No abstract

Few scholars are likely to quibble with a characterization of early Spartan historiography as a highly speculative affair, for it is necessarily so, given the small quantity of evidence available. 1 That being the case, it is all the more important that the data we do possess be fully exploited and given their proper weight. Tyrtaeus 12 (West) is, in this author's estimation, one such piece of evidence which stands to benefit from further analysis. 2 For the contention developed here that the poem is both genuinely Tyrtaean while at the same time unique in the corpus has potentially important implications for our understanding of early military developments at Sparta. I. THE UNIQUENESS OF 12 (WEST) Although, as Pritchett has observed, Tyrtaeus never speaks of the joy of battle, Spartan hoplite superiority, or Spartan values, his is a name that nevertheless conjures up something of the hyperbolic in the glorification of everything martial. 3 Lending no small support to such characterizations is the poem generally considered to be his finest work: 12 (West). 4 It is certainly the unique theme of this poem, extolling the 2σευ of the battlefield beyond all other human accomplishments, which is largely responsible for its reputation (as well as for doubts about its authenticity). Scepticism about the genuineness of 12 is at least understandable. To set this poem, which so effectively magnifies military glory, into the midst of an unpleasant war decades long and involving numerous, largely inglorious losses (which indeed we must do if we are to assume Tyrtaean authorship) strikes a discordant note, an eventuality that is, moreover, in sharp contrast to the rest of the corpus which seems to fit the milieu of the Second Messenian War quite well. Denying 12 to Tyrtaeus is the simplest solution to this difficulty. Aside from the critical issue of the poem's content (covered separately below), most other objections to the authenticity of 12 can be summarized as stylistic and tactical questions. Wilamowitz, for example, questioned the originality of 12 on both of these grounds. 5 He found in the phraseology of the poem little evidence of the archaisms Classical Quarterly 52.2 405-414 (2002) Printed in Great Britain 405 1 In his review of M. Meier's Aristokraten und Damoden, A. S. Bradford's observation that future evaluations of Sparta's early history and institutions are warranted only by new evidence, new methods or new interpretations is an important caveat:

No abstract

That Chariton made substantial imitative use of the Greek historians in composing Chaireas and Callirhoe is not news. 1) From the framing of his work with conventional historiographic terms, 2) to his use of historical details and devices throughout the novel, Chariton's reliance upon the genre of history is apparent at every turn and has been well documented. 3) But despite its rich historical trappings, Chaireas and Callirhoe is, of course, ction, not history. In recent years, particularly now that the issue of sources and in uences has been suYciently tapped, interpretation has tended to concentrate on this reality rather than on the novel's quasi-historical elements. 4) And

The problem of defining the precise relationship between Thucydides’ speeches and their exemplars has recently been characterized as “one of the central problems that confronts the ancient historian”.1 It is true that in spite of generations of careful work, and despite Thucydides’ own methodological comments which purport to explain the issue, the problem endures.2 Are the addresses bequeathed to us in the History essentially the historian’s own handiwork, or are they, for all intents and purposes, accurate synopses of the actual speeches? Moderates in this debate may wish to note that proponents of both of the above positions generally have a foot in the other camp as well, the former being wisely unwilling to deny the speeches all historicity, the latter being warned by Thucydides’ own words that verbatim accounts were impossible to obtain and reproduce (1.22.1), so that in this respect, at any rate, some consensus might be claimed.3 The exact point, however, at which the speeches depart from historical reality, or just what that element of non-reality or its purpose might be, continue to be matters of disagreement