Pawe Janiszewski, The Missing Link: Greek Pagan Historiography in the Second Half of the Third Century and

in the Fourth Century A.D. (Journal of Juristic Papyrology, Suppl. 6), Warsaw 2006, 532 pages, trans. D. Dzierzbicka.

his volume represents a comprehensive collection of ancient evidence and scholarly opinions on pagan historical authors writing in Greek between c. 250 and c. 400 A.D., none of whose works has survived. Janiszewski has produced more than just a reference work: he organizes and analyzes the evidence for each author and work, and then offers some conclusions about the nature of Greek historiography in the Late Roman Empire. In the process, he sheds much light on an oft-ignored area of ancient historiography, and he provides a solid basis for future research. Pagan historiography after the first half of the third century has been dismissed as stale, frozen, and powerless to compete with a vibrant and triumphant Christian historical writing (a view held by no less an authority than Arnaldo Momigliano). As a result, the pagan historians of this period have not received the attention their Christian counterparts have history, as they say, is written by the victors. But surely part of the reason for this portrayal is the lack of any extant works. Such a fate has befallen other eras. Polybios is claimed as the one bright spot in Hellenistic historiography; not coincidentally, his work is the only one to survive even partially, and we gain much of our knowledge about other authors from his (usually polemical) references to them. But at least we can reach these lost authors through other avenues: figures like Theopompos, Kallisthenes, and Timaios are familiar ones. For the Greek historians of the Late Roman Empire, however, we lack even well-known names. A scholar asked to name a pagan Greek historian between Herodian and Procopius might, if pressed, come up with
PALAMEDES 3(2008) 1

Christopher A. Baron

Dexippos, but as Janiszewski puts it, he is merely better-known.1 Finally, for what does remain from the historical works of the period excerpts and references in later authors the standard collections of Mller and Jacoby are spotty, and new findings on papyrus as well as updated editions of Byzantine authors leave them wanting. All of this has led to a gap in scholarship. Articles dealing with individual authors or giving brief overviews of the period have appeared, but as Janiszewski points out (9), there has been no attempt to treat it systematically and at length. Janiszewskis prodigious research fills that gap, and it should also put an end to the idea of a decline in classical Greek historiography in this period. The pages of The Missing Link reveal the rich variety of historical work that has been almost completely lost: 83 titles by 50 authors, ranging from chronicles to political/military narrative to imperial panegyric to histories of cities and regions (the last of which forms the majority). Fortunately, Janiszewski has chosen to work with a broad definition of historiography, a term which he admittedly uses as a sort of shorthand for literature devoted to history, or literary activity dealing with a more or less distant past (14). This allows him to clarify the nature of some works which appear in Jacoby or Mller but turn out not to be history after all (e.g. Philippos of Amphipolis, who Janiszewski concludes wrote romance novels). He also casts a wide net chronologically, including some authors who most likely were active before the period in question (Pausanias of Antioch) or never existed (Ephoros the Younger of Kyme). This comprehensiveness adds greatly to the value of the work: indeed, collections like Jacobys and reference works like PLRE should now be consulted in conjunction with Janiszewskis comments. After an introduction describing the state of the field and explaining his organizational principles, Janiszewski presents the lost works in four chapters roughly equivalent to Jacobys historical genres: Political Historiography (subdivided into Universal Histories, Contemporary Histories, and Histories of Early Periods), Local Historiography, Histories and Biographies of Emperors, and Chronography. Within each chapter or sub-section, works are arranged chronologically (as far as this is possible). As Janiszewski states, this typological organization gives us an opportunity to trace development, to identify patterns, and to gain an idea of the broad scope of historical writing during this time. One side-effect of this approach

Dexippos is the only Greek historian of the period discussed, very briefly, by J. Matthews in his chapter in the recent Blackwell Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (vol. I, 297), edited by J. Marincola; and note that Matthews does not even mention the fragmentary historians collected by Janiszewski, but points to other (surviving) literature from the late 3rd century (Origen, Plotinus, Porphyry) before moving straight on to Ammianus. Similarly, B. Croke in his chapter on Late Antique Historiography, 250650 CE (vol. II, 568). PALAMEDES 3(2008)

Pawe Janiszewski, The Missing Link

is that works by the same author appear in different sections but Janiszewski provides plenty of cross-references, and an index lists the authors alphabetically. Each entry heading contains the authors name, FGrH number (if any), and the title of the work in Greek and English. The entry begins with a thorough discussion of the authors identity, including his suggested date and prosopographical information where available. Here Janiszewski makes excellent use of epigraphic material, and in some cases he proposes new identifications (Eusebios of Thessalonika). Janiszewski then lists the sources of our knowledge about the work, presents the evidence for its title, and discusses its scope and structure. Finally, he notes the characteristics of the work which can be drawn from the fragments, with special attention paid to their relation to classical historiography. Exhaustive references to secondary scholarship are given near the beginning of each entry, sometimes in the form of a virtual bibliographic essay. Works are cited in full both in the footnotes and in the bibliography, which appears to include every work that is cited. This double-referencing is certainly convenient, if unusual. For the most part, Janiszewskis analysis is sound, striking the proper balance between caution and speculation necessary when dealing with fragmentary historians. Examples include his excellent discussion of Soterichos of Oasis mysterious work Pytho or On Alexander (149161), and his willingness to accept the possibility of otherwise unknown authors for unattributed papyrus fragments (235). However, his treatment of various authors is sometimes uneven: thus Dexippos is described, almost as an afterthought, as an active participant in the defense of Athens against the Heruli (113), without any mention of scholars questions about this authors self-representation. Janiszewski could also have improved the work by providing more signposts for the reader: large issues, such as the importance of religion (261) and the influence of biography (265), are raised in the individual entries without any reference to the synthesis of these topics Janiszewski attempts in his conclusion. But since most readers will consult individual entries rather than read the book cover-to-cover, this may not be a significant problem. In his conclusion, Janiszewski assesses the evidence he has assembled. The preponderance of it falls under local historiography, a genre which turns out to encompass a wide array of subjects and forms of presentation. Janiszewski describes it as works which derive from the traditions of other literary genres and, in some cases, seem to cross the vague boundaries modern scholars attempt to create (439). The impetus for producing such works could be the need to claim a place for a city or region in the Greek cultural world, a response to current political/military events, or the desire to show off ones erudition or rhetorical skill. Janiszewski places local historiography in the milieu of grammarians, rhetors and

PALAMEDES 3(2008)

Christopher A. Baron

sophists (441). This separates it from political and military history, written (as in previous periods, one could add) by influential people who actively participated in the events they described, politicians, soldiers, officers, imperial officials (451). There does indeed appear to be a lack of great historiography during this period universal histories, accounts of the contemporary internal struggles of the empire, treatments of already-ancient events. It seems that attention was turned, at least in the 3rd century, to the empires external wars, in works which Janiszewski suggests may form a chain of continuators from Herodian through Dexippos (449). As far as the 4th-century gap, it is well-known that Eunapios claims to be taking up Dexippos work. But I would note that if Eunapios was, as Janiszewski states, unaware of Eusebios of Thessalonikas text, it is certainly possible that others existed as well. Janiszewski also includes an appendix listing the historians mentioned by the author of the Historia Augusta. As he notes, this evidence first requires a separate in-depth study, in order to determine whether these authors existed or not, before it can be incorporated into an examination of Greek historiography of the period. In his comments on Onasimos/Onesimos (332352), Janiszewski raises valid concerns about the methodology of Syme and others in proving the fictitiousness of these authors, and he calls for a re-consideration of suggestions that they are all inventions on the part of the writer of the HA. One aspect of the book which does require further comment is the translation, by Dorota Dzierzbicka. Overall, it is well-done and readable, and Janiszewskis thoughts are conveyed without confusion. There are the usual deviations from English idiom (mentions on rather than of; informs without a direct object), as well as a curious overuse of the en-dash. One also finds regular spelling errors (commands for commends, polemized for polemicized) as well as Latinization or Germanization of technical terms and ancient names (metrum for meter, Antioch for Antiochos). In some instances, though, the choice of English words has led to ambiguity or worse. At several points, sentences begin with Conclusively which in normal English means without a doubt when, I believe, Janiszewski really means In conclusion as in To sum up (e.g. 103, 411). In addition, that is used instead of since in a number of sentences which are thereby rendered meaningless. I raise these translation issues not to nit-pick, but to remind the reader to be alert when evaluating Janiszewskis arguments. Indeed, we should thank Janiszewski and Dzierzbicka for their efforts in making this valuable work available to a wider audience. Janiszewski notes in his preface that a first translation (by a different translator) proved unusable, which resulted in delayed publication (to be kept in mind when using the bibliography). We are fortunate that Janiszewski

PALAMEDES 3(2008)

Pawe Janiszewski, The Missing Link

persisted, for his work renders a great service to those interested in ancient historiography, and it is an indispensible research tool for anyone studying Greek historical writing under the Late Roman Empire, and beyond.
Christopher A. Baron
cbaron1@nd.edu Department of Classics University of Notre Dame 304 OShaughnessy Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA

PALAMEDES 3(2008)