Theopompus was born around 378/7 on Chios, and as a young man was exiled with his father Damasistratos for pro-Spartan leanings. to the intercession of Alexander the Great, he returned to Chios in 333/2 at the age of 45, but he was exiled a second time after Alexander’s death, and came eventually to Ptolemy’s court. He died soon after 320. Theopompus himself says (FGrHist 115 F 25) that ‘‘there was no important public space or eminent city of the Greeks that he did not visit’’ and everywhere he left behind ‘‘great fame and the memory of his literary excellence.’’ He claimed to have written more than 20,000 lines of epideictic speeches and 150,000 lines in which he treated ‘‘the deeds of Greeks and barbarians down to his own day’’ - the latter surely a reference to his historical works.
Those works began probably with an epitome of Herodotus, then a Hellenica (twelve books, continuing Thucydides to 394), finishing with his greatest achievement, the Philippica, so-called because of Philip of Macedon, the dominant figure of his age: ‘‘Europe,’’ Theopompus claimed in the preface (F 27), ‘‘had never before produced such a man as Philip.’’ Such an individual-centered history had important consequences for later writers (Fornara 1983: 34), but Theopompus also has a claim to be considered a ‘‘universal’’ historian: he wrote, after all, ‘‘the deeds of Greeks and barbarians,’’ and did not limit himself to Philip or Macedon, but rather ranged far afield, including periods and places that had nothing to do with Philip. His excursuses included treatments of Persian history from ca. 394-344 (eight books), Asia Minor (four books), Sicilian history (three books), and Spain and Italy (two books), not to mention one on earlier Athenian history (for the arrangement of Theopompus’ history see Pedech 1989: 73-206; Shrimpton 1991: 59-94). In Book 8 he devoted an entire section to marvelous occurrences (Thaumasia), which he introduced with the provocative claim that ‘‘he would narrate myths better than Herodotus, Ctesias, Hellanicus and the writers on India’’ (F 381) - but the very self-consciousness suggests that he did not take these stories seriously. Dionysius must be referring to this range when he says (Pomp. 6) that Theopompus ‘‘treated settlements of nations and foundings of cities, lives of kings and peculiarities of customs, and his work embraced whatever was marvellous or unusual in every land and sea.’’ It is not, therefore, unreasonable to see Theopompus’ history in some ways as a contemporary universal history, a kind of predecessor for Polybius’ history, with the histories of various lands united not by Rome but by Philip (Bruce 1970: 108-109; Meister 1990: 91; Vattuone 1998: 78-84; contra, Flower 1994: 154-160) - even if the organization was looser and Polybius was to chastise him for centering his history around an individual (8.11.3-8).
As the author of a contemporary history, Theopompus engaged in the travels necessary to see sites and interview participants. Dionysius (Pomp. 6) says that ‘‘he was an eyewitness of many events and he met with many of the leading men of his day, generals, popular leaders, and philosophers’’ - and with kings, of course, since he spent time at Philip’s court as well (T 7). Such close contact, however, did not lead Theopompus to flatter the subjects of his history - quite the contrary. His reputation in antiquity, borne out by the verbatim fragments that survive, was of a man scathing in his criticism of contemporaries (and non-contemporaries, as well), finding fault with his age for its physical and moral degeneracy. Unlike Ephorus, who seems to have shown both good and bad models of behavior, Theopompus focused relentlessly on what was corrupt and degenerate. His was a ‘‘history without heroes’’ (Connor 1967), treating even Philip to the same sort of criticism leveled against others. Democracies fared no better: Theopompus attacked the demagogues of Athens in a special digression which reached back to the earliest Athenian leaders (FF 85-100), and he called into question Athens’ claims to greatness at the time of the Persian Wars (F 153 with Connor 1968: 78-89). For only a few men - the Spartans Lysander, Agesilaus, and Pedaritus - did he have words of praise: no wonder Plutarch says (Lys. that Theopompus is more reliable when he praises than when he censures!
His style, some examples ofwhich are preserved (e. g., FF 162, 213, 263, 291), was lively, at times even bombastic, but we should beware of assuming that it was consistently so. It is more likely that his general narrative style was rather evenly paced (Duris even complained that his work lacked effective imitation [mimesis] and pleasure [hedone]: FGrHist 76 F 1, with Gray 1987), and that at certain crucial moments, where outrage was demanded, he raised the tone to effect his point (cf. D. Hal. Pomp. 6: ‘‘in some passages, when he gives free play to his emotions’’ - which suggests the occasional heightening).
Theopompus was much read in antiquity. Pompeius Trogus modeled his own history on him, and Dionysius valued him greatly. Polybius, however, criticized his battle descriptions and his excessively negative disposition (TT 19, 32), and Plutarch found fault with his overly rhetorical speeches (T 33). He was also taken to task for his censoriousness and bitter tone, which to some seemed more fitting to a prosecutor than a historian (T 25a). In the modern world his political and moral outlook have been very differently evaluated. He has been seen as everything from an intent Panhellenist (Bury 1908: 165) to a disengaged Cynic (Murray 1946). Yet Theopom-pus and his Philippica seem to defy categorization - perhaps exactly as he intended. Although not a universal historian in the strict sense, he shares with Ephorus (and indeed Herodotus) a catholic interest in men and mores, in lands and cultures, and in the relationship between character and achievement (see Flower 1994: 160-165 for Herodotus’ influence).
World History
