Fragmentary Classical Historiography

This chapter analyses the moralising techniques and moral lessons of the Oxyrhynchus Historian, Ephorus of Cyme, and Theopompus of Chios. Using the techniques and lessons discovered and analysed throughout the book so far as a point of departure, it is tentatively concluded that both the Oxyrhynchus Historian and Ephorus seem to have been close to Thucydides and Xenophon in their moralising, but that Theopompus may have been radically innovative. It is therefore suggested that the ‘first moralising historian’ was not Ephorus, as is often claimed, but Herodotus, and that the innovator who made moralising more explicit and created the form seen in Polybius and Diodorus was likewise not Ephorus, but Theopompus.

Herodotus

This chapter analyses the moralising techniques and moral lessons of Herodotus. Using the moralising techniques found and analysed in Polybius and Diodorus as its point of departure, it discovers that Herodotus uses a root version of many of the techniques found in more developed form in the two Hellenistic historiographers, but that he also moralises on the macro-plane by means of a structure of subtly repeating patterns. In terms of moral lessons, the chapter concludes that Herodotus is more interested in the relationship between human beings and superhuman forces than in relationships between human beings, and that the justice exercised by his superhuman forces is not always obvious to his human actors. His over-all moral lesson is one of caution and moderation, and it is less clear-cut than the moral messages of his Hellenistic successors.

Thucydides

This chapter analyses the moralising techniques and moral lessons of Thucydides. Using the moralising techniques found and analysed in Polybius and Diodorus as its point of departure, it discovers that Thucydides uses a root version of many of the techniques found in more developed form in the two Hellenistic historiographers, but that, like Herodotus, he also moralises on the macro-plane by means of a structure of subtly repeating patterns. In addition, he uses a discrete technique which is labelled ‘minimalist moralising’ and which has endeared him modern readers. In terms of moral lessons, Thucydides turns out to be the only one of the historiographers studied who does not consider piety a virtue, and much of his work is shown to demonstrate a clash between two different world-views, one ‘traditional’ and the other ‘sophistic’ or ‘realist’.

Fragmentary Hellenistic Historiography

This chapter analyses the fragments of Timaeus of Tauromenium, Duris of Samos, Phylarchus, Agatharchides of Cnidus, Posidonius of Apamea, and Hieronymus of Cardia in order to uncover any hints of moral didacticism in their works. Using the lessons and techniques found and analysed in Polybius and Diodorus as its point of departure, it forms a theory about the moralising of each of the authors discussed, while always acknowledging the hypothetical nature of its conclusions.

Polybius

This chapter offers a thorough analysis of the moral-didactic lessons and moralising techniques of Polybius. It finds that practical, political, and moral didacticism are confluent in his Histories, and that moral actions are often shown to result in practical benefits for the moral actor. It also establishes that Polybius’ moral lessons are largely traditional, except for a lack of interest in piety and a high tolerance for brutal actions of war which are routinely labelled ‘cruel’ by other historiographers.

Introduction

The Introduction defines the perimeters and terminology of the book. In addition, it offers a brief overview of the role of moral didacticism in historiography from antiquity to the 21st century and discusses the distinctiveness of moralising in ancient Greek historiography compared with other genres at the time. It then offers a narratologically based typology of moralising techniques, which is used throughout the book.

Conclusion

The conclusion is brief as each chapter has its own part-conclusion. It summarises the argument to the effect that Greek historiography was moral-didactic from its inception, and that techniques developed while lessons stayed largely stable, with individual historiographers having individual quirks and preferences. The stability of the moral messages is surprising considering the time span and changes in political situation and so demonstrates the power of tradition in morality and of imitation in literature. The thorny question of whether moralising meant inventing details and writing poor history is then discussed, and the conclusion is ventured that no historiographer is ever objective and that Moral History was in and of itself no poorer than any other kinds of History. The quality of the history writing was determined by the historian’s handling of sources and ability to analyse them, and not by his, probably unconscious, decision to view the world through a moralistic lens.

Xenophon, Hellenica

This chapter analyses the moralising techniques and moral lessons of Xenophon’s Hellenika. In terms of techniques, it discovers that Xenophon stands at a midway point between his Classical predecessors and Hellenistic successors, but that he uses scenes with dialogue without explicit narratorial interpretation more than any of the other historiographers studied. With regard to moral lessons, piety looms large in Xenophon, where divine justice also plays a large part in how the world works. In addition, friendship is more important than in any of the other historiographers studied, but otherwise the moral virtues of Xenophon are largely traditional. The chapter ends with a brief comparison of moralising in the Hellenika with Xenophon’s other works, which confirms the distinctions drawn in the Introduction between moralising in historiography compared with other genres.

Diodorus Siculus

This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the Diodorus source problem and its bearing on the argument. It then offers a thorough analysis of the moral-didactic lessons and moralising techniques of Diodorus Siculus. It finds that Diodorus’ story universe is governed by divine forces, which are largely just, and that this makes piety the cardinal virtue of his historical actors. Diodorus also condemns brutality and cruel behaviour in any context, and especially when perpetrated against civilians or prisoners of war. Throughout, he recommends epieikeia, decent treatment of those in one’s power, as the most moral and most practically beneficial course. The chapter ends with an overview of differences in moralising between parts of Diodorus’ work based on different sources and briefly hypothesises about the moralising of these sources, some of which are going to be analysed in more detail in chapter 3.