2

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND ANCIENT GREEK SELF-DEFINITION1

Paul Cartledge

INVENTING HISTORY The issue of the ancient Greeks' self-definition comprises a multivariate cluster of complex and highly unstable problem~ne, central member of this cluster constitutes this chapter's topic - t.he ways in which the Greeks 4.efin~es a~~tbno cultural group through the medium of written historiography. from the ti~Her~!ls (fifth century BC/BCE) tQ.that of Pluta~ch (first-second century AD/CE).2 Our English word 'history', like French histoire, Italian storia and other such European equivalents, descends to us ultimately from the Greek via Latin, as does so much else of our cultural-intellectual baggage. But en route from Greece to Rome, and again, between the Renaissance and today, the word historia and its derivatives have changed crucially in their meaning - or rather meanings. From its original senses of judgement and enquiry (which latter we preserve in 'natural history', a discipline whose antecedents may be traced back through Aristotle to the Hippocratic doctors of the fifth century and ultimately the Asiatic Greek 'philosophers of nature' in the sixth) ~cient Greek histona came secondarilY

I An earlier version of the first four sections of this chapter appeared as Cartledge 1995. I am grateful to the editor of BICS, Professor Richard Sorabji, for allowing me to draw here upon that article, where some further bibliographical references may be found. 2 Recent work in ancient Greek historiography is usefully surveyed in Hornblower 1994 (note esp. the editor's introduction, 1-72, and the consolidated bibliography, 249-69); for a much longer perspective, going back to the sixteenth century, see Ampolo 1996. Add now Thompson 1996 , a wide­ ranging and intelligent historiographical conspectus. The most recent monographic survey of ancient Greek history-writing known 10 me is Meister 1990; far more challenging is Desideri 1996. Both Ampolo and Desideri end with M. Bernal's Black Arhma project, which since its inauguration in 1987 has acquired a formidable bibliographical rradition of its own. For this, and a more ample and nuanced collocation of ancient Greek with modern Western modes of historiography, see my Introduction on pp.3-1O.

23 BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST

to denote the results of such judgement and enquiry regarding human public political actions as related purely orally at first and then in written narrative prose. 3 That secondary usage is perhaps attested earliest in about 425 BCE, in the Histories of Herodotus (7.96), although for him the primary sense of enquiry remained paramount. His illustrious successor, and rival historiographer, Thucydides avoided the word altogether, surely deliberately, and preferred to describe h.is activity as 'writing up', using the impersonal language of documentary record. But J-fefo"itotus,-too, firmly maintained the link between enquiry and record throughout his work, and, again like Thucydides, was preoccupied with explanat!2!!, from his preface onwards: 'This is an exposition ""Or the research (historia) of Herodotus ... carried out .. , especially to record the reason why they [the Greeks and the Persians) fought one another.' However, by the time that historia had become domesticated at Rome as part of the cultural process whereby 'captive Greece' had in Horace's famous phrase 'captured her fierce conqueror', it had acquired a further, moralizing an~ jucstificatory, rather than documentary and explanatory, connotatiQn. The chief function of history for the Romans, as Tacitus colourfully but conventionally claimed (Annals 3.65), was respectively to excoriate and to praise paradigmati~ examples ofhuman vice and- virtue - the former usually, as in Tacitus' own case, f~r more assiduously t an t .e latte2' Of course, the polarity between Greek and Roman historiographical theory and practice should not be overdrawn. Even the fathers of Greek history - who were perhaps also the fathers of History as such - were as incapable as the res[QG!s...are of avoiding the historian's engrained tendency to be the obedient servant of her or his own point of view. 5 BeS1aes, the successors of Herodotus and-'Thucydides wer~ mostly neither immune from nor averse to the dramatically moralizing or sensationalist uses of historical narrative. 6 the comparison, rather, raises the issue of the striking ofa balance between objectivity ofrecorCl and explanatIOn, ontheone han , an conscIOus or unconscIous ideology, on t e ot er n what follows I shall be exploring principally these two, ideological question ow far, and in what ways, did the distinction and opposition of Greeks and non-Greek 'barbarians' influence or determine Greek historians' conceptions of their function? S~'

3 On the ancient meanings of historia, see Press 1982; Fornara 1983. On orality, see below, n. 7. 4 Tacitean historiography: Syme 1958 is classic; cf. Cook 1988: 73-96; longer perspectives are on offer in Woodman and Luce 1993; Cartledge 1989. 5 The (meta-)historiography of P. Geyl (e.g. Debates with Historians (1962 (1955)) and Encounters in History (1963 (1961))) and A. D. Momigliano (e.g. his multi-volume Contributi aI/a stona degli studi classici e del mondo antico or, selectively, Studies in Historiography (London, 1966), Essays in Ancient and Modern Histln"iography (Oxford, 1977) and Studies on Modem Scholarship (Berkeley, 1994) is instinct with the injunction 'Study first the historian, not the history.' For other viewpoints on the 'objectivity question' compare and contrast Hartog 1988; and Novick 1988. 6 Post-classical so-called 'tragic' history is discussed in broad perspective, with special reference to Aristotle and Polybius, in Walbank 1985. C. W. Macleod's (1983) contention that Thucydides' history was already (in a different sense) tragic is provocative.

24 I I '..J..' • I

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION

from the standpoint of their target audiences of Greek or Hellenized addressees, how far and in what ways did the Greek historians contribute to the formation of usable notions of'Greekness'?

MYTH AND HISTORY A deliberately challenging assertion by a historian of modern ideology provides a suitable starting-point: 'one of the uses of history has always been (in Western society at least) the creation of traditional mythologies attributing a historical sanctity to the present self-Images of groups, classes and societies' (Stedman Jones 1972: 112). Herodotus and Thucydides, the latter especially, would have rejected that claim with contumely. Both were scornful of myth, which they consigned to the province of the poets, and our dichotomy of 'myth' and 'history' is in fact owed ultimately to them. But they reached that position by importantly different routes. Herodotus, crucially, drew the distinction between the timelessly distant rule of the sea by legendary King Minos of Crete and the certifiably authentic thalassocracy of Polycrates of Samos within living memory, on the grounds that only the latter belonged to 'the age of humankind as it is called' (3.122). And he declared himself obliged to relate, but free to disbelieve, the multiplicity of orally transmitted 'tales' he heard on his peregrinations round the Mediterranean and Black Seas (7.152). Thucydides went much further. He dismissed what he called 'the mnhic' as no better than romance (1.21, 22), precisely because it was the product of unreliable and untested oral traditions. Whereas Herodotus was prepared to give credence ,to stories concerning events as much as two ~nerations fore his birth, Thucydides was from choice die contemporary historian ar excellence.:. One of his chief reasons for choosing as "hIs su Ject e great war between Athens and Sparta beginning in 431 was that it broke out in his own lifetime when he was already 'of an age to understand what was going on' (5.26) and could interrogate contemporaries, ideally I. event-making or eyewitness participants (l.22). His was a history written to be rea.d Ii and re-read. 7 The Thucydidean model set the pattern for all subsequent Greek historiography, I I[ in this following respect at least: original history ~s contemporary history, picking ~ up the narrative thread where one's predecessors had let it drop. For earlier periods I \'I than one's own the best one could normally hope for was to improve on the I predecessors' manner, not their content. Bur in other respects Thuc;ydides' I successors differed as much from each other and from Thucydides as Thucydides I had from Herodotus, whom he never once mentioned by name. Indeed, the only I' serious agreement Thucydides seems to have had with him was that a history should be about war. 8 Bur whereas Herodotus had chosen for his subject a Russian-style

7 Murray 1987, Thomas 1992; Steiner 1994. On contemporary Greek spectarorship and audiences, with special but by no means exclusive reference to the theatre, see Segal 1995; also very relevant to the performative aspect of early Greek historiography is Nagy 1996. 8 War in Greek historiography: Finley 1985: ch. 5 ('War and empire', 67-87).

25 IJI 1/ HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION I' I from the standpoint of their target audiences of Greek or Hellenized addressees, how far and in what ways did the Greek historians contribute to the formation of usable notions of'Greekness'?

MYTH AND HISTORY A deliberately challenging assertion by a historian of modern ideology provides a suitable starting-point: 'one of the uses of history has always been (in Western society at least) the creation of traditional mythologies attributing a historical sanct~~o~e present self-Images of groups, classes and societies' (Stedman Jones 1972: 112). Herodotus and Thucydides, the latter especially, would have rejected that claim with contumely. Both were scornful of myth, which they consigned to the province of the poets, and our dichotomy of 'myth' and 'history' is in fact owed ultimately to them. But they reached that position by importantly different routes. Herodotus, crucially, drew the distinction between the timelessly distant rule of the sea by legendary King Minos of Crete and the certifiably authentic thalassocracy of Polycrates of Samos within living memory, on the grounds that only the latter belonged to 'the age of humankind as it is called' (3.122). And he declared himself obliged to relate, but free to disbelieve, the multiplicity of orally transmitted 'tales' he heard on his peregrinations round the Mediterranean and Black Seas (7.152). Thucydides went much further. He dismissed what he called 'the mythic' as no better than romance (1.21, 22), precisely because it was the product of unreliable and untested oral traditions. Whereas Herodotus was prepared to give credens~to stories concerning events as much as two enerations befo!~is birlj}, Thucydides was from cho~emporary historian ar excellence. One of his chief reasons for choosing as'his su lect e great war between Athens and Sparta beginning in 431 was that it broke out in his own lifetime when he was already 'of an age to understand what was going on' (5.26) and could interrogate contemporaries, ideally event-making or eyewitness participants (1.22). His was a history written to be u:.ad and re-read. 7 The Thucydidean model set the pattern for all subsequent Greek historiography, in this following respect at least: original history ~as contempora.ry. bisroq:, picking up the narrative thread where one's predecessors had let it drop. For earlier periods than one's own the best one could normally hope for was to improve on the predecessors' manner, not their content. But in other respects Thucydides' successors differed as much from each other and from Thucydides as Thucydides had from Herodotus, whom he never once mentioned by name. Indeed, the only serious agreement Thucydides seems to have had with him was tbat a history should be about war. 8 But whereas Herodotus had chosen for his subject a Russian-style

7 Murray 1987, Thomas 1992; Steiner 1994. On contemporary Greek spectatorship and audiences, with special but by no means exclusive reference to the theatre, see Segal 1995; also very relevant to the perfonnative aspect of early Greek historiography is Nagy 1996. 8 War in Greek historiography: Finley 1985: ch. 5 ('War and empire', 67-87).

25 BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST

'great patnotlc war', Thucydides wrote up a war of Greek against Greek with minimal, indeed palpably inadequate, reference to the role of non-Greeks therein. Thucydides' war, however, would to Herodotus have seemed but a 'civil war among the Greek people', and such a war Herodotus deemed 'as much worse than like­ minded war against a foreign enemy as war is worse than peace' (8.3). Not that Herodotus was simple-mindedly chauvinistic, by any means: to quote again from his preface, his self-appointed task was to celebrate 'the great deeds of both the Greeks and the non-Greeks" or, as they were by then collectively known, the 'barbarians'.

INVENTING THE BARBARIAN In order for him to do that, of course, the barbarians had first to have been invented a~ a cultural category of Greek thought and discourse. 9 Indeed, it may very well have been to challenge and undermine the overwhelmingly negative 'construction of this cultural stereotype that Herodotus conceived and conducted his even-handed project of recuperative commemoration. Herodotus' ultimate literary model was Homer,. and, seen from a post-Persian War perspective, the Iliad was among other things an epic of Graeco-barbarian military confrontation. Yet 'barbarian' was used just once in the Iliad and used descriptively, not e'orativel to refer the unintelligible oon- ree speech of the rians of south-west Asia Minor. Throughout the poem, 10 lact, something like a parity of dignity and status was carefully maintained between the two sides, the non-Greek but Greek-style Trojans and the Acha ans - not yet the 'Hellenes', as the Greeks had agreed to call themselves by Herodotus' time, and still call themselves to this day. (Our term 'Greeks', to anticipate, is derived from the Romans' 'Graeci', a deliberately diminishing and ethnocentric term suitable for their conquered subjects.) Between HQ.~r and Herodotus, in other words, a par~gm-shift of consciousne.ss.. had occurred. So far from according parity to non-Greeks, the Greeks now primarily effected their self-identification through the polar opposition of themselves to the morally inferior barbarians - 'wogs', as it were, to borrow the language of a more recent colonialist discourse. Two factors, briefly, were chiefly responsible for this sea-change in attitu~irst, there had been ongoing since about 750 a tidal wave of permanent emigration from the Greeks' Aegean and eastern Mediterranean heartlands, to sites almost all round the Mediterranean and Black Seas, so that Plato in the fourth ~ury could speak amusingly of Greeks sitting 'like frogs or ants around a pon[7ifferences between Greek settlers and indigenous 'natives' could hardly fail to oe expressed, often militarily, and they were encoded in what has been called a 'colonial narrative' of Greek self-justification (Dougherty 1993; 1994). Conversely, cultural ties, and especially religious affinity, bound all Greek

9 Hartog 1988; Hall 1989; Georges 1994. Ascherson (1995) interestingly applies Hartog's and Hall's insights on a broader canvas, but he is demonstrably in error to claim that 'conveying information was the only purpose ofall their [the historians'] arduous researching and writing' (78).

26 HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION

'colonists' both to their mother-cities and, through the Panhellenic shrines such as Olympia and Delphi, to each other and thereby served to foster a positive concept of 'Greekness'. Whether we define nations as imagined communities, or as objectively instituted entities, there existed by about 500 Be something that could be called a Greek 'nation,.l0 This was an unstable and inchoate compound of territoriality, ethnic homogeneity (common 'blood'), common culture and a sort of collective unconscious - almost all the factors widely understood as constituting nationality or ethnicity today (Glazer and Moynihan 1975; Smith 1986; Anderson 1991; Hobsbawm 1992; Miller 1995; see also n. 40 below). w..~at that inchoate nationhood signally lacked, however, was any strictly political ,I component. To the contrary, a vital element in the earliest forms of Greek scJf­ d~finition ·1 - was a radically exclusive commitment to the individual and separate I political community, often more on the scale of a town or even village than a city, of i I which one was a resident member. Greeks of another gupmunity were at_~ considered as much foreigners or strangers as. were non-Greeks, and relations between Greek communities were as likel to be hostile as peaceful, let alone arnica y co operative. Indeed, identification with one's own community was strengthened by the peculiarly communal and civic form of infantry warfare that then predominated and gave political as well as military shape to the era (Hanson 1989; 1995). It therefore required a major war of many Greeks against a non-Greek enemy on . the scale of the Persian Wars written u by Herodotus to alter r ortico­ military seff- e muon deci,gvely. Even the Persian Wars had only a limited effect, institutionally, since far more Greeks fought with than fought against the Persian­ led invaders in 480 and 479, and what followed the loyalist Greeks' victory was more inter-Greek feuding and fighting rather than any broadly inclusive 'uriited nations' or 'united states' of Hellas. Nevertheless, that war of David against Goliath, and its geopolitical consequences, p::~ked enough ~tical punch to constitute decisively the other major factor determining the Greeks' overwhelmingly negative construction of 'barbarian~. Thereafter, being Greek comported a political as well as cultural co'mponent, in the form of civic republicanism as opposed to oriental despot­ ism.(Steiner 1994; Thompson 1996; see also n. 13 below). That opposition, indeed, may have been the essential condition for the creation of Herodotus' history, ifnot of History itself (Momigliano 1979; Cartledge 1993a).

HELLENISM AFFIRMED: ETHNOGRAPHY AS HISTORY BY OTHER MEANS Only the Spartans, in Herodotus's wide experience of the Greek world, preserved the old linguistic usage and refused to distinguish between Greek strangers (xenoi)

10 Walbank, 'The Problem of Greek nationality' (1951), rcpr. in Walbank 1985: 1-19; Finley, 'The ancient Greeks and their nation' (1954) repro in Finley 1986: 120-33; cf. more broadly Said 1991.

27

I BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST and non-Greek 'barbarians', but then the literally xenophobic Spartans put their money where their mouths were and practised periodic expulsions of strangers, both Greek and non-Greek. The Spartans were odd Greeks in other ways too, so odd indeed that Herodotus reported some of their customs in his 'ethnographic' manner, almost as if he were describing those of non-Greeks (Cartledge 1993a). What is no less striking, though, is the relative disinterestedness with which he treated the customs of both Greeks and non-Greeks. Compare and contrast Herodotus' practice in this respect with, say, the triumphalist and ethnocentric annals of the pharaohs and the Assyrian monarchs, or with the Hebrew Bible's books of Samuel and !(jngs (Cook 1988: ch. 8). Herodotus was no mere sanctifying mythologer of an official Greek self-image (Momigliano 1966: 127-42). In this impartiality he had Homer's example to inspire him, but that by itself is unlikely to have been proof against the virulent new anti-barbarian prejudice. His own family background, with its close connections with non-Greek Carian families, may also have helped. But the primary explanation of his exceptional objectivity is to be sought rather finiS acceptance onne revolutionary teachings of the itinerant Greek ififeIlectuals known as tneSophists. > What was natural, what cultural or (merely) conventional in human social behaviour? To the ordinary Greek, as to most people in all societies, what was natural was right, and what their culture believed right or took for granted and habitually practised was natural. It required therefore an unusually powerful intellectual self-confidence to resist the everyday prejudice that Greek norms were natural and good, whereas those of barbarian culture were innately flawed. That antinomian confidence was possessed by the Sophist who blankly asserted that, since Greeks and non-Greeks had the same human bodies the differences b en themnad to e (merely) conventional. It Was fully shared by Herodotus, who made the same point dramatically through the device of an emblematic (and ben trovato) anecdote set at the court of Persian Great King Darius and involving opposing Greek and Indian national burial customs. Every people, Herodotus taught by endorsing the praise-poet Pindar's adage 'custom is king of aU' (3.38), regards its own customs as best, but whether they are in fact so is a different matter, one that has to be investigated empirically through a balanced cultural history of both Greeks and non-Greeks. 12 Two illustrations will have to suffice, his treatment of women, and his discourse on despotic power. R~~spectable Greek women of citizen staE!.s were not suppo~d to be talked about, or even--llamed, in public among unrelated. men; it was an i~rtant part of a male Greek citizen's honour and self-esteem that he should be in a position to shield his womenfolk from such damaging talk (Cartledge 1993b).

11 The Sophist cited is Antiphon, possibly to be identified with the Athenian exrreme oligarchic theoretician of 411: Gagarin and Woodruff 1995: 244-5 (fr. 7a 'On truth'). 12 Sophistic relativism: de Romilly 1992. Herodotus' attitude to non-Greek religious customs: Gould 1994; Thompson 1996. R. Thomas has in preparation a monograph along the lines of 'Herodotus the Sophist'.

28 "'.I .....

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION

No such taboo constrained Herodotus (though it did the more conservative Thucydides), who indeed manipulated the usages of women in Greek and more I especially barbarian societies as a means of indicatmg the proper, Greek wa ' to treat therrl(Roselhm and Said 1 78 . Copulation in public, in the manner of beasts, piaced a human society that tolerated such shameful (or shameless) behaviour at the I furthest remove from the normative Greek end of the spectrum. Copulation in private but without benefit of legal matrimony ranked it only a little nearer. Those I barbarian societies which, like Persia, practised polygamy were both naturally and I culturally unGreek, but at least the Persians did recognize legal marriage and I outlawed adultery. However, when a SOC"iety combined polygamy with despotic power, ~ersia, then it entered Herodotus' alternatiVe, political discourse of Ii Greek self-definition. . The paradigm case for Herodotus' purposes was that of Great King Xerxes, son of Darius, whose invasion of Greece he represented as a war for the extinction of Greek liberty and imposition of slavery. It is no surprise to find Xerxes at the climax of the history involved back home in Susa in a sordid and ultimately gory plot to seduce a brother's wife, since one of orientaIaespousm's stigmata was precisely such g~s mistreatment even (or especially) of close ema ere atlves. Anot~eans employed by Herodotus to brIng out the Greek-Persian pOlafdichotomy was to set against Xerxes ex-King Damaratus of Sparta, a political exile and formally a traitor to the loyalist Greek cause but nevertheless in Herodotus' book an unwavering spokesman for Greek civic values. Speaking of his fellow-countrymen with a properly Greek freedom of spirit and expression, Herodotus' Damaratus tells hjs incredulous Persian suzerain that, however greatly outnumbered, they will resist his horde to the death, since unlike his non-Greek subjects the Sp-artan.s acknowledge only one, non-human master - the law that they themselves have made and assented to as free citizens of a Greek community (7.104). That, in nuce, is Herodotus' deepest explanation of why the relatively few loyalist Greeks were able as well as willing to resist Xerxes' invasion, and to do so successfully. 14 It was to Herodotus' great credit that he in no way disguised the Greeks' irreconcilable political divisions. Indeed, there is a tragic undertone to his despairing remark that 'in the three generations of Darius the son of Hystaspes, Xerxes son of Darius and Artaxerxes son of Xerxes more woes befell Greece than in the twenty generations preceding Darius' (6.98), since so many of those woes were self-inflicted. Following the Persian Wars the cause in chief was the rise of ~n Athenian Empire, many of whose more articulate Greek subjects felt - rightly or wrongly-=--mat il1ey had been delivered from an oriental despotism only to fall prey to a home-g~ Greek tyranny (l'upIlr1T985). Herodotus, however, who was

13 HdL 9.108-13, with Cartledge 1993a: 85-6. Add the mutilation of an anonymous sister-in-law of Xerxes, inflicted at the behest of Xerxes' wife Amesrris, ro the catalogue of despotic oriental mutilations in Steiner 1994: 154-5. 14 For a view of the Histories as a quasi-allegorizing tract for Herodotus' own times, see Moles 1996; cf. Thompson 1996.

29 BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST

himself for a time an imperial Athenian subject, did not scruple to state t.hat.i!l his view it was the Athenians who, on balance, had been the 'saviours :eece' in the Wars, although hewas care u to preface that contentious judgement by acknow­ ledging that it would be 'resented by many' (7.139). Moreover, it was to 'the Athenians' in an official response to their less than wholly resolute Spartan allies that Herodotus attributed a ersuasive definitiqJjof Greekness which he clearly hoped woul be found compellingly impressive far beyond its putative historical cOi1teXtOfWlnte-r480779: .-...

Many very powerful considerations prevent us [from going over to the Persians]: first and foremost, the burning and destruction of OUT temples and the images of our gods; ... then, the fact of our being Greek - our common language, the altars and sacrifices we all share, our common mores and customs. (8.144)

Doubtless this was ideology, a conscious piece of retrospective mythologizing, but it was both symbolically apt and not without all purchase on fifth-century actuality, as Thucydides' very different history allusively testified.

HELLENISM UNDERMINED Thucydides began his narrative where Herodotus had left off, in 478, but he normally avoided his predecessor's ethnographic manner and said remarkably little about non-Greeks, even though the war between Athens and Sparta had, he noted 'f prefatorily, involved 'a part of the barbarian world' (1.1) and indeed had been eventually decided by the intervention of a barbarian, the Persian Cyrus the Younger, a great-grandson of Xerxes (2.65). The effect and no doubt the aim of this sil~ was to concentrate readers' attention o~reek world 'convulsed' (3.82) by what we in Thucydides's honour refer to as the Peloponnesian ~t is, the war against Sparta and her allies seen from the Athenian side of the barricades. Thucydides was no les~p~~occupledtfiai11Ierodotus with the image of Hellenism and Greek self-definition, but he opted for a negative approach and a portrayal imbued with sombrely tragic hues. IS In 43 I the Hellenic world was at the height of its material prosperity and material p'reparedness. All the greater therefore was the ensuing catastrophe. The Spartans' announced war aim of liberating the Athenians' Greek subjects apparently appealed to many (2.8), or so it was maintained by Thucydides, himself no admirer of Athenian imperialism as it was cond---"}vkish democrats. Ith rare exceptions, however, the Spartans proved no more g~~y altruistic in their liberationist pretensions than their opponents. In the

15 The Historical Commentary on Thucydides in 5 vols by A. W. Gomme, as completed by A. Andrewes and K. J. Dover (Oxford, 1945-81), is standard; note also S. Hornblower's commentary in progress, of which two volumes (of 3) have so far appeared (Oxford, 1991-1996). Thucydides on Hellenism: Cartledge 1993a: 50-5.

30 'J. ... •

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION

course of an increasingly brutal and brutalizing war both sides cynically exploited liberation propaganda to intervene in the civil commotions that afflicted much of the Mediterranean Greek world. The destruction by mighty Athens of the little island-state of Melos in 416/15 was portrayed by Thucydides (5.84- Ilb) as paradigmatic of the moral decline ~f Hellenism -anathnaroarizlntODfhartiad come to infecTGreek seff-percepllons and mterrelatimoc-lhetactSThafMeIos w~s oligarchicaIlyrwed an

16 Thucydides and Thrace: Herman 1990, at 349-50 (with alternative reconstructed summata).

31 BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST

PANHELLENIST FANTASIAS As if in antiphonal response to Thucydides' threnody the first two decades of the fourth century resounded with speciously 'Panhellenist' speechifying and 17 pamph.leteecing...,­ The Sicilian Sophist Gorgias and the Sicilian-Athenian speechwriter l1sias both delivered themselves of emollient pleas for Panhellenic unity at Olympi;: one of the two major Panhellenic religious shrines (open to all and only Greeks for purposes of athletic competition). But their pleas went unheeded, as conquering Sparta and a resurgent Athens vied, all too successfully, for barbarian Persian financial support in their attempts to secure an Aegean hegemony. The upshot was a diplomatic victory for Great King Artaxerxes II that Xerxes would have envied. By the terms of the King's Peace (386) all the Greeks of Asia were once more consigned to Persian suzerainty, while the Greeks of Europe were implicated willy-nilly in a diplomatic settlement containing a barely veiled threat of renewed Persian military intervention, if only by proxy. It was against that depressingly familiar background of inter-Hellenic strife that the Panhellenist refrain was taken up for their own reasons by two indefatigable Athenian publicists, the conservative, pro-Spartan litterateur Xenophon (c.427­ 354) and the no less conservative, crypto-oligarchic pamphleteer l~E~!es (436-338). Xenophon's first-hand knowledge of barbarians high and low was extensive, thanKsw!1issefVlce as a mercenary first under the Persian pretender Cyrus the Younger, then with a Thracian ruler, and finally under the Spartans in Asia led by his subsequent patron king Agesilaus II. Exiled from Athens as a traitor in the 390s, Xenophon spent most of the rest of his life in the Peloponnese, as a Spartan pensioner, thanks to Agesilaus. From his home base near Olympia he turned his hand to all the known genres of prose literature, including history, biography, memoirs and political theory. Indeed, he threw some of each into his every work, so that in the Hellenica ('Greek History'), for example, a covert pro­ Spartanism keeps company with a powerful strain of rather banal philosophizing. 18 Unlike Callisthenes (below), Xenophon was never quite a court historian, but a major theme of both the Hellenica and his posthumous encomium of AgesiJaus was the conceit that, if only t~inland Greeks could be persuaded to unite under a strong leader to liberate their enslaved ASiatlcbre!h!;en, the western Persian Empire was-~or the plucking. In corroboration, he pointed to his own anti-Persian exploits with the 'Ten Thousand' Greek mercenaries under Cyrus but more especially to those of the 'Persian-hater' Agesilaus, whom he represented (or agreed to represent) as a second Agamemnon leading a new Trojan expedition. In fact, Agesilaus' hatred of Persia was not quite as consistent, let alone principled, as Xenophon sought to convey, but his supposed comment on the largest inter-Greek barrIe yet fought, 'Alas for for you, Hellas, those who are now dead were enough to

17 On PanhelIenism generally see Perlman 1976. 18 Xenophon's histOriography: Gray 1989; Cartledge 1993a: passim; DilIery 1995.

32 HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION ,

I conquer all the barbarians had they lived' (Agesilaus 7.4), Was typical of his or rather " their Panhellenist big-talk. \9 In his Cyropaedia ('Education of Cyrus'), however, a disguised monarchist tract cast in the form of a proto-romantic novel, Xenophon portrayed another face of the barbarian Other. Here the eponymous Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian Empire, serves as the archetype of a positively regarded alien wisdom, a model for Greeks, or Greek rulers, especially those who foolishly harboured democratic aspirations, to copy rather than berate. This puts in their true perspective the sentimental nostrums of Panhellenism he expressed elsewhere. 20 Those pieties owed more to a dread of social revolution at home than to realistic hopes of military conquest and settlement in Asia, as transpires even more clearly through the voluminous works of Isocrates. 21 Isocrates came from a wealthy slave-driven business background, but chose to m'ake'hi; living in and on the fringes of Athenian politics, first as a legal speech­ writer, then as the successful founder of Greece's first institute for higher learning. He was a great fan of his own city's high culture, arguing that Hellenism, on which he placed a patriotic Athenian construction, was properly a matter of upbringing rather than of birth. This was an idea whose time was shortly to come in the post­ Alexander 'Hellenistic' age. But he was no fan at all of his city's democratic constitution and feared that a .recrudescence of Athenian democratic imperialism might jeopardize his enormous personal fortune. From his extended Panegyricus pamphlet of 380 onwards he contended unremittingly that Greeks should unite to .\ subjugate and annex some large portion of the western Persian Empire, and drain off there a sufficiently large number of the hungry and rootless Greeks who might otherwise, he thought, covet and annex his estates. Disappointed in his initial addressees, the cities of Sparta and Athens, he turned thereafter to a string of kings or tyrants, until at last in Philip of Macedon (r. 359-336) he hit, by luck rather than judgement, upon a ruler who could deliver a Panhellenist agenda, if rather more aggressively than Isocrates would have wished. 22

MACEDON AND GREECE Two of Isocrates' pupils, reputedly, became historians, Ephorus of Cyme and Theopompus of Chios. Polybius (below) looked back to Eph~ his only predecessor qua Greek 'universal' historian, but more immediately relevant is

19 Xenophon's Panhellenism is a major theme of Dillery 1995; cf. CawkwellI972; 1979. 20 The 'alien wisdom' of Xenophon's Cyrus: Momigliano 1975: 133-4; Hirsch 1985; Tatum 1989; Georges 1994. 21 Fuks, 'Isokrates and the social-economic situation in Greece' (1972), repr. Fuks 1984: 52-79. On Isocrates' politics generally see Baynes 1955; a more sympathetic picture in S. Usher, 'Isocrates: paideia, kingship, and the barbarians' in Khan (ed.) 1993: 131-45 (but see reply by Cartledge, ibid.: 146-53). 22 Isocrates and Philip: Perlman 1973; Markle 1976.

33 BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST

eopompus' nvention of a new historiographical mode - the construction of an era aroun the life and exploits of a single man. 'Never before', wrote Theopompus in the Philippica ('Philippic History'), 'had Europe borne such a man at all as p~23 The implied polarity of Europe and Asia goes back to Herodotus, but "Fheopompus' attitude to Macedon and indeed to Philip was by no means unambiguously complimentary. Like Agesilaus before him, Philip proclaimed his ultimate political goal to be a Hellenic war of revenge and conquest against Persia, but there were many Greeks, not only at Athens, who considered that as a Macedonian Philip's own Hellenism was not beyond cavil or challenge. Technically, he qualified as a Greek in that he and he alone of all the Macedonians was entitled, as king, to compete in the Olympics, but Demosthenes was exploiting a sympathetic vein when he sneered that in the old days you couldn't even get a decent slave from Macedon - the implication being that the Macedonians, being barbarians, were naturally slavish, but of poor quality even as slaves. 24 Yet it fell to Philip, paradoxically, to provide the closest semblance of a genuinely Panhellenic political union since the Persian Wars, indeed a more lasting and comprehensive such union in the form of what moderns call the League of Corinth founded in 338/7. 2S The first agreed objective of this military-p~litical alliance, which was founded after Philip's decisive overcoming of the last Greek resistance to Macedonian suzerainty of mainland Greece led by Athens and Thebes, was an invasion of Persia under Philip. However, although Philip laid the groundwork for, he was not himself destined to effect, the conquest of Asia, a process which would utterly transform among much else the issue of Greek self-definition both inside and outside the history-books. That was principally the achievement of his son Alexander the Great (r. 336-323). Yet, despite Alexander's best efforts to ensure that his official version of it was the universally accepted one, Alexander has ironically been rewarded with a near.,.total absence of extant contemporary literary commemoration. 26 In particular, we lack the contemporary histories of two northern Greeks: Callisthenes of Olynthus, younger relative of Alexander's old tutor Aristotle, whom Alexander appointed as his official court historian, and Hieronymus of Cardia, a high official who carved out something of a career on his own account in the bloody 'wars of succession' that followed Alexander's untimely death (Hornblower, J. 1981). Beginning with, and importantly through the medium of, their writings the cultural Hellenism oflsocrates, already something more universal and less political than that

23 Theopompus, PhiLippic Histon'es, Fragment 27 in Shrimpton 1991: 206 ('born' should be 'borne'); cf. Flower 1994, 24 Greek views of Macedon: Brunt 1976-83: I: xxxv-xxxviii; the negative view is already implicit in Herodotus, as persuasively interpreted by Badian 1994. 25 The so-called League of Corinth has been viewed rosy-tintedly as a proto-federal United States of Greece; for a soberly realistic appreciation, see rather Griffith in Hammond and Griffith 1979: 623 -46, 26 The problem of Alexander-historiography is aptly summed up by its being co~pared to the search for the historical Jesus: failing reliable hard evidence, we all create an Alexander of our dreams. On the extant traditions see, e.g. Brunt 1976-83: I: xviii-xxxiv; II: 528-72,

34 HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION of Herodotus, was revised and and redefined to suit its new 'Hellenistic' context, a world of Graeco-Macedonian territorial monarchies stretching from the Nile to the 27 OXUS. Dispute continues, however, over the precise nature of the ensuing cultural mix (or mixes) of Hellenism (or Macedono-HelJenism) with the variety of subaltern oriental cultures the new rulers encountered. 28 At any rate, neither Alexander nor any of the so-called Successor kings should be seen as fundamentalist cultural crusaders, bent on exporting a militant Hellenism at any price. Alexander's callous execution of his official Greek historian Callisthenes in 327, for alleged treason in resisting the king's introdiidionofPersiaru;ourrprotocols, sufficiently shows that his own Hellenism was a supple instrument. But there is a sense in which Isocrates's non-genetic version of Hellenism provided the necessary lubricant to grease the moving parts of a massive and novel Greek political experiment in the bureaucratic control of many times more numerous 'barbarian' populations. At least it was now possible for some of these non-Greeks to become Greek "bY" adoption~Ciilture-Greeks', anCftOthink, speak and behave in ways overtly identical-tOtbose oftfieir political masters, with whom, In exceptional cases, they mightalsosodillze. 29 For instance, so acculturated became the large community of diaspora Jews in Alexandria, Alexander's most potent eponymous foundation, that they had their sacred scriptures translated into the current koine ('common') dialect of Greek as early as the third century, since they no longer felt at home with classical Hebrew. Against that relatively enligbtened construction of Hellenistic Hellenism, however, there militated the long-standing negative stereotype of the barbarian, which had recently received its ultimate expression in the Politics of Aristotle. According to this, non-Greeks were often if not typically slavish by their very nature, and therefore unalterably so: it followed, by this perverse logic, that they ought also to be enslaved legally, for their own good. There is even a source alleging that'Arlstotle directly and explicitly advised his former pupil to treat all non-GreeKs i!!-~hiSWay on principle, but if so Alexander happily ignored the unhappy advice. 3o The tension between the two rival constructions of the barbarian - as irretrievably slavish or potentially HeIIenizable - constituted a major and problematic ingredient in the historiographical heritage of Polybius. 31

27 The liveliest if not necessarily always the most reliable recent overview of the Hellenistic world is Green 1993a. On Hellenistic politics see Will 1979-82. On society and economy, see Rostovtzeff 1941-53; with MomigJiano 1994: 32-43. Hellenistic culture: Green 1993b, 28 See Cartledge's introduction to Cartledge etal, 1997. 29 'Culture-Greeks': Tarn 1952. 30 Alexander and Aristotle: Plu£. Mora/ia 329b, with Hamilton 1973: 32-4 and 173 n. 10. Arisrotle's 'natural slavery' doctrine: Cartledge 1993a: 120-6. 31 Classic is Walbank 1957-79; see also Walbank 1973; and on the historiography specifically, see further Derow 1994; Eckstein 1994; see also above, n. 6,

35 BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST

POLYBIUS BETWEEN GREECE AND ROME Polybius (c.200-120) was a citizen of Arcadian Megalopolis, a comparatively new foundation of the 360s that stood as a testament of Sparta's definitive fall from the status of great power. Polybius's Megalopolis was Achaean, not merely in some nostalgic throwback to Homeric times, but as a member state of the Achaean federation instituted in 280. Such federations were both evidence of and an attempted compensation for the symbolic and actual debility of the individual city­ state in the Hellenistic period foreshadowed in Philip's League of Corinth. 32 By the time of Polybius' birth, moreover, the centre of Mediterranean political gravity had shifted westwards, away from mainland Greece and its Macedonian overlords, away too from the other Successor kingdoms of Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Asia and Attalid Pergamum, to the plain of Latium in Italy. As a leader of the Aetolian federation (Achaea's chief rival) had famously observed in 211, it was 'the clouds in the west' - i.e. Rome and her growing empire - that now loomed threateningly over Greek affairs. H Besides the threat Rome posed to the Greeks' political liberties, the western clouds jeopardized also their traditional self-identification by various forms of opposition to the barbarian. By the end of the third century not only was Rome suzerain of Italy and Sicily, including the long-established Greek colonial settlements of the deep south (Magna Graecia or 'Great Greece' in Latin), but she had also twice defeated North African Carthage in major wars and was poised for further imperial advance on the eastern, Greek side of the Adriatic. 34 Polybius, looking back from the vantage point of the mid-second century, following Rome's definitive destruction of Carthage and conquest of all mainland Greece, saw Rome as the first power known to him to have established a truly universal dominion. He therefore considered the rise of Rome a fitting subject for his, the civilized world's first truly universal history, though he strove, as we shall see, to give his interpretation of that climax a peculiarly Greek spin. Polybius was not, however, the first to write a history of Rome in Greek. He had been anticipated by the Roman senator Fabius Pictor, an active participant in the second Punic (Carthaginian) War of 218-202, Hannibal's war. 35 Polybius was not therefore the first to try to interpret the new superpower in Greek terms for a Greek-speaking readership, but he was the first Greek historian of Rome's imperial ascent, and his laboriously constructed forty-volume opus was written from deep inside what most of his Achaean and other Greek compatriots would have considered deeply alien, barbarian and indeed enemy territory. For in 167, as part of Rome's conquest of Greece, Polybius had been removed to Italy as one of the

32 Federal states: Walbank 'Were there Greek federal states?' (1976/7), repr. in Walbank 1985: 20-37. 33 'Clouds in the west': Polyb. 5.104.10, with WaJbank 1957, ad loco 34 Rise of Rome: Comel11995. 35 Fabius Pictor: Momigliano 1990: 80-108. I

I''I 36 I ! 'J. .... •

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION

1,000 official Achaean hostages demanded by the Senate, and was not released until 150_ Yet during his supposed house-arrest in and around Rome he had not languished abjectly but seized the main chance to ingratiate himself with a leading Roman, the younger Scipio, destroyer of Carthage in 146. He had also then conceived the project of writing a Thucydidean-style pragmatic history of Graeco­ Roman relations, designed both to explain to the Greeks why they had been conquered and to recommend ways in which they might accommodate themselves to their new, subaltern status in an enlarged political universe. 36 The latter became a necessity rather than a luxury after the Romans crushed a rebellion led by Polybius' own Achaean fellow-countrymen, .and it was not simply for the sake of chronological tidiness that Polybius felt obliged to extend the compass of his history from his original terminal date of 168 to 146, the year in which Greece under the plangent title of 'Achaea' became a Roman protectorate. What made Polybius' historiographical task peculiarly delicate was that it require,r;-in Herodotean terms, a defence of"Greek enslavement byoarbarians ­ ideOlogically, the world turned upsloeaown. A fUrtl1er comphcatJon wasthat leading-RCinliffiSh-adlhemseI"veswilrmgryparticipated1n the process of cuTtUral I-re1lemzatJon, to the extent indeed of having the calculated effrontery to appropfiate-the-tini"e~6noureOHenemc discourse of liberty and proclaim that they were ruling over Greeks in the name of their subjects' freedom! Moreover, these same Hellenized Romans were more than happy to manipulate the reverse side of that discourse, the Greeks' language and ideology of barbarism, for their own imperial ends. Polybius, nevertheless, made the very best of a rotten job, by in effectusmg Aristotle the political theorist to confute Aristotle the ethnocentric ideologue. 37 Following a Greek tradition at least as old as Herodotus (5.78), Polybius foun..d his most basic explanation of Rome's unprecedented and unparalleled military success III her domestic pohtlcal arrangements, that is, in the workin s of her constitution ( po ztew . IS e analysed in neo-Aristotelian terms as a 'mixed' conslltutiol'l,ltre-nrixture consisting in a balance rather than a blend of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, in their good or best forms. 38 But whereas Aristotle in his desperate search for really existent examples of his ideal 'middling' constitution had even been prepared to accord barbarian Carthage honorary Greek status and treat it as an instance of the mixed polity, PoJybius could !lll.~is mentor here and more congenially, at least as far as his hosts were concerned, substituted for Carthage her Roman conqueror. In order, moreover, ~_W...IQ!!.lld the obstacle of Aristotle's barbarian-as-natural-slave doctrine, Polybius implicitly

36 Polybius between Greece and Rome: Momigliano 1975: 22-49; this chapter deals also with Posidonius, the first-century BCE Greek historian and philosopher from Syrian Apamea. On Roman-Greek mutual cultural reception see generally Gruen 1992. 37 Polybius' historiographical self-exculpation: 38.4.5-8, quoted by Derow 1994: 84-5. 'Freedom of the Greeks' propaganda: Badian 1970; Cartledge and Spawforrh 1989: 74,85. 38 Polybius on the mikle (mixed constitution): von Fritz 1954.

37 BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST

replaced the old Greek-barbarian polarity w!th a new tripartite classifu;ation of mankind into Greeks, barbarians and Romans. 39 Ideology, however, was one thing, the facts - how it actually was - another. In the harsh world of realpolitik Rome ruled over a conquered Greece, albeit that the conquered managed to inject the conquerors' cuJture with a powerful dose of Hellenic serum. The many writings of Plutarch (c.45-120 CE), a Romanized Greek citizen of a small provincial town in old Greece, e.!!!.-bQ~..YJ>oth the challenge to Greekidentity posed by Roman 0IwcaIdon11n;tion and one p'ossible, creative response cardigli 199 , esp. Pelling 'Plutarch"liriil.Claudius Novus, had inscribed an honorific inscription for the emperor Nero that was conventional enough in its wording, but the setting of which gave it a far wider significance. By implying an honorific analogy between their city's past deeds and the contemporary exploits of Nero (or rather his army) in Armenia, the Athenians were seeking to do themselves as well as the emperor a favour.

39 The tripartition is first attested in the first century BeE (e.g. Cic. De finibus 2.49). On Diodorus Siculus. a Sicilian Greek universal historian contemporary with Cicero who incorporated Roman with Greek history, see Sacks 1990; 1994. A rather younger Greek contemporary, the antiquarian Dionysius from Herodotus' Halicarnassus, cunningly identified the Romans as Greek in origin: Gabba 1991; Hartog 1996: 183-200. 40 On modem Greek self-definition, see Herzfeld 1987;Just 1989; Peckham 1996. 41 The best account of Plutarch's parallelography known to me is Duff 1994.

38 '''.1

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GREEK SELF-DEFINITION

The evidence suggests that the ploy was widely used in early Roman imperial Greece - and that it worked: If cherished cultural values meant that educated Greek provincials were predisposed to inject the memory of the Persian Wars with contemporary meaning, the incorporation of these wars into official [sc. imperial Roman] ideology is likely to have flattered the obsessive pride of subject-Greeks in their past. "2

There, to conclude, is sanctifying mythology - with a vengeance.

REFERENCES Ampolo, C. (1996) 'Per una storia delle storie greche', in S. Settis (ed.) I Creci. 1. Noi e i greci, Turin. Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd edn, London and New York. Ascherson, N. (1995) Black Sea, London. Badian, E. (1970) Titus .Q!4inctius Flamininus: Philhellenism and Realpolitik, Cincinnati. -- (1994) 'Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon: a study in some subtle silences', in Hornblower 1994. Baynes, N. H. (1955) 'Isocrates', in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays, London. Browning, R. (1989) History, Language and Literacy in the Byzantine World, Northampton. Brunt, P. A. (ed.) (1976-1983) Arrian. History ofAlexander, 2 vols, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA. Cartledge, P. (1989) 'The "Tacitism" of Edward Gibbon (two hundred years on)', Mediterranean Historical Review 4: 251-70. -- (1990) 'Herodotus and "the Other": a meditation on empire', Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views, n.s. 9: 27-40. -- (1993a) The Greeks: A Portrait ofSelfand Others, Oxford. -- (1993b) 'The silent women of Thucydides: 2.45.2 re-viewed', in R. M. Rosen and J. Farrell (eds) NOMODEIKTES. Creek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, Ann Arbor. -- (1995) "'We are all Greeks"? Ancient (especially Herodotean) and modern contestations of Hellenism', Bulletin ofthe Institute ofClassical Studies, n.s. 2: 75-82. -- and Spawforth, A. (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities, London and New York. -- Garnsey, P. and Gruen, E. S. (eds) (1997) Hellenistic Constructs: Culture, History and Historiography, Berkeley. Cawkwell, G. L. (ed.) (1972) Xenophon. The Persian Expedition, Harmondsworth. -- (ed.) (1979) Xenophon, A History ofmy Times, Harmondsworth. Cook, A. S. (1988) His/ory/Writing: The Theory and Practice ofHistory in Antiquity and in Modem Times, Cambridge. Cornell, T. ]. (1995) The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome [rom the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 B.C.), London. Derow, P. (1994) 'Historical explanation: Polybius and his predecessors', in Hornblower 1994. Desideri, P. (1996) 'Scrivere gli eventi storici', in S. Settis (ed.) I Creei. 1. Noi e i Creei, Turin. Dillery, J. (1995) Xenophon and the History ofhis Times, London and New York.

42 Spawfonh 1994: 246; the Panhenon inscription is IG i;2.3277.

39

J BEGINNINGS - EAST AND WEST

Dougherty, C. (1993) The Poetics o/Greek Colonisation: From City to Text in Archaic Greece, New York. -- (1994) 'Archaic Greek foundation poetry: questions of genre and occasion', Journal 0/ Hellenic Studies 114: 35-46. Duff, T. J. (1994) '''Signs of the soul". Moralism in Plutarch's Lives', unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge. Eckstein, A. M. (1994) Moral Vision in the Histories 0/Polybius, Berkeley. Finley, M. I. (1985) Ancient History: Evidence and Models, London. -- (1986) The Use and Abuse o/History, 2nd edn, London. Flower, M. A. (1994) Theopompus o/Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.G., Oxford. Fornara, C. W. (1983) The Nature o/History in Greece and Rome, Berkeley. Fritz, K. von (1954) Polybius and the Theory o/the Mixed Constitution in AntIquity, New York. Fuks, A. (1984) Social Conflict in Ancient Greece, Jerusalem and Leiden. Gabba, E. (1991) Dionysius and the History ofArchaic Rome, Berkeley. Gagarin, M. and Woodruff, P. (1995) Early Greek Political Thought/rom Homer to the Sophists, Cambridge. Georges, P. (1994) Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience, Baltimore and London. Geyl, P. (1961) Encounters in History, London. -- (1962) Debates with Historians, London. I Glazer, N. and Moynihan, D. P. (eds) (1975) Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, Cambridge, MA. Gould, J. (1994) 'Herodotus and religion', in Hornblower 1994. Gray, V. J. (1989) The Character ofXenophon's Hellenica, London. Green, P. (1993a) From Alexander to Actium: The Historic Evolution o/the Hellenistic Age, rev. edn, Berkeley. -- (ed.) (1993b) Hellenistic History and Culture, Berkeley. Gruen, E. S. (1992) Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, Ithaca. Hall, E. (1989) Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy, Oxford. Hamilton, J. R. (1973) Alexander the Great, London. Hammond, N. and Griffith, G. T. (1979) A History 0/Macedonia, II, Oxford. I Hanson, V. D. (1989) The Western Way ofWar, New York. I I -- (1995) The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots 0/ Western Civilization, New York. I II Hartog, F. (1988) The Mirror of History. The Representation of the Other in the Writing 0/ I History, Berkeley. -- (1996) Memoire d' Ulisse. Recits sur la/rontiire en Grece ancienne. Paris. Herman, G. (1990) 'Patterns of name diffusion within the Greek world and beyond', Classical Quarterly 40: 349-63. Herzfeld, M. (1987) Anthropology through the Looking-glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins 0/Europe, Cambridge.

Hirsch, S. W. (1985) The Friendship o/the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire, I Hanover, NH. Hobsbawm, E. J. (1992) Nations and Nationalism since 1870: Programme, Myth, Reality, 2nd I I edn, Cambridge. Hornblower, J. (1981) Hieronymus ofCardia , Oxford. I Hornblower, S. (ed.) (1994) Greek Historiography, Oxford. I Just, R. (1989) 'The triumph of the ethnos', in E. Tonkin, M. McDonald and M. Chapman I I (eds) History and Ethnicity, London. ! Khan, H. A. (ed.) (1993) The Birth o/the European Identity: The Europe-Asia Contrast in Greek Thought 490-322 B.G., Nottingham. Macleod, C. W. (1983) 'Thucydides and tragedy', in id., Collected Essays, Oxford.

40

'.J