Shrimpton, 'Theopompus of Chios. History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9511
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9511-shrimpton-theopompus
@@@@95.11.9, Flower, Theopompus of Chios
Michael A. Flower, Theopompus of Chios. History and Rhetoric
in the Fourth Century BC. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Pp. xii +
252. $49.95 ISBN 0-19-814079-7.
Reviewed by Gordon Shrimpton -- University of Victoria
gshrimpt@sol.uvic.ca
Theopompus of Chios was the most prolific historian of the
fourth century, and probably the most influential. Comprehensive
monographs devoted to his entire historiographical program have
been puzzlingly unavailable until recently. Flower's book is an
important addition to the growing bibliography on the subject.
Flower began work on Theopompus with his dissertation
(Theopompus of Chios. Brown: May, 1986) which has been
significantly re-worked and expanded for the present volume.
With but few reservations (below), I can report that the result
is a well researched, well considered contribution to our
understanding of this fascinating historian and orator.
In the Introduction, Flower announces the scope of his work,
its main objectives and accomplishments. He promises to look
carefully at the "context" of the fragments, by which he means
its relationship to the argument (if any) in the author providing
the citation. Useful in all cases, this method can produce
particularly significant results when a fragment comes from
Plutarch and, in some cases, Athenaeus. According to Flower,
"the principal new conclusions of this book" are that an alleged
Isocratean school of history did not exist; Theopompus used moral
explanations in ways that were at least anticipated by Herodotus
and Thucydides; oral traditon was still vibrantly influential in
the fourth century; and Theopompus was more concerned with
historical accuracy than some have previously thought (9-10).
These claims represent the book fairly well. If anything, they
undersell it. The argument that Theopompus employed the
techniques of forensic, rather than epideictic, oratory (175-182)
in his moral judgments, for example, strikes me as a valuable
insight. It must serve to modify our understanding of
Theopompus' relationship to earlier historians, which Flower
delineates effectively in other respects.
Flower devotes his first chapter to Theopompus' life and
works. He is skeptical about the traditional date for
Theopompus' birth (c. 388/7). If it could be earlier, then we
would have time for a career as an orator before Theopompus
turned to history (11-17, 26-7). A chapter on "Theopompus,
Isocrates, and the Myth of Rhetorical History" (42-62) disposes
effectively with the view that Isocrates gave lessons in
historical writing, but the argument that Theopompus was not a
pupil of Isocrates is less convincing in my estimation (below).
If the title of the chapter seems to promise a full assault on
the idea that fourth-century historiography became more
rhetorical than its fifth-century counterpart, that promise goes
unfulfilled. Indeed, Flower's later demonstration that
Theopompus helped himself to the tricks of forensic oratory in
his character-assassinations would go against such an argument.
Four chapters now follow in which the central questions of
Theopompan historiography are treated: his moral and political
views, the treatment of Philip and his career, and the treatment
of Demosthenes. This leads into three chapters which tackle the
problem of Theopompus' place in the development of Greek
historical writing. After a brief Conclusion, Flower devotes
three pages to the fascinating Meropis story (FF 74-5) in
Appendix 1, and translates some of the important fragments in
Appendix 2. Clearly this is a very comprehensive study. It
seems to me that the Delphic oracle was more important to
Theopompus than Flower generally allows, but otherwise his
selection of topics for discussion is balanced and remarkably
thorough for a book of scarcely more than two hundred pages.
Flower's work breaks new ground in ways that I have shown. In
some other respects it reinforces a consensus that has been
emerging since Connor (Theopompus and Fifth-Century
Athens. Cambridge, Mass. 1968; and see GRBS 8 [1967]:
133-54) that the fragments of the Philippica reveal an
unremittingly hostile characterization of Philip. I agree with
this conclusion but find it increasingly puzzling. Much of
Philippica must have included a straightforward account of
Philip's many successes (see Bruce, History and Theory 9
[1970]: 86-109). Flower argues that this account was probably
fairly reliable (184-210). (The case for Theopompus' reliability
deserves to be made, though, as often as not, the "proofs" Flower
offers come down to showing that allegations of irresponsible
fiction-mongering cannot themselves be proved.) So if Flower is
right, the Philippica must have presented the reader with
a sober narration of Philip's conquests punctuated demonstrably
with vicious, sometimes frenzied assaults on his character. It
is not easy to reconcile this probable narration with the
undoubted characterization. To complicate the puzzle, there is
reason to think that Macedonians after Theopompus were not
altogether displeased with the Philippica. If we trust
T31, Philip V of Macedon regarded this work as the definitive
account of the career of his great predecessor, for, according to
Photius, Philip V discarded all the digressions but, without
making any other changes, extracted a sixteen-book account of
Philip's career from the Philippica. It is difficult to
understand why he would have gone to this trouble if Theopompus
had merely produced an extended defamation of the Macedonian
king.
This is simply to say that we could be faced with some real
surprises if a full text of the Philippica were to be
found one day. I believe that it is as well to leave some
questions open. For example, did Theopompus make up his mind on
a subject and never change it? This question has particular
regard to characterizations. Negative descriptions of Philip
come from every part of the Philippica. So, apparently,
Theopompus' opinion of him underwent little change, if any. But
what about Demosthenes and the Byzantians (136-47)? Considering
the importance of Demosthenes, references to him in the fragments
are relatively few and brief. Flower argues from them that
Theopompus, "...did not have a very high opinion of
[Demosthenes'] abilities as a statesman (136)." My own view is
that the historian approved of Demosthenes' policy of resistance
to Philip and so probably narrated most of his career with
sympathy, but turned on the statesman to blame him when he failed
at Chaeronea (Theopompus the Historian. Montreal, 1991:
161-180). So stated, the two positions do not completely exclude
one another. It would be possible to give a sympathetic account
of a statesman's policies while remaining critical of his
methods. But Flower goes on to argue that Theopompus was
generally hostile to Demosthenes. Anyone wishing to explore the
question further may consult my own study to which I might add
the following observations now that I have read Flower's book.
First, Theopompus was caustic and thorough when he assaulted
the character of someone he did not like (Theopompus the
Historian: 135-56). The reference to Demosthenes'
inconstancy (F 326) is a rebuke, to be sure, but by Theopompus'
standards, scarcely more than that. Second, Demosthenes was an
important political figure and Theopompus was a key source for
his career. So perhaps an argument from silence is permitted.
The fact that no full-scale assassination of Demosthenes'
character survives in ancient literature may mean that no such
thing ever existed: i.e. Theopompus did not produce one. Again,
in the case of the Byzantians, I wonder how safe it is to
conclude that the historian's assessment of them given in book
eight (F 62), when they were helping to dismantle the second
Athenian confederacy, would have been unchanged some forty books,
and a dozen years or more, later when he narrated their
successful resistance to Philip's attempted siege (see Flower:
124-5). Further, the argument that Theopompus was never a pupil
of Isocrates flies in the face of a unanimous ancient tradition
and of probability. The unanimity of the tradition carries more
weight than Flower allows. The ancients had much more of
Theopompus than we do, historical and rhetorical works.
Theopompus knew no reticence in speaking of himself, and his
rhetorical works like Panathenaicus and To Evagoras
(T 48) may well have revealed clear Isocratean affiliations.
Further, despite Flower's arguments (52-5), Speusippus' letter
groups Theopompus with Isocrates and his star pupil (T 7).
Finally, on grounds of probability, a rich, young, ambitious
writer from Chios who needed both to learn the best Attic style
and shed all traces of his native dialect will scarcely have
avoided Isocrates and his school. But Flower is right to show
that Isocrates did not control Theopompus' mind, and there is no
evidence that Isocrates taught the writing of history.
These differences of emphasis or interpretation are natural,
indeed welcome, features of critical scholarship. However, I am
obliged to defend myself against the suggestion that I have
committed (or followed) an act of "bad method" (Flower: 120,
n12) in preferring "Autariatae" to "Ardiaeans" as the subject of
F40. Jacoby's text (= Athen. 10.443B-C) is about a people called
"Ariaeans" and their encounter with some Celts. To be sure, the
reading "ariaeans" is nonsense and emends easily to Ardiaeans, an
important Illyrian tribe. But the same fragment is briefly cited
in Athenaeus elsewhere (6.271E), where the impossible reading
"Arcadians" is found. This must cast doubt on the quality of
Athenaeus' text of Theopompus, or the care with which he
represented it. A full version of F 40 is given by Polyaenus
(7.42) who calls the people Autariatae. In defence of the
reading "Ardiaeans", Flower remarks, "It is bad method, however,
to give precedence to a paraphrase by Polyaenus over a verbatim
quotation by Athenaeus, given the latter's general reliability
and the simplicty of the emendation. Philip is not otherwise
known to have had any contact with the Autariatae, a tribe of
northern Illyria." But even an easy emendation of a highly
suspect text can count for very little; and the securely attested
"Autariatae" does fit the context of the fragment which is
manifestly not about Philip's dealings with Illyrians, but about
a certain peoples' contact with some Celts. The more northerly
Autariatae were much closer to the Celts than the Ardiaeans.
These remarks notwithstanding, there is no hiding the general
quality of this book. It is attractive in appearance and
immaculately produced as one would expect from the Clarendon
Press. It is a very well written book and, to repeat,
impressively researched--not to be overlooked by anyone
interested in the literature and ideas of the fourth century.