Unfortunately, Thucydides’ history breaks off at this point. Presumably he died before he could finish it. Given that Thucydides’ history in a sense continued Herodotus’, it was perhaps natural that someone should continue his. At least three, possibly four, people did so. Xenophon of Athens, whose work, the Hellenica or Res Graecae, survives in its entirety; Theopompus of Chios, the surviving fragments of whose work (also called Hellenica) stand at BNJ 115; the anonymous author of the so-called Hellenica Oxyrhynchia which survives on papyrus scraps from the village of Oxyrhynchus in Egypt (BNJ 66); and Cratippus of Athens (BNJ 64) of whose work almost nothing survives unless, of course, he should be identical with the anonymous author of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia.
Theopompus’ work, since so little of it survives, is for practical reasons alone the least useful. This verbose work (BNJ 114, Fr. 21) covered in twelve books the period from 410 to the Battle of Cnidus in 394 (BNJ 115, T 14).
The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia - the Oxyrhynchus Historian is a common way of referring to its author - is a work of considerable historiographical merit. It covered the years from 410 down to, probably, 386. Its author gathered much detailed information about major battles such as Cyzicus, Arginussae, Aegos-potami, and Sardis. The phrasing at Diod. XIII 98,5 (based on the Hell. Oxy. - see below and Box 15.1) about the Battle of the Arginussae suggests that much of this information came from eyewitnesses: “[the unusual formation at the battle] in many respects caused great amazement for those watching" The Oxyrhynchus Historian was moreover intensely interested in individual cities’ internal politics and their influence on these cities’ external relations. His detailed description of the constitution of the Boeotian League (col. XVI, 2-4) exceeds anything of the sort in Herodotus, Thucydides, or Xenophon. Continuing investigation of the history of the period has led to a generally high opinion of the Oxyrhynchus Historian (see Further Reading).
Unfortunately, most of the work is lost. Indirectly, however, it survives in Diodorus through the medium of Ephorus, who used it and whose work Diodorus excerpted (see BNJ 70, Biographical Essay, section II F). The account of the Battle of Notium (HellOxy, col. VI and Diod. XIII 71 - cf. with these Xen. Hell. I 5,10-15) in particular shows that the information in Diodorus for the years 410 to 386 is based on the account of the Oxyrhynchus Historian. Unfortunately, Diodorus is a sloppy and often incompetent excerptor. His presentation of the material commonly lacks coherence; the chronology is notoriously erratic and he omits important information (see Box 18.1). The historiographical value of the material itself, however, owing to its source, is high.
Finally, there is the work of Xenophon. For various reasons this work was traditionally taken as the basis for any historical narrative of the period it covers, from 410 to 362 (the second Battle of Mantinea). In particular, it has survived in its entirety, and it presents a coherent narrative with a sound chronology (unlike Diodorus). Over the decades, however, especially as investigation of issues concerning the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia has proceeded, Xenophon has slowly slipped in scholars’ esteem vis-a-vis the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. All the same, his work is still indispensable in reconstructing the history of the period (especially in matters of chronology and where Diodorus omits material), and it has many other good qualities: an experienced soldier and commander, he understood battles, campaigns, and the business of command with the marrow of his bones. Although an Athenian, he spent long years in Sparta or in the company of Lacedaemonians and so possessed an insider’s knowledge of Sparta as well as Athens. He knew many of the leading commanders and statesmen of the period - most prominently King Agesilaus of Sparta (reigned circa 400 to 360 BC) - personally.
Any reconstruction of Greek history after the year 410 must therefore work with both Xenophon and the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Finally, the switch from Thucydides’ work to the continuations causes various problems since the continuators had their own interests and did not follow every narrative thread in Thucydides to its conclusion. Xenophon, for example, never says how or when the 5,000 in the end lost power to a restored democracy. If the other continuations were attested in full, it might be possible to smooth out this particular unevenness which hinders comprehension of events during the years 411 and 410.
World History
