But, for Theopompus, Philip was not just another leader; he represented a crucial opportunity for Greek unity, in the end unrealized: “At the
outset of his history of Philip, son of Amyntas, Theopompus states that
182
HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians
what chiefly induced him to undertake this work was that Europe had
never produced such a man before as this Philip” (F 27). But, Polybius
continues, the confidence is misplaced:
and yet immediately afterwards in his preface and throughout the book
[Theopompus] shows him to have been first so incontinent about women,
that as far as in him lay he ruined his own home by his passionate and osten-tatious addiction to this kind of thing; next a most wicked and mischievous man in his schemes for forming friendships and alliances; thirdly, one who had enslaved and betrayed a large number of cities by force or fraud; and lastly, one so addicted to strong drink that he was frequently seen by his friends manifestly drunk in broad daylight. (Plb. 8.11.1–4 = FGrHist 115
F 27, Paton)
A description of the licentiousness at Philip’s court, again in a Polybian rant, shows the sparkle of Theopompus’ prose:
Anyone who chooses to read the beginning of his forty‐ninth Book will be amazed at the extravagance of this writer. Apart from other things, he has ventured to write as follows. I set down the passage in his own words:
“Philip’s court in Macedonia was the gathering‐place of all the most
debauched and brazen‐faced characters in Greece or abroad, who were
there styled the king’s companions. For Philip in general showed no favour to men of good repute who were careful of their property, but those he
honoured and promoted were spendthrifts who passed their time drinking
and gambling. In consequence he not only encouraged them in their vices, but made them past masters in every kind of wickedness and lewdness. Was there anything indeed disgraceful and shocking that they did not practise, and was there anything good and creditable that they did not leave undone?
Some of them used to shave their bodies and make them smooth although
they were men, and others actually practised lewdness with each other
though bearded. While carrying about two or three minions with them
they served others in the same capacity, so that we would be justified in calling them not courtiers but courtesans and not soldiers but strumpets.
For being by nature man‐slayers they became by their practices man‐
whores. In a word,” he continues, “not to be prolix, and especially as I am beset by such a deluge of other matters, my opinion is that those who were called Philip’s friends and companions were worse brutes and of a more
beastly disposition than the Centaurs who established themselves on Pelion, or those Laestrygones who dwelt in the plain of Leontini, or any other
monsters.” (Plb. 8.11.5–13, Paton)
Yet the criticism of Theopompus shows Polybius’ own moralizing bias and does not allow us to see the context of the comment. The mentioning of
HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians
183
debauchery at court perhaps illustrates a balance in the “warts‐and‐all”
depiction of the powerful figure, tempered by descriptions of military and political successes less prominently preserved. Theopompus had perhaps
pinned his hopes on Philip, who then let him down. If Phillip was in the end successful, this was perhaps because “he was lucky in every way”
( FGrHist 115 F 237a).
G. Shrimpton, scrutinizing the fragments, concludes that Theopompus
in the end sympathized with Demosthenes’ advocacy of Greek resis-
tance to Philip’s hegemony (Shrimpton 1991: 156–80). When everyone
else failed to speak, Demosthenes alone addressed the Thebans,
rousing them and lifting them up in other ways, as he was accustomed to do, the ambassador with others sent off the people with hope to Thebes …
the power [ dunamis] of the orator [Demosthenes] roused [the Thebans’]
spirit [ thumon], as Theopompus says, renewed their ambition [ philotim-ian], and threw all others into the shadows, in order that they themselves in their enthusiasm cast aside fear [ phobon], calculation, and gratitude [ cha-rin]. ( FGrHist 115 F 238)
The fragment not only honors Demosthenes’ role, it keenly shows the
historian’s concern with psychological motivation: rhetoric is used as a force ( dunamis), as effective as other types of power; it deploys hope and dispels fear, calculation (of risks – not necessarily a wise move), and favor (past ties with the enemy). This is as smart a situational analysis of deep motives as one finds in this historian.
The sophisticated ethnic characterizations of Spartans and Athenians
seen in Thucydides (notably at Th. 1.70) are not found in these fragments.
The Athenians were the main center of opposition to Philip in Southern
Greece and, in Theopompus’ view (as some argue today), he succeeded
in defeating them, since they were weak, bluntly described thus: “Athens was full of shyster actors, sailors, and pickpockets, also false witnesses, swindlers, and false accusers” ( FGrHist 115 F 281; Shrimpton 1991; Connor 1968). Athens’ hope for a future was lost after the battle of
Aegospotami: “the chief ill for them when the Athenians lost their ships and their future hopes [ tas hexe ̄ s elpidas]” ( FGrHist 115 F5).
W. R. Connor has more extremely pronounced the Philippica a “history without heroes,” in which all actors are criticized (Connor 1963:
107–14; Connor 1967: 133–54; cf. Connor 1968). Cicero knows no
historian more bitter than Theopompus ( FGrHist 115 T 40). And
Plutarch finds his praise more credible, since it is so rare while blame is so pervasive (F 333). Though our conclusions must remain tentative,
184
HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians
Theopompus seems to be the bleakest of historians, perhaps the most
pessimistic – that is to say, the one who sees most value in negative
criticism without any outstanding positive exempla. This does not mean
that readers cannot extract useful didactic lessons for themselves: the critique of values always implies a positive alternative to which we should aspire.
The fifty‐eight books of the Philippica range, in universalist fashion, across all contemporaneous events – culture, ethnography, and religion –
and include digressions on Persian history from 394 to 344 bc (eight
books!), Asia Minor (four books), Sicilian history (three books), Spain and Italy (two books), earlier Athenian history, regional rhetoricians, tyrants, and religion (Marincola 2007: 174–5; Shrimpton 1991: 59–63).
Theopompus shares the interest of Herodotus and Thucydides in moral
issues and is drawn to the importance of the character of the individual in history. But, so far as we can tell, he lacks a sense of divine fortune or of human virtue or reason that can, in the end, balance suffering with success, weakness and ignominy with fame and power.
Michael Flower has discussed Theopompus’ “psychological method,”
for which he points first to Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ comments:
[Theopompus’ crowning and most characteristic quality] is the gift not
only of seeing and stating in each case what is obvious to the multitude, but of examining the hidden motives [ aphaneis aitias] of actions and actors and the feelings [ pathe ̄] of the soul (things not easily discerned by the crowd), and laying bare all the mysteries of seeming virtue [ dokouse ̄ s arete ̄ s] and unrecognized vice … he was thought malicious on the ground that, where
reproaches against distinguished persons are necessary, he added unnecessary details; while in truth
he acted like surgeons who cut and cauterize the morbid parts of the system … yet in no way assailing the healthy and normal organs. (D.H. Pomp. 6 = FGrHist 115 T 20a, 7–8, Roberts, adapted) The penchant for deep insight into motives and feelings of the soul is not so much an inheritance from Isocrates, but more closely reflects the influences of Herodotus and Thucydides (Flower 1994: 169–83). We may
add that Dionysius’ mention of “unseen motives” and deep “feelings”
especially recall Thucydides’ programmatic statement about the suffer-
ings in and causes of the war that was his subject (Th. 1.23). The sharp difference is that Thucydides chose a more homogeneous topic, which
was amenable to a more coherent diagnosis of the age and of its dominant states (Athens and Sparta). From what we can discern, Theopompus’
insights seem more attached to individuals, more ad hominem, and focused in piecemeal fashion on each actor, who is thus placed in the
HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians
185
spotlight. In addition, Theopompus seems uniformly negative in the extant fragments, always bemoaning the vices of the mighty but seldom offering constructive models of virtue, though caution makes us note that Dionysius includes “the mysteries of seeming virtue.” Flower lists lack of self‐control ( akrasia), greed, and personal ambition ( philotimia) as the chief targets of Theopompus’ narrative (see also Shrimpton 1991: 127–56).
Theopompus’ less systematic views on lack of control complement (and
may reflect familiarity with?) those of Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics (Book 7, chs 1–10), where this vice relates primarily to lack of restraint in appetites but the term akrasia can also apply to the inability to control anger or ambition; toughness or restraint ( karteria) is its opposite. An individual may embody both qualities in different situations or at different times – like the Athenian Callistratus, who is called “in pleasure uncontrolled, but diligent in political business” ( FGrHist 115 F 97). Alcibiades is praised for his military prowess (F 288), but famously had a wilder private side. The (rare) “Theopompan moral man” is best distilled from remarks
about Lysander (F 20 and F 333): he is hard‐working, able to cultivate
both private citizens and kings, moderate ( so ̄ phro ̄ n), and above all pleasures; such a man still resists license in sex and drinking (Shrimpton 1991: 142).
The interest in a politics of power for states with different constitutions and in leaders who direct the people and the military is highly prominent in Thucydides and also present in Herodotus and Xenophon (and, later, in
Polybius). It seems absent from Theopompus, where the success of hege-
mony is measured rather by the character and values of individual actors.
Theopompus overlaps with his predecessors in appreciating the real force of greed and acquisitiveness, but that force is evident more in personal gain and indulgence than in moral or strategic overreach to benefit the state.
The ability of reason, intelligence, and stalwart courage to inspire a people is also apparently missing. F. Pownall notes:
Theopompus is interested in the link between imperialism and corruption, of which Phillip represented the culmination, although parallels could be found in the fifth‐ and fourth‐century Athenian demagogues and Sicilian tyrants, which is the device that anchors the historical digressions to the treatment of Phillip himself (Pownall 2004: 174).
Unlike Thucydides, for whom empire arose from a natural human
impulse, Theopompus seems to tie it to the shortcomings of specific
leaders. Perhaps Theopompus’ pervasive cynicism arose from his early
exile and his disillusion in the corridors of Macedonian power (Meister 1990: 395–7).
186
HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians
Conclusions
Most of the fourth‐century historians discussed here, especially Ephorus and Theopompus, would probably have agreed with Heraclitus’ dictum
that “a man’s character is his personal destiny” ( e ̄ thos anthro ̄ po ̄ i daimo ̄ n, Heraclit. Fr. 119 DK), which arguably means that one cannot, like heroes in Homer, blame one’s own fate on an externally and capriciously imposed destiny (Heraclit. Fr. 247 KRS, 181–212). The pegging of responsibility on one’s fate, at least to a degree, and on a person’s typical behavior is not therefore novel in the classical period, but continues in Greek thought.
The search for truth also links all the historians of this period, and there is a variation only in the extent to which each writer chooses to posit the motives of individual leaders. Each author engages his contemporaries in finding the truer explanation for events of the past through explanations that are less reliant on the grander political views of state character that had been expressed by Thucydides but that did continue other aspects of his causality (Schepens 1977: 118). The Oxyrhynchus historian seems a
closer successor to Thucydides than was Xenophon in his attention to
detail and in his apparent impartiality, with close tracking of the political infighting in Athens. Local historians of Attica gained prominence in this century and continued for some time after, underlining the continued
Greek interest in the “big picture” of the rise of Athens since its legendary kings. Among these historians, Androtion and Philochorus enjoyed a
particularly strong reception from later chroniclers of the polis. Finally, the most influential figures of this period, Ephorus and Theopompus,
were both widely quoted in antiquity, Ephorus being especially followed by Diodorus Siculus, and Theopompus by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
Bibliography
Bleckmann, B. 2006. Fiktion als Geschichte: Neue Studien zum Author der Hellenika Oxyrhynchia und zur Historiographie des vierten vorchris-tilchen Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bruce, I. A. F. 1967. An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica
Oxyrhynchia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cancik, H. and H. Schneider, eds. 2002–. Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill (= New Pauly).
Chambers, M. 1993. Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Connor, W. R. 1963. “Theopompus’ Treatment of Cimon.” Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies 4: 107–14.
HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians
187
Connor, W. R. 1967. “History without Heroes: Theopompus’ Treatment
of Philip of Macedon.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 8:
133–54.
Connor, W. R. 1968. Theopompus and Fifth‐Century Athens. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dewald, C. and J. Marincola. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to
Herodotus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flower, M. A. 1994. Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century bc. Oxford and New York: Clarendon/Oxford
University Press.
Fornara, C. 1983. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gentili, B. and G. Cerri. 1975. Le teorie del discorso storico nel penserio Greco e la storiografia romana arcaica. Rome: Ateneo.
Grant, M. 1970. The Ancient Historians. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Gray, V. 1987. “Mimesis in Greek Historical Theory.” American Journal of Philology 108(3): 467–86.
Grene, D. 1965. Greek Political Theory: The Image of Man in Plato
and Thucydides. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Halliwell, S., trans. 1987. The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Harding, P. 1994. Androtion and the Atthis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harding, P. 2007. “Local History and Atthidography.” In Marincola,
ed., 180–8.
Howland, J. 2000. “Xenopho
n’s Philosophic Odyssey: On the Anabasis
and Plato’s Republic.” American Political Science Review 94: 875–89.
Inwood, B. 1985. Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism. Oxford: Clarendon.
Irwin, T. 1989. Classical Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacoby, F. 1949. Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, eds. and trans. 1983.
The Presocratic Philosophers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (= KRS).
Liddell, P. and A. Fear, eds. 2010. Historiae mundi: Studies in Universal History. London: Duckworth.
Marincola, J. 1997. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
188
HistoRy and RHetoRiC in FouRtH‐CentuRy HistoRians
Marincola, J. 2001. Greek Historians. (Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics 31.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marincola, J. 2003. “Beyond Pity and Fear: The Emotions of History.”
Ancient Society 33: 285–315.
Marincola, J., ed. 2007. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Marincola, J., trans. 2009. Selected fragments of the Hellenica
Oxyrhynchia. In R. B. Strassler, ed., The Landmark Xenophon’s Hellenica, 495–506. New York: Pantheon.
McInerney, J. 1994. “Politicizing the Past: The Atthis of Kleidemos.”
Classical Antiquity 13: 17–37.
McKechnie, P. R. and S. J. Kern. 1988. Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips.
Meister, K. 1990. Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Meister, K. 2004. S.v. “Ephorus.” In New Pauly, vol. 4, 1035.
Momigliano, A. 1978. “Greek Historiography.” History & Theory 17: 1–28.
Greek Historiography Page 30
