Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography

Abstract

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.

The Norman Conquest of the classical past: William of Poitiers, language and history

“…Ray's and Dorey's conclusions are convincing to an extent. In classical historiography, which medieval writers emulated, authors established their own authority by criticising predecessors and contemporaries, 64 which medieval writers emulated. Poitiers links William with Caesar to place him in a historical tradition of great men, but also argues for progress, showing William as the greater leader.…”

A historia magistra vitae e o pós-modernismo

“…Retomemos então os elementos básicos da historiografia antiga, para depois confrontá-los com esse problema da abordagem pós-moderna. Destacarei neles principalmente a verdade, mas também a autoridade do autor, a utilidade da obra e o estilo empregado (MARINCOLA 1997). Quanto à verdade, tratarei de sua relação com a função do exemplum na narrativa histórica, discutindo seu pressuposto lógico da imutabilidade do caráter humano.…”

Thucydides 2.35 and 45.2: against praise

“…Its opening sentence notes, on the interpretation I propose, the tension between a speech that succeeds in hitting the required mean and the ceremony's great visual impact; a tension that may well raise doubts about the achievements of the deceased − far better, in Pericles' view, to let well alone. Marincola (1997) As we noted, in beginning his speech Pericles deploys a standard rhetorical formula; and the paradoxical argument of his opening chapter recalls other texts that 'are the result of the rhetorical training of men like Protagoras, who taught that there were two arguments on every subject'. 30 Disparity between logos and ergon features in the introductions of other funeral speeches, where, however, the problem is the standard one of the speaker's inadequacy in relation to the immensity of his subject-matter; 31 for Pericles, the problem lies rather in the inadequacy of one element among those he is addressing (note in particular e ‡ ti Íp¢r tØn aÈtoË fÊsin ékoÊoi (if he should hear something beyond his own capacity), 35.2).…”