Many ancient authors
recorded
speeches in their historical works, but how do we know whether those versions are accurate?
Voices of Ancient Greece and Rome_nodrm
Other documents take on weightier topics: conspiratorial threats against the government, construction of public buildings, and the credibility of oracles.
Each document is preceded by an introduction and a section entitled "Keep in Mind As You Read. " As the wording of the rubric suggests, the entries here will offer important back- ground information with which the reader may not be familiar. Then follows the document itself, usually between 350 and 700 words in length, with some words in boldface type. These will be explained in "definition fact boxes" located next to the document. Some (but not all) of the documents will be accompanied by short "sidebars," which contain addi- tional information intended to supplement the content of the document itself. The "Aftermath" section functions as an epilogue to the document: What happened next? What consequences or developments occurred as a result of the events described in the docu- ment? Next come two series of questions: in the "Ask Yourself" category, the reader will be invited to think further about the document and reflect upon questions pertaining to its con- tent. The "Topics to Consider" section often offers suggestions for further research, on topics related to the document. In both of the "questions" sections, the reader will often be asked to think of examples from the modern world that might parallel the events or situations presented in the documents. Finally, suggestions for additional reading, including websites, appear under the "Further Information" rubric.
OTHER FEATURES
The volume contains a brief survey of Greek and Roman civilization, followed by an intro- duction to the nature and use of primary documents, including some information about how to read an ancient text intelligently. The business of putting pen to paper--or fingertips to keyboard--to construct a book, or an essay, or a poem, or a play can often be tricky, and not only in modern times. Ancient authors, too, confronted the challenges of the writing profession, and we will hear from some of them on this matter, including Thucydides, Livy, Plutarch, and others.
Additionally, there is a section featuring brief biographies of the authors of the original documents, as well as a chronological summary.
? ? ? ? viii
INTRODUCTION: GREEK AND ROMAN CIVILIZATION Greeks
The story of ancient Greek civilization probably could be said to have begun with the Minoans and Myceneans, or perhaps even before that, but for our purposes, the Trojan War serves as the starting point. The final days of this terrible conflict (ca. 1200- 1190 BCE) between the Greeks and Trojans is chronicled in one of the most famous works of western literature, Homer's Iliad. (See Document 42: "The Goddess Was on His Side") We owe much of what we know of the earliest times of Greek culture, language, political organization, military matters, and much more to this famous epic poem.
Historians generally believe that Greece gradually declined into a dark age for several centuries after the Trojan War, reemerging again in the eighth century BCE. Many famous polises, or city-states, came to prominence in the years to follow, but none was more impor- tant than Athens. Much of what we associate with the "ancient Greeks," or "ancient Greek civilization," was in actuality happening in Athens. Perhaps the first clearly recognizable individual in the city's glorious history was the lawgiver Solon, whose year in the spotlight was 594 BCE. The city was in crisis, on the brink of anarchy, and it was then that an extraor- dinary decision was made: to concentrate all legislative power in the hands of one person, who would have complete freedom to rewrite, create, or abolish any laws, regulations, or cus- toms that he thought would lead Athens out of its desperate situation. Since Solon had already established a rock-solid reputation for fairness, honesty, and incorruptibility, coupled with a peerless ability as a legislator and a politician, he was the one chosen for the job. After some hesitation, he accepted, and during his one-year term, he single-handedly transformed Athens from a city in chaos to a city on the move. Even today, the word "solon" remains with us, a term applied to a wise and conscientious lawgiver.
Toward the end of Solon's century, another famous, albeit poorly attested, legislator by the name of Cleisthenes took center stage in Athenian politics. Cleisthenes is often credited with originating two of the most noteworthy aspects of the emergent Athenian democracy: isonomia, a word meaning "equal rights" and one of the basic requirements of any democ- racy; and ostracism (see Document 30: "Out with Him! An Athenian Method of Ridding the City of Tiresome Politicians"), a formal procedure whereby an overly ambitious or unscrupulous politician could literally be voted out of Athens, and into a 10-year exile.
The high point of Athenian democracy--and culture, and literature, and art, and drama, and architecture, and philosophy, and economic power, and international leader- ship--found its fullest expression under the leadership of perhaps the greatest statesman/ orator ever to grace its halls of power: Pericles. By virtue of his unprecedented electoral suc- cess (he was voted one of the ten strategoi, or military generals, 15 consecutive times), Pericles dominated the domestic political scene in Athens in the 440s and 430s BCE; during that time, he spearheaded a tremendous surge in the construction of beautiful and expensive buildings. The most famous of these was undoubtedly the magnificent Parthenon, con- structed atop the Acropolis; estimated cost: 5,000 talents, perhaps equivalent to $1. 5 billion, more than even the new Yankee Stadium in the Bronx cost. (See Document 11: "Workers Needed for Building the Parthenon. ")
But it was not only the building program that marked out Pericles's administration for greatness. Many noted philosophers, playwrights, and poets--some of the most gifted and famous ever--flourished in Periclean Athens. Two of these, the comic playwright Aristophanes and the philosopher Socrates (through Plato), contributed documents to this
Preface
? ? ix
Preface
x
volume. (For Aristophanes, see Document 2: "A Failure to Launch, in an Athenian Family. " For Socrates/Plato, see Document 26: "An Intellectual on Trial")
Unfortunately, this Athenian Golden Age was derailed by the disastrous Peloponnesian War, a terrible conflict between the two superpowers of the time, Athens and its longtime rival polis Sparta. The war began in 431 BCE, and dragged on for 27 long years, finally coming to an end in 404. And while it certainly did not destroy Athenian life or civilization--Athens continued to be a cultural, intellectual, and educational center of the ancient world--the Greeks were never again to reach the heights which they attained under the leadership of Pericles.
Historians refer to the next major period as the Hellenistic Age, spanning from 323 to 30 BCE. Between the Golden Age of Athens and the dawn of the Hellenistic Age lived one of history's most compelling figures, Alexander the Great. He traveled widely with his army, perhaps as far as India and Afghanistan, everywhere conquering the opposition and laying the foundations--whether consciously or not--for the continued spreading of Greek cul- ture, one of the defining characteristics of the Hellenistic period that followed.
But by the end of the second century BCE, the power of Rome, too, was spreading, and beyond the Italian peninsula to which it had been largely confined up to this time. In 146 BCE, the Romans conquered Corinth, the last major Greek city not under their control. As a consequence, they annexed Greece as a province, and although the Hellenistic influence continued, it was now clear that the ancient Mediterranean world had a new superpower.
Romans
Ironically, it might be said that Roman civilization began with the Trojan War. Despite the overwhelming Greek victory in that conflict, a few Trojans managed to escape the carn- age on the night when the Greek army swarmed into Troy and destroyed the city. One of these few Trojan survivors was Aeneas. He, along with a small band of similarly fortunate stragglers, slipped out of the burning city, commandeered ships, and set sail for points unknown. After numerous hardships and disappointments, they made their way to Italy, where they landed and attempted to establish a permanent home. They met with some resis- tance to the plan from the indigenous peoples, but after a series of confrontations and bat- tles, they overcame this opposition and settled in Italy, not too far from the future location of Rome. Aeneas was their leader, and later Romans always regarded him as their progenitor, the founder of the Roman race.
But the actual construction of the city of Rome was to come long after Aeneas, over 400 years later, when a young man named Romulus, with a handful of allies, built the walls and foundations for the city. Romulus became its first king; the date was 753 BCE.
Romulus was followed by six more kings. In 509, the last of these, Tarquinius Superbus, was expelled in a coup, and not only he; the monarchy went out with him, replaced by a republican form of government. The Roman Republic lasted for nearly 500 years before it, too, fell by the wayside, superseded by one-man rule, the Roman Empire. The empire sur- vived for another 500 years before finally falling in 476 CE.
In those 1,200 years of Roman history, one of the most serious external threats they faced was posed by the Carthaginian general Hannibal (ca. 247-183 BCE). Rome had had a long and confrontational history with the Carthaginians, and this ongoing mutual hostility exploded into a major war, the Second Punic War, 218-201. The Romans ultimately emerged victorious, but the devastation from the war (much of which was fought on the Italian peninsula) had a major social and economic impact on subsequent Roman history.
Many of the soldiers who fought for Rome in this war were conscripted farmers, and when they returned to their farms after the war--if they survived--they discovered to their dismay that their lands had been amalgamated into large ranches called latifundia, owned in many cases by absentee land speculators in Rome. With nowhere else to go, many drifted into the cities, where conditions, unfortunately, were no better. The cycle of poverty, unem- ployment, and homelessness continued to worsen for decades after the Second Punic War, until Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus appeared on the scene.
In the campaign season of 134 BCE, Gracchus decided to seek the office of tribune; if elected, he would become a tribune for the year 133. During the campaign, he made speech after speech in which he promised to initiate land reform, a proposition that must have seemed dangerously revolutionary to those who occupied and owned the latifundia. Much to the undoubted frustration of the landowners, Gracchus was indeed elected, and soon after taking office, he made good on his campaign promise. After some initial opposition, he was successful in transforming his land reform bill into law.
Although the wealthy landowners certainly could not have been pleased by this turn of events, they were able to restrain their angry feelings, knowing that within a year, Gracchus would no longer be a problem: political offices in the Roman Republic were for one-year terms only, with no formal provision for reelection. But when Gracchus made the stunning announcement toward the end of 133 that he intended to run once again for the tribunate, it was more than his opponents could bear.
The campaign was a rough one, with violence and threats of violence rampant. Tiberius Gracchus was a superb public speaker, well versed in the ways of inciting a crowd with his emotion-laden oratory. During one of his campaign rallies, a scuffle broke out; it soon esca- lated into a full-fledged riot in which several hundred people were injured or killed. One of the casualties was Gracchus himself. The biographer Plutarch writes that this was the first time in Roman history in which Roman blood was shed in a civil dispute, and most modern historians look back at the year 133 as a turning point in the fortunes of the Roman Republic.
The events of that fateful year foreshadowed similar troubles to come, on a far larger scale, in the next century. Demagogues, rogue generals, revolutionaries--all took center stage at one time or another in the first century BCE. Perhaps the outstanding figure of the time was the great Gaius Julius Caesar, who painstakingly worked his way up the political ladder, finally achieving election to the top spot in the Roman Republic, the office of consul, for 59 BCE. But his true goal seemed to have been the acquisition of a large and prestigious province to govern after his year as the consul. Caesar was a man who usually got what he wanted, and the fulfillment of his postconsular ambitions certainly fit with this pattern. He was granted the governorship of the sprawling province of Gaul, modern France, which he ruled for an unprecedented eight years--most governorships lasted a maximum of three years. In that time, he was bent on conquest and acquisition, in Spain, Germany, and England as well as in Gaul. During that extended stay in the province, he had molded a battle-toughened army, one that was fearless, relentless, and most importantly, utterly loyal to Caesar.
Not surprisingly, Caesar's activities in Gaul occasioned no little uneasiness back in Rome, and there were many who feared that he might use his powerful army to attack the city itself and perhaps install Caesar as a king or a dictator. To prevent such a calamity from happening, in 50 BCE, the politicians in Rome demanded that Caesar return home to give an accounting of his Gallic activities and an explanation of his plans for the future. Caesar com- plied--up to a point. But when he and his army reached the Rubicon River in northern Italy, he had a decision to make. The Rubicon was regarded as the boundary between Italy
Preface
xi
Preface
and the northern provinces, and the expectation was that any general returning from one of those provinces would dismiss his army before crossing the river and proceed to Rome as a private citizen. Caesar knew full well that if he followed the rules and entered Rome without his army, he would be put on trial for provincial mismanagement, and very likely exiled or worse. But crossing the river with his army intact and at his side would almost certainly mean civil war.
With the famous words alea jacta est--"the die is cast"--Caesar led his army across the Rubicon. What followed was the bloodiest civil war yet seen in Roman history. For four long years the conflict raged, until finally Caesar prevailed, in 45. With all of his major opposition either dead, scattered, or in hiding, Caesar proceeded to rule Rome single-handedly, and for the next 18 months initiated many reforms and projects. The biographer Suetonius enumer- ates them: sponsored gladiatorial shows and stage plays; reformed the calendar (from a lunar to a solar calendar, the basics of which we still use in our modern calendar); carried out a cen- sus; made various changes in electoral, legal and judicial processes; granted citizenship to physicians and teachers (to entice them to live in Rome); built temples and a theater; opened a public library; constructed highways and canals; and many more.
Unfortunately, Suetonius also points out that many of these projects were curtailed or never completed because of Caesar's untimely death. Remnants of staunch opposition to his rule remained. A conspiracy was formed, eventually consisting of some 60 individuals. They struck on March 15 (the Ides of March), 44.
A bloody, lengthy civil war followed (much as Caesar had predicted, should anything happen to him). The decisive Battle of Actium was fought in 30, pitting the forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra against those under the command of the young Octavianus, Julius Caesar's great-nephew. The latter side emerged victorious, putting an end to the wars and paving the way for the one-man rule of Octavianus, who, a few years later (in 27), was granted the honorary title "Augustus" by the Roman Senate. All opposition was at an end, and Augustus ruled Rome as an emperor for over 40 years, until his death in 14 CE.
He was followed by a succession of many other emperors, some good, others bad, still others indifferent. The high point was probably the era in which the noted historian Edward Gibbon wrote that "the condition of the human race was most happy and prosper- ous": 98-180 CE, in which Rome had the good fortune to be ruled by a succession of consci- entious and effective leaders--the so-called Five Good Emperors--culminating with Marcus Aurelius, who reigned from 161 to 180.
EVALUATING PRIMARY DOCUMENTS
Historians go about the business of reconstructing the past by studying, interpreting, and assessing primary sources: histories, biographies, plays, poems, letters, and works of philoso- phy and natural science written by people who lived "back in the day": writers who were observers of the events which they describe, and/or who had access to sources and docu- ments about events they describe but did not personally witness or experience. However, dif- ficulties often arise when historians attempt to evaluate these many and varied documents. Some ancient authors are probably more credible and reliable than others. But how can we know?
The fifth-century BCE Greek historian Herodotus wrote a compendious volume about the history of the Greek world; indeed, Herodotus is often considered the western world's first true historian: an author who attempted to more or less systematically record a con- tinuum of events occurring over the course of many centuries. His work is very detailed, full
? ? xii
of information, running over 600 pages in the English translation. As a result of all this, Herodotus is sometimes called "the Father of History. " But wait. Since his work also con- tains many myths, stories, legends, and tall tales, Herodotus is also sometimes saddled with the sobriquet "The Father of Lies. " So which is it, history or lies? Modern historians have to make the call.
The Roman biographer Suetonius (ca. 70-140 CE) is occasionally considered second- rate by modern critics, primarily because he includes information--sometimes too much information! --about the private lives of the emperors about whom he wrote. Hence, these modern critics deride Suetonius as a gossipmonger, the Roman equivalent of a modern tab- loid journalist. But is that a fair assessment?
The Roman satirist Juvenal (ca. 60-130 CE) is often accused of poetic exaggeration, and therefore the poems he wrote have to be taken with a truckload of salt and are not reliable sources of information about life in the early Roman Empire. True or not?
Making the Call
A historian's first task is probably to determine the genre of the source under consideration. Reading and evaluating a satirical poem by Juvenal as if it were a strictly historical account by the annalist Tacitus would be an error. Interpreting a play by the comic playwright Aristophanes in the same manner as a play by the tragic playwright Euripides would prob- ably be the wrong approach. Assuming that a biographer like Plutarch should have crafted his writings in the same manner as a historian like Thucydides might not yield the most accurate assessment. Proper genre identification is a crucial first step.
Some genres of literature might be more credible than others. A modern historian must handle satire with care, because satire, ancient as well as modern, does rely on exaggeration to convey its message. But that does not necessarily suggest that satirical plays, poems, or stories have no historical value; satire must be based on factual information or events, or the satire will not be effective.
Sometimes, the same cautionary tale must be applied to speeches. For example, Cicero's bitter diatribes against Mark Antony, the Philippics, undoubtedly contain elements of exag- geration and emotional overkill, but those excesses, as with satire, were very likely rooted in truth. On the other hand, Cicero's many letters, which he likely did not expect to be pub- lished, might provide the modern historian with a more candid view of contemporaneous events than his speeches.
Next, the modern historian might want to take into account the opinions of the ancient critics. Greek and Roman literatures are both rife with comments by writers, about writers. Which ancient writers seem to have earned the respect and esteem of their peers? Which ones did not?
Longevity should also be considered. Simply by virtue of the fact that the surviving works of classical authors have remained extant for such a long period of time--perhaps 2,500 years or more for the most venerable of them--is a powerful argument for their cred- ibility. Second-rate literature, or worse, is not likely to stand the test of time.
Interestingly, ancient authors did not have a sense or perception of plagiarism similar to that which prevails in today's scholarly world. Work-cited pages or bibliographies were unknown to them. The same may be said for footnotes, endnotes, parenthetical citations, and quotation marks. To employ such documentation would have been a foreign concept, or even odd or laughable to them. Many ancient nonfiction authors provide little or nothing in the way of source information. But a few--notably Plutarch--are very forthcoming in the body of their works, with references to authors and works of literature they have consulted.
Preface
xiii
Preface
xiv
So a modern historian might rightfully assign a higher degree of credibility to an ancient author who is willing to share this kind of information.
What about financial support? Making a living as a writer in ancient times was very likely impossible, given the lack of a technology for mass-producing books, essays, or poems. Most budding authors could develop their bent for writing only if one (or more) of the fol- lowing circumstances were in their favor: they hailed from wealthy families or benefited from generous inheritances, or they had patrons who supported them, or they had real-world jobs that paid well enough to enable them to spend their leisure hours in literary pursuits. In the case of patronage, it seems likely that no one would have bankrolled an author whose work was considered substandard. The first-century BCE poets Virgil and Horace both enjoyed the imperial patronage of the emperor Augustus; although their work was and is justifiably highly regarded on its own merits, a modern historian would also be warranted in evaluating their poetry favorably knowing that they had the financial support and approval of the emperor.
On rare occasions, however, an author could make his way in the world strictly through his writing. The best example of this might be the Greek poet Pindar, who wrote poems for athletes who were victorious at the Olympic Games and other prestigious athletic festivals. These athletes, or their families or patrons, paid Pindar handsomely for his odes. Ultimately, however, the marketplace dictated whether Pindar could stay in business as a freelance poet. Clearly, he turned out a quality product, with many satisfied customers, and that kind of success, in turn, would lead a modern historian to make a positive assess- ment of his work.
On relatively rare occasions, ancient historians and biographers share with the reader some of the frustrations and difficulties they encountered in composing their accounts, and the manner in which they dealt with these obstacles. The Greek historian Thucydides (see below) is the prime example of an author who was thus forthcoming. A modern histo- rian would not wrongly place faith in the reliability of such authors.
Ultimately, however, a modern historian must decide whether (or when) to be skeptical, and whether (or when) to be trusting when it comes to evaluating the works of ancient authors. But extreme skepticism--an attitude asserting that none of our original sources is completely accurate or honest, and therefore none can be trusted fully--has little to recom- mend it. If we apply such stringent standards across the board, we can bid farewell to a sub- stantive study of history; at some point, we must be willing to trust the sources. While they are not perhaps 100 percent error-free, the general outline of people and events they offer must be considered factual and credible. After all, what other documents do we have to en- able us to piece together the past?
Thucydides's Viewpoint
In the introduction to his classic book on the Peloponnesian War, the fifth-century BCE Greek historian Thucydides provides his readers with some unique observations on the dif- ficulties and challenges involved in writing history. Thucydides has a well-deserved reputa- tion as a very thorough researcher, obsessed with accuracy, and so his words should resonate with a modern historian who might be trying to achieve the same goals.
For example, Thucydides points out that so-called common knowledge, "facts" in the public domain as it were, may not be as common or as factual as people assume: "In inves- tigating past history, and in forming the conclusions which I have formed, it must be admit- ted that one cannot rely on every detail which has come down to us by way of tradition . . . The Greeks make many incorrect assumptions not only about the dimly
remembered past, but also about contemporary history . . . Most people, in fact, will not take trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear. " [Thucydides. Peloponnesian War 1. 20; tr. Warner. ]
A modern example? Perhaps the famous story about George Washington cutting down one of his father's prized cherry trees. Many modern historians discount that tale as pure fic- tion, and yet it has been told and retold so often that the culture accepts it as fact; or, in Thucydides's words, an "incorrect assumption . . . about the dimly remembered past. "
One of the trickiest literary genres confronting the analytical skills of a modern historian is oratory.
Many ancient authors recorded speeches in their historical works, but how do we know whether those versions are accurate? How do we assess them? Do we take them at face value, or do we assume that the author has slanted the content of the speech, perhaps inten- tionally because of a certain bias, or unintentionally, because of an imprecise memory or other factors? It is not likely that ancient chroniclers had access to transcripts of these speeches (to enable them to report a speech verbatim), so a particularly careful reading of their versions becomes mandatory. Thucydides explains how he dealt with the problem of accurately recording speeches: "In this history, I have made use of set speeches . . . I have found it difficult to remember the precise words used in the speeches which I listened to myself, and my various informants have experienced the same difficulty; so my method has been, while keeping as closely as possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used, to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by each situation. "
And what about the matter of eyewitnesses? Can they be trusted? Let us say, for exam- ple, that a fender-bender occurs at a busy intersection in the downtown of a large city. When the police arrive, and interview the 10 witnesses who saw the accident, they will likely receive varied accounts; there will certainly be no firm consensus on the exact circumstances or cause of the accident. Thucydides relied heavily on the reports of eye witnesses for infor- mation about events at which he was not present, and yet he found it sometimes very frus- trating to sort out their stories: "And with regard to my factual reporting of the events of the war, I have made it a principle not to write down the first story that came my way, and not even to be guided by my own general impressions; either I was present myself at the events which I have described, or else I heard of them from eye witnesses whose reports I have checked with as much thoroughness as possible. Not that even so the truth was easy to discover: different eye witnesses give different accounts of the same events. "
Clearly, Thucydides is a trustworthy primary source. From the outset, he makes it clear to the reader that his quest for the truth and the facts has been as thorough and as objective as possible. Few ancient authors are as candid as he.
Herodotus's Viewpoint
Herodotus, the "Father of History" (or lies) mentioned above, offers the modern historian only a very short introductory paragraph to his massive Histories: "Herodotus of Halicarnassus, his Researches are here set down to preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own [i. e. , Greek] and of other peoples; and more particularly, to show how they came into conflict. " [Herodotus. The Histories 1. 1; tr. de Selincourt. ]
Short and succinct, but also basic to the work of any historian: to record "astonishing achievements" and events, and to explain the genesis and unfolding of wars. Interestingly, Herodotus does not confine his attention strictly or primarily to the Greeks, but instead, he intends to look at the bigger picture of Mediterranean culture in general. Should such a broad-based view of history be a criterion by which we evaluate primary documents?
Preface
xv
Preface
xvi
Plutarch's Viewpoint (Part One)
What about the problem of evaluating documents that have as their primary topic events which occurred, or may have occurred, in the very earliest days of Greek and Roman history? These time periods are not documented by contemporary historians; indeed, as mentioned above, the first "real" historian, Herodotus, lived in the fifth century BCE. What about the events and people of earlier centuries, known to us only by way of oral traditions that were later recorded by historians, biographers, and poets?
Plutarch considered this problem when he embarked upon composing a biography of the legendary founder of the city of Athens, Theseus:
You know, Sosius Senecio [a Roman, one of Plutarch's scholarly friends] how geogra- phers, when they come to deal with those parts of the earth which they know nothing about, crowd them into the margins of their maps with the explanation, "Beyond this lie sandy, waterless deserts full of wild beasts," or "trackless swamps," or "Scythian snows," or "ice- locked sea. " Now that in writing my Parallel Lives I have reached the end of those periods in which theories can be tested by argument or where history can find a solid foundation in fact, I might very well follow their example and say of those remoter ages, 'All that lies beyond are prodigies and fables, the province of poets and romancers, where nothing is cer- tain or credible . . . [In writing the biography of Theseus, who lived in one of those "remoter ages"] [l]et us hope, then, that I shall succeed in purifying fable, and make her submit to rea- son and take on the appearance of history. But when she obstinately defies probability and refuses to admit any element of the credible, I shall throw myself on the indulgence of my readers and of those who can listen with forbearance to the tales of antiquity. Plutarch. Life of Theseus 1; tr. Scott-Kilvert.
Plutarch's solution to the problem of uncorroborated stories from the "remoter ages" was apparently to recast them and present them to the reader as having taken on "the appear- ance of history. " What are modern historians to make of this approach when evaluating a primary document like Plutarch's Life of Theseus? How would we interpret the information and the anecdotes contained in that biography? As factual? As semifactual? Or as nothing more than tall tales taken from "sandy, waterless deserts full of wild beasts"?
Plutarch's Viewpoint (Part Two)
As alluded to earlier, Plutarch is one of the few authors of primary documents who provides his readers with extensive information about his sources. He frequently credits the authors whose works he has consulted, sometimes referencing them, other times quoting them. Quite often, he will include contradictory material from two (or more) sources, leaving the modern historian with a problem: which of these sources is the more/most credible? Plutarch does not assist us; when he reports differing versions of the same event or story, he generally concludes his report with a sentence like: "Let the reader decide which one of these accounts is the true one. " Plutarch seldom even offers hints--let alone blunt state- ments--about his own assessments of his sources, so the modern historian truly must make the call in these cases.
An exception to the foregoing: Plutarch's Life of Pericles. Plutarch seems to have been a great admirer of the famous fifth-century BCE Athenian leader; even so, Plutarch is honest enough with his readers that he quotes sources hostile to Pericles, but with a twist: unchar- acteristically, he often criticizes these sources and challenges the credibility of their work.
Example: "The [fifth-century BCE] poet Ion . . . says that Pericles had a rather disdainful and arrogant manner of address, and that his pride had in it a good deal of superciliousness and contempt for others . . . But we need not pay much attention to Ion. . . " [Plutarch. Life of Pericles 5; tr. Scott-Kilvert. ]
Example: "[H]ow are we to believe [the fourth-century BCE biographer] Idomeneus's charge that Pericles arranged the assassination of the democratic leader Ephialtes, who was his friend [and political colleague], out of sheer jealousy of his reputation? This is surely a poisonous accusation, which he has concocted from some unknown source, to hurl at a man. . . who possessed a noble disposition and a spirit. . . dedicated to the pursuit of honor . . . " [10]
Example: "[W]e find that even [the fifth-century BCE biographer] Stesimbrotus of Thasos has dared to give currency to the shocking and completely unfounded charge that Pericles seduced his son's wife. This only goes to show how thickly the truth is hedged around with obstacles and how hard it is to track down by historical research. " [13]
Example: "In the ninth month [of the Athenian siege of Samos, an island off the coast of modern Turkey], the Samians surrendered. Pericles demolished their walls, confiscated their fleet, and imposed a heavy fine on them . . . Duris of Samos [a fourth-century BCE historian] magnifies these events into a tragedy and accuses Pericles and the Athenians of great brutal- ity, although there is no word of this in Thucydides, nor Ephorus, nor Aristotle. He certainly does not appear to be telling the truth [when he reports that Pericles countenanced atrocities during the takeover of Samos]. Duris is apt to overstep the limits of the truth . . . and so it seems . . . that in this instance he has drawn a horrifying picture of his country's sufferings simply to blacken the name of Athens. " It is most unusual for Plutarch, in effect, to accuse a source not only of incompetent exaggeration, but outright prevarication. [28]
Livy's Viewpoint
Titus Livius ("Livy," 59 BCE-17 CE) wrote a massive, monumental history of Rome, his Ab Urbe Condita, From the Founding of the City. He began work on it around 27 BCE; it took him over 40 years to complete. His plan: to cover the entirety of Roman history from its beginnings with Romulus (753 BCE) all the way to his own time.
In the preface to Ab Urbe Condita, Livy identifies a problem common to ancient and modern historians alike: the competition. A modern historian who proposes to undertake the writing of an account of nearly any historical period is admonished by editors and col- leagues to be certain that his/her putative work claims a niche or displays an approach here- tofore unfilled by any other historian. Livy must have felt the same kind of pressure to produce something new, different, unique, original. He writes: "Whether I am likely to accomplish anything worthy of the labor, if I record the achievements of the Roman people from the foundation of the city, I do not really know . . . perceiving as I do that the theme is not only old but hackneyed, through the constant succession of new historians [his compet- itors! ], who believe either that in their facts they can produce more authentic information, or that in their style they will prove better than the rude attempts of the ancients. " [Livy. From the Founding of the City 1. 1-2; tr. Foster. ]
Another problem that confronted Livy was the sheer antiquity of the earliest eras that he intended to chronicle. These time periods were poorly attested, shrouded in myth and legend (cf. Plutarch's similar quandary, above). Worse yet, perhaps, Livy fears that his read- ers would be far more interested in recent or contemporary events, and that accounts of the earliest eras of Roman history would not resonate with them. His words: "[M]y subject involves infinite labor, seeing that it must be traced back [over] seven hundred
Preface
xvii
Preface
xviii
years . . . and at the same time, I doubt not that to most readers the earliest origins and the period immediately succeeding them will give little pleasure, for they will be in haste to reach these modern times . . . "[1. 4]. As for the credibility or historicity of the legends and stories pertaining to Rome's beginnings, Livy promises "neither to affirm nor to refute. " Rather, he argues that it is the "privilege of antiquity" to create or promulgate legends that contain a mixture of divine and human actions, "so to add dignity to the beginnings of cities. "
Do historians have the prerogative or the credentials to make value judgments concern- ing the historical periods about which they write? Livy seemed to think so; he took the view that, rather than quibbling over the accuracy of minute details of particular events, students of history ought to focus instead on the bigger picture: "[W]hat life and morals were like; through what men and by what policies, in peace and in war, empire was established and enlarged. Then let [the reader] note how, with the gradual relaxation of discipline, morals first gave way . . . then sank lower and lower, and finally began the downward plunge which has brought us to the present time, when we can endure neither our vices, nor their cure. " [1. 9]. This view--that previous generations were somehow more moral, more values- driven, and more courageous than the present one--is echoed frequently by those who see a similar "downward plunge" in contemporary American life.
The bottom line: Livy believed that the study of history was a "wholesome and profit- able" undertaking, principally because it offers a wide range of examples of human activities and experiences, some praiseworthy, others not. The wise and perceptive student of history can then discern worthy examples to emulate and disreputable examples to avoid.
So how would a modern historian evaluate Livy's Ab Urbe Condita? By his own words, Livy certainly seems to have had a fondness for the "good old days" and a corresponding revulsion for more recent Roman history. Do we then conclude that his descriptions of the earliest times are embellished? Overly favorable, to an extent that they distort the truth? And that his accounts of more recent times are unnecessarily pessimistic? There seems to be no need to be skeptical of the accuracy of Livy's history of Rome. The 40-plus years he spent writing it suggest careful research and a diligent quest for the truth. Beyond that, Livy has always enjoyed the respect and esteem not only of his peers--the first-century CE orator Quintilian compared him favorably to the best of the Greek historians, including Thucydides and Herodotus--but also of later generations, up to the present time.
Tacitus's Viewpoint
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55-117 CE) has left us with two notable histori- cal works: Annals, which spans the years 14 to 68 CE, and Histories, covering 69 and 70.
Tacitus provides modern readers with some fairly harsh criticisms of his contemporaries in the history-writing business, nor is their readership spared. In his introduction to the Histories, he notes that many historians have written accounts of the previous 822 years of Roman history, from its founding in 753 BCE up to 69 CE. But he makes a distinction between those who covered the Roman Republic (753-31), characterizing their work as displaying "eloquence and freedom," and those who came later, claiming there were no post-31 BCE historians with abilities similar to their forebears. He acerbically writes that "historical truth was impaired in many ways: first, because [historians] were ignorant of politics; . . . later, because of their passionate desire to flatter; or again, because of their hatred of their masters . . . But while [readers] quickly turn from a historian who curries favor, they [readily] listen to calumny and spite . . . [T]hose [historians] who profess inviolable fidelity to truth must write of no [person] with affection or with hatred. " [Tr. Clifford H. Moore. Tacitus: The Histories. Volume I. LCL, 1937. Page numbers: 3, 5. ]
Unfortunately, Tacitus does not mention these ignorant historians by name, so the modern historian is left to speculate which ones are on the receiving end of his critiques. But this raises another dilemma of document evaluation for the modern historian: If we know that an eminent ancient source (like Tacitus) had a low opinion of a particular con- temporary historian, or a whole group of them, how much influence should the ancient crit- ic's opinions exert in our assessments of those writers, and their documents, whom he criticizes?
Conclusion
The ancient sources have demonstrated that the writing of history is no simple task. Many pitfalls, snares, obstacles, and wrong turns await the historian, especially in the matter of evaluating primary documents. And yet he or she must do exactly that if a complete record of human achievement--and failure--is to be written with care and accuracy.
Preface
xix
This page intentionally left blank
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK HISTORY FROM THE TROJAN WAR TO THE SUBJUGATION OF CORINTH, 1200-146 BCE
? ? Ca. 1200-1190 776
734 621
594
Ca. 560-510 Ca. 510
490
480
Ca. 478
The epic battle between the Greeks and the Trojans--the Trojan War-- chronicled later by Homer in the Iliad.
Founding of the ancient Olympic Games, the quadrennial athletic fes- tival that took place at Olympia, in the southwestern corner of the Peloponnesus.
The first Greek colony in Sicily, Naxos, is founded.
The Athenian lawgiver Draco is put in charge of codifying and publish- ing the laws of Athens. He recommends the death penalty for virtually any offense, even the most minor.
The Athenian legislator, poet, politician, and businessman Solon (ca. 640- 560) single-handedly enacts many legal, economic, and social reforms in Athens. He modifies the harsh penalties prescribed by Draco's law codes.
Pisistratus, and later his sons, Hippias and Hipparchus, rule Athens as tyrants.
The shadowy Athenian leader Cleisthenes sponsors a number of initia- tives that lay the foundation for the flowering of the Athenian democ- racy in the fifth century.
The Persians, led by King Darius I, invade Greece. The Greeks, princi- pally under the leadership of the Athenians, prevail at the decisive Battle of Marathon.
The Persians return to Greece, this time under King Xerxes. The Athenian navy, led by Themistocles, defeats the Persians for the second time in 10 years.
The representatives of several hundred Greek polises assemble on the tiny Cycladic island of Delos to form an anti-Persian alliance generally known as the Delian League.
xxi
Chronology
xxii
472
447
444
431-404
Ca. 430
429
417
415-413
406 399
384 371
338
336
336-323
Aeschylus's play Persians is staged. It is the only surviving Greek tragic play based on a historical event, the invasion of Greece led by Xerxes. All other extant tragedies draw their themes from myth and legend.
Construction begins on the Parthenon, the signature building of the Golden Age of Athens and one of the most famous architectural land- marks in the history of the western world.
The famous Athenian leader Pericles (ca. 495-429) is elected strategos (military general) for the first time. He would go on to be elected to this annual office an amazing 14 more times in succession.
The Peloponnesian War, the devastating conflict between Athens and Sparta and their allies, eventually resulting in the occupation and partial destruction of Athens by Sparta.
Sophocles's tragic play Oedipus the King, perhaps the best known and most often revived ancient Greek play, is presented in Athens for the first time.
The death of Pericles, who had contracted the highly contagious and nearly always fatal plague that had swept through Athens in this year and in the previous year.
The ostracism of Hyperbolus, the last known victim of the Athenian practice that enabled the citizens of Athens to exile, via popular vote, a disliked or unscrupulous politician for 10 years. Ostracism votes were outlawed after this year.
The disastrous Sicilian Expedition, in which the Athenians inexplicably try to invade the faraway island of Sicily, in the midst of the Peloponnesian War, and are thoroughly defeated.
The famous playwrights Euripides and Sophocles both die in this year.
Each document is preceded by an introduction and a section entitled "Keep in Mind As You Read. " As the wording of the rubric suggests, the entries here will offer important back- ground information with which the reader may not be familiar. Then follows the document itself, usually between 350 and 700 words in length, with some words in boldface type. These will be explained in "definition fact boxes" located next to the document. Some (but not all) of the documents will be accompanied by short "sidebars," which contain addi- tional information intended to supplement the content of the document itself. The "Aftermath" section functions as an epilogue to the document: What happened next? What consequences or developments occurred as a result of the events described in the docu- ment? Next come two series of questions: in the "Ask Yourself" category, the reader will be invited to think further about the document and reflect upon questions pertaining to its con- tent. The "Topics to Consider" section often offers suggestions for further research, on topics related to the document. In both of the "questions" sections, the reader will often be asked to think of examples from the modern world that might parallel the events or situations presented in the documents. Finally, suggestions for additional reading, including websites, appear under the "Further Information" rubric.
OTHER FEATURES
The volume contains a brief survey of Greek and Roman civilization, followed by an intro- duction to the nature and use of primary documents, including some information about how to read an ancient text intelligently. The business of putting pen to paper--or fingertips to keyboard--to construct a book, or an essay, or a poem, or a play can often be tricky, and not only in modern times. Ancient authors, too, confronted the challenges of the writing profession, and we will hear from some of them on this matter, including Thucydides, Livy, Plutarch, and others.
Additionally, there is a section featuring brief biographies of the authors of the original documents, as well as a chronological summary.
? ? ? ? viii
INTRODUCTION: GREEK AND ROMAN CIVILIZATION Greeks
The story of ancient Greek civilization probably could be said to have begun with the Minoans and Myceneans, or perhaps even before that, but for our purposes, the Trojan War serves as the starting point. The final days of this terrible conflict (ca. 1200- 1190 BCE) between the Greeks and Trojans is chronicled in one of the most famous works of western literature, Homer's Iliad. (See Document 42: "The Goddess Was on His Side") We owe much of what we know of the earliest times of Greek culture, language, political organization, military matters, and much more to this famous epic poem.
Historians generally believe that Greece gradually declined into a dark age for several centuries after the Trojan War, reemerging again in the eighth century BCE. Many famous polises, or city-states, came to prominence in the years to follow, but none was more impor- tant than Athens. Much of what we associate with the "ancient Greeks," or "ancient Greek civilization," was in actuality happening in Athens. Perhaps the first clearly recognizable individual in the city's glorious history was the lawgiver Solon, whose year in the spotlight was 594 BCE. The city was in crisis, on the brink of anarchy, and it was then that an extraor- dinary decision was made: to concentrate all legislative power in the hands of one person, who would have complete freedom to rewrite, create, or abolish any laws, regulations, or cus- toms that he thought would lead Athens out of its desperate situation. Since Solon had already established a rock-solid reputation for fairness, honesty, and incorruptibility, coupled with a peerless ability as a legislator and a politician, he was the one chosen for the job. After some hesitation, he accepted, and during his one-year term, he single-handedly transformed Athens from a city in chaos to a city on the move. Even today, the word "solon" remains with us, a term applied to a wise and conscientious lawgiver.
Toward the end of Solon's century, another famous, albeit poorly attested, legislator by the name of Cleisthenes took center stage in Athenian politics. Cleisthenes is often credited with originating two of the most noteworthy aspects of the emergent Athenian democracy: isonomia, a word meaning "equal rights" and one of the basic requirements of any democ- racy; and ostracism (see Document 30: "Out with Him! An Athenian Method of Ridding the City of Tiresome Politicians"), a formal procedure whereby an overly ambitious or unscrupulous politician could literally be voted out of Athens, and into a 10-year exile.
The high point of Athenian democracy--and culture, and literature, and art, and drama, and architecture, and philosophy, and economic power, and international leader- ship--found its fullest expression under the leadership of perhaps the greatest statesman/ orator ever to grace its halls of power: Pericles. By virtue of his unprecedented electoral suc- cess (he was voted one of the ten strategoi, or military generals, 15 consecutive times), Pericles dominated the domestic political scene in Athens in the 440s and 430s BCE; during that time, he spearheaded a tremendous surge in the construction of beautiful and expensive buildings. The most famous of these was undoubtedly the magnificent Parthenon, con- structed atop the Acropolis; estimated cost: 5,000 talents, perhaps equivalent to $1. 5 billion, more than even the new Yankee Stadium in the Bronx cost. (See Document 11: "Workers Needed for Building the Parthenon. ")
But it was not only the building program that marked out Pericles's administration for greatness. Many noted philosophers, playwrights, and poets--some of the most gifted and famous ever--flourished in Periclean Athens. Two of these, the comic playwright Aristophanes and the philosopher Socrates (through Plato), contributed documents to this
Preface
? ? ix
Preface
x
volume. (For Aristophanes, see Document 2: "A Failure to Launch, in an Athenian Family. " For Socrates/Plato, see Document 26: "An Intellectual on Trial")
Unfortunately, this Athenian Golden Age was derailed by the disastrous Peloponnesian War, a terrible conflict between the two superpowers of the time, Athens and its longtime rival polis Sparta. The war began in 431 BCE, and dragged on for 27 long years, finally coming to an end in 404. And while it certainly did not destroy Athenian life or civilization--Athens continued to be a cultural, intellectual, and educational center of the ancient world--the Greeks were never again to reach the heights which they attained under the leadership of Pericles.
Historians refer to the next major period as the Hellenistic Age, spanning from 323 to 30 BCE. Between the Golden Age of Athens and the dawn of the Hellenistic Age lived one of history's most compelling figures, Alexander the Great. He traveled widely with his army, perhaps as far as India and Afghanistan, everywhere conquering the opposition and laying the foundations--whether consciously or not--for the continued spreading of Greek cul- ture, one of the defining characteristics of the Hellenistic period that followed.
But by the end of the second century BCE, the power of Rome, too, was spreading, and beyond the Italian peninsula to which it had been largely confined up to this time. In 146 BCE, the Romans conquered Corinth, the last major Greek city not under their control. As a consequence, they annexed Greece as a province, and although the Hellenistic influence continued, it was now clear that the ancient Mediterranean world had a new superpower.
Romans
Ironically, it might be said that Roman civilization began with the Trojan War. Despite the overwhelming Greek victory in that conflict, a few Trojans managed to escape the carn- age on the night when the Greek army swarmed into Troy and destroyed the city. One of these few Trojan survivors was Aeneas. He, along with a small band of similarly fortunate stragglers, slipped out of the burning city, commandeered ships, and set sail for points unknown. After numerous hardships and disappointments, they made their way to Italy, where they landed and attempted to establish a permanent home. They met with some resis- tance to the plan from the indigenous peoples, but after a series of confrontations and bat- tles, they overcame this opposition and settled in Italy, not too far from the future location of Rome. Aeneas was their leader, and later Romans always regarded him as their progenitor, the founder of the Roman race.
But the actual construction of the city of Rome was to come long after Aeneas, over 400 years later, when a young man named Romulus, with a handful of allies, built the walls and foundations for the city. Romulus became its first king; the date was 753 BCE.
Romulus was followed by six more kings. In 509, the last of these, Tarquinius Superbus, was expelled in a coup, and not only he; the monarchy went out with him, replaced by a republican form of government. The Roman Republic lasted for nearly 500 years before it, too, fell by the wayside, superseded by one-man rule, the Roman Empire. The empire sur- vived for another 500 years before finally falling in 476 CE.
In those 1,200 years of Roman history, one of the most serious external threats they faced was posed by the Carthaginian general Hannibal (ca. 247-183 BCE). Rome had had a long and confrontational history with the Carthaginians, and this ongoing mutual hostility exploded into a major war, the Second Punic War, 218-201. The Romans ultimately emerged victorious, but the devastation from the war (much of which was fought on the Italian peninsula) had a major social and economic impact on subsequent Roman history.
Many of the soldiers who fought for Rome in this war were conscripted farmers, and when they returned to their farms after the war--if they survived--they discovered to their dismay that their lands had been amalgamated into large ranches called latifundia, owned in many cases by absentee land speculators in Rome. With nowhere else to go, many drifted into the cities, where conditions, unfortunately, were no better. The cycle of poverty, unem- ployment, and homelessness continued to worsen for decades after the Second Punic War, until Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus appeared on the scene.
In the campaign season of 134 BCE, Gracchus decided to seek the office of tribune; if elected, he would become a tribune for the year 133. During the campaign, he made speech after speech in which he promised to initiate land reform, a proposition that must have seemed dangerously revolutionary to those who occupied and owned the latifundia. Much to the undoubted frustration of the landowners, Gracchus was indeed elected, and soon after taking office, he made good on his campaign promise. After some initial opposition, he was successful in transforming his land reform bill into law.
Although the wealthy landowners certainly could not have been pleased by this turn of events, they were able to restrain their angry feelings, knowing that within a year, Gracchus would no longer be a problem: political offices in the Roman Republic were for one-year terms only, with no formal provision for reelection. But when Gracchus made the stunning announcement toward the end of 133 that he intended to run once again for the tribunate, it was more than his opponents could bear.
The campaign was a rough one, with violence and threats of violence rampant. Tiberius Gracchus was a superb public speaker, well versed in the ways of inciting a crowd with his emotion-laden oratory. During one of his campaign rallies, a scuffle broke out; it soon esca- lated into a full-fledged riot in which several hundred people were injured or killed. One of the casualties was Gracchus himself. The biographer Plutarch writes that this was the first time in Roman history in which Roman blood was shed in a civil dispute, and most modern historians look back at the year 133 as a turning point in the fortunes of the Roman Republic.
The events of that fateful year foreshadowed similar troubles to come, on a far larger scale, in the next century. Demagogues, rogue generals, revolutionaries--all took center stage at one time or another in the first century BCE. Perhaps the outstanding figure of the time was the great Gaius Julius Caesar, who painstakingly worked his way up the political ladder, finally achieving election to the top spot in the Roman Republic, the office of consul, for 59 BCE. But his true goal seemed to have been the acquisition of a large and prestigious province to govern after his year as the consul. Caesar was a man who usually got what he wanted, and the fulfillment of his postconsular ambitions certainly fit with this pattern. He was granted the governorship of the sprawling province of Gaul, modern France, which he ruled for an unprecedented eight years--most governorships lasted a maximum of three years. In that time, he was bent on conquest and acquisition, in Spain, Germany, and England as well as in Gaul. During that extended stay in the province, he had molded a battle-toughened army, one that was fearless, relentless, and most importantly, utterly loyal to Caesar.
Not surprisingly, Caesar's activities in Gaul occasioned no little uneasiness back in Rome, and there were many who feared that he might use his powerful army to attack the city itself and perhaps install Caesar as a king or a dictator. To prevent such a calamity from happening, in 50 BCE, the politicians in Rome demanded that Caesar return home to give an accounting of his Gallic activities and an explanation of his plans for the future. Caesar com- plied--up to a point. But when he and his army reached the Rubicon River in northern Italy, he had a decision to make. The Rubicon was regarded as the boundary between Italy
Preface
xi
Preface
and the northern provinces, and the expectation was that any general returning from one of those provinces would dismiss his army before crossing the river and proceed to Rome as a private citizen. Caesar knew full well that if he followed the rules and entered Rome without his army, he would be put on trial for provincial mismanagement, and very likely exiled or worse. But crossing the river with his army intact and at his side would almost certainly mean civil war.
With the famous words alea jacta est--"the die is cast"--Caesar led his army across the Rubicon. What followed was the bloodiest civil war yet seen in Roman history. For four long years the conflict raged, until finally Caesar prevailed, in 45. With all of his major opposition either dead, scattered, or in hiding, Caesar proceeded to rule Rome single-handedly, and for the next 18 months initiated many reforms and projects. The biographer Suetonius enumer- ates them: sponsored gladiatorial shows and stage plays; reformed the calendar (from a lunar to a solar calendar, the basics of which we still use in our modern calendar); carried out a cen- sus; made various changes in electoral, legal and judicial processes; granted citizenship to physicians and teachers (to entice them to live in Rome); built temples and a theater; opened a public library; constructed highways and canals; and many more.
Unfortunately, Suetonius also points out that many of these projects were curtailed or never completed because of Caesar's untimely death. Remnants of staunch opposition to his rule remained. A conspiracy was formed, eventually consisting of some 60 individuals. They struck on March 15 (the Ides of March), 44.
A bloody, lengthy civil war followed (much as Caesar had predicted, should anything happen to him). The decisive Battle of Actium was fought in 30, pitting the forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra against those under the command of the young Octavianus, Julius Caesar's great-nephew. The latter side emerged victorious, putting an end to the wars and paving the way for the one-man rule of Octavianus, who, a few years later (in 27), was granted the honorary title "Augustus" by the Roman Senate. All opposition was at an end, and Augustus ruled Rome as an emperor for over 40 years, until his death in 14 CE.
He was followed by a succession of many other emperors, some good, others bad, still others indifferent. The high point was probably the era in which the noted historian Edward Gibbon wrote that "the condition of the human race was most happy and prosper- ous": 98-180 CE, in which Rome had the good fortune to be ruled by a succession of consci- entious and effective leaders--the so-called Five Good Emperors--culminating with Marcus Aurelius, who reigned from 161 to 180.
EVALUATING PRIMARY DOCUMENTS
Historians go about the business of reconstructing the past by studying, interpreting, and assessing primary sources: histories, biographies, plays, poems, letters, and works of philoso- phy and natural science written by people who lived "back in the day": writers who were observers of the events which they describe, and/or who had access to sources and docu- ments about events they describe but did not personally witness or experience. However, dif- ficulties often arise when historians attempt to evaluate these many and varied documents. Some ancient authors are probably more credible and reliable than others. But how can we know?
The fifth-century BCE Greek historian Herodotus wrote a compendious volume about the history of the Greek world; indeed, Herodotus is often considered the western world's first true historian: an author who attempted to more or less systematically record a con- tinuum of events occurring over the course of many centuries. His work is very detailed, full
? ? xii
of information, running over 600 pages in the English translation. As a result of all this, Herodotus is sometimes called "the Father of History. " But wait. Since his work also con- tains many myths, stories, legends, and tall tales, Herodotus is also sometimes saddled with the sobriquet "The Father of Lies. " So which is it, history or lies? Modern historians have to make the call.
The Roman biographer Suetonius (ca. 70-140 CE) is occasionally considered second- rate by modern critics, primarily because he includes information--sometimes too much information! --about the private lives of the emperors about whom he wrote. Hence, these modern critics deride Suetonius as a gossipmonger, the Roman equivalent of a modern tab- loid journalist. But is that a fair assessment?
The Roman satirist Juvenal (ca. 60-130 CE) is often accused of poetic exaggeration, and therefore the poems he wrote have to be taken with a truckload of salt and are not reliable sources of information about life in the early Roman Empire. True or not?
Making the Call
A historian's first task is probably to determine the genre of the source under consideration. Reading and evaluating a satirical poem by Juvenal as if it were a strictly historical account by the annalist Tacitus would be an error. Interpreting a play by the comic playwright Aristophanes in the same manner as a play by the tragic playwright Euripides would prob- ably be the wrong approach. Assuming that a biographer like Plutarch should have crafted his writings in the same manner as a historian like Thucydides might not yield the most accurate assessment. Proper genre identification is a crucial first step.
Some genres of literature might be more credible than others. A modern historian must handle satire with care, because satire, ancient as well as modern, does rely on exaggeration to convey its message. But that does not necessarily suggest that satirical plays, poems, or stories have no historical value; satire must be based on factual information or events, or the satire will not be effective.
Sometimes, the same cautionary tale must be applied to speeches. For example, Cicero's bitter diatribes against Mark Antony, the Philippics, undoubtedly contain elements of exag- geration and emotional overkill, but those excesses, as with satire, were very likely rooted in truth. On the other hand, Cicero's many letters, which he likely did not expect to be pub- lished, might provide the modern historian with a more candid view of contemporaneous events than his speeches.
Next, the modern historian might want to take into account the opinions of the ancient critics. Greek and Roman literatures are both rife with comments by writers, about writers. Which ancient writers seem to have earned the respect and esteem of their peers? Which ones did not?
Longevity should also be considered. Simply by virtue of the fact that the surviving works of classical authors have remained extant for such a long period of time--perhaps 2,500 years or more for the most venerable of them--is a powerful argument for their cred- ibility. Second-rate literature, or worse, is not likely to stand the test of time.
Interestingly, ancient authors did not have a sense or perception of plagiarism similar to that which prevails in today's scholarly world. Work-cited pages or bibliographies were unknown to them. The same may be said for footnotes, endnotes, parenthetical citations, and quotation marks. To employ such documentation would have been a foreign concept, or even odd or laughable to them. Many ancient nonfiction authors provide little or nothing in the way of source information. But a few--notably Plutarch--are very forthcoming in the body of their works, with references to authors and works of literature they have consulted.
Preface
xiii
Preface
xiv
So a modern historian might rightfully assign a higher degree of credibility to an ancient author who is willing to share this kind of information.
What about financial support? Making a living as a writer in ancient times was very likely impossible, given the lack of a technology for mass-producing books, essays, or poems. Most budding authors could develop their bent for writing only if one (or more) of the fol- lowing circumstances were in their favor: they hailed from wealthy families or benefited from generous inheritances, or they had patrons who supported them, or they had real-world jobs that paid well enough to enable them to spend their leisure hours in literary pursuits. In the case of patronage, it seems likely that no one would have bankrolled an author whose work was considered substandard. The first-century BCE poets Virgil and Horace both enjoyed the imperial patronage of the emperor Augustus; although their work was and is justifiably highly regarded on its own merits, a modern historian would also be warranted in evaluating their poetry favorably knowing that they had the financial support and approval of the emperor.
On rare occasions, however, an author could make his way in the world strictly through his writing. The best example of this might be the Greek poet Pindar, who wrote poems for athletes who were victorious at the Olympic Games and other prestigious athletic festivals. These athletes, or their families or patrons, paid Pindar handsomely for his odes. Ultimately, however, the marketplace dictated whether Pindar could stay in business as a freelance poet. Clearly, he turned out a quality product, with many satisfied customers, and that kind of success, in turn, would lead a modern historian to make a positive assess- ment of his work.
On relatively rare occasions, ancient historians and biographers share with the reader some of the frustrations and difficulties they encountered in composing their accounts, and the manner in which they dealt with these obstacles. The Greek historian Thucydides (see below) is the prime example of an author who was thus forthcoming. A modern histo- rian would not wrongly place faith in the reliability of such authors.
Ultimately, however, a modern historian must decide whether (or when) to be skeptical, and whether (or when) to be trusting when it comes to evaluating the works of ancient authors. But extreme skepticism--an attitude asserting that none of our original sources is completely accurate or honest, and therefore none can be trusted fully--has little to recom- mend it. If we apply such stringent standards across the board, we can bid farewell to a sub- stantive study of history; at some point, we must be willing to trust the sources. While they are not perhaps 100 percent error-free, the general outline of people and events they offer must be considered factual and credible. After all, what other documents do we have to en- able us to piece together the past?
Thucydides's Viewpoint
In the introduction to his classic book on the Peloponnesian War, the fifth-century BCE Greek historian Thucydides provides his readers with some unique observations on the dif- ficulties and challenges involved in writing history. Thucydides has a well-deserved reputa- tion as a very thorough researcher, obsessed with accuracy, and so his words should resonate with a modern historian who might be trying to achieve the same goals.
For example, Thucydides points out that so-called common knowledge, "facts" in the public domain as it were, may not be as common or as factual as people assume: "In inves- tigating past history, and in forming the conclusions which I have formed, it must be admit- ted that one cannot rely on every detail which has come down to us by way of tradition . . . The Greeks make many incorrect assumptions not only about the dimly
remembered past, but also about contemporary history . . . Most people, in fact, will not take trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear. " [Thucydides. Peloponnesian War 1. 20; tr. Warner. ]
A modern example? Perhaps the famous story about George Washington cutting down one of his father's prized cherry trees. Many modern historians discount that tale as pure fic- tion, and yet it has been told and retold so often that the culture accepts it as fact; or, in Thucydides's words, an "incorrect assumption . . . about the dimly remembered past. "
One of the trickiest literary genres confronting the analytical skills of a modern historian is oratory.
Many ancient authors recorded speeches in their historical works, but how do we know whether those versions are accurate? How do we assess them? Do we take them at face value, or do we assume that the author has slanted the content of the speech, perhaps inten- tionally because of a certain bias, or unintentionally, because of an imprecise memory or other factors? It is not likely that ancient chroniclers had access to transcripts of these speeches (to enable them to report a speech verbatim), so a particularly careful reading of their versions becomes mandatory. Thucydides explains how he dealt with the problem of accurately recording speeches: "In this history, I have made use of set speeches . . . I have found it difficult to remember the precise words used in the speeches which I listened to myself, and my various informants have experienced the same difficulty; so my method has been, while keeping as closely as possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used, to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by each situation. "
And what about the matter of eyewitnesses? Can they be trusted? Let us say, for exam- ple, that a fender-bender occurs at a busy intersection in the downtown of a large city. When the police arrive, and interview the 10 witnesses who saw the accident, they will likely receive varied accounts; there will certainly be no firm consensus on the exact circumstances or cause of the accident. Thucydides relied heavily on the reports of eye witnesses for infor- mation about events at which he was not present, and yet he found it sometimes very frus- trating to sort out their stories: "And with regard to my factual reporting of the events of the war, I have made it a principle not to write down the first story that came my way, and not even to be guided by my own general impressions; either I was present myself at the events which I have described, or else I heard of them from eye witnesses whose reports I have checked with as much thoroughness as possible. Not that even so the truth was easy to discover: different eye witnesses give different accounts of the same events. "
Clearly, Thucydides is a trustworthy primary source. From the outset, he makes it clear to the reader that his quest for the truth and the facts has been as thorough and as objective as possible. Few ancient authors are as candid as he.
Herodotus's Viewpoint
Herodotus, the "Father of History" (or lies) mentioned above, offers the modern historian only a very short introductory paragraph to his massive Histories: "Herodotus of Halicarnassus, his Researches are here set down to preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own [i. e. , Greek] and of other peoples; and more particularly, to show how they came into conflict. " [Herodotus. The Histories 1. 1; tr. de Selincourt. ]
Short and succinct, but also basic to the work of any historian: to record "astonishing achievements" and events, and to explain the genesis and unfolding of wars. Interestingly, Herodotus does not confine his attention strictly or primarily to the Greeks, but instead, he intends to look at the bigger picture of Mediterranean culture in general. Should such a broad-based view of history be a criterion by which we evaluate primary documents?
Preface
xv
Preface
xvi
Plutarch's Viewpoint (Part One)
What about the problem of evaluating documents that have as their primary topic events which occurred, or may have occurred, in the very earliest days of Greek and Roman history? These time periods are not documented by contemporary historians; indeed, as mentioned above, the first "real" historian, Herodotus, lived in the fifth century BCE. What about the events and people of earlier centuries, known to us only by way of oral traditions that were later recorded by historians, biographers, and poets?
Plutarch considered this problem when he embarked upon composing a biography of the legendary founder of the city of Athens, Theseus:
You know, Sosius Senecio [a Roman, one of Plutarch's scholarly friends] how geogra- phers, when they come to deal with those parts of the earth which they know nothing about, crowd them into the margins of their maps with the explanation, "Beyond this lie sandy, waterless deserts full of wild beasts," or "trackless swamps," or "Scythian snows," or "ice- locked sea. " Now that in writing my Parallel Lives I have reached the end of those periods in which theories can be tested by argument or where history can find a solid foundation in fact, I might very well follow their example and say of those remoter ages, 'All that lies beyond are prodigies and fables, the province of poets and romancers, where nothing is cer- tain or credible . . . [In writing the biography of Theseus, who lived in one of those "remoter ages"] [l]et us hope, then, that I shall succeed in purifying fable, and make her submit to rea- son and take on the appearance of history. But when she obstinately defies probability and refuses to admit any element of the credible, I shall throw myself on the indulgence of my readers and of those who can listen with forbearance to the tales of antiquity. Plutarch. Life of Theseus 1; tr. Scott-Kilvert.
Plutarch's solution to the problem of uncorroborated stories from the "remoter ages" was apparently to recast them and present them to the reader as having taken on "the appear- ance of history. " What are modern historians to make of this approach when evaluating a primary document like Plutarch's Life of Theseus? How would we interpret the information and the anecdotes contained in that biography? As factual? As semifactual? Or as nothing more than tall tales taken from "sandy, waterless deserts full of wild beasts"?
Plutarch's Viewpoint (Part Two)
As alluded to earlier, Plutarch is one of the few authors of primary documents who provides his readers with extensive information about his sources. He frequently credits the authors whose works he has consulted, sometimes referencing them, other times quoting them. Quite often, he will include contradictory material from two (or more) sources, leaving the modern historian with a problem: which of these sources is the more/most credible? Plutarch does not assist us; when he reports differing versions of the same event or story, he generally concludes his report with a sentence like: "Let the reader decide which one of these accounts is the true one. " Plutarch seldom even offers hints--let alone blunt state- ments--about his own assessments of his sources, so the modern historian truly must make the call in these cases.
An exception to the foregoing: Plutarch's Life of Pericles. Plutarch seems to have been a great admirer of the famous fifth-century BCE Athenian leader; even so, Plutarch is honest enough with his readers that he quotes sources hostile to Pericles, but with a twist: unchar- acteristically, he often criticizes these sources and challenges the credibility of their work.
Example: "The [fifth-century BCE] poet Ion . . . says that Pericles had a rather disdainful and arrogant manner of address, and that his pride had in it a good deal of superciliousness and contempt for others . . . But we need not pay much attention to Ion. . . " [Plutarch. Life of Pericles 5; tr. Scott-Kilvert. ]
Example: "[H]ow are we to believe [the fourth-century BCE biographer] Idomeneus's charge that Pericles arranged the assassination of the democratic leader Ephialtes, who was his friend [and political colleague], out of sheer jealousy of his reputation? This is surely a poisonous accusation, which he has concocted from some unknown source, to hurl at a man. . . who possessed a noble disposition and a spirit. . . dedicated to the pursuit of honor . . . " [10]
Example: "[W]e find that even [the fifth-century BCE biographer] Stesimbrotus of Thasos has dared to give currency to the shocking and completely unfounded charge that Pericles seduced his son's wife. This only goes to show how thickly the truth is hedged around with obstacles and how hard it is to track down by historical research. " [13]
Example: "In the ninth month [of the Athenian siege of Samos, an island off the coast of modern Turkey], the Samians surrendered. Pericles demolished their walls, confiscated their fleet, and imposed a heavy fine on them . . . Duris of Samos [a fourth-century BCE historian] magnifies these events into a tragedy and accuses Pericles and the Athenians of great brutal- ity, although there is no word of this in Thucydides, nor Ephorus, nor Aristotle. He certainly does not appear to be telling the truth [when he reports that Pericles countenanced atrocities during the takeover of Samos]. Duris is apt to overstep the limits of the truth . . . and so it seems . . . that in this instance he has drawn a horrifying picture of his country's sufferings simply to blacken the name of Athens. " It is most unusual for Plutarch, in effect, to accuse a source not only of incompetent exaggeration, but outright prevarication. [28]
Livy's Viewpoint
Titus Livius ("Livy," 59 BCE-17 CE) wrote a massive, monumental history of Rome, his Ab Urbe Condita, From the Founding of the City. He began work on it around 27 BCE; it took him over 40 years to complete. His plan: to cover the entirety of Roman history from its beginnings with Romulus (753 BCE) all the way to his own time.
In the preface to Ab Urbe Condita, Livy identifies a problem common to ancient and modern historians alike: the competition. A modern historian who proposes to undertake the writing of an account of nearly any historical period is admonished by editors and col- leagues to be certain that his/her putative work claims a niche or displays an approach here- tofore unfilled by any other historian. Livy must have felt the same kind of pressure to produce something new, different, unique, original. He writes: "Whether I am likely to accomplish anything worthy of the labor, if I record the achievements of the Roman people from the foundation of the city, I do not really know . . . perceiving as I do that the theme is not only old but hackneyed, through the constant succession of new historians [his compet- itors! ], who believe either that in their facts they can produce more authentic information, or that in their style they will prove better than the rude attempts of the ancients. " [Livy. From the Founding of the City 1. 1-2; tr. Foster. ]
Another problem that confronted Livy was the sheer antiquity of the earliest eras that he intended to chronicle. These time periods were poorly attested, shrouded in myth and legend (cf. Plutarch's similar quandary, above). Worse yet, perhaps, Livy fears that his read- ers would be far more interested in recent or contemporary events, and that accounts of the earliest eras of Roman history would not resonate with them. His words: "[M]y subject involves infinite labor, seeing that it must be traced back [over] seven hundred
Preface
xvii
Preface
xviii
years . . . and at the same time, I doubt not that to most readers the earliest origins and the period immediately succeeding them will give little pleasure, for they will be in haste to reach these modern times . . . "[1. 4]. As for the credibility or historicity of the legends and stories pertaining to Rome's beginnings, Livy promises "neither to affirm nor to refute. " Rather, he argues that it is the "privilege of antiquity" to create or promulgate legends that contain a mixture of divine and human actions, "so to add dignity to the beginnings of cities. "
Do historians have the prerogative or the credentials to make value judgments concern- ing the historical periods about which they write? Livy seemed to think so; he took the view that, rather than quibbling over the accuracy of minute details of particular events, students of history ought to focus instead on the bigger picture: "[W]hat life and morals were like; through what men and by what policies, in peace and in war, empire was established and enlarged. Then let [the reader] note how, with the gradual relaxation of discipline, morals first gave way . . . then sank lower and lower, and finally began the downward plunge which has brought us to the present time, when we can endure neither our vices, nor their cure. " [1. 9]. This view--that previous generations were somehow more moral, more values- driven, and more courageous than the present one--is echoed frequently by those who see a similar "downward plunge" in contemporary American life.
The bottom line: Livy believed that the study of history was a "wholesome and profit- able" undertaking, principally because it offers a wide range of examples of human activities and experiences, some praiseworthy, others not. The wise and perceptive student of history can then discern worthy examples to emulate and disreputable examples to avoid.
So how would a modern historian evaluate Livy's Ab Urbe Condita? By his own words, Livy certainly seems to have had a fondness for the "good old days" and a corresponding revulsion for more recent Roman history. Do we then conclude that his descriptions of the earliest times are embellished? Overly favorable, to an extent that they distort the truth? And that his accounts of more recent times are unnecessarily pessimistic? There seems to be no need to be skeptical of the accuracy of Livy's history of Rome. The 40-plus years he spent writing it suggest careful research and a diligent quest for the truth. Beyond that, Livy has always enjoyed the respect and esteem not only of his peers--the first-century CE orator Quintilian compared him favorably to the best of the Greek historians, including Thucydides and Herodotus--but also of later generations, up to the present time.
Tacitus's Viewpoint
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55-117 CE) has left us with two notable histori- cal works: Annals, which spans the years 14 to 68 CE, and Histories, covering 69 and 70.
Tacitus provides modern readers with some fairly harsh criticisms of his contemporaries in the history-writing business, nor is their readership spared. In his introduction to the Histories, he notes that many historians have written accounts of the previous 822 years of Roman history, from its founding in 753 BCE up to 69 CE. But he makes a distinction between those who covered the Roman Republic (753-31), characterizing their work as displaying "eloquence and freedom," and those who came later, claiming there were no post-31 BCE historians with abilities similar to their forebears. He acerbically writes that "historical truth was impaired in many ways: first, because [historians] were ignorant of politics; . . . later, because of their passionate desire to flatter; or again, because of their hatred of their masters . . . But while [readers] quickly turn from a historian who curries favor, they [readily] listen to calumny and spite . . . [T]hose [historians] who profess inviolable fidelity to truth must write of no [person] with affection or with hatred. " [Tr. Clifford H. Moore. Tacitus: The Histories. Volume I. LCL, 1937. Page numbers: 3, 5. ]
Unfortunately, Tacitus does not mention these ignorant historians by name, so the modern historian is left to speculate which ones are on the receiving end of his critiques. But this raises another dilemma of document evaluation for the modern historian: If we know that an eminent ancient source (like Tacitus) had a low opinion of a particular con- temporary historian, or a whole group of them, how much influence should the ancient crit- ic's opinions exert in our assessments of those writers, and their documents, whom he criticizes?
Conclusion
The ancient sources have demonstrated that the writing of history is no simple task. Many pitfalls, snares, obstacles, and wrong turns await the historian, especially in the matter of evaluating primary documents. And yet he or she must do exactly that if a complete record of human achievement--and failure--is to be written with care and accuracy.
Preface
xix
This page intentionally left blank
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK HISTORY FROM THE TROJAN WAR TO THE SUBJUGATION OF CORINTH, 1200-146 BCE
? ? Ca. 1200-1190 776
734 621
594
Ca. 560-510 Ca. 510
490
480
Ca. 478
The epic battle between the Greeks and the Trojans--the Trojan War-- chronicled later by Homer in the Iliad.
Founding of the ancient Olympic Games, the quadrennial athletic fes- tival that took place at Olympia, in the southwestern corner of the Peloponnesus.
The first Greek colony in Sicily, Naxos, is founded.
The Athenian lawgiver Draco is put in charge of codifying and publish- ing the laws of Athens. He recommends the death penalty for virtually any offense, even the most minor.
The Athenian legislator, poet, politician, and businessman Solon (ca. 640- 560) single-handedly enacts many legal, economic, and social reforms in Athens. He modifies the harsh penalties prescribed by Draco's law codes.
Pisistratus, and later his sons, Hippias and Hipparchus, rule Athens as tyrants.
The shadowy Athenian leader Cleisthenes sponsors a number of initia- tives that lay the foundation for the flowering of the Athenian democ- racy in the fifth century.
The Persians, led by King Darius I, invade Greece. The Greeks, princi- pally under the leadership of the Athenians, prevail at the decisive Battle of Marathon.
The Persians return to Greece, this time under King Xerxes. The Athenian navy, led by Themistocles, defeats the Persians for the second time in 10 years.
The representatives of several hundred Greek polises assemble on the tiny Cycladic island of Delos to form an anti-Persian alliance generally known as the Delian League.
xxi
Chronology
xxii
472
447
444
431-404
Ca. 430
429
417
415-413
406 399
384 371
338
336
336-323
Aeschylus's play Persians is staged. It is the only surviving Greek tragic play based on a historical event, the invasion of Greece led by Xerxes. All other extant tragedies draw their themes from myth and legend.
Construction begins on the Parthenon, the signature building of the Golden Age of Athens and one of the most famous architectural land- marks in the history of the western world.
The famous Athenian leader Pericles (ca. 495-429) is elected strategos (military general) for the first time. He would go on to be elected to this annual office an amazing 14 more times in succession.
The Peloponnesian War, the devastating conflict between Athens and Sparta and their allies, eventually resulting in the occupation and partial destruction of Athens by Sparta.
Sophocles's tragic play Oedipus the King, perhaps the best known and most often revived ancient Greek play, is presented in Athens for the first time.
The death of Pericles, who had contracted the highly contagious and nearly always fatal plague that had swept through Athens in this year and in the previous year.
The ostracism of Hyperbolus, the last known victim of the Athenian practice that enabled the citizens of Athens to exile, via popular vote, a disliked or unscrupulous politician for 10 years. Ostracism votes were outlawed after this year.
The disastrous Sicilian Expedition, in which the Athenians inexplicably try to invade the faraway island of Sicily, in the midst of the Peloponnesian War, and are thoroughly defeated.
The famous playwrights Euripides and Sophocles both die in this year.
