Histos : ,:qq;, .

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,

it is of limitco usc as a scrious contribution to thc subjcct.

It is a commonplacc, continucs Iinlc, in thc cssa, just mcntionco, that
cvcr, historians notion ,conscious or subconscious, of his function is basco
on both thc social ano political situation in his ovn vorlo ano thc litcrar,
ano moral traoition hc has inhcritco. 1hc prcscnt book b, ]ohn Marincola
,hcnccforth M., is conccrnco primaril, vith thc sccono half of this proposi-
tion ano in particular vith thc litcrar, traoition ,though both thc moral tra-
oition anocspcciall, vhcrc oiscussion ccntrcs on thc oiffcrcncc bctvccn
vriting in a frcc ano in a closco socict,thc social ano political situation
also fino a placc,. M.s subjcct is authorit, ano traoition as thc, affcct thc
historian. B, authorit, hc mcans thc rhctorical ano othcr compositional
ocviccs vhich thc historian uscs to cstablish his compctcncc in his ficlo ano
b, traoition all thosc prcccpts, exempla ano moocs of opcration hanoco

:
Fcnguin, :q;, ;6.
.
H. Homc,cr, Lukian: wie man Geschichte schreiben soll ,:q6,.

Op. cit. ,n. :, :..

Review of Marincola, Authority and Tradition .:
oovn from his prcocccssors vhich octcrminc vhat hc himsclf is likcl, to ao-
oucc or cmplo, to support that claim. 1hc book is thcrcforc largcl, con-
ccrnco vith valioation, vhich broaocns out hovcvcr into a lcarnco ano
scnsitivc oiscussion of thc varict, of va,s in vhich thc historian rclatcs to his
subjcct-mattcr, his prcocccssors ano his public ano hov hc contrivcs to in-
novatc, vhilc still maintaining thc critcria cstablishco b, carlicr vritcrs. It
oravs on ,but also looks bc,ono, thc inoivioual authors in orocr to iocntif,
thc gcncral aims of Grcck ano Roman historians ,thc, vcrc not alva,s iocn-
tical, ano thcir assumptions about vhat constitutco a satisfactor, histor,. It
shoulo bc notco that M.s argumcnt rcsts on thc assumption ,vhich somc
voulo challcngc

, that b, ano largc historians vcrc familiar vith thcir

prcocccssors ano vrotc vith thcm in mino. I think hc cstablishcs this, at an,
ratc for vhat vc ma, call thc major figurcs. As for thc man, vho arc
mcrcl, namcs to us, onc can usuall, onl, spcculatc about thcir conncctions
onc vith anothcr.
Onc vill look in vain hcrc for a comprchcnsivc stuo, of an, onc vritcr.
Ephorus vriting mcthoos ano trcatmcnt of particular tcchnical problcms,
for instancc, arc sprcao out ovcr all thc chaptcrs. But it is prcciscl, in this
that thc mcrit of M.s mcthoo lics, sincc it lcts us iocntif, similar ovcrall
problcms ano thc succcssivc attcmpts b, historians to solvc thcsc vithin a
ocvcloping historiographical contcxt. 1hc scparatc trccs arc not allovco to
obscurc our vision of thc vooo. In thc folloving oiscussion I shall stick to
this pattcrn ano commcnt succcssivcl, on thc topics raisco in thc scparatc
chaptcrs.
In his introouction M. scts out his gcncral programmc ano touchcs on
scvcral issucs rclcvant to thc main thcmcto vhat cxtcnt ancicnt historians
fclt thcmsclvcs to bc that ano no othcr kino of vritcr, thc various auoicnccs
aoorcssco b, particular historians ,incrcasingl,, M. argucs, thc intcrcstco
obscrvcr rathcr than thc politicall, or militaril, activc public figurc, ano thc
changco circumstanccs vhich arosc unocr Roman oomination. Alrcao, un-
ocr thc rcpublic, if vc can bclicvc a rcmarkablc asscrtion b, Ciccro ,de
fin.v..,, thcrc vas an intcrcst in historia ,books or just thc past gcncrall,?,
among homines infima fortuna, incluoing artisans. But if this vas so, vc havc no
inkling hov far historians catcrco for it, unlcss it is rcflcctco in thc groving
popularit, of compcnoiums ano a grcatcr attcntion to moral issucs. As timc
vcnt on thcrc vas also a viocning of thc arca from vhich Roman historians
vcrc oravn, though inocco from thc oa,s of thc mioolc rcpublic thc,

Ior cxamplc, S. Hornblovcr in his introouction to Greek Historiography ,:qq6,, :-;.,

vhcrc hc likcns thc succcssion of historians to a sct of pigcon-holcs rathcr than an or-
ganicall, groving coral rccf.
.. F. W. Walbank
tcnoco to comc from outsioc thc capital. An cxamplc is M. Cato from 1us-
culumvhom M. ,p. o, ought not to havc rcfcrrco to as a provincial.

..
1hc ccntral chaptcrs of thc book ocal vith various thcmcs vhich comc up as
thc historian scts out to justif, his vork. In cach casc thc cviocncc is ocrivco
from a octailco cxamination of thc main Grcck ano Roman historians,
takcn chronologicall,. Chaptcr onc asks vhat orcv thc historian to histor,
ano vhat spccific aspccts of thc past arousco his intcrcst. M. shovs hov,
oncc his subjcct has bccn choscn, thc historian tcnos to magnif, it ,b,
amplificatio) to makc it rcoouno to his crcoit. Morc than onc histo-
rian ,hcrc folloving in thc footstcps of thc pocts, sccms to havc bccn lco to
his topic b, a orcam ,as vhcn, for instancc, a vision of Drusus Cacsar baoc
thc Elocr Flin, vritc on thc Gcrman \ars,. Oncc aooptco, thc subjcct vas
lauoco for its magnituoc, its uniqucncss or its importanccthough Liv,, in
this as in so much clsc thc ooo man out, claims mcrcl, that his vork is a
kino of cscapist sclf-amuscmcnt ,praef. ,, vhich is clcarl, not thc full stor,.
Appian ,praef. -.,, rathcr cxccptionall,, cmphasiscs not his subjcct, but
rathcr his ncv approach to it, ano so oocs not quitc fit into M.s picturc
hcrc.
A ocvicc, first founo in thc Hcllcnistic pcrioo, vhcn it is commoncr in
local than in gcncral histor,, is thc ocoication. A ocoication can orav on
thc prcstigc alrcao, attachco to a oistinguishco ocoicatcc, but at thc samc
timc ,ano this cspcciall, in thc vriting of contcmporar, histor,, risks attract-
ing a chargc of bias. Ior that rcason ocoications arc morc oftcn to bc founo
associatco vith litcrar, ano antiquarian vorks than vith straight histor,. M.
is anxious to cstablish that this pattcrn holos gooo for Romc too ano to rc-
strict thc usc of ocoications thcrc to autobiographics, mcmoirs ano scholarl,
or antiquarian books. 1hcrc appcar, hovcvcr, to havc bccn ocoications in
Coclius, Clauoius Quaorigarius ano Vcllcius. 1hcsc M. cxplains ava, vith
scparatc, not implausiblc, h,pothcscs. But an cquall, valio cxplanation ma,
bc that at Romc thc oistinction bctvccn antiquarian ano historical vorks
vas in this contcxt lcss rigio than M. voulo allov ano that vhcrc ,as his pp.
-6o shov, thc availablc information is quitc flims,, onc shoulo bc cautious
about assuming rulcs.
Historians vcrc lco to vritc histor, in various va,s. But vhat oio thc,
hopc to gct out of it? 1hc ansvcr, alrcao, formulatco b, Fol,bius ,xvi.:.,
in conncction vith thc Rhooian historians Zcnon ano Antisthcncs, is glor,
ano rcnovn. It is through thc historian that thc statcsman ano gcncral ac-
quirc glor, ,vixere fortes ante Agamemnona, ano part of this glor, rubs off on thc
vritcr. In Romc this crcatcs a problcm, for thcrc gloria has a spccial conno-
tation as somcthing von in public scrvicc. Sallust hao to arguc that it coulo
Review of Marincola, Authority and Tradition .
also bc vithin thc grasp of historians. In this contcxt M. makcs thc intcrcst-
ing point that thc historian usuall, oiscusscs thc qucstion of glor, in gcncral
tcrms, not spccificall, claiming it for himsclf, but oispla,ing a rcticcncc,
vhich is inocco vholl, unocrstanoablc.

.
Chaptcr tvo oiscusscs thc means historians aooptco to achicvc thcir cnos, it
falls into tvo halvcs. In thc first M. ocals, cspcciall, in rclation to contcmpo-
rar, histor,, vith thc historians trcatmcnt of cviocncc basco vholl, on au-
tops, ,thc c,cs, ano that coming from thc accounts of othcrs ,thc cars,.
1his is a oistinction familiar in thc philosophcrs, bcginning vith 1halcs, but
thc first historian to cnunciatc it clcarl, vas Hcroootus, vith his contrast bc-
tvccn opsis ano akoe. Non-contcmporar, histor, hcrc constitutcs a spccial
casc, sincc for this onl, thc cars arc availablc ano, as Ephorus obscrvco
,FGrHist ;o I q,, thc naturc of that cviocncc is such that, vhcrcas a octailco
account of a contcmporar, situation is fclt to commano bclicf, for thc past
thc rcvcrsc is truc.
An, narrativc carrics a spccial significancc if thc historian or his infor-
mant has acccss to thc grcat ano povcrful, ano unocr autocratic rcgimcs
this factor grovs in importanccas oocs thc problcm of hov to valioatc rc-
ports, vhich is inhcrcnt in that situation ,cf. Dio liii.:q,. Ior this catcgor, of
information M. aoopts thc convcnicnt phrasc privilcgco acccss ano hc cm-
phasiscs thc frcqucnc, vith vhich it vas cxploitco. Hc is, hovcvcr, pcrhaps
too rcao, to iocntif, cxamplcs of it vhcrc thc cviocncc is short of conclusivc.
On pp. 8;-8 I notco scvcn instancc of phrascs such as vc ought not to
ooubt, it is not to bc ooubtco, nor is it unlikcl, ,hcrc in rclation to Alcx-
anocr-historians,, thc trcno ma, vcll havc continuco unocr thc oiaoochi,
ano, vhcn vc comc to impcrial Romc, though vc arc vithout thc vorks of
carl, historians, hcrc too it can harol, bc ooubtco that thc, orav valioa-
tion from proximit, to thc rulcr. \cll, pcrhaps, but it is safcr to rcstrict oncs
cxamplcs to vhat is attcstco rathcr than accumulatc cascs that arc mcrcl,
probablc. \hcn vc comc to thc actual octails of histor, vrittcn in closco
socictics, hovcvcr, M. skctchcs a varict, of ocviccs aooptco b, historians to
sccurc valioation for thcir narrativcs, of vhich privilcgco acccss vas onl,
onc. Altcrnativcs vcrc to limit oncs account to cvcnts vith vhich onc vas
pcrsonall, conccrnco or, in impcrial Romc, to vritc scnatorial histor,,
thcrcb, avoioing oangcrous arcas of cnquir,.
A oiffcrcnt problcm arosc for thc authors of non-contcmporar, histor,.
Ior rcmotc happcnings vhat cviocncc vas actuall, availablc ,an acutc prob-
lcm for historians of ancicnt Romc,? Ano, as a corollar,, hov vas thc histo-
rian to prcscnt ,or cvaoc, this oifficult,? As rcgaros thc first qucstion, \. K.
Fritchctt in his Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides ,:q;, n. .o has listco
. F. W. Walbank
a varict, of oocumcntsarchon-lists, leukomata in archivcs, ocmc-rccoros,
axones, pcoigrcc-lists ano Cratcrus collcction of inscriptionsavailablc at
Athcns. 1hc cxistcncc of thcsc must ccrtainl, bc takcn into account, ncvcr-
thclcss, along vith ]acob, ano nov M., I still bclicvc

that takcn togcthcr

thcsc can havc givcn onl, thc barc boncs of a historical rccoro. 1hc samc
problcm cxistco of coursc at Romc. 1o thc problcm of hov to oiscuss this
hiatus in knovlcogc oiffcrcnt historians founo oiffcrcnt ansvcrs. Somc sim-
pl, quotco oiffcrcnt variants in thc traoition vithout occioing bctvccn
thcm. Othcrs rcfcrrco to somc sourcc assumco to carr, conviction, such as
thc pricsts in Eg,pt. Hcroootus cmplo,s both ocviccs. Altcrnativcl, onc
might cmphasisc that onc vas oneself a pricst, likc Manctho, a ccrtain
Ftolcm, ,FGrHist 6::,, Chaircmon ,FGrHist 6:8, or Bcrossus. M. makcs a
novcl ano not unconvincing point, vhcn hc aoouccs thcir pcrccivco prcstig-
ious occupation as a valioation of thcsc mcn as rcliablc historical authoritics.
At this point M. raiscs thc rclcvant qucstion: vh, oio historians fccl thc
ncco to attcmpt a ncv vcrsion of thc pastano hov oio thc, justif, thcir
attcmpt? Somctimcs b, sa,ing it hao not bccn oonc bcforc, or that carlicr
vcrsions vcrc incomplctc, or that prcvious historians vcrc biasco, or that
oncs ovn vcrsion vas morc accuratc. S,mc voulo makc an aooition:
6
thc
justification for a ncv histor,, so Liv, avcrs, is grcatcr accurac, or a fincr
st,lc. But M. is, I bclicvc, right in qucr,ing this, for Liv, ,praef. ., onl, sa,s
that historians believe thc, vill achicvc thc onc or thc othcr. His antithcsis is
mcrcl, ocscriptivc, ncithcr a rulc nor a prcscription. In fact, M. claims to
havc founo no cxamplc of a historian allcging a fincr st,lc as a justification
for vriting histor,.
M. concluocs that thcrc vas no singlc rccognisco mcthooolog, for ocal-
ing vith carl, histor,vhich vas, morcovcr, both in Grcccc ano to a lcsscr
cxtcnt at Romc, complicatco b, thc problcm of hov to ocal vith m,th.
Hcrc again historians aooptco a varict, of approachcsrcporting vithout
commcnt, cxclusion, rationalisation or thc mcrc juxtaposition of m,thical
ano historical vcrsions. Iortunatcl, this is a ficlo in vhich onc can obscrvc
both historians practicc ano such rhctorical thcor, as cxistco about it in
vritcrs likc Asclcpiaocs.
;


.
In chaptcr thrcc M. oiscusscs thc usc of thc historians charactcr to valioatc
a narrativc, ano, for Roman historians ano thcir sourccs, this ncccssaril, in-
cluocs dignitas ano social status. 1hc tcrm charactcr is in fact hcrc givcn a

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