Greek historiography in the fourth century bce begins with a series of Hellenica continuing Thucydides’ incomplete account of the Peloponnesian War. By this very act the respective authors - cratippus (whom I consider to be the author of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia), Xenophon, and Theopompus - acknowledged their predecessor as an important and, in a sense, also as a ‘‘referential’’ historian. Yet there is a ‘‘nearly complete silence about Thucydides in what remains to us of ancient writers before the age of Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (by which time he was established as the great historian)’’ (Gomme, HCTIII.523, with addendum, p. 733; see also Hornblower 1995, for some important qualifications of Gomme’s view). In effect, as I have explained elsewhere (Schepens 2007), none of Thucydides’ continu-ators went so far in their admiration that they refrained from finding fault with one or the other aspect of his representation of history and/or his method of inquiry.
Ephorus, for one, made Thucydides his prime source for his account of the Peloponnesian War, but not without supplementing him in his usual manner and criticizing him for his failure to spell out the extent to which Pericles could be held personally responsible for bringing about the war. Thus, right from the beginning of the fourth century, and throughout the Hellenistic period, the question of how history should or could most adequately be written and researched continued to be debated in a lively way among its many practitioners. Historians habitually discussed both in their Prefaces and occasionally in the course of their narratives the principles and subject matter of history. Quite often they did so in a truly polemical spirit (cf. D. Hal. AR 1.1 on Anaximenes and Theopompus; cf. Duris, FGrHist 76 F 1; for Polybius’ many criticisms see Schepens and Bollansee 2005). Even if such methodological statements largely served the self-promotion of the historians as writers with better knowledge and superior methodology, these texts did provide opportunities to step back from their researches and offer some reflection on the nature of the genre. In the Preface to his Philippica, Theopompus called upon the writer of history to approach his task with seriousness and ‘‘professionalism,’’ especially with regard to assembling his materials. Pointing out that he was sufficiently rich to be independent and to afford the huge expenses required for visiting all important places in Greece, he proudly asserted (FGrHist 115 F 26) that he ‘‘personally observed many things and interviewed for the sake of history many great men of the time - military as well as political leaders, and philosophers. For he did not, like some, consider the writing of history a part-time occupation, but an activity taking the highest priority of all.’’
It was in the context of such debates that the hierarchy which Herodotus and, above all, Thucydides had established regarding the use of opsis and akoe in historical research was restated, questioned, and eventually also challenged. This state of affairs, which can only be very incompletely sketched here, makes it impossible to agree with the often repeated idea that the Thucydidean model in particular set the pattern for all subsequent Greek historiography. To be sure, there were many authors whose contemporary or near contemporary political and military histories were written more or less according to Thucydides’ manner. But his history of the Peloponnesian War was by no means representative of the range and variety of historical writing in the fourth century bce and the Hellenistic period. Many understood their task as history writers and researchers rather after the example of Herodotus (Murray 1972; Clarke 2003), continued in the track of the ‘‘logographers,’’ or were encouraged by the success of Hippias of Elis, whose lectures on all things ancient (archaiologia) had had such a strong appeal to the Spartan public (FGrHist 6 T 3). It is significant for the development of history in this period that, by the middle of the second century bce, Polybius finds himself, as a writer of contemporary political and military history, in a position where he feels the need to justify the choice of his narrow and austere subject (9.1.2): ‘‘Most other writers, if not everyone, can appeal to a wide and diverse public by including all the various modes of historical writing in their works.’’ The implications of Polybius’ statement are rarely realized and have yet to be properly drawn. His ‘‘description des lieux’’ obviously raises major questions with regard to the label ‘‘mainstream’’ history that is so readily attached to the writings of contemporary political and military history. The label obscures more than it reveals. I shall come back to this at the conclusion.
I would like to single out for brief discussion, pars pro toto, the fragmentary historians Ephorus and Timaeus. Inevitably we will also have to deal with Polybius since he opposes his own views to those of Timaeus, whom we get to know only through the often distortive lens of the former’s criticism.
At the threshold of the Hellenistic period, Ephorus was the first historian to attempt universal history. The large scope of his work brought with it a rethinking of the opsis-akoe: hierarchy. His methodology was still grounded on the main principle laid down by Herodotus and Thucydides according to which direct sources were more reliable than indirect (later) ones; but, with a shift away from the research on the contemporary or nearly contemporary history towards the investigation of the more distant past, he significantly modified the main tenets of ‘‘inquiry.’’ In his argument against Timaeus, Polybius drew on Ephorus’ authority to support his view that autopsy was a superior method of inquiry: he noted (12.27.7 = FGrHist 70 F 110) that Ephorus had acknowledged that being personally present at all events would be the best source of information. But the more relevant point is that Ephorus made this statement in a contrary-to-fact condition, his intention being foremost to stress the limited range for applying such a method (Schepens 1970). This implies that Ephorus made this statement in a context (most probably his general Preface) in which he advocated the necessity and the legitimacy of his historical method as compared to that of his prominent predecessors. As it is, Ephorus’ ideas on this matter prove to be in line with Isocrates’ defense of akoe against the superior claims of opsis (Panath. 149-150; cf. Marincola 1997: 276-279). Ephorus’ Histories are, indeed, a prime example of a historical work which puts written sources and the critical exploitation of all sorts of ‘‘documentary’’ evidence at the center stage of historical method. The details of his actual method cannot be discussed here (see Schepens 1977a, 2003), but for our present purposes it is vital to note that Ephorus supported his historiographical praxis with conscious, critical reflexion on the possibilities and limits of historical inquiry. Echoes of his methodological defense of the use of written records can be found in Diodorus (1.9; cf. 4.1.3-4). And his method for judging the trustworthiness of historical traditions (FGrHist 70 F 9) earned him the admiration of Niebuhr, one of the founders of modern historical method (Schepens 1977b). Delineating history as a genre against rhetoric, Ephorus stated that ‘‘the mere collection of the materials required for writing a history was a more serious task than the complete course of study of the art of declamatory speaking’’ (F 111). Apart from the relevance of the fact that Ephorus, very much in the same spirit as his fellow ‘‘rhetorical’’ historian Theopompus, considered ‘‘inquiry’’ - sources and source-criticism - to be the key discriminating factor between history and oratory (on the uselessness of the term ‘‘rhetorical history,’’ see Marincola 2001: 111-112), the comparison of the two disciplines makes it likely that Ephorus may, indeed, have been the first in the history of Greek historiography to address history as a genre and to use the term Historiai for the first time in the sense of ‘‘historical work’’ (cf. Porciani 1997: 83-84).
Ephorus’ stance on the difference between rhetoric and history was, according to Polybius (12.28.8-28a.3), later repeated by Timaeus (FGrHist 566 F 7). And although Polybius admired the former and despised the latter, their agreement on this particular topic was certainly not the only point of affinity between these historians. As already suggested, some evidence can still be gleaned from Polybius’ Book 12, which suggests that Ephorus’ idea about the greater importance of written sources compared to autopsy and oral inquiry was further developed by Timaeus into a theory which openly challenged the traditional hierarchy. Before looking at some of these passages, it is imperative to say a word or two on Polybius’ own position in this debate. His Histories (and especially Book 12 devoted entirely to criticism of Timaeus) constitute our fullest extant source on the subject of ‘‘inquiry’’ in Greek history. Polybius’ declarations on his own method and frequent polemics against other historians have been the object of much scholarly attention (see, e. g., Pedech 1961, 1964; Sacks 1981; Schepens 1990; Musti 2003; Schepens and Bollansee 2005): they are sufficiently familiar and need not be rehearsed here, except for a few points which help explain why Polybius’ criticism of Timaeus’ ‘‘bookish’’ attitude is so fundamental to him and why this accusation in particular aims at his predecessor’s full disqualification as a historian. Indeed, when Polybius has some occasional positive comment on Timaeus’ competence as a researcher, such ‘‘acknowledgments’’ are but a platform for launching charges. This can be seen, for instance, where Timaeus’ great industry and talent as a meticulous researcher of the king lists at Sparta, the archons at Athens, the priestesses of Hera at Argos, the victors at Olympia, and inscriptions found ‘‘at the back of buildings and lists of proxeni on the doorjambs of temples’’ (12.11.2) is recalled only to accuse Timaeus of having committed deliberate falsehood in his controversy with Aristotle over the origins of the Epize-phyrian Locrians (12.5-16, esp. 11.5 and 12a.6-7; cf. Walbank 2005). By the way, how could Timaeus possibly have conducted his ‘‘autoptic’’ inquiries of these documents if, as Polybius contends elsewhere, he remained ‘‘sitting’’ all the time in Athens (12.25d.1), doing his research ‘‘reclining on a couch’’ in the library (12.27.4-5)?
Polybius’ contemptuous remarks about Timaeus’ reliance on written sources are undoubtedly the most salient - and to readers habituated to the practices of historians today also the most astounding - feature of his strictures. More than any other Greek historian on record, Polybius championed the method of direct inquiry. He prided himself not only on having been an eyewitness of the greater number of the events covered in the final section of his Histories, but also on having taken an active part in some of them and on having directed the course of others (3.4.13). As a consequence, Polybius gradually shifted his position from an external narrator in the earlier parts of this work to the internal narrator of the more recent events (36.12.2-4). In his work, the historiographical topic of autopsy and cross-questioning witnesses is further enriched. Expounding the need and usefulness of topographical knowledge for the study of history, Polybius elaborates a theory of travel (especially at 3.57-59; cf. Zecchini 1991; Schepens 2006a). Following the lead of‘‘predecessors’’ (whom I have tentatively identified as writers of mimetic history), he also emphasizes that the qualities of vivid and expressive representation of the historical narrative, deemed essential to its usefulness for the reader, can only be ensured by authors who have experienced the (kind of) events they narrate or describe (12.25h.5; cf. Schepens 1975b): historians without autopatheia (12.25h.4) fall short of the indispensable requirements of history.
Polybius’ grounds for putting travel, autopsy, and political and military activity before library research were thus many and varied. In his attempts at systematic presentation of those key elements of historical method, akoe invariably ranks last. Polybius’ bipartite and tripartite classifications do not perfectly overlap (Walbank 1972: 71-74). The details of this question need not detain us here (see Schepens 1974, 1975a), but one thing should be noted: an important reason for variation within these classifications can be linked to the double aim with which Polybius discusses these matters. Depending on their place and function within his polemical argument, his rankings are either focused on the question of the ‘‘sources’’ - the ‘‘technical’’ means for gathering information (12.27) - or on the closely related but quite different issue of the fundamental qualifications of the historian that can respectively be derived from travel and actual participation in the events and from reading books (12.25e). To fault Timaeus for failing to collect the major part of his information by means of opsis and interrogation of eyewitnesses was not the strongest possible argument to disqualify a historian whose work was, after all, mainly concerned with past history. Ultimately, for Polybius, the worst offense perpetrated by the Sicilian historian was that he preferred the easier way of inquiry through akoee (in his case the ‘‘reading’’ of books in the library), while simultaneously depriving himself of the proper training and experience ( empeiria) that can only be acquired through travel and personal participation in the events.
Particularly relevant in this connection is the well-known passage opening Polybius’ discussion of Timaeus’ ‘‘life’’ ( bios, 12.25d.1). Using Timaeus’ remark that he had settled down (apokathistemi) in Athens for a period of nearly fifty years, Polybius maliciously interprets this as an admission by Timaeus that he simply remained seated in town, never leaving the city during that long period. Polybius even intimates (12.28.6) that Timaeus, spending all his life in exile ‘‘at one single place,’’ deliberately denied himself the personal experience that can be gained by travel or observation. As Walbank rightly observed, it does not ring true that Timaeus ever made such a statement. Like Thucydides, he may rather have portrayed his exile as some sort of advantage (Marincola 1997: 71), stressing, in conformity with the spirit of the age, the unrivaled opportunities which the Hellenistic libraries afforded for new types of historical research. Indeed, as one can read in this very passage, Timaeus claimed that in Athens, with plenty of books available to him, he was in possession of the most important resources (megistas aphormas) for the writing of history. The idea that books provided the greatest ‘‘starting point’’ for undertaking historical research points to a real paradigm shift. Although significant changes had already taken place within the paradigm before this, the argument that a historian was better off with plenty of books at his disposal than with being an eyewitness was something new. It claimed the superiority of akoe over opsis.
Another clue to the prime attention given to books by Timaeus - disparagingly called ‘‘bookish disposition’’ (bibliake: hexis) by Polybius - is his assertion that the expense and difficulties that he had incurred in gathering the books and information for writing his work were so great as to provoke disbelief in his readers (12.28a.3). In Polybius’ eyes, Timaeus ‘‘usurped’’ a topic that before this was exclusively linked with the tradition of traveling, autopsy, and personal inquiry on the spot (cf. Theopompus 115 T 20 and, for the germ of it, Thuc. 1.22.2-3). Thus working on the basis of written sources became integrated into the motif of the historian’s labors.
A further relevant aspect stressed by Polybius thoughout Book 12 is Timaeus’ habit of harshly criticizing other historians. Polybius attributes this to Timaeus’ quarrelsome character (12.25.6), points to ‘‘his great severity and audacity in accusing others’’ (12.24.5), and concludes that, if Timaeus enjoys a widespread reputation, this is due to the impression he makes as a critic rather than to the qualities of his own account. One of the most original aspects of Timaeus’ critical method is obscured by these accusations (cf. Pedech 1961: 117-118). Rewriting the history of Sicily and the Greek West, Timaeus systematically subjected all extant accounts to critical scrutiny, taking full advantage of the new types of history writing based on so-called ‘‘antiquarian’’ research, for which the Peripatetics had provided the intellectual foundation. Polybius had no affinity at all with this. Generally, he shows a great lack of understanding and know-how when it comes to dealing properly and critically with sources on non-contemporary history (see, e. g., Pol. 6.45; cf. Schepens 2003: 353-356). In Polybius’ view, historians who study the past cannot but compare the errors of their predecessors (12.27.5). He seems to have missed the point that something could be achieved in this field too.
The evolution of historiography we have tried to outline here is, of course, indicative of a larger cultural change: the passage from a predominantly oral to a predominantly written culture. The library centers of the Hellenistic world established a wholly new attitude to written evidence and gave an unprecedented impetus to document-oriented scholarly investigations. Through the introduction of a new method of research, and the concomitant general broadening of its subject matter, the Lyceum played a crucial part in the development of Greek historiography in the Hellenistic period. A decisive moment was the export of the Peripatetic modus operandi to what soon became the cultural and intellectual center of the Mediterranean, the Museion of Alexandria. There the library (another idea borrowed from the Lyceum) quickly became the heart of activity, holding by the mid-third century bce a copy of nearly every Greek literary work composed up to that point in time. From that moment on the written word superseded oral communication as the most authoritative source of information (see Pretagostini 2000: 6). This resulted in a new, document-oriented form of investigation based on the reading, analysis, and excerpting of written sources (Jacob 1996b).
Looking back to Polybius through the eyes of Strabo (2.5.11), who held the view that akoe should not be deprived of its proper relevance because, for the purposes of science, it could accomplish a lot more than ‘‘seeing,’’ I tend to agree with Laffranque (1968: 263-272) who termed Polybius’ disparaging criticism of the ‘‘bookish’’ Timaeus ‘‘reactionary,’’ out of tone with the metamorphosis undergone by Greek historiography in the Hellenistic period. The issue, of course, is not that Polybius is not entitled to have and defend his own views on ‘‘history’’ and ‘‘inquiry,’’ nor that he has no right to point out the weaknesses in the methods of
Others, but rather that he looked at Timaeus’ work through the unjustifiably narrow partition of the methodological principles underlying contemporary political and military history. And even so, he exalted the value and the importance of personal inquiry beyond realistic standards: he himself owed a lot more to written sources than his declarations on method would have us believe.
World History
