Review: Authority and Tradition

Author(s): Thomas Harrison

Reviewed work(s):
Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography by J. Marincola
Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 49, No. 2 (1999), pp. 420-422
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/714120
Accessed: 16/02/2009 00:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
420 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

AUTHORITY AND TRADITION

J. MARINCOLA: Authorityand Traditionin AncientHistoriography.

Pp. xiii + 361. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997.Cased,
?45/$64.95.ISBN:0-521-48019-1.
This is a book of extraordinaryscope and ambition.It sets out to map the waysin
which historiansfrom Herodotusto Ammianus'claimthe authorityto narratethe
deeds encompassed in their works' (p. 1). Marincola limits himself largely to
narrativehistory,'GreatHistoriography'as he calls it; he also confineshis inquiry
to the explicit comments of historians,to what 'ancienthistorianstell us about
themselves'(p. xi). The frequentrecurrenceof such claimsled M. to the judgement
that the themesof authorityand traditionwereinseparable.
M. tackles his subject by theme. ChapterI, 'The Call to History', traces the
reasonswhy historiansclaimto havebeen drawnto theirsubjects:dreamsand other
'divineincidents',personaldedications-avoidedin 'GreatHistoriography' for fear
of suggestingpersonal favour-and the motive of glory or renown.'The ancient
historian',he concludes,'was concernedwith his own renownand wrotehistoryto
achieverenown',but no traditiondevelopedof claimingsuch glory explicitly,still
less of presentingpersonalglory as a reason for writinghistory.ChapterII, 'The
Historian'sInquiry',details the claims made concerninghistoricalmethod:of the
valueof autopsy,of beingcloseto the sourceof power,or of havingprivilegedaccess
to information,the approachto non-contemporary history,and to mythand history.
ChapterIII, 'The Historian'sCharacter',considersclaims of military,political,or
other experience,of effort (tireless years spent in research),and of impartiality.
ChapterIV,'TheHistorian'sDeeds',then turnsto the historian'smannerof describ-
ing eventsin whichhe was himselfa participant.The question,he argues,shouldnot
be reducedto mere 'issuesof person'but should be treatedmore broadlyas also a
matterof the perspectiveor focalizationof the narrative(pp. 179-80).He then looks
at morespecifictechniquesof self-presentation:forexample,the motif of divineaid, a
devicefor lessening'invidiatowardsthe maincharacter'(p. 207), or the emphasison
the historian'sactionsas partof a larger,groupendeavour.ChapterV, 'The"Lonely"
Historian', examines the ways in which historians positioned themselveseither
in opposition to or as the inheritorsof their predecessors.Polemic,he suggests,
was a particularfeatureof non-contemporary history(p. 224). To declareyourself
the continuatorof a formerGreat Master was a way of 'makinga claim'about
the importanceof your work without 'overtself-advertisement' (p. 241). The book
concludeswith a summaryof its 'findings'by chapter-topic,andwitha comparisonof
the proceduresof contemporaryand non-contemporary, and of Greekand Roman
historians.Thereare seven appendices:a table of historians,familytrees of Greek
and Romancontinuators,and brief discussionsof, for example,the differentwaysin
whichhistorianspresent(or withhold)theirnamesand placesof origin.The book,
exquisitelyproduced,also includesan excellentgeneralindex(as well as an index of
Greekwords and indexlocorum),allowingthe readerto trackindividualhistorians
acrossthe chapterdivisions.
The scale and structureof such a projectinevitablybeg questions.Why should
narrativehistorybe treatedapartfrombastardgenressuchas epitomeor biography?
Oncewe havetidiedup the traditionof 'GreatHistoriography', do thepatchyremains
(withthe greatlacuna,for example,betweenTacitusand Ammianus)reallyconstitute
a singletradition?Whytreata historian'sexplicitcommentson his methodor purpose
? OxfordUniversityPress, 1999
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 421

apart from his practice? M. is aware of all these questions. Explicit statements cannot
be the whole story of how a historian 'compels belief' (p. xii). There were other ways
of finding out about the past than through narrative history (p. 20). M. also resists
crude, schematic distinctions such as that between a Thucydidean political history and
a 'pleasure-oriented, highly artificial "rhetorical" historiography, whose . . . patron
saint was Isocrates' (pp. 2-3). At times, however, the reader comes up against some
fairly rigid distinctions beween sub-genres: Ammianus' famous story of his escape
from Amida is seen as a pastiche of elements of memoir and of the 'narrative of
exciting adventure and escape' (p. 203). M.'s procedure of treating explicit statements
in isolation from their implementation has also, I suspect, the unintended consequence
of enhancing the similarities between historians.
Ammianus was very conscious of his place in a tradition. As T. D. Barnes has put
it, he 'intended his Res Gestae to sum up the whole of Greco-Roman historiography'.
But were all historians equally aware of the weight of tradition? M's approach,
in particular his thematic structure, succeeds in unearthing a number of interesting
links between historians-Ammianus' description of himself as 'miles quondam et
Graecus', for example, is seen as a nod to the tradition of the Greek soldier-historian
(pp. 256-7)-but many other connections are rather less concrete. How is it, for
example, that Ctesias shows 'an immediate appreciation and grasp of the possibilities
opened up by Thucydides' (p. 186), except in so far as both claimed to write from
experience? It is important to distinguish, moreover, between degrees or types of
reference. M.'s Ammianus 'cites' and makes 'a clear reference to' Herodotus (p. 255),
but, as Fornara has argued in an article cited by M. (p. 257 n. 208), Ammianus'
knowledge of the Greek historians was, by contrast to his knowledge of Latin writers,
'not substantial', indeed largely second-hand. Terms such as 'reference'and 'citation'
are too blunt. Similarities between historians-the pattern, for example, whereby they
assure readers of their evidence before praising a man (p. 173)-are not always the
subject of conscious emulation, or of a sense of tradition.
Such a broad focus will inevitably reduce the complexities of any single historian in
a way that will be painful to those of narrowerscope. I cannot believe that Herodotus
'seems to refer to effort only once', at 3.115.2 (p. 148): what, for starters, of his travels
in search of Herakles at 2.44? The statement that the Egyptian priests' appeal to the
authority of Menelaus (as opposed to Homer) 'may symbolically represent the
superiority of inquiry over inspiration, the triumph of history over poetry' (p. 226) or
the three-sentence summary of Herodotus' historical procedure (p. 67) shout out for
qualification. There are ample references to more thorough accounts. (How can one
expect more in the context of such a broad survey?) But there is an extraordinary
optimism in such generalizations, an optimism that underlies M.'s project as a whole.
What does it mean to compare Ammianus with Herodotus, or to seek to distil from
both together the practice of 'the ancient historian'? M., of course, does not paint out
the individual. Indeed, his stress on the 'individual within the continuity and
development of the tradition' is an important plank of his differentiation of his
project from those of previous scholars (p. xi). Nor does he exclude the pressures of
social context: a particular theme of the book is the way in which, especially Roman,
historians learnt to exist in a monarchical world where the 'belief that all historians
wrote out of fear and favour must have become deeply ingrained' (p. 166). But his
summations of the procedure of 'the ancient historian' are often banal. M. unfailingly
notes variant procedures-statements of autopsy, for example, can act as 'a voucher'
for a marvel or they can underline splendour or number (pp. 82-3)-but the
classificatory zeal seems Procrustean. Shifts in historiographicalpractice are presented
422 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

as the result of clear choices, as if the historian went about his task with the help of a
handbook: historians after Thucydides had three ways, we are told, of dealing with
'myths': avoid them, rationalize them, or include them and leave the reader to make his
own judgement (p. 118).
It is all, surely, more problematic. It is hard not to question whether the themes of
authority and tradition might more rewardinglybe pursued through the close analysis
of particular authors (or relationships between authors). M. undoubtedly has done
much of the groundwork for such closer studies. He has provided an enormously
useful, enormously learned guide to many of the most central questions of ancient
historiography. But in attempting to survey this vast landscape, I sense that he has
flattened it.
UniversityCollege London THOMAS HARRISON

THE END (. ..)

D. H. ROBERTS, F. M. DUNN, D. FOWLER (edd.): Classical

Closure:Readingthe Endin GreekandLatinLiterature.Pp. xvi + 311.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997.Cased,$39.50/?30.ISBN:
0-691-04452-X.
This impressive collection demonstrates that there is ample justification for the
continued study of closure. Don Fowler's opening chapter, which serves as an
introduction to the volume, shows the centrality of closure for the interpretation of
all kinds of literary texts, as well as its importance for politics, gender, and the very
understanding of textuality. Mainstream Greek and Roman literature is well covered
not only by this assembly of essays, but often within some essays themselves. Philip
Hardie (chiefly on the epics of Virgil, Statius, and Silius) and Massimo Fusillo
(on ancient novels) are examples of this cosmopolitanism across genres, but Peta
Fowler's discussion of the transposition of the end of De Rerum Natura also has
implications for other philosophical texts, and Alessandro Barchiesi's account of
the ends of Ovid's Metamorphoses and Fasti should in itself become a standard
contribution to Augustan literary history.
Sheila Murnaghan's reading of the Iliad against its own programme is a specific
treatment which shows how heroic anger and Zeus' 'plotting' ensure that closure is
systematically deferred. This close examination of competing themes in the poem,
read against mythological paradigms, allows a nuanced account of what Dios boule
can mean. Another success is Carolyn Dewald's account of the significance of the end
of Herodotus: the Histories do not appear to provide any satisfactory thematic
closure. Their ending is open because it is up to us to determine, in the light of our
hindsight, the full consequence and significance of the events Herodotus describes.
This is generally salutary for broader considerations about the relation between
historiography and historicism. Two other studies of single texts, however,risk putting
too many eggs in one basket. W. R. Johnson's flamboyant treatment of Propertius
4.11 verges on the fluffy at times, but, even so, it rewards patient readers with a
contextualization of Cornelia in Propertius' oeuvre as a whole. Francis Dunn begins
by surveying the crucial junctures of Euripides' Herakles (though his claim that the
? OxfordUniversityPress, 1999