o-q
Cop,right :qq; I. \. \albank
REVIE\DISCLSSION
]ohn Marincola: Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography.
Cambriogc: Lnivcrsit, Frcss, :qq;. Fp. xvi6:. ISBN o .: 8o:q
:. .
:.
In an appraisal of Arnaloo Momiglianos Contributi, publishco in his collcc-
tion of cssa,s The Use and Abuse of History,
:
Moscs Iinlc, singlco out a rccur-
rcnt thcmc: \h, oo historians vritc historics in thc va, thc, oo? Hc thcn
vcnt on to obscrvc that in tr,ing to ansvcr this qucstion thc rcaocr can cx-
pcct littlc hclp from ancicnt manualsnot to mcntion thc massivc silcncc
of Aristotlc on thc subjcct. It has somctimcs, but vrongl,, bccn arguco that
a rcmark put into thc mouth of M. Antonius in Ciccros De oratore ,ii.6., im-
plics that thcrc vcrc no Grcck trcatiscs on thc thcor, of histor,, but vhat
Ciccro is sa,ing hcrc is simpl, that in rhctorical hanobooks histor, is no-
vhcrc trcatco scparatcl, from thc gcncral prcccpts of thc ars ,ncquc cam
rcpcrio usquam scparatim instructam rhctorum pracccptis,. 1hcrc vcrc
ccrtainl, Grcck trcatiscs Peri historiasthosc, for cxamplc, of 1hcophrastus,
Fraxiphancs ano latcr Caccilius of Calcactc ano 1hcooorus of Gaoara. But
all arc lost ano thcir contcnts unknovn. 1ruc, vc posscss thc short, somc-
vhat supcrficial vork of Lucian, How must one write history?, vhich H.
Homc,cr
.
classifico as a sort of oiatribc, but, though it harol, ocscrvcs
Iinlc,s harsh conocmnation as a shallov ano csscntiall, vorthlcss pot-
boilcr,
Cf. I. \. \albank, Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman Historiography ,:q8,, .o.
6
Tacitus ,:q8, i.:8.
;
ap. Scxt. Emp. Math. i..6-.
Review of Marincola, Authority and Tradition .
vioc rcfcrcncc, sincc, bcsiocs its obvious mcaning, M. takcs it to involvc cx-
pcricncc, cffort ano fair-minoconcss. Hcrc hc pin-points a oistinction bc-
tvccn Grcck ano Roman historians. 1hc formcr might quotc cxpcricncc ,of
various kinos, ano cstablishco rank as cviocncc for thcir status as rcscarch-
crs, i.c. thcir claim to accurac, ,as vc might sa,, as scholars. No Grcck his-
torian bcforc thc pcrioo of thc Roman cmpirc quotcs social status as, in it-
sclf, a qualification for an author. 1hat is a Roman traoition ano for it M.
assigns a crucial rolc to Cato as thc historian vho allcgco auctoritas as an im-
portant ,though not of coursc thc onl,, valioation of a vritcrs compctcncc.
Such a claim, hc asscrts, voulo havc bccn incomprchcnsiblc to his Grcck
contcmporarics. 1hat is inocco possiblc. But hcrc, as clscvhcrc, M. sccms to
bc trcating a possibilit, as a virtual ccrtaint,. In fact his casc rcsts on an ar-
gumentum ex silentio ano is not vatcr-tight.
1hc cviocncc for this is Fol,b. iii.q.:. Hcrc thc Grcck historian, vriting
primaril, for a Grcck public, asscrts that thc fact that Iabius Fictor vas a
scnator ,as vcll as a contcmporar, of thc Hannibalic \ar, has lco somc
pcoplc to rcgaro him as vholl, trustvorth,.
8
Clcarl, that statcmcnt cannot
havc bccn mcaninglcss to Fol,biuss rcaocrs. Hcncc thcrc is no rcason to as-
sumc that Iabius, though also vriting in Grcck ano for a primaril, Grcck
public, coulo not himsclf havc rcfcrrco to his rank as a rcason for confiocncc
in his rcliabilit,. Hc vas a Roman ano his vork hao also a pronouncco
Roman charactcr.
q
Onc cannot, thcrcforc, I suggcst, rulc out at lcast thc
possibilit, that Cato ma, havc bccn anticipatco in his claim to valioation
through status. Onc shoulo not pcrhaps bc too surc about vhat vas, or vas
not, incomprchcnsiblc to Grccks.
In an, casc, hovcvcr, thc situation changco unocr thc cmpirc, vhcn
Grcck historians frcqucntl, appcal to thcir dignitas as a mcans of sclf-
valioation. Arrian ,i.:.., oiscusscs this in his sccono prcfacc, it is, hc sa,s, a
Roman convcntion, vhich hc chooscs to rcgaro as irrclcvant to his ovn
vork. Appian ,praef. :.6.,, b, contrast, quotcs his officcs prouol,. It is gcn-
crall, assumco that thc tvo passagcs havc somc conncction. Lsuall, Arrian
is oatco first, vhich voulo mcan that hc cannot hcrc bc rcpl,ing to Ap-
pian.
:o
But ncithcr hcrc nor in an carlicr articlc
::
oocs M. comc out clcarl,
on this qucstion of priorit,. On p. :6 hc argucs convincingl, that Appian is
8
Fol,bius uscs tvo voros about Iabius Fictor, ano . 1hc formcr vill
mcan rcliabilit,, trustvorthincss ano thc lattcr his rcputc ,not, as Schvcighacuscr,
thc titlc of his book,. 1hc , hovcvcr, is basco on his bcing a scnator as vcll as a
contcmporar, ano his rcputc must comc primaril, from his rank.
q
Scc I. \. \albank, op. cit. ,n., q-8 CQ q ,:q, :-:8.
:o
Cf. ]. Molcs, JHS :o ,:q8, :68.
::
JHS :oq ,:q8q, :86-q.
.6 F. W. Walbank
using his officcs as an inoication of social status, but thcn spcaks ambigu-
ousl, of Arrians cchocs with Appianlcaving opcn vho vas cchoing
vhom. It sccms clcar that Arrian vas attacking thc Roman convcntionbut
not ncccssaril, in thc pcrson of Appian
Othcr aspccts of vhat M. rcfcrs to as charactcr arc cffort ano imparti-
alit,. 1hc formcr can incluoc both thc prcliminar, invcstigations ,rcscarch,
travcl ctc., ano also thc actual burocn of vriting, latcr historians, inocco,
took to listing thc numbcr of ,cars so spcnt. \riting vas burocnsomc not
onl, bccausc of thc timc it took, but also through thc ncco to achicvc thc
appropriatc lcvcl of vivioncss. Ano hcrc I havc somc oifficult, vith M.s
translation of Sallust, Cat. .. on p. :.: inprimis arouum uioctur rcs gcstas
scribcrc: primum, quoo facta oictis cxacquanoa sunt. 1his M. translatcs:
bccausc thc occos must bc maoc cqual vith thc voros. Ernout has: son
rccit ooit ctrc a la hautcur ocs faits, vhich sccms to impl,: thc occos must
bc cquallco b, thc ocscription of thcm. 1his I takc to bc corrcct, but thc
oppositc of M.s vcrsion. I voulo translatc: thc occos must bc cquallco b,
thc voros, i.c. thc voros must match thc occos.
On impartialit, M. has somc intcrcsting ano original commcnts. Ior
ancicnt historians, hc obscrvcs, thc oppositc of truc is biasco, ano bias is
sccn as spccificall, occasionco b, favours or injusticcs ,past or anticipatco,.
Evcn patriotic bias is linkco vith vhat oncs patria givcs onc. 1hc first rc-
coroco claim to impartialit, occurs in Fol,bius ,xii..:-, oiscussing
Epizcph,rian Locri,, an cxamplc appcars latcr in Sallusts Catiline ano thc
thcmc bccomcs incrcasingl, common as an accompanimcnt to thc Roman
claim to valioit, from dignitas ,sincc such a claim implics thc oangcr of bias,.
M. finos no cviocncc for a claim to impartialit, in carlicr historians such as
Ctcsias or 1hcopompus, but hcrc again vc shoulo rcmcmbcr thc oangcrs of
thc argumentum ex silentio.
.
Chaptcr four oiscusscs a spccial problcm, that of thc historian as himsclf a
participant in thc cvcnts hc is ocscribing. Obviousl, this can onl, arisc in
contcmporar, histor,. Hov shoulo thc historian prcscnt himsclf so as to
avoio reprehensio ,thc oangcr of vhich is so apparcnt to Ciccro in his lcttcr to
Lucccius,? M. obscrvcs that thc qucstion of vhcthcr onc shoulo usc thc first
or thiro pcrson is not a vcr, important issuc. Ncvcrthclcss hc fccls it ncccs-
sar, to oiscuss it at somc lcngth ano hc notcs, significantl,, that 1huc,oiocs
uscs thc first pcrson for an,thing affccting thc historians vork ,ano rcscarch
oonc for it, ano thc thiro pcrson for formal opcnings or vhcn hc appcars as
a participating charactcr.
1hc casc of Fol,bius is intcrcsting ano hcrc M. has a ncv point to makc.
Lp to book xxxvi Fol,bius follovs thc 1huc,oiocan norm ,thiro pcrson as a
Review of Marincola, Authority and Tradition .;
participant, first pcrson vhcn commcnting as a historian,. But at xxxvi.::-:.
thcrc is a changc. In thc mioolc of this passagc, vhich ocscribcs hov Fol,-
bius vas summonco to Lil,bacum b, thc consul, hc suoocnl, svitchcs to thc
first pcrson, ano in xxxvi.:. hc commcnts on his proccourc. M. points out
,as Fol,bius oocs not, that this is an innovation ano hc links it convincingl,
vith thc morc pcrsonal rolc ,ano st,lc, of thc author in books xxxv-xxxix ,xl
is a kino of inocx,. 1his fits in vcr, vcll vith m, ovn vicvs on Fol,bius last
books,
:.
but vhcrcas I oiscussco thc changc in thcsc books partl, in tcrms of
Fol,bius ovn situation ano partl, as thc solution of thc problcm hov to in-
corporatc matcrial from :68 to :6 vithin a univcrsal histor,, M. oiscusscs it
as a changc from a histor,-st,lc to a mcmoirs-st,lc vork. 1hcrc is no con-
traoiction bctvccn thc tvo approachcs, on thc contrar,, M. has maoc a
valuablc aooitional point, for Fol,bius ma, vcll havc thought about thc
composition of his aooitional books in thosc tcrms. In making thc changc,
vas hc, M. asks, thinking of Aratus Hypomnemata or of Roman Commentarii?
1hc lattcr sccms to mc unlikcl,, for thc first commentarii de vita sua vcrc ,as far
as vc knov, thosc of Acmilius Scaurus, vrittcn aftcr his ccnsorship of :oq,
vhcn Fol,bius vas alrcao, ocao. Earlicr Roman commentarii, as M. points
out ,p. :8:,, vcrc complctcl, non-litcrar, proouctions.
6.
Chaptcr fivc ocals vith problcms arising out of tvo partiall, contrastco
practiccs cmplo,co b, historians, viz. thc long-cstablishco custom ,going
back to thc attacks maoc on Homcr b, thc carl, pocts, of ocnigrating oncs
prcocccssors in orocr to portra, oncsclf as thc onc praiscvorth, scckcr aftcr
truth ano, on thc othcr hano, that of sctting oncsclf in a historical traoition,
b, starting out at thc point vhcrc an carlicr historian lcft off ano frcqucntl,
,though not invariabl,, holoing him up for praisc. M. has a long oiscussion
of thc rolc of polcmic in Grcck historiograph,, cspcciall, as a mcans of sclf-
ocfinition. It vas lcss common at Romc, though Liv, as usual is thc cxccp-
tion, vith his attack on levissimi ex Graecis, vho hao hao thc auoacit, to fa-
vour Farthia against Romc ,ix.:;-:q,this in thc coursc of an oool, placco
oigrcssion on vhat voulo havc happcnco, hao Alcxanocr movco vcst to at-
tack Romc.
:
M. hcrc shovs clcarl, thc various va,s in vhich polcmic coulo
scrvc thc historian ano thc factors, traoitional ano othcr, vhich cncouragco
it.
:.
Op. cit. ,n. , 8- Historia antiqua: Commentationes Lovanienses in honorem W. Pere-
mans septuagenarii editae ,Lcuvcn, :q;;, :6-6..
:
Scc m, oiscussion in Ancient Macedonia: Studies in Honor of C. F. Edson, co. H. Dcll
,:q8:, -6.
.8 F. W. Walbank
In contrast, thc rolc of thc continuator prcscnts contraoictions. 1his
practicc is linkco to, but oocs not alva,s coincioc vith, thc aooption of an
approvco moocl. Nor oocs an approvco moocl ncccssaril, attract his suc-
ccssors unoilutco praisc, for thc lattcr ma, aim to surpass him, as Fol,bius
oio Ephorus, of vhom hc gcncrall, approvcs. Morcovcr, in continuing an
author onc ma, bc mcrcl, putting forvaro a claim to vritc a particular sort
of histor, or to ocvclop a thcmc alrcao, prcscnt in thc author onc is con-
tinuing. 1hc carlicst ano most striking cxamplc of this is thc continuation
of 1huc,oiocs in Xcnophons Hellenica, but 1huc,oiocs vas also continuco
b, Cratippus, thc Ox,rh,nchus historian ano 1hcopompus. 1hc samc mo-
tivc is probabl, also prcscnt in Fol,bius, vhosc carl, introouctor, books fol-
lovco on aftcr 1imacus, but vho subjcctco thc lattcr to thc most virulcnt
ano abusivc criticism. Hcrc thc link probabl, la, in Fol,bius octcrmination
to oust 1imacus as thc historian of thc vcst.
Iolloving a survc, of commcnts maoc b, Roman historians from Sallust
to Ammianus about thcir prcocccssors, M. has an intcrcsting notc on Am-
mianus xxxi.:6.q, vhcrc thc lattcr rcfcrs to himsclf as milcs quonoam ct
Graccus. 1his phrasc Iornara sav as sclf-ocfinition, vhcrcas Matthcvs oc-
clarco that it vas not a boast, sincc b, that timc histor, vas normall, vrit-
tcn b, civilians ano soloicrs vcrc, ano vcrc sccn as, boorish. 1hcn vhat vas
it? M. puts thc phrasc in a ncv light. It is, hc argucs, a challcngc to thc
rcaocr inasmuch as it rccalls thc ancicnt traoition of thc soloicr-historian,
likc Xcnophon or Fol,bius ,thc voro graccus points in that oircction rathcr
than to thc Romans Cacsar ano Vcllcius,. 1his is a gooo cxamplc of thc
fruitfulncss of M.s approach.
;.
1hc concluoing chaptcr bcgins vith a succinct rcvicv of thc main argu-
mcnt. Bricfl,, this cmphasiscs thc importancc of thc rhctorical traoition,
vithin thc limits of vhich innovation coulo takc placc ano also shovs hov
that traoition hao itsclf to a consiocrablc cxtcnt bccn mouloco ano con-
firmco b, thc proccourcs of carlicr vritcrs, sccking to valioatc thcir ovn
vritings. Ncxt thcrc is a uscful summar, of somc of thc compositional prob-
lcms that arosc in contcmporar, ano non-contcmporar, histor,-vriting ano
thc oiffcrcnt convcntions prcvalcnt in Grcck ano Roman historians rcspcc-
tivcl,. 1hcrc arc fivc appcnoiccs: :. a list of thc main ancicnt historians vith
oatcs, .. thc practicc of Grcck ano Roman historians rcspcctivcl, in giving
or vithholoing thcir namcs ano placc of origin, . a convincing argumcnt
that in Panath. :q-o ano Panegyr. ;-:o Isocratcs vas not rating thc cars
abovc thc c,cs gcncrall,, but mcrcl, cnunciating thc truism that vc ncccs-
saril, knov about morc historical cvcnts from thc rcports of othcrs than vc
oo from autops,. ,I vas not alonc in gctting this vrong in m, Commentary on
Review of Marincola, Authority and Tradition .q
Polybius, on xii..;.:,, . a list of various critcria availablc for oistinguishing
bctvccn altcrnativc vcrsions prcscntco b, oncs sourccs, . thc Roman usc
of nos ano nostri.
1hc abovc commcnts harol, bcgin to inoicatc thc richncss ano varict,
of thc subjccts oiscussco in this aomirablc book. It rcsts on a thorough ap-
praisal of an cxtcnsivc rangc of Grcck ano Roman authors ano constantl,
throvs frcsh light on vhat thc, vcrc rcall, up to ano vh,. It vill bc viocl,
acclaimco, rcao ano rcfcrrco to b, all intcrcstco in ancicnt historiograph,.
I concluoc vith a fcv minor corrcctions:
p. 8. ,ano inocx,: for Chimara rcao Chiomara.
p. :: for chronical rcao chroniclc.
p. :;q n. :;: for Alien Wisdom rcao Greek Biography.
p. :qq: thc latcr books of Dio arc hcrc saio to bc prcscrvco onl, in cx-
ccrpts ano an cpitomc likc Fol,bius, thcrc vas no cpitomc of Fol,bius.
Peterhouse, Cambridge I. \. \ALBANK