman Imperial and Late Antique age, but there are some portions that go back to the Hellenistic age.¹⁴⁶ Of special interest for the purposes of this section are the A scholia, which were entered by a single scribe on the margins of the illustrious Venetus A (Marcianus gr. 454, tenth century) and belong to the socalled Viermännerkommentar, a compilation of the critical works of Aristonicus (first century BC), Didymus (Augustan-age), Herodian (late second century AD), and Nicanor (first half of the second century AD). These four grammarians made extensive use of the work of previous Alexandrian scholars.¹⁴⁷ References to Thucydides in the A scholia belong uniquely to Book One of Thucydides’ History. There are a few instances where the Alexandrian scholars quoted Thucydides’ archaeologia in their commentaries on Homer. Aristonicus challenged Thucydides’ claim that Homer does not use the term barbarians, quoting the Carians βαρβαροφώνοι in Il. 2.867,¹⁴⁸ while another scholion may refer to Thucydides’ statement that ‘Hellenes’ in Homer does not signal all the Greeks “except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the first Hel-

 Montana (2009) 161 163 with some examples and further references.  Cf. Dickey (2007) 18 22 with further references.  Dickey (2007) 19.  Compare Thuc. 1.3.3 with schol. Il. 2.867a (cf. van Thiel [2014] 1.277). On βάρβαρος and βαρβαροφώνοι: DELG 164 165, s.v. βάρβαρος; Hall (1997); Hall (2002) 111 117; De Luna (2003) 37 44.

5.5 The Greek Historians in Alexandria

155

lenes.”¹⁴⁹ Moreover, Thucydides is quoted in schol. Il. 2.570a to expound on Homer’s words ἀφνειόν τε Κόρινθον (“wealthy Corinth”): the reference is to Thuc. 1.13.5, where the Athenian historian speaks of the wealth and power of the Corinthians, “as has been made clear by the ancient poets who called the place wealthy (ἀφνειόν) Corinth.”¹⁵⁰ In these examples Thucydides is quoted by Hellenistic scholars as a parallel to Homer: the fact that the early Homeric scholia preserve only quotations and allusions to Thucydides’ first book is related to the content of the historian’s archaeologia. ¹⁵¹ Finally, a reference to piracy in Hom. Od. 3.71‒74 was used by Aristarchus to challenge Thucydides’ assertion that in antiquity the Greeks did not consider piracy a disgraceful activity (Thuc. 1.5.2). Aristarchus adduced the polysemic character of ληΐς: on the one hand, it could represent the disgraceful practice of piracy, as in Od. 3.71‒74, but on the other hand, it could refer to the customary habit of plundering, as in Od. 1.397‒398.¹⁵² In this case Aristarchus evidently polemizes against Thucydides, considering him almost a fellow Homeric exegetes. This quotation in the Odyssey-scholia demonstrates that at least once Aristarchus did not only use Thucydides to explain Homer, but used Homer as a pretext to challenge Thucydides. A further element in this investigation is Homer’s presence in the Thucydides scholia, which amounts to ninety-two quotations. No corpus of scholia of any other Greek prose writer has yielded so many quotations from the Iliad and the Odyssey. ¹⁵³ It is significant that Marcellinus, the author of a biography of Thucydides in Late Antiquity, considered Homer the most important stylistic model  See again Thuc. 1.3.3 in comparison with schol. Il. 2.684.  Thuc. 1.13.5: χρήμασί τε δυνατοὶ [the Corinthians] ἦσαν, ὡς καὶ τοῖς παλαιοῖς ποιηταῖς δεδήλωται· ἀφνειὸν γὰρ ἐπωνόμασαν τὸ χωρίον.  Grossi (2016) investigated Thucydides’ presence in the exegetical scholia, and came to the following conclusion: “It is evident that the Thucydidean quotations occurring in the scholia to Homer do not, strictly speaking, contribute to the interpretation of the poet. The scholia to Il. 4.450 451 and 22.410 seem rather to adopt a Thucydidean perspective: they are interested in introducing parallels from the historian, even if they are not essential for the explanation of the poet’s words.” The results of her analysis are extremely interesting, albeit differing greatly from the present study, since she focuses on a different class of Homeric scholia.  Schol. Od. 3.71a Pontani: ὦ ξεῖνοι τίνες ἐστέ] (…) ὁ δὲ ᾿Aρίσταρχος (fr. 16 A Matthaios) οἰκειότερον αὐτοὺς τετάχθαι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Κύκλωπός φησιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ποιητῇ τὰ τοιαῦτα· (…) καθάπτεται δὲ καὶ Θουκυδίδου ᾿Aρίσταρχος λέγοντος (Thuc. 1.5.1 2; cf. schol. Thuc. 1.5.1 2) ὡς οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἡγοῦντο τὸ ληΐζεσθαι οἱ παλαιοί, ἐν οἷς φησιν “οὕς μοι ληΐσσατο δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς” (Hom. Od. 1.398). ὁμωνυμίᾳ γὰρ ἠπάτηται, πολλάκις τῆς ληΐδος ἐπὶ τῆς λαφυραγω γίας τασσομένης. κτλ. Cf. Matthaios (1999) 245 247. On ληΐς see Schmidt (1991).  Plato’s scholia produce forty three Homeric quotations, Demosthenes’ scholia only twenty, Aeschines’ seven. Cf. Grossi (2016) 110.

156

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

for the Athenian historian: he imitated Homer’s choice of words to various degrees.¹⁵⁴ This, however, is an isolated opinion on the relation between Homer and Thucydides, and it appears to be expressing a one-sided view since it is embedded in the biographical tradition on Thucydides.¹⁵⁵ On the other hand, the anonymous author of the treatise On the Sublime, where many ancient authors of poetry and prose are discussed, considered Herodotus the most Homeric (Ὁμηρικώτατος) of all prose writers ([Longin.] Subl. 13.3, discussed below § 6.1), while Dionysius of Halicarnassus considered Herodotus’ variety (ποικιλία) as evidence of his admiration for Homer (Pomp. 3.11). Other ancient sources concur in depicting Herodotus as the “prose Homer,” such as the second-century-BC Salmakis inscription (also known as Pride of Halicarnassus).¹⁵⁶ Given such a judgement on Herodotus, one would expect Herodotus’ scholia and lexeis to be full of Homeric references.¹⁵⁷ Instead, there are none. Most of the quotations of Herodotus in the Homeric scholia belong to the Roman imperial age, and specifically to Herodian, the second-century-AD grammarian.¹⁵⁸ Herodian was probably interested in the Histories’ text and language because of Herodotus’ special status as a model for the Ionian dialect and his proximity to Homer. The historian from Halicarnassus played a fundamental role in ancient linguistic sources: even if he did not write in Attic like Thucydides, his authority permeated grammatical considerations in Hellenistic-age Alexandria and beyond, as attested in later lexicographic sources.¹⁵⁹ There is yet another passage that needs to be considered, namely a D scholion to Il. 3.401, which explains the ethnonym Μῃονίης through Herodotus’ writings: “The Meones are called Lydians in antiquity, and the Lydians descend from Lydos son of Atys, as Herodotus says.”¹⁶⁰ The copyist of the Venetus A, or perhaps his source, was so unaccustomed to Herodotus’ name in the marginal

 Marcellin. 37: μάλιστα δὲ πάντων, ὅπερ εἴπομεν, ἐζήλωσεν Ὅμηρον καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα ἐκλογῆς καὶ τῆς περὶ σύνθεσιν ἀκριβείας, τῆς τε ἰσχύος τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν καὶ τοῦ κάλλους καὶ τοῦ τάχους. On Marcellinus, see above § 3.7.  Cf. Gorssi (2016) 110.  See SEG 48.1330; SGO 01/12/02. Cf. Priestly (2014) § 5. On the Salmakis inscription: Isager (1998); Isager/Pedersen (2004).  On ancient erudite works related to Herodotus: Dickey (2007); Cantore (2013); Montana (2015b).  See schol. Il. 9.7a (Hdt. 4.46.1), schol. Il. 11.677a1 (Hdt. 2.28.1 et al.), schol. Il. 14.387a (again Hdt. 2.28.1 et al.). These scholia are thoroughly discussed in Montana (2016) 543 546.  See Tribulato (2016).  Schol. Il. 3.401b: Μῄονες ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ Λυδοὶ τὸ παλαιόν, εἶτα Λυδοὶ ἀπὸ Λυδοῦ τοῦ Ἄτυος, ὥς φησιν Ἡρόδοτος.

5.5 The Greek Historians in Alexandria

157

notes in Homer’s manuscripts, that instead he wrote Ἡρωδιανός, i. e. Herodian. However, the context of the quotation and the reference to the Lydians and Lydos son of Atys, belong undoubtedly to Herodotus’ first book,¹⁶¹ as already recognised by Valckenaer and Dindorf (see Erbse’s apparatus criticus for further information). Now, the date of the scholion is controversial, as with all Homeric D scholia,¹⁶² but the content appears to be ancient since it involves a genealogical explanation and could perhaps be ascribed to the Hellenistic age. Is it possibly another unnamed fragment of Aristarchus’ commentary on Herodotus? This possibility cannot be ruled out, but a cautious approach suggests that no definite proof of Aristarchus’ commentary on Herodotus can be produced from the Homeric scholia. Up to this point, Thucydides’ and Herodotus’ presence has been investigated, with all due caution. Herodotus’ Histories, or at least Herodotus’ first book, is the only historical text that was unquestionably commented on by Aristarchus: P.Amh. 2.12 and other sources show that interest for Herodotus lies in linguistic and grammatical exegesis. Thucydides, on the other hand, enjoyed a good reputation and was mentioned by the same Alexandrian scholar in his Homeric commentaries. Other Classical and early Hellenistic historians appear not to have enjoyed such fame in Alexandria. A cross-check of the indexes to the Homeric scholia edited by Hartmut Erbse together with the volumes of Felix Jacoby’s collection of Greek fragmentary historians (FGrHist), as well as Bonnechere’s indexes to the FGrHist, has led to the following conclusions: all references to Hecataeus of Miletus,¹⁶³ Hellanicus of Lesbos, Ephorus, Theopompus,¹⁶⁴ Duris, Callisthenes, and Timaeus in the pre-

 Hdt. 1.7.1: οἱ δὲ πρότερον Ἄγρωνος βασιλεύσαντες ταύτης τῆς χώρης ἧσαν ἀπόγονοι Λυδοῦ τοῦ Ἄτυος, ἀπ᾽ ὅτεο ὁ δῆμος Λύδιος ἐκλήθη ὁ πᾶς οὗτος, πρότερον Μηίων καλεόμενος.  For the D scholia: Dickey (2007) 20 21 with further references.  See, however, schol. Il. 15.302b1: Μέγην τ᾽ ἀτάλαντον: ᾿Aρίσταρχος βαρύνει ὡς “Μέσθλην τε Γλαῦκόν τε” (Hom. Il. 17.216) (…). μύκητά τε καὶ μύκην, εἰ καὶ πολλὰ σημαίνει ἡ λέξις. καὶ ὅτι οὐ τὸ μέτρον αἴτιόν ἐστι, δῆλός ἐστιν Ἑκαταῖος (FGrHist 1 F 22) οὕτως κλίνας· φησὶ γάρ· “καὶ ἐπα φήσας τὸν κολεὸν τοῦ ξίφεος, τὸν μύκην εὗρεν ἀποπεπτωκότα.” In this scholion, Hecataeus is quoted only to support the declension of mykēs (mykēn in the accusative), but the historical value of the source is clearly undermined, since Herodian does not even quote the context of the citation nor the subject of the verb ἐπαφήσας (which is Perseus, cf. Paus. 1.16.3). Hence, it is evident that Herodian was merely interested in the spelling of a single word, not in the logo grapher Hecataeus per se. An up to date discussion of this fragment in Pownall (2013).  One exception is possibly schol. Il. 1.38a: Κίλλαν τε ζαθέην: Πέλοψ ὁ Ταντάλου ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ A (FGrHist 115 F 350; cf. Morison [2014]). The founding myth of Killa and the story of Pelops’ charioteer Killos was probably told in Theopompus’ Philippica, a work full of

158

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

served marginal commentaries to the Iliad belong to the later exegetical scholia (bT) which contain mainly material from Roman imperial age scholarship. Philistus’ name never occurs in the Homeric scholia. The scholia to the Odyssey yield similar results.¹⁶⁵ The last historian I will consider in this section is the one perceived less often as a historian in antiquity. Xenophon appears in a few late exegetical scholia, but only his philosophical and political works are cited: Ages. 2.14 in schol. Il. 10.298a and Ages. 8.7 in schol. Il. 24.190c; De re equestri in schol. Il. 23.281‒ 282a; Constitution of the Lacedaemonians in schol. Od. 4.65b Pontani; finally, schol. Od. 13.288‒289 Dindorf relates to the personifications of Virtue (᾿Aρετή) and Vice (Κακία) in the Memorabilia (2.1.21‒22) as a comparison with the description of Athena in the Homeric verses. Only schol. Od. 11.245 Dindorf refers probably to the Anabasis, for Xenophon is quoted in relation to the expression “ἔγνω αὐτήν” which occurs in An. 1.5.14, with Xenophon himself being the subject of the sentence: ὁ δὲ ὡς ἔγνω τὴν ἀφροσύνην αὐτῶν. In terms of chronology, one exception to the general tendency of late scholia preserving Xenophon’s quotations can be singled out, namely the scholion to Il. 23.361a1 which goes back to Herodian. The second-century-AD grammarian quoted Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (1.6.3) for the accentuation and spelling of μεμνέῳτο / μεμνῷτο / μεμνῇτο. The Cyropaedia is not strictly a historical work, but it appears to have been very popular in the Roman imperial age. After this in-depth analysis of Homeric scholia preserving quotations of Classical and early Hellenistic Greek historians, the time is ripe for a general assessment and a brief conclusion. It is well known that Hellenistic scholars were primarily concerned with exegesis of poetical texts, and above all Homer. Aristarchus (together with Aristophanes of Byzantium) was labelled iudex poetarum by Quintilian and was known throughout antiquity and Byzantium to have worked mainly

digressions and mythological tales, while the scholion belongs to the D scholia which include material that predates the Alexandrians. The mythological character of the scholion seems to ex clude a scholarly tradition: it could rather represent the product of a school tradition where mythological explanations assisted in the understanding of the Homeric verses. Whether it be longs chronologically to the Hellenistic rather than the Roman imperial age cannot be deter mined with certainty.  Hellanicus of Lesbos could perhaps be singled out, specifically FGrHist 4 F 150 (fr. 150 Fowler), for the source of this fragment is schol. Od. 4.343b1 Pontani, which is ascribed to Aris tonicus, the Augustan age grammarian who drew heavily on Aristarchus’ commentaries for his treatise on signs. Hellanicus’ fragment deals with mythological issues related to the Trojan war and the deeds of Homeric heroes, but it is difficult to ascertain an erudite Hellenistic origin for its inclusion in the scholia to the Odyssey.

5.5 The Greek Historians in Alexandria

159

on poetry.¹⁶⁶ In the previous pages Aristarchus’ work on historians has been investigated starting from the only preserved commentary on Herodotus (P.Amh. 2.12). There is a possibility that the Homeric scholia preserve other traces of Aristarchus’ commentary, but none can be determined with certainty. On the other hand, Thucydides appears often in the Homeric scholia and is quoted by Aristarchus in schol. Od. 3.71a Pontani, where the Hellenistic scholar’s purpose was to criticize Thucydides and point out his erroneous judgment on piracy. Other ancient historians are generally neglected, except for some brief quotations by the second-century-AD grammarian Herodian. Herodotus and Thucydides were not the only prose writers to have enjoyed a good reputation among learned Alexandrians. Aristophanes of Byzantium arranged the Platonic dialogues into trilogies, while it has been recently suggested that Aristarchus wrote a commentary (ὑπόμνημα) on Plato.¹⁶⁷ The Suda emphatically reports that Aristarchus wrote eight-hundred commentaries on ancient works.¹⁶⁸ Since the ancient critical tradition identifies Herodotus and Plato as the two prose writers most closely related to Homer,¹⁶⁹ the fact that Aristarchus’ wrote a commentary on Herodotus and, possibly, on Plato, is not the result of mere chance.¹⁷⁰

 Quint. Inst. 10.1.54: Apollonius in ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Aristarchus atque Aristophanes poetarum iudices neminem sui temporis in numerum redegerunt (see above § 1.3 for a discussion). The learned Byzantine scholar John Tzetzes in the twelfth century offers a few observations on the critical work (διωρθεύω) on poetry by Alexandrian scholars: Prolego mena de com. p. 23.6 8 Koster: ᾿Aλέξανδρος ὤρθου τὰ τραγικά, Λυκόφρων τὰ κωμικά· νεανίαι ἦσαν Καλλίμαχος καὶ Ἐρατοσθένης. οὗτοι μὲν τὰς σκηνικὰς διωρθώσαντο βίβλους, ὡς τὰς τῶν ποιητῶν ἐπεσκέψαντο ᾿Aρίσταρχοί τε καὶ Ζηνόδοτοι; Prolegomena de com. p. 43.17 19 Koster: τὰς δὲ γε σκηνικὰς ᾿Aλέξανδρός τε, ὡς ἔφθην εἰπών, καὶ Λυκόφρων διωρθώσαντο, τὰς δὲ γε ποι ητικὰς Ζηνόδοτος πρῶτον καὶ ὕστερον ᾿Aρίσταρχος διωρθώσαντο.  For Aristophanes: Diog. Laert. 3.61 62 and 65 66. For Aristarchus: Schironi (2004) frr. 72 73 and Schironi (2005).  Suda α 3892, s.v. ᾿Aρίσταρχος (…) λέγεται δὲ γράψαι ὑπὲρ ω´ βιβλία ὑπομνημάτων μόνων. Cf. Pfeiffer (1968) 213 n. 2.  On Herodotus as “prose Homer” see Priestley (2014) § 5. On Plato’s relation to Homer: Schir oni (2005) 431; Hunter (2012) § 2 with references to previous scholarship. See also Diog. Laert. 3.37 where Aristotle (fr. 73 Rose) is said to have considered the Platonic dialogues in between prose and poetry: φησὶ δ᾽ ᾿Aριστοτέλοης τὴν τῶν λόγων ἰδέαν αὐτοῦ [Plato’s] μεταξὺ ποιήματος εἶναι καὶ πεζοῦ λόγου. On Plato’s style: Walsdorff (1927) 34 36.  There is also the possibility that Epicurus was the subject of the critical work of Aristo phanes of Byzantium, since Diogenes Laertius quotes a negative judgment on the philosopher’s style by Aristophanes: 10.13 (fr. 404 Slater). However, evidence is too meagre to pursue this trail, cf. Nauck (1848) 250 251 and Slater (1986) 158.

160

5 Canons Βefore the Canon: From Athens to Alexandria

In conclusion, even if the scholars in Alexandria were primarily concerned with the exegesis of ancient poets, various clues point to an interest in prose writers, albeit developed at a later stage.¹⁷¹ Among this category, two historians stand out, Herodotus and Thucydides, while other historians were employed almost exclusively by later scholars. Xenophon, following a pattern already displayed in a previous chapter (§ 2.5), was quoted for his moral and philosophical works, and only by later commentators of Homer. Athens, Alexandria, Rome. These are the main centres of learning where the history of the canons of Greek historiography began, developed, and flourished. Now that different testimonies have been discussed, it is clear that two historians stand out among the rest: Herodotus and Thucydides. Whether they are summoned for the interpretation of Homer, mentioned explicitly and exclusively in a treatise on rhetoric, or used as historical sources for the history of Athens or ancient Egypt, there are many traces of their outstanding role in historiography from the fourth century BC to the Augustan age. This is exactly what is meant by the idea of hyper-canon. Unfortunately, given the loss of most of our Hellenistic sources in the domain of historiography, rhetoric, exegesis, grammar, etc., I have not been able to provide an answer to the question set out in § 5.4: A Hellenistic source for the first-centuryBC canons? Unless a papyrus emerges from the sands of Egypt or a long-forgotten manuscript shows up from the scaffolds of a library, the early history of the canons of Greek historiography will have to rely on first-century-BC sources.

 The debate on the role of prose writers in Alexandria goes back at least to Pfeiffer (1968), whose general idea was that ancient scholarship was born in Alexandria as the result of the ex egetical efforts directed at poetry; he dismissed the Peripatos’ role in the establishment of the Alexandrian library, even if it is attested in many sources, e. g. Strabo 13.1.54 C 609; Athen. 1.3b; the puzzling Letter of Aristeas: cf. Wendel in Wendel/Göber (1955) 62 82; Reynolds/Wilson (2013) 7; Blum (1977) 133 151; Canfora (1999); Jacob (2013). Pfeiffer’s positions have been reas sessed by reviewers of his book and in recent publications: Momigliano (1968); Wilson (1969); Rossi (1976); Nicolai (1992) 265 275; Montanari (1993); Richardson (1994); Tosi (1994); Montana (2009a); Montanari (2013); Montanari (2014); Broggiato (2014); Montana (2015a) 95 97, 138 140; Nicolai (2015a).

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata The aim of this chapter is to investigate the history of the historiographical canons in lesser known Greek texts that belong to the rhetorical tradition. The set of sources for such an inquiry are rhetorical treatises and progymnasmata (rhetorical preliminary exercises) from the first to the fifth century AD, while in the next and final chapter (§ 7), I will consider literary and papyrological sources of the Roman imperial age and Late Antiquity that contribute to the shaping of the canons of Greek historiography. In both chapters the analysis follows a chronological pattern that allows for a diachronic perspective.

6.1 Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime and Demetrius’ On Style The first couple of works that will be considered are pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime (Περὶ ὕψους) and Demetrius’ On Style (Περὶ ἑρμηνείας). The On the Sublime is ascribed in the manuscript tradition to one Dionysius Longinus whose identity remains uncertain.¹ At the beginning of his treatise, the author criticizes a homonymous work by Caecilius from Cale Acte,² the friend and apparently close acquaintance of Dionysius of Halicarnassus:³ it seems that pseudo-Longinus was referring to a contemporary literary and critical debate. It is hence safe to state that he belongs to the Augustan age. When the author of On the Sublime sets out to write his treatise, he had three generic purposes: to outline a method that will help to achieve the sublime in literature; to offer a psychological and moral definition of the sublime; and, finally, to provide a work that would be useful for politicians (ἄδρες πολιτικοί).

 The author’s identity remains uncertain; for a detailed discussion of the matter see Russell (1964) XXII XXX and Mazzucchi (2010) XXIX XXXVIII.  [Longin.] Subl. 1.1: τὸ μὲν τοῦ Καικιλίου συγγραμμάτιον, ὃ περὶ ὕψους συνετάξατο, ἀνασκο πουμένοις ἡμῖν ὡς οἶσθα κοινῇ, Ποστούμιε Φλῶρεντιανὲ [con. Vossius] φίλτατε, ταπει νότερον ἐφάνη τῆς ὅλης ὑποθέσεως καὶ ἥκιστα τῶν καιρίων ἐφαπτόμενον, οὐ πολλήν τε ὠφέλειαν, ἧς μάλιστα δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι τὸν γράφοντα. The Greek text follows Mazzucchi (2010).  Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.20: ἐμοὶ μέντοι καὶ τῷ φιλτάτῳ Καικιλίῳ δοκεῖ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα αὐτοῦ μάλιστα 〈μιμήσασθαί〉 τε καὶ ζηλῶσαι Δημοσθένης. On the relationship between Dionysius and Caecilius: Hidber (1996) 5 n. 43 and 41 n. 184; Fornaro (1997) 226; Woerther (2015) 116 117. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 007

162

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

This latter aim, pointed out in the opening lines of the treatise,⁴ is comparable to Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ political and didactic purposes. In the opinion of pseudo-Longinus, there are a few ancient authors one can rely on for the imitation of sublimity and grandeur. Each of them represents a different genre: Homer for epic poetry, Plato for philosophy, Demosthenes for oratory, and Thucydides for historiography (ἐν ἱστορίᾳ).⁵ At the same time, comparing different sections of the treatise On the Sublime, it seems evident that Herodotus, too, is a valuable example. A passage in Herodotus’ book seven is referred to with the adjective ὑψηλότατος and there are also other highly praised Herodotean passages.⁶ Xenophon also appears frequently in this treatise and on one occasion he is associated with Plato because they both belonged to “Socrates’ gymnasium.”⁷ References to Xenophon’s historical works are restricted to a quotation from the Hellenica, a passage that is identical to one in the Agesilaus. ⁸ Further quotations from Xenophon’s works include the Cyropaedia ([Longin.] Subl. 25 and 28.3), the Memorabilia ([Longin.] Subl. 32.5; 43.5), and the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians ([Longin.] Subl. 4.4). When dealing with Xenophon, the author of the treatise On the Sublime follows the pattern already displayed in Cicero and common to Xenophon’s reception in antiquity: his personal relationship with Socrates was very significant in his literary afterlife and his most important writings were those that dealt with philosophical and moral issues. Apart from Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon, the author of the On the Sublime quotes Theopompus’ Philippica a couple of times, once for a commendable expression regarding Philip (which was criticized by Caecilius) and one for

 [Longin.] Subl. 1.2: ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐνεκελεύσω καὶ ἡμᾶς τι περὶ ὕψους πάντως εἰς σὴν ὑπομνηματίσα σθαι χάριν, φέρε, εἴ τι δὴ δοκοῦμεν ἀνδράσι πολιτικοῖς τεθεωρηκέναι χρήσιμον ἐπισκεψώμεθα.  [Longin.] Subl. 14.1: οὐκοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς, ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν διαπονῶμεν ὑψηγορίας τι καὶ μεγαλοφροσύνης δεόμενον, καλὸν ἀναπλάττεσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς πῶς ἂν εἰ τύχοι ταὐτὸ τοῦθ᾽ ῞Ομηρος εἶπεν, πῶς δ’ ἂν Πλάτων ἢ Δημοσθένης ὕψωσαν ἢ ἐν ἱστορίᾳ Θουκυδίδης.  The reference to “one of the most sublime passages in Herodotus” in [Longin.] Subl. 18.2 is followed by a lacuna, but it probably refers to Hdt. 7.21.1, where the historian employs a rhetor ical question to describe Xerxes’ massive military expedition: τί γὰρ οὐκ ἤγαγε ἐκ τῆς ᾿Aσίης ἔθνος ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα Ξέρξης; κοῖον δὲ πινόμενόν μιν ὕδωρ οὐκ ἐπέλιπε, πλὴν τῶν μεγάλων ποταμῶν; The passage was identified by Schmid (1934) 653 n. 2, followed by Russell (1964) 133 134 and Mazzucchi (2010) 226 227. Russell proposes Hdt. 5.106.3 as an alternative identifi cation. Quotations of Herodotus in the treatise On the Sublime are numerous: see Russell (1964) 199 203.  [Longin.] Subl. 4.4: τί δεῖ περὶ Τιμαίου λέγειν, ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ ἥρωες ἐκεῖνοι, Ξενοφῶντα λέγω καὶ Πλάτωνα, καίτοιγε ἐκ τῆς Σωκράτους ὄντες παλαίστρας, ὅμως διὰ τὰ οὕτως μικροχαρῆ ποτε ἑαυτῶν ἐπιλανθάνονται;  [Longin.] Subl. 19.1: Xen. Hell. 4.3.19 = Ages. 2.12.

6.1 Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime and Demetrius’ On Style

163

the magnificence (ὑπερφύεια) of the description of a military expedition.⁹ Both quotations are verbatim, which presupposes a direct knowledge of the work, or at least the use of wide collections of historical quotations in a rhetorical context. The Sicilian historian Philistus is briefly mentioned in Subl. 40.2 as an example of an author that, even if lacking sublimity and grandeur, has nonetheless achieved dignity and distinction of style through common and somewhat vulgar expressions. Finally, Hecataeus of Miletus is included in a discussion of the sudden shift from the third to the first person: as an example, a passage is reported verbatim. ¹⁰ The quotation is noteworthy, considering that Hecataeus is also mentioned in Demetrius’ treatise and in Hermogenes’ On the Categories of Style, discussed in § 6.6. Since in pseudo-Longinus Hecataeus’ fragment follows a reference to Homer (Il. 15.346‒349), it has been suggested that the anonymous author relied on a learned Hellenistic commentary on Homer which supposedly included passages from ancient historians.¹¹ Timaeus, as well as two Alexanderhistoriker, Callisthenes and Clitarchus, also feature in the treatise On the Sublime. However, these historians are only recalled as negative examples: Timaeus for his lifelessness (ψυχρότης) and for some improper statements, Callisthenes and Clitarchus for lack of sublimity and for their excessively pompous style.¹² It seems that, if on the one hand Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Theopompus are highly praised by the author of the treatise On the Sublime, on the other, Philistus is considered inferior, even if he does not lack sublimity. Hecataeus appears only as a comparison to a Homeric passage, but precisely because of this fact, pseudo-Longinus seems to appreciate his style. Even if Timaeus, Callisthenes, and Clitarchus are mentioned in this treatise, they do not represent valuable examples and are widely criticized. In conclusion, the list of historians that can be regarded as canonical in pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime include Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Theopompus, Philistus, and Hecataeus.

 [Longin.] Subl. 31.1 (Theop. FGrHist 115 F 262): ταύτῃ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Θεοπόμπου καινὸν ἐπίθετον [con. Mazzucchi] διὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον ἔμοιγε σημαντικώτατα ἔχειν δοκεῖ· ὅπερ ὁ Καικίλιος οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως καταμέμφεται· “δεινὸς πράγματα.” [Longin.] Subl. 43.2 (Theop. FGrHist 115 F 263a): ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ Θεόπομπος ὑπερφυῶς σκευάσας τὴν τοῦ Πέρσου κατάβασιν ἐπ᾽ Αἴγυπτον ὀνοματί οις τισὶ τὰ ὅλα διέβαλε. “ποία γὰρ πόλις καὶ λόφους ἀντωθουμένους.”  [Longin.] Subl. 27.2 (Hecat. FGrHist 1 F 30).  See Mazzucchi (2010) 237.  For Timaeus: Subl. 4.1 3. For Callisthenes and Clitarchus: Subl. 3.1 2.

164

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

The treatise On Style, the work of one Demetrius who probably lived between the first century BC and the first century AD,¹³ yields a high number of quotations from Xenophon, as well as Aristotle, Homer, and Demosthenes. As many as twelve quotations from the Anabasis, and two from the Cyropaedia, are scattered throughout the treatise. Thucydides’ presence is also noteworthy, with ten quotations identified either through the mention of his name or as excerpts from his History. ¹⁴ He is repeatedly praised for his elevated style (μεγαλοπρέπεια)¹⁵ which can be obtained through poetic diction. Yet prose writers should not exceed in the use of poetic diction and in the imitation of the poets, as Herodotus does: τὸ δὲ ποιητικὸν ἐν λόγοις ὅτι μὲν μεγαλοπρεπές, καὶ τυφλῷ δῆλόν φασι, πλὴν οἱ μὲν γυμνῇ πάνυ χρῶνται τῇ μιμήσει τῶν ποιητῶν, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐ μιμήσει, ἀλλὰ μεταθέσει, καθάπερ Ἡρόδοτος. Θουκυδίδης μέντοι κἂν λάβῃ παρὰ ποιητοῦ τι, ἰδίως αὐτῷ χρώμενος ἴδιον τὸ ληφθὲν ποιεῖ (Demetr. Eloc. 112 113). Poetic vocabulary in prose adds elevation of style; even a blind man can see that, as the proverb goes. Still, some writers imitate the poets quite crudely, or they do not imitate, but transpose them in their work [i. e. plagiarize them], as Herodotus has done. Thucydides acts differently, and even if he borrows something from the poets, he uses it in his own way, making it his own work.

After accusing Herodotus of plagiarism, Demetrius displays Thucydides’ superiority by comparing Thuc. 4.64.3 with Homer, Od. 19.172‒173, which illustrates how Thucydides uses the same words employed by Homer, but changes their

 The treatise On Style is ascribed in the oldest preserved manuscript (Parisinus gr. 1741, tenth century) to the Athenian statesman and philosopher Demetrius of Phalerum, but this identifica tion is unanimously rejected by modern scholars. The problem with its authorship goes along with the uncertain date of the treatise. Chiron (1993; 2001), following a suggestion made by C. Hammer in 1883, believes the author to be Demetrius of Alexandria or Syria mentioned by Cic. Brut. 315 and Diog. Laert. 5.84, and dates the treatise to around 100 BC. This dating is also supported in the recent works of Dührsen (2005) and Dihle (2007), even if Dührsen argues for an ascription to Demetrius of Magnesia; according to his analysis, the treatise would be ear lier than Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ works. Calcante (2004), which changes slightly the opinion expressed in Calcante (2000), dates the composition between the first and the second version of Dionysius’ treatise On Demosthenes. Grossi (2016) 104 ascribes it generically to the first century BC and discusses different scholarly opinions in a footnote (n. 10). Roberts (1902) 49 64 collect ed a series of technical terms related to Atticism in the work On Style and dated it to the second half of the first century AD; his conclusions are followed by Marini (2007) 8 16. For a first cen tury AD dating, see also Schenkeveld (1964) 139 148.  See the indexes in Marini (2007) 326 for both Thucydides and Xenophon.  Demetr. Eloc. 39, 40, 44 45, 48 49, 65, 72.

6.1 Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime and Demetrius’ On Style

165

meaning.¹⁶ To accuse Herodotus of plagiarism is clearly an exaggeration, especially if one considers pseudo-Longinus’ statement that Herodotus is “the most Homeric” of all prose writers, where the superlative Ὁμηρικώτατος is clearly a positive virtue ([Longin.] Subl. 13.3). Both passages have a common starting point, i. e., Herodotus’ poetic language,¹⁷ but the conclusions bring forth contrasting opinions on the historian from Halicarnassus. In another instance, Demetrius discusses the use and abuse of metrical diction (μετροειδής) in prose authors and states that the Peripatetics, Xenophon, Herodotus, and even Demosthenes exaggerate with this pleasing device, while Thucydides avoided it (Demetr. Eloc. 180‒181). The idea that Herodotus and other historians wrote with such stylistic features as to recall poetry was enhanced by Percy Shelley in the polemical essay A Defense of Poetry (1821): “the parts of a composition may be poetical, without the composition as a whole being a poem. A single sentence may be considered as a whole, though it may be found in the midst of a series of unassimilated portions; a single word even may be a spark of inextinguishable thought. And thus all the great historians, Herodotus, Plutarch, Livy, were poets.”¹⁸ But if Shelley, himself a poet, considered it a positive virtue, the author of the treatise On Style had a negative opinion of Herodotus’ close relation to poetry and a general disdain for the historian from Halicarnassus.¹⁹ On the other hand, Thucydides and Xenophon are well-regarded and commended for their prose style. When the author of the treatise On Style mentions Theopompus, he does it only to illustrate negative examples of what should be avoided. Demetrius discourages the use of homoioteleuton in clauses that are meant to be powerful (δεινός), such as a passage from Theopompus’ Philippica: δῆλον δ᾿ ἡμῖν τοῦτο ποιεῖ Θεόπομπος. κατηγορῶν γὰρ τῶν Φιλίππου φίλων φησίν, ‘ἀνδρο φόνοι δὲ τὴν φύσιν ὄντες, ἀνδροπόρνοι τὸν τρόπον ἦσαν· καὶ ἐκαλοῦντο μὲν ἑταῖροι, ἦσαν δὲ ἑταῖραι.’ ἡ γὰρ ὁμοιότης ἡ περὶ τὰ κῶλα καὶ ἀντίθεσις ἐκλύει τὴν δεινότητα διὰ τὴν κακο τεχνίαν (Demetr. Eloc. 27 [FGrHist 115 T 44 and F 225c]).

 A discussion of this passage in Grossi (2016) 104 105.  On Herodotus as “prose Homer” see Priestley (2014) § 5 and above § 5.5.  Shelley (1915) 84. For Herodotus and Livy, see Aus. Prof. 20.7 10 and Hieron. Ep. 58.5: both sources are discussed below § 7.3.  The extremely limited number of quotations of Herodotus’ passages support this view. The Herodotean preface is quoted three times: Demetr. Eloc. 12, 17, 44; see also Eloc. 66 where Hdt. 1.203.1 is quoted, even if the passage offers some textual difficulties, discussed in Marini (2007) 198.

166

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

Theopompus illustrates our point when he attacks Philip’s friends and says: ‘menslayers by nature, they were manwhores by character; they were called companions, but were actually concubines’. The assonance and antithesis of the clauses dissolve their force by their arti ficiality.

The same passage is criticized in Eloc. 247 where the author illustrates how to avoid antithesis and assonance (cf. also Eloc. 250). Discussing forcefulness, Demetrius remarks that it comes also from the subject matter (ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν πράγμασι τὸ μεγαλοπρεπές) and that “some writers, like Theopompus, are said to be forceful, but it is their subject that is forceful, not their style” (διὸ καὶ δεινούς τινάς φασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ Θεόπομπον, δεινὰ οὐ δεινῶς λέγοντας).²⁰ Finally, Hecataeus’ preface is mentioned twice in the treatise On Style. Demetrius refers to Hecataeus’ opening words of his History (ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ τῆς ἱστορίας) as he discusses examples of complete clauses.²¹ Yet a longer quotation appears when Demetrius considers the period (περίοδος), which Aristotle defines as a portion of a speech that has a beginning and an end.²² If on the one hand the compact style (ἡ κατεστραμμένη ἑρμηνεία) consists of regularly successive periods, the disjointed style (ἡ διῃρημένη ἑρμηνεία) is divided into clauses not attached to each other. According to Demetrius, examples of this latter style come from Hecataeus, Herodotus, and older writers in general (καὶ ὅλως ἡ ἀρχαία πᾶσα). A fundamental verbatim quotation from Hecataeus follows: “Hecataeus of Miletus speaks as follows: ‘I write these things as they seem to me to be true. For the stories of the Greeks are many, and therefore ridiculous, as they appear to me’.”²³ Demetrius’ quotation is the oldest source for the opening lines of Hecataeus historical work, lines that are implied but not openly reported in Dio Chrysostom’s oration On Homer. ²⁴ The fact that Hecataeus criticized the  Demetr. Eloc. 75 (not printed in FGrHist); see also Eloc. 240 (Theop. FGrHist 115 T 43 and F 290), where the same matter is discussed and some examples from Theopompus’ writings are recalled.  Demetr. Eloc. 2 (Hecat. FGrHist 1 F 1b): ὡς Ἑκαταῖός φησιν ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ τῆς ἱστορίας· “Ἑκαταῖος Μιλήσιος ὧδε μυθεῖται”. Only these few words of the preface are quoted.  This is the definition of the period in Arist. Rh. 1409a35 b1 quoted by Demetr. Eloc. 12.  Demetr. Eloc. 12 (Hecat. FGrHist 1 F 1a): ἡ δέ τις διῃρημένη ἑρμηνεία καλεῖται, ἡ εἰς κῶλα λελυ μένη οὐ μάλα ἀλλήλοις συνηρτημένα, ὡς ἡ Ἑκαταίου καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν Ἡροδότου καὶ ὅλως ἡ ἀρχαία πᾶσα. παράδειγμα αὐτῆς· “Ἑκαταῖος Μιλήσιος ὧδε μυθεῖται· τάδε γράφω, ὥς μοι δοκεῖ ἀλη θέα εἶναι· οἱ γὰρ Ἑλλήνων λόγοι πολλοί τε καὶ γελοῖοι, ὡς ἐμοὶ φαίνονται, εἰσίν.”  Dio Chrys. Or. 53.9 (Hecat. FGrHist 1 F 1c), where Homer is praised for not having written any where his name, in contrast to later writers of both prose and poetry: καίτοι τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάν των, ὁπόσοι τινὰ ἔδοξαν ἔχειν δύναμιν ἢ περὶ ποίησιν ἢ καταλογάδην συγγράφοντες, καὶ πρῶτον καὶ τελευταῖον τὸ ἑαυτῶν ὄνομα γραφόντων, πολλῶν δὲ καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς λόγοις τε καὶ ποιή μασιν, ὥσπερ Ἑκαταῖός τε καὶ Ἡρόδοτος καὶ Θουκυδίδης κτλ. It should also be remarked that

6.1 Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime and Demetrius’ On Style

167

previous tradition, which is described as manifold and ridiculous, has been famously interpreted as the first attempt to write a rational work of history.²⁵ The passage reported by Demetrius significantly features as the first fragment of the first Greek historian in Felix Jacoby’s collection Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Yet the approach to Hecataeus as the first Greek historian has recently been called into question, an issue that will be considered in § 6.6. What is noteworthy for Demetrius’ treatment of Hecataeus, is that after quoting his words, he continues with a negative assessment on their disjointed style: “Here the clauses seem thrown one on top of the other in a heap without the connections or buttressing or mutual support which we find in periods.”²⁶ It seems that, just like Dionysius’ inclusion of Hecataeus among the early Greek historians that employed an unadorned style (Dion. Hal. Th. 5), Hecataeus did not fit Demetrius’ ideal of prose writer. The fact that Herodotus is also associated with older writers is a further element of Demetrius’ slightly negative opinion on Herodotus. Finally, Philistus and Clitarchus also feature in the treatise On Style, but only to be criticized. Philistus is reproached for his obscurity (ἀσαφές), caused by excessive use of dependent constructions (πλαγιότητας) – which is incidentally also singled out as a deplorable characteristic of a passage from Xenophon’s Anabasis (1.2.21).²⁷ Clitarchus’ flawed choice of words (ὀνομασία) leads sometimes to an unpleasant (ἀχαρίς) and frigid (ψυχρός) style.²⁸ It is also noteworthy to recall those historians that do not appear in this treatise: Timaeus, Callisthenes, and Ephorus. A brief and conclusive comparison between the treatise On the Sublime and Demetrius’ On Style displays the similarity of their choices in the domain of Greek historiography. In the first place, both treatises praise Thucydides’ style. Herodotus is somewhat neglected by Demetrius, while the pseudo-Longinus appears to appreciate the Halicarnassian. Xenophon is treated as both a historian and an author of philosophical works. The two treatises differ in treating Theopompus: he is quoted as a positive example of magnificence in On the Sublime, while in On Style he is always criticized. Philistus is also praised by the author of the On the Sublime, while his obscurity is condemned in the treatise On Style.

Hecataeus’ preface is quoted by the Byzantine bishop and grammarian Gregorius of Corinth (eleventh/twelfth century) in his commentary on the pseudo Hermogenes’ Περὶ μεθόδου δει νότητος: see Walz (1832 1836) 7.2, 1215.26 1216.2.  Momigliano (1931).  Demetr. Eloc. 12: ὥσπερ γὰρ σεσωρευμένοις ἐπ᾿ ἀλλήλοις τὰ κῶλα ἔοικεν καὶ ἐπερριμμένοις καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν σύνδεσιν οὐδ᾿ ἀντέρεισιν, οὐδὲ βοηθοῦντα ἀλλήλοις ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς περιόδοις.  Demetr. Eloc. 197 (Philist. FGrHist 556 T 19).  Demetr. Eloc. 304 (Clitarch. FGrHist 137 F 14, cf. T 10).

168

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

Other historians feature in these treatises, only to be disapproved of: Timaeus, Callisthenes, and Clitarchus in pseudo-Longinus; Philistus and Clitarchus in Demetrius. The selection of historians in the treatise On Style and in On the Sublime are similar to Dionysius’ choices, especially in completely ignoring Ephorus. The presence of Hecataeus is noteworthy. He does not appear in the core sources for the canon of Greek historians discussed above (Cicero, Dionysius, and Quintilian, § 5.4), which gives more credit to the hypothesis that the author of the On the Sublime exploited a learned Hellenistic commentary on Homer as a source for his citation of Hecataeus. On the other hand, Demetrius quotes twice the opening lines of Hecataeus’ historical work, the Genealogy: however, this does not prove that he actually knew all of the early Greek historian’s work. His inclusion of Hecataeus among the early Greek historians and the disapproval of his disjointed style show that Hecataeus was not included in Demetrius’ supposed canon of Greek historiography.

6.2 Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata Aelius Theon’s work, known as the Progymnasmata, represents what is essentially a school text, intended as an introductory textbook for the study of rhetoric.²⁹ It is the earliest example of such a treatise which has come down to us: it is known basically through Greek manuscripts, but a continuous portion of the treatise is preserved only in the Armenian tradition.³⁰ It was written after Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ rhetorical treatises and before the age of the Second Sophistic, i. e. between the first century and the beginning of the second century AD.³¹

 A general introduction on progymnasmata in Hunger (1978) 1.92 120; Kennedy (1983) 52 73; Cichocka (1992); Webb (2001); Kennedy (2003) IX XV; Kraus (2005). For progymnasmata on papyri: Cribiore (2001) 220 230.  The reference edition used in this chapter and throughout this book is Patillon/Bolognesi (1997). Quotations from the Greek text follow Spengel (1854) 2.57 130, which is the numbering used also by Patillon/Bolognesi (1997) 1 98, while for the Armenian version, I rely on Patil lon/Bolognesi (1997) 99 112 and refer to it by page numbers. There is an English translation of the Greek text in Kennedy (2003) 1 72; for the Armenian version, Kennedy relies on Patil lon/Bolognesi (1997) and offers only a summary: see Kennedy (2003) 64.  A terminus post quem is the explicit reference to Dionysius’ De Demosthene in the Armenian tradition (Theon, Prog. p. 106). In their commentary, Patillon/Bolognesi (1997) 169 n. 546 discuss the Armenian word that probably translates the Greek οὗτος: the demonstrative would indicate a temporal proximity to Dionysius, which would date Theon’s Progymnasmata to the first half of the first century AD. For the terminus ante quem, the lack of any allusion to Aelius Aristides, the

6.2 Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata

169

Theon’s Progymnasmata includes many references and various quotations from previous Greek historians. The significance of rhetorical preliminary exercises for future orators, historians (called λογοποιοί), and poets is explicitly mentioned in a programmatic passage of the Progymnasmata. ³² What is even more important is the fact that examples from the works of previous historians were apparently almost as valuable to Theon as Demosthenes’ speeches for basic rhetorical instruction. In fact, quotations from Thucydides and Herodotus are inferior in quantity only to Homer and Demosthenes, two essential authors in ancient education and literary culture.³³ Clear and explicit references to ancient historians are included in an introductory section where the literary education of school-children is described. Plato’s Republic is mentioned in the first place, followed by Herodotus, Philistus, Theopompus’ Philippica, and Xenophon’s Memorabilia; Thucydides is referred to before Demosthenes, Hyperides, and the rest of the ancient orators (Theon, Prog. 65.30‒70.23). In this introductory section, quotations from the historical works of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus can be traced. Herodotus and Thucydides are quoted repeatedly with more than twenty references and quotations each. All others can be considered minor Greek historians in Theon’s textbook. Quotations from Theopompus refer almost exclusively to the Philippica, which ancient readers and critics considered his most significant contribution to historiography.³⁴ There is a lone exception where Theon suggests a comparison between the Hellenica of Xenophon and Theopompus’ homost famous author of the Second Sophistic and the most quoted in later progymnasmata, in dicates probably that the treatise was written before his activity. Further discussion on the dating of Theon’s work in Patillon/Bolognesi (1997) VII XVI; Kennedy (2003) 1 3; Alpers (2013) 12 n. 3. Kraus (2005) 161 defines Theon as “einem älteren Zeitgenossen Quintilians,” even if no conclu sive proof has been put forward. A certain Aelius Theon of Alexandria mentioned in Suda θ 206 as the author of a Περὶ προγυμνασμάτων has been identified with the Aelius Theon known from the direct tradition, but the Suda entry does not add any substantial information on the author or the work. Cf. Janiszewski et al. (2015) 362 363 nr. 1033. The date suggested by Heath (2002/ 2003), who argues that Theon’s Progymnasmata were written in the fifth century AD, is not con vincing: see Alpers (2013) 12 n. 13.  Theon, Prog. 70.24 29: ταῦτα μὲν οὖν παρεθέμην, οὐ νομίζων μὲν ἅπαντα εἶναι πᾶσιν ἀρχο μένοις ἐπιτήδεια, ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰδῶμεν, ὅτι πάνυ ἐστὶν ἀναγκαῖον ἡ τῶν γυμνασμάτων ἄσκησις οὐ μόνον τοῖς μέλλουσι ῥητορεύειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἴ τις ἢ ποιητῶν ἢ λογοποιῶν ἢ ἄλλων τινῶν λόγων δύναμιν ἐθέλει μεταχειρίζεσθαι.  For Demosthenes’ reception in the Roman Imperial age: Pernot (2006b). For Thucydides’ and Herodotus’ quotations see the indexes in Patillon/Bolognesi (1997) 173 178 and 224 231.  Theon, Prog. 80.31 81.4 (Theop. FGrHist 115 T 30), 66.21 22 (F 74a), 68.13 17 (F 78), 66.11 14 (F 127), 67.22 30 (F 153).

170

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

monymous work to show the importance of paraphrasis for ancient writers.³⁵ Theon also mentioned separately the encomia to Philip and Alexander as two distinct works by Theopompus, but he probably refers here to passages in the Philippica. ³⁶ Ephorus’ presence in Theon’s Progymnasmata is also attested, especially for the mythical content of his work of history.³⁷ Philistus is unequivocally accused of plagiarism: in his description of the Athenian expedition in Sicily he supposedly transferred (the verb used is μεταφέρω) Thucydides’ narrative.³⁸ Unfortunately, it is not possible to check Theon’s claim. There are, however, other quotations from his historical work where the tyrant Dionysius I of Syracuse appears.³⁹ Finally, Xenophon’s presence in the Progymnasmata is uniquely related to his philosophical production: the Memorabilia, Symposion, and Agesilaus. ⁴⁰ It seems that Theon – just like Cicero, pseudo-Longinus, Quintilian, and Diogenes Laertius⁴¹ – followed a tradition that included Xenophon not in the historiographical, but rather in the philosophical genre. So far, the presence of the most important Greek historians in Theon’s Progymnasmata has been evaluated. If one considers only the Greek tradition of this ancient textbook, Ctesias of Cnidus’ brief presence should be added to the list.⁴² However, the Armenian tradition, which goes back to a translation from the

 Theon, Prog. 70.6 7: ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἱστορίας καὶ ὅλους ἀλλήλοις ἀντιπαραβάλλειν σκοποῦντα τὸ ἄμεινον ἐξειργασμένον, οἷον Δημοσθένους μὲν τοὺς κατὰ Κόνωνος λόγους πρὸς τοὺς Ὑπερίδου, Θεοπόμπου δὲ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς ἱστορίας πρὸς τὰς Ξενοφῶντος. This reference to Theopompus’ Hellenica is not recorded in Jacoby’s FGrHist, nor in Morison (2014), but was already noticed by Capone/Franco (2004) 172.  Theon, Prog. 68.25 28 and 110.30 35 (FGrHist 115 FF 255 257). The fact that the reference to these encomia actually belonged to the Philippica is supported by Flower (1997) 39. For different opinions and further hypothesis see the commentary to F 255 in Morison (2014).  Theon, Prog. 67.9 22 (FGrHist 70 FF 13, 17, 18a), 95.3 96.4 (FF 31a, 32, 34), 66.27 67.3 (FF 57, 65a), 69.29 32 (F 177). There is also a reference to a non historiographical work by Ephorus in Theon’s Progymnasmata, i. e. the Περὶ λέξεως (On Style): Theon, Prog. 71.19 26 (FGrHist 70 F 6).  Theon, Prog. 63.22 24 (FGrHist 556 T 14, F 51): καὶ μέντοι γε ὁ Φίλιστος τὸν ᾿Aττικὸν ὅλον πόλεμον ἐν τοῖς Σικελικοῖς ἐκ τῶν Θουκυδίδου μετενήνοχε. Cf. Theon, Prog. 119.3 4 (FGrHist 556 T 20c, F 52).  Theon, Prog. 66.26 28 (FGrHist 556 T 20a, F 1), 66.8 11 (F 6), 68.17 22 (FF 28 and 40a).  Xen. Mem. 2.7.13 14 (Theon, Prog. 66.14) and 4.3.3 9 (Theon, Prog. 126.31); Xen. Symp. 8.12 (Theon, Prog. 68.31 34) and 8.12 36 (Theon, Prog. 115.10 12); a generic reference to the Agesilaus in Theon, Prog. 68.28. See also the above mentioned reference to Xenophon’s Hellenica com pared to Theopompus’ Hellenica in Theon, Prog. 70.7.  See especially Cic. Hort. fr. 29 Straume Zimmermann; Quint. Inst. 10.1.75; [Longin.] Subl. 4.4; Diog. Laert. 2.48 with Hesychius apud Suda ξ 47 (above § 2.5).  Theon, Prog. 118.28 (FGrHist 688 F 9b; Lenfant [2004] 114).

6.2 Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata

171

Greek text carried out in the sixth century AD,⁴³ preserves noteworthy evidence for Theon’s approach to historiography which is not transmitted in the Greek tradition. In the chapter on reading,⁴⁴ Theon suggests a reading list of orators for his pupils, from the easiest to the most demanding. Reading Isocrates’ works is suitable for beginners, he argues; Hyperides and Aeschines are appropriate for intermediate readers; finally, Demosthenes represents the most difficult author among the orators, at least from Theon’s educational perspective (Theon, Prog. p. 102). After this reading syllabus based on the orators, Theon carries on with the Greek historians (Theon, Prog. pp. 103‒105). Significantly, five subgenres of historiography are discussed in a few pages of the Armenian text. In their recent edition, Michel Patillon and Giancarlo Bolognesi have re-translated into Greek the Armenian words defining these subgenres: γενεαλογικός, πολιτικός, μυθικός, ἀπομνημονευματικός, περιεκτικός.⁴⁵ For each of these subgenres, Theon gives a few examples. Historians dealing with genealogy include Apollodorus of Athens, Acusilaus of Argos, and Hecataeus of Miletus;⁴⁶ Thucydides and Philistus are considered political historians; myths have been told by Asclepiades of Tragilos (FGrHist 12), the fourth-century BC author of the Tragoidoumena;⁴⁷ the subgenre of the memorabilia (ἀπομνημονευματικός) includes Xenophon (“les pages de Xénophon sur Socrate,” Theon, Prog. p. 104), as well as the writings on music by Aristoxenus of Tarentum and the biographies of Satyrus of Callatis;⁴⁸ finally, among the comprehensive historians (περιεκτικός, “les historiens généralistes”), Kimnos, Philias, Philostephanus, Istros, and the Aristotelian constitutions are listed.⁴⁹ Historians labelled as comprehensive (περιεκτικός) described military

 The Armenian tradition of the Progymnasmata is discussed in Patillon/Bolognesi (1997) CXXXVI CLII; for more recent references see Capone/Franco (2004) 167 168.  Theon, Prog. p. 102: § 13 “La lecture et son objet / et sa pratique.” I rely on Bolognesi’s French translation for the Armenian text.  Patillon/Bolognesi (1997) 164 n. 512.  The French translation of the Armenian text reveal that Theon spoke also of historians that numbered the priestesses of Argos: “celles qui dénombraient les prêtresses d’Argos” (Then, p. 103). This appears to be an explicit reference to Hellanicus of Lesbos’ chronographic work Priestesses of Hera in Argos (Ἱέρειαι τῆς Ἥρας αἱ ἐν Ἄργει: FGrHist 4 FF 74, 79b, 84; cf. also FGrHist 323a F 21c, 22a b). Cf. Fowler (2000 2013) 2.684.  This Asclepiades was probably the subject of Philochorus’ polemical work Πρὸς ᾿Aσκλη πιάδην ἐπιστολήν (FGrHist 12 T 3; FGrHist 328 F 91).  The recent edition of Satyrus’ fragments, Schorn (2004), does not include Theon’s reference to Satyrus.  Kimnos and Philias are otherwise completely unknown, even if the name Kimnos could be a mistake for the periegetic author Skymnos of Chios (this was suggested by Capone/Franco [2004]

172

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

campaigns, cities, rivers, thesis, and physis. The two concepts of thesis (“position”) and physis (“site”), which refer to the geographical description of cities and territories, are well known in the ancient rhetorical theory and practice, especially in epideictic oratory.⁵⁰ The texts of ancient historians evidently offered valuable examples for this kind of geographical description in a rhetorical context. The list of different historiographical subgenres and of their respective interpreters in the Armenian text of Theon’s Progymnasmata represents a fascinating testimony for the reception of Greek historiography in Greek education. Many of the above-mentioned historians do not belong to the lists examined in previous chapters; given their obscurity, some of them are not even represented in Jacoby’s monumental collection of fragmentary Greek historians. After discussing these known and lesser known Greeks historians, Theon adds another few lines which are essential for the topic of this book. I reproduce here Bolognesi’s French translation of the Armenian text: Il en existe encore une autre espèce plus achevée, dans laquelle, comme l’avait fait Hé rodote, la plupart des autres historiens pratiquent toutes les disciplines susdites. Aussi lirons nous d’abord celui là, qui a, malgré son savoir étendu, un style d’une grande sim plicité. De lui nous passerons à Théopompe et Xénophon, d’où nous en viendrons à Phi listos et Éphore, pour finir par Thucydide (Theon, Prog. p. 104).

The list follows the pattern already displayed in Theon’s reading suggestions from Greek orators. From Herodotus, the less difficult writer, Theon proceeds to Theopompus and Xenophon, Philistus and Ephorus, and concludes with Thucydides, the most demanding historian. Even if Thucydides and Philistus are mentioned earlier under the heading of political historians, nevertheless the author of the Progymnasmata considers that Herodotus, Theopompus, Xenophon, Philistus, Ephorus, and Thucydides have engaged in all the above-mentioned subgenres of historiography. This list and its position in Theon’s line of reasoning shows that these six historians, which are placed above lesser-known authors, represent his canon of historiography. It is thus evident, that Theon’s canon does not differ greatly from the historiographical canons of Cicero, Dionysius, Quintilian, nor from

178 179). Philostephanus (FHG 3.28 34 Müller) and Istros (FGrHist 324) belonged both to the school of Callimachus in Alexandria. Cf. Patillon/Bolognesi (1997) 165 n. 521. These references to Philostephanus and Istros are not included in the editions of their fragments, mainly because Manandyan’s editio princeps of the Armenian text was published in 1938 without a translation in any European language.  Cf. Pernot (1993) 202 208.

6.3 Late Antique Progymnasmata and Some Rhetorical Treatises

173

those I have identified in pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime and Demetrius’ On Style. The main points of divergence from the canons of Dionysius, pseudo-Longinus, and Demetrius lies in the presence of Ephorus both in Theon’s overall quotations and in his brief concluding list. On the other hand, the author of the Progymnasmata seems to be carrying on an established ancient tradition that considered mainly Xenophon’s philosophical writings, even if he includes the Memorabilia in the discussion of the subgenres of historiography. There is no perfectly matching pattern in the reception of ancient canonical and lesser canonical historians. As already displayed throughout the previous chapters, each source, even if broadly following a tradition, puts forward its own thoughts and its own canon.

6.3 Late Antique Progymnasmata and Some Rhetorical Treatises The previous section has been centred on the earliest extant Greek introductory textbook for the study of rhetoric. A broad canon of historiography has emerged from the analysis of Theon’s Progymnasmata, a canon that resembles the canons of many Greek and Latin authors of the first century BC and first century AD. Now later authors of Progymnasmata will be considered, from pseudo-Hermogenes (second/third century AD) and Aphthonius (fourth century AD) to Nicolaus of Myra (fifth century AD).⁵¹ Moreover, rhetorical treatises (τέχναι ῥητορικαί) by Rufus of Perinthus (second century AD) and Apsines of Gadara (third century AD), the so-called Anonymous Seguerianus (third century AD), and the epitome of Longinus’ Τέχνη ῥητορική by Michael Psellus will be briefly included in the analysis. The first text that will be considered is the Progymnasmata of the pseudoHermogenes. The earliest surviving manuscript of this text, Parisinus gr. 3032 of the eleventh century AD, as well as two Byzantine commentators of Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata, John of Sardi (tenth century AD) and Doxopatres (eleventh century AD), ascribe the Progymnasmata to Hermogenes of Tarsus.⁵² However,

 On these different authors of Progymnasmata: Kennedy (2003) and Kraus (2005) 161 162. I will not deal here with Classical historiography in Late Antique Progymnasmata, a topic already tackled by Bompaire (1976) and Gibson (2004); moreover, for an analysis of Thucydides’ role in ancient rhetorical textbooks: Iglesias Zoido (2012).  On Hermogenes see below § 6.4.

174

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

since the nineteenth century scholars have proved that these Progymnasmata do not belong to the famous second century AD rhetor Hermogenes.⁵³ There are only two Greek historians mentioned in pseudo-Hermogenes’ Progymnasmata: Herodotus and Thucydides. Both historians feature in passages that are very similar to some sections of Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata. For example, the episodes of Arion in Herodotus and of Alcmeon in Thucydides are recalled in pseudo-Hermogenes’ chapter on narration (Περὶ διηγήματος),⁵⁴ which coincides with Aelius Theon’s discussion of narration and description (Theon, Prog. 93.16‒94.6). Another reference to Arion’s episode in Herodotus’ first book features in Ps.-Hermog. Prog. 5.2‒3: the episode seems to have been commonly employed in ancient Greek rhetorical treatises.⁵⁵ Moreover, a comparison between pseudo-Hermogenes’ section on description (Περὶ ἐκφράσεως) with the homonymous section in Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata reveals the use of the same words and the presence of an identical shared reference to Thucydides: γένοιτο δ᾽ ἄν τις καὶ μικτὴ ἔκφρασις, ὡς παρὰ τῷ Θουκυδίδῃ ἡ νυκτομαχία.⁵⁶ Apart from these mentions, in pseudo-Hermogenes there is also a passing reference to the story of the rediscovery of Theseus’ bones in Herodotus 1.67.⁵⁷ In summary, the references to historians in pseudo-Hermogenes’ Progymnasmata belong to passages of Herodotus and Thucydides that were well known in the ancient Greek educational system. There is, however, an unnamed and isolated quotation of Xenophon’s Cynegeticus which again characterizes Xenophon for his non-historiographical works.⁵⁸

 See Rabe (1913) IV VI; Patillon (2008) 165 170.  Ps. Hermog. Prog. 2.1 2: Περὶ διηγήματος. τὸ διήγημα βούλονται εἶναι ἔκθεσιν πράγματος γεγονότος ἢ ὡς γεγονότος. ἔνιοι μέντοι τὴν χρείαν ἔταξαν πρὸ τούτου. διαφέρει δὲ διήγημα διη γήσεως, ὡς ποίημα ποιήσεως· ποίημα μὲν γὰρ καὶ διήγημα περὶ πρᾶγμα ἕν, ποίησις δὲ καὶ διή γησις περὶ πλείονα, οἷον ποίησις ἡ Ἰλιὰς καὶ ποίησις ἡ Ὀδύσσεια, ποιήματα δὲ ἀσπιδοποιία, νεκυομαντεία, μνηστηροφονία. καὶ πάλιν διήγησις μὲν ἡ ἱστορία Ἡροδότου, ἡ συγγραφὴ Θουκυ δίδου, διήγημα δὲ τὸ κατὰ ᾿Aρίονα (Hdt. 1.23 24), τὸ κατὰ ᾿Aλκμαίωνα (Thuc. 2.102). The number ing of pseudo Hermogenes follows Patillon (2008) 180 206.  See the parallel passages collected in the apparatus criticus in the recent edition of Severus Alexandrinus’ Progymnasmata: Amato (2009) 6 and Amato/Ventrella (2009) 57.  Theon, Prog. 119.3 4 = Ps. Hermog. Prog. 10.3. The passage to the night battle can refer either to Thuc. 3.22 24 or 7.43 44.  Ps. Hermog. Prog. 7.9: ἐξετάσεις δὲ καὶ τὰ μετὰ τὴν τελευτήν, εἰ ἀγῶνες ἐτέθησαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, ὡς ἐπὶ Πατρόκλῳ, εἰ χρησμός τις γέγονε περὶ τῶν ὀστέων, ὡς ἐπὶ Ὀρέστου, εἰ οἱ παῖδες ἔνδοξοι, ὡς ὁ Νεοπτόλεμος.  Ps. Hermog. Prog. 7.12: τὰ δὲ πράγματα ἐγκωμιάσει ἀπὸ τῶν εὑρόντων, οἷον τὴν θηρατικὴν Ἄρτεμις εὗρε καὶ ᾿Aπόλλων > Xen. Cyn. 1.1: τὸ μὲν εὕρημα θεῶν, ᾿Aπόλλωνος καὶ ᾿Aρτέμιδος, ἄγραι καὶ κύνες.

6.3 Late Antique Progymnasmata and Some Rhetorical Treatises

175

Aphthonius, the author of another work known as Progymnasmata, has long ago been recognized as the addressee of a letter by Libanius written in the year 392 AD:⁵⁹ it helps to date Aphthonius to the second half of the fourth century AD.⁶⁰ His Progymnasmata display a great deal of similarity with the previous works of Aelius Theon and pseudo-Hermogenes:⁶¹ Aphthonius clearly depends on an established tradition. In Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata only two ancient Greek historians appear, Herodotus and Thucydides, but only the latter is defined as ὁ συγγραφεύς.⁶² In fact, in the section on description (ἔκφρασις), Thucydides is quoted for his description of battles on land (πεζομαχία), at sea (ναυμαχία), or fought at night (νυκτομαχία).⁶³ Apart from this isolated reference, Aphthonius dedicates a whole section to the praise of Thucydides in Prog. 8.4‒9, the title of the section being Ἐγκώμιον Θουκυδίδου. The main purpose of the brief biographical introduction of the encomium, which bears great affinity to Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides, is to display the excellence of Thucydides’ environment, i. e. Athens, the native land of the logos. ⁶⁴ The brief biography is followed by many references to episodes narrated by Thucydides, which ostensibly demonstrate his superiority,⁶⁵ and the encomium ends with a comparison with Herodotus, which features an implicit critique of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Letter to Pompeius: εἶτά τις αὐτῷ παραβάλοι τὸν Ἡρόδοτον; ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνος μὲν διηγεῖται πρὸς ἡδονήν, ὃ δὲ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἅπαντα φθέγγεται· ὅσῳ δὴ τὸ πρὸς χάριν τοῦ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἔλαττον, τοσοῦτον Ἡρόδοτος τῶν Θουκυδίδου καλῶν ἀπολείπεται (Aphth. Prog. 8.8). Why compare Herodotus to Thucydides? One has narrated for pleasure, the other having truth always in mind; just as grace is inferior to truth, so is Herodotus surpassed by the beauty of Thucydides.

 Lib. Ep. 1065 Foerster; cf. Seeck (1906) 79. However, some scholars have rejected this iden tification: see Janiszewski et al. (2015) 36 37 nrr. 94 95 for diverging opinions.  Rabe (1926) XXII XXVI; Kennedy (2003) 89 90; Patillon (2008) 50 52.  Parallel passages are reported in the apparatus and the notes of Patillon’s edition: Patillon (2008) 112 162.  Aphth. Prog. 12.1.  Aphth. Prog. 12.1 2. For Theon’s (119.3 4) and pseudo Hermogenes’ (Prog. 10.3) reference to a νυκτομαχία in Thucydides, see n. 56 in this same chapter.  Aphth. Prog. 8.5: προῆλθε τοίνυν Θουκυδίδης ἐκ γῆς, ἣ καὶ βίον αὐτῷ παρέσχε καὶ τέχνην· οὐ γὰρ ἑτέρωθεν γέγονεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅθεν οἱ λόγοι. καὶ μητέρα βίου τὰς ’Αθήνας εὑρών, προγόνοις μὲν βασιλεῦσιν ἐχρήσατο καὶ τὸ τῆς τύχης αὐτῷ δυνατώτερον ἐκ τοῦ προτέρου προελήλυθε γένους.  Aphth. Prog. 8.6 7.

176

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

Aphthonius opts for Thucydides in a rigid juxtaposition between pleasure and truth in historiography. The initial question – Why compare Herodotus to Thucydides? – is clearly a reference to Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ comparison of these two historians in his Letter to Pompeius, where Herodotus is favoured over Thucydides, as well as to the On Thucydides and the Second Letter to Ammaeus, where the Athenian historian is discredited and criticized. Aphthonius, on the other hand, reacts to these provocations and considers Thucydides a benefactor (εὐεργέτης) that needs to be honoured for the literary work he has bequeathed to posterity.⁶⁶ In Aphthonius, Thucydides is praised both for the literary value of his work and for the close relation to truth that he displays in his History. His approach to the Greek historians also shows the importance that truth retained in the attitude toward historiography in Late Antique educational contexts. Finally, Nicolaus of Myra (fifth century AD or perhaps end of the fourth century AD) in his Progymnasmata quotes repeatedly Herodotus, alludes once to Thucydides, and mentions Xenophon’s Memorabilia. ⁶⁷ I will now consider some rhetorical treatises belonging to the second and third century AD. Rufus of Perinthus (second century AD) is the author of a concise Τέχνη ῥητορική: the purpose of this treatise was probably to offer students an easy-to-memorise summary of the most important ancient theories on judicial oratory.⁶⁸ Among historians, only Thucydides and Xenophon are mentioned by Rufus. The former historian is praised when treating the preface (Περὶ προοιμίου), for all over his work the γνώμη (“disposition,” “inclination”) makes the introduction to discourse more solemn.⁶⁹ The latter, on the other hand, is quoted

 Aphth. Prog. 8.4.  See, for Herodotus, Nicol. Prog. 12.7, 51.21 52.3, 61.15 19; for a reference to Thuc. 1.24 ff, Nicol. Prog. 13.1; for Xenophon, Nicol. Prog. 26.7. Nicolaus’ Progymnasmata are published by Felten (1913); cf. Kennedy (2003) 129 131; Gibson (2009).  On the identification and date of Rufus: M. Patillon in Patillon/Brisson (2001) 237 239; for his cultural and literary milieu: Patillon/Brisson (2001) 244 264; cf. Janiszewski et al. (2015) 322 nr. 911. The educational purpose of the treatise was highlighted by Gaines (1986), which is followed by M. Patillon in Patillon/Brisson (2001) 237 244; on the other hand, Schissel (1926) tried to explain the extreme brevity of the text as a sophistic display of brevity and conciseness (βραχύτης καὶ συντομία).  Ruf. Rh., 16 (p. 402 Spengel/Hammer): ἡ δὲ γνώμη σεμνοτέραν τὴν προκατάστασιν τοῦ λόγου ποιεῖ, ὡς ὁ Θουκυδίδης πανταχῆ (cf. Thuc. 1.80, 86, 140, passim).

6.3 Late Antique Progymnasmata and Some Rhetorical Treatises

177

twice from the Anabasis, once to illustrate digressive narrative (παραδιήγησις), and then narrative proper (Περὶ διηγήσεως).⁷⁰ Valerius Apsines of Gadara, who lived at the beginning of the third century AD, is the author of another Τέχνη ῥητορική where yet again the only historians mentioned by name are Thucydides and Xenophon (from his Cyropaedia).⁷¹ Suprisingly, Ctesias of Cnidus also features briefly in Apsines’ rhetorical treatise,⁷² but his presence, so sporadic in other sources of the same nature, can be understood as embodying the erudite quotation of a lesser known historian. Except for Thuc. 1.34, which is quoted in the section Περὶ λύσεων (§ 5), all the other quotations of historians in Apsines appear in the section on the epilogue (Περὶ ἐπιλόγου, § 10), which is described as “a three-part topos: a reminder of what has been said, followed by compassion and indignation.”⁷³ In the treatise on the art of political discourse (Τέχνη τοῦ πολιτικοῦ λόγου) of the so-called Anonymous Seguerianus (third century AD),⁷⁴ only Thucydides is mentioned once, and only for the opening lines of the orations he inserted in his work, just like Rufus did in his Τέχνη ῥητορική.⁷⁵ Lastly, a text with a curious history needs to be discussed, i. e. the Τέχνη ῥητορική of the rhetor Longinus. The year of Longinus’ death in the third century AD is well known to the students of the history of the Roman Empire. Longinus was a supporter of queen Zenobia of Palmyra, who proclaimed independence from Rome. He was sentenced to death by the emperor Aurelian after the defeat

 Ruf. Rh., 23 (p. 403 Spengel/Hammer): καὶ ὁ Ξενοφῶν· “ἐνταῦθα ἦν παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν κρήνη Μίδου καλουμένη τοῦ Φρυγῶν βασιλέως, ἐφ᾽ ᾗ λέγεται Μίδας τὸν Σάτυρον θηράσαι οἴνῳ κερά σας αὐτήν.” καὶ πάλιν· “ἐνταῦθα λέγεται ᾿Aπόλλων ἐκδεῖραι Μαρσύαν ἐρίζοντά οἱ περὶ σοφίας, καὶ τὸ δέρμα κρεμάσαι ἐν τῷ ἄντρῳ ὅθεν αἱ πηγαί· διὰ δὲ τοῦτο ὁ ποταμὸς καλεῖται Μαρσύας.” Quotations refer respectively to Xen. An. 1.2.13 and 1.2.8.  Thuc. 1.34 (Aps. 5.26); Thuc. 3.58 (Aps. 10.56); Xen. Cyr. 7.3.8 9 (Aps. 10.41).  Ctes. FGrHist 688 F 25 (Aps. 10.38).  Aps. 10.1: ὁ ἐπίλογος τόπος τριμερής ἐστιν· ἔχει γὰρ καὶ ἀνάμνησιν τῶν εἰρημένων καὶ ἔλεον καὶ δείνωσιν. Cf. Arist. Rh. 1417a13, 1419b26.  The name comes from the Marquis de Séguier, the owner of the manuscript preserving the text, the Parisinus gr. 1874 of the twelfth century AD; cf. Dilts/Kennedy (1997) IX XXVI; the most recent edition, with French translation and ample introduction, is Patillon (2005).  Anon. Seg. 33: ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀκολούθως ῥητέον, καὶ πρῶτον πρὸς τὸ ὅτι οἱ ἀρχαῖοι συνέταξαν λόγους, ὧν οὐδεὶς ἀπροοιμίαστος· ἐκεῖνο γάρ φαμεν, ὅτι οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἀγωνιζόμενοι 〈μὲν〉 πολλάκις οὐκ εἶπον προοίμια, συντάσσοντες δὲ μετὰ προοιμίων ἐβουήθησαν συντάξαι· μάρτυς τοῦ λόγου Θουκυδίδης (3.30) ἐν ᾗ φησι δημηγοριῶν· “᾿Aλκίδα καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ πλεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ Μυτιλήνην.” See also Ruf. Rh., 16 (p. 402 Spengel/Hammer) quoted above.

178

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

of Zenobia in 272/3 AD.⁷⁶ He wrote a rhetorical treatise which survives in an epitome made in the eleventh century AD by the Byzantine scholar Michael Psellus.⁷⁷ The final section of Psellus’ epitome conveys some noteworthy information about Longinus’ canon of ancient Greek historiography: ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ ῥήτωρ [Longinus] ἑπτὰ τίθησιν ἄνδρας κρατίστους διὰ πάσης ἀρετῆς, ὁπόσοι τὴν φράσιν ἡμῖν συγκοσμοῦσι· δύο μὲν τῶν Σωκρατικῶν φιλοσόφων Αἰσχίνην καὶ Πλάτω να, δύο δὲ τῶν ἱστορίαν συνθέντων, Ἡρόδοτον καὶ Θουκυδίδην, τρεῖς δὲ τῶν ὀνομαζο μένων ῥητόρων, Ἰσοκράτην καὶ Λυσίαν καὶ Δημοσθένην· καὶ τοὺς μὲν πέντε ἀναμαρτήτους ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς εἴδεσι τοῦ λόγου τίθεται. Θουκυδίδου δὲ αἰτιᾶται τὸ κατεστοιβασμένον καὶ περιειργασμένον, Πλάτωνος δὲ ἀτεχνίαν τῆς τῶν ἰδεῶν κράσεως καὶ τὸν ποιητικώτερον ὄγκον τῆς πεζῆς διαλέκτου· τοῦτο μόνον οὐ κατ᾽ ἐμὴν γνώμην λέγων, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν οὕτω τῷ ῥήτορι εἴρηται (Longinus, fr. 49.100 111 Patillon/Brisson). Our rhetor Longinus proposes as best in all virtues seven authors who confer ornament to our own style: two Socratic philosophers, Aeschines and Plato; two historians, Herodotus and Thucydides; three orators, Isocrates, Lysias, and Demosthenes. Longinus imputes to five of them totally blameless discourses. Thucydides’ compressed style and useless learn ing are reproached, as well as Plato’s inability to mix different styles and an excessive use of poetic words in prose. I have not expressed simply my own views, but the rhetor’s own words.

Longinus’ list as reported by Psellus contains only two historians: Herodotus and Thucydides. The latter, however, was reproached by Longinus because of excessive accumulation and over-elaboration. Nonetheless, he cannot avoid mentioning him as part of the canon of historiography among other fundamental authors of ancient Greek literature. It is time now to offer a conclusive comparison that draws both from the first two sections of this chapter (§§ 6.1‒2) and the present one (§ 6.3). In the works of pseudo-Longinus, Demetrius, and Aelius Theon – chronologically close to the core sources for the canons of Greek historiography, i. e. Cicero, Dionysius, Quin Longinus’ fragments are collected in Patillon/Brisson (2001) 1 234; cf. also Patillon/Brisson (1994) and (1998); a commentary on Longinus’ philological and philosophical activity is Män nlein Robert (2001).  The modern history of this epitome needs a brief explanation. One branch of the tradition of Apsines’ Τέχνη ῥητορική, represented by the Parisinus gr. 1741 (tenth century), preserves an in terpolation, which was noticed by David Ruhnken and published as an anonymous rhetorical treatise only in 1849 by Jan Bake, professor of Greek at Leiden, who inherited Ruhnken’s papers. However, in 1977 Paul Gautier, after a thorough examination of all the manuscripts that were not available to Ruhnken (or Bake), was able to reconstruct the history of this text and ascribed the epitome of Longinus’ Τέχνη ῥητορική to the Byzantine scholar Michael Psellus. The whole issue is accurately discussed in Pattilon/Brisson (2001) 58 111; they published the epitome as fr. 49.

6.4 The Greek Historians in Hermogenes of Tarsus

179

tilian – many Greek historians are treated, analysed, and quoted mainly for rhetorical and educational purposes. However, in later works of rhetoric and Progymnasmata, from pseudo-Hermogenes to Rufus of Perinthus to Late Antique Nicolaus of Myra, only a limited number of Greek historians are considered. The authors of Progymnasmata successive to Aelius Theon mention exclusively Herodotus and Thucydides (pseudo-Hermogenes quotes Xenophon’s Cynegeticus without, however, an explicit reference to its author); Rufus and Apsines, authors of two τέχναι ῥητορικαί, include uniquely Thucydides and Xenophon in their discussions; finally, Longinus, in his rhetorical work, includes Herodotus and Thucydides as the lone representatives of historiography in the literary canon he outlines. Hence, it appears that at some point in the second century AD something changed in the reception of Greek historiography. If on the one hand, up until (approximately) the first century AD, the canons of historiography comprised six (or more) authors, later this shrank to only two representatives (often Herodotus and Thucydides, sometimes Thucydides and Xenophon), while in some cases only one ancient Greek historian was mentioned (Thucydides). Why have the canons of historiography been squeezed so drastically? Is there any explanation for this state of affairs? The answer lies in the rhetorical works of Hermogenes.

6.4 The Greek Historians in Hermogenes and the Caesura in the Historiographical Canons Testimonies on Hermogenes’ life are limited and inconsistent.⁷⁸ Philostratus, in the Life of the Sophists, mentions the young Hermogenes of Tarsus’ precocious oratory ability as he gave a speech in front of the emperor Marcus Aurelius; the same Philostratus asserts that Hermogenes died alone and completely forgotten.⁷⁹ On the other hand, Cassius Dio recalls that Marcus Aurelius, the emperorphilosopher, attended the lectures of a certain Hermogenes.⁸⁰ Dio’s reference to

 For the following brief analysis of Hermogenes’ life, I have relied on Rabe (1907a); Rader macher (1912b) 865 869; Lindberg (1997) 1985 1988; Patillon (2009) VII XVIII. Cf. also Janiszew ski et al. (2015) 165 166 nr. 481.  See Philostr. VS 2.7, which is the source of Syr. Comm. in Hermog. Stat. 1.9 Rabe; cf. also He sychius apud Suda ε 3046.  Dio Cass. 71.1: Μάρκος δὲ ᾿Aντωνῖνος ὁ φιλόσφος (…) τὰ πολλὰ λόγοις ἐσχόλαζε· λέγεται γὰρ καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ ὢν μὴ αἰδεῖσθαι μηδὲ ὀκνεῖν ἐς διδασκάλου φοιτᾶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Σέξτῳ προσιέναι

180

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

Hermogenes without any further specifications probably implies that this rhetor was well known to his readers. It has been suggested that Philostratus used Cassius Dio’s passage on Hermogenes and added the literary topos of the enfant prodige as it is described in Quintilian (Inst. 1.3.1‒5). Hence, the most reliable source is probably Cassius Dio’s historical work, which helps to set Hermogenes’ activity around the middle or the second half of the second century AD. Hermogenes is the author of two important treatises, the On Legal Issues (Περὶ στάσεων) and the On the Categories of Style (Περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου). Moreover, the On Invention (Περὶ εὑρέσεως) and the On the Ability of Speaking Effectively (Περὶ μεθόδου δεινότητος), as well as the Progymnasmata discussed in a previous section (§ 6.3), were ascribed to Hermogenes already in the fifth century AD. All of these works were collected to construct a single, comprehensive ars rhetorica which went under the name of Hermogenes. At a later stage, these four treatises were included in the so-called corpus rhetoricum, a collection of twelve works of different authors which was supposed to cover the whole school-curriculum of rhetoric.⁸¹ Hermogenes’ works were widely read, excerpted, and commented on by Late Antique and Byzantine scholars and teachers. His authority resulted in the later inclusion of non-authentic works in his corpus.⁸² Among the original works of Hermogenes, only the On the Categories of Style contains quotations of and reference to the Greek historians. Since the On Invention and the On the Ability of Speaking Effectively are not by Hermogenes himself, but much later, they will not be considered. It is, however, noteworthy to mention that in these later works, just like in the works of rhetoric analysed in the previous section (§ 6.3), only a few historians are quoted: Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. This fact again witnesses to the difference in the treatment of the Greek historians in rhetorical works before and after the second century AD. In On the Categories of Style, one should discern between quotations of Greeks historians in the treatise as a whole, and references to historians in the section on the panegyric, which is also the last section of Hermogenes’ treatise.⁸³ In the first case, Hermogenes quotes and discusses Herodotus and Thucydides

τῷ ἐκ Βοιωτῶν φιλοσόφῳ, καὶ ἐς ἀκρόασιν τῶν ῥητορικῶν Ἑρμογένους λόγων μὴ ὀκνῆσαι παραγενέσθαι.  On the corpus rhetoricum: Hunger (1978) 1.76 91; Patillon (2008) V LXXVI.  On Hermogenes’ reception: Kennedy (1983) 52 103.  Hermog. Id. 2.12: Περὶ τοῦ ἁπλῶς πανηγυρικοῦ. Numbering of Hermogenes’ follow Patillon (2012), but Rabe’s excellent edition (1913) has also been considered. For the categories of style in Hermogenes, which Dionysius called ἀρεταὶ λέξεως and Latin rhetors refer to as virtutes elocu tionis, see Hagedorn (1964).

6.4 The Greek Historians in Hermogenes of Tarsus

181

six times each, while there are as many as twelve quotations and references to Xenophon.⁸⁴ Hermogenes appear to have appreciated Xenophon’s style, especially the “simplicity” (ἀφέλεια) of his prose.⁸⁵ It is also evident that the second-century AD rhetor was principally interested in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, and quotes only sporadically from the Hellenica and the Cynegeticus. In the section on the panegyric, Hermogenes focuses initially on Xenophon’s double nature: he compares Xenophon the historian with Xenophon the logographer,⁸⁶ quoting from the Cyropaedia, the Anabasis, the Symposium, and the treatise on hunting (Cynegeticus).⁸⁷ However, since Hermogenes states that after treating Lysias and Isocrates he will analyse “the style of the historians except Xenophon,” it appears that the only true historians for Hermogenes – or at least the only ones worthy of analysis – are Herodotus, Thucydides, and Hecataeus of Miletus.⁸⁸ In the analysis of the Greek historians in Id. 2.12, Hermogenes mentions the content and subject matter of their works, but focuses mainly on their style: hence Herodotus is characterized for his fabulous narrative and for the use of poetic language.⁸⁹ Thucydides, who is ranked second in Hermogenes’ list, is praised for his powerful (μέγεθος) and solemn (σεμνός) style, but is criticised because his search for excessive greatness sometimes leads to obscurity. At the same time, Thucydides represents an authority on political thought.⁹⁰ Finally,

 Herodotus: Hermog. Id. 1.6.5 (Hdt. 2.24); 1.6.11 (8.65); 1.9.4 (e. g. 1.80); 2.4.4 (6.105 and 8.65); 2.4.15 (7.35); 2.4.20 (on Herodotus’ γλυκεῖα). Thucydides: Hermog. Id. 1.6.22 (Thuc. 3.82); 1.6.27 (1.9); 1.12.29 (8.16 and 3.22); 2.1.19 (2.11); 2.8.14 (1.75); 2.11.19 (on Thucydides’ teacher, Antiphon). Xenophon: Hermog. Id. 1.1.36; 2.3.4 (Xen. Cyr. 1.2.3, 4.19); 2.3.11 (Cyr. 2.3.9); 2.3.18; 2.3.19 (Hell. 7.2.9); 2.3.21; 2.4.17 (Cyr. 3.5); 2.4.18 (general reference to the Cynegeticus); 2.4.25; 2.5.1; 2.5.4 (Cyn. 3.8); 2.7.30 (Cyr. 7.3.8).  On Hermogenes’ praise of Xenophon and the different approach to this historian between Hermogenes and Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Rutherford (1998) 69 72.  Hermog. Id. 2.12.8: τοιοῦτος δὲ ὁ Ξενοφῶν κἀν τοῖς ἱστορικοῖς, οἷος κἀν τοῖς ἄλλοις, οἷον ὅτι χιλὸν ἐστέψαντο.  Hermog. Id. 2.12.4 10.  Compare Hermog. Id. 2.12.17 (ἀλλὰ λεκτέον γε ἤδη καὶ περὶ τῶν ἱστορικῶν πλὴν Ξενοφῶντος· ὁποῖος γὰρ εἰς τοὺς λόγους ὁ ἀνήρ, ὀλίγῳ πρότερον εἰρήκαμεν) with Hermog. Id. 2.12.22 (καὶ τῶν ἱστορικῶν δὲ ἐν πρώτοις Ἡροδότου διὰ τοῦτο ἐμνήσθημεν).  Hermog. Id. 2.12.18 20. Compare the superlative ποιητικώτατα in Hermog. Id. 2.12.20 with [Longin.] Subl. 13.3 (μόνος Ἡρόδοτος Ὁμηρικώτατος ἐγένετο) and Demetrius’ disapproving words on Herodotus excessive use of poetic language in Eloc. 112 113 (§ 6.1). Cf. also Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.11.  Hermog. Id. 2.12.24 29; especially 2.12.24: ὁ τοίνυν Θουκυδίδης μάλιστα μεγέθους ἐφιέμενος τυγχάνει μέν τοῦ μεγέθους, οὐ μὴν οὗπερ ἐφίεσθαί μοι δοκεῖ μεγέθους τυγχάνει· βούλεται μὲν γάρ, ὡς ἔγωγε οἶμαι, σεμνὸν εἶναι τὸν λόγον αὐτῷ, ὅπερ ἴδιον μεγέθους πανηγυρικοῦ, φαίνεται

182

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

Hecataeus of Miletus is considered inferior to Herodotus, and yet is genuine and plain and retains a certain sweetness.⁹¹ Even if Hecataeus uses the same Ionic language as Herodotus, his style is less poetic and possess less variety.⁹² Hecataeus’ presence, which is the last Greek historian treated in Hermogenes’ On the Categories of Style, is surprising, and can be compared with pseudo-Longinus’ and Demetrius’ treatises (see below § 6.6). But before moving to the analysis of Homer, Demosthenes, and Plato, Hermogenes explains briefly which historians are the best and which should not be considered in a passage that changed the course of the history of the canons of Greek historiography: Περὶ δὲ Θεοπόμπου καὶ Ἐφόρου καὶ Ἑλλανίκου καὶ Φιλίστου καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων τούτοις περιτ τὸν ἔδοξεν εἶναί μοι γράφειν, μάλιστα μὲν καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀπό τε τοῦ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν λόγου καὶ τῶν κατ’ ἄνδρα εἰρημένων μὴ χαλεπῶς ἡγεῖσθαι δύνασθαί τινα καὶ περὶ ἐκείνων χαρακτη ρίσαι, πρὸς δὲ τούτῳ καὶ ὅτι ζήλου καὶ μιμήσεως τὰ εἴδη τῶν λόγων αὐτῶν οὐ πάνυ τι, μᾶλ λον δὲ οὐδ’ ὅλως, ὅσα γε ἐμὲ γινώσκειν, ἠξίωται παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι, καθάπερ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων οἷον Θουκυδίδου, Ἡροδότου, Ἑκαταίου, Ξενοφῶντος, τῶν λοιπῶν (Hermog. Id. 2.12.33). Regarding Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, Philistus, and other similar historians, it seems to me superfluous to write about them, mostly because I think that in the treatise on the categories of style, according to what has been said earlier, it is possible to charac terize each of these authors without difficulty; moreover, to my knowledge, their works have not quite been thought worthy of emulation and imitation, or has not been considered at all, by the Greeks, whereas Thucydides, Herodotus, Hecataeus, Xenophon, and others are worthy.

The passage, even if somewhat contorted, is very clear on the fate of the Greek historians. On the one hand, Thucydides, Herodotus, Hecataeus, and Xenophon – authors that have been treated earlier in the On the Categories of Style – are worthy of prolonged study and accurate reading, on the other, Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, and Philistus can be neglected because they add nothing new to historiography. Hermogenes highlights a change in the reception of an-

δὲ ὑπερβαίνων τοῦτο καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὴν λέξιν ἐπὶ τὸ τραχύτερον μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ σκληρότερον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τὸ ἀσαφέστερον; 2.12.26: ἀξιωματικὸς δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μάλιστα, ταῖς δὲ ἐννοί αις εἴπερ τις ἄλλος πολιτικὸς ὁμοῦ καὶ σεμνός· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀκατάσκευον οὐδ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις ἀπολείπει.  Hermog. Id. 2.12.30: Ἑκαταῖος δὲ ὁ Μιλήσιος, παρ’ οὗ δὴ μάλιστα ὠφέληται ὁ Ἡρόδοτος, καθαρὸς μέν ἐστι καὶ σαφής, ἐν δέ τισι καὶ ἡδὺς οὐ μετρίως.  Hermog. Id. 2.12.30: τῇ διαλέκτῳ δὲ ἀκράτῳ Ἰάδι καὶ οὐ μεμιγμένῃ χρησάμενος οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἡρόδοτον ποικίλῃ, ἧττόν ἐστιν ἕνεκά γε τῆς λέξεως ποιητικός. This passage is followed by a list of virtues and flaws of Hecataeus, always compared to Herodotus (2.12.31 32).

6.5. One Exception to the Rule: Theopompus in Menander Rhetor

183

cient historians that had already occurred: Theopompus,⁹³ Ephorus, Hellanicus, and Philistus have been excluded from the canons of Greek historiography by being expelled from the schools of rhetoric. This shift must have happened after pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime, Demetrius’ On Style, and Theon’s Progymnasmata, but before pseudo-Hermogenes’ Progymnasmata, Aphthonius, and the rest of the rhetorical treatises discussed in § 6.4. The gap in the canons of Greek historiography was recorded by Hermogenes in the late second century AD and the authority of his works contributed to the preservation of this fracture in the tradition of these texts. One need simply consider that only Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon are preserved through a direct Medieval tradition that led to the Italian Renaissance and the age of printed books⁹⁴ (Hecataeus, even if praised by Hermogenes, cannot boast the same success, cf. below § 6.6). The historians that Hermogenes marks out as unnecessary – Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, and Philistus – were almost completely lost after the second century AD. In fact, a direct knowledge of these historians after that date is difficult to prove: their testimonies and fragments can be recognised in Porphyry, Clement of Alexandria, Photius, Eusthatius of Thessalonica, etc., as well as in the scholiastic corpora and in various etymologica, but it is highly improbable that these authors (apart from Photius)⁹⁵ had a direct knowledge of the historical works of Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, and Philistus. Being excluded from the school curriculum meant, at this stage of the history of classical texts, falling out of the canons of historiography. Hermogenes and other teachers of rhetoric contributed to the loss of the texts of many ancient Greek historians, which survive today only in scanty fragments, much more than any earthquake, fire, or deliberate destruction of the manuscripts ever did.

6.5. One Exception to the Rule: Theopompus in Menander Rhetor There is, however, one notable exception to the exclusion of Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, and Philistus from the canons of historiography described by

 Luc. Hist. conscr. 59 also dismisses Theopompus, because he criticized and accused every body “to the extent that he was a prosecutor rather than a recorder of events.”  Cf. Cavallo (1986); Canfora (1995a).  For the interests on ancient historiography in Byzantium: Kaldellis (2010); Kaldellis (2012).

184

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

Hermogenes, and it is attested in a rhetorical work ascribed to Menander of Laodicea on the Lycus, also known as Menander Rhetor. The Suda ascribes to Menander of Laodicea on the Lycus a commentary on Hermogenes and on Minucianus’ Progymnasmata, while other Byzantine sources refer to Menander as a commentator of Demosthenes.⁹⁶ None of these works survive. On the other hand, the medieval manuscript tradition preserves two treatises ascribed to Menander, both focused on epideictic oratory.⁹⁷ Many modern scholars, owing to linguistic and stylistic arguments, rejected the possibility that these two treatises were written by the same author.⁹⁸ Nonetheless, both treatises are likely to date from the reign of Diocletian, or in any case to the second half of the third century AD.⁹⁹ The first treatise, which deals with the division of epideictic speeches, does not include any allusion or quotation from Greek historians, except for one citation from Xenophon’s Poroi (Men. Rhet. 345.21). The second treatise, dealing with the praise of the emperor (logos basilikos), conceals some noteworthy passages for the history of the canons of Greek historiography. In this treatise, Herodotus is praised for his pleasant narratives, which is similar to the plain and simple style of Xenophon, Nicostratus, Dio Chrysostom, and Philostratus (Men. Rhet. 389.27‒390.4), a passage that can be compared with 411.29‒412.2 where the grace of style in Plato, Xenophon, and other more recent authors is commended. Ephorus and Theopompus are mentioned as pupils of Isocrates: he used to offer garlands to the best of his pupils and they both won them repeatedly (398.9‒12). Such a statement is clearly bound to the biographical tradition on the pupils of Isocrates and has little to do with their historical works. Eventually, the author of the logos basilikos quotes the story of Cleobis and Biton from Herodotus’ first book and Thucydides’ funeral oration (Men. Rhet. 414.1‒2 and 418.15 respectively), which are probably the most exploited passages from these two historians in rhetorical treatises. There is a passage in the opening chapters of this logos basilikos ascribed to Menander Rhetor where, roughly speaking, a canon of historiography is clearly

 Suda μ 590. Cf. Russell/Wilson (1981) XXXIV XXXVI; Heath (2004) 93 96 and 96 118 for Menander’s commentary on Demosthenes.  See Russell/Wilson (1981) LX LXIV; Pernot (1986) 33 34; Gascó (1998); Heath (2004) 127 131.  Russell/Wilson (1981) XXXVIII; Gascó (1998) 3113 3115. Pernot (1986) focuses on the topoi to show that the author(s) of the two treatises did not share the same opinion on epideictic oratory; he also mentions the different nature of the treatises: “A proprement parler, le premier ouvrage est un traité, le second est plutôt un manuel” (Pernot [1986] 52).  On the date: Russell/Wilson (1981) XL; Pernot (1986) 34; Gascó (1998) 3115 3116. Cf. also Agosti (2002).

6.6 Hecataeus of Miletus’ Appearance in the Rhetorical Tradition

185

expressed. The passage concerns a common feature of this kind of panegyric: the description of infantry, cavalry, and sea battles. The author of this treatise points out that οἷα πολλὰ παρὰ τοῖς συγγραφεῦσιν, ἐν τοῖς Μηδικοῖς παρὰ Ἡροδότῳ, παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ πάλιν ἐν τοῖς Πελοποννησιακοῖς, καὶ παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ ἐν τοῖς Φιλιππικοῖς καὶ Ξενοφῶντι ἐν τῇ ’Αναβάσει καὶ τοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς βιβλίοις (Men. Rhet. 373.28 32). There are many such things in the historians, in the Persian wars in Herodotus, in the Pe loponnesian War in Thucydides, in Theopompus’ Philippica, and in Xenophon’s Anabasis and Hellenica.

The nature of the rhetorical feature discussed in this passage defines the examples that are cited: historical works were clearly the most suitable for practicing the mimesis of battle descriptions. Not only Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ histories are cited, but also Theopompus’ Philippica and the two works by Xenophon that are usually considered the most historical: the Anabasis and the Hellenica. The fact that in the second half of the third century AD, the author of this rhetorical treatise lists not only the works of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, but also the Philippica of Theopompus, is noteworthy.¹⁰⁰ It cannot be excluded that this quotation was merely affected by the rhetorical tradition which, despite Hermogenes’ exclusion of Theopompus from the list of the best Greek historians, still retained the name of Theopompus and his Philippica. It may, on the other hand, represent a further testimony on the reception of Theopompus’ most widely appreciated historical work in the Roman imperial age: the quotation in Menander Rhetor, along with the two hyper-canonical historians and Xenophon, would show that Theopompus was still read and valued in the second half of the third century AD.

6.6 Hecataeus of Miletus’ Appearance in the Rhetorical Tradition and his Role in Hermogenes’ On the Categories of Style Before tackling the rest of the sources that contributed to the shaping of the canons in Roman imperial age and in Late Antiquity, a brief excursus is needed on the role played by Hecataeus of Miletus in some of the rhetorical treatises analysed in the previous pages.

 The same historians are praised in Dio Chrysostom’s eighteenth oration: see below § 7.1.

186

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

From the beginning of the nineteenth century, when Friedrich Creuzer collected a corpus of Greek fragmentary historians, it has been established that Hecataeus of Miletus was the first Greek, and thus Western, historian.¹⁰¹ His fragments are the first to appear in Creuzer’s, Müller’s, and Jacoby’s editions of fragmentary Greek historians. But if we consider strictly the ancient tradition, no Greek or Latin source considered Hecataeus the first Greek historian, despite the Greeks’ well-known keenness on identifying a protos euretes in all the fields of human knowledge. He appears in the list of pre-Thucydidean logographers in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Th. 5) where his works do not stand out against those of other archaic historians and logographers Eugeon of Samos, Deiochus of Proconnesus, Eudemus of Paros, Democles of Phygele, Acusilaus of Argos, Charon of Lampsacus, and Melesagoras of Calchedon.¹⁰² Strabo refers to Cadmus of Miletus, Pherecydes of Athens, and Hecataeus of Miletus as the first authors, after Homer, to have used prose as an imitation of poetry, “loosening the metre, yet maintaining the poetic style.”¹⁰³ In the introduction to his geographical work, Strabo relies on Eratosthenes to assert that Homer, Anaximander, and Hecataeus were the first geographers.¹⁰⁴ Only in the tenth-century-AD lexicon of Suda is Hecataeus referred to as “the first to write history in prose” (πρῶτος δὲ ἱστορίαν πεζῶς ἐξήνεγκε).¹⁰⁵ The source of this statement is probably Hesychius’ Onomatologos,

 See Creuzer (1806). The significance of Creuzer’s work for Hecataeus’ contemporary recep tion is discussed in Nicolai (1997) 162 164.  Dion. Hal. Th. 5.2: ἀρχαῖοι μὲν οὖν συγγραφεῖς πολλοὶ καὶ κατὰ πολλοὺς τόπους ἐγένοντο πρὸ τοῦ Πελοποννησιακοῦ πολέμου· ἐν οἷς ἐστιν Εὐγέων τε ὁ Σάμιος καὶ Δηίοχος ὁ Προκοννήσιος καὶ Εὔδημος ὁ Πάριος καὶ Δημοκλῆς ὁ Φυγελεὺς καὶ Ἑκαταῖος ὁ Μιλήσιος, ὅ τε ᾿Aργεῖος ᾿Aκουσίλαος καὶ ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς Χάρων καὶ ὁ Καλχηδόνιος Μελησαγόρας.  Strabo 1.2.6 C 18: (…) ὁ πεζὸς λόγος ὅ γε κατεσκευασμένους μίμημα τοῦ ποιητικοῦ ἐστι. πρώτιστα γὰρ ἡ ποιητικὴ κατασκευὴ παρῆλθεν εἰς τὸ μέσον καὶ εὐδοκίμησεν· εἶτα ἐκείνην μιμούμενοι, λύσαντες τὸ μέτρον, τἆλλα δὲ φυλάξαντες τὰ ποιητικά, συνέγραψαν οἱ περὶ Κάδμον καὶ Φερεκύδη καὶ Ἑκαταῖον.  Strabo 1.1.11 C 7: νυνὶ δὲ ὅτι μὲν Ὅμηρος τῆς γεωγραφίας ἦρξεν, ἀρκείτω τὰ λεχθέντα. φανεροὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ ἐπακολουθήσαντες αὐτῷ ἄνδρες ἀξιόλογοι καὶ οἰκεῖοι φιλοσοφίας, ὧν τοὺς πρώτους μεθ᾽ Ὅμηρον δύο φησὶν Ἐρατοσθένης (I B 5 Berger), ᾿Aναξίμανδρόν (Vorsokr. 12 A 6 Diels Kranz) τε Θαλοῦ γεγονότα γνώριμον καὶ πολίτην καὶ Ἑκαταῖον τὸν Μιλήσιον (FGrHist 1 T 11b)· τὸν μὲν οὖν ἐκδοῦναι πρῶτον γεωγραφικὸν πίνακα, τὸν δὲ Ἑκαταῖον καταλιπεῖν γράμμα, πιστούμενον ἐκείνου εἶναι ἐκ τῆς ἄλλης αὐτοῦ γραφῆς. Cf. Strabo 1.1.1 C 1 2.  Suda ε 360: Ἑκαταῖος, Ἡγησάνδρου, Μιλήσιος, γέγονε κατὰ τοὺς Δαρείου χρόνους τοῦ μετὰ Καμβύσην βασιλεύσαντος, ὅτε καὶ Διονύσιος ἦν ὁ Μιλήσιος, ἐπὶ τῆς ξε´ Ὀλυμπιάδος· ἱστο ριογράφος. Ἡρόδοτος δὲ ὁ Ἁλικαρνασεὺς ὠφέληται τούτου νεώτερος ὤν. γέγονε γὰρ μετ᾽ αὐτόν. καὶ ἦν ἀκουστὴς Προταγόρου ὁ Ἑκαταῖος. πρῶτος δὲ ἱστορίαν πεζῶς ἐξήνεγκε, συγγρα

6.6 Hecataeus of Miletus’ Appearance in the Rhetorical Tradition

187

a work that belongs to the fifth or sixth century AD. The idea expressed in the Suda-entry on Hecataeus goes probably back to Strabo 1.2.6 C 18: Hesychius might have taken out of context Hecataeus’ name in Strabo’s passage on the first prose writers.¹⁰⁶ Finally, Agathemerus (1.1) includes Hecataeus in the history of ancient geography and cartography, a tradition that probably goes back to the prolegomena of Eratosthenes’ Geography. In the ancient Greek rhetorical tradition, only pseudo-Longinus, Demetrius, and Hermogenes discuss the style and content of Hecataeus’ works. Hermogenes clearly treats him as a writer of history. On the other hand, pseudo-Longinus probably relied on a learned Hellenistic commentary on Homer for his unique quotation of Hecataeus, while Demetrius in the treatise On Style referred solely to the preface of Hecataeus’ work of history (ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ τῆς ἱστορίας) and criticises his unadorned and archaic prose. It is difficult to assert whether Hermogenes, in the second half of the second century AD, had a direct knowledge of Hecataeus’ periegetic or historical works. It is well known, however, that Stephanus of Byzantium in the sixth century AD used Hecataeus’ Periegesis for his geographical lexicon. Unfortunately, apart from a few entries, only an epitome of Stephanus’ lexicon has come down to us,¹⁰⁷ and it cannot be determined whether Stephanus used Hecataeus directly or relied on excerpts and previous lexica where Hecataeus was already extensively quoted. Moreover, Porphyry, in the middle of the third century AD, states that Herodotus, in the book on Egypt, plagiarized wide portions of Hecataeus’ Periegesis. ¹⁰⁸ If Porphyry could actually compare Hecataeus’ Periegesis with Herodotus’ second book, it presupposes a direct knowledge of the work. But this assertion cannot be determined with certainty: Porphyry could have relied on a

φὴν δὲ Φερεκύδης· τὰ γὰρ ᾿Aγησιλάου νοθεύεται. The label of “first historian” appears also in Suda ι 697, σ 1284.  Hence already Nicolai (1997) 145 147. Lasserre (1976) suggested that the Suda entry derives from an alleged judgment by Theophrastus, but such a hypothesis is highly improbable and has already been discredited by Nicolai (1997) 146.  For the tradition of Stephanus’ geographical lexicon: Billerbeck et al. (2006 2017) 1.7 29.  Porph. apud Eus. PE 10.3, 466b (p. 564 Mras): καὶ τί ὑμῖν λέγων ὡς τὰ Βαρβαρικὰ νόμιμα Ἑλλανίκου (FGrHist 4 F 72) ἐκ τῶν Ἡροδότου καὶ Δαμάσ〈τ〉οῦ συνῆκται; ἢ ὡς Ἡρόδοτος ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ πολλὰ Ἑκαταίου τοῦ Μιλησίου (FGrHist 1 T 22, F 324) κατὰ λέξιν μετήνεγκεν ἐκ τῆς Περιηγήσεως βραχέα παραποιήσας, τὰ τοῦ Φοίνικος ὀρνέου καὶ περὶ τοῦ ποταμίου ἵππου καὶ τῆς θήρας τῶν κροκοδείλων; On ancient literary plagiarism: Ziegler (1950), on Porphyry esp. 1983 1984.

188

6 Greek Historians in the Classroom: Literary Critics and Progymnasmata

previous tradition on literary plagiarism, without directly reading Hecataeus.¹⁰⁹ Hence, the problem of Hecataeus’ ancient tradition remains open. In conclusion, the role played by Hecataeus in pseudo-Longinus, in Demetrius, and in Hermogenes is an isolated tradition in the history of this ancient geographer and historian. Each of these rhetors displays a different feature of Hecataeus’ reception up until the second century AD. After Hermogenes, Hecataeus’ name does not appear in other rhetorical treatises and, even if his Periegesis reached Stephanus of Byzantium in the age of Justinian, his work was probably lost forever. Even though Hermogenes sets him among the most illustrious Greek historians, his name disappears from later historiographical canons.

 Cf. Lilja (1967), who is more inclined to believe that Porphyry had at his disposal Hecataeus’ Periegesis.

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity: A Diachronic Analysis of the Canons of Greek Historiography The final chapter of this book, in close dialogue with the previous one, aims to sketch a diachronic perspective on the canons of Greek historiography in the Roman imperial age and in Late Antiquity. Since the sources and ages under consideration are various and often complex, my aim is not to offer a comprehensive analysis, but only an overview of the general trends in the age that follows the fracture in the history of historiographical canons observed in Hermogenes’ writings in the previous chapter. It will help to get the long-term picture of the canons and at the same time to outline a history of the reception of ancient Greek historians.

7.1 The Narrowing Canon and the Effect of the Historical Cycle The first author that is worthy of inclusion in this chapter is Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40 and 120 AD),¹ whose eighteenth oration On Training for Public Speaking (Περὶ λόγου ἀσκήσεως) offers a list of recommended readings for politicians: it represents a fast-track course in rhetoric for someone who does not have the time to study it with leisure. Dio praises among the poets only Menander as the representative of comedy, Euripides as the representative of tragedy, and especially Homer, who “comes first, in the middle, and last for every boy, adult, and old man.”² The rhetor discourages the reading of other poets since they are useless for political discourse: “Lyric and elegiac poetry too, and iambics and dithyrambs are very valuable for the man of leisure, but the man who intends to have a public career and at the same time to increase the scope of his activities and the effectiveness of his oratory, will have no time for them.”³ Historians, on  On Dio Chrysostom, also known as Dio of Prusa: Jones (1978); Desideri (1978); Swain (2000a).  Dio Chrys. Or. 18.6: Τῶν μὲν δὴ ποιητῶν συμβουλεύσαιμ᾿ ἄν σοι Μενάνδρῳ τε τῶν κωμικῶν μὴ παρέργως ἐντυγχάνειν καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ τῶν τραγικῶν (…); 18.8: Ὅμηρος δὲ καὶ πρῶτος καὶ μέσος καὶ ὕστατος, παντὶ παιδὶ καὶ ἀνδρὶ καὶ γέροντι τοσοῦτον ἀφ᾿ αὑτοῦ διδοὺς ὅσον ἕκαστος δύναται λαβεῖν.  Dio Chrys. Or. 18.8: μέλη δὲ καὶ ἐλεγεῖα καὶ ἴαμβοι καὶ διθύραμβοι τῷ μὲν σχολὴν ἄγοντι πολλοῦ ἄξια· τῷ δὲ πράττειν τε καὶ ἅμα τὰς πράξεις καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὔξειν διανοουμένῳ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτὰ σχολή. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 008

190

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

the other hand, are extremely valuable to the statesman not only for the speeches they contain, but also because they apply instructive narratives to past events and teach one how to cope with, and interpret, success and failure.⁴ For Dio Chrysostom, history has a paradigmatic purpose: it offers examples from the past to decide on present and future actions. He also suggests concrete examples of historical narratives for his readers. Herodotus is recommended for the sweetness of his accounts, “which will give the impression that his work deals with stories rather than with actual history.” In fact, it is Thucydides who is labelled “the foremost historian,” followed in second position by Theopompus, who is nonetheless highly praised.⁵ Finally, Ephorus is blamed and imitation of his style is discouraged, for even if he preserves many historical information, the tediousness and carelessness of his narrative would not satisfy the needs of a statesman.⁶ Three significant facts should be pointed out in these passages from Dio’s eighteenth oration: the leading position of Herodotus and Thucydides, the praise of Theopompus, and Ephorus’ explicit exclusion from the list of the most useful historians for political oratory. It seems that Dio Chrysostom’s judgement on historiography resembles closely the historiographical canons of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, pseudo-Longinus, and Demetrius: they all excluded Ephorus from the circle of the best historians and praised not only Herodotus and Thucydides, but also Theopompus. It is worth mentioning that the Byzantine patriarch and man of letters Photius of Constantinople – who apparently had access to Theopompus’ Hellenica and Philippica – was puzzled by Theopompus’ self-praise, observing that his superiority was inconceivable because of the undisputed greatness of both Herodotus and Thucydides.⁷ Photius himself included a short notice on Herodotus, while Thucydides’ fame was so widespread even among his ninth-

 Dio Chrys. Or. 18.9: τοῖς δ᾽ ἱστορικοῖς διὰ πολλὰ ἀνάγκη τὸν πολιτικὸν ἄνδρα μετὰ σπουδῆς ἐντυγχάνειν, ὅτι καὶ ἄνευ τῶν λόγων τὸ ἔμπειρον εἶναι πράξεων καὶ εὐτυχιῶν καὶ δυστυχιῶν οὐ κατὰ λόγον μόνον, ἀλλὰ ἐνίοτε καὶ παρὰ λόγον ἀνδράσι τε καὶ πόλεσι συμβαινουσῶν σφόδρα ἀναγκαῖον πολιτικῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ τὰ κοινὰ πράττειν προαιρουμένῳ.  Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10: Ἡροδότῳ μὲν οὖν, εἴ ποτε εὐφροσύνης σοι 〈δεῖ〉 [add. Geelius], μετὰ πολ λῆς ἡσυχίας ἐντεύξῃ. τὸ γὰρ ἀνειμένον καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ τῆς ἀπαγγελίας ὑπόνοιαν παρέξει μυθῶδες μᾶλλον ἢ ἱστορικὸν τὸ σύγγραμμα εἶναι. τῶν δὲ ἄκρων Θουκυδίδης ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ τῶν δευτέρων Θεόπομπος. καὶ γὰρ ῥητορικόν τι περὶ τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν τῶν λόγων ἔχει, καὶ οὐκ ἀδύνατος οὐδὲ ὀλίγωρος [Reiske : cod. ὀλίγος] περὶ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν, καὶ τὸ ῥᾴθυμον περὶ τὰς λέξεις οὐχ οὕτω φαῦλον ὥστε σε λυπῆσαι.  Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10: Ἔφορος δὲ πολλὴν μὲν ἱστορίαν παραδίδωσι, τὸ δὲ ὕπτιον καὶ ἀνειμένον τῆς ἀπαγγελίας σοι οὐκ ἐπιτήδειον.  Phot. Bibl. cod. 176, 121a14 18 (FGrHist 115 F 25). Cf. Kaldellis (2012) 78.

7.1 The Narrowing Canon and the Effect of the Historical Cycle

191

century contemporaries that he did not waste paper and ink to include him in his Library. Back to Dio Chrysostom. The most striking difference between his treatment of Greek historiography and the historiographical canons of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, pseudo-Longinus, and Demetrius is the way Dio deals with Xenophon. If for Dionysius Xenophon was merely an imitator of Herodotus, for Dio Chrysostom Xenophon is the best literary and moral example for the training of a statesman: “It is my opinion that Xenophon, and he alone of the ancients, can satisfy all the requirements of a man in public life.”⁸ Dio praises Xenophon repeatedly and profusely in his oration (Or. 18.14‒19).⁹ For Dio, Xenophon has all the qualities a statesman needs: political initiative, philosophical knowledge, and eloquence.¹⁰ We turn now to the age of the Antonines. In the summer of AD 166 – just a few months after Lucius Verus’ Parthian campaigns and before his triumph in Rome in the fall of the same year¹¹ – Lucian of Samosata published a short polemical essay which bears an unequivocal title: How to Write History (Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν). He complained bitterly against poor and narrow-minded historiography resulting from Rome’s war against the Parthian empire from AD 161 to 166. Lucian’s essay has attracted the attention of many scholars, for it is a valuable source for the literary history in the age of the Antonines, the biography of Lucian, and the modern understanding of ancient historiography and rhetoric.¹² The most significant passage in How to write history for the canons of Greek historiography appears at the beginning of the essay where Lucian states: ἀλλ’ ἀφ’ οὗ δὴ τὰ ἐν ποσὶ ταῦτα κεκίνηται ὁ πόλεμος ὁ πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους καὶ τὸ ἐν ᾿Aρμενίᾳ τραῦμα καὶ αἱ συνεχεῖς νῖκαι οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐχ ἱστορίαν συγγράφει· μᾶλλον δὲ Θουκιδίδαι καὶ Ἡρόδοτοι καὶ Ξενοφῶντες ἡμῖν ἅπαντες, καί, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀληθὲς ἄρ᾽ ἦν ἐκεῖ νο τό “Πόλεμος ἁπάντων πατήρ,”¹³ εἴ γε καὶ συγγραφέας τοσούτους ἀνέφυσεν ὑπὸ μιᾷ τῇ ὁρμῇ (Luc. Hist. conscr. 2).

 Dio Chrys. Or. 18.14: Ξενοφῶντα δὲ ἔγωγε ἡγοῦμαι ἀνδρὶ πολιτικῷ καὶ μόνον τῶν παλαιῶν ἐξαρκεῖν δύνασθαι. Cf. Bowie (2017) 403 406.  Cf. Anderson (2000) 144. On Dio’s stylistic approval of Xenophon’s writings: Rutherford (1998) 65 66.  Cf. Desideri (1978) 137 141; Sidebottom (1996) 450; Brancacci (2000) 244.  On the dating: Porod (2013) 18 19 with previous bibliography.  See Avenarius (1956) and Homeyer (1965), as well as the recent works by Hurst (2010), Porod (2013), and Free (2015). See also Bompaire (1958), still valuable for Lucian’s intellectual and lit erary activity.  The partial quotation belongs to Heraclitus: Vorsokr. 22 B 53 Diels Kranz.

192

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

Ever since the present situation arose the war against the barbarians, the disaster in Ar menia, and the run of victories there is not one single person who is not writing history: they are all our Thucydideses, Herodotuses, and Xenophons, and it seems true the saying that ‘War is the father of all things,’ since at one stroke it has produced so many historians.

In this amusing criticism of contemporary and one-sided historiography, the presence of Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon is significant. Since Thucydides is Lucian’s undisputed model,¹⁴ his foremost position in this very short list is not the result of mere chance. It is also evident that Lucian’s list of historians is closely related to the historical cycle. The histories of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon represented a continuous narrative from the Persian to the Peloponnesian Wars down to the battle of Mantinea (362 BC), which marked the end of Theban hegemony. Style and content both contributed to this state of things (see above § 5.1). A generation after Lucian, Hermogenes singled out the same Greek historian (with the addition of Hecataeus!) as the best representatives of historiography. Perhaps Lucian was one of the authorities Hermogenes referred to when he said that the works of Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, Philistus, and other similar historians “have not quite been thought worthy of emulation and imitation, or have not been considered at all, by the Greeks” (Hermog. Id. 2.12.33: § 6.4). A similar approach, even if not explicitly stated, can be recognized in the historical work of Herodian, the author of the History of the Empire from the Death of Marcus Aurelius of the end of the second/beginning of the third century AD. In his preface, Herodian alludes clearly to both Herodotus and Thucydides in a learned mix of implicit citations and references to the hyper-canonical historians.¹⁵ Moreover, after the preface, Herodian begins his historical account  See Luc. Hist. conscr. 42: ὁ δ᾽ οὖν Θουκυδίδης εὖ μάλα τοῦτ᾽ ἐνομοθέτησεν καὶ διέκρινεν ἀρε τὴν καὶ κακίαν συγγραφικήν, ὁρῶν μάλιστα θαυμαζόμενον τὸν Ἡρόδοτον ἄχρι τοῦ καὶ Μούσας κληθῆναι αὐτοῦ τὰ βιβλία. And esp. Luc. Hist. conscr. 39: τοῦ δὴ συγγραφέως ἔργον ἕν ὡς ἐπράχθη εἰπεῖν, where he refers clearly to Thucydides’ methodological chapter. Cf. Leopold von Ranke’s famous phrase “wie es eigentlich gewesen,” which goes back to both Thucydides and Lucian: Canfora (1974) 20 28. For Lucian’s supposed literary canon: Bompaire (1958) 143 147.  See Hdn. 1.1.1: οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν περὶ συγκομιδὴν ἱστορίας ἀσχοληθέντων ἔργων τε πάλαι γεγο νότων μνήμην ἀνανεώσασθαι σπουδασάντων, παιδείας κλέος ἀίδιον μνώμενοι, ὡς ἂν μὴ σιωπή σαντες λάθοιεν ἐς τὸν πολὺν ὅμιλον ἀριθμούμενοι, τῆς μὲν ἀληθείας ἐν ταῖς ἀφηγήσεσιν ὠλι γώρησαν, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ ἐπεμελήθησαν φράσεώς τε καὶ εὐφωνίας, θαρροῦντες, ὡς εἴ τι καὶ μυθῶδες λέγοιεν, τὸ μὲν ἡδὺ τῆς ἀκροάσεως αὐτοὶ καρπώσονται, τὸ δ’ ἀκριβὲς τῆς ἐξετάσεως οὐκ ἐλεγχθήσεται, which alludes both in content and word use to Thucydides’ methodological chapters (Thuc. 1.21 1.23); moreover, Hdn. 1.3.1: ἐγὼ δ’ ἱστορίαν οὐ παρ’ ἄλλων παραδεξάμενος

7.1 The Narrowing Canon and the Effect of the Historical Cycle

193

with a few words that resemble closely the opening sentence of Xenophon’s Anabasis. ¹⁶ Hence, Herodian’s paramount literary models are the same as those Lucian refers to as uncontested ideals of Greek historiography: Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. The intertwining of the canons of historiography with the historical cycle might have contributed to Lucian’s and Herodian’s attitude towards previous historiography. It might as well be mentioned that the modern history of the textual tradition of these three historians follows a similar pattern. Two manuscripts in the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice include the sequence of the histories of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. The Marcianus gr. 365 was copied in 1436 in Mistra in the Peloponnese by a disciple of the Neoplatonist Gemistus Plethon, the future Cardinal Bessarion (1403‒1472):¹⁷ he used different manuscripts for the text of each historian to create the miscellaneous Marcianus gr. 365.¹⁸ At a later time, he commissioned John Plusiadenus to produce an apograph of this manuscript which was written in Crete in 1469: today its signature is Marcianus gr. 364.¹⁹

ἄγνωστόν τε καὶ ἀμάρτυρον, ὑπὸ νεαρᾷ δὲ τῇ τῶν ἐντευξομένων μνήμῃ, μετὰ πάσης [ἀληθοῦς] ἀκριβείας ἤθροισα ἐς συγγραφήν, οὐκ ἀτερπῆ τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ τοῖς ὕστερον ἔσεσθαι προσδοκήσας ἔργων μεγάλων τε καὶ πολλῶν ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ γενομένων, echoes Herodotus’ preface 1.1 1.5. On historiographical prefaces (prooemia): Earl (1972) and esp. Marincola (1997) passim.  Hdn. 1.2.1: τῷ βασιλεύοντι Μάρκῳ θυγατέρες μὲν ἐγένοντο πλείους, ἄρρενες δὲ δύο > Xen. An. 1.1: Δαρείου καὶ Παρυσάτιδος γίγνονται παῖδες δύο, πρεσβύτερος μὲν ᾿Aρταξέρξης, νεώτερος δὲ Κῦρος. The allusion to Xenophon is discussed by Hidber (2006) 73 75.  He finished the work on 30 May 1436, as reported on the colophon (f. 300v): see Mioni (1985) 126. For Bessarion’s philological activity, see Mioni (1968) and Mioni (1976) 269.  For Herodotus’ text, Bessarion used the Laurentianus plut. 70.6 (fourteenth century): Hem merdinger (1981) 109, 118 119 and De Gregorio (2002) 48 n. 49. For Thucydides, the Vaticanus gr. 2203 (fourteenth century): Alberti (1972) LXXIV LXXV. For Xenophon’s Hellenica, the Matri tensis 4561 (first half of the fifteenth century, probably 1427): Jackson (1975) 108. The Matr. 4561 was probably bought in Naples by Constantine Lascaris in 1465 (or later in 1477/8 or 1481), who annotated it: see de Andrés (1987) 33 35; Martínez Manzano (1994) 265 266, 284; Martínez Manzano (1998) 35, 45, and esp. 60.  The name of the commissioner and of the copyist, as well as the dating of the manuscript are reported on the colophon (f. 381v): τέλος εἴληφεν ἡ βίβλος αὕτη ὁρισμῶ μὲν καὶ προστάξει τοῦ παναγιωτάτου μου κυρίου Βησσαρίωνος καρδηνάλεως τῆς ἁγίας ῥωμαικῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, χειρὶ δὲ γραφεῖσα Ἰωάννου πρεσβϋτέρου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀναχθέντος εἰς ἄρχοντα τῶν ἐκκλησίων ἐν τῇ περιωνύμω τῆς Κρήτης νήσω. περιέχει δὲ ἡ βΐβλος αὕτη βιβλία κδ´ τῶν σοφῶν τούτων ἀνδρῶν, ἐννέα μὲν Ἡροδότου. Θουκυδίδου δ᾽ ὀκτὼ, καὶ Ξενοφῶντος ἑπτά. ἔτει ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ αυξθ´, ἰνδ. γ´. On the copyist John Plusiadenus and his relation to the Constantinopolitan ‘Schreiberschule von Hodegon,’ see Politis (1958) 278 279; cf. also Mioni (1976) 301 302. Powell (1938) 105 106 wrongly states that Plusiadenus used a manuscript which is now in Cambridge (Cantabrigiensis Bibl. Universitatis Nn. III.18)

194

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

The same ancient historians that Lucian raised to the role of model-authors are included in this couple of Venetian manuscripts.²⁰ The learned Cardinal had thus at his disposal a continuous narrative of the history of Greece from the Persian Wars to the middle of the fourth century BC. At the same time, he possessed a single book (of which he commissioned a copy) containing the three most ancient canonical Greek historians.

7.2 Roman Emperors and Classical Education in the Fourth Century AD In January 357 AD, in Constantinople, Themistius, a famous orator and Aristotelian scholar, as well as a follower of Dio Chrysostom’s πολιτικοὶ λόγοι, gave an encomiastic speech in honour of the emperor Constance II.²¹ Themistius emphasized the emperor’s efforts to preserve ancient wisdom through the building of a scriptorium and the inauguration of the imperial library (Them. Or. 4.59d‒60c).²² These imperial initiatives to preserve the literary culture of ancient times were meant to save the works that were not included in the school curricula. Themistius quoted also the ancient authors that were not in danger of disappearing: two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle; two orators, Demosthenes and Isocrates; and, finally, “the son of Olorus,” i. e. Thucydides.²³ “These are the basic authors in school education,” Luciano Canfora correctly remarked (“Sono gli autori di base della formazione scolastica”).²⁴ Even if the emperor, in his piety and wisdom, had not promoted the safeguarding of these authors, argued Themistius,

to produce the Marcianus gr. 364, but does not consider that the Marcianus gr. 364 is actually a copy of Marcianus gr. 365, which he does not discuss (the error was already noticed by Hemmer dinger [1981] 118).  A miscellaneous manuscript written by Bessarion himself, probably during his stay in Mis tra, the Marcianus gr. 526 (middle of the fifteenth century), contains extracts from Herodotus (ff. 4 24v), Thucydides (25 47), and Xenophon’s Hellenica (48 59v), as well as many other his torical works: cf. Mioni (1985) 410 411. See also Mioni (1976) 269 268.  On the emperor Constance II, the son of Constantine, see Maraval (2013) §§ 8 9. On the per sonal relationship between Themistius and the emperor: Vanderspoel (1995) § 4, and esp. 96 100 for the oration discussed in these pages.  In fact, this oration is an important source for the history of libraries in antiquity and in the Byzantine age, as well as for the history of the transmission of classical texts: cf. Canfora (1995b) 16 18 and Wilson (1996) 50 51.  Them. Or. 4.60a: ὀλίγῳ ὕστερον ὑμῖν ἀναβιώσεται μὲν δημοσίᾳ ὁ πάνσοφος Πλάτων, ἀνα βιώσεται δὲ ὁ ’Αριστοτέλης, καὶ ὁ ῥήτωρ ὁ Παιανιεύς, καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοδώρου καὶ ὁ τοῦ ’Ολώρου.  Canfora (1995b) 17; cf. Wilson (1996) 50.

7.2 Roman Emperors and Classical Education in the Fourth Century AD

195

their works would have still been preserved in the libraries of private citizens. It is the most learned and sometimes obscure works that merited imperial intervention: the numerous interpreters and wardens of Homer and the many worshippers of Hesiod; the works of Chrysippus, Zeno, and Cleanthes; the choruses of the Academy and the Lyceum: these were the works that could have been lost to oblivion.²⁵ In another oration centred on sophistic education, Themistius discusses his own successes as a teacher in Antioch (present-day Antakya) and mentions Thucydides, together with Demosthenes and Plato, as reference authors in higher education (Them. Or. 23.299b). He was one of the most learned men of the fourth century and his remaining orations show an acquaintance not only with Thucydides, but also with the works of Herodotus and Xenophon.²⁶ The latter historian is mentioned uniquely as the author of the Agesilaus and as a “disciple of Socrates” (Ξενοφῶν ὁ Σωκράτους ὁμιλητής, Them. Or. 2.27d). Even more significant is the fact that no other historian is recalled in Themistius’ orations: no sign of Theopompus, Ephorus, or Philistus, the authors that were previously part of some of the canons of historiography. It seems that in the middle of the fourth century BC, Themistius testifies to the closing of the canons of ancient Greek historiography. Constance II’s successor, Julian the Apostate, who ruled the empire from AD 361 to 363, is another source for the history of the canons of historiography.²⁷ In a letter of the summer of 362 to unknown addressee(s), Julian discussed the role of Christianity in classical education: Christian teachers that expounded classical texts through their religious convictions or even accused ancient writers of impiety, should resign their public positions (Jul. Ep. 61c Bidez). The text of Julian’s Letter 61c has been interpreted as the direct explanation of an edict issued on 17 June 362 preserved in the Codex Theodosianus where Julian introduced a reform

 Them. Or. 4.60b: καὶ τούτων μὲν δὴ τῶν ἀνδρῶν εἰ καὶ τὰ ἐν κοινῷ ἀγάλματα ἐκινδύνευεν, ἀλλὰ τά γε ἴδια παρ’ ἑκάστῳ καὶ ἄνευ νόμου φυλακῆς τυγχάνει καὶ σωτηρίας, καὶ ἱκανὴ αὐτὴ διασῴζειν ἡ περιουσία τῆς ἀρετῆς. ὅσοι δὲ ὀπαδοί τε ἐκείνων καὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐξαρκεῖ ἑαυτοῖς πρὸς διαμονήν, τούτους βιάζεται θνητοὺς ὄντας ἀθανάτους ποιεῖν ἡ βασιλέως προμή θεια, πολλοὺς μὲν Ὁμήρου ὑποφήτας καὶ νεωκόρους, πολλοὺς δὲ Ἡσιόδου θεραπευτάς, Χρύσιπ πόν τε αὐτὸν ἤδη καὶ Ζήνωνα καὶ Κλεάνθην, χορούς τε ὅλους ἐκ Λυκείου καὶ ᾿Aκαδημίας. The expressions “interpreters and wardens of Homer” and the “worshippers of Hesiod” refer obvi ously to their ancient commentators: Themistius’ choice of words has a strong religious flavour, meant to emphasize the sacred duty to foster and transmit knowledge of poetry.  Quotations of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon are collected in the indexes of Themis tius’ Teubner edition: Schenkl (1974) 145 160.  See Bouffartigue (1992), the most comprehensive work on Julian’s literary culture. Cf. also Bringmann (2004); Baker Brian/Tougher (2012).

196

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

of higher education favouring the character of the teacher over eloquence; he also commanded that the teachers needed not only the customary approval of the municipal senate and the decurions, but also the final authorisation of the emperor himself.²⁸ These two texts – the edict and the letter – allegedly display the emperor’s anti-Christian policy in education. However, in a recent book, Emilio Germino argues that, even if the edict was part of Julian’s ambitious agenda of reforms, the letter is not directly connected to the edict: it might have been part of the private correspondence of the emperor. Indeed, the text of the edict does not contain any religious discrimination.²⁹ On the other hand, the letter, with its aggressive anti-Christian attitude, argues for a re-introduction of the pagan gods in contemporary paideia. To teach the pupils (pagans and Christians alike) the moral values of the ancient world, some classical writers are numbered: among the gods and heroes of Homer, Hesiod’s cosmogony, and the speeches of Demosthenes, Isocrates, and Lysias, Julian includes Herodotus and Thucydides as the essential writers of historical narrative.³⁰ The list of authors in Jul. Ep. 61c Bidez is the most obvious and clear example of the emperor’s canon of classical writers, but there are other passages that yield familiarity with Greek historiography. In a letter addressed to Leontius,³¹ which cannot be dated with certainty, the emperor began with a quotation from Herodotus: “the Thurian historian says that the ears are less to be trusted than the eyes;” the proverb refers to a direct speech in Herodotus’ Book One.³²

 CTh 13.3.5: idem [Imp. iulianus] a. magistros studiorum doctoresque excellere oportet moribus primum, deinde facundia. sed quia singulis civitatibus adesse ipse non possum, iubeo, quisque do cere vult, non repente nec temere prosiliat ad hoc munus, sed iudicio ordinis probatus decretum curialium mereatur optimorum conspirante consensu. hoc enim decretum ad me tractandum refer etur, ut altiore quodam honore nostro iudicio studiis civitatum accedant.  Germino (2004); cf. Bouffartigue (1992) 600 601; Cribiore (2013) 229 237.  Jul. Ep. 61c.24 31 Bidez: εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὲς ἢ μή, τοῦτο ἀφείσθω νῦν· ἐπαινῶν δὲ αὐτοὺς οὕτως ἐπαγγελμάτων καλῶν ὀρεγομένους, ἐπαινέσαιμ᾽ ἂν ἔτι πλέον, εἰ μὴ ψεύδοιντο, μηδ᾽ ἐξε λέγχοιεν αὐτοὺς ἕτερα μὲν φρονοῦντας, διδάσκοντας δὲ τοὺς πλησιάζοντας ἕτερα. τί οὖν; Ὁμήρῳ μέντοι καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ καὶ Δημοσθένει [μέντοι] καὶ Ἡροδότῳ καὶ Θουκυδίδῃ καὶ Ἰσοκράτει καὶ Λυσίᾳ θεοὶ πάσης ἡγοῦνται παιδείας. Cf. Bouffartigue (1992) esp. 420 423; Bringmann (2004) 124 125; Luchner (2008) 238 240.  Very little is known about Leontius, who appears to be one of Julian’s protectores domestici: see Caltabiano (1991) 49.  Compare Jul. Ep. 152 Bidez (ὁ λογοποιὸς ὁ Θούριος ὦτα εἶπεν ἀνθρώποις ὀφθαλμῶν ἀπι στότερα) with Hdt. 1.8.2: ἔλεγε πρὸς τὸν Γύγην, τοιάδε “Γύγη, οὐ γὰρ σε δοκέω πείθεσθαί μοι λέγοντι περὶ τοῦ εἴδεος τῆς γυναικός (ὦτα γὰρ τυγχάνει ἀνθρώποισιν ἐόντα ἀπιστότερα ὀφθαλ μῶν) (…).” The periphrasis ὁ λογοποιὸς ὁ Θούριος is noteworthy: Julian used it also in another letter, which is indirectly transmitted by the lexicon of Suda (Jul. Ep. 155 Bidez apud Suda η 536).

7.2 Roman Emperors and Classical Education in the Fourth Century AD

197

Other quotations of or references to Greek historians in Julian’s writings include the following passages: in the description on the selection of priests (Ep. 89b Bidez), the emperor borrowed evidently from Pericles’ funeral oration in Thuc. 2.37.1, where the Athenian statesman defined democratic values; in a letter to Alypius written in 359 (Ep. 9 Bidez), Julian begins with a reference to the story of Darius and Syloson in Hdt. 3.139‒149; in Jul. Ep. 89b Bidez there might be a reference to Herodotus’ Scythian logos (and possibily to Hdt. 1.44 as well); in a polemical letter against Neilus written in January 363, the emperor asserted that his opponent, offending and insulting everyone, made the temple of peace (i. e. the Roman senate) a war factory (Ep. 82 Bidez: τὸ τῆς εἰρήνης τέμενος ἀποφαίνειν ἐργαστήριον 〈πολέμου〉): this expression derives from Xenophon, who called Ephesus πολέμου ἐργαστήριον because of the preparations for Agesilaus’ campaign against Tissaphernes.³³ The words πολέμου ἐργαστήριον became popular in historiography and appeared in Polybius, Plutarch, and also in Athenaeus, all quoting Xenophon explicitly.³⁴ Given the nature of the references to both Herodotus and Thucydides, there is no certainty that Julian had a direct knowledge of their texts: he could have easily relied on intermediate sources.³⁵ At the same time, the expression πολέμου ἐργαστήριον, coined by Xenophon, does not prove a direct knowledge of the Hellenica. Even if Julian was not a great admirer of ancient historians, he nonetheless included them in his own canon of Hellenic culture (Ep. 61c Bidez), and at the same time followed the teachings of previous and contemporary schooltexts: he used the stories contained in Herodotus to embellish rhetorically his letters and he exploited Pericles’ funeral oration – one of the most famous speeches in Thucydides’ historical work – to describe a contemporary situation. Julian struggled to preserve and maintain classical education against a spreading Christian religion, a stance that provoked violent attacks on the emperor during his lifetime and especially after his premature death. However, he had at least one supporter in the rhetor Libanius who composed his funeral oration.³⁶ If on the one hand, Julian promoted the study of historiography in the classroom, on the other Libanius testifies of a constant use of Thucydides: he

For the other ancient sources where Herodotus’ is labelled as Thurian, see above § 5.3 esp. p. 141, n. 100.  Xen. Hell. 3.4.17: ὥστε τὴν πόλιν ὄντως οἴεσθαι πολέμου ἐργαστήριον εἶναι; the expression occurs also in Xen. Ages. 1.26.5.  See Polyb. 10.20.8, Plut. Marc. 21, Athen. 10.421b c. Cf. Suda ε 2903, s.v. ἐργαστήριον, includ ing Polybius’ passage where Xenophon is quoted.  Bouffartigue (1992) 282 285.  Lib. Or. 18. See Cribiore (2013) with further references.

198

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

possessed a pocket-edition of Thucydides that he could carry to class himself, and when it was stolen, he managed to acquire it again through the help of one of his students.³⁷ In one of his letters, Libanius offers a more wide-ranging perspective on ancient Greek literature. The rhetor praises the addressee Postumianus for having filled his soul “with Homer, Hesiod, and the other poets, Demosthenes, Lysias, and the other orators. And even Herodotus, Thucydides, and all their choir have a place in your mind, and it is testified by the numerous and beautiful orations you have written.”³⁸ The stress here is on the in-depth knowledge of canonical classical literature, with a clear penchant for the rhetorical. Postumianus was a Roman lawyer and senator active in Rome at the end of the fourth century AD.³⁹ His activity is praised in Macrobius’ Saturnalia, where Symmachus describes him as someone “who ennobles the forum with his worthy activity at the bar.”⁴⁰ The emphasis on the orations composed by Postumianus in Libanius’ letter shows that his models were not works of history in general, but probably the speeches that Herodotus, Thucydides, and other unnamed historians included in their works. It is not surprising that the works of historians were exploited for rhetorical purposes. Another fourth century AD orator, Himerius, who was defeated by Libanius in a public rhetorical competition (cf. Lib. Ep. 742 Foerster), mentions Herodotus in a context that appears very similar to Libanius’ letter to Postumianus. Himerius’ addressee is the proconsul of Achaea Hermogenes, a well-travelled man who delighted his audience (presumably his friends) with stories of the peoples and cities he visited. Compared to Hermogenes’s charm (χάρις), Himerius asserts, Herodotus is a mere child: “I used to get such delight from the stories in Herodotus, but I have now come to regard Herodotus as a mere child when compared to this man’s charm.”⁴¹ The claim that Hermogenes’ stories surpass those of Her-

 Lib. Or. 1.148 150. Cf. Cribiore (2001) 144.  Lib. Ep. 1036.4 5 Foerster: ἐνέπλησας τὴν ψυχὴν Ὁμήρου τε καὶ Ἡσιόδου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποι ητῶν Δημοσθένους τε καὶ Λυσίου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ῥητόρων. εἴποι δ᾽ ἂν Ἡρόδοτός τε καὶ Θουκυ δίδης καὶ πᾶς ἐκείνων ὁ χορὸς εἶναι χώραν καὶ αὑτοῖς ἐν τῇ σῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ τούτου μάρτυρας εἶναι τοὺς πεποιημένους σοι λόγους τοὺς πολλούς τε καὶ καλούς. The letter was written in AD 392.  See Jones et al. (1971) 718 719 [Postumianus 3].  Macr. Sat. 1.5.13: qui forum defensionum dignatione nobilitat. See also Macr. Sat. 1.1.7 and the following conversation between Decius and Postumianus.  Him. Or. 48.27 Colonna: ὥστε ἔγωγε πρότερον ἐπὶ τοῖς Ἡροδότου λόγοις ἡδέως διατιθέμε νος, παῖδα ἤδη τὸν Ἡρόδοτον πρὸς τὴν τούτου χάριν ὑπείληφα. Translation follows Penella (2007) 268. Hellanicus of Lesbos and Duris of Samos are also mentioned in Him. Or. 48.27 for their alleged ethnographic approach. Duris’ presence in this passage is discussed in Baron (2016) 62 63. For the late inclusion of Hellanicus in the canons of historiography, see below § 7.5.

7.2 Roman Emperors and Classical Education in the Fourth Century AD

199

odotus is a hyperbolic statement which is well-fitted to the praise of a Roman official. At the same time, it also shows that Herodotus was the leading authority on tales in historiography. One might recall Cicero’s claim that Herodotus’ history (as well as Theopompus’) was full of fabulae. ⁴² Himerius, however, unlike Cicero, exploits Herodotus’ canonical role only to applaud the proconsul’s qualities as story-teller.⁴³ So far, ancient authors that belong to the school curriculum have appeared in our forth-century-AD sources: the educational context was the common background. A funerary inscription from Nicomedia gives a different perspective. In the text thereof, which honours a certain Kyrion in a mixture of prose and dactylic hexameter, the names of a few ancient authors appear: Κύρων κὲ Μεάδις Κυρίωνι τῷ πατρὶ μνήμης χάριν, χε̃ ρε. δὶς ἡβήσας καὶ δὶς τάφου ἀντιβολήτας | ἐν σοφίῃ μέτρον Κυρίων, Ἡσιόδου ζηλωτὰ κὲ ᾿Aρχιλόχου ὀρεκτὰ τῆς τε Μενανδρίου πλησίον | ε〈ὐ〉επίης κὲ Ξενοφοντίου. τὸ λαλούμενον ἡ φύσις ἄκρον, ἀλλ᾽ ἔθανες τί γὰρ ἄλλο; Kyron and Meadis [i. e. Maiadios] to Kyrion their father, in memory. “Farewell. Twice your flourished and twice you met with the tomb, Kyrion, the standard in wisdom, emulator of Hesiod, rival of Archilochus, near to the eloquence of Menander and Xenophon. (Your) nat ural endowments were the proverbial height (of excellence), but you died, for what else is there?”⁴⁴

The names of Hesiod, Archilochus, Menander, and Xenophon are meant to impress the reader because of the dead man’s erudition. All four authors were popular in the Roman imperial age and in Late Antiquity. Dio Chrysostom’s admiration for Xenophon in Or. 18 has already been discussed: in the same oration, Dio considered Menander the foremost writer in Old Comedy.⁴⁵ Menander was the standard Greek poet in ancient education, his fortune being second only to Homer, with whom he was often associated.⁴⁶ Hesiod was also influential throughout antiquity: just like Menander, he appears frequently with Homer in

 Cic. Leg. 1.5 (see above § 3.4).  In Or. 48.27 Colonna, Himerius employs words that clearly point at Hermogenes’ oral per formances (especially the verb ἀκούω and τοὺς ἀκροωμένους), hence not referring to any writ ten material.  Text and translation follow Jones (2014) 31 33; editio princeps in Akyürek Şahin (2011). Cf. Agosti (2016) 179 180.  See Dio Chrys. Or. 18.6 (= Men. test. 102 Kassel Austin). For Dio Chrysostom and Xenophon: § 7.1.  See Nervegna (2013) 201 251; Karavas/Vix (2014).

200

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

educational or learned contexts.⁴⁷ Almost all archaic and classical poets were bound to be compared to Homer: this is the case also for Archilochus.⁴⁸ In the third century AD, Menander Rhetor recommends the reading of Archilochus in a rhetorical context because “he punishes his enemies very adequately in his poetry, so that you will be able to make good use of him when you want to criticize people.”⁴⁹ In the Nicomedian inscription, the deceased is acclaimed for his acquaintance with the fundamental authors of didactic, iambic, and comic poetry. Xenophon appears possibly as the representative of several types of prose, from historical and autobiographical accounts to Socratic dialogues. The fourth century AD funerary inscription for Kyrion is another tile in the mosaic of Xenophon’s reception in antiquity and displays his popularity among the learned elite.

7.3 Ausonius, Jerome, and the Greek Historians in a Latin Environment The history of the canons of Greek historiography in the fourth century AD includes also the testimonies of two eminent figures of Latin literature and culture: a pagan professor and a Christian saint. Decimus Magnus Ausonius (ca. 310‒394 AD) was a leading personality in the second half of the fourth century AD. A grammaticus and rhetor in Burdigala (present-day Bordeaux), he was summoned to the court of Valentinian I in Trier around AD 367 to act as the tutor of the future emperor Gratian. A letter to his close friend Axius Paulus,⁵⁰ which was written after Ausonius’ consulship of AD 379, represents yet another clue to the Greek canonical historians’ reception in Late Antiquity. The bilingual Greek and Latin letter – written probably during Ausonius’ otium Burdigalense, which is dated between Gratian’s death in AD 383, and be-

 For Hesiod’s reception from the Hellenistic age to the Second Sophistic: Koning (2010); for his reception in Late Antiquity: Agosti (2016). Cf. also Hunter (2014) 282 315.  See especially Dio. Chrys. Or. 33.11, 55.6, 55.10 (Archil. TT 50, 53, 54 Tardini). Cf. Blumenthal (1922) 39 42.  Men. Rhet. 393.9 12 (Archil. T 111 Tardini): καὶ ᾿Aρχιλόχου δὲ οὐκ ἀμελήσεις, ἱκανῶς κολάσαν τος τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τῇ ποιήσει, ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς ὅταν ἐθέλῃς ψέγειν τινάς, ἔχῃς ἀποχρήσασθαι τἀν δρί. For Archilochus’ reception in the Roman imperial age and in Late Antiquity: Blumenthal (1922) 33 59.  Jones et al. (1971) 685.

7.3 Ausonius, Jerome, and the Greek Historians in a Latin Environment

201

fore the second half of AD 389, when the addressee Paulus moved to Spain⁵¹ – consists of eighteen elegiac couplets plus one last distich where the pentameter is replaced by an iambic trimeter. In the letter, Paulus is invited to visit Ausonius at the plains of Saintes. Since Paulus has recently suffered from an incident, Ausonius recommends a safe journey to his friend and assures that he can travel without the burden of his books: Paulus will find all he needs in Ausonius’ library at Saintes. A series of Greek elegiac couplets describes boastfully the (somewhat unlikely) contents of Ausonius’ library at Saintes: epic hexameters and the works of grammarians; heroic dactyls and choriambic metres (lyric poets); the works of comedians and tragic poets; Sotadic, Ionic, and Pindaric verses; choliambics and iambic trimeters. After the poets, Ausonius includes the “eight books of Thucydides, nine of Herodotus” (ὀκτὼ Θουκυδίδου, ἐννεά Ἡροδότου), followed by the orators and the philosophers.⁵² The reference to the number of books stands clearly for the works of these historians in their totality. It needs to only be recalled that the book-division of Thucydides’ and Herodotus’ histories is not the authors’ own, but was probably adopted in Hellenistic Alexandria.⁵³ The eight books of Thucydides were already known to Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Diodorus Siculus.⁵⁴ The Sicilian historian refers also to the

 On the dating, see Mondin (1995) XLIII XLIV.  Aus. Ep. 8.21 34 Green (13.23 36 Mondin): attamen ut citius uenias leuiusque uehare, / histor iam, mimos, carmina linque domi: / grande onus in musis: tot saecula condita chartis, / quae sua uix tolerant tempora, nostra grauant. / nobiscum inuenies ἐπέων πολυμορφέα πληθύν, / γραμμα τικῶν τε πλοκὰς καὶ λογοδαιδαλίην, / δάκτυλον ἡρῴων καὶ αἰδοπόλων χορίαμβον, / σὺν Θαλίης κώμῳ, σύρματα Τερψιχόρης, / Σωταδικόν κε κίναιδον, ἰωνικὸν ἀμφοτέρωθεν, / ῥυθμῶν Πινδα ρικῶν ἔννομον εὐεπίην, / εἰλιπόδην σκάζοντα καὶ οὐ σκάζοντα τρίμετρον, / ὀκτὼ Θουκυδίδης, ἔννεα Ἡροδότου, / ῥητορικὸν θάημα, σοφῶν ἐρικυδέα φῦλα· / πάντα μάλ᾽ ὅσσ᾽ ἐθέλεις, καὶ πλέον εἴ κε θέλοις. A brief commentary in Green (1991) 617 618; a more comprehensive discus sion is Mondin (1995) 179 186 (for these verses: 182 186).  Thucydides probably divided his work according to each year of war, while Hemmerdinger (1948) and Hemmerdinger (1955) 15 19, followed by Canfora (1970) 17 53, argued that the divi sion in eight books was the consequence of the extension of the papyrus rolls in Alexandria: this interpretation was rightly dismissed by Dover (1957). For Herodotus’ book division, Cagnazzi (1975) argues that the original division comprised twenty eight logoi, each logos representing a book: however, since she puts too much stress on the phrasing and ignores the influence of oral tradition, her hypothesis is not convincing and the exact division into logoi cannot be demon strated with certainty. Cf. Higbie (2010) 5 6; Wilson (2015) XI XII.  See Dion. Hal. Th. 12.2, and 16.4: from both passages it is evident that Dionysius used an ed ition of Thucydides divided into eight books; cf. also Dion. Hal. Th. 42.4. Diodorus Siculus says that “Thucydides describes twenty two years in eight books, or, as others divide it, in nine” (Diod. 12.37.2: ὁ δὲ Θουκυδίδης ἔτη δύο πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι γέγραφεν ἐν βίβλοις ὀκτώ, ὡς δέ τινες διαιροῦσιν, ἐννέα); almost the same words are used in Diod. 13.42.5. Cf. Higbie (2010)

202

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

nine books of Herodotus (Diod. 11.37.6), but this division might have been known already to Aristarchus in the second century BC as well as to the authors of the Lindian Chronicle in 99 BC.⁵⁵ What Ausonius’ verses testify irrefutably is that the eight books of Thucydides and the nine of Herodotus was the standard division in the fourth century AD.⁵⁶ It is not impossible that Ausonius was familiar with all these Greek authors and genres, but the verses of the letter are evidently a display of erudition, rather than a faithful description of his library. Moreover, the list resembles Quintilian’s canons of Greek literature described in his Institutes of Oratory (see above § 1.3), which could represent a direct or indirect source for Ausonius’ verses. The intellectual environment in Burdigala is familiar through Ausonius’ own verses in the Poems Commemorating the Professors of Burdigala (Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium).⁵⁷ Praising his learned colleague Staphylius,⁵⁸ Ausonius states: grammatice ad Scaurum atque Probum, prompitssime rhetor, historiam callens Liuii et Herodoti. omnis doctrinae ratio tibi cognita, quantam condit sescentis Varro uoluminibus (Aus. Prof. 20.7 10). As a grammarian you rival Scaurus and Probus, as a rhetor, most ready; in history, you knew all Livy and Herodotus.

14 15. According to Hemmerdinger (1948) 116 and Hemmerdinger (1955) 15 19, Thucydides’ edi tion in nine books included the beginning of Xenophon’s Hellenica (1 2.2).  Aristarchus’ commentary on the first book of Herodotus in P.Amh. 2.12 (see above § 5.5) ends with chapter 216 of the modern editions of Herodotus, the same point where the first book ends in all extant manuscripts. For the Lindian Chronicle, where a quotation from Hdt. 2.182 is referred to with the words περὶ οὗ μ[αρτ]υρεῖ Ἡρόδοτος [ὁ Θ]ούριος ἐν τᾶι β´ τᾶν ἱστοριᾶ[ν]: Higbie (2003); Higbie (2010) 9 10; Matijašić (2014a) 97.  It is worth remembering that the author of the Life of Thucydides concludes his treatise with a consideration on the book division of Thucydides’ work: “One must know that some divided his [Thucydides’] history in thirteen books, others differently. However, the prevailing and com mon division is in eight books, as was determined aslo by Asclepios” (Marcellin. 58: ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι τὴν πραγματείαν αὐτοῦ οἱ μὲν κατέτεμον εἰς δέκα τρεῖς ἱστορίας, ἄλλοι δὲ ἄλλως. ὅμως δὲ ἡ πλείστη καὶ ἡ κοινὴ κεκράτηκε, τὸ μέχρι τῶν ὁκτὼ διῃρῆσθαι τὴν πραγματείαν, ὡς καὶ ἐπέκρινεν ὁ ᾿Aσκληπιός). For a thorough commentary of this passage, see Piccirilli (1985) 163 167. A similar statement is expressed in Thucydides’ scholia: “some divide it in eight books, some others in thirteen: the first book in two, the remaining seven in eleven books” (schol. Thuc. 4.135.2: οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν διεῖλον εἰς ὀκτώ, οἱ δὲ εἰς ιγ´, τὴν πρώτην εἰς β´ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἑπτὰ εἰς ια´). Both texts show that the standard edition was in eight books. Cf. Hemmerdinger (1948) 107 109; Canfora (1970) 51 53.  On the study of grammar in Burdigala: Kaster (1988) 100 106 and 454 462.  Jones et al. (1971) 852.

7.3 Ausonius, Jerome, and the Greek Historians in a Latin Environment

203

You knew every branch of learning and all the lore which Varro stored in his innumerable volumes.

As Green promptly noticed, “the references to Livy and Herodotus need not imply an acquaintance with their texts.”⁵⁹ In addition, it could be inferred that in Ausonius’ verses, Livy and Herodotus are mentioned only to represent respectively Greek and Roman history, not a paramount topic in Late Antique schools, but still significant to the learned elite.⁶⁰ Incidentally, it might be recalled that Sidonius Apollinaris, in the second half of the fifth century AD, compares a Gallic aristocrat with a series of Greek and Latin authors that we might define as canonical, one of these being torrens Herodotus (“violent,” “rushing”).⁶¹ The next figure I will consider in this section is St. Jerome, the first translator of the Bible into Latin, a man well acquainted with Greek and Hebrew. In a letter written in AD 395 to his brother Paulinus, who was eager to receive advice regarding spiritual life and earthly readings,⁶² Jerome pauses to expound the greatest Greek and Latin writers of the past. The Greek philosophers Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are enumerated. Epic poetry is represented by Homer and Virgil, while Menander and Terentius are selected as the greatest comedy writers. Historiography has only two Greek and two Latin representatives: Thucydides, Sallust, Herodotus, and Livy.⁶³ Their position in Jerome’s list is not casual: each Greek historian is followed by his Latin counterpart, both in the historians’ self-representation and in the opinion of ancient and modern critics. Sallust not only forged his style imitating Thucydides, he also borrowed many passages

 Green (1991) 357.  Cf. Gibson (2004) 116.  Sid. Apoll. Carm. 23.135. Cf. Racine (2016) 202 203.  On the addressee of St. Jerome’s letter, Paulinus: Rebenich (1992) 220 239.  Hieron. Ep. 58.5: Quia igitur fraterne interrogas, per quam viam incedere debeas, revelata tecum facie loquar. Si officium vis exercere Presbyteri, si Episcopatus, te vel opus, vel honor forte delectat, vive in urbibus et castellis; et aliorum salutem, fac lucrum animae tuae. Sin autem cupis esse, quod diceris Monachus, id est, solus, quid facis in urbibus, quae utique non sunt solorum habitacula, sed multorum? Habet unumquodque propositum principes suos. Romani duces imitentur Camillos, Fabricios, Regulos, Scipiones. Philosophi proponant sibi Pythagoram, Socratem, Platonem, Aristotelem. Poetae aemulentur Homerum, Virgilium, Menandrum, Terenti um. Historici, Thucydidem, Sallustium, Herodotum, Livium. Oratores, Lysiam, Graccos, Demos thenes, Tullium. Et ut ad nostra veniamus, Episcopi et Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos, et Apostolicos viros: quorum honorem possidente, habere nitantur et meritum.

204

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

from his Greek model.⁶⁴ The fellow historian Velleius calls Sallust aemulus Thucydidis. ⁶⁵ In his approach to history, Livy presents himself as a Roman Herodotus.⁶⁶ Quintilian, when dealing with Latin historians, even though he considers them inferior to their Greek predecessors, has no hesitations in comparing Sallust with Thucydides, nor Livy with Herodotus.⁶⁷ Since in Jerome’s list Thucydides’ name was probably a learned ornament,⁶⁸ I submit that Quintilian was Jerome’s source for his statement. Herodotus’ Histories, on the other hand, were known to Jerome, who cites them repeatedly. Finally, even if Xenophon is not included in Jerome’s passage quoted above, he certainly read the Oeconomicus in Cicero’s translation and the Cyropaedia, which appears several times in Jerome’s writings.⁶⁹ The Athenian Socratic author, whose opus was too disparate to be included in Jerome’s synthetic list, was nonetheless well known in the late-antique Latin tradition. No other reference to Greek historians can be identified in Jerome’s surviving texts. The similarity between his short list of historians and Ausonius’ couple Livy-Herodotus in the poem for Staphylius is obvious. These two occurrences display probably a static and superficial knowledge of Greek historiography, which was instilled by Late Antique teachers of rhetoric and went back as far as Quintilian’s Institutes, a fundamental authority for Latin school teachers.⁷⁰ In the Latin West, the knowledge of Greek letters faded in following centuries: Christian and secular traditions focused exclusively on Latin works.⁷¹ On the other hand, in the East, where the Byzantine empire would continue to exist until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and where Greek had always been the dominant language, authors that were part of a canon in Late Antiquity had good chances of being copied in the centuries to come. Thucydides and Herodotus, together with Xenophon, a historian that was generally perceived as Socratic, were certainly bound to survive the Middle Ages and reach the Renaissance and the age of printed books. Other Classical and Hellenistic historians were not

 Perrochat (1949) § 1; Syme (1964) 51 52; Scanlon (1980); Paul (1984) 31; Marincola (1997) 16 n. 71.  Vell. 2.36.2. Cf. also Sen. Contr. 9.1.13 and Suas. 6.21.  See the introduction in Ogilvie (1965); Marincola (1997) 11 and 248 249; Levene (2007) esp. 280.  Quint. Inst. 10.1.101: at non historia cesserit Graecis. nec opponere Thucydidi Sallustium verear, nec indignetur sibi Herodotus aequari Titum Livium (…). Cf. Quint. Inst. 2.5.19 20.  See Courcelle (1948) 66.  On Jerome’s knowledge of and acquaintance with the three canonical historians: Courcelle (1948) 66 69.  Cf. Racine (2016) 201 202.  On the decline of Greek in the West: Marrou (1965) 25 43; Cameron (2011) 527 566.

7.4 The Papyri and the Circulation of the Greek Historians in Roman Egypt

205

so lucky; but their fate was already decided between the first and the second century AD, in any case before Hermogenes defines the exclusion of certain authors from the canons of Greek historiography.⁷²

7.4 The Papyri and the Circulation of the Greek Historians in Roman Egypt A survey on the papyri of Classical and Hellenistic historians is crucial to expose a different, albeit minor, angle of the circulation of the Greek historians in antiquity. The archaeological context and the chronology of the surviving evidence bring Roman Egypt into focus as the only field of investigation: an inevitably partial, if rewarding one. My analysis begins with Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon, and then some brief remarks are offered on the few papyri of the remaining canonical and non-canonical Greek historians, excluding all the postHellenistic historians, since they do not belong directly to a history of the canons of Greek historiography.⁷³ The reader will not be surprised to find that the sands of Egypt have yielded almost one hundred papyri of Thucydides: all eight books of the medieval tradition are represented, with a majority of papyri preserving the first book. Moreover, three papyri include commentaries on the Athenian historian: P.Oxy. 853 (already discussed in § 3.7); P.Vindob.Gr. 29247; P.Berol. 21313.⁷⁴

 A different approach must be assumed for extant or partially extant Greek historians of Rome such as Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities, Appian, Cas sius Dio and Herodian: these texts were preserved because, as Anthony Kaldellis recently stressed, “they offered information about key periods of ancient Roman history” (Kaldellis [2012] 74): since the Byzantines considered themselves to be Romans, their national past was fundamental for their identity and self awareness. Cf. Canfora (1995a) 184 199; in general, on the preservation of classi cal heritage in the Byzantine age: Wilson (1996).  A still valuable work on the papyri of the Greek historians, even if in need of a general up date, is Cavallo (1986) 130 142; cf. also Pellé (2009) and Pellé (2013). The Centro di Studi Papir ologici of the Università del Salento (Lecce) directed by Mario Capasso is working on the series Corpus dei Papiri Storici Greci e Latini (cf. Capasso [2013] esp. 73 74): for the purposes of this chapter, only Natascia Pellé’s publication of the Xenophon papyri will be useful (Pellé [2010a]), while the edition of the papyri of Thucydides, Theopompus, Ephorus, and other Greek historians are still in preparation.  For further details on both P.Vindob.Gr. 29247 and P.Berol. 21313 see above § 5.5 n. 136. For the identification of the papyri, I have relied on the Mertens Pack online database of the Université de Liège: Centre de documentation de papyrologie littéraire (CEDOPAL): http://web.philo.ulg.ac. be/cedopal/base de donnees mp3/. See also the Leuven Database of Ancient Books (LDAB) sup

206

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

Herodotus’ Histories, too, appears frequently: almost fifty papyri have been published so far with the text of Herodotus’ Histories. ⁷⁵ There are also two papyri with commentaries: one is the famous commentary by Aristarchus (P.Amh. 2.12), the other preserves a hypomnema on Herodotus’ Book Five (P.Oxy. 4455).⁷⁶ Finally, one papyrus preserves a text that has been identified as the epitome of Herodotus or as a history based on the historian from Halicarnassus (P.Oxy. 857).⁷⁷ Already in 1919, Grenfell and Hunt observed that the Herodotus papyri share no similarity whatsoever with either of the two branches of Herodotus’ medieval tradition, the Florentine and Roman families. After almost one hundred years, this statement is still true.⁷⁸ At the present state of our knowledge on the published papyri of Herodotus and Thucydides, it appears that the latter was read much more in antiquity. This has not only to do with a merely quantitative statistic. As Stephanie West recently pointed out, “the papyri confirm the impression we get from citations, that those who read Herodotus tended to do so in an unhistorical way.”⁷⁹ She argues that in the Roman age, Herodotus was read for entertainment, fostering Cicero’s comment on the innumerabiles fabulae in the work of the historian from Halicarnassus (Cic. Leg. 1.5). Since he dealt with distant lands and people, long forgotten kingdoms, and incredible deeds, his readers must have found many passages rather perplexing. On the other hand, those who engaged with the text of Thucydides could follow the general picture of the whole history of the Peloponne-

ported by Trismegistos: http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/index.php. The reference to the num ber in the Mertens Pack and LDAB databases for each papyrus is given in the index.  Wilson (2015) XII XIII refers to unpublished Herodotus papyri from Oxyrhynchus preserved in Oxford. Cf. Liuzzo (2014) 75 89.  P.Amh. 2.12 is discussed above § 5.5. On P.Oxy. 4455: Montana (2009b); Liuzzo (2014) 103 106. P.Lond. 3.854 (= P.Sarap. 101) is an allusion to Herodotus in a private letter.  The first editors of the papyrus argued against the identification of this papyrus fragment with Theopompus’ epitome of Herodotus (cf. FGrHist 115 T 1 and FF 1 4) because of the strong presence of hiatus: Grenfell/Hunt (1908) 162, followed by Jacoby in FGrHist 105 F 3 (Kommentar). However, Chávez Rieno/Ottone (2007) 156 168 have recently reconsidered the importance of the hiatus as conclusive evidence to ascribe or deny paternity to Theopompus. Christ (1993), fol lowed by Hornblower (2006) 310, argues convincingly that the alleged epitome of Herodotus written by Theopompus which is mentioned exclusively in lexicographical sources (Antiatti cist, Photius’ Lexicon, and Suda) was part of the Philippica. Flower (1994) 161, probably un aware of Christ’s article, states that Theopompus’ epitome of Herodotus shows that the former “borrowed from Herodotus both his narrative technique and his conception of what history should contain:” there is simply no hard proof to support this statement. Cf. also Liuzzo (2014) 110 111 and Biagetti (2017) 175.  Grenfell/Hunt (1919) 181 182. Cf. Cavallo (1986) 132 133; West (2011) 70; Wilson (2015) XIII.  West (2011) 77 (cf. Liuzzo [2014] 89).

7.4 The Papyri and the Circulation of the Greek Historians in Roman Egypt

207

sian war from beginning to end and appreciate its political character. This attitude towards the two hyper-canonical historians could explain the fact that the papyri of Thucydides double the number of those of Herodotus. For Xenophon, a preliminary distinction should be made between works belonging to the historical tradition (Hellenica and Anabasis) and the rest of his literary production. Natascia Pellé has edited all the papyri belonging to the Hellenica (seven) and the Anabasis (four),⁸⁰ but since the publication of her work another specimen of the Anabasis has been published in the series of the Oxyrhynchus papyri.⁸¹ Even if papyrological sources are not very useful for the establishment of the text of the Hellenica,⁸² at least they show that this work did not gain a very large diffusion.⁸³ The Cyropaedia was probably the most read of Xenophon’s works, with as many as sixteen preserved fragments on papyrus; the Memorabilia has ten fragments, while the rest of his philosophical and political works are scarcely represented on papyri.⁸⁴ The papyri, as well as the later medieval tradition, show that there was no organic corpus of all of Xenophon’s works,⁸⁵ even if some clues point to collections of works by group.⁸⁶ To support this latter suggestion, PSI Laur. inv. 19662 of the third century AD should be mentioned, a papyrus that contains a list of works by Plato, followed by a selection of titles of works by Xenophon (Cyropaedia, Anabasis, Agesilaus, Cynegeticus, and Symposion), and “all that can be found of Homer; all that can be found of Menander; all that can be found of Euri-

 See Pellé (2010a); cf. Pellé (2013) 118, where the author states that there are five papyri pre serving the Anabasis, but then lists only four papyri in the footnote: maybe she counted PSI 1196 and PSI 1485 as two pieces, even if they belong to the same roll. Previous work on the papyri of Xenophon include: Paap (1970), where the following works of Xenophon preserved on papyri are analysed: Anabasis, Cyropaedia, Cynegeticus, Poroi; and Dillery/Gagos (1992) 187 189, with cor rections and addition to their list in van Rossum Steenbeek (1993).  See P.Oxy. 5046, preserving An. 1.5.8 12. Moreover, P.Prag. Wessely inv. G 1.520, which is list ed in MP3 1541.22 as another testimony of the Anabasis, is probably a quotation from An. 1.5.12, rather than a copy of the work: Pintaudi (1998/1999) 144 145.  This was already noticed by Jackson (1969) 52, but recently reconsidered by Pellé (2010a) 35 38.  Pellé (2010a) 32; Pellé (2010b) 172.  I give the list of Xenophon’s work with the number of papyri for each work: Cyropaedia: 16; Memorabilia: 10; Hellenica: 7; Anabasis: 5; Symposion: 3; Oeconomicus: 2; Agesilaus: 1; Apology: 1; Cynegeticus: 1; Constitution of the Lacedaemonians: 1; Poroi: 1. I have combined data from Paap (1970), Dillery/Gagos (1992) 187 189, Pellé (2010a), and the Mertens Pack database.  Erbse (1961) 268 assumed that there was a single corpus which included all of Xenophon’s works, but the hypothesis was justly dismissed by Cavallo (1986) 139.  Cavallo (1986) 139 speaks of “una serie di ‘insiemi’.”

208

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

pides; of Aristophanes (…).”⁸⁷ Many hypotheses have been put forward to explain the purpose of this list, the most convincing being Wendel’s, who believed it to be a fragmentary catalogue of a private library.⁸⁸ The list includes only a selection of Xenophon’s writings and, significantly, omits the Hellenica. It has been correctly noted that “the best represented text of Xenophon in the papyri are his philosophical works; this pattern accords well with the Roman evaluation of Xenophon as primarily a philosopher and only secondarily an historian.”⁸⁹ This statement fits well with the history of Xenophon’s reception in antiquity discussed in previous chapters. Another document that pertains to the presence of canonical Greek historians in Roman Egypt might be recalled. A Berlin papyrus from Hermupolis of the fourth century AD preserves a fragmentary list of literary works including: commentaries of Archilochus, Callimachus (?), Aeschines, Demosthenes, and Homer; rhetorical texts (Callinicus of Petra?, Rufus of Perinthus?); works of historians. Among the historians, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Aristotle’s Athenaion Politeia – which enjoyed a wide reception in antiquity – are mentioned.⁹⁰ Again, only the three canonical historians are cited in P.Berol. 21247. Xenophon, who appears twice in the list (lines 14 and 17), features only as the author of the Cyropaedia. ⁹¹ Concluding on the dissemination of the papyri of the three ‘most canonical’ – or most often canonical – Greek historians, a matter of chronology needs to be recalled. Quantitatively, the highest number of papyri of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon can be ascribed to the second century AD, as already noticed by Guglielmo Cavallo.⁹² For the sake of completeness, it should be added that of the almost 150 papyri preserving the works of ancient Greek Classical and Hel-

 PSI Laur. inv. 19662, list of Plato’s works: 1 22; list of Xenophon’s works: 23 27; the quoted text appears on 28 31 (Ὁμήρου ὅσα εὑρίσκ(εται) / Μενάνδ(ρου) ὅσα εὑρίσκ(εται) / Εὐριπίδου ὅσα εὑρίσκ(εται) / ᾿Aρ[ιστ]οφά(νους) (…)). The papyrus is republished and commented in Otranto (2000) 89 95, nr. 16.  For the different hypotheses: Otranto (2000) 94 95.  Dillery/Gagos (1992) 186.  P.Berol. 21247 = P.Turner 9. See Otranto (2000) 107 113, nr. 18.  P.Berol. 21247, l. 17: Ξε]νοφῶντος [Παιδ]εία. In line 14, a gap after the genitive Ξενοφῶντος precludes the reading of the title of the work.  Cavallo (1986) 130: “I ritrovamenti greco egizi mostrano, ancora una volta, una curva quan titativa massima tra lo scorcio del I e l’inizio del III secolo d.C., indicando così nel II il periodo di più larga ripresa anche dei maggiori storici dell’antichità.”

7.4 The Papyri and the Circulation of the Greek Historians in Roman Egypt

209

lenistic historians, only a few papyri belong to the Hellenistic age: P.Duk. inv. 756 of the second/first century BC (Herodotus), P.Hamb. 2.163 of the third century BC (Thucydides), P.CtYBR inv. 4601 of the third/second century BC (Thucydides), P.Heid. Siegmann 206 of 280 BC ca. (Xenophon’s Memorabilia), and, finally, P.Ryl. 3.490 of the third century BC (epitome of Theopompus’ Philippica?). The fact that most of the papyri of both Herodotus and Thucydides include passages from the historians’ first books⁹³ has sometimes puzzled modern scholars. Nigel Wilson, discussing the predominance of Herodotus’ first book in the papyri, states: “In a way this is strange, because the papyri mostly date from the period of the Roman Empire when the educated classes looked back with admiration and nostalgia to the great achievements of the classical past, and the narrative of the successful Greek resistance to the Persian invasions ought to have had a powerful appeal, which in turn should have led to the production of many copies of Books 5‒9.”⁹⁴ This remark, which sounds acceptable to the modern ear, emphasizes the historical content of Herodotus’ books, but does not consider the ancient approach to history and historiography, along with the educational context where most of the papyri were produced. Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ first books included their prologues, which were of great rhetorical significance in Roman imperial age.⁹⁵ In ancient schools, the works of the historians were mainly read and studied for their style and language. Dionysius of Halicarnassus states that Herodotus was a model for the Ionic language, Thucydides for the Attic.⁹⁶ Xenophon was praised for the sweetness of his language (Attic) and his plain style:⁹⁷ the papyri illustrate exactly this rhetorical approach  Cf. Pellé (2009) 75; West (2011) 71: “Almost half our papyri [of Herodotus] come from Book 1,” who is not surprised by these statistics and states: “In antiquity, as now, only a small proportion of those who started to read long books actually finished them.”  Wilson (2015) XIII.  Pellé (2009) 75: “Per Tucidide ed Erodoto il libro più rappresentato è il I, particolarmente apprezzato anche in virtù della presenza del proemio, sezione ad un tempo programmatica ed esplicativa dell’opera.” Cf. also Rufus’ section Περὶ προοιμίου, where Thucydides is praised: Ruf. Rh., 16 (p. 402 Spengel/Hammer) discussed above § 6.3.  See Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.16: Ἡρόδοτός τε γὰρ τῆς Ἰάδος ἄριστος κανὼν Θουκυδίδης τε τῆς ᾿Aτθίδος (cf. above § 3.3); Phot. Bibl. cod. 60, 19b17 19: Ἰωνικῆς δὲ διαλέκτου κανὼν ἂν οὗτος εἴη, ὡς ἀττικῆς Θουκυδίδης.  Cic. Orat. 32: nactus sum etiam qui Xenophontis similem esse se cuperet, cuius sermo est ille quidem melle dulcior, sed a forensi strepitu remotissimus; Hermog. Id. 2.7.30: ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσι λέγω καθαρότητος μᾶλλον δεῖ καὶ ἀφελείας καὶ γλυκύτητός τε καὶ ἡδονῆς· παράκειται γὰρ τῷ πάθει ταῦτα, ὥσπερ ὁ Ξενοφῶν πεποίηκεν ἐν τῷ περὶ ’Αβραδάτην πάθει καὶ τὴν Πάνθειαν, ἔνθα ἔφη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ τὸ ‘ἡ χεὶρ ἐπηκολούθησεν’ (quoting Xen. Cyr. 7.3.8) and the whole treatment of Xenophon’s style in Hermog. Id. 2.12.4 10. See also Eust. Comm. in Hom. Od. 1686.60 62 Stallbaum: ἱστορία δὲ, ἡ λέγουσα ὅτι Ξενοφῶν ὁ γλυκὺς

210

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

to his works.⁹⁸ The historical content was often subject to judgement on the disposition of the work, rather than the other way around. Moreover, the works of the Greek historians provided many valuable examples, while the speeches, especially those included in Thucydides’ History, offered substantial material for imitation which was useful to both teachers and pupils. In short, in the Roman imperial age the Classical Greek historians were read mainly for rhetorical purposes. There are a few examples of papyri that illustrate this approach to Thucydides’ text in the Roman imperial age. An Oxyrhynchus papyrus (P.Oxy. 1621) of the fourth century AD includes a series of speeches from Thucydides’ second book: the conclusion of Archidamus’ speech at the beginning of the war (Thuc. 2.11.5‒9) and the beginning of Pericles’ funeral oration (Thuc. 2.35.1). P.Oxy. 4810, of the third century AD, preserves rhetorical exercises based on speeches in Thucydides: the pupil was supposed to rewrite the speech of the Corcyraeans in Thuc. 1.32. Another papyrus of the same century, P.Oxy. 2400, lists a series of topics for declamations, including one which prescribes to the pupil to “write an accusation of Cleon for demagogy for proposing to put to death the male population of Mytilene; choose the moment when Diodotus has spoken against him” (lines 2‒9). The reference text for this exercise is the verbal confrontation between Cleon and Diodotus in Thuc. 3.37‒48.⁹⁹ The specific interest for the speeches in Thucydides is also attested in rhetorical treatises and progymnasmata in the Roman imperial period: “many readers did not approach Thucydides’ work because it offered a definitive picture of a period, but rather, above all, directed their attention to a series of landmarks which stood out from the whole and which, for their rhetorical usefulness, had aroused the interest of the most respected critics. Passages chosen from the History (descriptions of battles, programmatic passages, accounts of plagues and civil disorders, and of course, speeches) ended by becoming rhetorical models during this age.”¹⁰⁰ The fact that Thucydides’ work became a rhetorical ἐκεῖνος ᾿Aττικὸς μέλισσα ἐπωνομάζετο, παραδίδωσι καὶ ὅτι οἱ ἐξ ἐκείνου καὶ Φιλησίας υἱοὶ Γρύ λος καὶ Διώδωρος Διόσκουροι ἐπεκαλοῦντο. See also Men. Rhet. 389.27 390.4, where the sweet ness of Herodotus’ narrative is compared with Xenophon’s simple, plain, and unelaborated style (similar style is also identified in Nicostratus, Dio Chrysostom, and Philostratus’ Heroicus and Pictures): cf. above § 6.5.  Pellé (2010a) 32: “Egli [Xenophon] è apprezzato perché ritenuto modello di stile e di lingua, non come storico nell’accezione moderna del termine, accezione che poco interessava la cultura greca e romana del tempo.”  Cf. also P.Oxy. 3877 (early second century AD) which is probably a collection of extracts from Thucydides’ Books 1 3.  Iglesias Zoido (2012) 393 394. See also Gibson (2004) which focuses on progymnasmata.

7.4 The Papyri and the Circulation of the Greek Historians in Roman Egypt

211

model in educational contexts has evidently contributed to his wide diffusion on papyri. The same cannot be said for Herodotus and Xenophon, even if their works are represented on a fair number of papyri. When Wilhelm Schubart published his Einführung in die Papyruskunde one hundred years ago (1918), he calculated a total two thousand published literary papyri and listed 9 papyri preserving the text of Herodotus, 18 of Thucydides, and 16 of Xenophon (considering all his literary works).¹⁰¹ Since Schubart, the number of extant papyri of these historians has increased considerably, even if the ratio between the published papyri of Herodotus and Thucydides has remained the same. Schubart did not include any other Classical or Hellenistic historians in his list of published papyri, but our present knowledge allows for a few steps forward. In fact, some texts preserved on papyrus have been ascribed to historians other than Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, such as Theopompus, Ephorus or Philistus. However, the number of these papyri is limited due to the fragmentary nature of these historians’ works (it happens quite often that a fragment of a prose work on papyrus is published anonymously and only tentatively assigned to ancient Greek historians of the Classical or Hellenistic age).¹⁰² In the following pages I will rely exclusively on fragmentary papyri which have been clearly ascribed to Theopompus and Ephorus (together with the so-called Hellenica Oxyrhynchia), as well as Philistus, Hecataeus of Miletus, Ctesias of Cnidus, Hellanicus of Lesbos, Pherecydes of Athens, and Polybius. Theopompus and Ephorus, apparently quite popular in antiquity at least until the second century AD, are barely represented on papyri.¹⁰³ At least one papyrus belongs certainly to Theopompus: P.Ryl. 1.19 (second century AD), which includes a summary of the contents of Book Forthy-Seven of the Philippica. The name of the author, the title of the work, and the book are written in the opening lines of the papyrus.¹⁰⁴ P.Ryl. 3.490, which belongs to a much earlier date (third century BC),

 See Schubart (1918) 16 17, 477, 484.  Felix Jacoby in FGrHist 105 (Papyrus Fragmente aus der griechischen Geschichte) collected eight different anonymous papyri which display a historical content and arranged them in chro nological sequence. Many other anonymous texts on papyri appeared since 1926, the year of the publication of Jacoby’s FGrHist. Zweiter Teil: Zeitgeschichte. A: Universalgeschichte und Hellenika (nrr. 64 105). Some have been included in Mette’s supplement to Jacoby’s collection: Mette (1978) and Mette (1985).  In this section I will only seldom deal with quotations of Greek historians in papyri, i. e. with their indirect tradition: for these testimonies, see the indexes to Jacoby’s FGrHist: Bonne chere (1999).  P.Ryl. 1.19, ll. 1 3 (FGrHist 115 F 217): [τάδε ἔνεστι]ν ἐν τῆι ἑβδόμ[ηι καὶ τεσσαρακο]στῆι τῶν Θεοπόμ[που Φιλιπ]πικῶν.” The content of this papyrus is discussed in Biagetti (2014) and Bia

212

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

contains a historical narrative in three columns which has been tentatively assigned to an epitome of, or a work inspired by, Theopompus’ Philippica.¹⁰⁵ P.Lond.Lit. 114 (first/second century AD) includes fifteen lines of historical-ethnographic prose initially ascribed to Ephorus’ alleged Res Publica Cretensium: however, the papyrus has recently been reconsidered and that it constitutes an ascription to Theopompus has plausibly been suggested.¹⁰⁶ Other papyrus fragments have been ascribed to Theopompus since the beginning of the nineteenth century.¹⁰⁷ The same goes for Ephorus.¹⁰⁸ Ascriptions of certain papyri, such as P.Lond.Lit. 114 or PSI Laur. inv. 22013 (early first century BC),¹⁰⁹ have bounced from one pupil of Isocrates to the other. We are evidently wandering in the dark: if there is no subscription or title (as is the case with P.Ryl. 1.19 for Theopompus), it is almost impossible to claim with certainty that a fragmentary prose text on papyrus belongs to either of these two historians. The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is the iconic example of this complex situation. Since the appearance of the London papyrus (P.Oxy. 842), and the subsequent publication of the Florence (PSI 1304) and Cairo papyri (P.Cairo TR 26/6/27/1‒ 35r), many candidates have been suggested for the authorship of the work, a Greek history that continues Thucydides and covers the years 411‒406 BC (Cairo papyrus), 409‒407 (Florence papyrus), and 397‒395 BC (London papyrus): Daimachus of Platea, Androtion of Athens, Cratippus, Ephorus, and Theopompus.¹¹⁰ The latter author is probably the most suitable candidate for the authorship of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, but no conclusive proof can be adduced to silence any contrasting voice.¹¹¹

getti (2017) 139 142. P.Ryl. 1.19 has sometimes been categorised as an epitome of Book Fourty Seven of the Philippica (in the Mertens Pack database it is reported as “épitomé de l’oeuvre”), but it is actually a table of contents (or Inhaltsangabe), as correctly observed by Luppe (1977) 90 and van Rossum Steenbeek (1998) 73; Biagetti (2017) 156 n. 55.  The ascription is debatable: for different hypotheses see Biagetti (2017) 156 159.  Valerio (2008).  Discussed in Biagetti (2017).  Occhipinti (2014).  The papyrus preserves a fourth century BC prose text and has been recently ascribed to either Theopompus, Ephorus, or Duris of Samos: L. Canfora in Pintaudi/Canfora (2010) esp. 92 93.  The bibliography on the Hell. Oxy. is growing exponentially each year: I shall refer only to Occhipinti (2016) 2 5 and Biagetti (2017) 153 154 where the reader will find all the references to previous works on the Hell. Oxy.  See Meyer (1909); Canfora (1991); Canfora (2002/2003); Canfora/Otranto (2013). An over view in Occhipinti (2016) 2 5 and Biagetti (2017) 154 155. Cf. above § 5.5.

7.4 The Papyri and the Circulation of the Greek Historians in Roman Egypt

213

Finally, P.Oxy. 1610 (second/third century AD) has been assigned to Ephorus’ Histories, Book Eleven or Twelve,¹¹² but a recent study on its stylistic features suggests that the fragment does not belong to Ephorus.¹¹³ After the thorough analysis of the papyrological testimonies of Theopompus, Claudio Biagetti concludes that the Philippica had a limited circulation in GraecoRoman Egypt due to the impressive length of the work: its fifty-eight books might have been accessible in the libraries in Alexandria, Pergamon, and Rome, but probably very few provincial libraries could afford it.¹¹⁴ Learned readers might have owned extracts of certain books: perhaps it is not by chance that the only papyrus fragment that can be ascribed with certainty to Theopompus, P.Ryl. 1.19, is a summary of the content of Book Forty-Seven of the Philippica. This situation seems to contrast with the indirect tradition, where the Philippica appears quite often, although this could also be the result of an already epitomized and abridged version of the work. Is it possible that the Hellenica of Theopompus, the continuation of Thucydides, enjoyed a wider circulation? If the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia was actually Theopompus’ Hellenica, as repeatedly suggested since Eduard Meyer’s study of the London papyrus, it would represent another clue to his reception in antiquity. Other fragmentary historians on papyrus include Philistus of Syracuse. He has been identified as the author of PSI 1283 (second century AD), a prose text on the Athenians’ first Sicilian expedition in 427/6 BC.¹¹⁵ Among the ancient Greek historians that are rarely mentioned as part of a literary canon, a periegetic prose fragment of the second or third century AD has been ascribed to Hecataeus of Miletus: P.Laur. inv. II/29.¹¹⁶ A fragment of Ctesias’ Persica is known from the second-century-AD Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy. 2330),¹¹⁷

 See Ephor. FGrHist 70 F 191. Gigante (1970) 7 30. Gigante (1970) 31 36 has also suggested that P.Ryl. 3.492 (fifth century AD), which preserves a fragmentary prose text, belongs to Ephorus (32: “Ci troviamo di fronte ad un frammento di Eforo o forse anche di un’epitome di Eforo”), but his conclusion rests on shaky ground.  Occhipinti (2014) 32 33.  Biagetti (2017) 153 155; a similar statement in Shrimpton (1991) XV.  Editio princeps and ascription to Philistus in Coppola (1930); van Compernolle (1985) sug gested that the papyrus might belong to Antiochus of Syracuse and is followed by Ameruoso (1999); Ozbek (2008) has recently considered the stylistic features of PSI 1283 and compared them with the surviving fragments of Philistus: she convincingly concludes that the papyrus pre serves a fragment of Philistus’ Περὶ Σικελίας. P.Ryl. 3.504, of the first half of the fourth century AD, has been tentatively attributed to Philistus as well.  Editio princeps and ascription to Hecateaus in Livrea (1980).  FGrHist 688 F 8b; for recent improvements on the text of P.Oxy. 2330: Giannattasio Andria (2003).

214

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

while for two other papyri a Ctesian paternity has been suggested (P.Köln Gr. 6.248 [= P.Colon. inv. 20517]; P.Oxy. 4098v). Finally, there exists one papyrus of Hellanicus’ Atlantis and one of Pherecydes’ Pentemychos, both mythographical works and both of little use to our analysis of canonical Greek historians.¹¹⁸ Polybius, who was never part of any ancient canon of historians until the Byzantine testimonies analysed in the following section (§ 7.5), is attested on a small, but still significant number of documents. Three papyri scattered between Berlin, Manchester, and Oxford, preserve fragments of a second-century AD roll with (probably) all of Polybius’ Histories: P.Berol. 9570, P.Ryl. 1.60, P.Oxy. 5267. The Berlin and Manchester papyri include Polyb. 11.13.8‒16.8, while the Oxyrhynchus papyrus comprises a short fragment of Book Twenty-Eight (Polyb. 28.2.5‒7). Moreover, a fragment of a roll of the first century BC was recently identified with Polyb. 8.21(23).4: P.Berol. 21129, fr. b.¹¹⁹ Finally, a ten-line fragment, P.Oxy. 5300, preserves Polyb. 5.67.9‒10, with “no points of textual interest,” as the first editor states.¹²⁰ Now, it is well known that Polybius’ Histories have a medieval manuscript tradition only for Books 1‒5, while the rest can be grouped into two categories: the Excerpta antiqua (Books 6‒18) and the Excerpta Constantiniana, named after the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (almost all of Polybius’ Histories, especially significant for Books 20‒39).¹²¹ Apart from P.Oxy. 5300, all the rest of the Polybius papyri give a glimpse of the historian’s work before it was epitomized. The history of the canons of Greek historiography in the age that follows the time of Augustus is not straightforward and one-sided. So far, I have sketched a history that goes from the wide and varying canons of Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian, to the narrowing lists of historians in the first and second century AD, to Hermogenes’ strict judgement that excluded Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, and Philistus from Greek paideia. The testimonies on the canons of historiography that follow Hermogenes display the exclusion that the secondcentury-AD rhetor had envisaged and mention Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon as the sole representatives of Greek historiography. The papyri have revealed a similar pattern, even if it is difficult to rely completely on a typology of sources that are biased both by the fortunes of our discoveries and by the fragmentary nature of Greek historiography.    

Hellanicus: P.Oxy. 1084. Pherecydes: P.Grenf. 2.11. Luiselli (2016). Slattery (2016) 39. See Moore (1965).

7.4 The Papyri and the Circulation of the Greek Historians in Roman Egypt

215

To conclude this section, I would like to pause on an interesting document recently published in the series of the Oxyrhynchus papyri (P.Oxy. 4808).¹²² The papyrus, which is dated to the late first or second century AD, preserves a prosework where a series of Greek Hellenistic historians are summarily discussed. The cited historians are: Onesicritus, Chares, Clitarchus, Hieronymus of Cardia, and Polybius. The text is divided in three sections: a blank line in col. 1.17 separates Onesicritus, Chares, and Clitarchus, the three Alexanderhistoriker, from Hieronymus of Cardia, and a paragraphos with ekthesis at col. 2.20‒21 indicates the beginning of the treatment of Polybius. The work was clearly centred on historiography. The cited authors and their works represent a continuous history (a historical cycle?) that in our extant text begins with the history of Alexander (Onesicritus, Chares, Clitarchus) and his successors (Hieronymus of Cardia) and ends with the Roman conquest of Greece (Polybius).¹²³ It is not possible to determine the extent of the work. The surviving fragment does not preserve the name of Onesicritus, but it is virtually certain that he was implied in the words “he was a pupil of Diogenes the Cynic” (col. 1.1‒2). A negative assessment of both Onesicritus and Chares can be inferred from the following lines, where it is stated that Chares also (καὶ αὐτός) told many lies (col. 1.2‒4). Clitarchus “wrote his history in a boastful way, but is flawless in his composition” (P.Oxy. 4808, col. 1.9‒12: Κλείταρχος δὲ κομπω|[δῶς] μὲν καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν ἱσ|[τορί]αν γέγραφεν, ἄμεμ|[πτο]ς δ᾽ ἐστὶν τὴν διάθε[σι]ν). A relatively long portion of the text preserved in P.Oxy. 4808 is devoted to Hieronymus of Cardia, probably Diodorus’ foremost source for the history of the diadochoi and the first historian to deal with Rome’s archaeologia, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus.¹²⁴ His ethos is praised, being a [ἀν]ὴρ καλὸς | [κἀγαθ]ός (col. 1.20‒21),¹²⁵ and participating actively in the events he described (col. 1.21‒24). A fragmentary biographical section covers the beginning of the second column (up to col. 2.15), while the anonymous author concludes the section on Hieronymus by stating that he was “a worthy historian and man(?)”

 Editio princeps in Beresford/Parsons/Pobjoy (2007) with a supplement to 2.31 34 proposed by Luppe (2007). The text was discussed at the Istituto italiano per la storia antica (Rome) on 10 June 2011. The articles and the ensuing debate were published under the general title of “Un nuovo catalogo di storici ellenistici” in RFIC 141, 2013, 61 104.  Cf. Landucci/Prandi (2013) 94.  See Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.5.4 (FGrHist 154 F 13), but consider also that Dionysius mentions Hieronymus, together with Phylarchus, Duris, Polybius, and many others, because nobody had the patience to read their histories from beginning to end (Comp. 4.15, cf. above § 3.2). In general, on Hieronymus: Hornblower (1981); Knoepfler (2001) 27, 35 40.  For the reconstruction of this portion: Beresford/Parsons/Pobjoy (2007) 35.

216

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

(col. 2.19‒20: συνγρα[φεὺς καὶ ἀνὴρ] | σ[π]ουδαῖος). The political and military biography of Polybius is briefly depicted and some noteworthy aspects of his historiography are defined: “he was an eye-witness of most things and wrote truthfully” (col. 2.25‒28: [καὶ αὐτό]|πτης τῶν πλε[ίστων ἐγέ]|νετο καὶ φιλα[λήθως συν]|γέγραφε). It is well known that autopsy was a fundamental feature of Greek historiography and one of the founding principles of Polybius’ historical method.¹²⁶ The obvious issue is now to determine the genre and purposes of the text preserved on P.Oxy. 4808. It is very unlikely that it represents a portion of an essay on historiography or a prefatory justification for rewriting the history of a period.¹²⁷ I am not persuaded by the comparison with the Callimachean Pinakes or with the famous inscription from Tauromenium preserving a list of historians and their works because there is no reference to the title of the works in P.Oxy. 4808.¹²⁸ The style suggests rather a school text or a catalogue of historians for private purposes, considering that the hand has been labelled as “informal” by the editors.¹²⁹ The text deals with biographical information and offers comments on literary criticism focused on historiography. This approach can be usefully compared with Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ treatment of the historians in the Letter to Pompeius, in the On Thucydides, and in the Second Letter to Ammaeus, as well as with Plutarch’s On the Malice of Herodotus and, partially, with Lucian’s How to write history. Plutarch focuses on Herodotus’ maliciousness (κακοήθεια): the same term is used in P.Oxy. 4808 to state that Chares “shows malice” (col. 1.6: κακοηθίαν ἐμφαίνει). Dionysius uses both biographical information and the content of the work of Herodotus, Thucydides, and other historians to write his essays on literary criticism.¹³⁰ Mauro Moggi, focusing especially on the opposition between the “many lies” of Chares (and Onesicritus) and the truthfulness (φιλαλήθως) of Polybius, is inclined to see a common background between the anonymous text on papyrus and Lucian’s How to write history. ¹³¹ Moreover, the brief

 On autopsy, see above § 3.4, n. 66.  This was suggested, and quickly dismissed, by Beresford/Parsons/Pobjoy (2007) 28.  The comparison is brought forward by Chrysanthou (2015) 35. On the fragmentary cata logue of authors from the library of the gymnasium of Tauromenium, see above § 3.4.  The editors are inclined to consider it a catalogue of historians with summary comments, but they also suggested other possibilities, comparing it, e. g., with the chrestomathy in P.Oxy. 1241: Beresford/Parsons/Pobjoy (2007) 28.  Both Plutarch and Dionysius are fruitfully compared to P.Oxy. 4808 in Chrysanthou (2015) 33 36.  Moggi (2013) 63 64.

7.5 Byzantine Lists of Ancient Canonical Authors

217

judgement on Clitarchus, who, according to the anonymous author of the papyrus, “wrote his history in a boastful way, but is flawless in his composition” (col. 1.9‒12), is curiously similar to Quintilian’s Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur (Inst. 10.1.74 = FGrHist 137 T 6).¹³² I believe it is safe to state that the text preserved in P.Oxy. 4808 belongs to the same educational and rhetorical context I have been dealing with so far, such as the treatises on literary criticism by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory, various progymnasmata, and the like. The text on the papyrus was probably meant for instructive purposes and could have been used in schools for lessons on rhetoric and historiography.¹³³ In one of the previous chapters, the importance of the concept of Classicism in the formation of the canons of historiography has been laid out (§ 4). This papyrus shows a different perspective from the rhetorical tradition that excluded the Hellenistic age from the history of Greek literature and focused on stylistic features in the assessment of historiography. Instead, P.Oxy. 4808 focuses precisely on Hellenistic historiography from the age of Alexander to the Roman conquest of Greece in the second century BC: while apparently excluding style, the anonymous author’s main concern is content.

7.5 Byzantine Lists of Ancient Canonical Authors In this last section, I will discuss a curious set of manuscripts which include lists of ancient canonical authors. To retrace the history of these manuscripts it is necessary to begin with the year 1715, when Bernard de Montfaucon published the famous Bibliotheca Coisliniana: the edition of the manuscripts owned by the bishop of Metz, Henri-Charles du Cambout de Coislin. One of these manuscripts – the tenth-century codex Parisinus Coisl. 387, which is preserved today in the Fonds Coislin of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris – contains lists of ancient authors (ff. 153v‒154v).¹³⁴ Similar lists were identified in the fif-

 Cf. L. Prandi in Landucci/Prandi (2013) 84; Muccioli (2013) 99.  The most convincing hypotheses on the nature of this text are expressed in Geraci (2013) 98 and Chrysanthou (2013) 35 36.  Montfaucon (1715) 596 598. Cf. Fabricius (1706 1728) 9.599 602. The manuscript was ac quired on the island of Cyprus by the Greek priest Athanasius the Rhetor in the seventeenth cen tury. Together with other manuscripts owned by Athanasius, the future Parisinus Coisl. 387 was seized in 1655 by the Chancellor Marquis de Séguier without any payment. The priest even ad dressed a letter to the king of France Louis XIV in 1662, requesting either the return of the manu scripts or payment for them. When Athanasius died, on 13 March 1663, Séguier kept the manu

218

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

teenth-century Bodleianus Auct. T. 2. 11 (Misc. 211) and published in Cramer’s Anecdota Graeca. ¹³⁵ The list preserved in the Coislinianus was labelled tabula M, while the one in the Bodleianus tabula C: both were exploited for the study of ancient literary canons (see above § 1.4). For the edition of tabula C, Otto Kröhnert identified a similar list in the codex Vaticanus gr. 1456 (eleventh / twelfth century), while Hugo Rabe used for his edition both the Bodleianus and the Vaticanus, adding also the codex Bodleianus Barocc. 125 (late sixteenth century).¹³⁶ Both tabulae include lists of poets, grammarians, philosophers, orators, and historians. The historians include: Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Philistus, Theopompus, Ephorus, Anaximenes, Callisthenes, Hellanicus, and Polybius (ἱστορικοὶ ι´· Θουκυδίδης, Ἡρόδοτος, Ξενοφῶν, Φίλιστος, Θεόπομπος, Ἔφορος, ᾿Aναξιμένης, Καλλισθένης, Ἑλλάνικος, Πολύβιος).¹³⁷ There are some textual problems in this list that are worth considering more closely. Tabula M is almost flawless in the transmission of the names, apart from Philistus: the manuscript preserves φιλιππος, but Usener corrected it with Φίλιστος, which was accepted by virtually all subsequent scholars. The Sicilian historian is frequently discussed in the canons of Greek historiography, and there is no doubt that his name appeared originally in this list as well. On the other hand, tabula C is more problematic. A quick look at Rabe’s apparatus criticus shows a great quantity of spelling mistakes in the section on historians:¹³⁸ ἡρώδοτος VB : Ἡρόδοτος Cramer | φίλιππος VBN : Φίλιστος Usener | θεόπεμπτος N : Θεόπομπος VB | καλλϊστένης B : Καλλισθένης VN | ἑλληνικός VB : ὁ ἑλληνικός N : Ἑλλάνικος Lagarde et Usener | πολύκιος N : Πολύβιος VB. The same problem occurs in the remaining lists. Just as in tabulae M, the erroneous φιλιππος instead of Φίλιστος appears, an easy and trouble-free correction. Hellanicus of Lesbos’ presence is attested in tabula M, while tabula C preserves ἑλληνικός or ὁ ἑλληνικός, while Ἑλλάνικος is the correction of Lagarde, followed by Usener. However, in both tabulae the name of Hellanicus could be the result of corruption, mainly because of a chronological problem: since the list follows a general scripts for himself and in a letter told the king that these manuscripts were of little value. Ségu ier’s grandson, the duc de Coislin, inherited all the manuscripts: his collection is now preserved in the Fonds Coislin of the BNF in Paris. The whole history of the collection is thoroughly set out in Devreesse (1945) II VIII.  Anec. Graec. Paris. 4.195 197 (Cramer [1841]). Cf. Steffen (1876) 8 10; de Lagarde (1877) 173 176.  Kröhnert (1897); Rabe (1910).  See Rabe (1910) 342, which is the best and most comprehensive edition of tabula C. For ta bula M, see Kröhnert (1897) 7.  Sigla: V = Vaticanus gr. 1456 (eleventh / twelfth century); B = Bodleianus Auct. T. 2. 11 (Misc. 211) (fifteenth century); N = Bodelianus Barocc. 125 (late sixteenth century).

7.5 Byzantine Lists of Ancient Canonical Authors

219

chronological pattern,¹³⁹ it is not clear why Hellanicus appears after the Alexanderhistoriker Callisthenes and before the Hellenistic Polybius. Kröhnert suggested that the word ἑλληνικός – which he printed in his edition of tabula C ¹⁴⁰ – was an error for Ἑλληνικά, the title of Callisthenes work. He based his assumption on the (unfounded) hypothesis that the original list contained both the name of the historians and the titles of their respective works.¹⁴¹ However, this hypothesis would reduce the total number of historians to nine, instead of the announced ten historians (ἱστορικοὶ ι´, a clear reference to the famous canon of ten Attic orators), and would force one to integrate the list by adding the name of another historian. To solve this contradiction and to match the stated number of ten historians, Roberto Nicolai – taking Kröhnert’s hypothesis on the original list as his starting point – suggested the presence of a saut du même au même between Callisthenes Ἑλληνικά and the following historian, Polybius. His proposal is to integrate into the list the name of Timaeus, the author of Σικελικά.¹⁴² Nicolai’s hypothesis is based on Cicero’s appreciation for Timaeus (De or. 2.58) and, especially, the fact that Timaeus concluded his Σικελικά with the year 264 BC, one of the starting points of Polybius’ history.¹⁴³ The final section of the list of historians would thus represent a continuous historical narrative adhering to the concept of historical cycle. However, the list of names in tabula C should be analysed together with the same list in the tabula M. The manuscripts transmitting tabula C have many spelling mistakes, while in the Parisinus Coisl. 387 (which preserves tabula M at ff. 153v‒154v) the only mistake is φιλιππος for Φίλιστος, and Ἑλλάνικος is written correctly. The list of historians is, apart from spelling problems, entirely congruent in both tabula M and C. Hugo Rabe published an opening section of tabula M which does not appear in Kröhnert’s edition. This section deals with a list of inventions attributed to different peoples: “the Phoenicians invented arithmetic, the Thracians music, the Egyptians geometry, the Chaldeans astrology.”¹⁴⁴ It reveals that the lists in tabula

 The fact that Thucydides precedes Herodotus could simply reflect a preference for the Athe nian historian, which is quite common in other sources such as: Quint. Inst. 10.1.73; Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10: τῶν δὲ ἄκρων Θουκυδίδης ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ (…); Luc. Hist. conscr. 2; Hermog. Id. 2.12.33.  Kröhnert (1897) 13.  Kröhnert (1897) 36.  Nicolai (1992) 308 309.  Polyb. 1.5.1 and 34.8.4.  Rabe (1907b) 587: ἐξεῦρον τὴν μὲν ἀριθμητικὴν Φοίνικες, τὴν δὲ μουσικὴν Θρᾷκες, τὴν δὲ γεωμετρίαν Αἰγύπτιοι, τὴν δὲ ἀστρολογίαν Χαλδαῖοι (quotation from the Parisinus Coisl. 387, f. 153v).

220

7 From Dio Chrysostom to Late Antiquity

M belong to the typical Greek attitude to identify both the inventors of technai (πρῶτοι εὑρεταί) and the best authors in each literary genre (see above § 1.1). Once this perspective has been assumed, the name of Hellanicus in the list of historians, even if diverting from a loose chronological sequence, does not appear so odd. His ᾿Aττικὴ ξυγγραφή is the only previous historical work explicitly cited by Thucydides (1.97.2), and modern scholars have pointed out that he was the first author to engage in a local history of Attica.¹⁴⁵ It should also be recalled that Hermogenes discourages the imitation and reading of Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, and Philistus:¹⁴⁶ all of them appear in the Byzantine tabulae. Hellanicus’ presence might be related to his role in the birth of local historiography. In any case, Kröhnert’s hypothesis and Nicolai’s integration both appear unnecessary. A comparison between the list of historians in the Byzantine tabulae and previous canons of historiography shows a strict affinity between their contents. Both Thucydides and Herodotus, the hyper-canonical historians, feature at the beginning of the list, followed by their imitators Xenophon and Philistus, in turn followed by the pupils of Isocrates, Theopompus and Ephorus. These are the six fundamental historians in the canons of historiography between the first century BC and the first century AD.¹⁴⁷ Anaximenes, historian and rhetor from Lampsacus, the author of the pseudo-Aristotelian Rhetoric to Alexander, is paired with Callisthenes (cf. Cic. De or. 2.58): they probably feature in the list as historians of Alexander the Great. The already discussed Hellanicus of Lesbos appears before Polybius, the last name on the list. Why does Polybius feature in this list, when he has never been included in any previous canon of historiography?¹⁴⁸ This question triggers some considerations on the sources of the lists preserved in the Byzantine tabulae. The first point is that the lists, despite the spelling mistakes in tabula C, are almost identical and hence have a common source, or at least the same origin. Polybius’ presence excludes a classicistic approach to literature, which would not have tolerated the appearance of any Hellenistic historian: a terminus post quem is thus the second/third century AD. The classification of authors in the tabulae follow a subdivision into six literary genres: poets, grammarians, rhetors, historians,

 See Jacoby (1949) passim; Ambaglio (1980) 47; Ottone (2010). Cf. also Wilamowitz (1893) 1.282.  Hermog. Id. 2.12.33 (see above § 6.4).  Cf. Nicolai (1992) 311 323.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus lists Polybius among the authors one does not read to the end (Comp. 4.15, quoted above § 3.2) while Quintilian excludes Polybius from his canon of historio graphy: see Momigliano (1974) 347 and, on Polybius’ reception in antiquity, Zecchini (2012).

7.5 Byzantine Lists of Ancient Canonical Authors

221

physicians, philosophers.¹⁴⁹ A Late Antique text also catalogued previous literature according to literary genres: Hesychius of Miletus’ Onomatologos or Table of Eminent Writers in Education, which was composed in the sixth century AD.¹⁵⁰ It was one of the main sources of the tenth-century lexicon of Suda. ¹⁵¹ The same lexicon preserves an entry on Hesychius where it is recalled that he did not mention any teacher of the Church and hence was not a Christian, “but [was] full of vain pagan labour.”¹⁵² The lists preserved in the Byzantine tabulae do not include any Christian author, just like Hesychius. Moreover, none of the authors mentioned in the lists is later than the sixth century AD. One possible interpretation of these clues is that the author of the lists of ancient canonical literature preserved in tabulae M and C had as his main source Hesychius’ Onomatologos. ¹⁵³

 The order varies between the different manuscripts, but the total number of the genres is always six.  The arrangement by literary category was cleverly noticed by Wentzel (1895) 57 63, esp. 60: “Das erste Kapitel des H(esychius) muss die Dichter unbekannt, nach welcher Disposition im einzelnen , das zweite die Philosophen, das dritte die Historiker, das vierte die Redner und So phisten enthalten haben; darauf folgten die Grammatiker und die Ärzte (…); den Beschluss bil deten die Varia, also Schriftsteller über Γεωργικά, Ὀνειροκριτικά, Οἰωνοσκοπικά, Astrologen, ἀρχιερεῖς und dergleichen, Leute, die sonst nicht zu rubrizieren waren.”  Adler (1931) 706 708; Kaldellis (2005) 385 389.  Suda η 611: Ἡσύχιος Μιλήσιος (…) γεγονὼς ἐπὶ ᾿Aναστασίου βασιλέως. ἔγραψεν Ὀνοματο λόγον ἢ Πίνακα τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ ὀνομαστῶν, οὗ ἐπιτομή ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον (…). εἰς δὲ τὸν Πί νακα τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ λαμψάντων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν Χριστιανόν, ἀλλὰ τῆς Ἑλληνι κῆς ματαιοπονίας ἀνάπλεων. Cf. Kaldellis (2007) T 2. Hesychius was certainly not a Christian, as can be inferred from the division of the subject matter in his historical work and the fact that he did not begin from the Creation, but chose Belos king of the Assyrians as a starting point: see Phot. Bibl. cod. 69, 34a36 b40, discussed in Kaldellis (2007) F 1; cf. Kaldellis (2005).  This was already suggested by Rabe (1907b) 587 590.

Conclusions Quae nobis restant graecae poeseos monumenta, rudera sunt ex magno naufragio servata. Gottfried Hermann (1814)¹

The history of the canons of ancient Greek historiography is closely connected to ancient rhetorical tradition. As Eduard Norden emphatically stated in Die antike Kunstprosa, in the Graeco-Roman world rhetoric, given its central role in ancient mentality and life, could not be limited uniquely to public speeches, but necessarily extended its influence to all literary genres.² In antiquity, historiography was often perceived as a branch of rhetoric and, even if it had rules of its own, it had a common background and used similar strategies. Such a statement does not preclude that ancient historiography pursued truth, which was indeed, generally speaking, its final aim. Today historians still struggle to explain their methods and aims, and they must always rely on narrative to present the results of their investigations. As Anthony Grafton puts it in his inquiry in the history of the footnote, the history of historical research cannot usefully be separated from that of historical rhet oric. (…) Historical texts are not simply narratives like any other; they result from the forms of research and critical argument that footnotes record. But only the literary work of com posing such notes enables the historian to represent, imperfectly, the research that under pins the text.³

Successful ancient, as well as contemporary, historical research is not only a result of the scientific approach and novelty of argument, but also of the talent of the writer. This latter point is highlighted by Andrea Giardina to explain the fame and achievements of the founding father of Late Antique studies, Peter Brown.

 This sentence is recorded in Leopold von Ranke’s class notes taken while attending Her mann’s lectures on Pindar (quoted in Grafton [1997] 89), cf. also below.  Norden (1898) 1.9: “Die Rhetorik konnte bei der centralen Stellung, die sie im antiken Denken und Handeln einnahm, nicht beschränkt beiben auf die eigentlich gesprochene Rede, sondern mit Notwendigkeit erstreckte sie im Lauf der Zeit ihren Einfluß auf alle Litteraturgattungen, auch die Poesie.” See also 1.6 7: “Wenn wir uns diese Naturanlage der beiden antiken Völker verge genwärtigen, so begreifen wir, daß die Rhetorik bei ihnen eine geradezu centrale Stellung in Leben und Unterricht einnehmen mußte, daß sie Reichtum, Ehren, Konnexionen, Ruhm bei Mit und Nachwelt gab, daß sie von einigen mit der Staatskunst identificiert wurde, daß sie der Zauberstab war, durch den der Redner sein Publikum bannen oder in Ekstase versetzen konnte.”  Grafton (1997) 232 233. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 009

Conclusions

223

Giardina speaks of Brown as “a master at evoking both the intimate and collective tableaux of religious and social history;” of the content of his work as giving “the impression of a continuous narrative;” of the historical reconstruction of events as “his accounts” (“i suoi racconti” in the Italian original).⁴ These are only a few examples which show that rhetoric is exploited even today to achieve an engaging narrative and to illustrate successfully the results of historical research. In antiquity, historical narrative had a paradigmatic role and the speeches that were often included in the texts were read, imitated, and studied with care in the classrooms. In his study on the presence of ancient historians in Imperial age and Late Antique Progymnasmata, Craig A. Gibson remarked: “It is generally accepted that ancient historiography was in some sense rhetorical; what is interesting here is that ancient rhetoric turns out to be so historical.”⁵ Our own understanding of ancient rhetoric and its relationship with historiography is often biased by the common perception that a rhetorical discourse is also a false discourse. For the ancients, it was perfectly normal that orators and teachers of rhetoric should discuss the characteristics and methods of historiography. Hence the sources for the canons of ancient Greek historians that have been considered throughout this book are mainly rhetorical treatises and ancient school textbooks. These texts shaped ancient higher education within the schools of rhetoric, whose main purpose was to set up and preserve literary canons.⁶ These canons were founded on models for literary imitation and the texts of the historians provided useful examples for imitation. Imitation and literary criticism: these concepts had a paramount role in shaping the canons of ancient Greek historiography. In the course of my analysis, different canons have emerged, each reflecting the interest of the ages and the authors that produced it. In the fourth century BC, Theophrastus highly praised Herodotus and Thucydides because they were the first “to rouse history to speak in a fuller and more ornate style than their predecessors had used.”⁷ The survey conducted in chapter five shows that these two historians were in some way already canonical in the fourth century BC and in the Hellenistic age. However, given the fact that most of the texts of Classical and early Hellenistic age historians have not been preserved, any analysis is manifestly prejudiced by the impossibility to compare Herodotus and Thucydides with their predecessors, their contemporaries, and most later historians.    

Giardina (1999) 166 167 [2013, 10]. Gibson (2004) 116. See Nicolai (2014) 37. Theophr. fr. 697 Fortenbaugh apud Cic. Orat. 39.

224

Conclusions

It is only in the first century BC, with Cicero, that the true history of the canons of historiography begins. Between the first century BC and the first century AD, the canons appear to have included many authors: from Herodotus and Thucydides to Isocrates’ pupils Theopompus and Ephorus, from the Sicilians Philistus and Timaeus, to the historians of Alexander Callisthenes and Clitarchus, from Xenophon in the fourth century to Timagenes in the Augustan age. This is a combined list of the Greek historians mentioned and discussed by Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian. A core group of historians is common to all three sources, which shows that there must have been previous canonical selections. However, at the same time each of them discuss their own lists and offer different readings of the motives behind the selection of canonical Greek historians. Ephorus, for example, is missing from Dionysius’ canon, both because of his style and the subject matter of his historical work. The early Hellenistic historians Callisthenes, Timaeus, and Clitarchus are included in the canons of Cicero and Quintilian, but completely neglected by Dionysius. Timagenes is mentioned uniquely by Quintilian, who praised him as the one who revived the tradition of historical writing in the age of Augustus. This implies that between Clitarchus and Timagenes, the two latter historians mentioned in Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory, no Hellenistic historian was considered worthy of inclusion within the canon. Dionysius evinces the same attitude, excluding all historians that follow Theopompus. But at the same time he reserved a front seat for himself in the history of the canons of Greek historiography with his own historical work, the Roman Antiquities. Xenophon is a peculiar element in the history of the canons: he was not always included in the canons of historiography, but rather was usually perceived as a philosopher. Hence, Quintilian deliberately excluded him from his analysis of Greek historians and listed him alongside Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus (Inst. 10.1.81‒84), while Cicero in the Orator discusses the style and rhetorical characteristics of Theophrastus, Aristotle, Xenophon, and Plato, evidently considering Xenophon a philosopher (Orat. 62). It seems that in antiquity he was perceived as a philosopher who also wrote histories (cf. Diog. Laert. 2.48 and Apul. Flor. 20.5‒6). The ancients were not very interested in Xenophon’s historical works: his Hellenica is seldom referred to, while his moral and philosophical writings enjoyed a substantial afterlife, especially in the Late Republican period. The history of the canons that follows Cicero, Dionysius, and Quintilian shows a steady, if not straightforward, decline in the number of canonical historians. The works of the literary critics, pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime and Demetrius’ On Style, as well as the most ancient preserved school textbook, Theon’s Progymnasmata, show that the main historians in the rhetorical tradition and school curriculum were Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Theopompus, Epho-

Conclusions

225

rus, Philistus, and Hecataeus of Miletus (on the presence of the latter author in the canons, see specifically § 6.6). I have also considered later Progymnasmata, where the selection shrinks to Herodotus and Thucydides alone. In a passage of On the Categories of Style, Hermogenes of Tarsus recorded a caesura in the canons excluding Theopompus, Ephorus, Hellanicus, and Philistus and, on the other hand, praising Thucydides, Herodotus, Hecataeus, and Xenophon as worthy historians in a school curriculum. However, the tradition that considered Theopompus a valuable historian was still alive in the last quarter of the third century AD in the rhetorical treatises of Menander of Laodicea on the Lycus, or Menander Rhetor, which shows once again that the canons were not fixed, and consequently remained open to modifications.⁸ A passage in Lucian of Samosata’s How to Write History represents an interesting point of view on the history of the canons of historiography. Directing a complaint against the proliferation of historical works following the war in Armenia (AD 161‒166), Lucian ironically stated that “there is not one single person who is not writing history: they are all our Thucydideses, Herodotuses, and Xenophons” (Hist. conscr. 2). He thereby implies that Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon could be considered the most read and imitated Greek historians in the second century AD. At the same time, Lucian’s passage highlights another fact: the enduring effects of the historical cycle, i. e., the tendency to combine different authors to create a continuing narrative of past events. Since Herodotus’, Thucydides’, and Xenophon’s combined works represent a continuing historical narrative in Greek from the Persian wars to the battle of Mantinea, it follows that the beginning of the historical cycle coincides with the first and foremost representatives of historiography, as shown in many canonical selections and lists I have considered throughout this book. The fourth century AD attests the closing of the canons of historiography. Thucydides is mentioned alongside the philosophers Plato and Aristotle and the orators Demosthenes and Isocrates in a famous oration by Themistius (Or. 4.59d‒60c) as the only ancient authors that did not need to be rescued from oblivion, since they were part of the school curriculum. A few years after Themistius’ oration, delivered in January AD 357, Julian the Apostate, in a letter written in the summer 362 AD, included Herodotus and Thucydides among the fundamental representatives of classical education, together with Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Lysias, and Isocrates. Other fourth-century-AD authors, from Decimus Magnus Ausonius to St. Jerome, show that Herodotus and Thucydides were often bound together and represented the hyper-canon of Greek historiography.

 This was already noticed on a general scale for all literary canons by Curtius (1948) 354.

226

Conclusions

A survey of the papyrological documentation, principally belonging to the Roman imperial age, displays again a dominance of the hyper-canonical historians, with some papyri preserving the text of Xenophon’s works, as well as a few fragments of other minor Greek historians. The shortage of papyri of Theopompus, Ephorus, Philistus, and the rest is related to the fragmentary nature of their works (i. e. the absence of a direct medieval tradition), which makes the identification of papyrus fragments preserving prose texts difficult and often arbitrary. This overview is essential for the following brief considerations on the circulation of the ancient Greek historians in antiquity and, consequently, on the history of the tradition of their texts. Even if Gottfried Hermann’s words cited at the beginning of this concluding chapter – Quae nobis restant graecae poeseos monumenta, rudera sunt ex magno naufragio servata (“The monuments of Greek poetry that remain to us are the wreckage saved after a great shipwreck”)⁹ – refer exclusively to Greek poetry, they can be applied to ancient literature in general. The texts of the Greek historians suffered greatly from this wreckage, especially historians of the Hellenistic age.¹⁰ A thorough analysis for each historian cannot be undertaken at this point, but a long-term perspective on the history of the canons of Greek historiography can illuminate some trends in the history of the tradition of these texts. The passage from papyrus rolls (volumina) to the codex in the Christian era represents a bottleneck in the history of the tradition of classical texts. Those texts that were not included in the process of transcription onto codices were doomed to be forgotten, to deteriorate and eventually to disappear. The procedure was not generally imposed by any cultural or political institution and did not happen all at once. But there is a trace of an official imperial initiative in Themistius’ encomiastic oration for the emperor Constance II which included a praise for the constitution of the imperial library and alluded to a systematic transcription of texts (Or. 4, see above § 7.2). In AD 357, the preservation of books was evidently at stake even in the great imperial capital of Constantinople. At the same time, the situation in Rome was even worse, if a passage in Ammianus Marcellinus is taken at face value: “libraries are shut up forever like tombs” (Amm. 14.6.18: bybliothecis sepulcrum ritu in perpetuum clausis). In addition, the most celebrated ancient library, the Alexandrian Mouseion, suffered re See Grafton (1997) 89 and above Conclusions, n. 1.  Cf. Strasburger’s famous considerations on the survival rate of Hellenistic historiography, namely 1 to 40: Strasburger (1977) 14 15, also quoted in the introduction. Cf. also Canfora (1995a) 184 185.

Conclusions

227

peated blows during the third and fourth century AD and much of the precious literary heritage therein preserved was probably destroyed.¹¹ The actual material disappearance of books was the combined effect of natural and human actions: fires, earthquakes, floods. Bookworms, rats, and other animals also played their part in the eventual destruction of whole libraries, but books suffered also from slow deterioration due to continuous use. This means that all those books that were not carefully preserved and whose copies were not regularly made were condemned to oblivion and, finally, disappearance. There must have been a valuable reason to copy and preserve a book, since it required labour from the copyist, money to acquire the material, and an adequate place to store it. Those books that were not considered worthy were simply left behind and forgotten. Given these considerations, we can look back at the history of the canons of Greek historiography and simply notice that those works that did not encounter the favour of critics and teachers were destined to disappear from circulation. The hyper-canonical Herodotus and Thucydides had no difficulty in surviving the passage from papyrus rolls to codices, from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Even Xenophon’s historical works were preserved and copied. The Hellenica was probably perceived as a continuation of Thucydides and hence a fundamental element in the historical cycle. The Anabasis and the Cyropaedia were popular enough to guarantee a survival in private circles, but at the same time these works were widely used in rhetorical education, as outlined in the previous pages. Other works by early Hellenistic and Hellenistic historians did not stand the test of time, even if a few of these were included in some canons of Greek historiography. For example, Theopompus’ historical writings were highly praised by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. His Philippica was mentioned alongside Herodotus’ Persian wars, Thucydides’ Peloponnesian war, and Xenophon’s Anabasis and Hellenica by Menander Rhetor in the third century AD. Photius, in the ninth century AD, included a summary of the Philippica in his celebrated Library (Bibl. cod. 176). Nonetheless, our knowledge of Theopompus’ works is only indirect. Even such a gifted writer and acute historian as Theopompus, at least in the opinion of some of his supporters and peers, did not survive through the Middle Ages. Ephorus, on the other hand, was excluded from Dionysius’ canon and criticized by Dio Chrysostom: even if he gathered many historical facts, his style was careless and boring and not useful for imitation in a rhetorical context (Dio

 On books and libraries in antiquity, see Canfora (1995b). For a recent assessment of the li brary of Alexandria, see Costa/Berti (2010), and esp. § 4 for the decline of the library.

228

Conclusions

Chrys. Or. 18.10). Theopompus, Ephorus, and Philistus, even if part of canons of historiography between the first century BC and the first century AD, were eventually excluded from the school curriculum at some point in the second century AD and hence condemned to vanish with time (cf. Hermog. Id. 2.12.33 discussed in § 6.4). From the wreckage of Hellenistic historiography, only Polybius’ Books 1‒5 are preserved in their entirety. Later works, especially those that focused on Roman history such as Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities, or Appian’s and Cassius Dio’s histories, had more chances of surviving because of the Byzantines’ interests in their own history.¹² The closer the subject matter or the author to the age that secured survival, namely Late Antiquity and the Byzantine age, the greater the chances of survival.¹³ However, since canonical selections of historians included almost exclusively authors of the Classical and early Hellenistic age,¹⁴ Roman imperial age historians can be neglected in these long-term considerations. Another neglected field in the canons of historiography is local history. Local historians are missing from the several canonical selections analysed in this book.¹⁵ Literary canons pretended grandeur of the subject matter: the great wars that changed the course of history and shaped Greek identity or at least the histories of single tyrants or kings and their role on an international scene. The petty and insignificant antiquities of single poleis and communities were not meant to enter the canons.¹⁶ Or at least this is the prevailing modern perception, based on a partial knowledge of local historiography. Another point of view that focuses on style is expressed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the Roman Antiquities, where he stated that the chronicles known as Atthides are “uniform and become quickly boring to the audience” (Ant. Rom. 1.8.3: μονοειδεῖς γὰρ ἐκεῖναί τε καὶ ταχὺ προσιστάμεναι τοῖς ἀκούουσιν). These words should be compared with a passage in the First Letter to Ammaeus which preserves a long excerpt from Philochorus’ Atthis (Amm. I, 9.1‒3 [FGrHist  See Kaldellis (2012).  Strasburger (1977) 10, where this chronological factor is labelled as “je später, desto mehr;” cf. Canfora (1995a) 185.  The only exceptions are Timagenes included in Quintilian’s canon (Inst. 10.1.75) and Polybius listed in the later Byzantine manuscripts discussed in § 7.5.  One possible exception might be Hellanicus of Lesbos’ presence in the Byzantine manu scripts preserving list of names of Greek historians, even if some scholars suggested that his name is the product of corruption: see above § 7.5.  See Momigliano (1982) 8 10. On the relationship between the histories of the Greek world and local historiography, see the classic book by Jacoby (1949); for the significance of this work: Camassa (2010).

Conclusions

229

328 F 49‒51]): it seems to confirm the negative opinion expressed in Ant. Rom. 1.8.3. Since style was a very important feature for inclusion in the canons of historiography, a careless and monotonous narrative was destined to be excluded. Erudite traditions were sometimes intertwined with local historiography, but never collided with the canons. Athenaeus’ The Learned Banqueters is a particularly instructive example. A great collector and exploiter of previous Greek texts in the last quarter of the second century AD, his work yields a great variety of historical sources, but at the same time it does not follow any canon of historiography. After a detailed analysis of Athenaeus’ sources for political history and a tentative description of Athenaeus’ library, Giuseppe Zecchini concluded that such a list of authors has nothing to do with the later canons of historians (“L’elenco così ricostruito non ha nulla a che vedere coi più tardi canoni degli storici trasmessi dall’età tardoantica e bizantina”).¹⁷ Athenaeus ignores pre-Herodotean historiography, does not use Thucydides first-hand, and shows no interest in Xenophon’s and Theopompus’ Hellenica. His focus appears to be the Hellenistic age: he tried to gather a continuous narrative from Philip II of Macedon to Mithridates of Pontus.¹⁸ The significant fact is that an erudite bibliophile like Athenaeus did not privilege historiographical sources, but relied mainly on previous scholars like himself who collected miscellaneous texts full of curious facts and anecdotes.¹⁹ It can be safely stated that local historiography and erudite traditions did not merge or communicate with the canons of historiography. Even if there is not a direct and exact correspondence between lost historians and exclusion from the canons of Greek historiography, it can be stated that the history of the canons influenced the tradition of the Greek historians. Any comprehensive study of the tradition of Greek historiographical texts should take the history of the canons into consideration, but at the same time bear in mind that each Greek historian has a tradition of his own. These traditions are clearly not restricted to the ancient world, but are deeply embedded in the Byzantine age. Many Greek historians were still known to Photius in the ninth century and to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century. It is beyond the scope of this book to explore the history of the canons of Greek historiography at these later stages. However, defining which historians were still available in the  Zecchini (1989) 120.  Zecchini (1989) 121.  Zecchini (1989) 197: “Per Ateneo (…) le fonti da privilegiare, le più utili, nonché forse le pre ferite non erano in linea di principio gli storici, bensì gli eruditi del suo stampo, gli autori di raccolte miscellanee che si prestavano al particolare curioso e all’aneddoto.”

230

Conclusions

Byzantine age, which were the most valued and praised, and how these two groups interacted with one another might perhaps yield some fruitful outcomes. Exploring the routes of the canons of Greek historiography in the Early Modern period, after the introduction of mechanical type-printing, could also produce interesting results. It would require the consideration of the history of books and libraries and the assessment of the legacy of ancient Greek historians in a Western environment. A brief excursus might illustrate that even art history should be considered in the history of the canons in the modern and contemporary world. In the Archaeological Museum in Naples, a famous two-faced herm represents Herodotus and Thucydides. It was found in the foundations of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome: it probably decorated an ancient villa in or around Rome. After its discovery, it was cut in two pieces and set in the Villa Farnesina in Trastevere in the hallway that leads to the room of Raphael’s frescos. The herm was reunited when it was bought by the Neapolitan Archaeological Museum in 1787.²⁰ There are other examples of two-faced herms: Sophocles & Euripides, Socrates & Plato, Demosthenes & Aeschines, Epicurus & Metrodorus of Lampsacus, Aristophanes & Menander, Homer & Menander.²¹ This list clearly shows that among the preserved examples of two-faced herms, only Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ images survive to represent historians. It is not, I suggest, the outcome of mere chance, but another example of the power of literary canons. The story of this two-faced herm reminds us that the canons of Greek historiography did not only influence the tradition and history of ancient Greek literature, but had a strong legacy in the whole of Western culture. In the essay The Hedgehog and the Fox (1953), Isaiah Berlin famously exploited a line from the fragments of Archilochus to introduce his analysis of Tolstoy’s idea of history. The verse obscurely declares: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing” (Archil. fr. 201 West: πόλλ᾽ οἶδ᾽ ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα). The figurative sense of these words, in Berlin’s interpretation, marks a deep difference between two kinds of writers and thinkers. According to Berlin, there is a great difference between those who, on the one hand, focus on a single central vision, more or less coherent, used to understand and interpret all human behaviour and surrounding events, and, on the other hand, those who “pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory

 See IGUR 1514. Cf. Bernoulli (1901) 1.159 and 180; Richter (1955 1962) 1.30; Schefold (1997) 161 nr. 2.  Bernoulli (1901) 2.107; Richter (1955 1962) 2.34 36; Schefold (1997) 161 nr. 2.

Conclusions

231

(…) related by no moral or aesthetic principle.”²² Hedgehogs represent the adherence to a single universal system, while foxes use different approaches to reach many goals. Berlin, without insisting on a rigid classification, included Dante, Plato, Lucretius, Pascal, Hegel, Proust among the hedgehogs, Herodotus, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Erasmus, Molière, and many others among the foxes.²³ Thucydides is not mentioned, but it is easy enough to place him in the first category: he focused steadily on a single event and pursued his goal, recounting the history of the Peloponnesian war with coherence and precision. Herodotus, on the other hand, narrated the history of the Persian wars from different perspectives, from geographic descriptions to ethnographic accounts, entertaining everything from political theory to mythical tales. Berlin’s interpretation of Archilochus’ fragment might appear superficial and simplistic, since it doesn’t consider the peculiarities of each author. Nonetheless, it can still be useful to understand the dichotomy between Herodotus and Thucydides in antiquity and their role in the history of the canons of historiography. Hermann Strasburger’s Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschreibung stems from a different environment and had different goals compared to Berlin’s The Hedgehog and the Fox, but their outcomes appear to overlap. In that short book, published in 1966, Strasburger argued for an opposition in ancient historiography between kinetic history, dealing with military and political events, and static history, dealing with culture. Thucydides exemplified the former and Herodotus the latter approach.²⁴ Even if some of Strasburger’s interpretations have been criticized by the reviewers of his book, the antithesis between Herodotus and Thucydides and their archetypal approaches to history has retained some of its original value. The history of the canons of Greek historiography and the concept of hyper-canon introduced in this book give a more nuanced image of Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ reception in the ancient rhetorical tradition and in the school context. From Theophrastus’ praise in the fourth century BC to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, from Julian the Apostate in the East to Ausonius in the West, the history of the canons of Greek historiography is led by Herodotus and Thucydides. There were, however, doubts about their primacy. Some favoured Herodotus, as Dionysius in the Letter to Pompeius or Henri Estienne in his famous Apologia pro Herodoto (1566).²⁵ Others esteemed Thucydides above all others: Plutarch, for exam-

   

Berlin (1953) 3. Berlin (1953) 3 4. Strasburger (1966) esp. 15 20. Cf. Hartog (1991) 314 316.

232

Conclusions

ple, but also Aphthonius in his Progymnasmata, Thomas Hobbes, and even Immanuel Kant, who declared: “The first page of Thucydides is the actual beginning of all genuine history.”²⁶ However, it is indisputable that at a later stage (from the second half of the third century AD onwards) the history of the canons of historiography included almost exclusively a single pair of historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, almost as archetypes of historiography. During his final overseas trip as President of the United States, Barack Obama gave a speech at the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center in Athens, Greece, on 16 November 2016. After the formal greetings, he remarked that he was there with gratitude for all that Greece has given to mankind through the ages: “Our hearts have been moved by the tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides. Our minds have been opened by the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides. Our understanding of the world and our place in it has been expanded by Socrates and Aristotle.”²⁷ These words could raise a series of questions: why is Sophocles missing from the list of tragedians? Did Obama really read Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ histories? Is Socrates’ presence meant to conceal the name of Plato, the one who shaped our image of Socrates, because of his link with totalitarian ideologies in the twentieth century?²⁸ However, there is no need to answer each of these questions in turn, because of the evident rhetorical purposes of Obama’s words. The essential point is that these words, pronounced by the President of the United States on an official visit to a foreign country, display that even in the contemporary world, where classical studies appear to be struggling in a hopeless cultural war, some canonical authors of Greek literature still retain their roles in the history of Western culture. The praise that Theophrastus reserved for Herodotus and Thucydides in the fourth century BC, which at first glance might appear superficial, seems to have had such an influence in the canons of historiography that it still reverberates in the political discourse of our time.

 “Das erste Blatt des Thukydides ist der einzige Anfag aller wahren Geschichte,” in Ideen zu einer allgemeine Geschichte (1784) quoted in Meister (2013) 164.  The whole speech is available on the official Obama White House website (https://obama whitehouse.archives.gov/the press office/2016/11/16/remarks president obama stavros niarchos foundation cultural center), as well as on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKir W7AQ2oo).  Karl Popper, in The Open Society and its Enemies first published in 1945, famously suggested that Plato’s views, especially in the Republic, were totalitarian and hence paved the way for Naz ism and Stalinism. Popper’s interpretation raised a strong debate (which cannot be summarized here); it is, however, undeniable that some Nazi and Fascist theorists linked Plato’s philosophy with racism and totalitarian regimes: cf. Forti (2006) esp. 29 n. 23.

Bibliography Achilli, I. (2012): “Diod. Sic. 20,43,7. Percorsi polibiani nella Biblioteca storica,” Sileno 38, 1‒ 20. Adams, J. N. / Janse, M. / Swain, S. (eds.) (2002): Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written World, Oxford. Adams, J. N. (2003): Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Oxford. Adler, A. (1931): s.v. “Suida (Lexikograph),” RE 4, A.1, 675‒717. Agosti, G. (2002): “POxy 4352, fr. 5.II.18‒39 (Encomio a Diocleziano) e Menandro Retore,” ZPE 140, 51‒58. Agosti, G. (2016): “Esiodo nella tarda antichità: prime prospezioni,” SemRom 5, 179‒246. Ahern Knudsen, R. (2014): Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric, Baltimore. Akyü rek Şahin, N. E. (2011): “Zwei gebildete Männer aus Nikomedeia: die Epigramme des Basilikos und des Kyrion,” Olba 19, 349‒370. Alberti, G. B. (ed.) (1972): Thucydidis Historiae, 1, Roma. Allen, J. (2014): “Aristotle on the value of ‘probability,’ persuasiveness, and verisimilitude in rhetorical argument,” in Wohl 2014a, 47‒64. Alonso-Núñes, J. M. (2002): The Idea of Universal History in Greece. From Herodotus to the Age of Augustus, Amsterdam. Alpers, K. (1981): Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros. Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe der Fragmente, Berlin/New York. Alpers, K. (2013): Untersuchung zu Johannes Sardianos und seinem Kommentar zu den Progymnasmata des Aphthonios, 2. Auflage, Braunschweig (http://digisrv-1.biblio.etc.tubs.de:8080/docportal/receive/DocPortal document 00047848, accessed on: 27. 11. 2017). Aly, W. (1954): s.v. “Praxiphanes,” RE 22.2, 1769‒1784. Amato, E. (ed.) (2009): Severus Sophista Alexandrinus, Progymnasmata, Berlin/New York. Amato, E. / Ventrella, G. (a cura di) (2009): I Progimnasmi di Severo di Alessandria (Severo di Antiochia?). Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Berlin/New York. Ambaglio, D. (1980): L’opera storiografica di Ellanico di Lesbo. Introduzione, traduzione delle testimonianze e dei frammenti, commento storico, Pisa. Ambaglio, D. (2008): “Introduzione alla Biblioteca storica di Diodoro,” in Ambaglio, D. / Landucci, F. / Bravi, L., Diodoro Siculo. Biblioteca storica. Commento storico. Introduzione generale, Milan, 3‒102. Ameling, W. (1994): “Pausanias und die hellenistische Geschichte,” in Bingen 1994, 117‒160. Ameruoso (1999): “In margine a P.S.I XII 1283 (=Pack2, 1343): un nuovo Antioco?,” ZPE 128, 133‒149. Ampolo, C. (a cura di) (2006): Aspetti dell’opera di Felix Jacoby (Seminari Arnaldo Momigliano 1, Pisa 18‒19 dicembre 2002), Pisa. Anderson, Graham (1993): The Second Sophistic. A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire, London. Anderson, Graham (2000): “Some Uses of Storytelling in Dio,” in Swain 2000a, 143‒160. Anderson, Jon K. (1974): Xenophon, London. Angeli, A. (a cura di) (1988): Filodemo, Agli amici di scuola (PHerc. 1005), Naples. Arac, J. (2002): “Anglo-Globalism?,” New Left Review 16, Jul-Aug, 35‒45.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 010

234

Bibliography

Arrighetti, G. (1987): Poeti, eruditi e biografi. Momenti della riflessione dei Greci sulla letteratura, Pisa. Asheri, D. / Llody, A. / Corcella, A. (eds.) (2007): A Commentary on Herodotus: Book 1‒4, Oxford. Auerbach, E. (1946): Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur, Berne (English transl. Mimesis. The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, Princeton NJ 1953). Auerbach, E. (1950): “Review of Curtius 1948,” Modern Language Notes, 65, 1950 (= in Id., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur romanischen Philologie, Berne/Munich 1967, 198‒214). Auerbach, E. (1952): “Philologie der Weltliteratur,” in Muschg, W. / Staiger, E. (Hrsg.), Weltliteratur. Festgabe für Fritz Strich zum 70. Geburstag, Berne, 39‒50 (= in Id., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur romanischen Philologie, Berne/Munich 1967, 301‒310; English transl. in The Centennial Review, 13, 1969, 1‒17). Aujac, G. (éd.) (1975): Geminos. Introduction aux Phenomene, Paris. Aujac, G. (éd.) (1978‒1992): Denys d’Halicarnasse. Opuscules rhétoriques, 1‒5, Paris. Avenarius, G. (1956): Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung, Meisenheim-Glan. Bake, J. (ed.) (1849); Apsinis et Longini Rhetorica, ex codicibus MSS., adhibita supellectili Ruhnkeniana, Oxford. Baker-Brian, N. / Tougher, Sh. (eds.) (2012): Emperor and Author. The Writing of Julian the Apostate, Swansea. Ballheimer, R. (1877): De Photi Vitis decem oratorum, Diss., Bonn. Bandini, M. (2015): “Cic. Hort. fr. 15 Grilli,” Rationes Rerum 6, 85‒90. Barbantani, S. (1993): “I poeti lirici del canone alessandrino nell’epigrammatistica,” Aevum Antiquum 6, 5‒97. Barber, G. L. (1935): The Historian Ephorus, Cambridge. Barclay, J. M. G. (2007): Against Apion, translation and commentary (Flavius Josephus, ed. by S. Mason, 10), Leiden/Boston. Barnes, J. (1997) “Roman Aristotle,” in Barnes, J. / Griffith, M. (eds.) Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Oxford, 1‒69. Baron, Ch. A. (2013): Timaeus of Tauromenium and Hellenistic Historiography, Cambridge. Bassi, D. (1899): Il libro decimo della Instituzione oratoria di M. Fabio Quintiliano, Turin. Battisti, D. (1988): “Osservazioni sul testo del Περὶ μιμήσεως di Dionigi di Alicarnasso,” QUCC 30, 101‒114. Battisti, D. (1997): Dionigi di Alicarnasso, Sull’imitazione. Edizione critica, traduzione e commento, Pisa/Rome. Battistoni, F. (2006): “The Ancient Pinakes from Tauromenion. Some New Readings,” ZPE 156, 169‒180. Bearzot, C. (1992): Storia e storiografia ellenistica in Pausania il Periegeta, Venice. Bearzot, C. (2002): “Filisto di Siracusa,” in Vattuone 2002a, 91‒136. Bearzot, C. (2015): s.v. “εἰκός,” in Lexicon Historiographicum Graecum et Latinum, 3, Pisa, 86‒91. Bearzot, C. / Landucci, F. (a cura di) (2010): Storie di Atene, storia dei Greci. Studi e ricerche di attidografia, Milan. Beck, F. A. G. (1964): Greek Education: 450‒350 B.C., London. Beekes, R. (2010): Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assistance of L. van Beek, Leiden/Boston.

Bibliography

235

Beloch, K.J. (1923): Griechische Geschichte, 3.2, Berlin/Leipzig. Beresford, A. G. / Parsons, P. J. / Pobjoy, M. P. (eds.) (2007): “4808. On Hellenistic Historians,” in Hatzilambrou, R. / Parsons, P. J. / Chapa, J. (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 71, Oxford, 27‒36. van den Berg, Ch. (2014): The World of Tacitus’ Dialogus de oratoribus. Aesthetics and Empire in Ancient Rome, Cambridge. Bergk, Th. (1872): Griechische Literaturgeschichte, 1, Berlin. Bergman, J. Th. (1824): Elogium Tiberii Hemsterhusii, auctore Davide Ruhnkenio, accedunt duae Richardi Bentleji epistolae ad Hemsterhusium. Vita Davidis Ruhnkenii, auctore Daniele Wyttenbachio. Cum praefatione et annotatione edidit Joannes Theodorus Bergman, Leiden/Amsterdam. Berlin, I. (1953): The Hedgehog and the Fox. An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History, London. Bernhardy, G. (1876): Grundriss der griechischen Literatur, 1, Halle4. Bernoulli, J. J. (1901): Griechische Ikonographie, 1, Munich. Berti, E. (1963): Il De re publica di Cicerone e il pensiero politico classico, Padua. Biagetti, C. (2014): “Un sincronismo controverso: Filippo II in Propontide e l’ingannevole dispaccio ad Antipatro,” ZPE 190, 57‒61. Biagetti, C. (2017): “Teopompo e i papiri, Teopompo nei papiri. Acquisizioni, rimaneggiamenti, attribuzioni,” in Ottone 2017, 137‒177. Billerbeck, M. et al. (ed.) (2006‒2017): Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, 1‒5, Berlin/New York. Bingen, J. (éd.) (1994): Pausanias historien (Entretiens Hardt 41), Vandœuvres/Geneve. Binot, C. (2010): “Thucydides enim rerum gestarum pronuntiator sincerus et grandis etiam fuit (Cicéron, Brutus, 287). La réception cicéronienne de Thucydide: une belle voix sans écho?,” in Fromentin et al. 2010, 253‒273. Blanck, H. (1997): “Un nuovo frammento del catalogo della biblioteca di Tauromenion,” PP 52, 241‒255. Blass, F. (1863): De Dionysii Halicarnassensis scriptis rhetoricis, Diss., Bonn. Blass, F. (1865): Die griechische Beredsamkeit in dem Zeitraum von Alexander bis auf Augustus, Berlin. Blass, F. (1887‒1898): Die attische Beredsamkeit, 1‒3.2, Leipzig2. Bleckmann, B. / T. Stickler (Hrsg.) (2014): Griechische Profanhistoriker des fünften nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart. Bloom, H. (1994): The Western Canon: The Books of the Ages, New York/San Diego/London. Blum, R. (1977): Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Biobibliographie, Frankfurt am Main (English transl. Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, Madison WI 2001). von Blumenthal, A. (1922): Die Schätzung des Archilochos im Altertume, Stuttgart. Bodin, L. (1932): “Isocrate et Thucydide,” in Mélanges Glotz 1, Paris, 93‒102. Bollansée, J. (1999): Hermippos of Smyrna (FGrHistC IV A 3), Leiden/Boston/Cologne. Bompaire, J. (1958): Lucien écrivan. Imitation et création, Paris. Bompaire, J. (1976): “Les historiens classiques dans les exercices préparatoires de rhétorique (Progymnasmata),” in Recueil Plassart, Paris, 1‒8. Bonnechere, P. (1999): F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Indexes of Parts I, II, and III. Indexes of Ancient Authors, 1‒3, Leiden/Boston/Cologne.

236

Bibliography

Bonner, S. F. (1939): The Literary Treatises of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. A Study in the Development of Critical Method, Cambridge. Bosman, Ph. R. (2010): “The Gymnosophists Riddle Contest (Berol. P. 13044): A Cynic Text?,” GRBS 50, 175‒192. Bouffartigue, J. (1992): L’emperor Julien et la culture de son temps, Paris. Bowersock, G. W. (1965): Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford. Bowersock, G. W. (1979): “Historical Problems in Late Republican and Augustan Classicism,” in Flashar 1979a, 57‒75. Bowie, E. (2017): “Xenophon’s Influence in Imperial Greece,” in Flower, M. A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon, Cambridge, 403‒415. Brancacci (2000): “Dio, Socrates, and Cynicism,” in Swain 2000a, 240‒260. Bremmer, J. N. (1990): “Herman Usener,” in Calder/Briggs 1990, 462‒478. Bringmann, K. (2004): Kaiser Julian, Darmstadt. Brink, K. O. (1946): “Callimachus and Aristotle, an inquiry into Callimachus’ Πρὸς Πραξιφάνην,” CQ 40, 11‒26. Brodka, D. (2004): Die Geschichtsphilosophie in der spätantiken Historiographie: Studien zu Prokopios von Kaisareia, Agathias von Myrina und Theophylaktos Simokattes, Frankfurt on Main. Broggiato, M. (2014): “Beyond the Canon: Hellenistic Scholars and Their Texts,” in Colesanti/Giordani 2014, 46‒60. Brunello, C. (2015): Storia e paideia nel Panatenaico di Isocrate, Roma. Brunt, P. A. (1980): “Cicero and Historiography,” in ΦΙΛΙΑΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ: Miscellanea di studi classici in onore di Eugenio Manni, Roma, 1, 311‒340; (revised and republished in Id., Studies in Greek History and Thought, Oxford 1993, 181‒209 and in Marincola, J. [ed.], Greek and Roman Historiography, Oxford 2011, 207‒240). Brzoska, J. (1883): De canone decem oratorum Atticorum quaestiones, Diss., Bratislava. Brzoska, J. (1894): s.v. “Antyllos (2),” RE 1, 2643‒2644. Buchner, E. (1958): Der Panegyrikos des Isokrates: eine historisch philologische Untersuchung, Wiesbaden. Butti de Lima, P. (1996): L’inchiesta e la prova. Immagine storiografica, pratica giuridica e retorica nella Grecia classica, Turin. Bux, E. / Kroll, W. (1932): s.v. “Metrodoros (23),” RE 15, 1481‒1482. Caerols Pérez, J. J. (1991): Helánico de Lesbos. Edición y traducción, Madrid. Campanile, D. (2000): “Del bere sangue di toro e della morte di Annibale,” Chiron 30, 117‒ 129. Calboli, G. (1987): “Asianesimo e Atticismo: retorica, letteratura e linguistica,” in Pennacini, A. (a cura di), Studi di retorica oggi in Italia, Bologna, 31‒53. Calcante, C. M. (2000): Genera dicenda e retorica del Sublime, Pisa. Calcante, C. M. (2004): “Il De elocutione di Demetrio e il De Demosthene di Dionigi di Alicarnasso,” RIL 138, 99‒124. Calder, W. M. III / Briggs, W. W. (eds.) (1990): Classical Scholarship. A Biographical Encyclopedia, New York/London. Caltabiano, M. (1991): L’epistolario di Giuliano Imperatore. Saggio storico, traduzione, note e testo in appendice, Naples. Camassa, G. (2010): “L’attidografia nella storia degli studi,” in Bearzot/Landucci 2010, 29‒51. Cameron, A. (2004): Greek Mythography in the Roman World, Oxford.

Bibliography

237

Cameron, A. (2011): The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford. Canfora, L. (1970): Tucidide continuato, Padua. Canfora, L. (1971): “Il ‘ciclo’ storico,” Belfagor 26, 653‒670 (= in Id., La storiografia greca, Milan 1999, 61‒91; English transl. in Marincola, J. [ed.], Greek and Roman Historiography, Oxford 2011, 365‒388). Canfora, L. (1972): Totalità e selezione nella storiografia classica, Roma/Bari. Canfora, L. (1974): Teorie e tecnica della storiografia classica, Roma/Bari. Canfora, L. (1990): “Eduard Meyer tra Cratippo e Teopompo,” in Calder, W. M. / Demandt, A. (Hrsg.), Eduard Meyer: Leben und Leistung eines Universalhistorikers, Ledein, 74‒96. Canfora, L. (1991): Tucidide. Il dialogo dei Melii e degli Ateniesi, Venice. Canfora, L. (1992): “Hobbes e Tucidide,” QS 18, 61‒73. Canfora, L. (1993): “La biblioteca e il museo,” in Cambiano, G. et al. (a cura di), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica, 1/2: La produzione e la circolazione del testo. L’Ellenismo, Roma, 11‒29. Canfora, L. (1995a) “Le collezioni superstiti,” in Cambiano, G. et al. (a cura di), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica, 2: La ricezione e l’attualizzazione del testo, Roma, 95‒250. Canfora, L. (1995b): “Libri e biblioteche,” in Cambiano, G. et al. (a cura di), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica, 2: La ricezione e l’attualizzazione del testo, Roma, 11‒93. Canfora, L. (1999a): Il mistero Tucidide, Milan. Canfora, L. (2002/2003): “PSI 1304,” Analecta Papyrologica 14‒15, 213‒233. Canfora, L. (2005): Tucidide tra Atene e Roma, Roma. Canfora, L. (2006): “Thucydides in Rome and Late Antiquity,” in Rengakos/Tsakmakis 2006, 721‒753. Canfora, L. (2011): Il mondo di Atene, Roma/Bari. Canfora, L. / Otranto, R. (a cura di) (2013): Teopompo, Elleniche, Libro II, Bari. Cantore, R. (2013): Per la storia del testo di Erodoto. Studi sulla famiglia romana, Bologna. Capasso, M. (2013): “Le raccolte di papiri storici greci e latini,” in Un nuovo catologo di storici ellenistici (POxy LXXI 4808). Tavola rotonda, Roma, Istituto italiano per la storia antica, 10 giugno 2011, RFIC 141, 66‒78. Capone, A. / C. Franco (2004): “Teopompo di Chio nei Progymnasmata di Elio Teone: note esegetiche,” QS 59, 167‒182. Carey, Ch. (1994): “Rhetorical Means of Persuasion,” in Worthington 1994a, 26‒45. Casanova, A. et al. (a cura di) (2016): E sì d’amici pieno. Omaggio di studiosi italiani a Guido Bastianini per il suo settantesimo compleanno, 2: Filologia greca e latina (Papyrologica Florentina, 45), Florence. Càssola, F. (a cura di) (1975): Inni omerici, Milan. Catenacci, C. (1993): “Il finale dell’Odissea e la recensio pisistratide dei poemi omerici,” QUCC 44, 7‒22. Cavallo, G. (1986): “Conservazione e perdita dei testi greci: fattori materiali, sociali, culturali,” in Giardina, A. (a cura di), Società romana e impero tardo antico, 4: Tradizione dei classici, trasformazioni della cultura, Roma/Bari, 120‒172 (= in Id., Dalla parte del libro. Storie di trasmissione dei classici, Urbino 2002, 104‒175). Celentano, M. S. (1996): “Homoeideia,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik 3, 1525‒1527. Chávez Rieno, A. L. / G. Ottone (2007): “Les fragments de Théopompe chez Athénée: un aperçu général,” in Lenfant, D. (éd.), Athénée et les fragments d’historiens. Actes du Colloque International (Strasbourg, 16‒18 juin 2005), Paris, 139‒174.

238

Bibliography

Chesnut, G. F. (1978): The first Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius, Paris. Chiron, P. (éd.) (1993): Démétrios, Du style, Paris. Chiron, P. (2001): Un rhéteur méconnu: Démétrios (Ps. Démétrios de Phalère). Essai sur les mutations de la théorie du style à l’époque hellénistique, Paris. Christ, M. R. (1993): “Theopompus and Herodotus: A Reassessment,” CQ 43, 47‒52. Chrysanthou, Ch. S. (2015): “P.Oxy. LXXI 4808: Bios, Character, and Literary Criticism,” ZPE 193, 25‒38. Cichocka, H. (1992): “Progymnasma as a Literary Form,” SIFC 10, 991‒1000. Citroni, M. (2003): “I canoni di autori antichi: alle origini del concetto di classico,” in Casarsa, L. / Cristante, L. / Fernandelli, M. (a cura di), Culture europee e tradizione latina, Trieste, 1‒22. Citroni, M. (2005): “Finalità e struttura della rassegna degli scrittori greci e latini in Quintiliano,” in Gasti, F. / Mazzoli, G. (a cura di), Modelli letterari e ideologia nell’età flavia, Pavia, 15‒38. Citroni, M. (2006a): “The Concept of the Classical and the Canons of Model Authors in Roman Literature,” in Porter 2006a, 204‒234. Citroni, M. (2006b) “Quintilian and the Perception of the System of Poetic Genres in the Flavian Age,” in Nauta, R. R. et al. (eds.), Flavian Poetry, Leiden/Boston, 1‒19. Citroni, M. (2007): “Gellio, 19.8.15 e la storia di classicus,” MD 58, 181‒205. Cohen-Skalli, A. (2012): “Temps des institutions et temps de l’histoire dans la Bibliothèque historique de Diodore de Sicile,” REG 125, 425‒442. Cohn, L. (1890): “Handschriftliches zu Dionys von Halikarnass,” Philologus 49, 390‒399. Cole, Th. (1991): The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, Baltimore/London. Colesanti, G. / Giordani, M. (eds.) (2014): Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture. An Introduction, Berlin/Boston. Van Compernolle, R. (1985): “Le P.S.I. XII, 1283 (= Pack2, 1343): et pourquoi pas Antiochus de Syracuse?,” CE 60, 347‒357. Coppola, G. (1930): “Una pagina del Περὶ Σικελίας di Filisto in un papiro fiorentino,” RFIC 8, 449‒466. Corcella, A. (1996): “Ecateo di Mileto così dice” QS 43, 295‒301. Cornell, T. J. (2013): The Fragments of the Roman Historians (FRHist), 1: Introduction, 2: Texts and Translations, 3: Commentaries, Oxford. Costa, V. (2011): “Athanis of Syracuse (562),” Brill’s New Jacoby, Brill Online (accessed on: 1. 8. 2017). Costa, V. / Berti, M. (2010): La biblioteca di Alessandria: storia di un paradiso perduto, Rome. Courcelle, P. (1948): Les lettres grecques en Occident: de Macrobe à Cassiodore, Paris. Cousin, J. (1935): Études sur Quintilien, 1: Contribution à la recherche des sources de l’Institution oratoire, Paris. Cramer, J. A. (1841): Anecdota graeca e codd. manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, 4, Oxford. Creuzer, Fr. (1806): Historicorum Graecorum antiquissimorum fragmenta, Heidelberg. Cribiore, R. (1996): Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco Roman Egypt, Atlanta GA. Cribiore, R. (2001): Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton NJ/Oxford.

Bibliography

239

Cribiore, R. (2013): Libanius the Sophist. Rhetoric, Reality, and Religion in the Fourth Century, Ithaca/London. Curtius, E. R. (1948): Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter, Berne (English transl. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, Princeton NJ 1953). D’Alessio, G. (2012): “Reconstructing the Artemidorus Papyrus,” Historia 61, 292‒309. Damschen, G. (1999): s.v. “Markellinos (2),” Der Neue Pauly 7, 914. Danninger, O. (1931): “Über das εἰκός in den Reden bei Thukydides,” Wiener Studien 49, 12‒ 31. Darbo-Peschanski, C. (1995): “Fabriquer du continu. L’historiographie grecque face au temps,” Storia della storiografia 25, 17‒34. de Andrés, G. (1987): Catalogo de los codices griegos de la Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid. De Gregorio, G. (2002): “L’Erodoto di Palla Strozzi (cod. Vat. Urb. gr. 88),” BollClass 23, 31‒ 130. de Jonge, C. C. (2008): Between Grammar and Rhetoric. Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature, Leiden/Boston. de Jonge, C. C. (2011): “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Scholia on Thucydides’ syntax,” in Matthaios, S. et al. (eds.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar. Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts, Berlin/New York, 451‒478. de Jonge, C. C. (2012): “Review of Wiater 2011,” BMCR 2012.06.41 (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012‒06‒41.html, accessed on: 27. 11. 2017). de Lagarde, P. (1877): Symmicta, Göttingen. De Luna, M. E. (2003): La comunicazione linguistica fra alloglotti nel mondo greco. Da Omero a Senofonte, Pisa. de Romilly, J. (1971): “La notion de nécessité dans l’histoire de Thucydide,” in Science et conscience de la société, mélanges en l’honneur de Raymond Aron, Paris, 111‒128 (= in Id., Rencontres avec la Grèce, Paris 1995, 175‒185). de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. (1975): “Aristotle on History and Poetry (Poetics, 9, 1451 a36‒b11),” in Levick, B. (ed.), The Ancient Historian and his Materials. Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on his Seventieth Birthday, Westmead/Farnborough, 45‒58. De Vido, S. / Mondin, L. (2012‒2013): “Com’è fatto il libro I di Tucidide: una lettura unitaria,” Incontri di Filologia Classica 12, [2014], 293‒323. Delcourt, A. (2005): Lecture des Antiquités romaines de Denys d’Halicarnasse. Un historien entre deux mondes, Brussels. Dempster, S. (2016): “The Old Testament Canon, Josephus and Cognitive Environment,” in Carson, D. A. (ed.), The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, Grand Rapids MI, 321‒361. Desideri, P. (1978): Dione di Prusa: un intellettuale greco nell’impero romano, Messina/Florence. Desideri, P. (1994): “La prova nell’oratoria giudiziaria e nella storiografia nel mondo antico,” Quaderni storici 85, 43‒57. Devreesse, R. (1945): Bibliothèque Nationale, Département des manuscrits. Catalogue des manuscrits grecs, 2: Le fonds Coislin, Paris. Dickey, E. (2007): Ancient Greek Scholarship, Oxford. Diels, H. (1904): “Laterculi Alexandrini aus einem Papyrus ptolemäischer Zeit,” Abh. Ber. Akad., 2, 3‒16.

240

Bibliography

Diesner, H.-J. (1980): “Thukydides und Thomas Hobbes: Zur Strukturanalyse der Macht,” Historia 29, 1‒16. Dihle, A. (1977): “Der Beginn des Attizismus,” A&A 23, 162‒177. Dihle, A. (2007): “Zur Datierung der Schrift des Demetrios Über den Stil,” RhM 150, 298‒313. Dillery, J. D. / Gagos, T. (1992): “P. Mich. Inv. 4922: Xenophon and an Unknown Christian Text with an Appendix of All Xenophon Papyri,” ZPE 93, 1992, 171‒190. Dilts, M. R. / Kennedy, G. A. (eds.) (1997): Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire. Introduction, Text, and Translation of the Arts of Rhetoric Attributed to Anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara, Leiden/New York/Cologne. Dix, T. K. (2000): “The Library of Lucullus,” Athenaeum 88, 441‒464. Dix, T. K. (2004): “Aristotle’s ‘Peripatetic’ Library,” in Raven, J. (ed.), Lost Libraries: The Destruction of Great Book Collections since Antiquity, New York, 58‒74. Dix, T. K. (2013): “‘Beware of promising your library to anyone’: assembling a private library in Rome,” in König et al. 2013, 209‒234. Douglas, A. E. (1956): “Cicero, Quintilian and the Canon of Ten Attic Orators,” Mnemosyne 9, 30‒40. Douglas, A. E. (ed.) (1966): M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus, Oxford. Dorandi, T. (2007): Nell’officina dei classici. Come lavoravano gli autori antichi, Roma. Dover, K. J. (1957): “Review of Hemmerdinger 1955,” CR 7, 23‒25. Dowden, K. (2013): “Poseidonios,” in Brill’s New Jacoby, Brill Online (accessed on: 27. 11. 2017). Dührsen, N. Ch. (2005): “Wer war der Verfasser des Rhetorischen Lehrbuch Über den Stil (Περὶ ἑρμηνείας)?,” RhM 148, 241‒271. Dupont, F. / Valette-Cagnac, E. (éds.) (2005): Façons de parler grec à Rome, Paris. Düring, I. (1957): Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, Göteborg. Düring, I. (1968): s.v. “Aristoteles,” RE Suppl. 11, 194‒200. Earl, D. (1972): “Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography,” ANRW 1, 2, 842‒856. Egger, M. (1902): Denys d’Halicarnasse. Essai sur la critique littéraire et la rhétorique chez les grecs au siècle d’Auguste, Paris. Eigler, U. et al. (eds.) (2003): Formen römischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfängen bis Livius. Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte, Darmstadt. Erbse, H. (1961): “Überlieferungsgeschichte der griechischen klassischen und hellenistischen Literatur,” in Hunger, H. (Hrsg.), Die Textüberlieferung der antiken Literatur und der Bibel, Munich, 207‒283. Esposito Vulgo Gigante, G. (1981‒1982): “Il Bios tucidideo di Marcellino e lo zelos omerico,” Annali della facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Napoli 24, 5‒16. Estienne, H. (1554): Διονυσίου τοῦ Ἁλικαρνασσέως πρὸς Γναίον Πομπήιον ἐπιστολή. τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς ᾿Aμμαῖον. Dionysii Halicarnassei responsio ad Gn. Pompeii epistolam, in qua ille de reprehenso ab eo Platonis stylo conquerebatur. Eiusdem ad Ammaeum epistola. Alia praeterea, quae tertia pagina recensentur, Paris. Eucken, Ch. (2003): “Zum Konzept der πολιτικοὶ λόγοι bei Isokrates,” in Orth 2003, 34‒42. Evans, S. (2008): “The Recitation of Herodotus,” in Pigon, J. (ed.), Children of Herodotus. Greek and Roman Historiography and Related Genres, Cambridge, 1‒16. Fabricius, J. A. (1706‒1728): Bibliotheca Graeca, 1‒14, Paris. Fantham, E. (1989): “The Growth of Literature and Criticism at Rome,” in Kennedy 1989a, 220‒244.

Bibliography

241

Fantham, E. (2004): The Roman World of Cicero’s De Oratore, Oxford. Feldherr, A. (2003): “Cicero and the Invention of ‘Literary’ History,” in Eigler et al. 2003, 196‒ 212. Felten, J. (ed.) (1913): Nicolai Progymnasmata, Leipzig. Ferrara, M. (2012): “Fissare l’autorità e lo stato canonico dei testi vedici. Il metodo storico fra la trasmissione tradizionale delle diramazioni brahmaniche e l’interpretazione dei moderni,” SMSR 78.1, 15‒54. Finley, John H. jr. (1947): Thucydides, Cambridge. Finley, Moses I. (1975): “Myth, Memory and History,” in Id., The Use and Abuse of History, London, 11‒33. Flach, D. (1998): Römische Geschichtsschreibung, Darmstadt3. Flashar, H. (éd.) (1979a): Le Classicisme à Rome aux Iers siècles avant et après J. C. (Entretiens Hardt 25), Vandœvre/Geneve. Flashar, H. (1979b): “Das klassizistische Theorie der Mimesis,” in Flashar 1979a, 79‒97. Fleck, M. (1993): Cicero als Historiker, Stuttgart. Flower, M. A. (1994): Theopompus of Chios. History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC, Oxford. Fornaro, S. (1997): Dionisio di Alicarnasso. Epistola a Pompeo Gemino, Stuttgart/Leipzig. Fornaro, S. (2004): Introduzione: Greci e barbari, Christian Gottlob Heyne, Lecce. Fortenbaugh, W. W. / Steinmetz, P. (eds.) (1989): Cicero’s Knowledge of the Peripatos, New Brunswick/London. Fortenbaugh, W. W. et al. (eds.) (1992‒2005): Teophrastus of Eresus. Sources for His Life, Writings, Tought and Influence, 1‒8, Leiden/New York/Cologne. Forti, S. (2006): “The Biopolitics of Souls: Racism, Nazism, and Plato,” Political Theory 34, 9‒32. Foucault, F. (1969): L’archéologie du savoir, Paris (English transl. The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, New York 1972). Fowler, R. L. (1990): “Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,” in Calder/Briggs 1990, 489‒522. Fowler, R. L. (1996): “Herodotos and His Contemporaries,” JHS 166, 62‒87. Fowler, R. L. (2000‒2013): Early Greek Mythography, 1: Texts, 2: Commentary, Oxford. Fox, M. (2007): Cicero’s Philosophy of History, Oxford. Franco, C. (1991): “Trittico plutarcheo,” Prometheus 17, 125‒131. Fraser, P. M. (1972): Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1‒3, Oxford. Free, A. (2015): Geschichtsschreibung als Paideia: Lukians Schrift Wie man Geschichte schreiben soll in der Bildungskultur des 2. Jhs n. Chr., Munich. French, R. W. (1994): “Review of Bloom 1994,” Walt Whitman Quarterly Review 12.2, 117‒120. von Fritz, K. (1958): “Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles für die Geschichtschreibung,” in Histoire et historiens dans l’antiquité (Entretiens Hardt 4), Vandœuvre/Geneve, 85‒128 (Discussion: 129‒145). Fromentin, V. (2010): “Philistos de Syracuse, imitateur de Thucydide? Réexamen du témoignage de Denys d’Halicarnasse,” in Fromentin/Gotteland/Payen 2010, 103‒118. Fromentin, V. et al. (éds.) (2010): Ombres de Thucydide. La réception de l’historien depuis l’Antiquité jusqu’au début du XXe siècle, Actes des colloques de Bordeaux, les 16‒17 mars 2007, de Bordeaux, les 30‒31 mai 2008 et de Toulouse, les 23‒25 octobre 2008, Bordeaux. Gabba, E. (1991): Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome, Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford.

242

Bibliography

Gagarin, M. (1990): “The Nature of Proofs in Antiphon,” ClassPhil 85, 22‒32. Gagarin, M. (1994): “Probability and Persuasion: Plato and Early Greek Rhetoric,” in Worthington 1994a, 46‒68. Gagarin, M. (1997): Antiphon. The Speeches, Cambridge. Gagarin, M. (2014): “Eikos arguments in Athenian forensic oratory,” in Wohl 2014a, 15‒29. Gaines, R. N. (1986): “A Note on Rufus’ Τέχνη ῥητορική,” RhM 129, 90‒92. Galinsky, K. (ed.) (2005): The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, Cambridge. Gallo, I. (1974): “L’epigramma biografico sui nove lirici greci e il ‘canone’ alessandrino,” QUCC 17, 91‒112. Garbarino, G. (ed.) (1984): M. Tulli Ciceronis Fragementa ex libris philosophicis, ex aliis libris deperditis, ex scriptis incertis, Milan. Gascó, F. (1998): “Menander Rhetor and the Works Attributed to him,” ANRW 2, 34.4, 3110‒ 3146. Gastaldi, S. (1993): “Aristotele e la retorica: il discorso tra persuasione e dimostrazione,” Lexis 11, 119‒134. Gautier, P. (1977): “Michel Psellos et la Rhétorique de Longin,” Prometheus 3, 193‒203. Gelzer, Th. (1975): “Klassik und Klassizismus,” Gymnasium 82, 147‒173. Gelzer, Th. (1979): “Klassizismus, Attizismus und Asianismus,” in Flashar 1979a, 1‒55. Gehrke, H.-J. (2014): Geschichte als Element antiker Kultur: die Griechen und ihre Geschichte(n), Berlin/Boston. Gengler, O. (2007): s.v. “ἀναγκαῖος,” in Lexicon Historiographicum Graecum et Latinum, 2, Pisa, 38‒40. Geraci, G. (2013): “Dibattito,” in Un nuovo catologo di storici ellenistici (POxy LXXI 4808). Tavola rotonda, Roma, Istituto italiano per la storia antica, 10 giugno 2011, RFIC 141, 98‒ 99. Germino, E. (2004): Scuola e cultura nella legislazione di Giuliano l’Apostata, Naples. Giannattasio Andria, R. (2003): “Novità testuali su P.Oxy. 2330 (Ctesias Cnidius, ‘FGrHist’ 688 F 8b),” ZPE 144, 15‒18. Giardina, A. (1999): “Esplosione di tardoantico,” Studi Storici 40, 157‒180 (= English transl. “Explosion of Late Antiquity,” in Cameron, Av. [ed.], Late Antiquity on the Eve of Islam. The Formation of Classical Islam, 1, Farnham 2013, 1‒23). Gibson, Craig A. (2004): “Learning Greek History in the Ancient Classroom: The Evidence of the Treatise on Progymnasmata,” CPh 99, 103‒129. Gibson, Craig A. (2009): “The Alexandrian Tychaion and the date of Ps.-Nicolaus Progymnasmata,” CQ 59, 608 – 623. Gibson, Roy K. / Morrison, A. D. (2007): “Introduction: What is a Letter?,” in Morello, R. / Morrison, A. D. (eds.), Ancient Letters. Classical & Late Antique Epistolography, Oxford, 1‒16. Gigante, M. (1970): Frammenti sulla Pentecontaetia e altri testi storici da papyri, Naples2. Gigante, M. (1998): “Zenone Sidonio e la poesia,” Cronache ercolanesi 28, 85‒98. Gigon, O. (1959): “Cicero und Aristoteles,” Hermes 87, 143‒162. Gigon, O. (1962): “Die Szenerie des ciceronischen Hortensius,” Philologus 106, 222‒245. Ginzburg, C. (1979): “Spie. Radici di un paradigma indiziario,” in Gargani, A. (a cura di), Crisi della ragione, Turin, 59‒106 (also in Id., Miti, emblemi, spie. Morfologia e storia, Turin 1986, 158‒193; English transl. in Eco, U. / Sebeok, T. A. [eds.], The Sign of Three, Bloomington IN 1984, § 4).

Bibliography

243

Ginzburg, C. (1991): Il giudice e lo storico. Considerazioni in margine al processo Sofri, Turin. Ginzburg, C. (1994): “Aristotele, la storia, la prova,” Quaderni storici 85, 5‒17. Ginzburg, C. (2000): “Ancora su Aristotele e la storia,” in Id., Rapporti di forza. Storia, retorica, prova, Milan, 51‒67. Ginzburg, C. (2012): “Our Words, and Theirs: A Reflection on the Historian’s Craft, Today,” in Fellman, S. / Rahikainen, M. (eds.), Historical Knowledge. In Quest of Theory, Method and Evidence, Cambridge, 97‒119. Gomme, A. W. (1954a): The Greek Attitude to Poetry and History, Berkeley/Los Angeles. Gomme, A. W. (1954b): “Who was ‘Kratippos’?,” CQ 48, 53‒55. Gommel, J. (1966): Rhetorische Argumentieren bei Thukydides, Hildesheim. Goodwin, J. / Holbo, J. (eds.) (2011): Reading Graphs, Maps, and Trees: Critical Responses to Franco Moretti, Anderson (http://www.parlorpress.com/pdf/ReadingMapsGraphsTrees. pdf, accessed on: 27. 11. 2017). Gorak, J. (1991): The Making of the Modern Canon: Genesis and Crisis of a Literary Idea, London/Atlantic Highlands NJ. Gorak, J. (1997): “Canon and Canon Formation,” in Nisbet, H. B. / Rawson, C. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 4: The Eighteenth Century, Cambridge, 560‒584. Gottschalk, H. B. (1987): “Aristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World from the Time of Cicero to the End of the Second Century AD,” ANRW 2, 36.2, 1079‒1174. Goudriaan, K. (1989): Over Classicisme. Dionysius van Halicarnassus en zijn program van welsprekendheid, cultuur en politiek, 1‒2, Diss., Amsterdam. Gozzoli, S. (1976): “Polibio e Dionigi d’Alicarnasso,” SCO 25, 149‒176. Gräfenhan, E. A. W. (1844): Geschichte der klassischen Philologie im Alterthum, 2, Bonn. Grafton, A. (1981): “Prolegomena to Friedrich August Wolf,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 44, 101‒129 (reprinted in Id., Defenders of the Text. The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450‒1800, Cambridge MA/London 1991, 214‒243). Grafton, A. / Most, G. W. / Zetzel, J. E. G. (eds.) (1985): F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena to Homer (1795), Translated with Introduction and Notes, Princeton NJ. Grafton, A. (1997): The Footnote. A Curious History, Cambridge MA. Grafton, A. et al. (eds.) (2010): The Classical Tradition, Cambridge MA. Gray, V. (1989): The Character of Xenophon’s Hellenica, Baltimore. Gray, V. (1991): “Continuous History and Xenophon, Hellenica 1‒2.3.10,” AJPh 112, 201‒228. Green, R. P. H. (1991): The Works of Ausonius, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Grenfell, B. P. / Hunt, A. S. (eds.) (1908): The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 6, London. Grenfell, B. P. / Hunt, A. S. (eds.) (1914): The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 10, London. Grenfell, B. P. / Hunt, A. S. (eds.) (1919): The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 13, London. Grigolon, A. (2002): “Senofonte e gli appunti di Tucidide,” Aevum 76, 49‒61. Grilli, A. (1990): “Data e senso del ‘De legibus’ di Cicerone,” PP 45, 175‒177. Grilli, A. (a cura di) (2010): Marco Tullio Cicerone, Ortensio, Padua. van Groningen, B. A. (1963): “ΕΚΔΟΣΙΣ,” Mnemosyne 16, 1‒17. Grossi, V. (2015): Tucidide nell’esegesi antica. Traduzione e commento degli scoli al libro primo delle Storie (capitoli 1‒67), tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Verona. Grossi, V. (2016): “Thucydides and Poetry. Ancient Remarks on the Vocabulary and Structure of Thucydides’ History,” in Liotsakis, V. / Farrington, S. (eds.), The Art of History. Literary Perspectives on Greek and Roman Historiography, Berlin/Boston, 99‒118.

244

Bibliography

Grube, G. M. A. (1959): “Theodorus of Gadara,” AJPh 80, 337‒365. Gudeman, A. (1921): s.v. “Scholien,” RE 2, A.1, 625‒705. Haas, W. (1977): Die Fragmente der Grammatiker Tyrannion und Diokles, Berlin/New York. Habicht, Ch. (1985): Pausanias und seine Beschreibung Griechenlands, Munich (English transl. Pausanias Guide to Ancient Greece, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1985; 19982). Hadot, I. (2005): Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée antique. Contribution à l’histoire de l’éducation et de la culture dans l’antiquité, Paris2. Hagedorn, D. (1964): Zur Ideenlehre des Hermogenes, Göttingen. Hall, Jon (1994): “Persuasive Design in Cicero’s De Oratore,” Phoenix 48, 210‒225. Hall, Jonathan M. (1997): Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Hall, Jonathan M. (2002): Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago/London. Halliwell, S. (2002): The Aesthetics of Mimesis. Ancient Texts and Modern Problems, Princeton NJ/Oxford. Hampe, O. (1877): Über den sogenannten Kanon der Alexandrinen, Jawor. Harding, P. (2007): “Local History and Atthidography,” in Marincola 2007a, 180‒188. Harrison, S. (ed.) (2001): Apuleius. Rhetorical Works, translated and annotated by Harrison, S. / Hilton, J. / Hunink, V., Oxford. Hartmann, P. (1891): De canone decem oratorum, Diss., Göttingen. Hartog, F. (1991): Le miroir d’Hérodote. Essai sur la représentation de l’autre, Paris2. Heath, M. (1989a): Unity in Greek Poetics, Oxford. Heath, M. (1989b): “Dionysius of Halicarnassus On imitation,” Hermes 117, 370‒373. Heath, M. (2002/2003): “Theon and the History of the Progymnasmata,” GRBS 43, 129‒160. Heath, M. (2004): Menander: A Rhetor in Context, Oxford. Hebert, B. (1986): “Attische Gelehrsamkeit in einem alexandrinischen Papyrus? Bemerkungen und Vorschläge zu den Künstlerkanones der Laterculi Alexandrini,” Tyche 1, 127‒131. Heldmann, K. (1982): Antike Theorien über Entwicklung und Verfall der Redekunst, Munich. Hemmerdinger, B. (1948): “La division en livres de l’œuvre de Thucydide,” REG 61, 104‒117. Hemmerdinger, B. (1955): Essai sur l’histoire du texte de Thucydide, Paris. Hemmerdinger, B. (1981): Les manuscripts d’Hérodote et la critique verbale, Genoa. Hendrickson, G. L. / Hubbel, H. M. (ed.) (1939): Cicero. Brutus. Orator, Cambridge MA. van Herwerden, H. (1861): Dionysii Halicarnassensis Epistolae criticae tres, quarum duae ad Ammaeum, una ad Cn. Pompeium, Groningen. Heydenreich, W. (1900): De Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae libro X, de Dionysii Halicarnassensis de imitatione libro II, de canone, qui dicitur, Alexandrino, questiones, Diss., Erlangen. Heyne, Ch. G. (1785): Opuscula academica collecta et animadversionibus locupletata, 1, Göttingen. Hidber, Th. (1996): Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass, Die praefatio zu De oratoribus veteribus, Stuttgart/Leipzig. Hidber, Th. (2006): Herodians Darstellung der Kaisergechischte nach Marc Aurel, Basle. Higbie, C. (2003): The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek Creation of their Past, Oxford. Higbie, C. (2010): “Divide and Edit: A Brief History of Book Division,” HSCPh 105, 1‒31. Hirzel, R. (1878): “Die Thukydideslegende,” Hermes 13, 46‒49. Hobbes, Th. (1839‒1845): The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, edited by Sir William Molesworth, 1‒11, London. Hobbes, Th. (1975): Hobbes’s Thucydides, edited by R. Schlatter, New Brunswick NJ.

Bibliography

245

Hoeschel, D. (1597): Lamprias, De scriptis Plutarchi Chaeroniensis, et Graece et Latine nunc primum editus, Augsburg. Hogg, D. (2013): “Libraries in a Greek working life: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a case study in Rome,” in König et al. 2013, 137‒51. Homeyer, H. (1965): Lukian: Wie man Geschichte schreiben soll, Munich. Hornblower, Jane (1981): Hieronymus of Cardia, Oxford. Hornblower, Simon (1991‒2008): A Commentary on Thucydides, 1‒3, Oxford. Hornblower, S. (1995): “The Fourth-Century and Hellenistic Reception of Thucydides,” JHS 115, 47‒68 (= in Id., Thucydidean Themes, Oxford 2011, 286‒322). Hornblower, S. (2006): “Herodotus’ Influence in Antiquity,” in Dewald, C. / Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, Cambridge, 306‒318. Horrocks, G. (2010): Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers, London/New York2. Houston, G. W. (2014): Inside Roman Libraries. Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity, Chapel Hill. Hude, C. (ed.) (1927): Scholia in Thucydidem ad optimos codices collata, Leipzig. Hunger, H. (1978): Die hochscprachliche Profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 1‒2, Munich. Hunink, V. (ed.) (2001): Apuleius of Madauros, Florida, Amsterdam. Hunter, R. (2012): Plato and the Traditions of Ancient Literature. The Silent Stream, Cambridge. Hunter, R. (2014): Hesiodic Voices: Studies in the Ancient Reception of Hesiod’s Works and Days, Cambridge. Hurst, A. (éd.) (2010): Lucien de Samosate: Comment écrire l’histoire, Paris. Iglesias-Zoido, J. C. (2012): “Thucydides in the School Rhetoric of the Imperial Period,” GRBS 52, 393‒420. Innes, D. C. (1985): “Theophrastus and the Theory of Style,” in Fortenbaugh, W. W. et al. (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus: On his Life and Work, New Brunswick/Oxford, 251‒268. Innes, D. C. (1989): “Augustan Critics,” in Kennedy 1989a, 245‒273. Iori, L. (2012): “Thomas Hobbes traduttore di Tucidide: gli Eight Books of the Peloponnesian Warre e le prime tracce di un pensiero hobbesiano sulla paura,” QS 75, 149‒193. Iori, L. (2015): Thucydides Anglicus. Gli Eight Bookes di Thomas Hobbes e la ricezione inglese delle Storie di Tucidide (1450‒1642), Roma. Irigoin, J. (1986): “Le catalogue de Lamprias. Tradition manuscrite et éditions imprimées,” REG 99, 318‒331. Isager, S. (1998): “The Pride of Halikarnassos. Editio princeps of an inscription from Salmakis,” ZPE 123, 1‒23. Isager, S. / Pedersen, P. (2004): The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, Odense. Jackson, D. F. (1969): “The Papyri of Xenophon’s Hellenica,” BASP 6, 45‒52. Jackson, D. F. (1975): “The TLDV Manuscripts of Xenophon’s Hellenica and Their Descendants,” TAPhA 105, 175‒187. Jacob, Ch. (2013): “Fragments of a History of Ancient Libraries,” in König et al. 2013, 57‒81. Jacoby, F. (1909): “Über die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie und den Plan einer neuen Sammlung der griechischen Historikerfragmente,” Klio 9, 80‒123. Jacoby, F. (1913): s.v. “Herodotos,” RE Suppl. 2, 205‒520. Jacoby, F. (1949): Atthis. The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens, Oxford.

246

Bibliography

Jacoby, F. (1954): Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Dritter Teil, B, Supplement: A Commentary on the Ancient Historians of Athens (Nos. 323a‒334), Text and Notes, 1‒2, Leiden. Jaeger, W. (1944): Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, 3: The Conflict of Cultural Ideals in the Age of Plato, Oxford/New York. Janiszewski, P. et al. (eds.) (2015): Prosopography of Greek Rhetors and Sophists of the Roman Empire, Oxford. Jiménez San Cristóbal, A. I. (2015): “The Rape of Persephone in a Berlin Papyrus,” LEC 83, 237‒260. Jones, Arnold H. M. et al. (1971): The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 1, Cambridge. Jones, Christopher P. (1978): The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, Cambridge MA. Jones, Christopher P. (2014): “Epigraphica X‒XII,” ZPE 188, 28‒34. Kaerst, J. (1897): s.v. “Bardylis,” RE 3, 12. Kaldellis, A. (2005): “The Work and Days of Hesychios the Illoustrios of Miletos,” GRBS 45, 381‒403. Kaldellis, A. (2007): “Hesychios of Miletos,” Brill’s New Jacoby, Brill Online (accessed on: 30. 5. 2017). Kaldellis, A. (2010): “The Corpus of Byzantine Historiography: an Interpretative Essay,” in Stephenson, P. (ed.), The Byzantine World, London, 211‒222. Kaldellis, A. (2012): “The Byzantine Role in the Making of the Corpus of Classical Greek Historiography: A Preliminary Investigation,” JHS 132, 71‒85. Kalinka, E. (1922‒1923): “Die Arbeitsweise des Rhetors Dionys (1),” Wiener Studien 43, 157‒ 168. Kalinka, E. (1924‒1925): “Die Arbeitsweise des Rhetors Dionys (2),” Wiener Studien 44, 48‒ 68. Kalischek, A. E. (1913): De Ephoro et Theopompo Isocratis discipulis, Diss., Münster. Karavas, O. / Vix, J.-L. (éds.) (2014): “On the Reception of Menander in the Imperial Period,” in Sommerstein, A. H. (ed.), Menander in Contexts, New York/London, 183‒198. Kassel, R. (1987): Die Abgrenzung des Hellenismus in der griechischen Literaturgeschichte, Berlin/New York (= in Id., Kleine Schriften, Berlin/New York 1991, 154‒173). Kassel, R. (ed.) (1976): Aristotelis Ars rhetorica, Berlin/New York. Kaster, R. A. (1988): Guardians of Language. The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, Berkeley. Kecskeméti, J. / Boudou, B. / Cazes, H. (2003): La France des humanistes. Henri II Estienne, éditeur et écrivain, Turnhout. Kennedy, G. A. (1963): The Art of Persuasion in Greece, Princeton NJ. Kennedy, G. A. (1972): The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. 300 BC – AD 300, Princeton NJ. Kennedy, G. A. (1983): Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, Princeton NJ. Kennedy, G. A. (ed.) (1989a): The Cambridge History of Literary Criticims, 1: Classical Criticism, Cambridge. Kennedy, G. A. (1989b): “The evolution of a theory of artistic prose,” in Kennedy 1989a, 184‒ 199. Kennedy, G. A. (2003): Progymnasmata. Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, Leiden/Boston.

Bibliography

247

Kiessling, F. G. (1837): De Hyperide oratore Attico commentatio, 2, Hildburghausen. Kleingünther, A. (1933): Πρῶτος εὑρετής. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung (Philologus Suppl. 26.1), Leipzig. Kleinlogel, A. (1964): “Beobachtungen zu den Thukydidesscholien I,” Philologus 108, 233‒ 246. Kleinlogel, A. (1965): Geschichte des Thukydidestextes im Mittelalter, Berlin. Kleinlogel, A. (1998): “Beobachtungen zu den Thukydidesscholien II,” Philologus 142, 11‒40. Kleinlogel, A. (2011): “Beobachtungen zu den Thukydidesscholien III (aus dem Nachlass hrsg. von Klaus Alpers),” Philologus 155, 257‒271. Knoepfler, D. (2001): “Trois historiens hellénistiques: Douris de Samos, Hiéronymos de Cardia, Philochore d’Athènes,” in Leclant, J. (éd.), Histoire et historiographie dans l’Antiquité. Actes du 11e colloque de la Villa Kérylos à Beaulieu-sur-Mer les 13 et 14 octobre 2000, Paris, 25‒44. Koller, H. (1954): Der Mimesis in der Antike. Nachahmung, Darstellung, Ausdruck, Berne. König, J. et al. (eds.) (2013): Ancient Libraries, Cambridge. Koning, H. H. (2010): Hesiod: The Other Poet. Ancient Reception of a Cultural Icon, Leiden/Boston. Konuk, K. (2010): East West Mimesis. Auerbach in Turkey, Stanford CA. Körte, A. (1936): “Homer und Menander,” Hermes 71, 221‒222. Kraus, M. (2005): “Progymnasmata, Gymnasmata,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik 7, 159‒190. Kremmer, M. (1890): De catalogis heurematum, Diss., Leipzig. Kröhnert, O. (1897): Canonesne poetarum scriptorum artificium per antiquitatem fuerunt?, Diss., Königsberg. Kroll, W. (1932): s.v. “Metrodoros (23),” RE 15, 1481‒1482. Krüger, K. W. (1823): Dionysii Halicarnassensis Historiographica, h. e. Epistolae ad Cn. Pompejum, ad Q. Aelium Tuberonem et ad Ammaeum altera, Halle. La Penna, A. (1992): “La cultura letteraria latina nel secolo degli Antonini,” in Gabba, E. / Schiavone, A. (a cura di), Storia di Roma, 2.3: La cultura e l’impero, Turin, 419‒577. La Rocca, A. (2005): Il filosofo e la città. Commento storico ai Florida di Apuleio, Roma. Labarbe, J. (1968): “Une épigramme sur les neuf lyriques grecs,” AntClass 37, 449‒466. Lacaita, J. P. (1879): Catalogue of the Library at Chatsworth, 1‒4, London. Landucci, F. (1997): Duride di Samo, Roma. Landucci, F. / Prandi, L. (2013): “POxy LXXI 4808: contenuto e problemi,” in Un nuovo catologo di storici ellenistici (POxy LXXI 4808). Tavola rotonda, Roma, Istituto italiano per la storia antica, 10 giugno 2011, RFIC 141, 79‒97. Lasserre, F. (1976): “L’historiographie grecque à l’époque archaïque,” QS 4, 113‒142. Lee, B. T. (2005): Apuleius’ Florida. A Commentary, Berlin/New York. Leeman, A. D. et al. (1985): M. Tullius Cicero. De oratore libri III. Kommentar, 2: Buch I, 166‒ 265, Buch II, 1‒98, Heidelberg. Lenfant, D. (éd.) (2004): Ctésias de Cnide. La Perse. L’Inde. Autres fragments, Paris. Levene, D. S. (2004): “Tacitus’ ‘Dialogus’ as Literary History,” TAPhA 134, 157‒200. Levene, D. S. (2007): “Roman Historiography in the Late Republic,” in Marincola 2007a, 1.275‒289. Lévy, M. (2010): “L’imitation de Thucydide dans les Opuscules Rhétoriques et les Antiquités Romaines de Denys d’Halicarnasse,” in Fromentin et al. 2010, 51‒61.

248

Bibliography

Lewis, D. M. (1957): “Review of Hemmerdinger 1955,” JHS 77, 329‒330. Lilja, S. (1967): “Indebtedness to Hecataeus in Herodotus II 70‒73,” Arctos 5, 85‒96. Lim, T. H. (2013): The Formation of the Jewish Canon, New Haven/London. Lim, T. H. (2017): “An Indicative Definition of the Canon,” in: Id. (ed.), When Texts are Canonized, Providence RI, 1‒24. Lindberg, G. (1997): “Hermogenes of Tarsus,” ANRW 2, 34.3, 1978‒2063. Liuzzo, P. M. (2014): Frammenti di Erodoto. Problemi e metodi nello studio della storiografia frammentaria, tesi di dottorato, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna (http://ams dottorato.unibo.it/6257/, accesed on: 27. 11. 2017). Livingstone, N. (2001): A Commentary on Isocrates’ Busiris, Leiden/Boston/Cologne. Livingstone, N. (2007): “Writing Politics: Isocrates’ Rhetoric of Philosophy,” Rhetorica 25, 15‒ 34. Livrea, E. (1980): “P.Laur. inv. II/29: Ecateo?,” ZPE 39, 73‒80. Lord, C. (1986): “On the Early History of the Aristotelian Corpus,” AJPh 107, 137‒161. Luchner, K. (2008): “‘Grund, Fundament, Mauerwerk, Dach’? – Julians φιλοσοφία im Netzwerk seiner Briefe,” in Schäfer, Ch. (Hrsg.), Kaiser Julian ‘Apostata’ und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum, Berlin/New York, 221‒252. Luiselli, R. (2016): “Un nuovo papiro di Polibio,” in Casanova et al. 2016, 11‒15. Luppe, W. (1977): “Rü ckseitentitel auf Papyrusrollen,” ZPE 27, 89‒99. Luppe, W. (2007): “Würdigung des Polybios in P.Oxy. 4808,” ZPE 163, 40. Luraghi, N. (ed.) (2001): “Introduction,” in Id., The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, Oxford, 1‒15. Luraghi, N. (2003): “Dionysios von Halikarnassos zwischen Griechen und Römern,” in Eigler et al. 2003, 268‒86. Luraghi, N. (2014): “Ephorus in Context: The Return of the Heraclidae and Fourth Century Peloponnesian Politics,” in Parmeggiani 2014, 133‒151. Luschnat, O. (1954): “Die Thukydidesscholien: Zu ihrer handschriftlichen Grundlage, Herkunft und Geschichte,” Philologus 98, 14‒58. Luschnat, O. (1970): s.v. “Thukydides,” RE Suppl. 12, 1085‒354. Luther, M. (1928): Schriften, 54: Schriften 1543‒1546, Weimar. Luzzatto, Maria Jagoda (1993): “Scholia tardoantichi: il commentario di Marcellino a Tucidide,” QS 38, 111‒115. Luzzatto, Maria Tanja (1988): “L’oratoria, la retorica e la critica letteraria dalle origini ad Ermogene,” in Montanari, F. (a cura di), Da Omero agli Alessandrini. Problemi e figure della letteratura greca, Roma, 207‒256. Maass, E. (1887): “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Prosa,” Hermes 22, 566‒ 595. Maehler, H (2007): “Das Thukydides-Hypomnema P.Oxy. 853 und die Scholien,” in Frösén, J. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Cogress of Papyrology (Helsinki, 1‒7 August 2004), 2, Helsinki, 587‒593. Mahne, W. L. (ed.) (1834): Epistolae viri clarissimi Davidis Ruhnkenii ad diversos, Vlissingen. Maisano, R. (2014): La filologia del Nuovo Testamento. La tradizione e la trasmissione dei testi, Rome. Maitland, J. (1996): “‘Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides: Criticism and Criteria in the Biographical Tradition,” CQ 46, 538‒558.

Bibliography

249

Malinowski, G. (2017): “Strabo the Historian,” in Dueck, D. (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Strabo, London/New York, 337‒352. Manganaro, G. (1974): “Una biblioteca storica nel ginnasio di Tauromenion e il POxy 1241,” PP 29, 389‒409. Männlein-Robert, I. (2001): Longin Philologe und Philosoph. Eine Interpretation der erhaltenen Zeugnisse, Munich/Leipzig. Marasco, G. (ed.) (2003): Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century AD, Leiden/Boston. Maraval, P. (2013): Les fils de Constantin. Constantin II (337‒340), Constance II (337‒361), Constant (337‒350), Paris. Marchese, R. R. (a cura di) (2011): Cicerone. Bruto, Rome. Marincola, J. (1997): Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography, Cambridge. Marincola, J. (2001): Greek Historians, Oxford. Marincola, J. (ed.) (2007a): A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, 1‒2, Malden MA. Marincola, J. (2007b): “Universal History from Ephorus to Diodorus,” in Marincola 2007a, 1.171‒179. Marincola, J. (2013): “Polybius, Phylarchus, and ‘Tragic History’: A Reconsideration,” in Gibson, B. / Harrison, T. (eds.), Polybius and His World: Essays in Memory of F. W. Walbank, Oxford, 73‒90. Marincola, J. (2014): “Rethinking Isocrates and Historiography,” in Parmeggiani 2014, 39‒61. Marini, N. (ed.) (2007): Demetrio. Lo stile, Rome. Marinone, N. (2004): Cronologia ciceroniana, a cura di E. Malaspina, Bologna2. Marrou, H.-I. (1965): Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, Paris6 (English transl. A History of Education in Antiquity, Madison WI 1956). Marsh, D. (1992): s.v. “Xenophon,” in Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translation and Commentaries. Annotated Lists and Guides, 7, Washington, 75‒196. Marsh, D. (2010): s.v. “Xenophon,” in Grafton et al. 2010, 997‒998. Martano, A. et al. (eds.) (2012): Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea. Text, Translation, and Discussion, New Brunswick/London. Martínez Manzano, T. (1994): Konstantinos Laskaris Humanist, Philologe, Lehrer, Kopist, Hamburg. Martínez Manzano, T. (1998): Constantino Láscaris. Semblanza de un humanista bizantino, Madrid. Matelli, E. (a cura di) (2012a): Prassifane. Testimonianze e frammenti. Filosofia e grammatica in età ellenistica, Milan. Matelli, E. (2012b): “Praxiphanes of Mytilene (called ‘of Rhodes’): The Sources, Text and Translation,” in Martano et al. 2012, 1‒156. Matelli, E. (2012c): “Praxiphanes, Who Is He?,” in Martano et al. 2012, 525‒578. Mathieu, G. (1918): “Isocrate et Thucydide,” RPh 42, 122‒9. Matijašić, I. (2013): “Aristarco ed Erodoto in Stefano di Bisanzio,” RhM 156, 217‒221. Matijašić, I. (2014a): “Timachidas di Rodi e la Cronaca di Lindo,” ASNP s. 5, 6, 91‒112. Matijašić, I. (2014b): “Timachidas di Rodi. Introduzione, edizione dei frammenti, traduzione e commento,” ASNP s. 5, 6, 113‒185.

250

Bibliography

Matijašić, I. (2015): “Geografia del mondo illirico tra V e IV secolo a.C.,” in Marion, Y. / Tassaux, F. (éd.), AdriAtlas et l’histoire de l’espace adriatique du VIe s. a.C. au VIIIe s. p.C., Actes du colloque international de Rome (4‒6 novembre 2013), Bordeaux, 131‒148. Matthaios, S. (1999): Untersuchung zur Grammatik Aristarchs, Göttingen. Maurer, K. (1995): Interpolation in Thucydides, Leiden/New York/Cologne. May, J. J. / Wisse, J. (transl.) (2001): Cicero. On the Ideal Orator (De Oratore), New York/Oxford. May, J. J. (ed.) (2002): Brill’s Companion to Cicero. Oratory and Rhetoric, Leiden/Boston/Cologne. Mazzucchi, C. M. (a cura di) (2010): Dionisio Longino. Del Sublime. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commentario, seconda edizione rivista e ampliata, Milan2. McCuaig, W. (1989): Carlo Sigonio. The Changing World of the Late Renaissance, Princeton NJ. Meijering, R. (1987): Literary and Rhetorical Theories in Greek Scholia, Groningen. Meister, K. (1990): Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus, Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne. Meister, K. (1997): s.v. “Ephoros,” Der Neue Pauly 3, 1089‒1090. Meister, K. (2013): Thukydides als Vorbild der Historiker. Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Padeborn/Munich/Vienna/Zürich. Mérot, G. (2016): “L’évaluation stylistique des poètes grecs dans l’Institution oratoire (X, 1, 46‒72): quelle(s) grille(s) d’analyse?,” Vita Latina 193‒194, 121‒150. Mette, H. J. (1978): “Die ‘Kleinen’ griechischen Historiker heute,” Lustrum 21, 5‒43. Mette, H. J. (1985): “Die ‘Kleinen’ griechischen Historiker heute (Ergänzungen zu Lustrum 21, 5‒43 bis zum Jahre 1984),” Lustrum 27, 33‒38. Meyer, E. (1909): Theopomps Hellenika, Halle. Michel, J.-B. et al. (2011): “Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books,” Science 331, 176‒82. Mioni, E. (1968): “Bessarione bibliofilo e filologo,” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 5, 65‒83. Mioni, E. (1976): “Bessarione scriba e alcuni suoi collaboratori,” Miscellanea marciana di studi bessarionei (Medioevo e Umanesimo 24), Padua, 263‒318. Mioni, E. (1985): Biliothecae divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti, 2: Thesaurus antiquus: codd. 300‒625, Rome. Moggi, M. (2013): “Introduzione,” in Un nuovo catologo di storici ellenistici (POxy LXXI 4808). Tavola rotonda, Roma, Istituto italiano per la storia antica, 10 giugno 2011, RFIC 141, 61‒ 66. Momigliano, A. (1931): “Il razionalismo di Ecateo di Mileto,” Atene e Roma 12, 133‒142 (= in Terzo contributo, Rome 1966, 323‒334). Momigliano, A. (1958): “The Place of Herodotus in the History of Historiography,” History 43, 1‒13 (= in Secondo contributo, Rome 1960, 29‒44). Momigliano, A. (1959): “Atene nel III secolo e la scoperta di Roma nelle Storie di Timeo di Tauromenio,” RSI 71, 529‒56 (= in Terzo contributo, Rome 1966, 23‒53). Momigliano, A. (1968): “Review of Pfeiffer 1968,” RSI 80, 376‒380 (= in Quinto contributo, Rome 1975, 893‒898; Id., Sui fondamenti della storia antica, Turin 1984, 415‒420).

Bibliography

251

Momigliano, A. (1974): “Polybius’ Reappearance in Western Europe,” in Gabba, E. (éd.), Polybe (Entretiens Hardt 20), Vandœuvres/Geneve, 347‒372 (= in Sesto contributo, Rome 1980, 103‒123). Momigliano, A. (1978): “The Historians of the Classical World and Their Audience: Some Suggestions,” ASNP, s. 3, 8, 59‒75 (= in Sesto contributo, Rome 1980, 361‒376). Momigliano, A. (1982): “Storiografia greca,” in Id., La storiografia greca, Turin, 3‒41. Momigliano, A. (1983): “The Introduction of History as an Academic Subject and its Implications,” Minerva 21, 1‒15 (= in Ottavo contributo, Rome 1987, 161‒178; Italian transl. in Id., Tra storia e storicismo, Pisa 1985, 75‒96). Momigliano, A. (1985): “History between Medicine and Rhetoric,” ASNP, s. 3, 15, 767‒780 (= in Ottavo contributo, Rome 1987, 13‒25). Momigliano, A. (1990): The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Berkley. Mondin, L. (a cura di) (1995): Decimo Magno Ausonio, Epistole. Introduzione, testo critico e commento, Venice. Montana, F. (1996a): “Osservazioni sulla tradizione indiretta dell’Athenaion Politeia aristotelica,” SIFC 14, 169‒198. Montana, F. (1996b): L’Athenaion Politeia di Aristotele negli scholia vetera ad Aristofane, Pisa. Montana, F. (2009a): “Storici, filologi, storici-filologi: intersezioni nella cultura ellenistica,” in Gazzano, F. et al. (a cura di), Ingenia Asiatica. Fortuna e tradizione di storici d’Asia Minore, Rome, 175‒181. Montana, F. (2009b): “A hypomnema on Herodotus’ Bk. 5: notes to P.Oxy. LXV 4455, Col. I,” in Montanari, F. / Perrone, S. (eds.), Fragments of the Past. Ancient Scholarship and Greek Papyri, Berlin/New York, 241‒254. Montana, F. (2011): “The Making of Greek Scholiastic Corpora,” in Montanari, F. / Pagani, L. (eds.), From Scholars to Scholia. Chapters in the History of Ancient Greek Scholarship, Berlin/New York, 105‒161. Montana, F. (2012): “Nuova luce su P.Amh. II 12, Col. I (Hypomnema di Aristarco al libro I di Erodoto),” ZPE 180, 72‒76. Montana, F. (2014): “Introduction: From Type to Texts,” in Montana, F. / Porro, A. (eds.), The Birth of Scholiography. From Types to Texts, Berlin/New York, 1‒14. Montana, F. (2015a): “Hellenistic Scholarship,” in Montanari et al. 2015, 60‒183. Montana, F. (2015b): “Per il testo della redazione A (non alfabetica) delle lexeis di Erodoto,” in Tziatzi, M. et al. (Hrsg.), Lemmata. Beiträge zum Gedenken an Christos Theodoridis, Berlin/Boston, 431‒451. Montana, F. (2016): “Aristarco, Erodoto, l’Egitto. Una nota,” in Casanova et al. 2016, 539‒547. Montanari, F. (1992): “Scoliografia e teatro greco: qualche appunto,” in de Finis, L. (a cura di), Dal teatro greco al teatro rinascimentale: momenti e linee di evoluzione, Trento. Montanari, F. (1993): “L’erudizione, la filologia e la grammatica,” in Cambiano, G. et al. (a cura di), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica, 1.2: La produzione e la circolazione del testo. L’Ellenismo, Rome, 235‒281. Montanari, F. (éd.) (1994): La philologie grecque à l’époque hellénistique et romain (Entretiens Hardt 40), Vandœuvres/Geneve. Montanari, F. (2013): “Gli storici greci e la filologia di età ellenistico-romana,” in Gazzano, F. / Ottone, G. (a cura di), Le età della trasmissione. Alessandria, Roma, Bisanzio. Atti

252

Bibliography

delle Giornate di Studio sulla storiografia greca frammentaria (Genova, 29‒30 maggio 2012), Tivoli, 1‒32. Montanari, F. (2014): “Dal Peripato ad Alessandria,” in Tulli, M. (a cura di), ΦΙΛΙΑ. Dieci contributi per Gabriele Burzacchini, Bologna, 79‒102. Montanari, F. et al. (eds.) (2015): Brill’s Companion to Ancient Scholarship, Leiden/Boston. Montecalvo, M. S. (2013): “Cicerone e la storia greca,” in Solaro, G. (a cura di), La Roma di Cornelio Nepote, Rome, 93‒130. Montfaucon, B. de (1715): Bibliotheca Coisliniana, Paris. Moore, J. M. (1965): The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius, Cambridge. Moretti, F. (2000a): “Conjectures on World Literature,” New Left Review 1, Jan-Feb, 54‒68 (= in Moretti 2013, 43‒62). Moretti, F. (2000b): “The Slaughterhouse of Literature,” Modern Language Quarterly 61, 207‒ 227 (= in Moretti 2013, 63‒90). Moretti, F. (2005): Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History, London. Moretti, F. (2013): Distant Reading, London. Morison, W. S. (2014): “Theopompos of Chios (115),” Brill’s New Jacoby, Brill Online (accessed on: 28. 7. 2017). Most, G. W. (1990): “Canon Fathers: Literacy, Mortality, Power,” Arion 1, 35‒60. Most, G. W. (2006): “Athens as the School of Greece,” in Porter 2006a, 377‒388. Muccioli, F. (2013): “Dibattito,” in Un nuovo catologo di storici ellenistici (POxy LXXI 4808). Tavola rotonda, Roma, Istituto italiano per la storia antica, 10 giugno 2011, RFIC 141, 99‒ 100. Münscher, K. (1920): Xenophon in der griechisch römischen Literatur (Philologus Suppl. 13.2), Leipzig. Münzer, F. (1900): s.v. “Faustus Cornelius Sulla,” RE, 4, 1515‒1517. Murray, Jackie (2012): “Burn after reading: The so-called list of Alexandrian librarians in P.Oxy. X 1241,” Aitia 2, 2012 (http://aitia.revues.org/544, accessed on: 27. 11. 2017). Murray, Oswyn (1974): “Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture,” CQ, 22, 200‒213. Musti, D. (1982): “Introduzione,” in Musti, D. / Beschi, L. (a cura di), Pausania, Libro 1: l’Attica, Milan, I‒CXXVI. Musti, D. (1994): “La struttura del discorso storico in Pausania,” in Bingen 1994, 9‒34. Muzzolon, M. L. (2006): “Aristarco negli scolii ad Aristofane,” in Montana, F. (a cura di), Interpretazioni antiche di Aristofane, Rome, 55‒109. Naas, V. (2002): Le projet encyclopédique de Pline L’Ancien, École française de Rome. Nagy, G. (1996): Poetry as Performance. Homer and beyond, Cambridge. Nauck, A. (1848): Aristophanis Byzantii grammatici alexandrini fragmenta, collegit et disposuit, accedit R. Schmidtii commentatio de Callistrato Aristophaneo, Halle. Nenci, G. (1955): “Il motivo dell’autopsia nella storiografia greca,” SCO 3, 14‒46. Nervegna, S. (2013): Menander in Antiquity. The Contexts of Reception, Cambridge. Nickau, K. (1967): “Aristophanes von Byzanz zu den Pinakes des Kallimachos,” RhM 110, 346‒353. Nickel, D. (1991): “Isokrates und die Geschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,” Philologus 135, 233‒239. Nicolai, R. (1992): La storiografia nell’educazione antica, Pisa. Nicolai, R. (1997): “‘Pater semper incertus’. Appunti su Ecateo,” QUCC 56, 143‒164.

Bibliography

253

Nicolai, R. (2004): Studi su Isocrate. La comunicazione letteraria nel IV sec. a.C. e i nuovi generi della prosa, Rome. Nicolai, R. (2006): “Thucydides Continued,” in Rengakos/Tsakmakis 2006, 693‒719. Nicolai, R. (2007a): “Il canone tra classicità e Classicismo,” Critica del testo 10, 95‒103. Nicolai, R. (2007b): “Storia e storiografia nella scuola greca,” in Fernandez Delgado, J. A. et al. (ed.), Escuela y literatura en Grecia Antigua, Cassino, 39‒66. Nicolai, R. (2013): “I paradossi del canone,” in Costa, V. / Berti, M. (a cura di), Ritorno ad Alessandria. Storiografia antica e cultura bibliotecaria: tracce di una relazione perduta, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Università di Roma Tor Vergata, 28‒29 novembre 2012), Rome, 27‒40. Nicolai, R. (2014a): “The Canon and Its Boundaries,” in Colesanti/Giordani 2014, 33‒45. Nicolai, R. (2014b): “Roma capta? Letteratura latina e sistema letterario greco nei primi secoli dell’impero,” in Mestre, F. / Gómez, P. (eds.), Three Centuries of Greek Culture under the Roman Empire. Homo Romanus Graeca Oratione, Barcelona, 165‒182. Nicolai, R. (2015a): “Historiography, Ethnography, Geography,” in Montanari et al. 2015, 1090‒1125. Nicolai, R. (2015b): “David Ruhnken e la riscoperta dei canoni letterari nel XVIII secolo,” in Audano, S. / Cipriani, G. (a cura di), Aspetti della Fortuna dell’Antico nella Cultura Europea, Atti dell’Undicesima Giornata di Studi (Sestri Levante, 14 marzo 2014), Campobasso/Foggia, 203‒226. Niebuhr, B.G. (1827): “Über Xenophons Hellenika,” RhM 1, 196‒198 (= in Id., Kleine Historische und Philologische Schriften, 1, Bonn 1828, 467‒469). Norden, E. (1898): Die antike Kunstprosa. Vom VI. Jahrhundert vor Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, 1‒2, Leipzig. Northwood, S.J. (2008): “Cicero De oratore 2.51‒64 and Rhetoric in Historiography,” Mnemosyne 61, 228‒244. Nouhaud, M. (1982): L’utilisation de l’histoire par les orateurs attiques, Paris. Nünlist, R. (2009): The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia, Cambridge. Ober, J. (2004): “I, Socrates…The Performative Audacity of Isocrates’ Antidosis,” in Poulakos/Depew 2004, 21‒43. Occhipinti, E. (2014): “A Supplement for col. II of P.Oxy. II 302 and a few stylistic observations,” APF 60, 25‒33. Occhipinti, E. (2016): The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and Historiography. New Research Perspectives, Leiden/Boston. Ofenloch, E. (ed.) (1907): Caecili Calactini fragmenta, Leipzig. Ogilvie, R. M. (1965): A Commentary on Livy. Books 1‒3, Oxford. Oppel, H. (1937): Κάνων. Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes und seiner lateinischen Entsprechung (regula norma) (Philologus Suppl. 30.4), Leipzig. Orth, W. (Hrsg.) (2003): Isokrates. Neue Ansätze zur Bewertung eines politischen Schriftstellers, Trier. Osann, F. (1841‒1858): Adnotationes criticae in Quintiliani Inst. orat. Lib. X, 1‒4, Gießen. Ostwald, M. (1988): ᾿Aνάγκη in Thucydides, Atlanta GA. Otranto, R. (2000): Antiche liste di libri su papiro, Rome. Ottone, G. (2010): “L’᾿Aττικὴ ξυγγραφή di Ellanico di Lesbo, una Lokalgeschichte in prospettiva eccentrica,” in Bearzot/Landucci 2010, 53‒111.

254

Bibliography

Ottone, G. (ed.) (2017): Historiai para doxan. Documenti greci in frammenti: nuove prospettive esegetiche, Atti dell’incontro internazionale di studi (Genova, 10‒11 marzo 2016), Rome. Ozbek, L. (2008): “Per una riedizione e una nuova analisi testuale di PSI 1283 (Filisto, Περὶ Σικελίας),” Rend. Mor. Acc. Lincei s. 9, 19, 599‒622. Paap, A. H. R. E. (1970): The Xenophon Papyri. Anabasis, Cyropaedia, Cynegeticus, De vectigalibus, Leiden. Paap, A. H. R. E. (1948): De Herodoti reliquiis in papyris et membranis Aegyptiis servatis, Leiden. Pagani, L. (2013): s.v. “Antyllus,” in Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity, Brill Online (accessed on: 15. 9. 2017). Pajón Leyra, I. (2014): “The Order of the Seven Greatest Islands in the Laterculi Alexandrini (P.Berol. 13044r),” ZPE 192, 85‒88. Pajón Leyra, I. (2017): “Lecciones de geografía e historia en la Alejandría helenística. Una nueva mirada sobre el papiro de Berlín 13.044R,” in Ottone 2017, 179‒202. Palmer, L. R. (1980): The Greek Language, London/Boston. Parmeggiani, G. (2011): Eforo di Cuma. Studi di storiografia greca, Bologna. Parmeggiani, G. (ed.) (2014): Between Thucydides and Polybius. The Golden Age of Greek Historiography, Cambridge MA/London. Parmeggiani, G. (2016): “Sulle critiche di Duride di Samo ad Omero (FGrHist 76 F 89) e a Eforo e Teopompo (FGrHist 76 F 1),” Eikasmos 27, 105‒119. Parthey, G. (1838): Das alexandrinische Museum, Berlin. Pasquali, G. (1952): Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, Florence2. Patillon, M. (1997): “Aristote, Corax, Anaximène et les autres dans la Rhétorique à Alexandre,” in REG 110, 104‒125. Patillon, M. (éd.) (2001) Apsinès. Art rhétorique. Problèmes à faux semblant, Paris. Patillon, M. (éd.) (2005) Anonyme de Séguier, Art du discours politique, Paris. Patillon, M. (éd.) (2008) Corpus rhetoricum, 1: Anonyme, Préambule à la rhétorique; Aphthonios, Progymnasmata; Pseudo Hermogène, Progymnasmata, Paris. Patillon, M. (éd.) (2009) Corpus rhetoricum, 2: Hermogène, Les états de cause, Paris. Patillon, M. (éd.) (2012) Corpus rhetoricum, 4: Prolégomènes au De Ideis; Hermogène, Les Catégories stylistique du discours (De ideis), Paris. Patillon, M. / Bolognesi, G. (éds.) (1997) Aelius Théon, Progymnasmata, Paris. Patillon, M. / Brisson, L. (éds.) (2001) Longin. Fragments. Art rhétorique / Rufus. Art rhétorique, Paris. Patillon, M. / Brisson, L. (1994) “Longinus Platonicus Philosophus et Philologus. I: Longinus Philosophus,” ANRW 2, 36.7, 5214‒5299. Patillon, M. / Brisson, L. (1998) “Longinus Platonicus Philosophus et Philologus. II: Longinus Philologus,” ANRW 2, 34.4, 3023‒3108. Paul, G. M. (1984): A Historical Commentary on Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum, Liverpool. Pavano, G. (a cura di) (1958): Dionisio di Alicarnasso, saggio su Tucidide, Palermo. Payen, P. (2004): “Les citations des historiens dans les traités rhétoriques de Denys d’Halicarnasse,” in Darbo-Peschanski, C. (éd.), La citation dans l’Antiquité, Actes du colloque du PARSA (Lyon, ENS LSH, 6‒8 novembre 2002), Grenoble, 111‒133. Pearson, L. (1943): “Three Notes on the Funeral Oration of Pericles,” AJPh 64, 399‒407. Pédech, P. (1984): Historiens compagnons d’Alexandre. Callisthène – Onésicrite – Néarque – Ptolémée – Aristobule, Paris.

Bibliography

255

Pédech, P. (1898): Trois historiens méconnus: Théopompe, Duris, Phylarque, Paris. Pellé, N. (2009): “I papiri e la storiografia antica,” Atene e Roma n.s. 3, 59‒79. Pellé, N. (2010a): Corpus dei papiri storici greci e latini, A: Storici greci, 1: Autori noti, vol. 8: I frammenti delle opere di Senofonte, Pisa/Rome. Pellé, N. (2010b): “Chi, come e perché leggeva storiografia greca in Egitto,” in Capasso, M. (a cura di), Leggere greco e latino fuori dai confini nel mondo antico, Atti del I Congresso Nazionale dell’Associazione Italiana di Cultura Classica (Lecce, 10‒11 maggio 2008), Lecce, 159‒173. Pellé, N. (2013): “Libri scritture e scribi per i tre storici greci maggiori,” Scripta 6, 115‒120. Pelling, Ch. (2007): “The Greek Historians of Rome,” in Marincola 2007a, 1.244‒258. Pelling, Ch. (2012): “Aristotle’s Rhetoric, the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, and the Speeches in Herodotus and Thucydides,” in Foster, E. / Lateiner, D. (eds.), Thucydides and Herodotus, Oxford, 281‒315. Penella, R. J. (2007): Man and the World. The Oration of Libanius, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Pernot, L. (1981): Les discours siciliens d’Aelius Aristide, New York. Pernot, L. (1986): “Les topoi de l’éloge chez Ménandros le Rhéteur,” REG 99, 33‒53. Pernot, L. (1993): La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco romain, Paris. Pernot, L. (2006a): La retorica dei Greci e dei Romani, a cura e con una postfazione di L. Spina, Palermo (French original: La rhétorique dans l’Antiquité, Paris 2000). Pernot, L. (2006b): L’ombre du Tigre. Recherches sur la réception de Démosthène, Naples. Perrochat, P. (1949): Les modèles grecs de Salluste, Paris. Peterson, W. (ed.) (1903): M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis oratoriae liber decimus, Oxford2. Pfeiffer, R. (1968): History of Classical Scholarship. From the Beginning to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford. Philippson, R. (1939): s.v. “M. Tullius Cicero (die philosophischen Schriften),” RE 7, A1, 1104‒ 1192. Piccirilli, L. (1985): Storie dello storico Tucidide. Edizione, traduzione e commento delle Vite tucididee, Genoa. Pintaudi, R. (1998/1999): “Pot-pourri,” AnPap 10‒11, 131‒147. Pintaudi, R. / Canfora, L. (2010): “PSI Laur. inv. 22013: retorica o romanzo?,” in Bastianini, G. / Casanova, A. (a cura di), I papiri del romanzo antico. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Firenze, 11‒12 giugno 2009), Florence, 81‒93. Pinto, P. M. (2006): “La biblioteca di Isocrate. Note sulla circolazione dei libri e sul lavoro intellettuale nel IV sec. a.C.,” Segno e Testo 4, 51‒70. Pitcher, L. (2009): Writing Ancient History, London. Pohl, K. (1968): Die Lehre von den drei Wortfugungsarten. Untersuchungen zu Dionysius von Halikarnaß, De compositione verborum, Diss., Tübingen. Pohlenz, M. (1933): “τὸ πρέπον. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des griechischen Geistes,” Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philosophisch Historische Klasse, 53‒92. Politis, L. (1958): “Eine Schreiberschule im Kloster τῶν Ὁδηγῶν,” ByzZ 51, 17‒36 and 261‒ 287. Pontani, F. (2005): Sguardi su Ulisse: la tradizione esegetica greca all’Odissea, Rome. Poppo, E. F. (1843‒1851): Thucydidis de bello Peloponnesiaco libri octo, 1‒4, Gotha.

256

Bibliography

Porciani, L. (2001): Prime forme della storiografia greca. Prospettiva locale e generale nella narrazione storica, Stuttgart. Porciani, L. (2005): “Allusioni erodotee. A proposito della ‘pubblicazione’ delle Storie,” in Giangiulio, M. (a cura di), Erodoto e il ‘modello erodoteo’. Formazione e trasmissione delle tradizioni storiche in Grecia, Trento, 1‒12. Porod, R. (2013): Lukians Schrift “Wie man Geschichte schreiben soll.” Kommentar und Interpretation, Vienna. Porter, J. I. (ed.) (2006a): Classical Pasts. The Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome, Princeton NJ/Oxford. Porter, J. I. (2006b): “Feeling Classical: Classicism and Ancient Literary Criticism,” in Porter 2006a, 301‒352. Poulakos, T. / Depew, D. (eds.) (2004): Isocrates and Civic Education, Austin TX. Powell, J. E. (1936) “The Bâle and Leiden Scholia to Thucydides” / “The Aldine Scholia to Thucydides,” CQ 30, 80‒93 and 146‒50. Powell, J. E. (1938) “Cretan manuscripts of Thucydides,” CQ 32, 103‒108. Powell, J. G. F. (ed.) (1988): Cicero, Cato Maior de senectute, Cambridge. Powell, J. G. F. (ed.) (2006): M. Tulli Ciceronis De re publica, De legibus, Cato maior de senectute, Laelius De Amicitia, Oxford. Pownall, F. (2004): Lessons from the Past. The Moral Use of History in Fourth Century Prose, Ann Arbor. Pownall, F. (2013): s.v. “Hekataios of Miletos (1),” Brill’s New Jacoby, Brill Online (accessed on: 28. 7. 2017). Prandi, L. (1985): Callistene, uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedoni, Milan. Prandi, L. (1996): Fortuna e realtà nell’opera di Clitarco, Stuttgart. Prandi, L. (2012): “New evidence for the dating of Cleitarchus (POxy LXXI.4808)?,” Histos 6, 15‒26. Preite, L. S. (2008): “Polibio XI 13‒16 in P.Berol. inv. 9570 + P.Ryl. I 60,” PapLup 17, 17‒39. Priestley, J. (2014): Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture. Literary Studies in the Reception of the Histories, Oxford. Priestley, J. / Zali, V. (eds.) (2016): Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Herodotus in Antiquity and Beyond, Leiden/Boston. Pritchett, W. K. (ed.) (1975): Dionysius of Halicarnassus: On Thucydides, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Rabe, H. (1893): “Die Zeitfolge der rhetorischen Schriften des Dionys von Halicarnass,” RhM 48, 147‒51. Rabe, H. (ed.) (1896): Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 21.2, Berlin. Rabe, H. (1907a): “Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften 1. Nachrichten über das Leben des Hermogenes,” RhM 62, 247‒262. Rabe, H. (1907b): “Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften 4. Athanasios, ein Erklärer des Hermogenes,” RhM 62, 586‒590. Rabe, H. (1909): “Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften 10. Einleitung,” RhM 64, 539‒578. Rabe, H. (1910): “Die Listen griechischer Profanschriftsteller,” RhM 65, 339‒44. Rabe, H. (ed.) (1913): Hermogenis opera, Lispiae. Rabe, H. (ed.) (1926): Aphthonii Progymnasmata, accedunt Anonymi Aegyptiaci, Sopatri, aliorum fragmenta, Leipzig.

Bibliography

257

Racine, F. (2016): “Herodotus’ Reputation in Latin Literature from Cicero to the 12th Century,” in Priestley/Zali 2016, 193‒212. Radermacher, L. (ed.) (1901): Demetrii Phalerei qui dicitur De elocutione libellus, Leipzig. Radermacher, L. (1905a): s.v. “Dionysios (113),” RE 5.1, 934‒971. Radermacher, L. (1905b): s.v. “Doxopatres,” RE 5.2, 1611‒1613. Radermacher, L. (ed.) (1907): M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis oratoriae libri XII, Leipzig. Radermacher, L. (1912a): s.v. “Harpokration,” RE 7, 2411‒2412. Radermacher, L. (1912b): s.v. “Hermogenes (22),” RE 8, 865‒877. Radermacher, L. (1919): s.v. “Kanon,” RE 10, 1873‒1878. Radermacher, L. (1951): Artium scriptores. Reste der voraristotelischen Rhetorik, Vienna. Ranke, F. (1830): “De Aristophanis vita commentatio,” in Thiersch, B. (ed.), Aristophanis Comoediae, 1, Leipzig/London, XLIX‒LXXXIX. Rawson, E. (1972): “Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian,” JRS 62, 33‒45 (republished in Id., Roman Culture and Society. Collected Papers, Oxford 1991, 58‒79). Rawson, E. (1985): Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, London. Rebenich, S. (1992): Hieronymus und sein Kreis, Stuttgart. Reed, K. (1976): Theopompus of Chios. History and Oratory in the Fourth Century, Diss., Berkeley. Regenbogen, O. (1940): s.v. “Theophrastos (3),” RE Suppl. 7, 1354‒1562. Regenbogen, O. (1950): s.v. “Πίναξ (3),” RE 20, 1409‒1482. Reiter, F. (2007): “Berliner Papyrus mit Kurzkatalogen berühmter Personen, Kunstwerke und Naturdenkmäler (P.Berl. inv. 13044 Rekto Kol. VI 10 – XII),” in Kansteiner, S. et al. (Hrsg.), Text und Skulptur. Berühmte Bildhauser und Bronzegießer der Antike in Wort und Bild, Berlin/New York, 150‒151. Renard, J. (1965): Journal, éd. par L. Guichard et G. Sigaux, Paris. Rengakos, A. / Tsakmakis, A. (eds.) (2006): Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, Leiden/Boston. Reynolds, L. D. / Wilson, N. G. (2013): Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford4. Rhodes, P. J. (1990): “The Atthidographers,” in 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, 73‒81. Rhodes, P. J. (1993): A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford2. Richards, G. C. (1938): “The Authority of the Περὶ ὕψους,” CQ 32, 133‒134. Richardson, N. J. (1994): “Aristotle and Hellenistic Scholarship,” in Montanari 1994, 7‒38. Richardson, N. J. (2010): Three Homeric Hymns. To Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite, Cambridge. Richter, G. M. A. (1955‒1962): Greek Portraits, 1‒4, Berchem/Brussels. Riemer, P. (1999): s.v. “Klassizismus,” Der Neue Pauly 6, 493‒496. Rizzo, S. (1986): “Il latino dell’Umanesimo,” in Asor Rosa, A. (a cura di), Letteratura italiana, 5: Le questioni, Turin, 379‒408. Robb, K. (1994): Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece, New York/Oxford. Roberts, W. R. (1900): “The Literary Circle of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” CR 14, 439‒42. Roberts, W. R. (ed.) (1901): Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The Three Literary Letters, Cambridge. Roberts, W. R. (ed.) (1902): Demetrius on Style. The Greek Text of Demetrius De elocutione, Cambridge.

258

Bibliography

Rochette, B. (1997): Le latin dans le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain, Brussels. Rohrbacher, D. (2002): The Historians of Late Antiquity, London/New York. Rood, T. (1998): Thucydides. Narrative and Explanation, Oxford. Rood, T. (2004): “Xenophon and Diodorus: Continuing Thucydides,” in Tuplin, Ch. (ed.), Xenophon and his World, Stuttgart, 341‒395. Rose, V. (1863): Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, Leipzig. Rosenmeyer, Th. G. (1985): “Ancient Literary Genres: A Mirage?,” Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, 34, 74‒84 (= in Laird, A. [ed.], Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Ancient Literary Criticism, Oxford 2006, 421‒439). Ross, W. D. (ed.) (1959): Aristotelis Ars rhetorica, Oxford. Rossi, L. E. (1976): “Umanesimo e filologia (A proposito della Storia della filologia classica di Rudolf Pfeiffer),” RIFC 104, 98‒117. van Rossum-Steenbeek, M. (1993): “Four Notes on the List of Xenophon Papyri,” ZPE 99, 1993, 17. van Rossum-Steenbeek, M. (1998): Greek Readers’ Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri, Leiden/New York/Cologne. Roth, P. (2003): Der Panathenaikos des Isokrates. Übersetzung und Kommentar, Munich/Leipzig. Ruhnken, D. (1768): “Historia critica oratorum Graecorum,” in Ruhnken, D. (ed.), P. Rutilii Lupi de figuris sententiarum et elocutionis libri duo, Leiden, XXXV‒C (= in Bergman, J. Th. [ed.], Opuscula varii argumenti, oratoria, historica, critica, Leiden 18232, 310‒392). Russell, D. A. (ed.) (1964): On the Sublime, Oxford. Russell, D. A. (ed.) (2002): Quintilian. The Orator’s Education, 1‒5, Cambridge MA. Russell, D. A. / Wilson, N. G. (eds.) (1981): Menander Rhetor, Oxford. Rusten, J. S. (ed.) (2009): Thucydides, Oxford. Rutherford, I. (1998): Canons of Style in the Antonine Age: Idea Theory in its Literary Context, Oxford. Sacks, K. (1983): “Historiography in the Rhetorical Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” Athenaeum 61, 65‒87. Sacks, K. (1986): “Rhetoric and Speeches in Hellenistic Historiography,” Athenaeum 64, 383‒ 395. Said, E. W. (1975): Beginnings. Intention and Method, Baltimore/London. Sanders, L. J. (1981): “Diodorus Siculus and Dionysius I of Syracuse,” Historia 30, 394‒411. Sanders, L. J. (1986): “Cicero and Philistus,” Kokalos 32, 3‒17. Sandys, J. E. (1908): A History of Classical Scholarship, 1‒3, Cambridge. Sbardella, L. (2012): Cucitori di canti. Studi sulla tradizione epico rapsodica greca e i suoi itinerari nel VI secolo a.C., Rome. Scanlon, T. F. (1980): The Influence of Thucydides on Sallust, Heidelberg. Schanz, M. (1890): “Die Apollodoreer und die Theodoreer,” Hermes 25, 36‒54. Schefold, K. (1997): Die Bildnisse der antiker Dichter, Redner und Denker, Basle2. Schenkeveld, D. M. (1964): Studies on Demetrius On Style, Amsterdam. Schenkl, H. et al. (ed.) (1974): Themisti Orationes quae supersunt, 3, Leipzig. Schepens, G. (1980): L’‘autopsie’ dans le méthode des historiens grecs du Ve siècle avant J. C., Brussels.

Bibliography

259

Schepens, G. (1993): “L’apogée de l’archè spartiate comme époque historique dans l’historiographie grecque du début du IVe s. av. J.C.,” AncSoc 24, 169‒203. Schironi, F. (2004): I frammenti di Aristarco di Samotracia negli etimologoci bizantini. Etymologicum Genuinum, Magnum, Symeonis, Μεγάλη Γραμματική, Zonarae Lexicon, Göttingen. Schironi, F. (2005): “Plato at Alexandria: Aristophanes, Aristarchus and the “philological tradition” of a philosopher,” CQ 55, 423‒434. Schissel, O. (1926): “Die rhetorische Kunstlehre des Rufus von Perinth,” RhM 75, 369‒392. Schissel, O. (1930): s.v. “Μαρκελλῖνος,” RE 14, 1487‒1488. Schlatter, R. (1975): “Introduction,” in Hobbes 1975, XI–XXVIII. Schmid, W. (1934): Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 1.2, Munich. Schmidt, Mauricius (ed.) (1854): Didymi Chalcenteri Grammatici Alexandrini Fragmenta, Leipzig. Schmidt, Martin (1991): s.v. “ληΐς,” in Snell, B. (Hrsg.), Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, 2, Göttingen, 1684‒1685. Schmidt, P. L. (2000): “Classici und Klassiker als Begriff und Vorstellung zur Zeit des Beatus Rhenanus,” in Hirstein, J. (éd.), Beatus Rhenanus (1485‒1547) lecteur et éditeur des textes anciens, Actes du colloque international (Strasbourg-Sélestat, novembre 1998), Turnhout, 49‒60. Schmitz-Kahlmann, G. (1939): Das Beispiel der Geschichte im politischen Denken des Isokrates (Philologus Suppl. 31.4), Leipzig. Schoell, M. S. F. (1830): Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, von der frühesten mythischen Zeit bis zur Einnahme Constantinopels durch die Türken, nach der zweiten Auflage aus dem Französischen übersetzt von M. Pinder, 2, Berlin. Schöll, A. (ed.) (1855): Des Herodotos Geschichte, unter Theilnahme des Verfassers neu durchgesehen von R. Köhler, 1, Stuttgart. Schorn, S. (2004): Satyros aus Kallatis. Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar, Baself. Schreckenberg, H. (1964): Ananke. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Wortgebrauchs, Munich. Schubart, W. (1918): Einführung in die Papyruskunde, Berlin. Schultze, C. (1986): “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his Audience,” in Moxon, I. S. et al. (eds.), Past Perspective. Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing, Papers presented at a Conference in Leeds, 6‒8 April 1983, Cambridge, 121‒141. Schultze, C. (2000): “Authority, Originality and Competence in the Roman Archeology of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” Histos 4, 6‒49. Schwartz, E. (1897): “Die Berichte Ueber die Catilinarische Verschwoerung,” Hermes 32, 554‒ 608. Schwartz, E. (1900): “Kallisthenes Hellenika,” Hermes 35, 106‒130. Schwartz, E. (1903): s.v. “Diodor (38),” RE 5, 663‒703. Schwartz, E. (1905): s.v. “Duris (3),” RE 5, 1853‒1856. Schwartz, E. (1907): s.v. “Ephoros,” RE 6, 1‒16. Schwindt, J. P. (2000): Prolegomena zu einer “Phänomenologie” der römischen Literaturgeschichtsschreibung. Von den Anfängen bis Quintilian, Göttingen. Scott, J. (2000): “The Peace of Silence: Thucydides and the English Civil War,” in Rogers, G. A. J. / Sorrel, T. (eds.), Hobbes and History, London, 112‒136 (reprinted in Rusten [2009] 405‒433).

260

Bibliography

Seeck, O. (1906): Die Briefe des Libanius zeitlich geordnet, Leipzig. Settis, S. (2004): Futuro del classico, Turin. Settis, S. (2010): s.v. “Classical,” in Grafton et al. 2010, 205‒206. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (ed.) (1965‒1970): Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, 1‒7, Cambridge. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (ed.) (1977): Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares, 1‒2, Cambridge. Shelley, P. B. (1915): Selected Prose Works of Shelley, with a foreword by H. S. Salt, London. Shrimpton, G. S. (1991): Theopompus the Historian, Montreal. Sidebottom, H. (1996): “Dio of Prusa and the Flavian Dynasty,” CQ 46, 447‒456. Sigonius, C. (ed.) (1559): Fragmenta Ciceronis, variis in locis dispersa, Venice. Sirago, V. A. (1989): “La seconda sofistica come espressione culturale della classe dirigente del II sec.,” ANRW 2, 33.1, 36‒78. Skinner, Q. (1996): Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes, Cambridge. Slater, W. J. (1976): “Aristophanes of Byzantium on the Pinakes of Callimachus,” Phoenix 30, 234‒241. Slater, W. J. (1986): Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta, post A. Nauck collegit, testimoniis ornavit, brevi commentario instruxit, Berlin/New York. Slattery, S. (2016): “5300. Polybius 5.67.9‒10,” in Gonis, N. et al. (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 82, Oxford, 38‒39. Slomp, G. (1990): “Hobbes, Thucydides and the Three Great Things,” History of Political Thought 11, 565‒86. Solaro, G. (2016): “La biblioteca di Alessandria e i dilemmi di POxy 1241,” ZPE 198, 22‒38. Sollenberger, M. (1984): Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Theophrastus: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text with a Translation and Commentary, Diss., New Brunswick. Solmsen, F. (1936): s.v. “Tiberios (2),” RE 6, A1, 804‒807. Solmsen, F. (1981): “The Academic and the Alexandrian Editions of Plato’s Works,” ICS 6, 102‒111. Sommerstein, A. H. (ed.) (1989): Aeschylus, Eumenides, Cambridge. Sommerville, J. (1992): Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context, London. Sordi, M. (1982): “Timagene di Alessandria: uno storico ellenocentrico e filobarbaro,” ANRW 2, 30.1, 775‒797. Souter, A. (1953): The Text and Canon of the New Testament, revised by C. S. C. Williams, Oxford. Spawforth, A. J. S. (2012): Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution, Cambridge. Spencer, F. A. (1924): “Herodotus and Isocrates,” TAPhA 55, XXXI–XXXII. Spengel, L. (ed.) (1853‒1856): Rhetores Graeci, 1‒3, Leipzig. Spengel, L. (ed.) (1867): Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica, Leipzig. Steffen, G. (1876): De canone qui dicitur Aristophanis et Aristarchi, Diss., Leipzig. Stegemann, W. (1934): s.v. “Theodoros (39),” RE 5, A.2, 1847‒1859. Stegemann, W. (1936): s.v. “Nikolaos (12),” RE 17, 424‒457. Steinmetz, P. (1964): “Gattungen und Epochen der griechischen Literatur in der Sicht Quintilians,” Hermes 92, 454‒466. Stendhal (1925): Racine et Shakespeare [1823], texte établi et annoté par P. Martino, Paris. Stirewalt, M. L. Jr. (1991): “The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay,” in Donfried, K. P. (ed.), The Romans Debate, Edinburgh, 147‒171.

Bibliography

261

Stramaglia, A. (1996): “Fra ‘consumo’ e ‘impegno’: usi didattici della narrativa nel mondo antico,” in Pecere, O. / Stramaglia, A. (eds.), La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco latino, Cassino, 98‒166. Strasburger, H. (1966): Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschreibung, Wiesbaden. Strasburger, H. (1977): “Umblick im Trümmerfeld der griechischen Geschichtsschreibung,” in Historiographia antiqua. Commentationes Lovanienses in honorem W. Peremans septuagenariae editae, Leuven, 3‒52 (= Id., Studien zur Alten Geschichte, 3, Hildesheim/New York 1990, 169‒218). Straume-Zimmermann, L. (Hrsg.) (1976): Ciceros Hortensius, Berne/Frankfurt. Straume-Zimmermann, L. et al. (Hrsg.) (1990): Marcus Tullius Cicero. Hortensius. Lucullus. Academici libri, Munich. Strauss, L. (1952): The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis, Chicago2. Strebel, H. G. (1935): Wertung und Wirkung des thukydideischen Geschichtswerkes in der griechisch römischen Antike, Diss., Munich. Studemund, W. (1867): “Ein Verzeichnis der zehn attischen Redner,” Hermes 2, 434‒449. Stylianou, P. J. (1998): A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus: Book 15, Oxford. Susemihl, F. (1891‒1892): Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit, 1‒2, Leipzig. Swain, S. (1996): Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World. AD 50‒250, Oxford. Swain, S. (ed.) (2000a): Dio Chrysostom. Politics, Letters, and Philosophy, Oxford. Swain, S. (2000b): “Reception and Interpretation,” in Swain 2000a, 13‒50. Sylburg, Fr. (ed.) (1586): Διονυσίου Ἁλικαρνασσέως τὰ εὑρισκόμενα ἱστορικά τε καὶ ῥητορικὰ συγγράμματα. Dionysii Halicarnassei script quae extant omnia, et historica et rhetorica, etc., Frankfurt. Syme, R. (1964): Sallust, Berkeley/Los Angeles. Syme, R. (2013): “Tacite et Proust,” edited by F. Santangelo, Histos 7, 128‒145. Taifacos, I. G. (1980): “Cicero and the Sicilian Historiography: Timaeus,” Ciceroniana 4, 177‒ 189. Tatarkiewicz, W. (1958): “Les quatre significations du mot classique,” Revue internationale de philosophie 43, 5‒22. Tatti, S. (2015): Classico. Storia di una parola, Rome. van Thiel, H. (2014): Aristarch, Aristophanes Byzantios, Demetrios Ixion, Zenodot. Fragmente zur Ilias. Gesammelt, neu herausgegeben und kommentiert, 1‒4, Berlin-Boston. Thomas, R. (1992): Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Thomas, R. (2006): “The Intellectual Milieu of Herodotus,” in Dewald, C. / Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, Cambridge, 60‒75. Thouard, D. (1996): “Hobbes et la rhétorique: un cas complexe,” Rhetorica 14, 333‒339. Thraede, K. (1962): “Das Lob des Erfinders. Bemerkungen zur Analyse der Heuremata-Kataloge,” RhM 105, 158‒186. Too, Y. L. (1995): The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Power, Pedagogy, Cambridge. Tordoff, R. (2014): “Counterfactual history and Thucydides,” in Wohl 2014a, 101‒121. Torraca, L. (1988): Duride di Samo. La maschera scenica nella storiografia ellenistica, Salerno.

262

Bibliography

Tosi, R. (1994): “La lessicografia e la paremiografia in età alessandrina ed il loro sviluppo successivo,” in Montanari 1994, 143‒97. Treadgold, W. (2007): The Early Byzantine Historians, London. Traina, A. (1989): “Le traduzioni,” in Cavallo, G. et al. (a cura di), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, 2, Rome, 93‒123. Trapp, M. (2003): Greek and Latin Letters. An Anthology, with Translation, Cambridge. Tribulato, O. (2016): “Herodotus’ Reception in Ancient Greek Lexicography and Grammar: From the Hellenistic to the Imperial Age,” in Priestley/Zali 2016, 169‒192. Tully, J. (2014): “Ephorus, Polybius, and τὰ καθόλου γράφειν. Why and How to Read Ephorus and his Role in Greek Historiography without References to Universal History,” in Parmeggiani 2014, 153‒195. Tutrone, F. (2013): “Libraries and intellectual debate in the late Republic: the case of the Aristotelian corpus,” in König et al. 2013, 152‒166. Usener, H. (1889): Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum de imitatione reliquiae epistulaeque criticae duae, Bonn. Usener, H. / Radermacher, L. (ed.) (1899‒1929): Dionysii Halicarnasei opuscula, 1‒2, Leipzig. Usener, H. / Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1934): Ein Briefwechsel 1870‒1905, Leipzig/Berlin. Usener, S. (1994): Isokrates, Platon und ihr Publikum. Hörer und Leser von Literatur im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Tübingen. Usher, S. (ed.) (1974‒1985): Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Critical Essays, 1‒2, Cambridge MA/London. Usher, S. (1982): “The Style of Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the Antiquitates Romanae,” ANRW 2, 30.1, 817‒838. Usher, S. (1999): Greek Oratory. Tradition and Originality, Oxford. Valerio, F. (2008): “PLond inv. 187 recto = PLondLit 114. Testo, traduzione e commento,” PapLup 17, 61‒83. Vannini, L. (2009): “Nuove letture in P.Amh. II 12, Commentario a Erodoto I,” Comunic. Vitelli 8, 93‒101. Vanotti, G. (1990): “Nota a Lexicon Suid. s.v. Φίλιστος· Ναυκρατίτης ἢ Συρακούσιος,” Aevum 64, 57‒59. Vanotti, G. (2012): “Filisto in Cicerone. Addenda (e non) a Felix Jacoby FGrHist 556,” in Bona, E. et al. (a cura di), Vestigia notitiai: scritti in memoria di Michelangelo Giusta, Alessandria, 535‒542. Vattuone, R. (1998): “Koinai praxeis. Le dimensioni ‘universali’ della storiografia greca fra Erodoto e Teopompo,” in Aigner Foresti, L. et al. (a cura di), L’ecumenismo politico nella coscienza dell’occidente (Atti del convegno, Bergamo, 18‒21 settembre 1995), Rome, 57‒ 96. Vattuone, R. (a cura di) (2002a): Storici greci d’occidente, Bologna. Vattuone, R. (2002b): “Timeo di Tauromenio,” in Vattuone 2002a, 177‒232. Vattuone, R. (2007): “Western Greek Historiography,” in Marincola 2007, 189‒199. Vergados, A. (2013): The Homeric Hymn to Hermes. Introduction, Text and Commentary, Berlin/Boston. Vignolo Munson, R. (2001): “᾿Aνάγκη in Herodotus,” JHS 121, 30‒50. Viljoen, H. G. (1915): Herodoti fragmenta in papyris servata, Groningen. Volkmann, D. (1861): De Suidae biographicis quaestiones selectae, Bonn.

Bibliography

263

Volquardsen, C. A. (1868): Untersuchungen über die Quellen der griechiscne und sizilischen Geschichte bei Diodor, Buch XI bis XVI, Kiel. Walbank, F. (1955): “Tragic History: A Reconsideration,” BICS 2, 4‒14. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2008): Rome’s Cultural Revolution, Cambridge. Walsdorff, F. (1927): Die antiken Urteile uber Platons Stil, Bonn. Walz, Ch. (ed.) (1832‒1836): Rhetores Graeci, ex codicibus florentinis etc., emendatiores et auctiores edidit suis aliorumque annotationibus instruxit indices locupletissimos adiecit, 1‒9, Stuttgart/London/Paris. Weaire, G. (2002): “The Relationship between Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ De imitatione and Epistula ad Pompeium,” ClassPhil 97, 351‒359. Weaire, G. (2005): “Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Professional Situation and the ‘De Thucydide’”, Phoenix 59, 244‒266. Webb, R. (2001): “The Progymnasmata as Practice,” in Too, Y. L. (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden, 289‒316. Wehrli, F. (1947): “Die Geschichtsschreibung im Lichte der antiken Theorie,” in Eumesia. Festschrift Howald, Erlenbach/Zürich, 54‒71. Wehrli, F. (1957): Die Schule des Aristoteles: Texte und Kommentar, Heft 9: Phainias von Eresos, Chamaileon, Praxiphanes, Basle/Stuttgart. Weise, R. (1888): Quaestiones Caecilianae, Diss., Berlin. Weismann, K. J. (1837): De Dionysii Halicarnassei vita et scriptis, Diss., Rinthelii ad Visurgim. Wellek, R. (1970): “The Term and Concept of ‘Classicism’ in Literary History,” in Id., Discriminations: Further Concepts of Criticism, New Haven, 55‒89. Wendel, C. / Göber, W. (1955): “Das griechische-römische Altertum,” in Leyh, G. (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft, 3.1: Geschichte der Bibliotheken, Wiesbaden, 51‒ 145. Wentzel, G. (1895): Die griechische Übersetzung der Viri inlustres des Hieronymus (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 13.3), Leipzig. West, Martin L. (1983): “Orus’ Lexicon: Review of Alpers 1981,” CR 33, 20‒22. West, M. L. (2001): Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, Munich/Leipzig. West, Stephanie (1970): “Chalcenteric Negligence,” CQ 20, 288‒296. West, S. (2011): “The Papyri of Herodotus,” in Obbink, D. / Rutherford, R. (eds.), Culture in Pieces. Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons, Oxford, 69‒83. Westlake, H. D. (1958): “ΩΣ ΕΙΚΟΣ in Thucydides,” Hermes 86, 447‒452. Wiater, N. (2011): The Ideology of Classicism. Language, History, and Identity in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Berlin/New York. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1877): “Die Thukydideslegende,” Hermes 12, 326‒367. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1889): Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1893): Aristoteles und Athen, 1‒2, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1899): “Lesefrüchte,” Hermes 34, 625‒628. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1900a): Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1900b): “Asianismus und Attizismus,” Hermes 35, 1‒52 (= in Id., Kleine Schriften, 3, Berlin 1969, 223‒273). Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1921): Geschichte der Philologie, in Gercke, A. / Norden, E. (Hrsg.), Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, 1.1, Leipzig/Berlin (English transl. History of Classical Scholarship, London 1982).

264

Bibliography

Wilcken, U. (1923): “Alexander der Große und die indischen Gymnosophisten,” SBBerl, 149‒ 183. Wilson, N. G. (1969): “Review of Pfeiffer 1968,” CR 83, 366‒372. Wilson, N. G. (1996): Scholars of Byzantium, London2. Wilson, N. G. (2007): “Scholiast and Commentators,” GRBS 47, 39‒70. Wilson, N. G. (2015): Herodotea. Studies on the Text of Herodotus, Oxford. Winterbottom, M. (ed.) (1970): M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis oratoriae libri duodecim, Oxford. Wiseman, T. P. (1979): Clio’s Comsetics. Three studies in Greco Roman Literature, Leicester. Wisse, J. (1998): “Review of Hidber 1996,” BMCR 1998.08.06 (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1998/1998‒08‒06.html, accessed on: 27. 11. 2017). Wisse, J. (2002a): “The Intellectual Background of Cicero’s Rhetorical Works,” in May 2002, 331‒374. Wisse, J. (2002b): “De Oratore: Rhetoric, Philosophy, and the Making of the Ideal Orator,” in May 2002, 375‒400. Woerther, F. (éd.) (2013): Apollodore de Pergame. Théodore de Gadara. Fragments et témoignages, Paris. Woerther, F. (éd.) (2015): Caecilius de Calè Actè. Fragments et témoignages, Paris. Wohl, V. (ed.) (2014a): Probabilities, Hypotheticals, and Counterfactuals in Ancient Greek Thought, Cambridge. Wohl, V. (2014b): “Introduction: eikos in Ancient Greek Thought,” in Wohl 2014a, 1‒14. Wolf, F. A. (1884): Prolegomena ad Homerum, curavit R. Peppmüller, Halle. Woodman, A. J. (1988): Rhetoric in Classical Historiography, London/Sydney. Woodman, A. J. (2008): “Cicero on Historiography: De oratore 2.51‒64,” CJ 104, 23‒31. Wootley, A. (1967): “Review of Schreckenberg 1964,” AJPh 88, 228‒232. Worthington, I. (ed.) (1994a): Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, London/New York. Worthington, I. (1994b): “The Canon of the Ten Attic Orators,” in Worthington 1994a, 244‒ 263. Wyttenbach, D. (1846): Vita Davidis Ruhnkenii a Daniele Wyttenbachio scripta, ex editione principe (…) adiecit Carolus Henricus Frotscher, Freiberg. Yvonneau, J. (2010): “Le cause et le but de l’historiographie chez Flavius Josèphe,” in Fromentin et al. 2010, 155‒165. Zali, V. (2016): “Herodotus and His Successors: The Rhetoric of the Persian Wars in Thucydides and Xenophon,” in Priestley/Zali 2016, 34‒58. Zecchini, G. (1989): La cultura storica di Ateneo, Milan. Zecchini, G. (2012): “Per la storia della fortuna di Polibio,” in Cassia, M. (a cura di), Pignora amicitiae. Studi di storia antica e di storiografia offerti a Mario Mazza, Acireale-Rome, 203‒216. Ziegler, K. (1950): s.v. “Plagiat,” RE 20, 1956‒1997. Ziegler, K. (1951): s.v. “Plutarchos (2),” RE 21, 636‒962.

Index of Names and Subjects Acusilaus of Argos 50, 55, 171, 186 Aelius Aristides 93, 168 n. 31 Aelius Stilo, Lucius 49 Aelius Theon 5, 79, 84, 93, 100, 147 n. 118, 168 – 175, 179, 183, 224 Aelius Tubero, Quintus 67 Aemilius Paulus, Lucius (Macedonicus) 47 Aeschines 14, 21 n. 62, 27, 171, 178, 208, 230 Aeschylus 7, 20, 80, 96, 136, 232 Agatharchides of Cnidus 11 Agathemerus 186 Agathias 126 Agathocles, historian 57 Alcaeus 19 – 20 Alcibiades 53 – 54, 56, 64, 96, 135 Alcman 19, 150 n. 130 Alexander the Great 2, 44, 54, 56, 80, 108, 112 – 113, 115 – 117, 119, 133, 170, 215, 220 Ammaeus (Dion. Hal.’s addressee) 67 Ammianus Marcellinus 114, 226 Ampelius 12 Anacreon 19 Anaxagoras 80 Anaximander 80, 186 Anaximenes of Lampsacus – in Ruhnken’s canons 14 – eikos-argument 136 – and Arisotle’s Rhetoric 138 – in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 220 Andocides 14 Androtion, atthidographer 138, 152, 212 Antimachus of Colophon 18, 96 Antiochus of Syracuse 213 n. 115 Anonymous Seguerianus 173, 177 Antiatticist 206 n. 77 Antiphon 14, 96, 136 – 137 – Thucydides’ teacher 136 – 137, 181 n. 84 Aphthonius 100, 173, 175 – 176, 183, 232 Apollodorus of Athens 171 Apollodorus of Pergamon 42 – 43 Apollonius Rhodius 18 – 19, 154 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 011

Appian 127, 205 n. 72, 228 Apsines of Gadara 173, 177 – 179 Apuleius 61 Aratus 19, 126 Archelaus, Macedonian king 41 – 42 Archilochus 19, 199 – 200, 208, 230 Aristarchus of Samothrace – and literary canons 3, 10 – 11, 13 – 14, 18 – 19, 23 – 24, 26, 29 – 30, 158 – 159 – commentary on Thucydides (?) 149 – works on Aristophanes 152 – and Thucydides 155 – commentary on Herodotus 150 – 151, 157, 159, 202, 206 Aristonicus, grammarian 154, 158 n. 165 Aristophanes, comic poet 7 – 8, 20, 207, 230 – scholia: 152 – 154 Aristophanes of Byzantium – and literary canons 3, 10 – 11, 13 – 14, 18 – 19, 23 – 24, 26, 29, 158 – 159 – and Callimachus 10, 25 n. 81 – commentary on Thucydides (?) 149 n. 126, 150 n. 130 – works on Aristophanes 152 – arranged Platonic dialogues 159 – and Epicurus 159 n. 170 Aristotle – and mimesis 3 – introduction 5 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 21, 58 – 59, 224 – and literary canons, according to Usener 28 – and his library 47 – 49 – and Callisthenes 54 – and Cicero 57 – 59, 145, 224 – and Greek historians 123, 128, 135 – 142 – and Xenophon’s son 134 – in Demetrius’ On Style 164 – the Rhetoric 166 – in Themistius 193, 225 – in Jerome 203 – the Athenaion Politeia 208

266

Index of Names and Subjects

– conclusions 231 – 232 Aristoxenus of Tarentum 171 Asclepiades of Tragilos 171 Asianism (cf. Atticism) 95, 106 – 108 Athanasius 16 – 17 Athanis (or Athanas) of Syracuse 126 Athenaeus of Naucratis 44, 84 – 85, 197, 229 Attalus I of Pergamon 116 – 117 Atticus: see Pomponius Atticus, Titus Atticism (cf. Asianism) 43, 95, 106 – 109, 117, 164 n. 13 Auerbach, Eric 31 – 33 Augustus, Emperor 42, 108, 114 Augustus, age of 2 – 3, 26 – 27, 66 – 67, 105, 109, 161, 224 Aujac, Germaine 67 n. 10, 110 n. 29, 119, 149 Aulus Gellius 45, 104, 113 – 114, 116 Aurelian, Emperor 177 Ausonius, Decimus Magnus 5, 200 – 204, 225, 231 Bacchylides 19 Bergk, Theodor 26, 36 Berlin, Isaiah 230 – 231 Bernhardy, Gottfried 25 – 26 Beroaldo, Filippo (il Vecchio) 104 Bessarion, Cardinal 193 – 194 Bake, Jan 178 n. 77 Blass, Friedrich 44, 68, 128 – 129, 131 Bloom, Harold 23, 36 – 37 Bompaire, Jacques 31 Brown, Peter 222 – 223 Budé, Guillaume 104 Cadmus of Miletus 186 Caecilius of Calacte 27, 29, 37, 43, 67, 107, 161 – 162 Callimachus of Cyrene 9 – 11, 19, 25, 62, 152, 172 n. 49, 208 Callisthenes of Olynthus – in Ruhnken’s canons 14 – in Cicero 51, 54, 57 – in the pinakes in Tauromenium 80 – praised by Polybius 86 – and Classicism 112 – 113

– and the historical cycle 124, 126 – table of canonical historians 143 – in Homeric scholia 157 – in On the Sublime 163, 168 – not mentioned in Demetrius’ On Style 167 – in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 220 – conclusions 224 Callistratus 152 Calpurnius Piso, Lucius 50 Canfora, Luciano 65 n. 103, 69 n. 20, 124, 126 n. 18, 194 Cassius Dio 179 – 180, 205 n. 72, 228 Cato the Elder (Marcus Porcius Cato) 63 Charax 127 Chares 215 – 216 Charon of Lampsacus 186 Chrysippus 195 Cicero: see Tullius Cicero, Marcus Citroni, Mario 104 Claudius Pulcher, Appius 96 Cleanthes 195 Clement of Alexandria 12, 15, 16 n. 44, 183 Cleon 53, 64 Clidemus, atthidographer 138 Clisthenes 53, 64 Clitarchus – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20 – 21 – in Cicero 55, 57, 153 n. 143 – and Classicism 113 – 115 – table of canonical historians 143 – in On the Sublime 163 – in Demetrius’ On Style 168 – 169 – in P.Oxy. 4808 215, 217 – conclusions 224 Clodius, Servius 48 – 49 Conon 120, 125 Constance II, Emperor 194, 226 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 214, 229 Constantine, Emperor 16 Corax 136 Coriolanus 55, 96 Cornelius Nepos 46 Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, Publius 47, 57, 63 n. 98 Cornelius Sulla, Faustus 47, 49, 114 Cornelius Sulla, Lucius 47 Cousin, Jean 30 – 31

Index of Names and Subjects

Cratinus 20 Cratippus 69 n. 20, 91, 99 n. 129, 125 – 127, 212 Creuzer, Friedrich 186 Critias 54, 64 Ctesias of Cnidus 170, 177, 211, 213 Curtius, Ernst Robert 1, 32 Daimachus of Platea 212 Dante Alighieri 36, 231 de Jonge, Casper 149 Deiochus of Proconnesus 186 Demades 27 n. 92 Demetrius (author of On Style) 5, 77, 85, 161, 163 – 168, 173, 178, 183, 187 – 188, 190 – 191, 224 Demetrius (friend of Dion. Hal.) 67 Demetrius Ixion 152 Demetrius of Magnesia 164 n. 13 Demetrius of Phalerum 21 n. 62, 27 n. 94, 30, 164 n. 13 Democles of Phygele 186 Demosthenes 56, 64, 102, 155 n. 153, 184, 208 – in Ruhnken’s canons 14 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 21 n. 62 – and Dionysius 27, 94 – 96, 147 – quoted by Wilamowitz 148 – in On the Sublime 162 – in Demetrius’ On Style 164 – 165 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 169, 171 – quoted in Longinus fr. 49 178 – in Hermogenes 182 – in Themistius 194 – 195 – in Julian 196 – in Libanius 198 – conclusions 225, 230 Didymus of Alexandria 26 – 27, 149, 152, 154 Diels, Hermann 11 Dinarchus 14, 25, 27 n. 92, 94 Dinon, historian 57 Dio Chrysostom 5, 61 – 62, 87, 88 n. 91, 166, 184, 185 n. 100, 189 – 192, 194, 199, 210 n. 97, 227 Diodorus Siculus 2, 87, 90, 110, 125, 127, 201, 205 n. 72, 215

267

Diogenes Laertius 39 – 40, 60, 62, 170 Diogenes the Cynic 215 Dionysius I of Syracuse 54, 80, 170 Dionysius of Halicarnassus – introduction 3 – 5 – and the word κανών 15 n. 42 – and the history of ancient literary canons 25, 27 – 29 – and Atticism 43, 106 – 107 – criticizes Duris 57 – and the canons of Greek historiography 62, 66 – 102, 142 – 147, 154, 172, 178, 209, 214 – and Classicism 103, 106 – 123 – and Theopompus 120 – 122 – Cratippus and Thucydides 125 – and Thucydides 133 – 148, 201 – and the historical cycle 127 – and Herodotus’ ποικιλία 156 – and On the Sublime 161 – 162 – and Demetrius’ On Style 164 n. 13 – and Hecataeus of Miletus 167 – 168 – and Aphthonius 175 – 176 – and the categories of style 180 n. 83 – compared to Hermogenes 181 n. 85 – and pre-Thucydidean historiography 89, 115 – 116, 167, 185 – 186 – and Dio Chrysostom’s judgement on historiography 190 – 191 – Roman Antiquities 66, 73 – 74, 103, 115, 205 n. 72, 224, 228 – and P.Oxy. 4808 215 – 217 – criticizes Polybius 220 n. 148 – conclusions 224, 227, 231 Diyllus of Athens 126 Douglas, Alan E. 37 Doxopatres 100, 173 Droysen, Johann Gustav 109 Duris of Samos – and Cicero 55 – 57 – criticized by Dionysius 73, 115, 215 n. 124 – criticizes Theopompus (and Ephorus) 85, 90 – in Homeric scholia 157 – in Himerius 198 n. 41 – papyrus of (?) 212 n. 109

268

Index of Names and Subjects

eikos-argumentation 136 – 138 Empedocles 96 Engels, Friedrich 31 – 32 Epaminondas 65, 134 Ephorus of Cyme – in Ruhnken’s canons 14 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20 – 21 – in Cicero 51 – 52, 54 – in Cicero’s Hortensius 59 – 61 – his exclusion from Dionysius’ canon 86 – 88 – Diodorus’ source and in Duris’ F 1 90 – and Classicism 112 – 113 – and the historical cycle 126 – 127 – and Isocrates 110, 128 – 129 – source of Ath. Pol. 138 – table of canonical historians 143 – in Cicero and Quintilian 145 – 146 – not mentioned in Aristophanes’ scholia 153 – in Homeric scholia 157 – not mentioned in Demetrius’ On Style 167 – 168 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 169 – 170, 172 – 173 – in Hermogenes 182 – 183, 192, 214 – in Menander Rhetor 184 – in Dio Chrysostom 87, 190 – not mentioned by Themistius 195 – papyri of 205 n. 73, 211 – 213 – in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 221 – conclusions 224 – 228 Epicurus 159 n. 170, 230 Erasmus of Rotterdam 231 Eratosthenes 11, 152, 187 Estienne, Henri (Henricus Stephanus) 68 n. 17, 82 n. 64, 144, 231 Eudemus of Paros 186 Eugeon of Samos 186 Eunapius 126 Euphorion 19 Eupolis 20, 56 Euripides 7, 20, 80, 154, 189, 207 – 208, 230, 232 Eusebius of Caesarea 16, 126 Eusthatius of Thessalonica 183 Evagrius Scholasticus 126 – 127

Fabius Pictor, Quintus 50, 80 Filippo Beroaldo il Vecchio 104 Flashar, Helmut 3, 105 Flavius Josephus 97 Foucault, Michel 33 – 34 Fronto, grammarian 104, 116 Gautier, Paul 178 n. 77 Gelzer, Thomas 105 Giardina, Andrea 222 – 223 Gibbon, Edward 129 Ginzburg, Carlo 35 nn. 121 – 122, 129 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von 31 – 32 Gorak, Jan 8 Gorgias of Leontini 99, 110, 132 Gozzi, Gasparo 17 Grafton, Anthony 222 Gratian, Emperor 200 Gräfenhan, August 26 Gregorius of Corinth, grammarian 167 n. 24 Grilli, Alberto 60 Gryllus (Xenophon’s son) 134 Hartmann, Paul 27 Hebrew Bible 16 Hecataeus of Miletus – in Homeric scholia 157 – in pseudo-Longinus 163, 168 – in Demetrius’ On Style 166 – 168 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 171 – in Hermogenes 181 – 183, 192 – included in some canonical lists 185 – 188 – papyrus of 211, 213 – conclusions 225 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 231 Hegesias of Magnesia 95, 106 Hellanicus of Lesbos – in Cicero 50, 55 – mentioned by Thucydides 124, 220 – in Homeric scholia 157, 158 n. 165 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 171 n. 46 – in Hermogenes 182 – 183, 192 – in Himerius 198 n. 41 – papyri of 211, 214 – in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 220 – conclusions 225, 228 n. 15 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 126 – 127, 211 – 213

Index of Names and Subjects

Hemsterhuys, Tiberius 14 Hermann, Gottfried 222, 226 Hermippus of Smyrne 134 Hermocrates, Syracusan general 93 Hermogenes of Tarsus 5, 70, 163, 173 – 174, 179 – 183, 187 – 189, 192, 205, 214, 220, 225 Hermogenes, proconsul of Achaea 198 Herodian, grammarian 151, 154, 156 – 159 Herodian, historian 127, 192 – 193, 205 n. 72 Herodotus – introduction 2, 4 – 5 – in Ruhnken’s canons 14 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20 – 21, 146 – in Cicero 39 – 43, 50 – 52, 54, 146 – in Cicero’s Hortensius 59 – 61 – in Dionysius 70, 72 – 79, 81 – 82, 85, 88 n. 92, 92, 103, 108 n. 21, 216 – and Classicism 112, 115 – 120 – and the historical cycle 123 – 124, 127 – in Isocrates 132 – 135 – in Aristotle 135 – 142 – table of canonical historians 143 – in Alexandria 150 – 154, 156 – 157, 159 – 160 – in On the Sublime 162 – 163, 167 – in Demetrius’ On Style 164 – 167 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 169, 172 – in Late Antique Progymnasmata and rhetorical treatises 174 – 176, 178 – 179 – in Hermogenes 179 – 183 – in Menander Rhetor 184 – 185 – plagiarized Hecataeus according to Porphyry 187 – in Dio Chrysostom 146, 190 – 191 – quoted by Lucian 191 – 192 – in Herodian 192 – 193 – in codd. Marcianus gr. 364 and 365 193 – 194 – in Themistius 195 – in Julian 196 – 197 – in Himerius 198 – 199 – in Ausonius and Jerome 201 – 205 – epitome of 206 (n. 77) – papyri of 205 – 206, 211, 214 – and Plutarch 216

269

– in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 221 – conclusions 223 – 232 Hesiod 18, 195 – 196, 198 – 199, 225 Hesychius of Miletus 60, 186, 221 Heydenreich, Wilhelm 29 Heyne, Christian Gottlob 14, 23 Hieronymus of Cardia 215 Himerius 198 – 199 Hipparchus, Pisistratus’ son 7 n. 1 Hipparchus of Bithynia 11 Hobbes, Thomas 4, 100 – 103, 115 n. 45, 232 Homer 7, 36, 77, 123, 199 – 200, 207 – 208 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 18 – quoted in P.Amh. 2.12 150 – and Homeric scholia 123, 154 – 160 – in On the Sublime 162 – 163, 168, 187 – in Demetrius’ On Style 164 – and Herodotus 165 – in Dio Chrysostom 168 n. 166 n. 24, 189 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 169 – in Hermogenes 182 – and Strabo 186 – in Themistius 195 – in Julian 196 – in Libanius 198 – in Jerome 203 – conclusions 225, 230 Homeric Hymn to Hermes 136 Horace 20 Hyginus 12, 114 Hyperides 14, 21 n. 62, 24, 27, 169, 171 Ibycus 19 Iliad 7, 15 n. 39, 80, 155, 158 Isaeus 14, 27 Isocrates – introduction 3 – 5 – in Ruhnken’s canons 21 n. 62 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20, 21 n. 62, 145 – 146 – Theopompus’ and Ephorus’ teacher 20, 51, 54, 82 – 83, 86, 88 n. 91, 120 – 121, 128 – 129, 146, 184, 212, 220, 224 – in Cicero 51, 54, 58, 145 – 146 – and Dionysius 27, 82 – 83, 86, 88 n. 91, 109 – 112, 119 – 121

270

Index of Names and Subjects

– and the canons of Greek historiography 123, 128 – 135 – and Theon’s Progymnasmata 171 – quoted in Longinus fr. 49 178 – in Hermogenes 181 – in Menander Rhetor 184 – in Themistius 194 – in Julian 196 – conclusions 224 – 225 Istros the Callimachean 171, 172 n. 49 Jacoby, Felix 115 n. 48, 145, 157, 167, 172, 186, 206 n. 77, 211 n. 102 Jaeger, Werner 130 Jerome (St. Jerome) 5, 203 – 202, 225 John of Sardis 173 Julian, Emperor (the Apostate) 195 – 196, 225, 231 Julius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus 51 – 52 Justin, historian 87 Justinian, Emperor 188 Kant, Immanuel 232 Kiessling, Friedrich Gustav 24 Kimnos 171 Kröhnert, Otto 28 – 29, 218 – 220 Lamprias, catalogue of 45 Lascaris, Constantine 193 n. 18 Libanius 175, 197 – 198 Licinius Crassus, Lucius 49, 52 Licinius Lucullus, Lucius 48 – 49 Lindian Chronicle 202 Livy 23 n. 67, 114, 139 n. 91, 165, 202 – 204 Longinus, rhetor 66, 173, 177 – 179 Lucian of Samosata 45, 102, 191 – 192, 216, 225 Lucius Verus, Emperor 191 Lucretius 231 Luschnat, Otto 131, 148 – 149 Lutatius Catulus, Quintus 49 – 50 Luther, Martin 7, 9 Lycophron of Alexandria 152 Lycurgus 14, 27 n. 92 Lysias 14, 21 n. 62, 27, 94 – 95, 108 n. 21, 128, 132, 178, 181, 196, 198, 225

Macrobius 198 Marcellinus, author of the Life of Thucydi des 4, 41 – 42, 98 – 99, 102, 125, 155 – 156, 175 Marcus Antonius Orator 50 – 55, 57 Marcus Aurelius, Emperor 179 Marincola, John 129 Marrou, Henri-Irénée 31, 134 – 135 Marx, Karl 31 – 32 Mathieu, George 131 Melanchthon, Philip 104 Melesagoras of Calchedon 186 Menander 20, 189, 199, 203, 207, 230 Menander Rhetor (Menander of Laodicea on the Lycus) 5, 183 – 185, 200, 225, 227 Metilius Rufus 67 Metrodorus of Lampsacus 230 Metrodorus of Scepsis 42 – 43 Meyer, Eduard 126 n. 18, 213 mimesis (cf. μίμησις) 3, 111, 185 Mithridates, King of Pontus 48, 230 Molière 231 Momigliano, Arnaldo 44, 103 n. 1, 114 n. 40 Mommsen, Theodor 129 Montaigne, Michel de 231 Montana, Fausto 151 n. 135 Montfaucon, Bernard de 24, 28, 217 Moretti, Franco 9 n. 13, 34 – 36 Münscher, Karl 133 Nauck, August 26 New Testament 17 Nicander 19 Nicanor, grammarian 154 Nicias, Athenian general 93 Niccols, Thomas 100 Nicolai, Roberto 1, 186 n. 106, 219 – 220 Nicolaus of Myra 173, 176, 179 Nicostratus 184, 210 n. 97 Norden, Eduard 222 Obama, Barack 232 Odyssey 7, 155, 158 Onesicritus 215 – 216 Origen 16

Index of Names and Subjects

paideia (ancient education) 22, 44, 65 – 67, 109 – 111, 121, 128 – 130, 196 – 197, 199 – 200, 209 – 211, 214, 217, 223 – 227 Panyassis of Halicarnassus 18 Parthey, Gustav 25 Pascal, Blaise 231 Pason, historian 73 Pasquali, Giorgio 1, 19 n. 55 Paulinus (Jeromes’ addressee) 203 Paulus (Ausonius’ addressee) 200 – 201 Pausanias 116 – 117 Pericles 53 – 54, 64, 93 Pericles’ funeral oration 95, 98, 111, 132, 137, 184, 197, 210 Perseus of Macedonia 47 Pfeiffer, Rudolf 9 n. 14, 15, 30, 37, 149, 150 n. 133, 160 n. 171 Phanodemus, atthidographer 138 Pherecydes of Athens 50, 55, 186, 211, 214 Philemon 20 Philias 171 Philip II of Macedonia 84 – 85, 145, 162, 170, 229 Philip V of Macedonia 84 Philistus of Syracuse – introduction 4 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20 – 21 – in Cicero 50 – 51, 54 – in Cicero’s Hortensius 59 – 60 – in Dionysius 69 – 70, 72 – 73, 78 – 82 – in the pinakes from Tauromenium 80 – 81 – and Classicism 112, 116 – and the historical cycle 126 – 127 – table of canonical historians 143 – imitator of Thucydides 79 – 80, 146 – 147, 170 – not attested in Homeric scholia 158 – in On the Sublime 163 – in Demetrius’ On Style 167 – 168 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 169 – 172 – in Hermogenes 182 – 183, 192, 214 – not mentioned by Themistius 195 – papyri of 211, 213 – in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 221 – conclusions 224 – 228 Philitas of Cos 19 Philochorus, atthidographer 152, 228

271

Philodemus 42 Philostephanus 171, 172 n. 49 Philostratus 179 – 180, 184, 210 n. 97 Photius of Constantinople 84, 132, 183, 190, 206 n. 77, 227, 229 Phylarchus 73, 115, 215 n. 124 pinakes 9, 11, 62, 216 Pindar 19, 96 Pisander 19 Pisistratus 7 n. 1, 53, 64 Plato – in Quintilian’s Institutes 21, 58 – 59 – Platonic dialogues 41, 64, 159 – and the rhetor Tiberius 43 – in Cicero 58 – 60 – style 86, 94, 159, 184 – Republic 128, 169 (in Theon’s Progymnas mata) – scholia 155 n. 153 – in On the Sublime 162 – quoted in Longinus fr. 49 178 – in Hermogenes 182 – in Themistius 194 – 195 – in Jerome 203 – list of works in PSI Laur. inv. 19662 207 – conclusions 224 – 225, 230 – 232 Plato, comic poet 41 Plethon, Gemistus 193 Pliny the Elder 10, 12 Pliny the Younger 10 Plusiadenus, John 193 Plutarch 45, 47, 63 – 64, 79 – 81, 97, 102, 121 n. 67, 125 – 126, 165, 197, 216, 231 Pollux 85 Polybius – in Ruhnken’s canons 29 – methodology of history-writing 45 – personal relationship with Scipio Aemilianus 47 – in Cicero 57 – 58, 113 n. 38, 124 – criticized by Dionysius 73, 115, 214 n. 124 – polemic against Timaeus and Theopompus 83, 85, 121 – and Ephorus 86 – and Timaeus 114 – and the historical cycle 125 – 127 – quotes Xenophon 197

272

Index of Names and Subjects

– textual tradition 2, 205 n. 72, 216, 228 – papyri of 211, 214 – in P.Oxy 4808 215 – 216 – in Byzantine mss. 218 – 221 – conclusions 228 Pompeius Geminus, Gnaeus (Dion. Hal.’s addressee) 67, 70, 72 – 73 Pompeius Trogus 87, 114 Pompey (Gneus Pompeius Magnus) 67 n. 10 Pomponius Atticus, Titus 47 – 49, 55 – 56, 113 Popper, Karl 232 n. 28 Porphyry 183, 187 – 188 Posidonius of Apamea 126 Postumianus 198 Praxiphanes of Mytilene 41 – 42 Pride of Halicarnassus: see Salmakis inscription Priscus of Panion 126 Proclus 24 – 25 Prodicus 132 Protagoras 110, 132, 133 n. 56 Proust, Marcel 3 n. 10, 231 Psellus, Michael 173, 178 Pseudo-Hermogenes 167 n. 24, 173 – 175, 179, 183 Pseudo-Longinus 5, 60, 62, 85, 156, 161 – 163, 170, 173, 178, 183, 187 – 188, 190 – 191, 224 Ptolemy I Soter 117 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 117 Ptolemy IV Philopator 113 n. 35 Pyrrhus 66, 114 n. 40 Pythagoras 203 Quintilian – introduction 4 – 5 – and ancient literary canons 10 – 18 – 27, 29 – 30, 117, 122 – 123, 142 – 147, 158, 168, 170, 172, 178, 180, 202, 214 – and Xenophon 58 – 62 – and Philistus 79 – and Ephorus 86 – and the categories of style 95 – and P.Oxy. 853 98 – and Classicism 112 – 114

– and historiography 139 – Ephorus and Theopompus 145 – 146 – and Latin historians 204 – and P.Oxy. 4808 217 – excludes Polybius from his canon 220 n. 148 – conclusions 224 Rabe, Hugo 28 n. 99, 180 n. 83, 218 – 219, 221 n. 153 Radermacher, Ludwig 28, 30 Ranke, Ferdinand 24 – 26 Ranke, Leopold von 191 n. 14, 222 n. 1 Renard, Jules 8 Rhenanus, Beatus 104 Rossi, Luigi Enrico 36 n. 125 Rucellai, Orazio Ricasoli 104 Rufus of Perinthus 173, 176, 179, 209 n. 95 Ruhnken, David 1, 4, 13 – 15, 17 – 18, 23 – 26, 28 – 29, 122, 144, 178 n. 77 Rutilius Lupus, Publius 13 Said, Edward W. 33 Sallust 23 n. 67, 139 n. 91, 203 – 204 Salmakis inscription (or Pride of Halicarnas sus) 156 Sappho 19 Satyrus of Callatis 171 Schoell, Friedrich 24 Schöll, Alfred 141 Schubart, Wilhelm 211 Schwartz, Eduard 87, 90 n. 98 Sébillet, Thomas 104 Second Sophistic 107, 168, 200 n. 47 Seneca the Elder 114 Seneca the Younger 8 – 10, 114 Septuagint 16 Seyssel, Claude de 100 Shakespeare, William 231 Shelley, Percy 165 Skymnos of Chios 171 n. 49 Sidonius Apollinaris 203 Sigonio, Carlo (Carolus Sigonius) 59 Silenus, historian 57 Simonides 19 – 20 Sisenna 45 Socrates 54, 59, 65, 195, 203, 232

Index of Names and Subjects

Socrates, church historian 126 Solon 53, 64 Sophocles 7, 20, 80, 150, 230 Sozomenus 126 Staphylius (cf. Ausonius) 202, 204 Steffen, Georg 26 Stendhal 105 Stephanus of Byzantium 114, 151, 187 – 188 Stesichorus 19 – 20 Strabo 12, 66, 114, 126, 186 – 187 Strasburger, Hermann 1, 225 n. 10, 231 Stratocles 55 – 56, 153 n. 143 Suetonius 48 Sulla: see Cornelius Sulla, Lucius Susemihl, Franz 28 Sylburg, Friedrich 68 n. 17, 76, 144 n. 107 Syme, Ronald 3 n. 10, 129 Symmachus, grammarian 152 – 153, 198 tabulae M and C 24 – 25, 28 – 29, 217 – 221 Tacitus 61 – 62 ten Attic orators 13, 21, 25 – 30, 37, 219 Terentius 203 Themistius 194 – 195, 225 – 226 Themistocles 53, 55 – 56, 64, 153 Theocritus 19 Theodoretus 126 Theodorus of Gadara 42 – 43 Theon: see Aelius Theon Theophrastus 21, 28, 39 – 41, 58 – 59, 142, 187 n. 106, 223 – 224, 231 – 232 Theopompus of Chios – introduction 4 – 5 – in Ruhnken’s canons 14 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20 – 21 – in Cicero 51 – 52, 54, 199 – in Cicero’s Hortensius 59 – 61 – in Dionysius 70, 72 – 73, 78, 82 – 86 – in Duris’ F 1 90 – and Classicism 112, 116, 120 – 122 – and the historical cycle 125 – 127 – and Isocrates 110, 128 – 129 – table of canonical historians 143 – in Cicero and Quintilian 145 – 146 – in Aristophanes’ scholia 152, 154 – in Homeric scholia 157 – in On the Sublime 162 – 163, 167

273

– in Demetrius’ On Style 165 – 167 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 169 – 170, 172 – in Hermogenes 182 – 183, 192, 214 – in Dio Chrysostom 190 – not mentioned by Themistius 195 – in Menander Rhetor 183 – 185 – papyri of 204 n. 73, 209, 211 – 213 – epitome of Herodotus (?) 206 n. 77 – in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 221 – conclusions 224 – 228 Theramenes 54, 64, 126 Thrasymachus 132 Thucydides – introduction 2, 4 – 5 – in Ruhnken’s canons 14 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20 – 21 – in Cicero 39 – 43, 45, 50 – 54, 56, 64 – 65 – in Cicero’s Hortensius 59 – 62 – in Dionysius 69 – 70, 72 – 80, 82, 88 – 102, 108 n. 21, 111 – 112, 145 – 147, 216 – and Hobbes 100 – 103 – and Classicism 115 – 121 – and the historical cycle 123 – 127 – in Isocrates 131 – 135 – in Aristotle 135 – 140, 142 – table of canonical historians 143 – and Philistus 146 – in Alexandria 147 – 157, 159 – 160 – in On the Sublime 162 – 163, 167 – in Demetrius’ On Style 164 – 165, 167 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 169 – 172 – in Late Antique Progymnasmata and rhetorical treatises 173 n. 51, 174 – 179 – in Hermogenes 179 – 183 – in Menander Rhetor 184 – 185 – in Dio Chrysostom 190 – quoted by Lucian 191 – 192 – in Herodian 192 – 193 – in codd. Marcianus gr. 364 and 365 193 – 194 – in Themistius 194 – 195 – in Julian 196 – 197 – in Libanius 197 – 198 – in Ausonius and Jerome 201 – 205 – papyri of 205 – 211, 214 – and the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 212 – 213 – in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 221

274

Index of Names and Subjects

– conclusions 223 – 232 Tiberius, Emperor 42 Tiberius, sophist 42 – 43 Tigranes, Armenian king 42 Timachidas of Rhodes 152 Timaeus of Tauromenium – and P.Berol. 13044r 12 – in Cicero 51, 53 – 54, 57 – on the Athenian Sicilian expedition 79 – criticized by Polybius 83 – quoted in Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides 99 n. 129 – and Classicism 112 – 114 – and the historical cycle 124, 126 – table of canonical historians 143 – in Homeric scholia 157 – in On the Sublime 163, 168 – not mentioned in Demetrius’ On Style 167 – his name included in the tabula C (?) 219 – conclusions 224 Timagenes of Alexandria – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20 – 22 – and Classicism 112 – 115 – table of canonical historians 143 – conclusions 224, 228 n. 14 Timotheus 120 Tisias 136 Torah 16 tragic history 56, 90 n. 98 Tullius Cicero, Marcus – introduction 4 – 5 – and lyric poets 8 – and the canons of ancient Greek historiography 39 – 65, 117, 122 – 123, 142 – 147, 154, 168, 170, 172, 178, 199, 214 – decorum 77 – and Philistus 79, 81 – Theopompus and Ephorus 85 – 86, 145 – 146, 199 – Herodotus in Leg. 1.5 85, 198, 206 – and the categories of style 95 – and Hobbes 102 – and Classicism 112 – 114 – and the historical cycle 124 – and Thucydides 133 – Cicero’s translation of Xenophon 63, 204 – and tabula C 219

– conclusions 224 Tullius Cicero, Quintus 49, 63, 81 Tyrannio 49 Tyrtaeus 19 Tzetzes, John 159 n. 166 Usener, Hermann 148, 218

28, 30, 59, 62, 76, 144,

Valentinian I, Emperor 200 Valla, Lorenzo 100 Varro 45 Vedas 17 Velleius Paterculus 204 Vettori, Piero (Petrus Victorius) Viermännerkommentar 154 Virgil 202 Volkmann, Diederich 26

59

Weise, Richard 27 Wiater, Nicolas 105, 112 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von 29 – 30, 57, 131, 148 – 149 Wilson, Nigel 209 Wolf, Friedrich August 15, 23 – 24 Wyttenbach, Daniel 24 Xenophon – introduction 2, 4 – 5 – in Ruhnken’s canons 14 – in Quintilian’s Institutes 20 – 21, 139 n. 91 – in Cicero 43, 51, 53 – 54, 204 – in Cicero’s Hortensius 58 – 65 – in Dionysius 70, 72 – 73, 78 – 79, 81 – 82, 86, 146 n. 117 – and Classicism 112, 116 – and the historical cycle 124 – 125, 127 – in Isocrates 131 – 134 – source of Ath. Pol. 138 – table of canonical historians 143 – in Aristophanes’ scholia 152 – in Homeric scholia 158, 160 – in On the Sublime 162 – 163, 167 – in Demetrius’ On Style 164 – 165, 167 – in Theon’s Progymnasmata 169 – 173 – in Late Antique Progymnasmata and rhetorical treatises 174, 176 – 179

Index of Names and Subjects

– in Hermogenes 179 – 184 – in Menander Rhetor 183 – 185 – in Dio Chrysostom 191 – quoted by Lucian 191 – 192 – in Herodian 192 – 193 – in codd. Marcianus gr. 364 and 365 193 – 194 – in Themistius 195 – in Julian 197 – in a funerary inscription from Nicomedia 199 – 200

– quoted by Jerome 204 – papyri of 205, 207 – 209, 211, 214 – in Byzantine mss. 29, 218 – 221 – conclusions 224 – 227 Xerxes 153 n. 143, 162 n. 6 Zecchini, Giuseppe 229 Zeno of Sidon 42, 194 Zenobia of Palmyra 178 Zeno (friend of Dion. Hal.)

67

275

Selective index of Greek terms ἀλήθεια, ἀληθές 87 n. 84, 89 (n. 95), 90 (n. 97), 175, 190, 192 n. 15, 195 n. 30 ἀναγκαῖον, ἀνάγκη 135, 137 – 138 ἀτελής 69 (nn. 19 – 21) γλυκύς, γλυκεῖα 146 n. 115, 181 n. 84, 190 n. 5, 209 n. 97 γραμματικαὶ ἐξηγήσεις 148 – 149 δεινός 77, 79 n. 53, 85, 89 n. 94, 95 n. 118, 96 n. 120, 111, 163 n. 9, 165, 166 διαίρεσις 89 εἰκός (cf. eikos-argumentation) 93, 135 n. 64, 136 nn. 68 – 69, 138 ἐξεργασία 89, 91 κανών 15 (nn. 41 – 42), 16 – 17, 76, 89 (n. 94), 94 – 95, 149 n. 126, 208 n. 96 ἱστορία 45 n. 21, 60, 69 n. 20, 74 – 75, 79 n. 53, 80 n. 56, 82 – 83, 85 n. 73, 87 (n. 85), 88 n. 91, 89 (n. 95), 90 n. 97, 91 n. 99 and n. 102, 96 n. 119, 97 n. 112, 99 n. 131, 100 n. 134, 117 n. 58, 118 n. 59, 130 n. 39, 140 (n. 94), 157 n. 164, 162 (n. 5), 166 (n. 21), 170 n. 35, 174 n. 54, 178, 182 n. 90, 186 (n. 105), 187, 190 n. 6, 191, 192 n. 15, 202 nn. 55 – 56, 209 n. 97 λεκτικὸς τόπος 74, 76, 78, 91, 101

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 012

λέξις 77 n. 46, 87, 94 n. 112, 95, 96 n. 119, 141, 142 n. 103, 157 n. 163, 182 n. 90, 187 n. 108 λογοποιός 169 (n. 32), 195 n. 32 μαρτύρια, μαρτυρίαι 89 (nn. 94 – 95), 136 n. 69, 138, 197 n. 38 μίμησις, μιμέομαι (cf. mimesis) 68 – 71, 72 n. 34, 90 n. 98, 94 n. 112, 147 n. 119, 161 n. 3, 164, 182 οἰκονομία 78, 82, 87 (n. 88), 89 – 90, 99 ποικιλία 81, 156 πολιτικὸς λόγος, πολιτικοὶ λόγοι 86, 89 (n. 94), 96 n. 119, 109, 147 n. 120, 177, 194 πραγματικὸς τόπος 74 – 75, 78, 83, 88 – 89, 101, 116 n. 49, 117 – 120 πρέπον 77 (n. 46), 78 – 79, 92 πρῶτοι εὑρεταί 12 n. 33, 13, 186, 220 συγγραφεύς, συγγραφεῖς 66, 72, 75, 83, 86, 87 n. 84, 92 n. 106, 96 n. 119, 115 n. 47, 116, 147 nn. 119 – 120, 153 n. 143, 175, 186 n. 102, 191, 192 n. 14, συγγραφή 82, 116, 174 n. 54, 186 n. 105, 193 n. 15 συντάξεις 73 (n. 35), 115 n. 46 τάξις, τάξεις 26, 89 – 90 ὑπόθεσις 69 n. 21, 74, 78, 82, 106, 117, 118 n. 61, 125 n. 12, 161 n. 2 ὑπόμνημα, ὑπομνήματα 149, 150, 159

Index locorum Aelian VH 3.38

13 n. 33

Aeschylus Eum. 194, 244, 318, 447, 485, 576, 594, 608, 643, 662, 664, 794 – 797 Pers. 36 – 37

136 n. 69 151 n. 135

Agathemerus 1.1

187

Ammianus Marcellinus 14.6.18

225

Ampelius 6 8 Anaximander Vorsokr. 12 A 6 Diels-Kranz

13 n. 33 13 n. 33

186 n. 104

Anaximenes Rhet. ad Alex. 7.4 – 6

136 n. 67

Anecdota Graeca Parisiensia 4.195 – 197 Cramer 28 n. 98, 218 n. 135 Anonymous Seguerianus 33

19 19

Aphthonius Prog. 8.4 8.4 – 9 8.5 8.6 – 7 8.8 12.1 12.1 – 2

176 n. 66 175 175 n. 64 175 n. 65 175 175 n. 62 175 n. 63

Apsines of Gadara 5.26 10.1 10.38 10.41 10.56

177 n. 71 177 n. 73 177 n. 72 177 n. 71 177 n. 71

Apuleius Flor. 20.5 – 6

61, 224

Archilochus T 50 Tardini T 53 T 54 T 111 fr. 201 West

200 n. 48 200 n. 48 200 n. 48 200 n. 49 230

Aristophanes Equ. 83 – 84

153 n. 141

Aristophanes of Byzantium fr. 33 Slater ffr. 337 – 347E frr. 368 – 369 fr. 404

150 n. 129 149 n. 126 10 n. 19 159 n. 170

177 n. 75

Anonymous, Fragmenta Historica FGrHist 105 (cf. P.Oxy. 857) 206 n. 77, 211 n. 102 Anonymous, Life of Isocrates 257.98 – 108 Westermann

Anthologia Palatina 9.184 9.571

146 n. 116

Anonymous, Life of Thucydides 2 Anonymous, On Alexander’s History FGrHist 153 F 9 (cf. P.Berol. 13044)

136 n. 72

11 n. 21

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476279 013

Aristotle Poet. 1451a19 – 30 1451b2 – 4 1451b5 – 7

7 n. 2 138 n. 83 142

278

Index locorum

1451b8 – 11 1459a30-b7 Rh. 1354b5 – 11 1355b35 – 39 1356a1 – 35 1356b30 – 34 1357a16 – 21 1357a32-b1 1360a33 – 37 1374b10 – 16 1375a22 – 25 1377b16 – 1378a29 1402b12 – 16 1404b1 – 4 1408a10 – 11 1409a27 – 29 1409a35-b1 1417a4 – 7 1417a13 1419b26 fr. 68 Rose fr. 73 Rose

135 n. 64, 138 7 n. 2 139 n. 88 139 n. 87 139 n. 88 139 n. 93 140 n. 95 136 n. 67 140 n. 94 139 n. 93 139 n. 87 139 n. 88 136 n. 67 77 n. 46 77 n. 46 141, 142 n. 104 166 n. 22 140 n. 97 177 n. 73 177 n. 73 134 n. 59 159 n. 169

Asclepiades of Tragilos FGrHist 12 T 3 Athanasius Apol. contra Ar. 29.1 30.1 De decr. Nic. syn. 18.3 Ep. fer. 39.75 Athanis (or Athanas) of Syracuse FGrHist 562 T 2 Athenaeus 1.3b 3.85a 6.272 f 6.230e 8.336e 9.408 f 10.421b-c 11.466a 13.595e

171 n. 47

16 n. 44 16 n. 44 16 n. 45 16 n. 46

126 n. 20

160 n. 171 85 n. 73 44 n. 18 145 n. 113 25 n. 81 145 n. 113 197 n. 34 44 n. 18 145 n. 113

Athenaeus Mechanicus 10.5 27.2 29.9 Aulus Gellius NA 6.13 11.1.1 16.9.5 19.8.15

104 114 45 104

Ausonius Ep. 8.21 – 34 Green (13.23 – 36 Mondin) Prof. 20.7 – 10 Caecilius of Calacte T 1 Woerther (= FGrHist 183 T 1) TT 4 – 5 T 7 (= FGrHist 183 F 1) T 8 (= FGrHist 183 F 2) TT 11 – 17 T 38 Callimachus of Cyrene test. 1 Pfeiffer fr. 429 – 453 Callisthenes of Olinthus FGrHist 124 T 24 T 28 Cassius Dio 71.1 Cicero Att. 1.7 1.10.4 1.11.3 1.20.7 2.1.12 2.6.1 2.6.2 4.10.1 4.13.2 4.14.1 6.1.12

13 n. 33 13 n. 33 13 n. 33

201 n. 52 165 n. 18, 202

44 n. 17 27 n. 93 44 n. 18 44 n. 18 27 n. 93 27

9 n. 14 9 n. 14

87 n. 85 87 n. 84

179 n. 80

48 n. 37 48 n. 37 48 n. 37 48 n. 38 48 n. 38 81 n. 63 84 n. 70, 85 n. 77, 145 n. 111 47, 49 47 n. 31 49 145 n. 111

Index locorum

6.1.18 56, 113 n. 39 10.8.7 64 n. 102 12.40.2 145 n. 113 Brut. 27 – 29 64 28 64 n. 102 29 54 n. 53, 64 – 65 32 – 36 27 n. 92 42 55 42 – 43 153 n. 143 43 56 nn. 61 – 62 66 79 n. 50, 145 n. 111, 146 n. 118 67 106 n. 16 112 63 n. 98 204 145 n. 111 284 – 285 106 n. 16 287 53 315 164 n. 13 Cato maior 30 63 n. 95 46 63 nn. 95 – 96 79 – 81 63 n. 95 De or. 2.1 – 6 52 n. 46 2.3 52 n. 46 2.36 46 n. 25 2.51 50 n. 41 2.51 – 52 50 n. 42 2.51 – 53 50 – 51 2.53 50 n. 43, 55 2.55 – 58 50 – 55, 57 2.56 94 n. 112 2.57 79 n. 50, 86 n. 80, 145 n. 111, 146 n. 118 2.58 58 n. 73, 60, 65, 113 n. 36, 146 n. 115, 219 – 220 2.59 52 n. 44, 55 2.93 54 n. 54 2.94 86 n. 80, 145 n. 111 3.35 – 36 145 n. 111 3.36 86 n. 80, 145 n. 111 Div. 1.52 64 n. 101 Fam. 1.9.23 47 n. 31 5.12 46 n. 26, 56 n. 63 5.12.2 57 n. 71 5.12.2 – 6 124 – 125 5.12.5 65 9.25.1 63 n. 98 Fin. 2.92 63 n. 98 3.7 – 10 48 n. 35

279

Hort. fr. 26 Straume-Zimmermann, fr. 11 Grilli 59 n. 80, 64 n. 100 fr. 27 S.-Z., fr. 13 G. 59 n. 80, 64 n. 100 fr. 28 S.-Z., fr. 14 G. 59 n. 80, 64 n. 100 fr. 29 S.-Z., fr. 15 G. 145 n. 111, 146 n. 115, 170 n. 41 fr. 35 S.-Z., fr. 12 G. 8 n. 10 Leg. 1.5 85, 145 n. 111, 199 n. 42, 206 1.7 55 2.56 63 n. 98 Off. 2.40 145 Orat. 20 95 n. 115 29 93 n. 111 30 53 n. 51 32 53 nn. 50 – 51, 62, 209 n. 97 39 39 – 40, 142 n. 105, 223 n. 7 62 58 – 60, 224 69 95 n. 115 70 77 n. 46 151 83, 145 n. 111 172 86 n. 80, 145 n. 111 191 145 nn. 111 – 112 194 145 n. 112 207 145 n. 111 218 145 n. 112 Qfr. 1.1.23 63 n. 98 2.11.4 79 n. 50, 81, 83 n. 61, 146 n. 118 3.4.5 49 Rep. 1.34 57 2.27 57 4.3 57 Sen. 22 63 n. 98 Tusc. 2.62 63 n. 98 5.99 63 n. 98 Clement of Alexandria Strom. 1.16.74 – 76 4.15 6.15 Clitarchus FGrHist 137 T 6 T7 T 10 F 14 F 34

13 n. 33 15 16 n. 44

217 153 n. 143 167 n. 28 167 n. 28 153 n. 143

280

Index locorum

Codex Theodosianus 13.3.5

18.10 196 n. 28

Cornelius Nepos Alc. 11 84 n. 70, 85 n. 77 De viris illustribus, fr. 17 Peter; fr. 57 Malcovati; fr. 58 Marshall 46 Cratippus FGrHist 64 F 2

99 n. 129

Ctesias of Cnidus (FGrHist 688) F 8b F 9b F 25

213 n. 117 170 n. 42 177 n. 72

Demetrius Eloc. 2 166 n. 21 12 165 n. 19, 166 nn. 22 – 23, 168 n. 26 13 142 n. 103 17 165 n. 19 27 165 39 164 n. 15 40 164 n. 15 44 165 n. 19 44 – 45 164 n. 15 48 – 49 164 n. 15 65 164 n. 15 66 165 n. 19 72 164 n. 15 75 85 n. 75, 166 n. 20 112 – 113 164, 181 n. 89 129 – 130 77 180 – 181 165 197 167 n. 27 240 85 n. 75, 166 n. 20 247 166 250 166 304 167 n. 28 Democritus Vors. 55 A 33 D.-K. Dio Chrysostom Or. 18.6 18.8 18.9

18.14 18.14 – 19 18.17 33.11 53.9 55.6 55.10

61, 87, 146 n. 115, 190 nn. 5 – 6, 219 n. 139, 228 62, 191 n. 8 191 61 200 n. 48 166 n. 24 200 n. 48 200 n. 48

39

189 n. 2, 199 n. 45 189 nn. 2 – 3 190 n. 4

Diodorus Siculus 4.1.3 5.1.4 11.37.6 11.58.2 – 3 12.37.2 13.42.5 13.103.3 14.84.7 15.89.3 15.94.4 16.14.5 16.76.6 20.43.7

87 n. 85 87 n. 88, 110 n. 28 202 153 n. 143 201 n. 54 125 n. 13, 201 n. 54 81 n. 61 125 n. 13 81 n. 61 126 n. 20 126 n. 19 126 n. 19 90 n. 97

Diogenes Laertius 1.57 7 n. 1 2.47 60 2.48 60, 61 n. 85, 62, 170 n. 41, 224 2.52 61 n. 85 2.55 134 n. 59 2.55 – 57 61 n. 85 3.37 159 n. 169 3.61 – 62 159 n. 167 3.65 – 66 159 n. 167 5.47 39, 40 n. 5 5.84 164 n. 13 10.13 159 n. 170 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Amm. I, 9.1 – 3 Amm. II, 1 2 (= Th. 24) 3 – 17 Ant. Rom. 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.6.3

228 67 n. 7 94, 99 n. 131 94 74 n. 39 74 n. 41 74 n. 41

Index locorum

1.4.1 – 3 1.5.4 1.7.2 1.8.3 1.90.2 2.1 – 2 5.75.1 6.59 7.70.2 8.5 Comp. 4.15

5.12 18.22 – 29 20 20.23 22.7 22.34 – 45 23.9 26.17 Dem. 1 – 3 1.3 10.1 – 4 15.1 33.3 33 – 34 34 – 58 38 – 39 39.7 41.2 41.5 Din. 1.2 7 8.2 8.4 Imit. 3.1 3.1 – 3 3.2 3.6 3.11 3.11 – 12 3.12 5.7 Isoc. 1 1.1 – 2 1.3

75 215 n. 124 66 n. 1, 106 73 n. 36, 228 – 229 66 n. 1 66 n. 1 76 n. 45 96 66 n. 1 96 57 n. 68, 73 n. 35, 115 n. 46, 215 n. 124, 220 n. 148 74 n. 39 95 n. 113 77 n. 46 66 n. 5 96 n. 119 96 n. 119 86 n. 82 66 n. 5 95 95 n. 117 95 n. 117 95 n. 117 95 95 70 96 n. 119 96 n. 119 15 n. 42 108 n. 21 25 n. 81 96 96 n. 120 88 n. 91 75 – 76 75 80 n. 54, 146 n. 117 69 n. 21 84 n. 71 84 83 n. 67, 84 n. 71 70 n. 23 86 n. 82 109 110 n. 26

1.4 1.5 1.6 2.3 4.3 – 4 5 5.1 6 7 8 9 15.3 19 Lys. 2.1 3.6 4.2 9 Orat. vett. 1 3.1 4 4.2 Pomp. 1.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 – 10 3.3 3.4 3.4 – 5 3.4 – 6 3.8 3.8 – 9 3.8 – 10 3.11 3.11 – 12 3.13 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.17 – 18 3.18 – 19 3.20 3.21 4 4.1 4.1 – 2 4.3

281

110 110 110 88 n. 91 111 111 n. 31 112 n. 32 111 n. 31 111 n. 31 111 n. 31 111 n. 31 88 n. 91 86 n. 82 15 n. 42, 94, 108 n. 21 95 93 n. 111, 95 n. 118 77 n. 46 108 108 27 n. 92, 72 111 67 nn. 10 – 11 67 n. 11, 69 – 72 74, 117 n. 58, 120 n. 65 88 118 n. 59 74, 118 n. 60 120 n. 66 118 n. 61 75 118 – 119, 120 n. 66 101 75, 99 n. 130, 156, 181 n. 89 81 n. 62 75, 76 n. 44 75 – 76 15 n. 42, 76, 95, 149 n. 126, 209 n. 96 76 76 77 67 n. 9, 77, 161 n. 3 74, 77, 99 n. 130, 120 n. 65 146 n. 117 69 n. 20, 78 78 74, 78, 120 n. 65

282

Index locorum

4.4 79 5 146 n. 117 5.1 81 n. 61 5.1 – 6 79 5.5 81 5.6 69 n. 21, 82 6.1 120 n. 64 6.1 – 2 120 6.1 – 8 83 6.2 74, 120 6.3 83 6.3 – 4 83 6.6 83 6.7 121 6.8 85 6.9 121 6.9 – 10 83 6.10 82 n. 64, 83 – 84 6.11 83 – 84, 86 Th. 1.1 67 n. 7, 68, 70 2.2 15 n. 42, 89 n. 94, 145 3 – 17 94 5 109 n. 22, 115, 167, 186 5.1 115 n. 47, 115 – 116 5.2 116, 186 n. 102 5.4 92 n. 103, 115 5.3 – 4 116 5.5 – 6 116, 116 n. 49 5–7 89 8.1 89 n. 95 9 89 9.1 89 10.1 90 11.1 90 12 91 12.2 201 n. 54 16.2 69 n. 20, 91 n. 100, 125 n. 14 16.3 – 4 91 n. 101 16.4 201 n. 54 19.2 91 n. 102 20 91 21 – 50 91 23.2 – 4 91 23.3 92 n. 103, 115 23.4 108 n. 21 23.6 – 7 92 24 (> Amm. II, 2) 94

24.1 – 10 (> Amm. II, 2) 24.9 (> Amm. II, 2) 24.11 25.2 29 – 33 34.1 35.4 36 – 37 41.3 41.4 41.4 – 6 42 – 48 42.4 49.3 50 – 51 50.4 51.1 52.1 52.4 53.1 53 – 55 55.2 55.4 55.5 Diyllus of Athens FGrHist 73 T 1 T2 Doxopatres Hom. in Aphth. Prog. 220.25 – 221.1 Walz Duris of Samos FGrHist 76 T 6 F1 F 64 Ephorus of Cyme FGrHist 70 TT 1 – 5 T 3b T7 T8 T 11 T 13 T 24a T 27

92 99 n. 131 92 n. 104 67 n. 7 92 92 n. 106 67 n. 7 91 93 93 n. 108 93 93 201 n. 54 93 n. 111, 95 99 n. 130 93, 94 n. 112 94, 148 147 n. 119 147 n. 120 147 n. 120 94 148 n. 121 94 n. 112 67 n. 7

126 n. 19 126 n. 19

100 n. 136

56 85 n. 74, 90 n. 98 141 n. 100

86 n. 81 145 n. 111 86 n. 83 86 n. 81, 87 n. 85 87 n. 88, 110 n. 28 87 n. 84 86 n. 81 86 n. 81

Index locorum

T 28a T 28b T 29 F6 F 13 F 17 F 18a F 31a F 32 F 34 F 57 F 65a F 85 F 107a-b F 177 F 191

86 n. 81, 146 n. 116 86 n. 81, 145 n. 111, 146 n. 116 145 n. 111 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 134 n. 59 145 n. 112 170 n. 37 213 n. 112

Eratosthenes I B 5 Berger Eunapius VS 4.1.3 Eusebius of Caesarea Hist. eccl. 6.13.3 6.25.3 PE 10.3, 466b (p. 564 Mras) Eusthatius of Thessalonica Comm. in Hom. Od. 1686.60 – 62 Stallbaum Evagrius Scholasticus Hist. eccl. 5.24 Flavius Josephus Ap. 1.18 Hecataeus of Miletus FGrHist 1 T 11b T 22 F 1a F 1b F 1c F 22 F 30 F 324

186 n. 104

66

16 n. 44 16 187 n. 108

209 n. 97

127

97 n. 122

186 n. 104 187 n. 108 166 n. 23 166 n. 21 166 n. 24 157 n. 163 163 n. 10 187 n. 108

Hellanicus of Lesbos FGrHist 4 F 72 F 74 F 79b F 84 F 150 FGrHist 323a F 21c F 22a-b

283

187 n. 108 171 n. 46 171 n. 46 171 n. 46 158 n. 165 171 n. 46 171 n. 46

Heraclitus Vorsokr. 22 B 53 Diels-Kranz

191 n. 13

Hermippus of Smyrne FGrHistC 1026 F 34

134 n. 59

Hermogenes of Tarsus Id. 1.1.36 1.6.5 1.6.11 1.6.22 1.6.27 1.9.4 1.12.29 2.1.19 2.3.4 2.3.11 2.3.18 2.3.19 2.3.21 2.4.4 2.4.15 2.4.17 2.4.18 2.4.20 2.4.25 2.5.1 2.5.4 2.7.30 2.8.14 2.11.19 2.12 2.12.4 – 10 2.12.8 2.12.17 2.12.18 – 20 2.12.20 2.12.22

181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 181 n. 84, 209 n. 97 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 180 n. 83, 181 181 n. 87, 209 n. 97 181 n. 86 181 n. 88 181 n. 89 181 n. 89 181 n. 88

284

2.12.24 2.12.24 – 29 2.12.26 2.12.30 2.12.31 – 32 2.12.33 Herodian 1.1.1 1.2.1 1.3.1 Herodotus 1.1 1.1 – 1.5 1.7.1 1.8.2 1.23 – 24 1.44 1.67 1.80 1.183 – 194 1.203.1 1.215 2.22 2.24 2.25.2 2.27 2.28.1 2.30.4 2.43.2 – 3 2.45 2.49.2 – 3 2.56 2.93 2.163.2 2.169.1 2.182 3.38.2 3.80 – 82 3.80 – 86 3.139 – 149 4.46.1 5.52 – 55 5.106.3 6.105 7.8

Index locorum

181 n. 90 181 n. 90 182 n. 90 182 nn. 91 – 92 182 n. 92 182, 192, 219 n. 139, 228

192 n. 15 193 n. 16 192 n. 15

118 n. 59 193 n. 15 157 n. 161 196 n. 32 174 n. 54 197 174 181 n. 84 150 165 n. 19 150 137 n. 77 181 n. 84 137 n. 77 137 n. 77 156 n. 158 141 n. 98 137 n. 77 137 n. 77 137 n. 77 137 n. 77 137 n. 77 151 151 202 n. 55 137 n. 78 133 n. 56 137 n. 78 197 156 n. 158 151 n. 136 162 n. 6 181 n. 84 108 n. 21

7.21.1 7.35 8.65 8.87 8.90 8.91 8.95 9.27 Hieronymus of Cardia FGrHist 154 F 13 Himerius Or. 48.27 Colonna

162 n. 6 181 n. 84 181 n. 84 133 n. 55 133 n. 55 133 n. 55 133 n. 55 133 n. 55

215 n. 124

198 n. 41, 199 n. 43

Homer Il. 2.684 2.867 15.346 – 349 Od. 1.397 – 398 1.398 3.71 – 74 17.216 17.546 19.172 – 173

155 n. 149 154 163 155 155 n. 152 155 157 n. 163 69 n. 19 164

Homeric Hymns h.Merc. 260 – 277 265 320 ff.

136 n. 68 136 n. 68 136 n. 68

Horace Carm. 1.1.35 Sat. 1.4.1

20 20 n. 60

Hyginus Fab. 221 – 223 273 – 277

12 n. 33 12 n. 33

Inscriptions IGUR 1514 SEG 26.1123 SEG 47.1464 SEG 48.1330 SEG 51.1390 SEG 52.936bis

230 n. 20 80 n. 55 80 n. 58 156 n. 156 80 n. 55 80 n. 55

SGO 01/12/02 Funerary inscription from Nicomedia Isidore of Seville Etym. 6.5.1 Isocrates Ad Nic. 3 35 36 43 Ep. 8.7 Euag. 9 – 10 73 – 79 Panath. 1 – 2 9 – 10 156 177 246 Paneg. 9 18 23 – 50 97 97 – 106 Phil. 81 Jerome (Hieron.) Ep. 58.5 Julian Ep. 9 Bidez 61c 61c.24 – 31 82 89b 152 155 Libanius Ep. 742 Foerster 1036.4 – 5 1065 Or. 1.148 – 150 Or. 18

156 n. 156

Index locorum

285

Longinus fr. 49.100 – 111 Patillon/Brisson

178

199 – 200

47 n. 29, 48 n. 34

128 n. 30 130 128 n. 30 128 n. 30 128 n. 28 132 128 n. 30 129 n. 34 128 n. 28 131 n. 40 131 n. 40 130 n. 39 134 n. 60 133 n. 55 131 – 132 133 n. 55 132 128 n. 28

165 n. 18, 203 n. 63

197 195 – 197 196 n. 30 197 197 141 n. 100, 196 n. 32 196 n. 32

198 198 n. 38 175 n. 59 198 n. 37 197 n. 36

Lucian of Samosata Hist. conscr. 2 190, 219 n. 139, 225 39 192 n. 14 42 192 n. 14 59 84 n. 70, 85 n. 77, 183 n. 93 Lysias 2.2

132 n. 48

Macrobius Sat. 1.1.7 1.5.13

198 n. 40 198 n. 40

Manuscripts Bodleianus Barocc. 125 28 n. 99, 218 Bodleianus Auct. T. 2. 11 (Misc. 211) 28, 218 Cantabrigiensis Bibl. Universitatis Nn. III.18 193 n. 19 Laurentianus plut. 70.6 193 n. 18 Marcianus gr. 364 193 and n. 19 Marcianus gr. 365 193 and n. 19 Marcianus gr. 526 194 n. 20 Marcianus gr. 454 (Venetus A) 154 Matritensis 4561 193 n. 18 Parisinus Coisl. 387 24, 28, 217 – 219 Parisinus gr. 1741 68, 164 n. 13, 178 n. 77 Parisinus gr. 1874 177 n. 74 Parisinus gr. 3032 173 Parisinus suppl. gr. 1238 10 n. 19 Vaticanus gr. 1456 28, 218 Vaticanus gr. 2203 193 n. 18 Vaticanus Palat. gr. 58 82 n. 64 Marcellinus, Life of Thucydides 22 25 29 – 30 33 35 35 – 42 36 37 41 45

136 n. 72 99 n. 129 41 99 n. 129 99 n. 130 99 n. 129 99 n. 131 156 n. 154 99 n. 130 125 n. 13

286

Index locorum

48 – 53 53 54 55 56 – 57 58

99 n. 129 98 124 n. 6 99 n. 131 99 n. 129 202 n. 56

Menander test. 102 Kassel-Austin

199 n. 45

Menander Rhetor 345.21 373.28 – 32 389.27 – 390.4 393.9 – 12 398.9 – 12 411.29 – 412.2 414.1 – 2 418.15

184 185 184, 210 n. 97 200 n. 49 184 184 184 184

Metrodorus of Scepsis FGrHist 184 F 1 F2

42 n. 10 42 n. 10

Nicolaus of Myra Prog. 12.7 13.1 26.7 51.21 – 52.3 61.15 – 19

176 n. 67 176 n. 67 176 n. 67 176 n. 67 176 n. 67

Nonius Marcellus 241.10 – 11 Lindsay 315.26 – 29 343.10 – 11 Papyri P.Amh. 2.12 (MP3 483 = LDAB 337)

59 n. 76 59 n. 76 59 n. 76

150, 151 n. 135, 157, 159, 202 n. 55, 206

P.Berol. 9570 (MP3 1433 = LDAB 3844) P.Berol. 13044r (MP3 2068 = LDAB 65645) P.Berol. 21129, fr. b (MP3 1432.04 = LDAB 702958)

214 11 – 12 214

P.Berol. 21247 + P.Turner 9 (MP3 2090.2 = LDAB 5602) 208 P.Berol. 21313 (MP3 1522.04 = LDAB 4118) 151 n. 136, 205 P.Cairo TR 26/6/27/1 – 35r (MP3 2190.1 = LDAB 581) 212 P.CtYBR inv. 4601 (MP3 1534.001 = LDAB 10615) 209 P.Duk. inv. 756 (MP3 474.11 = LDAB 1119) 209 P.Grenf. 2.11 (MP3 1339 = LDAB 3528) 214 n. 118 P.Hamb. 2.163 (MP3 1504 = LDAB 4117) 209 P.Heid. Siegmann 206 (MP3 1557 = LDAB 4207) 209 P.Herc. 1005 (LDAB 3603 = Trismegistos 62430) 42 P.Köln Gr. 6.248 (= P.Colon. inv. 20517) (MP3 2252.01 = LDAB 6969) 214 P.Laur. inv. II/29 (MP3 458.1 = LDAB 5260) 213 P.Lond. 3.854 (= P.Sarap. 101) (MP3 471 = Trismegistos 17126) 206 n. 76 P.Lond.Lit. 114 (MP3 358 = LDAB 826) 212 P.Oxy. 842 (MP3 2189 = LDAB 583) 212 P.Oxy. 853 (MP3 1536 = LDAB 4069) 97 – 98, 150 n. 129, 151 n. 136, 205 P.Oxy. 857 (MP3 484 = LDAB 1159) 206 P.Oxy. 1084 (MP3 459 = LDAB 1086) 214 n. 118 P.Oxy. 1241 (MP3 2069 = LDAB 4636) 9 n. 14, 12 P.Oxy. 1610 (MP3 357 = LDAB 827) 213 P.Oxy. 1621 (MP3 1513 = LDAB 4111) 210 P.Oxy. 2330 (MP3 255 = LDAB 586) 213 P.Oxy. 2400 (MP3 5300 = LDAB 64082) 210 P.Oxy. 3877 (MP3 1504.01 = LDAB 4057) 210 n. 99

Index locorum

P.Oxy. 4098v (MP3 2861.22 = LDAB 10801) 214 P.Oxy. 4455 (MP3 484.01 = LDAB 1155) 151 n. 136, 206 P.Oxy. 4808 (MP3 2257.01 = LDAB 112363) 113 n. 35, 215 – 217 P.Oxy. 4810 (MP3 2293.01 = LDAB 112365) 210 P.Oxy. 5046 (MP3 1541.211 = LDAB 128973) 207 n. 81 P.Oxy. 5267 (MP3 1443.01 = LDAB 704632) 214 P.Oxy. 5300 (MP3 1432.03 = LDAB 702426) 214 P.Prag. Wessely inv. G 1.520 (MP3 1541.22 = LDAB 8248) 207 n. 81 P.Ryl. 1.19 (MP3 1503 = LDAB 4026) 211 – 212 P.Ryl. 1.60 (MP3 1433 = LDAB 3844) 214 P.Ryl. 3.490 (MP3 2192 = LDAB 7007) 209, 211 P.Ryl. 3.492 (MP3 2182 = LDAB 828) 213 n. 112 P.Ryl. 3.504 (MP3 2266 = LDAB 3538) 213 n. 115 PSI 1196 + PSI 1485 (MP3 1542 = LDAB 4175) 207 n. 80 PSI 1283 (MP3 89.11 = LDAB 3539) 213 PSI 1304 (MP3 2190 = LDAB 582) 212 PSI Laur. inv. 19662 (MP3 2087 = LDAB 5258) 207, 208 n. 87 PSI Laur. inv. 22013 (MP3 2558 = LDAB 6773) 212 P.Vindob.Gr. 29247 (MP3 1536 = LDAB 4069) 151 n. 136, 205 Pausanias 1.3.4 1.6.1 1.6.2 – 1.7.3 1.8.1 1.16.3 8.11.6

134 n. 59 116 117 117 157 n. 163 134 n. 59

287

Philistus of Syracuse FGrHist 556 T 11a 81 n. 61 T 11b 81 n. 61, 126 n. 20 T 12 81 n. 61 T 14 79 n. 52, 146 n. 118, 170 n. 38 T 15c 79 n. 51, 146 n. 118 T 17a 81 n. 61, 146 n. 118 T 17b 79 n. 50, 146 n. 118 T 19 167 n. 27 T 20a 170 n. 39 T 20c 170 n. 38 T 21 146 n. 118 T 23a 81 F1 170 n. 39 F5 81 F6 170 n. 39 F 28 170 n. 39 F 40a 170 n. 39 F 51 146 n. 118, 170 n. 38 F 52 170 n. 38 Philochorus of Athens FGrHist 328 F 49 – 51 F 91

228 – 229 171 n. 47

Philostratus VS 2.7

179 n. 79

Photius Bibl. cod. 60, 19b17 – 19 cod. 61, 20b25 cod. 69, 34a36-b40 cod. 176 cod. 176, 121a14 – 18 cod. 176, 121a35 – 41 cod. 176, 121a41-b3 cod. 260, 487b31 – 35 Plato Hipp. 228b-c Pliny the Elder NH, preaf. 33 7.200 – 202 34.84 35.15

209 n. 96 15 n. 41 221 n. 152 227 190 n. 7 84 n. 68 85 n. 74, 90 n. 98 132 n. 47

7 n. 1

10 n. 17 12 n. 33 12 n. 33 12 n. 33

288

Index locorum

Pliny the Younger Ep. 7.9.15 Plutarch Aem. 22 28 Alex. 8.3 Cat. Mai. 2.5 2.5 – 6 Cic. 27 De exil. 604F De glor. Ath. 345C-E 345D 345D-E De Her. mal. 855C 855F 868 A 870F Dion 36.3 Luc. 42 Marc. 21 Nic. 1 Reg. imp. apophth. 205C Sull. 26 Pollux 4.93 Polybius 1.3.2 1.5.1 5.33.2 6.45.1 8.9 – 11 8.10 8.10.1 – 2 8.11.3 8.21(23).4 9.1 – 2 10.20.8 11.13.8 – 16.8 12 28.2.5 – 7 34.8.4 38.6.4

10

47 n. 29 47 n. 29 80 64 n. 100 63 47 n. 32 141 n. 100 91 n. 100, 125 69 n. 20, 126 n. 16 126 n. 15 97 n. 123 97 n. 123 141 n. 100 97 n. 123 81 48 n. 34 197 n. 34 79 n. 53 47 n. 32 47 n. 30

85 n. 74

126 n. 21 126 n. 21, 219 n. 143 86 n. 83 87 n. 84 85 85 n. 77 83 n. 66 125 n. 12 214 45 n. 22 197 n. 34 214 45 n. 22, 83 n. 66 214 126 n. 21, 219 n. 143 145 n. 114

Posidonius FGrHist 87 T 1

126 n. 22

Praxiphanes of Mytilene fr. 18 Wehrli (fr. 21 Matelli) Pseudo-Hermogenes Prog. 2.1 – 2 5.2 – 3 7.9 7.12 10.3 Pseudo-Longinus Subl. 1.1 1.2 3.1 – 2 4.1 – 3 4.4 13.3 14.1 18.2 19.1 25 27.2 28.3 31.1 32.5 40.2 43.1 43.2 43.5 Quintilian Inst. 1.3.1 – 5 1.4.3 1.8.18 – 20 2.5.19 – 20 2.8.11 3.1.17 – 18 3.1.18 7.10.11 – 13 8.3.52 9.4.35 9.4.87 10.1.31 10.1.32 – 33

41

174 n. 54 174 174 n. 57 174 n. 58 174 n. 56, 175 n. 63

161 n. 2 162 n. 4 163 n. 12 163 n. 12 60 n. 84, 162, 170 n. 41 156, 165, 181 n. 89 162 n. 5 162 n. 6 162 n. 8 162 163 n. 10 162 163 n. 9 162 163 162 163 n. 9 162

180 18 n. 53 12 204 n. 67 145 n. 111 42 n. 13 43 n.15 98 n. 127 81 n. 63 145 n. 111 145 n. 112 139 139 n. 91

Index locorum

10.1.37 10.1.38 10.1.44 – 45 10.1.46 10.1.46 – 84 10.1.54 10.1.55 – 56 10.1.57 10.1.59 10.1.61 10.1.62 – 64 10.1.65 10.1.73 10.1.73 – 75 10.1.74 10.1.75 10.1.76 10.1.76 – 80 10.1.81 – 84 10.1.82 10.1.85 – 131 10.1.101 10.1.104 12.2.22 12.10.3 – 10 12.10.12 12.10.58

18 n. 54 23 18 n. 54 18 144 11 n. 20, 18, 22 – 23, 30, 159 n. 166 19 22 19 n. 56, 23, 30 19 n. 57, 20 20 20 146 n. 115, 219 n. 139 20, 22, 144 56 n. 65, 79 n. 51, 86 n. 80, 145 n. 111, 146 n. 118, 217 59 n. 74, 62, 143, 170 n. 41 21, 27 n. 94 21, 27 n. 94 21, 59 n. 74, 224 59 – 60, 61 n. 88 23 n. 67 23 n. 67, 204 n. 67 22 54 n. 55 12 n. 33 107 n. 16 21, 95 n. 115

Rhetoric for Herennius 4.11 – 16

95 n. 115

Rufus of Perinthus 16 (p. 402 Spengel/Hammer) 176 n. 69, 177 n. 75, 209 n. 95 23 (p. 403) 177 n. 70 Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem 1.38a Erbse 2.570a 2.684 2.867a 3.401b 4.450 – 451 9.7a 10.298a

157 n. 164 155 155 n. 149 154 n. 148 156 n. 160 155 n. 151 156 n. 158 158

11.677a1 14.387a 15.302b1 22.410 23.281 – 282a 23.361a1 24.190c

289

156 n. 158 156 n. 158 157 n. 163 55 n. 151 158 158 158

Scholia Graeca in Odysseam 3.71a Pontani 4.65b 4.343b1 11.245 Dindorf 13.288 – 289

155 n. 152, 159 158 158 n. 165 158 158

Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera 4.131 Wendel 42 n. 10 4.834 42 n. 10 Scholia in Aristophanem Equ. 84b Mervyn Jones / Wilson Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina 1.10 – 11 Drachmann Scholia in Thucydidem 1.5.1 – 2 Hude 1.20.3 1.21.1 1.22.4 3.84 4.135.2 5.81.1 8.68.1

153 n. 144

20

155 n. 152 124 n. 3 124 n. 3 124 n. 3 150 n. 130 136 n. 72, 202 n. 56 93 n. 107 136 n. 72

Seneca the Younger Contr. 9.1.13 Ep. 49.5 Suas. 6.21 Tranq. 9.4 9.5

204 n. 65 8 n. 9 204 n. 65 10 9 n. 16

Sidonius Apollinaris Carm. 23.135

203 n. 61

Socrates Hist. eccl. 2.37.82

16 n. 44

290

Index locorum

Sophocles fr. 500 Radt Stephanus of Byzantium θ 55 Billerbeck μ 269 Strabo 1.1.1 C 1 – 2 1.1.11 C 7 1.2.6 C 18 13.1.54 C 608 – 609 13.1.54 C 609 14.2.10 C 654 14.2.16 C 656 16.2.29 C 759 FGrHist 91 T 2 Suda α 2745 Adler α 3892 δ 333 ε 360 ε 2903 ε 3046 ε 3953 η 536 η 611 θ 151 θ 206 θ 414 ι 697 κ 227 κ 1165 λ 96 μ 590 ξ 47 π 248 π 1941 π 2108 σ 1284 τ 550 φ 361 φ 365

150 n. 132

141 n. 100 151 nn. 134 – 135

186 n. 104 186 n. 104 186 n. 103, 187 47 n. 30 160 n. 171 12 n. 26 66, 141 n. 100 43 n. 15 126 n. 22

136 n. 72 159 n. 168 15 n. 41 186 n. 105 197 n. 34 179 n. 79 88 n. 91, 146 n. 116 196 n. 32 221 n. 152 42 n. 13, 43 n. 15 169 n. 31 136 n. 72 187 n. 105 9 n. 14 – 15 27, 44 n. 17 45 n. 21 184 n. 96 61 n. 85, 170 n. 41 141 n. 100 126 n. 22 126 n. 22 187 n. 105 43 n. 16 80 n. 56 80 n. 56

Suetonius Gram. et rhet. 2 3 Tib. 57.1 Syrianus Comm. in Hermog. Stat. Rabe 1.9

30 – 31 49 42 n. 13

70 179 n. 79

Tacitus Dial. 31

61 n. 88

Tatianus Ad Gr. 1

13 n. 33

Timaeus of Tauromenium FGrHist 566 T 9a T 9c T 20 T 21 T 29 F 40 F 42a F 65 F 119c F 130a-b F 135 F 136 F 138 F 150a

113 n. 38 114 113 n. 38 113 n. 38 113 n. 39 113 n. 38 114 12 n. 26 113 n. 38 113 n. 38 99 n. 129 99 n. 129 113 n. 38 113 n. 38

Timagenes of Alexandria FGrHist 88 TT 1 – 3 T2 T3 T6 T 7 – 10 F1

114 n. 41 114 nn. 42 – 43 114 nn. 42 – 43 114 114 n. 43 114 n. 42

Themistius Or. 2.27d 4.59d-60c 4.60a 4.60b 23.299b

195 194, 225 194 n. 23 195 n. 25 195

Index locorum

Theon Prog. 61.11 – 13 93 63.22 – 24 79 n. 52, 146 n. 118, 170 n. 38 65.30 – 70.23 169 66.8 – 11 170 n. 39 66.11 – 14 169 n. 34 66.14 170 n. 40 66.21 – 22 84 n. 69, 169 n. 34 66.26 – 28 170 n. 39 66.27 – 67.3 170 n. 37 67.9 – 22 170 n. 37 67.22 – 30 169 n. 34 68.13 – 17 169 n. 34 68.17 – 22 170 n. 39 68.25 – 28 170 n. 36 68.28 170 n. 40 68.31 – 34 170 n. 40 69.29 – 32 170 n. 37 70.6 – 7 170 n. 35 70.7 170 n. 40 70.24 – 29 169 n. 32 71.19 – 26 170 n. 37 80.16 – 26 100 n. 134 80.31 – 81.4 84 n. 68, 169 n. 34 93.16 – 94.6 174 95.3 – 96.4 170 n. 37 110.30 – 35 170 n. 36 115.10 – 12 170 n. 40 118.28 170 n. 42 119.3 – 4 170 n. 38, 174 n. 56, 175 n. 63 126.31 170 n. 40 (Armenian version) p. 102 171 pp. 103 – 105 171 p. 103 171 n. 46 p. 104 171 – 172 p. 106 168 n. 31 Theophrastus fr. 697 Fortenbaugh Theopompus of Chios FGrHist 115 T 1 T 5a T 6a-b T 12 T 13 T 14

39 – 40, 142, 223 n. 7

86 n. 81, 206 n. 77 86 n. 81, 145 n. 111 86 n. 81 87 n. 85 125 n. 13 125 n. 13

291

T 15 T 19 T 20a T 21 T 24 T 25a T 25b T 26a T 28b T 29 T 30 T 31 T 36 T 37 T 38 T 39 T 40 T 43 T 44 FF 1 – 4 F 25 F 74a F 78 F 127 F 153 F 217 F 225c F 251 F 254a F 255 – 257 F 262 F 263a F 286 F 290 F 350

125 n. 13 125 n. 12 86 n. 81 145 n. 111 86 n. 81 84 n. 70 84 n. 70, 145 n. 111 145 n. 111 146 n. 116 145 n. 114 84 n. 68, 169 n. 34 84 n. 68 145 n. 111 145 n. 111 145 n. 111 145 n. 111 145 n. 111 166 n. 20 165 206 n. 77 189 n. 7 169 n. 34 169 n. 34 169 n. 34 169 n. 34 211 n. 104 165 145 n. 113 82 n. 64 170 n. 36 163 n. 9 163 n. 9 145 166 n. 20 157 n. 164

Thucydides 1.1 – 9 1.1.2 – 1.12 1.1.3 – 1.21.1 1.3.3 1.5.1 – 2 1.5.2 1.9 1.10.3 1.13.5 1.21 – 1.23

151 n. 136 124 n. 1 91 154 n. 148, 155 n. 149 155 n.152 155 181 n. 84 132 155 192 n. 15

292

1.21.1 1.22 1.22.1 1.22.4 1.23.2 – 3 1.23.6 1.32 1.34 1.36.6 1.42.1 1.73 – 78 1.75 1.80 1.86 1.97.2 1.138 1.138.3 1.138.4 1.140 1.140 – 144 2.1 2.1 – 45 2.11 2.11.5 – 9 2.35.1 2.37.1 2.41.1 2.41.4 2.61.1 2.102 3.8 3.22 3.22 – 24 3.30 3.37 – 48 3.58 3.82 3.83.4 3.84 4.64.3 5.26.3 – 6 5.46.4 5.84 – 114 6.76 – 80 6.89 – 92 7.43 – 44 8.16

Index locorum

132 45 n. 22 93 124 n. 2 118 137 n. 80 210 177 (n. 71) 64 n. 102 150 n. 130 132 181 n. 84 176 n. 69 176 n. 69 124 n. 5, 220 56 n. 61 64 n. 102 153 n. 142 176 n. 69 93, 96 98 151 n. 136 181 n. 84 210 210 197 111 132 n. 48 137 n. 81 174 n. 54 140 181 n. 84 174 n. 56 177 n. 75 209 177 n. 71 181 n. 84 151 n. 136 150 n. 130 164 91 69 n. 19 93 93 96 174 n. 56 181 n. 84

8.27.6 8.40.3 8.86.1 – 2 8.89 – 92 Tzetzes Prolegomena de com. p. 23.6 – 8 Koster p. 43.17 – 19 Velleius Paterculus 2.36.2

69 n. 19 69 n. 19 136 91 n. 100, 126

159 n. 166 159 n. 166

204 n. 65

Xenophon Ages. 1.26.5 (= Hell. 3.4.17) 197 n. 33 2.12 (= Hell. 4.3.19) 158, 162 n. 8 2.14 158 8.7 158 An. 1.1 193 n. 16 1.2.8 177 n. 70 1.2.13 177 n. 70 1.2.21 167 1.5.8 – 12 207 n. 81 1.5.12 207 n. 81 1.5.14 158 3.1.11 – 13 64 n. 101 Cyn. 1.1 174 n. 58 3.8 181 n. 84 Cyr. 1.2.3 181 n. 84 1.6.3 158 2.3.9 181 n. 84 3.5 181 n. 84 4.19 181 n. 84 7.3.8 181 n. 84, 209 n. 97 7.3.8 – 9 177 n. 71 8.7.8 63 n. 95 8.7.17 – 22 63 n. 95 Eq. 158 Hell. 1.1.1 125 n. 8 1 – 2.2 201 n. 54 1 – 2.3.9 91, 125 n. 8 2.3.9 65 n. 103 2.3.24 – 49 64, 65 n. 103 3.4.17 (= Ages. 1.26.5) 197 n. 33 4.3.19 (= Ages. 2.12) 158, 162 n. 8 4.8.15 69 n. 19 7.2.9 181 n. 84

Index locorum

7.5.25 7.5.27 Lac. Mem. 2.1.21 – 22 2.7.13 – 14

65 125 n. 9 158, 162 158 170 n. 40

4.3.3 – 9 Symp. 2.26 8.12 8.12 – 36

293

170 n. 40 63 n. 95 170 n. 40 170 n. 40