Lessons from the Past: The Moral Use of History in Fourth-Century Prose

Chapter Five. Theopompus's Philippica

chapter five Theopompus’s Philippica
heopompus of Chios (FGrHist 115) was widely renowned in antiqT uity for the severity with which he condemned the moral faults of the characters peopling his Philippica. Few indeed escaped the scathing vigor of his pen. Despite his family’s exile from Chios, Theopompus seems to have had the necessary funds to carry out thorough research (TT 20 and 28, FF 25, 26 and 181) and did not have to work for a living, but was able to devote himself wholly to his writing.1 Because he was in no need of either patronage or an income, he had the freedom to write whatever he pleased without risk of losing his livelihood by causing offense. It is perhaps for this reason that he was known in antiquity as “a lover of the truth” (φιλαλ  ηθης) (T 28). We must now determine whether or not this epithet was justified in Theopompus’s use of the past in the Philippica. In addition to his numerous epideictic speeches, Theopompus wrote three known historical works: an epitome of Herodotus, a Hellenica, and a Philippica.2 It is likely the epitome of Herodotus was Theopompus’s earliest 1. A recent discussion of the (very vague and contradictory) evidence for Theopompus’s life can be found in Michael Attyah Flower, Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 11–25. 2. Suda, s.v. Θε  οποµπος Χι
ος  ρ  ητωρ (⫽ T 1). 143 144 lessons from the past historical work,3 but all that remains of it is an entry in the Suda stating it contained two books (T 1) and four attributed fragments from ancient lexica giving it as the authority for the use of specific words (FF 1–4), although the possibility exists that some other, unattributed fragments may belong to it also. The Hellenica is the earlier of Theopompus’s two major historical works and on a smaller scale than the massive Philippica. Diodorus (13.42.5 and 14.84.7 ⫽ TT 13 and 14) informs us that Theopompus’s Hellenica contained twelve books, beginning with the Battle of Cynossema in 411, where Thucydides left off, and continuing until the Battle of Cnidus in 394. Speusippus’s Letter to Philip, which mentions the Hellenica as already published (T 7), shows that it (or at least part of it) was completed no later than 343/2.4 Because only nineteen of the fragments in Jacoby’s collection (FF 5–23) can definitely be attributed to the Hellenica, however, it is difficult to ascertain the contents or the tone of the work. For this reason, I shall concentrate upon the historical work for which Theopompus was best known, his Philippica, because it is the most fully surviving representative of his approach to the past. Indeed, the bulk of the extant fragments of Theopompus is taken from his magnum opus, the title of which is given as Philippica (Φιλιππικα  ) by most of our sources in antiquity, with the exception of various periphrases.5 It was an enormous work in fifty-eight books, beginning with Philip’s accession to the throne in 360/59, according to Diodorus (16.3.8 ⫽ T 17), and ending (presumably) with that king’s death in 336. Despite its title, Theopompus’s Philippica clearly ranged far more widely than the life and works of Philip II. Over a century later, Philip V of Macedon excerpted from it for his own use all the material on Philip II, the total coming to only sixteen books out of fifty-eight (T 31). Today, Jacoby’s compilation contains 3. See I. A. F. Bruce, “Theopompus and Classical Greek Historiography,” History and Theory 9 (1970): 86–109, at 88–92; pace Arnaldo Momigliano, “Studi sulla storiografia greca del IV secolo a.C. I: Teopompo,” RFIC 59 (1931): 230–42 and 335–54; reprinted in Terzo contributo alla storia degli studi classici, vol. 1 (Rome: Edizione di storia e letteratura, 1966), 367–92, at 377–80. Recently, M. R. Christ (“Theopompus and Herodotus: A Reassessment,” CQ n.s., 43 [1993]: 47–52) has argued that the epitome was not an independent work, but formed part of the Philippica. 4. Flower, Theopompus of Chios, 20 and 28–29. 5. E.g., Περι Φ ιλιππον  ιστορ ιαι (Diodorus 16.3.8 ⫽ T 17);  η Φιλ ιππου σ  υνταξις (Polybius 8.10.7 ⫽ T 19, 8.11.1 ⫽ F 27); Περι Φ ιλιππον (Photius, s.v. Ζωπ  υρου τα  λ- αντα ⫽ F 66; Didymus, Demosthenes 8.58 and 9.43 ⫽ FF 166 and 222); Τω
ν περι Φιλ ιππου (Porphyry ⫽ F 102); Φιλιππικω
ν Ιστορ ιαι (Diodorus 16.71.3 ⫽ F 184); and Ιστορ ιαι (Athenaeus FF...