This book is a study of the various claims to authority made by the ancient Greek and Roman historians throughout their histories and is the first to examine all aspects of the historian's self-presentation. It shows how each historian claimed veracity by imitating, modifying, and manipulating the traditions established by his predecessors. Beginning with a discussion of the tension between individuality and imitation, it then categorises and analyses the recurring style used to establish the historian's authority: how he came to write history; the qualifications he brought to the task; the inquiries and efforts he made in his research; and his claims to possess a reliable character. By detailing how each historian used the tradition to claim and maintain his own authority, the book contributes to a better understanding of the complex nature of ancient historiography.

No abstract

In JHS cv (1985) 162–8, J. L. Moles has given an excellent treatment of the literary influences at work in the ‘second preface– of Arrian's Anabasis (i 12.1–5). I am in agreement with the main points of his work, and the purpose of the present note is to offer some additional evidence and suggestions.1. Literary influences. Moles sees five major influences at work in the second preface: Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and the prose encomium. Of this last he writes (164), ‘Arrian's work will be biographical in orientation and fundamentally encomiastic’. There is no doubt, of course, that Arrian's work is encomiastic; Arrian does not hesitate to express admiration for Alexander at the outset of the work or in comments throughout the work or in the επιμετρῶν λόγος at the work's conclusion. But Arrian's history is not an encomium, though it may incorporate elements from that genre.

No abstract

No abstract