Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:58:10.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some suggestions on the proem and ‘second preface’ of Arrian's Anabasis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

J. M. Marincola
J. M. Marincola
Affiliation:
Union CollegeSchenectady, N.Y. 12308
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 109 , November 1989 , pp. 186 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘The Interpretation of the “Second Preface“ in Arrian's Anabasis’, cited throughout by author's name and page number.

2 i 12.2-4; vii 28-30. See Bosworth, A. B., A historical commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander i (Oxford 1980) 15–6Google Scholar for the numerous exonerations of Alexander's conduct.

3 The procedure in encomium is given in Leo, F., Die griechischrömische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig 1901) 207Google Scholar with n. 1.

4 i 12.4: οὐκ ἔστιν ὄστις ὄλλος εῑς άνὴρ τοσαῦτα ἤ τηλικαῦτα ἔργα… άπεδείξατο. Cf. i 12.5: οὐκ άπαξιώσας έμαυτὸν φανερά καταστήσειν ἐς άνθρώπους τά 'Αλεξάνδρου ἔργα. Cf. Bosworth (n. 2) 15: ‘It is basically a narrative of achievement, with a favourable verdict built into the narrative’ (my emphasis).

5 Stadter, P., Arrian of Nicomedia (Chapel Hill 1980) 63Google Scholar (though his remarks on Herodotus and Thucydides must be modified in light of Moles' analysis). Notice the twin elements of the actor and his deeds in the phrase 'Αλέξανδρός τε καὶ τὰ 'Αλεξάνδρου ἔργα (i 12.3).

6 i 12.4: ἔνθεν καὶ αὐτός όρμηθῆναί φημι ἐς τήνδε τὴν ξυγγραφήν, κτλ.

7 Polybius viii 11.1 = FGrH 115 F 27. It would be tempting to connect the ὁρμηθῆναι of Arrian with the παρορμηθῆναι of Theopompus, but apart from the possibility that Polybius is here paraphrasing or quoting from memory, όρμάω can be found elsewhere in the sense of beginning an historical endeavour: D. Hal, AR i 1.2, Diod. i 4.2 (άφορμῇ).

8 FGrH 115 F 25.

9 Hermogenes, Id. ii 12, para. 412, 1; Philostratus, VS i 17.

10 D. Hal., ad Pomp. 6.

11 Theon, prog. 154, 159, 163, 164, 185, et al.; Dio, Or. xviii 10: τῶν δέ άκρῶν Θουκυδίδης έμοὶ δοκεῖ τῶν δευτέρων Θεόπομπος. Dio goes on to say that Xenophon is the best of all (14 ff.).

12 See in general Roberts, W. R., CR 22 (1908) 119–22Google Scholar.

13 Connor, W. R., GRBS viii (1967) 133–54Google Scholar.

14 Moles (167) refers οἰδε οΙ λόοι to the Anabasis alone; Bosworth, A. B., From Arrian to Alexander (Oxford 1988) 34Google Scholar n. 88 believes it refers to the Anabasis ‘as one work in a general corpus—“these λόγοι of mine”’.

15 Stadter, P. A., Ill. Class. St. vi 1 (1981) 157–71Google Scholar. I agree with Stadter that the organization is modelled on Herodotus and Thucydides, but I see the intervening material (Anab. i 1.1-11.8) as rejected in the same way that Herodotus rejects (i 4.2) the narrative of mutual abductions that opens his history, and Thucydides rejects the history of the past by elucidating the greater άκριβεια possible with contemporary history (i 22).

16 Diod.i 1.1–5.3; D. Hal., AR i 1.1-8.4; Jos., BJ i 1-30, AJ i 1-26; Appian, proem. 1–15.

17 proem. 1-2. Stadter (n. 5) 61.

18 proem. 3. Notice the emphasis on the new addition (καὶ έμοί) to the ranks of Alexander historians.

19 Bowie, E. L., in Studies in ancient society, ed. Finley, M. I. (London 1974) 170-1, 187–8Google Scholar.

20 It is not unusual for the writer of a non-contemporary history to state in the preface that he will use reliable sources in his history: see Diod. i 4.6. Dionysius (AR i 7.3; cf. Polybius i 14) gives by name the writers whom the Romans themselves consider most reliable and whom he will use. Nevertheless, the naming of sources is not common, and in Arrian it is in stark contrast with the author's conscious anonymity. In fact, the closest parallels are found not in other historians but in other works of Arrian where his own contribution is placed in terms of previous (and now to be bettered) authors: see Cyn. 1.1, Tact. 1.1, where despite the lacuna one can see the same procedure.

21 Breebaart, A. B., Enige historiografische aspecten van Arrianus' Anabasis Alexandri (Leiden 1960) 25–6Google Scholar.

22 Moles 167.

23 Arrian places the focus on the campaign against Persia almost immediately (i 1.2). Though the destruction of Thebes is treated in full rhetorical dress, i 9.6-8 mitigates Alexander's responsibility by dwelling on Thebes' previous misdeeds.

24 Not from birth, which would have been the duty of biography.

25 Moles 167: ‘Important as the preceding narrative is, Alexander at Troy is appropriately the real beginning of the work.’

26 Moles 164 n. 13, 168. Bosworth (n. 14) has reiterated his belief that Arrian is prior to Appian, and he sees Appian's similarity as ‘an echo of Arrian, the sincere, if clumsy, flattery of imitation’ (33 n. 86).

27 Or. liii 9-10.

28 On Kephalion see Jacoby, , RE xi (1922) 191–2Google Scholar. He is usually assigned to the reign of Hadrian but this is not certain.

29 Photius, Bibl. 68.4 = FGrH 93 T 2. Breebaart (n. 21) 25 had seen in this passage evidence for Arrian's setting himself in a line with Homer.

30 Lucian, hist. conscr. 14 (= FGrH 205 F 1).

31 Homeyer, H., Lukian: wie man Geschichte schreiben soll (Munich 1965) 205Google Scholar.

32 Moles 166.

33 Moles 164 n. 13.

34 On this particular claim (echoed in Arrian's other works) see Moles 167.

35 Photius, Bibl. 93 = F 1 Roos = FGrH 156 F 14, T 4a.

36 Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F 1; Herodotus, praef. 1; Thuc. i 1.1; Appian, BC 15.62.

37 Diod. i 4.4 on the benefits of being Sicilian.

38 Jacoby, F., Atthis (Oxford 1949) 55, 141Google Scholar; Kleine Pauly, s.v. ‘Lokalchronic’. Of all the other historians, the only comparison I can find is Josephus who claims he was a ἱερύς (BJ i 1), perhaps because as he states in his autobiography, it is a mark of nobility (τεκμήριον γένους λαμπρότητος, Vita 1). A. Claudius Charax (FGrH 103) stated that he was a priest, but this occurred in an introductory epigram and it is uncertain that he mentioned this in the history itself (see T 1, with Jacoby's commentary ad loc).

39 It is perhaps not coincidental that another work by a Greek historian that contains a dedication is Dionysius' Antiquitates Romanae, an antiquarian and locally-limited history. His reasons for doing so are similar to Arrian's: AR i 6.5. Cf. Jos., AJ i 8.

40 Space precludes a detailed discussion here; for the evidence for what is said here and in the following paragraph, see my ‘The Historian's Persona: Autobiographical Conventions in the Greek and Roman Historians’ (forthcoming).

41 Breebaart (n. 21) 17; Schepens, G., Ancient Society ii (1971) 265–6Google Scholar.

42 Moles 165-6.

43 Contemporary: Thuc. i 1.1, v 26.5; Herodian i 2.5; Jos., BJ i 3; cf. Theopompus, FGrH 115 F 342. Non-contemporary: Diod. i 4.2–4; D. Hal., AR i 7.2–4. Mixed: Polybius i 14–15, iii 4.13, iv 2.1; Dio i 1.2, liii 19.6, lxxii 18.3–4. Other common prooemial themes are expense (Theopompus, Timaeus), hardship (Timaeus, Polybius, Diodorus), or danger (Polybius, Diodorus), but these are limited to large-scale histories and do not pertain to Arrian.

44 Schepens (n. 41) 262-6.

45 I am grateful to two readers of the Journal for their helpful comments and criticisms.