spell of the Greek predecessors, constantly emulating them (Momigliano
1990: 106–8).
Posidonius
The rise and dominance of Rome remained central to Greek historians in
this period. Posidonius (c. 135–50 bc) was from Apamea, a Greek city of Syria, but he lived mostly in Rhodes, a cultural center of the times. He is unique among historians for being also a major Stoic philosopher – a student of the famous Panaetius of Rhodes – and a polymath. His works also covered politics, geography, and astronomy. His Histories, now only fragmentary, was a continuation of Polybius’ work of the same title and
covered the period 148–88 bc in fifty‐two volumes, (Edelstein and Kidd
1988–99). To judge from Dionysius, who probably followed him closely,
his perspective on this period seems to involve a negative view of the “pop-ulists,” namely the Gracchi, Marius, and others; he was more favorably inclined toward the elite, for example magistrates who governed well
(Pelling 2007: 251), but he could be nuanced. Like Herodotus, he struc-
tured the narrative by nations (Celts, Germans, Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc.) rather than chronologically and was amenable to philosophical perspectives on people. There are numerous accounts of luxurious living, presumably
designed to censure the weakness of human nature, as Athenaeus records
them in his Philosophers at Dinner (Ath. 4.36–8 = Posidon. frs. 1, 5, 12, 15, 18); yet the preserved accounts may distort our view, since Athenaeus’
is largely interested in luxury. Posidonius reflects on imperial authority
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
241
too, for instance in Fragment 36, on Athenion – the tyrant in Athens who is dismissive of Rome and will suffer for this (Pelling 2007: 251). We can only speculate on how Posidonius’ Stoicism reflected on Rome, perhaps
seeing its power as a boon to the world, in step with nature and reason.
He may also have been prescriptive, pointing out how the dominant
nation needs to exercise rational humanity without being overtly critical.
Arguably not since Thucydides was a historian so focused on human cau-
sation, though of course Posidonius as a Stoic posited an overarching
harmony, in which reason created order and human emotions caused dis-
ruption. Seneca records Posidonius’ belief in a “golden age,” which
reflects his ideal society, governed by “the wise,” who “protected the
weaker from the stronger” and acted beneficently and with providence;
the ruler never “tried his power against those to whom he owed the
beginnings of his power; and no one had the inclination, or the excuse, to do wrong, since the ruler ruled well and the subject obeyed well” (Sen.
Ep. 90, Gummere 1917). When vice and tyrannies arose, Solon and the other seven sages established laws. Posidonius’ history, then, is heavily tempered by a very un‐Thucydidean view that human reason and law can
redeem individuals and that a class of wise rulers can overcome human
weaknesses. Sallust and other Roman historians were attracted to Stoic
ethics, which neatly fits many Roman views on moral excellence ( virtus) and on Rome’s moral slippage after the destruction of Carthage in 146 bc (Earl 1961: 47).
Diodorus Siculus
Diodorus Siculus (fl. 60–30 bc) followed a genre that is now termed
“universal history,” that is, an account of noteworthy events that can go from earliest times to the present and can roam all over the known world.
It was entitled Historical Library, on account of Diodorus’ apparent (and often overstated) reliance on secondary sources and of his intention for the work to replace a whole historical library. He undertook a research on a trip to Egypt about 60–56 bc, before settling in Rome to complete
the Library. The now fragmentary Ephorus and Theopompus were his predecessors, but, happily in Diodorus’ case, we have Books 1–5 and
11–20, ending in 302 bc, and unfortunately nothing about the rise and
later struggles of Rome, which began with the First Punic War in his
Book 23. Books 1–6 cover the period down to the end of the Trojan War;
Egypt is discussed in Book 1 and India in Book 2, from different authors’
accounts. The following sources for this narrative can be conjectured but
242
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
not be known for certain. Ephorus seems to be his main source for the
narrative covering the classical Greek period (Books 11–15); Timaeus for Sicily during 480–288 bc (Books 11–21); Polybius for much of the later
Roman era, 171–146 bc (Books 28–32); and Posidonius for 146–88 bc
(Books 33–8). Cleitarchus may be his source for Alexander (Book 17),
but this is disputed; and Hieronymus for Alexander’s successors (Books
18–20). Books 11–20 are invaluable, as they constitute the only contin-
uous account of the years 480–302 bc.
The independence and the innovativeness of Diodorus’ narratives have
been questioned and the narratives themselves have been called pastiche-like; one scholar opines that “the cardinal fact about Diodorus is that he was a second rate epitomator [ sic] who generally used first‐rate sources”
(Stylianou 1998: 1). And yet Diodorus’ preface shows a serious approach; he has his own views and is not entirely a slave to his sources. He claimed to have traveled widely in Egypt, Asia, and Europe and spent thirty years writing (D.S. 1.4.1). He did put care into the selection and representation of events (Sacks 1990, 1994). Diodorus prized his stories, which he told from start to finish, being overly strict about the chronological
sequence of events in diverse places. He defended his choice while some moderns disparaged it, but in the end his selection shows an earnest concern with “true arrangement” for the sake of revealing the human
character (D.S. 20.43.7; Marincola 2007: 177).
In his preface to Book 1 Diodorus promotes the mainly didactic
function of his history: to teach through the experience of the past.
Historians serve as “ministers of Divine Providence” ( hupourgoi te ̄ s theias pronoias), which “brings together the arrangements of the visible stars and the natures of humans together into one common relation” (D.S.
1.1.3). His philosophy is aligned with Stoic views of Providence governing human and natural affairs. The influence of Posidonius has been seen here, but links go back to Polybius and Herodotus.
Undoubtedly the tumultuous Roman civil strife of the decades prior to
30 bc suggested and shaped the events that Diodorus adopts in his narratives. The progress of empires is one major unifying theme of his work, as it was for Polybius and others before him, but it has a different emphasis –
namely on the idea that the beneficent rule inspires loyalty in subjects and harsh rule leads to the failure of imperial power (Sacks 1994: 216–32). In Diodorus’ narrative of the classical period in Books 11–16, Athens was
described as first moderate to its subjects, then severe – a change that provoked rebellion. Diodorus points up episodes in which a warring state uses unjust or questionable means to an end; and, using Ephorus, he
omits Thucydidean subtleties regarding the use of power. Diodorus
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
243
evidences no nuance (and makes no mention of Diodotus) in the
Mytilenean debate (D.S. 12.55) – speeches that, for pragmatic reasons,
are central to Thucydides’ characterization of a more merciful empire.
His account of the Plataeans, in line with Thucydides’, says that they were slain by the Spartans and “unjustly incurred the greatest misfortunes
because of their very firm alliance with Athens” (D.
S. 12.56). Brasidas convinced the Acanthians to revolt against Athens, “partly terrifying and partly persuading [them] with benevolent arguments” (D.S. 12.67) – a
harsher view of the general than in Thucydides. Subject states suspected that the Spartan–Athenian alliance was made after the Peace of Nicias,
“for the purpose of the enslavement of the other Greeks” (D.S. 12.75).
Athens’ brutal execution of the inhabitants of Scione is held up as an
example of a city ruling over its subjects by fear (D.S. 12.76), a point only glossed over by Thucydides (Th. 5.32) – just as Diodorus barely mentions the slaughter of the Melians (D.S. 12.80), so focal in his predecessor’s narrative. A brief summary of the debate over the Sicilian expedition is offered, highlighting Nicias’ call for restraint of imperial expansion: so long as Athens “cannot obtain hegemony [ he ̄ gemonian] over the Greeks, how could they hope to acquire the largest island in the inhabited world?”
(D.S. 12.83–4). After the Athenian defeat in Sicily, Diodorus includes a (for him) remarkably long debate (D.S. 13.20–32) in direct speech between an otherwise unknown wise man, the old Syracusan Nicolaus, who
advocates moderation in victory (“clemency in success is a unique mark
of the excellence of fortunate men,” D.S. 13.22.6), and the Spartan
Gylippus, whose advice is opposite (“let those who choose an unjust war endure its terrible consequences,” D.S. 13.29.5). The reader sympathizes with the old Nicolaus, who cites religious reasons as well, and thus
Diodorus implicitly recommends contemporary statesmen to show mercy
to the subjects. Thucydides, on the other hand, completely omits this
debate (and its point), since it is alien to his depiction of Athens’ tragic sufferings (Th. 7.86). In effect Diodorus’ debate, which points up Spartan harshness, is the counterpoint to Thucydides’ Mytilenean debate and
Melian dialogue, which critique Athenian harshness. Diodorus’
Peloponnesian War contrasts sharply with that of Thucydides: both fore-
ground power struggles, but Diodorus (following Ephorus?) seems more
focused on Spartan than on Athenian imperialism, uses speeches only
exceptionally, to highlight motives, and moves more evenly among the
different states involved in the war. Sparta followed a similar course of good will, then harshness, during and after the Peloponnesian War (Sacks 1994: 216–17; 1990: 42–54). He moralizes through critiques of the
regime of the Thirty imposed on Athens by Sparta and of Sparta’s brutal
244
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
politics later on; he assesses character in its individual and collective manifestations; and he considers rulers’ goodwill to subject states and public benefactions among citizens as the keys to human progress
(Marincola 2007: 178).
That Diodorus directly applied to Rome his rule of the restrained use
of power can be seen in the fragment at the beginning of Book 32, which covers Roman actions in 150–145 bc:
Those whose object is to gain dominion [ he ̄ gemonias] over others use courage and intelligence to get it, moderation and consideration for others to extend it widely, and paralyzing terror to secure it against attack. The proofs of these propositions are to be found in attentive consideration of the history of such empires [ dunasteias] as were created in ancient times as well as of the Roman domination that succeeded them. (D.S. 32 fr. 2,
Walton, 1982)
This proem does not praise Roman power by comparison with that of
other empires, as Polybius had done earlier and Dionysius and Appian
will do later. There may be implicit criticism of, or at least a caution to, Roman rulers through his silence. Diodorus later relates the debate over the fate of Carthage, Cato advocating destruction and Scipio Nasica
warning that this will result in Rome’s becoming more imperialistically acquisitive – and to its detriment (Books 34–35.33). Thereafter the
Italian Social Wars mark the beginning of uncontrolled conduct, license, and luxury – conditions that continue to the time of Diodorus (Sacks
1994: 218). The prologue to Book 32 continues with an unflattering
description of Roman colonization through terrorism:
Because of their surpassing humanity, therefore, kings, cities, and whole nations went over to the Roman leadership [ he ̄ gemonian]. But once they held power [ arche ̄ n] over nearly the whole inhabited world, they confirmed their rule by fear [ phobōi] and by the destruction of the most outstanding cities. (D.S. 34.4.5)
Near the end of his work Diodorus endorses Pompey’s benevolent rule of
Sicily (38–39.20) and shows high regard for Caesar, but mentions
Octavian only once (namely his retaliation against Tauromenium in Sicily, 16.7.1; see Green 2006: 237–41). And so his political position was fragile.
Diodorus’ paradigm for the decline of power is unlike those of others
in that he does not, like Thucydides, cite internal corruption and imperial overreach as main concerns. He posits rather a “ruler–subject paradigm,”
arguing that fair and kind treatment of subject states leads to the retention
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
245
of power: not a surprising a theory, considering that it comes from an
“outsider” Sicilian with an anxious relation to Rome (Sacks 1994: 220).
This is ultimately for Diodorus also a philosophical position where power is dictated by a Stoic notion of a transcendent Providence that ultimately works in harmony with the good and handicaps the foolish.
Greek Historians of the Imperial Period
Over the first two centuries of the Roman empire a series of significant authors appear, all in the Eastern Mediterranean and all consorting with the highest ranks of the Roman elite, often honored by the emperor. The critique of the contemporary regime is absent, muted, or obliquely present in “lessons” of power gleaned from earlier states and leaders.
An early figure of note is Nicolaus of Damascus (c. 64 bc–before ad 6), a Peripatetic polymath and admirer of Aristotle, who first served as tutor to the children of Antony and Cleopatra, then went to Herod the Great’s court, intervening for Herod with Augustus in 7 bc, working with Herod
until the king’s death (14–4 bc), and finally moving to Rome where,
favored by Augustus, he helped Herod’s son come to the throne. Herod
first encouraged Nicolaus to write history, saying that “it was most politic and useful, especially for a king, to investigate the deeds and actions of kings before him” (Nic.Dam. fr. 3). His massive Histories, extant only in fragments, is a universal history in 144 books starting with early Assyria and covering world history down to 4 bc, the most ambitious such work
since that of Ephorus. Books 1–7, from which more extensive fragments
are preserved, deal with the Near East and early Greece. From Books
8–144 smaller fragments survive (the last book deals with events of 4 bc), but Books 123–4, on Herod the Great, are the main source for Josephus’
Jewish Antiquities 14–17 and are based on Nicolaus’ personal experiences and on the king’s memoirs. Nicolaus also wrote a panegyrical Life of Augustus from which we have mainly descriptions of Octavian (named
“Augustus” after 27 bc) as a boy, of Caesar’s assassination, and of some of the conflict between Octavian and Antony (Spoerri 1979). No author
has ever been closer to the source of power, and it is unfortunate that we lack his work for the latest period of his life in Rome. Nicolaus’ successful career was in a sense a model for later authors, who were anchored in
scholarship of the Eastern empire and safely in step with imperial affairs reflected in their texts. We can only speculate whether, in his biography of Augustus, the historian emulated the historians of Alexander and sought to put the emperor i
nto a similar historical orbit (Bellemore 1984).
246
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
A kind of Hellenomania spread in Italy in the late republic and continued into the empire, a trend in which it was highly fashionable for the Roman elite to be educated in Greek culture, especially literature and the arts.
“Captured Greece captured her wild conqueror and brought the arts to
rustic Latium” (Hor. Epist. 2.1.156–7): this poetic truism epitomized decades of emulation in architecture, visual arts, and literature, certainly including historical writing. On the heels of Diodorus, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus arrived in Rome right after Actium (31 bc), when Octavian had secured power (D.H. 1.7). Twenty‐two years later, about 8 bc, he
published his great history, Roman Antiquities, in twenty books, of which the first eleven are preserved, but the rest are fragmentary (Mehl 2011: 114–16). Herodotus’ compatriot was obviously a bookish scholar
claiming an exhaustive and meticulous reading of Greek and Latin
authors, steeped in rhetorical studies, and friend to many other intellectuals of the city (D.H. 1.7; Schultze 2000: 19–30, §§ 3–5; Laird 2009).
He published an important treatise, On Thucydides, which is replete with observations on style and syntax and put the Athenian historian in the
stream of tradition as then understood (Pritchett 1975). It also judges Thucydides inferior to Herodotus in chronology, in the organization of
narrative, and in aiming at an audience too small and elitist (Gabba 1991: 65–9). The author offers an extensive critique of Thucydides’ Melian dialogue and its appeal to a law of human nature, namely rule by the stronger (Th. 5.105). Dionysius says that the meaning of these words is “difficult to guess” (D.H. Th. 40), that such harsh words are unfitting for Greeks to speak to one another and not in line with Athenian character otherwise, and that Thucydides has distorted the facts out of bitterness, during his exile (D.H. Th. 37–41). Dionysius then shows greater concern for what is “fitting” rhetorically than for what may be true politically (Fox 1993: 37–8), and in his great history he affirms that the strongest do
Greek Historiography Page 39
