EUR  â¬186.00EUR  â¬155.00 excl. VAT
The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and Historiography
New Research Perspectives
Series: - Mnemosyne, Supplements, Volume: 395
Author:
This book involves a new historiographical study of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia that defines its relationship with fifth- and fourth-century historical works as well as its role as a source of Diodorusâ Bibliotheke. The traditional and common approach taken by those who studied the HO is primarily historical: scholars have focused on particular, often isolated, topics such as the question of the authorship, the historical perspective of the HO against other Hellenica from the 4th century BC. This book is unconventional in that it offers a study of the HO and fifth- and fourth-century historical works supported by papyrological enquiries and literary strategies, such as intertextuality and narratology, which will undoubtedly contribute to the progress of research in ancient historiography.
Egidia Occhipinti, Ph.D. (2006), awarded with the Merante prize (2011), Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford from 2011 to 2013 (FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IEF), has published many articles in peer-reviewed journals and in conference proceedings. She is involved as co-author in writing a critical edition of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia for the Italian series «I Frammenti degli Storici Greci».
"The book under review is the first systematic comparison of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia with a range of historians beyond the canonical comparanda (e.g. Thucydides and Xenophon), and it also recurs to narratology to understand the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. (...) the essay will remain an important contribution in any future study of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and of fourth century historiography." - Salvatore Tufano, in: Sehepunkte, Ausgabe 17 Nr. 9 (2017)
''Occhipintiâs analysis is a refreshing contribution and stimulus in the renewed discussions on Diodorus. (â¦) I think Occhipinti largely meets the targets she (or the series editors) set her(self). I at least found it a joy to read this book.'' - Jan Stronk, in: Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2017.10.39
"Occhipintis gründliche Studie richtet sich primär an Spezialisten der griechischen Historiographie, kann aber auch Lesern mit Interesse an allgemeiner griechischer Geschichte des 5.â4.Jh.s empfohlen werden." - Johannes Engels, in: Historische Zeitschrift 307 (2018)
"Die elegant und gut lesbar geschriebene Studie von E. Occhipinti versucht eine neue Gesamtcharakterisierung der Darstellungsprinzipien des Autors und eine Beschreibung seines historiographischen Zugriffes." - Bruno Bleckmann, in: Gnomon 91 (2019)
''Occhipintiâs analysis is a refreshing contribution and stimulus in the renewed discussions on Diodorus. (â¦) I think Occhipinti largely meets the targets she (or the series editors) set her(self). I at least found it a joy to read this book.'' - Jan Stronk, in: Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2017.10.39
"Occhipintis gründliche Studie richtet sich primär an Spezialisten der griechischen Historiographie, kann aber auch Lesern mit Interesse an allgemeiner griechischer Geschichte des 5.â4.Jh.s empfohlen werden." - Johannes Engels, in: Historische Zeitschrift 307 (2018)
"Die elegant und gut lesbar geschriebene Studie von E. Occhipinti versucht eine neue Gesamtcharakterisierung der Darstellungsprinzipien des Autors und eine Beschreibung seines historiographischen Zugriffes." - Bruno Bleckmann, in: Gnomon 91 (2019)
Contents
Acknowledgements
1 The HO in the View of Modern Scholars
1.1 The Authorship
1.2 A New Proposal and Old Theories
1.3 The HO and Xenophonâs Hellenica
part 1
2 The Work and the Reader
2.1 The Narrative Character of Fourth-Century Hellenica
2.2 P. Oxy. V 842: Annalistic Framework, Synchronistic Narrative
2.3 The Historianâs Evaluation and Its Impact on the Readers
2.4 Conclusion
3 Spartan Motivations: the HO and Xenophon
3.1 Greek Hostility and Spartaâs Reasons
3.2 Spartaâs Asiatic Campaign and Its Analysis
3.3 Agesilausâ Motivations and the Lasting Significance of the Spartan Campaign in Asia
3.4 The End of a Dream?
3.5 Conclusion
4 Diodorus, the HO and Xenophon: A Reassessment
4.1 The HO as a Source for Diodorusâ Bibliotheke
4.2 Diodorusâ Thirteenth Book and the Florence Papyrus
4.3 Diodorus, the Cairo Papyrus and Xenophon
4.4 Diodorus on Theramenes: Final Observations
4.5 Conclusion
part 2
5 The HO and Athenian Polypragmosyne
5.1 Athenian ÏÎ¿Î»Ï ÏÏαγμοÏύνη: a Literary Topos
5.2 A Fourth-Century Debate?
5.3 Multa per Aequora⦠Sea Power and Athenian Motivation
5.4 Cnidus According to the Oxyrhynchus Historian: a Solely Persian Success
5.5 Conclusion
6 Terra Mariqueâ¦
6.1 Decelea, or the Supremacy of Land over Sea
6.2 The Sea as a Barrier
6.3 Ïὸ ÏÏ Î¼ÏολιÏεύειν: Thebes versus Boeotia?
6.4 Conclusion
6.5 Analytical Description of the Toponyms Occurring in the HO
7 Historiography and Hegemony
7.1 Sparta, or the Undisputed Hegemony
7.2 Diodorus and the Debate on Hegemony
7.3 Political Realities and Historiographical Simplifications
7.4 Conclusion
8 Historical Causation
8.1 Why Do Things Happen?
8.2 To Blame or not to Blame⦠Individual and Collective Responsibilities
8.3 Visibility and Clarity in Historical Causation
8.4 Thebes, or Intra-Greek Hostility
8.5 Stasis, or the Dimension of Internal Conflict. What Awareness of Thucydides?
8.6 Conclusion
9 âMoralismâ in Historiography
9.1 The HO and Thucydides: What âMoralismâ?
9.2 âMoralism,â âMorality,â and Moral Lessons
9.3 Theopompus: âMoralismâ versus âMoralityâ?
9.4 Praise/Blame in Ephorus?
9.5 Conclusion
Conclusion
Appendix
1 A New Supplement for Lines 31â32 of the Theramenes Papyrus (P. Mich. 5982)
2 History, Oratory and Their Audiences
3 Diodorus and Rome
4 Translations
Bibliography
Index of Names
Thematic Index
Acknowledgements
1 The HO in the View of Modern Scholars
1.1 The Authorship
1.2 A New Proposal and Old Theories
1.3 The HO and Xenophonâs Hellenica
part 1
2 The Work and the Reader
2.1 The Narrative Character of Fourth-Century Hellenica
2.2 P. Oxy. V 842: Annalistic Framework, Synchronistic Narrative
2.3 The Historianâs Evaluation and Its Impact on the Readers
2.4 Conclusion
3 Spartan Motivations: the HO and Xenophon
3.1 Greek Hostility and Spartaâs Reasons
3.2 Spartaâs Asiatic Campaign and Its Analysis
3.3 Agesilausâ Motivations and the Lasting Significance of the Spartan Campaign in Asia
3.4 The End of a Dream?
3.5 Conclusion
4 Diodorus, the HO and Xenophon: A Reassessment
4.1 The HO as a Source for Diodorusâ Bibliotheke
4.2 Diodorusâ Thirteenth Book and the Florence Papyrus
4.3 Diodorus, the Cairo Papyrus and Xenophon
4.4 Diodorus on Theramenes: Final Observations
4.5 Conclusion
part 2
5 The HO and Athenian Polypragmosyne
5.1 Athenian ÏÎ¿Î»Ï ÏÏαγμοÏύνη: a Literary Topos
5.2 A Fourth-Century Debate?
5.3 Multa per Aequora⦠Sea Power and Athenian Motivation
5.4 Cnidus According to the Oxyrhynchus Historian: a Solely Persian Success
5.5 Conclusion
6 Terra Mariqueâ¦
6.1 Decelea, or the Supremacy of Land over Sea
6.2 The Sea as a Barrier
6.3 Ïὸ ÏÏ Î¼ÏολιÏεύειν: Thebes versus Boeotia?
6.4 Conclusion
6.5 Analytical Description of the Toponyms Occurring in the HO
7 Historiography and Hegemony
7.1 Sparta, or the Undisputed Hegemony
7.2 Diodorus and the Debate on Hegemony
7.3 Political Realities and Historiographical Simplifications
7.4 Conclusion
8 Historical Causation
8.1 Why Do Things Happen?
8.2 To Blame or not to Blame⦠Individual and Collective Responsibilities
8.3 Visibility and Clarity in Historical Causation
8.4 Thebes, or Intra-Greek Hostility
8.5 Stasis, or the Dimension of Internal Conflict. What Awareness of Thucydides?
8.6 Conclusion
9 âMoralismâ in Historiography
9.1 The HO and Thucydides: What âMoralismâ?
9.2 âMoralism,â âMorality,â and Moral Lessons
9.3 Theopompus: âMoralismâ versus âMoralityâ?
9.4 Praise/Blame in Ephorus?
9.5 Conclusion
Conclusion
Appendix
1 A New Supplement for Lines 31â32 of the Theramenes Papyrus (P. Mich. 5982)
2 History, Oratory and Their Audiences
3 Diodorus and Rome
4 Translations
Bibliography
Index of Names
Thematic Index
Academic audience: academic specialists and graduate students interested in Classics, Ancient history and Papyrology.