P ORTRAIT OF P ERICLES IN E PHORUS ’ U NIVERSAL H ISTORY
49 M ÉSZÁROS (2010: 61–72)
49 MÉSZÁROS (2010: 61–72).
50 Just before the outbreak of the war, Thucydides alludes only once to the guilt of Pericles because of Cylonian affair See Th. 1,127.
51 SCHUBERT (1994: 5–9).
52 See in details RUSTEN (2006: 547–588).
53 Hermipp. Frg. 47.
54 Ar. Ach. 425.
55 Cratin. Frg. 240; 241.
56 Cf. K.J.DOVER argued that Ephorus misinterpreted the real message of the Fifth-Century comedies, since he was not born in the classical milieu of Athens.
The bounds between history and fiction receded in his mind, therefore the historiographer treated the anecdotes, the accusations and the rumours as real historical factsDOVER (1988: 50).
57 SeeRUSTEN (2006: 556–557). This method is not unusual in this period. See a parallel in Theopompus, who was contemporary with Ephorus. He reviews the Fifth-Century Athenian demagogues in Book 10 of his Philippica. For this, as a basis, he takes both the Fifth-Century comedies and the pamphlets HOSE (2006:
682).
58 See the methodological statements of Ephorus in his general, major prooemium.
FGRHIST 70 F 9 apud Harp. s. v. ἀρχαίως): (…) Ἔφορος δ' ἐν τῆι <α> τῶν Ἱστοριῶν τρόπον τινὰ ἐξηγήσατο, <ἐν ὧι> φησὶ περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων πραγμάτων τοὺς
Attila Hajdú
156
per loci of Aristophanes’ Acharnenses and Eupolis’ Demes, he treats them as historical sources which he writes like an “appendix” at the end of his narrative. 59
To summarise briefly: Ephorus’ audience knew the political causes, as written by Thucydides, which led to the war in 431. Hence, Ephorus sought different answers from those of Thucydides. In my opinion, we must seek the reason in the agōn-theory developed by F. Nietzsche, concerning which was typical of Greek ideology.60 Ephorus was inspired by this view; he wanted to rival the writing performance of Thucydides and outshine the ἀληθεστάτη πρόφασις of Thucydides. As we have seen, Isocrates’ opinion seems to have been unimportant during this rivalry.
Ephorus describes Thucydides’ Pericles as “a private person” by using the Old comedy. Let us recall briefly the narration’s motives which may confirm the previous statement: Ephorus’ Pericles prefers his own goals over those of the community; in order to avoid the accounting for the money, he simulates illness. With the advice of his cousin, Alcibiades, he speculates on the possibility of war and he does everything he can to avoid taking responsibility for the lost sum. This portrayal may not follow Thucydides’ characterization.
In Ephorus’ history, the balance among the city, the citizens, and the leader, which was based on the idea of democracy, seems to be damaged.
This Pericles, who is driven by his selfish purposes as a private person, invades the sphere of the city and tries to destroy the city and its citizens.
Speeches were also an important tool for historians. Indeed, Zsigmond Ritoók claimed that Thucydides used speeches to illustrate the depth of his characters; his speeches highlighted the different views of those characters.61 In this regard, however, we cannot say anything about Ephorus’ narrative preserved by Diodorus. We can only say that Pericles armed himself with λόγου δεινότης—the war is decided by the help of the persuaded citizens of Athens.
To sum up, the story of the historian from Cyme affects the latter Greco-Roman tradition. Plutarch especially used the Historiae of Ephorus
νεωτέρους διεξέρχεσθαι· <«περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς γεγενημένων»> φησί
<«τοὺς ἀκριβέστατα λέγοντας πιστοτάτους ἡγούμεθα, περὶ δὲ τῶν παλαιῶν τοὺς οὕτω διεξιόντας ἀπιθανωτάτους εἶναι νομίζομεν, ὑπολαμβάνοντες οὔτε τὰς πράξεις ἁπάσας οὔτε τῶν λόγων τοὺς πλείστους εἰκὸς εἶναι μνημονεύεσθαι διὰ τοσούτων.»> For further information see MARINCOLA (1997: 70); MARINCOLA
(2007: 173).
59 For the Ephorean quotes from the comedies (especially the problem of locus of Eupolis) see PARKER (2011: COMM. AD F 196); CONNOR (1960: 63–71).
60 See NIETZSCHE (1988: 37–50).
61 NÉMETH–SZILÁGYI–RITOÓK–SARKADY (2006: 624).
157 when describing the characters of the Athenian golden age—including the life of Pericles (Plu. Per. 31–32).62 Based on recent literature, the roots of the biographical literature have to be sought in the 4th century.63 Referring to Xenophon’s biographical work and the encomium of Theopompus, we may declare that the portrayal of typical characters of Ephorus, based on the features of the Old comedy, contributes to the birth of biographical literature, an art form brought to perfection by Plutarch.
In addition, in my opinion, there are also parallels between Ephorus’
portrait of Pericles and the Spartan Lysander.64 Thus, as the personal motives of Lysander can be held responsible for the fall of the Spartan hegemony, so the role of Pericles is similar regarding the overthrow of the Athenian Empire in the Ephorean Historiae. In this case, he is not directly responsible for the defeat of the city. Pericles, like Lysander, launches his polis on the road to destruction. It seemed to upset the balance among the allied city-states by transferring money of the Delian League to Athens.
By the ingression of the money into the polis, it fills in the harmful effects of both tryphē and pleonexia.65 Furthermore, Pericles does not shy away from bribery to achieve his goal. In this way he is much like Lysander, who wanted to bribe the most famous oracles of the Ancient Word to legitimize his power. 66
Ephorus described the Greek history as the continuous reconfiguration of subsequent hegemonies,67 which also suggests the existence of the Polybian translatio imperii in the Historae of Ephorus. It is most likely that Ephorus’ aim was to attribute to the politeia certain ethical principles borrowed from Isocrates and to connect the Isocratean paideia-principle with the ēthos of the polis’ leaders.68 While elaborating on his historical
62 Cf. HERBERT (1958: 510–513).
63 Cf. The standard work on this subject is HOMEYER (1962: 75–85); GENTILI– CERRI (1983) and MOMIGLIANO (1993).
64 The Spartan nauarch’s real goals are clearly illustrated by his well-written speech [συντεταγμένον (sc. τὸν λόγον) πιθανῶς καὶ πανούργως] of the Spartan politeia (περὶ τῆς πολιτείας λόγος), since his most coveted desire was to achieve the Spartan kingship: ὡς χρὴ τῶν Εὐρυπωντιδῶν καὶ Ἀγιαδῶν τὴν βασιλείαν ἀφελομένους εἰς μέσον θεῖναι καὶ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐκ τῶν ἀρίστων (…) See, in details: FGRHIST 70 F 207 apud Plu. Lys. 30,3–5).
65 Having lust after richness, he attempts to introduce gold and silver money into Sparta. Thus, the tryphē, which is associated with money, risks the principle of homonoia and andreia guaranteeing the abundance of Sparta. See FGRHIST 70 F 205 apud Plu. Lys. 17,1–2.
66 FGRHIST 70 F 206 apud Plu. Lys. 25,2–4. Cf. D. S. 14, 13, 4–5.
67 See, in details WICKERSHAM (1994: 119–177).
68 Cf. BLANKENSHIP (2009).
Attila Hajdú
158
characters, I believe, Ephorus could have done it on the basis of similar typologies.
I would like to close my paper with a short remark of Athenian paideia. In the collective memory of the 4th century, Pericles appears rather as a highly skilled orator or a demagogue than as an ideal politician.69 Pericles represents the idea of nea paidea introduced by the sophists. According to some Comedic interpretations, Pericles’ squillhead (schinokephalos) refers to his master himself, Anaxagoras, who is simply mentioned by the Athenians as a personalizing of νοῦς.70 As we have seen, Pericles achieved his aims by means of his oratorical skills.71 Athens paid a high price, however, since the city lost his leading position over Hellas.
It is possible that the exemplum of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War provides an excellent opportunity for Ephorus to illustrate—while drawing his portrait of Pericles—the harmful effects of the sophistical teaching as well.72 He assigned the causes of the fall of the Athenian hegemony to these “new” educational principles, since all factors leading to the Athenian defeat were in touch with Pericles, the children of sophistical paideia.
References
ALONZO-NÚÑEZ (1990) = J. M. ALONZO-NÚÑEZ: The Emergence of Universal Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries. B. C. In:
G.Schepens –E.DeKeyser –H.Verdin (eds.): Purposes of history.
Studia Hellenistica. Leuven 1990, 173–192.
ALONZO-NÚÑEZ (2002) = J.M. ALONSO-NÚÑEZ: The Idea of Universal History in Greece: From Herodotus to the Age of Augustus.
Amsterdam 2002.
AVENARIUS (1959) = G. AVENARIUS: Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung. Meisenheim/Glan 1956.
BARBER (1935) = G. L. BARBER: The Historian Ephorus. Cambridge 1935.
BURDE (1974) = P. BURDE: Untersuchungen zur antiken Universalgeschichtsschreibung. München 1974.
BLANKENSHIP 2009 = C. BLANKENSHIP: The Role of the Individual in Ephoros' Histories. (Thesis) 2009.
69 SCHUBERT (1994: 6).
70 Eup. Frg, 93; Frg. 240, Frg. 71; Telec. Frg. 44; Plut. Per. 4,6.
71 Plu. Per. 4; 8.
72 Cf. SCHACHERMEYR (1965: 1–23).
159 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~classics/docs/christopherblankenshipthesis.pdf (2013. 10. 08)
CHAMBERS 1975 = J.T.CHAMBERS: The fourth-century Athenians view of their fifth-century empire. La Parola Del Passato (1975) 177–191.
CLARKE 2008 = K.CLARKE: Making Time for the Past: Local History and the Polis. Oxford 2008.
CONNOR 1960 = W.R.CONNOR: Studies in Ephoros and Other Sources for the Cause of the Peloponnesian War. (Thesis) Princeton University 1960.
DOVER 1988 = K. J. DOVER: Anecdotes, Gossip and Scandal. In: The Greeks and Their Legacy: Collected Papers Vol. 2. Oxford 1988, 45–
52.
DREWS 1963 = R.DREWS: Diodorus and His Sources. AJP 83 (1962) 383–
392.
EHRENBERG (1973) = V. EHRENBERG: From Solon to Socrates. Greek History and Civilization During the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.
London 1973.
ERBSE 1953 = H. ERBSE: Über eine Eigenheit der thukydideischen Geschichtsbetrachtung. RM 96 (1953) 38–62.
FORNARA 1983 = C. W. FORNARA: The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome. Berkeley 1983.
GENTILI–CERRI 1983 = B. GENTILI–G. CERRI: Storia E Biografia Nel Pensiero Antico. Roma 1983.
GOMME 1959 = A.W.GOMME: A Historical Commentary on Thucydides:
I. Oxford 1959.
GRIBBLE 2006 = D.GRIBBLE: Individuals in Thucydides. In: A.Rengakos–
A.Tsakmakis (eds.): Brill's Companion to Thucydides. Leiden 2006, 439–468.
HERBERT (1958) = K. B. J.HERBERT: Ephorus in Plutarch’s Lives: A Source Problem (Summaries of Dissertation for the Degree of Ph.D.) HSCPh 63 (1958) 510–513.
HOMEYER 1962 = H. HOMEYER: Zu den Anfängen der griechischen Biographie. Philologus 106 (1962) 75–85.
HOLZAPFEL 1879 = L.HOLZAPFEL: Untersuchungen über die Darstellung der griechischen Geschichte von 489 bis 413 vor Chr. Bei Ephoros Theopomp U.a. Autoren. Leipzig 1879.
HORNBLOWER 2011 = S. HORNBLOWER: The Fourth-Century and Hellenistic Reception of Thucydides. In: Thucydidean Themes. Oxford 2011, 286–322.
HOSE 2006 = M. Hose: Peloponnesian War: Sources Other Than Thucydides. In: A.Rengakos –A.Tsakmakis (eds.): Brill's Companion to Thucydides. Leiden 2006, 669–690.
Attila Hajdú
160
JACOBY II A 1926 = F. JACOBY (ed.): Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. II. A. Berlin 1926.
JACOBY II. C 1926 = F.JACOBY (ed.): Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. II. C. Berlin 1926.
KERFELD 2003 = G. B. KERFELD: A szofista mozgalom. [The Sophistic Movement] (Trans.: G. Molnár) Budapest 2003.
LUCE 1997 = T.J.LUCE:The Greek Historians. London 1997.
MARINCOLA 1997 = J.MARINCOLA: Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge 1997.
MARINCOLA 2007 = J.MARINCOLA: Universal History from Ephorus to Diodorus. In:J.Marincola (ed.). A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Oxford 2007, 171–179.
MERITT–WADE-GERY–MCGREGOR 1949 = B.D.MERITT –H.T.WADE -GERY –M.F.MCGREGOR: The Athenian Tribute Lists: 2. Cambridge 1949.
MÉSZÁROS 2010 = MÉSZÁROS T.: Demokratikus értékek Periklés temetési beszédében (Th. 2,37). [The Democratic Values in funeral speech of Pericles] In: MayerP.–TarI. (eds.): Fikció és propaganda az ókorban:
válogatás a VIII. Magyar Ókortudományi konferencia előadásaiból.
(Szeged, 2008. május 22–25). [Fiction and Propaganda in the Ancient world: Selected papers of the 8th Hungarian Conference of Ancient Studies. (Szeged, from 22 to 25 May 2008)](Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Supplementum XII.) 2010, 61–72.
MOMIGLIANO 1993 = A. MOMIGLIANO: The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge 1993.
NÉMETH –SZILÁGYI –RITOÓK –SARKADY 2006 = NÉMETH GY.–SZILÁGYI J. GY. – RITOÓK ZS. – SARKADY JÁNOS: Görög művelődéstörténet.
[Ancient Greek Culture-History]. Budapest 2006.
NICOLAI 2006 = R.NICOLAI: Thucydides Continued. In: A.Rengakos–A.
Tsakmakis (eds.): Brill's Companion to Thucydides. Leiden 2006, 693–720.
NIESE 1909 = B. NIESE: Wann hat Ephoros sein Geschichtswerk geschrieben? Hermes 44 (1909) 170–178.
NIETZSCHE 1988 = F. NIETZSCHE: A homéroszi versengés [Homer's Contest] In: Ifjúkori görög tárgyú írások. [Youthful Greek writings]
(Trans.:A.Molnár) Budapest 1988, 37–50.
PARKER 2011 = V.PARKER: Ephoros (70). In: I.Worthington (ed.): Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online 2011.
Available: http://www.encquran.brill.nl/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/ephoros-70-a70 (2013. 10. 08)
PARMEGGIANI 2011 =G. PARMEGGIANI: Eforo di Cuma: studi di storiografia greca. Bologna 2011.
161 POWNALL 2004 = F.POWNALL: Ephorus’s History. In: Lessons from the Past. The moral use of history in fourth-century prose. Ann Arbor 2004, 113–142.
RUSTEN 2006 = J.RUSTEN: Thucydides and Comedy. A.Rengakos – A.
Tsakmakis(eds.): Brill's Companion to Thucydides. Leiden 2006, 547–
558.
SACKS (1990) K. SACKS = Diodorus Siculus and the First Century.
Princeton 1990.
SCHACHERMEYR 1965 = F. SCHACHERMEYR: Stesimbrotos und seine Schrift über die Staatsmänner. Wien 1965.
SCHEPENS 1977 = G.SCHEPENS: Historiographical Problems in Ephorus.
In: Historiographia antiqua: commentationes Lovanienses in honorem W. Peremans septuagenarii editae. Leuven 1977, 95–118.
SCHEPENS 2007 = G. SCHEPENS: History and Historia: Inquiry in the Greek Historians. In:J.Marincola (ed.): A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Oxford 2007, 39–55.
SCHUBERT 1994 = C.SCHUBERT: Perikles. Darmstadt 1994.
SCHWARTZ 1905 = E.SCHWARTZ: Diodoros. In: G.Wissowa (ed.): RE 5.1–2. Stuttgart 1905, 663–704.
SCHWARTZ 1907 = E.SCHWARTZ:Ephoros:In: G.Wissowa (ed.): RE 6.1.
Stuttgart 1907, 1–16.
SCHWARTZ 1909 = E. SCHWARTZ: Die Zeit des Ephoros. Hermes 44 (1909) 481–502.
VOGEL 1889 = F. VOGEL: Ephoros und Diodor über den Ausbruch des peloponnesischen Krieges. RhM 44 (1889) 532–539.
VOLQUARDSEN 1868 = C. A. VOLQUARDSEN: Untersuchungen über die Quellen der griechischen und sizilischen Geschichte bei Diodor, Buch XI bis XVI. Kiel 1868.
WICKERSHAM 1994 = J. M. WICKERSHAM: Hegemony and Greek Historians. Lanham 1994.
WHITEHEAD (2005) = D. WHITEHEAD: Ephorus (?) on the Spartan Constitution. CQ 55 (2005) 299–301.