#EPHORUS OF CYME FRAGMENTS HOW TO TRANSCEND THE#
#EPHORUS OF CYME FRAGMENTS FULL INDEX LOCORUM#

This tradition was later taken up also by Justin and Plutarch. 405 bc, Cyme, Aeolisdied 330 bc ), Greek historian, the author of the first universal history, who, despite his defects, was esteemed in Classical times and is considered the best of the historians writing in his period. According to uncertain tradition, Ephorus was the pupil of Isocrates, whose school rivaled Plato’s. Ephorus (frs), c.405330 B.C., Greek historian, b. Cyme in Aeolis pupil of Isocrates. His chief work is a universal history, in 30 books, of which only fragments survive, arranged by subjects.

However, Michael Flower, in a discussion of Ephorus and his sources, rightly I think, dismisses this verdict on a number of accounts. Firstly, he questions the willingness of Ephorus’ audience to accept this novel version without Ephorus providing a suitable source for it. Secondly, he points out that scholars have never conclusively demonstrated that Ephorus simply fabricated the events that he related. Most strikingly, his account includes details of a night raid on the Persian camp made by Leonidas and his men.

10 Giovanni Parmeggiani: Eforo di Cumareconstructed inscription is, although a composite of five fragments (a e). 10 sehepunkte 12 (2012), Nr. He does not seem to have made much progress as a speaker and at the suggestion of Isocrates himself that he took up literary composition and the study of history.SEHEPUNKTE - Druckversion: Rezension von: Eforo di Cuma - Ausgabe 12 (2012), Nr. He was born in Cyme, Aeolia and, together with the historian Theopompus, was a pupil of Isocrates, in rhetoric. Information on his biography is limited.

Ephorus Of Cyme Fragments Full Index Locorum

A thorough bibliography, a full Index Locorum, and an Index of names, notable words and subjects complete the volume.Up to now, we only had G.L. Although Polybius wrote a more synchronic and Ephorus a more diachronic type of universal history, Parmeggiani looks for the common elements which may be termed distinctively universal in their approach to history such as the peculiar attention given to geography and constitutional matters, the key-role of hegemony, causal analysis and the interconnection of events. The portrait of the universal historian (709-733) takes its cue from Polybius' acknowledgement of the historian of Cyme as his one and only predecessor in the field of universal history writing. Ephorus' historiographical praxis, as shown by the foregoing analysis, gets evaluated in the light of the historical theory outlined at the beginning of the book (627-632).

Exuding that same ambition of diakriboun which he identifies in his hero (F 122a), Parmeggiani has left no stone unturned, descending back, for instance, to the work of many 19th century a scholar, in order to eradicate the roots of misconceptions, such as the 'positivistic' notion of 'rhetorical historiography' or the closely related view of Diodorus' XI-XV as a 'continuous excerpt' from Ephorus.As marked features of the new portrait may be singled out Ephorus' reliance on a varied spectrum of good sources (primary materials and written evidence contemporaneous to the events) and the seriousness of his critical research in pursuit of the truth, qualities to be vindicated also in numerous cases where he supplemented the standard accounts of Herodotus and Thucydides or he decided to deviate from them. Yet, the overall picture he draws is convincing, solidly backed as it is by the comprehensiveness and depth of his research. The 'authentic enthusiasm' (5) the author has invested in exploring his subject, may not be alien to such a decidedly positive portrayal. Greek historian: 'the authentic keystone in the history of the historiographical method from Thucydides to Polybius', to quote a phrase (146). From his work Ephorus emerges as a great and significant IVth century B.C. Parmeggiani brilliantly meets that goal.

Ephorus Of Cyme Fragments How To Transcend The

At times, however, Parmeggiani seems to be a bit overzealous. Schwartz, the damning view of Ephorus as a mere rhetorical compiler more interested in stylistic embellishment and in conveying moral lessons than in the quest for truth (12). Within the framework of his view which makes the creative development of Greek historiography culminate and, at once, end in Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War, the great German scholar has played a leading role in consolidating, in the wake of U. Among the many scholars who have to pass the test of his ever alert critical attention, Jacoby ranks first, and for reason. Ephorus saw history writing as an independent intellectual endeavour and as a literary genre of its own (147).Parmeggiani carries out his research in a critical and independent spirit. No doubt prompted by the novelty and ambitious character of his undertaking, Ephorus interrogated himself on how to transcend the narrow principles laid down by Thucydides and still write history in a responsible way, in particular of periods remote in time.

This may be inconvenient to some extent - one has to turn to another page in FgrHist, perhaps even to another volume - , but, in the framework of his huge undertaking, Jacoby had his own good reasons for observing such a rule, going from reducing the cost of printing to the explicit warnings given in the Prefaces to FgrHist I and II, namely, that there is quite a difference between what one can expect from a monograph on a fragmentary historian and an edition of his fragments: the latter can barely lay the basis for the former.Facing the challenge of having to argue his case from a limited and defective body of texts, Parmeggiani sometimes presses the evidence to say more than it can. All there is to say, then, is that Jacoby avoided duplicating the printing of the same text. But a student of Ephorus, it seems to me, can only be misled by Jacoby's presentation of the evidence inasmuch as he or she makes an improper use of FGrHist 70: in other words, if, in evaluating a testimonium, one just looks at the portion of text that is actually printed and disregards the always present cross-reference to the full text from which the testimonium has been cut out. It is, of course, imperative, in any study of a fragmentary historian, to take into account the full text of the later authorities from which both fragments and testimonies are taken. The editor of FGrHist 70 is even suspected of some opinionated subjectivity in selecting the passages published as testimonia and in presenting them in a way as to endorse his overall depreciation of Ephorus (30).