STUDIES IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY Edited by Peter Liddel and Andrew FearHISTORIAE MUNDI Studies in Universal History Edited by Peter Liddel and Andrew Fear BLOOMS BURY LONDON + NEW DEL © NEW YORK » SYDNEYBloomsbury Academie An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Ple 50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA wwwibloomsbury.com First published in 2010 by Gerald Duckworth & Co. Lid. © Peter Liddel and Andrew Fear, 2010 Peter Liddel and Andrew Fear have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers, No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-0-7156-3838-0 ePUB: 978-1-4725-1979-5 ePDF; 978-1-4725-1980-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.Contents Contributors Preface Introduction 1 | Strabo and the Ds . Un . Universal and Particular in Velleius Patercul 1. Foci Tim Cornell, Andrew Fear, Peter Liddel Metabole Politeion as Universal Historiography Peter Liddel . Polybius and the First Universal History Frangois Hartog . Diodorus’ Reading of Polybius’ Universalism Brian Sheridan Diodorus’ Good Statesman and State Revenue Errietta Bissa ey Historiography Johannes Engels lopment of Ancient Greek Universal . The Glory of Italy and Rome’s Universal Destiny in Strabo’s Geographika Marta Garcia Moreillo ersal History and the Early Roman Histo Tim Cornell 8 Jarthage versus Rome Clemence Schultze ised Universality: Contextualising the Genre Liv Mariah Yarrow Ennius as Universal Historian: the Case of the Annales dackie Eliett . Theology versus Genre? The Universalism of Christian Historiography in Late Antiquity Peter Van Nuffelen . Orosius and Escaping from the Dance of Doom Andrew FearContents 13. A Rose in the Desert? Late Antique and Early Byzantine Chronicles and the Formation of Islamic Univ Historiography Marco Di Branco 14. Universal Historiography and World History according to Hegel Allegra de Laurentiis 15. Spengler, the Modern We: John Farrenkopf , and Roman Decline Index vi 189 207Contributors Errietta Bissa, Lecturer in Ancient History, University of Wales, Allegra de Lauren ¢ Professor of Philosoph: University of New York at Stony Brook. Marco Di Branco, Professor, University of Basilicata Jackie Elliott, Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Colorado at Boulder. Johannes Engels, aufBerplanmabiger Professor, University of Cologne John Farrenkopf. Associate Professor of Government, Wolford College, Spartanburg, South Andrew Fe ient History, University of Manchester. Marta Garcia Morcillo, Lecturer in Ancient History, University of Leicester. Francois Hartog, Professor of Ancient and Modern Historiography, Eeole des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris, Peter Liddel, Lecturer in Ancient History, University of Manchester. Clemence Schultze, Lecturer in Ancient History, University of Durham Brian Sheridan, PhD student and Tutor, National University of Ireland, Maynooth. Peter Van Nuffelen, Research Professor in Ancient History, University of Ghent. Liv Mariah Yarrow, Associate Professor, Brooklyn College, City University of New York. viiThis page intentionally left blankPreface This collection is based on the papers given at an international conference (Universal Historiography in Antiquity and Beyond’) which took place at the University of Manchester in June 2007. Additional contributions have been received from Frangois Hartog and Marco Di Branco, who were unable to attend the conference, and from John Farrenkopf. We would like to offer thanks to the anonymous referees who com- mented on papers, and also to those who chaired papers at the actual conference: Christy Constantakopoulou, Eleanor Cowan, Ruth Morello, Tim Parkin, and Kostas Vlassopoules, and colleagues and students in Manchester without whose help the conference would not have been possible (especially James Thorne and April Pudsey). Peter Liddel Andrew FearIntroduction Tim Cornell, Andrew Fear, Peter Liddel Universal history, as its name implies, attempts to deliver a more encom- passing study of the past than other more narrowly-focused histories." The distinetive claim of the universal historian, in Graeco-Roman antiquity and beyond, has been to compile an account of history which provides the broadest possible view of the past within the confines of a single work. Yet the working out of this claim is problematic. Should the work focus on breadth in geographie scope, or chronological depth, or both? Does history come to an end? If it does come to an end, is that end utopian (the culmination of progress) or dystopian (the result of decline and deca- dence)? Can any writer truly escape from his own cultural context and write a dispassionate account of the unfolding of history across the world? Popular universal histories written in the West, such as that of Gombrich, begin with chapters gesturing towards a global history, but almost invari- ably turn into a narrative of Western history as they continue. The same parochial tendency is found in other works of the genre such as the Mugaddinah of Ibn Khaldun written in fourteenth-century Tunis, Graeco-Roman works of universal history also tended to have their centre of gravity in the Greek- and/or Latin-speaking Mediterranean: peripheral ‘barbarian’ cultures were consciously treated as marginal and only oeca- sionally brought into the main story A key question that arises fora Universal Historian is whether history can be Seon as an account of a discrete group of civilisations, each of which follows a universally applicable set of rules or patterns; this was the cyclical view of history held by Ibn Khaldun and in the twentieth century by Spengler and Toynbee. Both the taxonomy of civilisations and the ‘laws’ they Spengler identified nine civili his study while Toynbee discerned twenty-three. A different approach is to see all of history across the globe evolving ina single continuous pattern ~a linear (and sometimes teleological) view held, inter atios, by Marx and Fukuyama. The idea of historical evolution or progressive development is generally characteristic of the approach known, and sometimes de- nounced, as the ‘Whig’ interpretation of history? The papers in this collection identify both linear and cyclical views of history in the histori- ography of the Graeco-Roman world The purest definition of the universal historian in the Graeco-Reman follow remain controversia! ations inHistoriae Mundi world was developed by Alonso-Naiez, author of the most recent system- atic study of the subject in antiquity: ‘only these who deal with the history of mankind from the earliest times, and in all parts of the world known to them’.’ But even ancient authors realised the unfeasibility of composin history which systematically catalogued every known event in every known place from the beginning of time. Hence ancient authors not only made claims about universalism with respect to the temporal and/or spatial universality of their works,* but devised schemes of historical explanation that struck them as universally applicable.’ As Momigliano pointed out, this formulation of the genre of universal historiography took on several forms: it took the guise of the history of the succession of empires, the succession of races, the succession of technological discover: ies, the succession of political institutions, or through the analogy of the course of human life. The question of how and wh y attempts at constructing universal histo- ries were made is one tackled everal of the essays in this volume. The emergence of Greck identity sen seen as the inspiration for the writing of history that went beyond the scope of Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries BC.” Universal history is often inspired by the coming together of different cultures or the rise of one group to dominance over the known world, and this is a theme that emerges strongly in a number of papers in this collection. The relationship between group dynamics and the writing of history can be seen in the development of universal history in the Hellenistic period and in the age of the emperor Augustus which set the seal on Rome's hegemony over the Mediterranean. Equally the rise of Christianity as Europe's dominant intellectual force gave rise to univer: salising chronicles focused around the growth of the Faith. Such aceounts can be provoked by simple intellectual curiosity and a natural wish to perceive order in the world. It can be argued, however, that at times they attempt to justify the status que present a more sinister face historical inevitability. AAs historians and other scholars of classical antiquity live and work in increasingly globalised and information-rich academic communities, the question of how one synthesises the mass of knowledge and opinions about the past is as pertinent as ever. Today, the contentious issue of how to write ‘universal or'global’ history is once again on the agenda of historians and philosophers of historiography." The time, therefore, seems ripe fo reconsideration of universal historiography, The purpose of this collection of papers is to re-examine the forms that universal historiography, and, more broadly, historical universalism (in non-historiographical genres), took in the Graeco-Roman world and the reception of those forms since late antiquity. It seeks to explain how forms of universal thinking came about in antiquity and their relations both to historical context and to develop- ments in historiography and other genres. Taking a broad definition of universal historiography as its starting point, this collection of papers 2Introduction offers new perspectives on historical universalism in Graeco-Roman anti- quity and its reception in the Arabic, Christian, and modern traditions of historiography. The contributors explore a range of linear, teleological cyclical, and topical vi history; they offer explanations for the origins of universal historical thinking; they explore the cross-pollina- tion between historiography and other genres in the development of universal thinking; they investigate the relationship between universal historiography and historical theses such as progress and decline; they elucidate the manifold perspectives on the Mediterranean world offered by universal thinking; and they offer views on its legacy beyond Graeco- Roman antiquity. This book does not claim to be an attempt at an exhaus- tive survey of universal historiographers and their works,’ nor does it attempt a full account of the evolution of the genre." In fact, we suggest that the new perspectives on the subject of universal historiography may be revealed by a selective approach, and by the application to the subject of a range of methodologies.” The universal significance of Herodotus’ Histories is very clear from the outset of his werk: he believes that human prosperity would never remain Jong in one place (Hat. 1.5.3). Jacoby thought that Herodotus’ work was a universal history because it tried to encompass the history of the world (cf. 1.1: ‘ta men Hellesi, ta de barbaroisi apodechthenta’). Immerwahr sug- gested that while his work was not designed as a universal history, it had the outlook of a universal historian: it was a universality of ‘viewpoint rather than subject matter’ This collection opens with some ancient Greek views on universalism. Liddel’s paper (Chapter 1) outlines the significance for universalist thinking of ancient Greek perspectives on the shifting balance of power between individuals, large groups, and small groups of citizens. Ideas about political change grounded in the sphere of the polis offered an opportunity for universal application: it led historians to introduce and develop the model] for the sake of historiography. Hero- dotus and Thucydides interpreted and criticised the notion of constitutional transformation in order to reproduce the patterns and textures of history that they held to be all-pervading (notably, Herodotus believed that constitutional change worked in a substantially different way in Persia from the way it worked in the communities of Greece): their applications of constitutional transformation suggest that as a scheme it was good to critique as much as it was good to think with. Plato in his Republic proposed a scheme of constitutional degeneration, and opened the way for Aristotle, in book 5 of his Politics, to introduce the scheme to an empirical anal} nd at the same time to deconstruct its applicability Polybius, ignoring Aristotle's criticisms of the scheme, introduced a cireular formula of constitutional transformation to his analysis of the rise of the Roman empire. It formed a central part of his understanding of universal history as elucidating the ‘general and comprehensive scheme of events’ (1.4.2-3). His introduction of the scheme of transformation to a view ofHistoriae Mundi universal history built upon its preponderance in the discourses of Greek city states but was made possible by the eclipse of the polis and the emergence of a worldwide view of history invited by the ascendancy of Rome over the Mediterranean. It must be noted that the way in which historians perceive constitutional change does not always correspond with their more general view of historical change; there is nothing te say that Herodotus mapped his cyclical view of history on to his thoughts about the way constitutional change happens in Greece; furthermore, Polybius’ anacyclosis of book 6 asserted a cyclical view of constitutional change whereas such a cyclical view of history does not pervade his vision of Mediterranean history, which may be viewed as a movement towards one point; the dominance of Rome. ‘The innovation of Polybius’ universal thinking is further emphasised by the next paper in the collection. Hartog (Chapter 2) demonstrates that Polybius’ construction of universal historiography may be considered an innovative programme inasmuch as its coverage and lessons were univer- sal, that it may be considered a reaction to the interests, methods and conclusions of his literary predecessors, and that it was berne out of the historical context of pan-Mediterranean Roman power. First: while Poly- bius perpetuated the Greek historiographical tendency to write history as the history of conflict, he wrote the history not just of one great war but a whole series of conflicts taking place in many different theatres of opera- tion. Accordingly, Polybius captured the impact of the coming of Rome as the bringer of globalisation on a Mediterranean scale, Second: the univer: sality of Polybius’ project is made manifest by the clarity of his views on the theory of historiography, For Polybius, good history is written by the individual who can combine experience of the world with an under- standing of the theory of history. Good historiography, in turn, is that which offers universal lessons of political education, and it teaches the individual how to bear reversals of fortune with dignity. Hartog suggests that Polybius' claim to ‘write the general’ may be considered a long-post- poned reply to Aristotle's claim that while poetry is able to reach conclusions affecting general, universal truths, history treats of particular facts. Polybius developed the notion that in a world after the outbreak of the Second Punie War, the affairs of Italy and Libya became interwoven (sumplekesthai) with thes ind Asia, and all events now led up to one end. Polybius takes a further step: to conclude that univers was superior to poetry; whereas tragedy has to display the rhetorical resources of persuasion, history should instruct and convince. To complete the argument, Polybius revived Thucydides’ opposition to ceremonial discourse, composed for the pleasure of the moment, and the austerity of the historical narrative whose only aim is to be of use. In t Polybius emulates the Thucydidean project and transplants it into a post-Aristotle and globalised Mediterranean world. But it is Rome that gives Polybius a universal perspective: to ask why the Greeks had been of Greece 4Introduction defeated would have been a question of local history, but to ask how Rome ed the world was what gave rise to a universal history. idan’s paper (Chapter 3) re-examines the relationship between Polybius and Diodorus Siculus. He argues that Diodorus was an innovator in composing a history of exhaustive scope: while both Polybius and Diodorus aspired to develop a new format of histeriography that was universal, they held very different views on what constituted universal history. Polybius emphasises the importance of geographical breadth in a universal history, but Sheridan suggests that his universal vision is mitigated by his choice of subject and by his perception of the movement of history. Sheridan emphasises Polybius' view of history a movement towards one point, and neither as a linear progression, nor (pace Liddel, this volume) as a cycle. Both historians advocate the importance of geo- graphical breadth in universal history. Unlike Polybius, however, Diodorus prioritises the need for chronological depth in a truly universal history. The reason, Sheridan suggests, is that Diodorus views history as a linear progression moving relentlessly from the mythical past right down to the present day and on into the future, For Diodorus, therefore, the universal historian must strive to capture on the page the movement of history. Sheridan argues that the influence of contemporary intellee- tual, social and political contexts was a significant influence on the production of Diedorus’ Biblietheke. In common with other works of the late republic, such as Ovid's Metamorphoses, Diodorus viewed universal history as one possible way in which he could place the Reman project within a broader context. Finer points of Diodorus’ universal perspective may be examined by serutinising the major themes which pervade his work. Bissa’s paper (Chapter 4) shows that the analysis of economic motives and policies in the characterisation of statesmen is a universal topie which runs through his work. Diodorus, unlike his extant predecessors, pays particular attention to the relation between statesmen and money, in some cases specifically relating to the gathering and use of state revenue. Diodorus views history as education for leaders and in the Stoic tradition provides examples for their edification. His good statesman has a variety of qualities, among them lack of avarice (aphilargyric). Conversely, philargyria is a charae- teristic of the Diodoran bad statesman. In some cases, Diodorus took the theme of philargyrialaphilargyria beyond c cter into the political b haviour of the statesman in relation to the gathering and use of state revenue. Diodorus was not the first Greek historian to pursue the subject of the ideal statesman, nor is he the first to mention state revenues in his work. He was, however, the first to put such emphasis on the issue of philargyrialaphilargyria and make specific connections between care of revenue and successful leadership. Bissa shows how Diodorus’ views were inspired both by his engagement with biographical traditions and also by his living in a world when the aetions ef Roman politicians during theHistoriae Mundi consolidation of empire made the relation between statesmanship and wealth absolutely clear. In his ssment of the importance of Strabo in the development of universal history Engels (Chapter 5) stresses the severe limitations of our knowledge of his major work, the Historika Hypomnemata, originally in 17 books but now reduced to a handful of fragmentary quotations, Its influence on later writers was slight, and most of what we know or can infer comes from Strabo’s surviving werk, the seventeen-book Geographika. The relat es of the two works reinforce Strabo's own claim to have been principally a historian; and there is enough evidence to give some idea of the scope of the lost work. An introductory section in the first four books went back at least to Alexander the Great, but the main narrative, beginning in book 5, started in 146 BC and went down to the end of the civil wars if not beyond, It was therefore a continuation of Polybius (ef. FGrH 91 T2) and implicitly a criticism of Posidonius, whose work it evidently aimed to supplant. On the other hand it was clearly differenti- ated from the works of other recent and contemporary universal historians (Diodorus, Trogus, Nicolaus of Damascus) in not attempting to go back to the beginning of historical time. Geographically it was focused on the Mediterranean and extended only to the borders of the Roman empire, and in this as in other respects it coincided with the programme of Augustus, to whose reign, according to Engels, the work should be dated. Beyond that, most of what can be said about Strabo's historical interests and outlook has to be based on historical sections in the surviving geographical work. With Strabo and his contemporaries, Graeco-Roman universal his- toriography reached its acme, which was shortly followed by what Engels calls ‘stagnation and then a crisis. However this crisis is to be explained, it partly accounts for the fact that Strabo’s history seems to have been seldom read, and eventually failed to survive: Garcia Morcillo's paper (Chapter 6) is an extended commentary on Strabo's famous essay at the end of book 6 of the Geographika, dealing with the natural advantages of Italy and the rise of Rome to universal hegemony using Italy as a base (6.4.1-2). The discussion focuses on three aspects of Roman Italy: first, its economic and cultural prosperity, repre- sented by the productive capacity of its land, the size and opulence of its cities, and the infrastructure of roads, harbours and monumental build- ings, all of which resulted from the magnetic pull of Rome at the centre Secondly, Strabo's description is interwoven with accounts of Italy's past which trace the cyclical fluctuations of prosperity and decadence in the various regions of Italy. Although ethnically and culturally distinct, all are now politically unified under Rome. The third aspect is Strabo's abiding interest in the survival and persistence of ancient local cultures and indigenous traditions. The complexity of the resulting picture raises inter- esting questions about Strabo's generally positive view of Roman rule and its consequent benefits, and how it can be reconeiled with a situation 6Introduction where economic and cultural decli particularly in the south and in ily, were at least in part the result of Roman actions. Cornell's paper (Chapter 7) questions the idea that Roman annalistie history was — at least in i liest manifestations — a narrow and parochial genre, focused exclusively on the history of Rome, even though this deseription might fit the main surviving example, Livy's ab urbe condita. It turns out on examination that the earliest Roman historians, writing in the late third and second centuries BC, were closer to Livy's contemporary, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in the structure of their works and in their general outlook. In particular, they gave far more space to the legendary origins of the city than Livy and other first-century annalists. The significance of this is that accounts of the period before the foundation took the form of a rationalised pseudo-history of the adventures and achievements of the heroes of Greek mythology. As Elias Bickerman showed, this ‘hellenocentric’ approach had been created by Greek histori- ans as a way of reconstructing the prehistory of the known world, and served to explain the prehistory not only of the Greeks, but also of barbarian peoples, whose origins could be connected with the activities of Greek heroes. The hellenocentric scheme was embedded in the works of universal historians, as we can see from the early books of Diedorus, while the first book of Dionysius of Halicarnassus is a perfect illustration of how it could be applied to Rome. Non-Greek reactions to this example of cultural imperialism varied widely, Babylonians, Egyptians and Jows tried to fight back, and their historians wrote accounts in Greek that rejected what they saw as Greek ignorance and lies by asserting their own national traditions. The Romans, by contrast, were pleased to accept what the Greeks were saying about them, and adopted the hellenocentric versions as their own. The first Roman historians, who wrote in Greek, shaped their works accordingly and presented to a world-wide readership accounts of the Roman past set in a broad framework of Greek-style universal history. The same approach was taken even by the early historians who wrote in Latin and were addressing an exclusively Roman readership. ‘The second-century historians Cassius Hemina and Cn, Gellius are poorly known, but the surviving fragments make it absolutely clear that they too devoted a 1 of space to the pre-foundation period, which they presented al account of the early history of mankind and the origins of civilisation. The best-known of all the early Roman historians, Cato the Censor, wrote a historical work that was unusual in that it dealt with the origins not only of Rome, but of all the peoples and cities of Italy and other regions of the Western Mediterranean that were subject to the rule of Rome. Cato's work, the Origines, seems to have been a mixture of historical narrative and ethno-geographical accounts of the origins of peoples and places that played a part in the story; although it was confined to the Roman empireHistoriae Mundi of his time, it resembled earlier Greek universal histories (such as the works of Timaeus, who was probably one of Cato's models), and prefigured later universal histories such as the work of Pompe: and writers of the imperial period for whom the Roman empire and the inhabited world (the oikoumene) had become synonymous. Velleius Paterculus is a prime example of a writer who created a universal history by selecting certain key events and weaving them into a broad narrative of world history, Clemence Schulze's contribution (Chap- ter 8) illustrates this process ina study of Velleius’ account of the rivalry between Rome and Carthage, which is seen not just as a series of major wars that determined the shape of Roman republican history, but as a world event that originated in the distant past and had consequences that went way beyond the destruction of Carthage in 146 Bc. For Velleius this history linked past, present and future through the recurring themes of foundation, destruction and renewal, and was far from being a comforting message for his Roman readers. Schulze demonstrates that Velleius short history was not a summary for the young or ill-informed reader, but on the contrary a selective account presupposing extensive knowledge of world history, designed to illustrate major universal themes. Yarrow (Chapter 9) examines the problem of for whom and how history becomes universal. To do this she uses the notion of ‘focalisation’. Two forms of focalisation are suggested: one is ‘gentle’, where all points o perceived periphery of history are interconnected through a focal point the other is ‘radical’ where that focal point is seen to stand for, or encom: pass, the whole. Yarrow argues that Roman perceptions of universalism move from the gentle to the radical form of focalisation in the late repub- lican period with the urbs of Rome and the orbis of the world becoming increasingly identified with one another. This phenomenon is not confined to historiography, but is also found in other genres of literature and material culture such as statuary and coins. Nor is this identification innocent or casual; rather it is an assertion of Rome's rule, and the rightness of that rule, over the world, Yarrow also notes that the locus of this ‘radical foealisation’ began to move away from Rome per se and towards individuals such as Pompey, a process which anticipates some of the iconography of the principate. ‘Universalism’ can therefore be seen as not merely a trend in historiography, but playing an important role in Roman political rhetoric and thought. The interaction in historiography between particular and general (or between local and universal) is a complex process that can be negotiated in various ways. A selective account of particular events can become universal if the events ave shown to have universal significance. Even the tly rest appa ictive genre of annalistic writing can be made to serve the purposes of universal history, as Elliott argues in her analysis of Ennius’ Annales (Chapter 10), The use of the epic genre, the presentation of histor in heroic terms, and even the use of Homeric imagery and language, all 8Introduction serve to equate Roman history with that of the whole civilised world. Elliott shows that lines referring to historical Roman battles, se far from attempting to describe what actually happened, as Skutsch supposed, were designed to recall epic scenes from Homer and famous events from Greek history; and the use of flashbacks, allusions and explicit parallels to famous episodes from the Greek historical and legendary tradition gave Roman events a wider significance across space and time. Even the year-by-year format could be applied to universal history, as a way of organising an account of events that were happening simultancously in different parts of the world, as the later examples of Polybius.and Dioderus demonstrated. The next three papers in the collection move the emphasis away from the classical world. Van Nuffelen (Chapter 11) argues that the commonly held view that all Christian historiography is universal is mistaken, He contends that ‘Church historians are not universal historians in any sense of the word’ and that ‘the universal dimension often noticed in chronicles is actually a relic of the apologetic origins of the genre’. The argument observes that as early church historians were engaged in a polemic with their pagan opponents over the credentials of their respective beliefs, their interest in the distant past was not in that past in itself, but aimed to establish the greater antiquity of Hebrew religious traditions over those ical antiquity. It is also suggested that Christian historiography vory often focuses on simply the part played by Christians in history rather than dealing with world history as a whole, Van Nuffelen also points out that many Christian chroniclers do not attempt to cover history from a universal perspective — Eusebius’ chronicle, ‘the mother of all chronicles’, focuses on the Roman empire after the first century AD, and later followers in the tradition, such as Hydatius and John Malalas, show an even more parochial attitude in their work. Moreover it is contended that the tradition of becoming a continuator of Eusebius itself created an illusion of an interest in universal history where none existed. Van Nuf- felen concedes that there are exceptions among early Christian write such as Orosius and Philip of Side, who can be seen as universal histori- ans, but insists that they are very much exceptions to a general lack of interest in universalism found in Christian authors. Fear (Chapter 12) argues that one of these exceptions, Orosius, marks an important development in Western historiography. While a thorough- going Christian apologist, Orosius consciously chooses to avoid church history as his theme, but instead to apply a Christian interpretation to secular history hence investing it, for the first time, with a universal meaning. This approach to the secular world had been rejected by Orosius’ Christian predecessors and contemporaries for whom secular history was either an irrelevance or merely a quarry of exempla for other purposes. Orosius’ novel approach made possible a universal Christian vision of history as it absorbed all of history into one over-arching narrative. While 9Historiae Mundi er Western historians have sometimes abandoned the divine element of this grand narrative, have very often retained its linear structure Thus, Fear argues, Orosius is a key element in the development of modern historiography, especially those forms of it which use a narrative of progress and indeed of the concept of ‘modernism’. Di Branco, in his study of the ways in which Graeco-Roman historio- graphy was perceived, narrated and represented in Arabic universal historiography (Chapter 13), agrees that assent toa monotheist confession fundamentally changes the way that history is perceived. As he puts it ‘from the Christian point of view as well as from the Islamic one, human life and history make sense only with reference to God: it is not chance that in the Christian orient and in the lands of Islam world history is narrated as sacred history’. Di Braneo notes Mango's comments that Byzantine world chronicles with their mixture of didactic and providential charac- teristics closely parallel the interests of Islamic historians. He goes on to suggest that John Malalas Chronographia, especially given its diffusion into the Syriac-speaking world, could have formed an important, albeit indirect influence on Islamic historiography, While not denying the origi- nality of Muslim writing, Di Branco sees Islamic history as potentially a re-claboration and re-interpretation of Byzantine models of writing his- tory. One objection to such a position is that little Byzantine history was in fact translated into Arabic, Howev as Di Branco points out, that is because Muslim scholars were interested in the core ideas presented by such history rather than the data they contained, It is therefore the notion of history seen under the universal eye of God that interested Muslim writers, not data about the Christian and pagan past. ‘Two closing essays examine the ways in which aneient texts and ancient historical examples were used as a foundation for nineteenth- and twentieth-century views of universal historiography. While he firmly believed that the anc ble of writing universal or world history, Graeco-Roman antiquity was important to.G.W.F. Hegel's concep- tion of history: in the Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, the rise and fall of both Greek and the Roman worlds demonstrated his principle that Geschichte refers to the social, political, economic, artistic, religious and psychological transformations undergone by humans: the movement of such spirit was the e of history, and the study of that spirit was the essence of historiography. Taken as a whole, history for He non-cyclical and teleological. He understood its felos as a sort of collective self-determination of humanity, working unbeknownst to us as the inter- nal moving principle of history. He saw the Greek and Roman worlds as grandiose and necessary phases of humanity's movement towards self d ndividuals un nd themselves as having ‘universal’ value, such as in the modern conception of ‘universal rights’, While the Greek and Roman worlds had in fact never produced such a conception, their culture and deeds (together with those of the onts were inc: Se relIntroduction ensuing feudal world) represented for Hegel indispensable precursors of modern universalistic perspectives on humanity and its history, Allegra de Laurentiis’ paper (Chapter 14) teases out Hegel's notion of philosophi- cal world history in his Lectures on the Philosophy of History and the Philosophy of Right and in particular its paradoxical relationship with antiquity. She observes that Hegel reworks Aristotelian themes beyond Aristotelian horizons: while drawing on Aristotle's view of the origins of the polis to claim that the Saat is the first principle and final cause of mankind’s development, Hegel adds an unnatural dimension, conceiving of history as a movement away from society's natural origin; for Aristotle on the other hand, the evolution of the polis was natural and inevitable. ‘There are other gaps: whereas for Aristotle, history happened at one pace within the Greek polis-world and another in the barbarian world, for Hegel, the advent of modern eivil society and the expansion of the nation state on a global seale meant that universal historiography could be written only in modernity, Classical Greek ideas about change in polis societies appear significantly less global than does Hegel's conception of world history as progress in the consciousness of freedom: unlike himself, Hegel argues, the ancients were unable to transcend their own Zeitgeist. While he thought that the ancients failed to realise genuinely universal perspectives, Hegel used his view of the Greeks as the foundation for another fundamental about historiography: he viewed the Greeks as the inventors of historiography; they therefore pre-empted his view that his- torical events only acquire meaning when they are recorded or recollected. Unlike Fear and Di Branco, who deal with a linear notion of universal history, Farrenkopf (Chapter 15) examines the rele Roman history plays in the thought of perhaps the most well-known proponent of eyclical history: Oswald Spengler. According to Spengler, ‘Romamness .... will always offer to us, who are dependent upon comparisons, the key to und standing our own future’ decline of Graeco-Roman civilisation and the decline, as he saw it, of modern western civilisation were ‘a completely identical event’, Parren- kopf traces Spengler's method of analysis of these two processes and his attempts to place his own times into the continuum of the universal rise and fall of civilisations. The Great War is likened to the Second Punic War: Spengler sees internal decline, both in terms of morality and a failure to reproduce as the foremost factors in the collapse of Rome. As Farrenkopf points out, Spengler’s prophecies about the rise of Germany to world domination, perhaps as much influenced by his patriotism as his scholar- ship, failed to materialise, yet he did also hold out the possibility that Ameri to undertake a Spengle: indeed he goes so far as to assert that the would assume this mantle. This in turn leads to the opportunity of Americ analy n world power. llHistoriae Mundi Universal historiography remains a complex and fascinating field. In antiquity this tendency presented a method, or perhaps more correetly, a diverse family of methods for both understanding the past and also interpreting the present in the light of the past. Despite its paradoxical and slippery nature, the urge to produce universal history has continued, aswe can see from the papers in this volume, to perform both roles through the ages down to the present day. Therefore, whether or not we give assent to such universalising projects, they were, and remain, an important part of human intellectual endeavour and as such are worthy of serious study. Tt is hoped that this volume will provide material of interest not only to those already working in this field, but also an introduction for the general reader to the riches to be found within it. Notes 1. On the relationship between local and universal historiography, see Clarke (2008) 107, 115-19, 174, 175-93, 345, ‘ee Butterfield (1931), Jongo-Ninez (1990) 173, See, importantly, Alonso-Niinez article-length study is Marineola (2007). 4 See Clarke 1989. Marincola has distinguished two types: those universal in time and space and those universal in space: Marincola (2007) 171 5, Sacks (1981) 108-18 Momigliano (1984, 1986). Compare the view of Alonso-Nifez (2002). 7. Clarke (2008) 8. Fora recent survey of the state of global’ history and its relation to‘universal’ history, see Crossley (2008). Recent. examples of the genre include McNeill (1980); Fukuyama (1992); Diamond (1997); Bonnaud (2004), 9. For surveys of the subject, sce Burde (1974); Alonso-Nanez (2002). 10. For an aceount of the origins of the genre, see Momigliano (1984), 11. Obvious omissions; Ephorus, Pompeius Trogus, Posidonius and Agathar- chides who have been looked at from universalist perspectives by Clarke (1999, 2008: 96-109), Yarrow (2006) and Ameling (2008) 12, dacoby (1945); Immerwahr (1966) 16, 19, 149. 3. Bickerman (1952). The latest Bibliography Alonso-Niinez, J. (1990), ‘The emergence of universal historiography from the 4th to the 2nd centuries Bc’, in H, Verdin, G, Schepens and E. de Keyser (eds), Purposes of History: Studies in Greek Historiography from the dth to the 2nd Centuries BC (Leuven): 173-92 Alonso-Naiez, J. (2002), ‘Herodotus’ conception of historical space and the begin nings of universal history’, in P. Derow and R. Parker (eds), Heredotue and his World (Oxford): 145-52 Ameling, W. (2008), ‘Ethnography and universal history in Agatharchides’, in T. Corey Brennan and Hud, Flower (eds), East andl West, Papers in Ancient History Presented to Glen W. Bawersack (Cambridge, MA and London): 13-59 Bickerman, E.J, (1952), ‘Origines gentium’, Classical Philology 47; 65-81, 12Introduction Bonnaud, R, (2004), Les universauy de Uhistoire (Paris) Burde, P, (1974), Undersuchungerr zur aniken Universalgeschichtsschreibung (Munich). Butterfield, H. (1931), The Whig Interpretation of History (London) Olarke, K. (1999), ‘Universal perspectives in historiography’, in C. Kraus, The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts. ‘Mnemosyne Supplement 191 (Leiden, Boston and Cologne): 249-79. Clarke, I. (2008), Making Time for the Past: Local History ane the Polis (Oxford). Crossley, P. (2008), What is Global History? (Cambridge) Diamond, J. (1997), Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Hunan Societies (Now York) Fukuyama, F. (1992), The Bnd of History and the Last Man (New York) Gombrich, E.H. (1985), Kine hurze Weligesehichte fiir junge Leser (Cologne). Ibn Khaldun (1981), .Mugaddimah, tr. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton). Immerwahr, H. (1966), Form and Thought in Herodotus (Chapel Hill) Jacoby, F. (1949), Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford) MeNeill, W. (1980), The Human Condition: An Ecological anc Historical View (Princeton) Marincola, J. (2007), ‘Universal history from Ephorus to Diodorus’, in J. Marincola (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Oxtord): 171-9, Marx, K. (1867), Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Okonomie (Hamburg) Momigliano, A, (1986), “Two types of universal history: the eases of E.A, Freeman and Max Weber, Journal of Modern History 58; 235-46. Momigliano, A. (1984), “The origins of universal history’, in Settimo Coniribulo (Rome): 77-103. Sacks, K. (1981), Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley). Spengler, 0. (1918), Der Uniergang des Abendlandes: Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte. Band J: Gestalt und Wirklichkeit (Vienna) Spengler, O. (1922), Der Untergang des Abendiandes: Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichie, Band 2: Welthistorische Perspektiven (Munich) Toynbee, Ad, (1934-61), A Stuedy of History (Oxford) Yarrow, L. (2006), Historiography at the End of the Republic: Provineial Perspec- fives on Roman Rule (Oxford).Metabole Politeion as Universal Historiography Peter Liddel Defin, Graeco-Roman historiography was polemical in terms both of methodology and substance; universal historiography was no exeeption.' In an attack on predecessors who claimed to have written fa katholouw (which may be defined as ‘gencral’ or ‘universal’ history), Polybius sneered at those who comprised in their histories ‘all events in Greece and abroad’, pointing out that some of them had written a slighter sketch of the Punic wars than those who scribble down memoranda of events on the walls of their houses (5.33.5). For Polybius, previous attempts at universal history had pro- duced works too superficial to live up to the genre's promise (5.33.7). His attack therefore was directed not against the principle of universal histo- riography but was aimed at what he saw as the failings of those who claimed to have pursued it. On the other hand, Polybius showed sympathy for the genre when he compared universal historiography (both ta katholou and that written about the etkoumene as a whole) with the works of Timaeus, who wrote the history of only one region, ‘seeking fame in a vinegar-saucer’ (12.23.7). As Sacks points out,’ Polybius words suggest that he conceived of two kinds of universal historiography. He distin guished the Ephorean or Diodoran interpretation of writing universal history subject by subject or country by country (kata genos; cf. Died. Sic. .1L4),‘ from the idea that universal history is about synthesis, and bring- ing out the ‘general and comprehensive scheme of events — the second form emerges clearly in his claim at innovation at 1.4.2-3. Polybius’ comments implied that ‘universal historiography’, as he knew it, referred to two distinct forms of history-writing. On the one hand it referred to attempts to write a history of the whole known world, in other words history that is universal in terms of space, Polybius thought that this form has its shortcomings, for a patchwork of local histories does not automatically realise universality in meaning or interpretation. But it could refer also to those histories which devise schemes of historical explanation that are universally applicable.” We shall return to Polybius later, but for now T shall deploy his second definition of universal history. Whereas some historians, following Alonso- ions of universal historiography 15.Peter Liddel Nunez, have viewed universal hi: oriography as a genre that deals with the whole history ef mankind,’ it may also be conceived of as a kind of historiography that attempts to formulate universally applicable develop- mental patterns which might go some way in explaining the past or even predicting the future: this is the way in which, through varying method- ologies, Frazer, Hegel, Engels, and Marx thought about the past.” Indeed, in his Creighton Lecture of 1981, Momigliano pointed out that Graeco- Roman and Jewish historians identified four universalising patterns through which the past could be viewed: as a su on of empires, a succession of races, a succession of technological discoveries or through the analogy of the human life-cycle.‘ In an article of 1986, however, he identi- fied a fifth scheme that appeared in the Graeco-Roman tradition: the tendency, reproduced by the nineteenth-century historian Edward Free- man, to base universal history on an account of ‘the succession of political institutions’.’ But the mode of universal historiography which | intend to elucidate in this paper concentrates not so much on the history of institu- tions like magistracics, assemblies and councils; rather I shall be investigating the significance for universalist thinking of ancient Greck perspectives on the shifting balance of power between individuals, large groups, and small groups.” Constitutional change and ‘revolution’ The Marxist tradition of universal historiography emphasises the signifi- cance of revolution: ‘the bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revo- lutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society’, wrote Marx and Engels in The Communis! Manifesto.” Marx saw revolution as the key to all political and social emancipation.” However, modern historians have often struggled to translate the modern idea of revolution into terms which are applicable to ancient Greek history.” It certainly was not the case that the Greeks were unfamiliar with violent political upheaval or other trans- formations, but according to some historians they lacked a concept that maps on to the modern notion of revolution as great socio-political change: Ober, for instance, suggests that ancient Greek historians thought of the Cleisthenie revolution not so much as radical upheaval, but, rather, ‘in the antiseptic terminology of constitutional change’. My interest in this paper is not so much in looking for revolutions in ancient Greek histo but rather in highlighting the fact that the prospect of constitutional transformation (in terms of which groups participated in polities) was a preoccupation of Greek politicians, historians, and philosophers: this is indicated in both literary and epigraphical evidence. This discourse of explaining, mapping, predicting, and preventing shifts in political power was so widespread that it amounts to a strand of universalism in Greek historical thought, As Kostas Vlassopoulos points out to me, my investiga- 161. Metabole Politeion as Universal Historiography tion of how historians conceptualise shifts in the balance of governmental power between different civic groups is one detail of a bigger pict Greek historians develop theories of power shifts which are uni application in many broader senses too (Thucydides’ concept of dynamis, for example), and an investigation of them may bring out more underlying forms of universalism, But for now, the focus remains upon mefabole politeion in the sense of shifts of governmental power. ‘The first part of this investigation will examine the evidence for ways in which Greek cities expressed publicly their memories of, and insecuri- ties about, constitutional transformation. This contributes an element to the broader thesis of this paper about the prevalence of discussion of power-shifts both in literature and the evidence for publie discourse, it is also my intention to address a contemporary position in modern scholar- ship — principally that which, extrapolating from the events which took place in the aftermath of the Athenian oligarchies at the end of the fifth century, says that there was a tendency of Greek cities in post-revolution- ary situations to define their memories of upheaval in terms of forgetfulness and amnesty." My suggestion is that while amnesia was a valuable tool in certain circumstances, both the memory and prospect of constitutional transformation were also deployed successfully where cir- cumstances suited, Both real and imaginary transformations loomed large in Greek conceptions of past and future time, and sometimes these trans+ formations took on the sense of radical or violent political change. This tendency, I suggest, is visible in the discourse of Greek city-states particu: larly as it was expressed in publicly-inseribed documents but was made into a universal scheme in historiography and political theory, Public discourse of constitutional change Myths to Greek interpretations of the shift towards mass rule. In Athens, the assassins of Hipparchus, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, were associated with the emergence of isonomia in Athens (Athenaeus 695a-b): the Athe- nians forgot about the reign of Hippias in order to exclude the possibility that the end of the tyranny or the establishment of equality before the law was in any se used by the intervention of an external power. Of course, this was a memory that. some, Thucydides for instanee, contended (Thue, 6,53),"" but there existed physical monuments which would have impressed upon viewers the significance of the tyrannieides (Agora 3.256- 80). The late fourth and early third centuries BC provide more documen- tary evidence for memories of the end of non-democratic regimes. In situations where there Was no amnesty, or when political upheaval on a foreign usurper, Greek states were comfortable with remembering an anti-democratic past, The political capital offered by the memory ofan oligarehy is clear in the decree for Kallias of Sphettos of about, and histories of, constitutional transformation were central er to blame was V7Peter Liddel 70/69 BC, where the honorand was praised for his role in the epanastasis which overthrew the Antigenid dominance of Athens while also talking about the ways in which Kal distanced himself from the activity of the oligarchy backed by Demetrius (SHG xxviii.G0 lines 11-20, 27-22, 80-3), Commemorating a revolutionary end to a tyrannical past was endemic to the Greek world, not just Athens; the Erythraians, for instance, main- tained a statue of their own tyrannicide, and the restoration of that monument in the third century was seen as an important part of the public of the restored democracy (FK Erythrai 503). Similarly, the Eretrians late fourth century BC expressed on stone the intention to remember the restoration of democracy by crowning the inhabitants of the city at the procession of Dionysos UG XII ix 192). Commemorating the restoration of democracy wasa way that communities put a closure on the period of tyranny while also providing moral authority to the demos, and reinforcing the impression of political harmony.” Just as individual politicians sometimes warned of the threat of consti- tutional change (e.g. Thuc. 6.38.1-4), Greek cities frequently expressed fear of future constitutional transformation towards the rule of one or the few. This emerges in some Athenian institutional procedures: for instance, the Athenian jurors swore not to vote for tyranny and oligarchy (Dem 24.149)."" On the other side of the fence, it is conceivable, if we believe Aristotle, that in some ol izens swore to maintain hostility to the demos (Aristotle, Polities 5.7.19; cf. Andocides 1.98). The inseribed evidence of anti-tyranny legislation also suggests that individual pro- posers and indeed whole communities sought political capital and reassurance by making publicly-acceptable expressions of their insecuri- ties about the potential threat of political upheaval. The Athenian anti-tyranny law of 336, while expressing suspicions about the role of the Areopagus under a hypothetical non-democratic regime, is reluctant to name the threats to democracy (RO 79). On the other hand, a document from Eresos on the island of Lesbos outlaws Agonippos, a former tyrant, and his family, and identifies the family of Apollodorus as a threat to constitutional stability (RO 83). All this was written up as an account of an exchange designed to appeal to Eresos’ Macedonian rulers who them- selves found it convenient to claim that they were upholding constitutional government." While so far we have dealt mostly with the internal concerns of individ- ual Greek poleis, it certainly appears to have been the case that the drafters of alliances in the fifth and fourth centuries BC realised that fear of constitutional transformation was a condition that afflicted the whole Greek world: in the fifth century, the Athenians made their Colophonian 51); from the fourth century, there exist numerous examples of alliances between Greek states in which pledges guaranteeing mutual constitutional stabil ity are exchanged by the parties swearing.” allies swear not to oust their democratic leaders (JG I" 37 lines 43. 18.1. Metabole Politeion as Universal Historiography At the beginning of their era of power over the Greek world, the Macedonians noticed the threat of political upheaval felt among subject poleis: the oath of the League of Corinth made its takers swear not to overthrow the constitutions existing in each stale (RO 76); anyone who did so was to be an enemy to all those who took part in the peace (Dem. 17.10). The rhetoric was of course malleable; ifa Hellenistic ruler found it necessary to change a constitution in order to establish himself, it could be presented as a return to an ancestral arrangement (a habit which has its echoes in classical Athenian claims about restoring the patrios polileia). This is one possible implication of the arrangements for the Chians sent by Alexander, presented to them as the correction (diorthasts) of their laws and the curtailment of a barbarian-imposed oligarchy (RO 84 A 3-7, B 15-19). The notion of constitutional restoration was far clearer in Polyperchon’s edict which talked about restoration of democracy (opokatastasis demokratias) as an excuse to overthrow the pro-Cassander regimes installed by Antipater (DS 18.55.2-4; cf. 18.56.3). The Macedonian ings’ superimposition of power over domestic forces of change is tell- ingly different from the rhetoric of the Athenians in the fourth century, who, in the charter of their confederacy, had declared a policy of constitutional non-interference in order to ground their claim about allowing their allies their autonomy and freedom (RO 22 line 21). Therefore, the rhetoric of constitutional stability and change appears to be well-established in Greck diplomatic language by the fourth century BC and took on different forms according to the balance of power that underlay the rhetoric So far I have suggested that Greek cities publicly displayed their pasts and futures in transformative terms, often viewing the past as a move away from the rule of one or the few: constitutional change, therefore, was a strand of history central to the identity of many cities, and one which they tended to revisit and revitalise when it proved useful to do so, Greek states appear to have worried that internal or external factors would give rise to a reversal to the rule of one or the few, They proclaimed measures which would stop it in its tracks. | have suggested a number of ways in which the rhetoric of constitutional transformation was invoked in inter- state diplomacy and in particular the ends to which it was put by Hellenistic cities and Hellenistic monarchs seeking to ingra ch other as upholders of some form of constitutional government. It has become clear that while constitutional transformation was an issue that Greeks regarded as something that afflicted poleis individually, the invo- cation of constitutional guarantees in inter-state treaties suggests that Greek states believed there was potential for change to take place in 1 ways in different communities right across the Gr non-Greek world: there are hints of universality in even palis- documentary discussions of constitutional change. 19Index Abraham, 167, 1871.27 Adam and Eve, 3, 103, 183, 167, 187n.27 Africa, 4 Africanus, Julius, 166, 167 Agatharchides, 12n.11, 43, 52n.21, 76 Agathias, 169 Ages of Man, 179-82 Alexander the Great, 6, 19. 62, 67.26, 72, 75, 120, 121, 122, 133, 187n.34, 198 Alexandria, 33, 44, 50 Alimentus, Cineius, 103, 106, 107, 110, 111, 157in.2 Alonso-Nitites, J., 2, L5-16, Td Altheim, F., 228 Ammianus, 171 amnesty, 17-19 anacyelosis, 4, 23, 176-80, 183 Anaxagoras, 137 ‘ancient’ history, 168 Andronicus, 198 Anianus, 198 annals, 9, 36, 102, 105, 118, 148, 155-7, 166, 169, 197 Antigonids, 18, 19 Antioch, 165, 168 Antiochus Epiphanes, 180-1 aphitarguria, 5, 57-65 Aphrahat, 181 Appian, 64, 76, 169 Arabia, 44 Arabic historiography, 10, 189-206 Aristeides, 57-8 Aristotle, 3.4, LL, 22-4, 35, 37-8, 176, 207, 210, 212, 213 [Aristotle], 20 Arrian, 60, 64 Artaxerxes, 60 Artemidorus, 43, 80, 89, 98n.41 Athenaeus, 52n.21, 72 Athens, 16-18, 121 audience, 32, 111 Augustine, 162, 178-9, 182, 185 , SO-1, 72, 78-9, 87, 95, 144 30) Aurelius, autopsy, 31 Babylonians, 7, 180, 181, 183, [87m.27 barbarians’, 1,11, 21, 47, 92, 84 Battiads, 60 Belshazzar, 180 Berossus, 103, LO4 Bible, 163, 179-81, 192 biography (and history), 65, 192 Bloch, M., 189 Bossuet, J.-B. 184 Britain, 44, 52n.29, 222, 227, 232.3 Buddhism, 179 Burckhardt, J., 221, 226 Byzantine Chronicles, 189-206 Byzantine tradition, 167 Caesar, Julius, 50, 52n.20, 68, 64, 670.26, 71, 75, 78-9, 118, 134. 140, 144, 216. 239 Caracalla, 182 Carthage, Carthaginians, 43, 123-7, 140, 183, Castor of Rhodes, 167 Cato the Elder, 7, 108-11, 230 Chaldaeans, 166, 167, 169 characterisation, 46-66 Charax, 169 Chios, 19 Christ, 182, 187nn,.27&34, 195 Christian historiography, 2, 2, 80, 149, 162-88, 193 chronicle, ehronography: see annais Chryserus, 80 Cicero, 88, 105, 118, 182, 184-6, 189-40, 143-4 Clarke, K., 75, 182, 154 239Index Claudius Ptolemaeus, 79 Clazomenae, 137 coins, 13645 Cold War, 185 Collingwood, R., 182-3 Colophon, 18 commentaries, Alexandrian, 76 commentaries, Biblical, 164 confliet, 4, 21, #4, 109, 151-3 Constantinople, 72, 165 Corinth, 18, 20, 1 Creation, 162, 166, 178, 197 Chesias, 52n.21 Curtius, Quintus, 64 cyclical view of histor 23, 176-80, 183, 2: anacyelosis Cyrus, 63 15,6, 10,11, “34; 00 also Daniel, Book of, 180-1 Darius of Persia, 20, 63, 110 David, 187,27 decline, 24-5, 91-5, 125-7, 208, 222, 226, 229 Demetrius Polioreetes, 18, 110 democracy, 16-26, 185 Democritus, 35 Denkart, 180 destiny, 35 Dexippus, 80, 169 Dinawart, 196 divine view of history, 10, 74, 162-88, 193-4, 212 Dio, Cassius, 42, 79, 169 Diocletian, 2: Diodorus Siculus, 5, 41-70, 72, 74 109, 133, 144, 150, 156, 167, 215 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 7, 32, 62, 88, 108, 105, 169 [Dionysius] of Tel-Mahre, 196 Duris of Samos, 76 dynamis, 17, 87, 96 economies and history, 5. 6, 56-65, BI-B1, 230-2 ecpyrosis, 176, 183 education (historiography as), 5, 24 44,79 Egyptians, Egypt, 7, 48, 61, 166, 167, 169, 295 Empedoeles, 186n.2 empiricism, 3. Engels, F., 16 Ennius, 8-9, 107, 137, 48-61 Epaminondas, 56-7, 58, 59, 60 Ephorus, 12n.11, 38, 84, 87, 43, 47, 57, 74, 76, 82n.22, 102, 109 epieikia, 60, 680.36 epic, 9, 148-61 Eratosthenes, 80 Eresos (Lesbos), 18. Eretrians, 18 Erythrai, 18 cthnicity, 93, 94, 109 Euhemerus of Messene, 107, 1387 eulogy, 56 Eunapius, 80 Busebius, 163-72, 198, 199 Eustathius, 169 Evagrius, 165, 168, 169 evolution, 1 Fabius Pietor, 103-7, LLL, 1572 focalisation, 8, 74, 131-47 fortune, 36-7 Foucault, M., 141 foundation stories, 74, 109, 111, 12L:3 Frazer, J.G., 16 freedom, 17, 19, 20-1, 207-9 Fukuyama, F., 1, 178, 185 Galba, C. Sulpicius, 80 Gellius, Cn., 7, 105, 107 Gelo, 58 geography and history, 6, 49, 71-101, 196 Germany, 11, 81, 84.47, 221, 227, 238. Gibbon, E., 224, 226 global history, 12, 81, 207-20, 22 globalisation, 4, 32, 81 globe, images of, 136-45 Gombrich, EH. 1 Gracehi, 126, 118, 285, 280 great men, 78 7 Hadrian, 229 Hecataeus, 30, 34, 80 Hogol, G.W.F., 10-11, 16, 184, 185, 207-20 Hellanicus, 105 Hellenistic periodirulers, 1, 19, 62, 73 75, 78, 110, 180 240Index Hellenistic scholarship, 76, 171, 192 Hemina, L. Cassius, 7, 105, L07 Heracles, Hercules, 94, 104, 106, 119, 122 Heraclitus, 176, 186n.3, 222 Herder, J, 224 Herodian, 169 Herodotus, 3, 20-1, 25-6, 30, 21, a3, 34,37, 52n.21, 62-3, 109, 153-4, 170, 216 Hesiod, 180, 186 n.12, 199 Hiero, 58 Hieronymos, 67.19 Higden, R., 184 Hinduism, 177 Hippolytus, 181 historicity (Geschichtlichkeit), 214 historiography ancient, 168 conflict and, 21, 34, 109, 151-3 eyelical view of, 15.6 10. 11, 23. 176-80, 183, 22: see also anacyelosis divine view of, LO, 74 economies and, 5, 6, 56-65, 89-91 as education, 5, 24, 44 focalisation and, 8, 74, 131-47 geography and, 6, 49, 71-101 as Geschichte, 207-18 as historia, 30-1, 38.215 ‘kinetic’ models of, 56, 66n.7 linear view of, 5, 10, 21, 49, 162, 183 literary theory and, 131 local, 102, 148, 157n.2, 201ml morality and, 66n. philosophical, 209, £ sacred, 168 spatial universalism, 2, 12n4, 38, 49, 81, 84n.47, 116-18, 172 “static models of history, 56, 6tin.7 structural view of, 8 teleological view of, 10, err 3 temporal universalism, 2, 12n.4 116, 172 theological exegesis, and, 163-4, 171 Universal: see Universal History Hobbes, T., 210 Homer, 30, 36, 76, 88n.28, 148, 150-7; see also epic Honorius, 183 human nature, 22 Hydatius, 9, 167 Hyginus, 120 Ibn Khaldun, 1 Immerwahr, E.. imperialism, 67n.28, 68n.48; see also Rome, empire of infrastructure, 6, 89-91 inseriptions, 17-19, 25-6, 68n.46, 106. Isidore of Seville, 72, 198 Islamic historiography, 188-206 Tsoerates, 61, 68n.38, 76 isonomia, 17 Italy, 4, 6,47, 78, 87-101 Jacoby, F., 3, 279.24, 80, 102 Jason of Argos, 80 Jerome, 167, 183, 198 Jews, Judaism, Jewish historiography, 7. 9, 16. 149. 163, 164, 166, 180-1 John Chrysostom, 166 John of Bilear, 167 Jones, A.H.M., 223 Josephus, 72, 77, 168 Kallins of Sphettos, 17-18 Ratholou, ta, 15, 23, 85-9 Kephalion, 80 ‘kinetic’ models of history, 56, 66n.7 kingship: see monarchy kinship: see etfrsicity Kleon, 681.46 Kojave, A., 178 Koselleck, R., 270.12 Kuhn, T., 271.12 League of Corinth, 19 legend: see mythology Leibniz, G., 212 Leucippus, § linear view of history, 5, 10, 21, 49, 162, 183 Livy, 7, 99n,53, 102, 103, 112, 123, 133, 144, 157, 215, 217 local history, 102, 148, 157n2. 201.44 Locke, J., 210 Lucian, 35 Luther, 183 241Index Maceabean revolt, 180 Macer, C. Licinius, 105 Machiavelli, N., 225 Macrobius, Mahayuga, 177 Malalas, John, 9, 10, 167, 192, 194, 195-6, 199 Manetho, 103, 104 Mango, C., 14 Marincola, J., 1Znn.3-4, 78-80 Marinus of Tyr Mark Antony, Marx, K., Marxism, 1, 16, 162, 176, 178, 185, 223 Mas'tdi, 196 Mediterranean, 32, 71, 78, 110, 119. 192, 232 Mela, 79 Michael Syrus, 196 mimesis, 39 misarguria, 57 ‘mixed’ constitution, 24, 177 modernism, 10, 209 Momigliano, A., 2. L2n.12, 16, 74, 105, 154, 138, 187.41, 194 Mommsen, T., 41, 183, 223, 226 monarehy, 21-4, 110, 186, 181 Montesquieu, C., 228 morality (and history), 66n.6, 98, 211 Moses, 168 Muhammad, 189, 192 mythology, 7, 49, 56, 74, 102, 108, 106, 119 Nebuehadnegzar, 180 Neoplatonism, 179) Nepos, Cornelius, 108, 109, 111 Nicolaus of Damascus, 72, 73, 74, 76, 109 Nicostratus of Trapezunt, 80 Niebuhr, B.G,, 41, 109, 217, 226 Nietasche, F., 226 Noah, 180, 187 Norse mythology, 177 Numa, 104 oaths, 18, 19. 27.18 Ober, J., 16 Odysseus, 34 Oenopides of Chios, 52n.21 oikoumene, 8, 15, 74, 87, 183, 43-4 oligarchy, 19-26 optimism, 183 oral tradition, 197 orbis: see globe, images of Orosius, 9, 80, 164, 168, 171-2, 176 182-5, 198 Otto of Friesing, 184 Ovid, 6, 50 Parthia, 75 Pericles, 20, 63, 195, 216, 229 Perseus, 59 Persia, 3, 20-1, 181, 189, 193 philarguria, 5, 57-65 Philip [If of Macedon, 60, 61, 67n.83, 68n.58 Philip of Side, 9, 166, 168, 172 Philippus of Pergamon, 80 Philo, 167 Philoponus, John, 198 philosophical historiography, 209, 213-14, 217-18 Philostratus, 80 physis, 214 Pittacus, 57, 59 Plato, 3, 22, 23, 84, 176, 177, 186n.2 Platonism, 166, 179 pleonexia, 57 Pliny the Elder, 97n.23, 107, 2191.32 Plotinius, 179 Plumb. «J, 188n.50 Plutarch, 60, 65, 72, 77 polis, poleis, i, 4, 17-26, 87, 92, 104, 212-13 Pollio, Asinius, Polybius, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2846, 30-40, 41-2, 44-51, 64, 72, 89, 109, 111, 132 150, 156, 169, 177, 215, 217 Pompeins Trogus: see Trogus Pompey (Cn. Pompeius), 8. 50, 71, 76 144-5, 225 Pope, A. 184 Porphyry, 198 Posidontus, & 12n.11, 73, 77, 80, 89, 98n,41, 109 Procopius, 169, 171, 195 progress, idea of. 1, 22, 207 prosperity, 6, 89-91 Providence, 35, 74, 184 Ptolemy, Claudius, 198 Punie Wars, 4, 11, 15,35, 108 242Index Pythagoras, L04 Quadratus, ©. Asinius, 80 Quellenforschung, 61, G6n.2, 77 Quintilian, 33 Qur'an, 190-1 rave: see ethnicity Ragnarok, 177 rationality, 211-12 rebirth, 177, 179 Remphis, (1 Rovelation, Book of, 181 revolution, 16-26, 213 rhetoric and history, 136; see also Cicero Ricoeur, P., 39) Rome cily of, 89, 91, 183, 150 anacylosis of, 176 Augustan, 41, 50-1, 58n.50, 72, 74, 76 ventre of the world, 131-45, 150, 181 Christianity, adoption of, 182, 223 decline of, 24, 226, 229 emperors of, 19% empire in the cast, 165 empire of, 2,3, 4. 50-1, 62, 64, 71 78, 80, 87, 95, 108-9, 111, 133, 136-45, foundation of, 118-23 and Italy, 47, 87-96 sack of, 184 Romulus, 104, 119, 122, 183, 155 Rousseau, J-J., 215 Rufinus, 165 Sacks, K., 15, 66, 182 ‘sacred’ history, 168 salvation of mankind, 165, 170, 190 Salvians, 223 samsara, 179 Schiller, F., 211 science, 38 Scipiones, 125-6, 225, 227 Scruton, R., 183 Seneca, 1861.2 Severus, Sulpicius, 163 Sitalkes, 59 cial War, 138, 141 Socrates of Athens, 214 Socrates of Constantinople, 165, 166, 168 Solon, 27n.25 Sozomen, 165, 168 space (universal), 2, 12n.4, 48, 49, 81 84n.47, 116-18, 172 Spain, 167, 182 specific, the, 37 Spengler, O., 1.11, 177 stasis, 16-26, 270.15 statesmanship, 56-65 static’ models of history, 56, 660.7 Stephanus of Byzantium, 72 Stoiism, 4, 661.5, 74, 166, 176, 207 Strabo, 6, 57, 71-101 sir w of universal history, suggrapheus, 31 Sulla, 71, 118, 120, 143, 225 sumploke, 25, 25, 38 suivopsis, 35-6 synecdoche, 45, 132-45 racuse, 62 ‘Tabari, 194, 196 Tacitus, 157, 176, 186n.12 teleological view of histor ‘Theadoretus, 164, 165, 168 ‘Theodosius, 1 Theognis, 20 ‘Theophrastus, 7 ‘Theopompus, 26, 10 32, 38, 62, 109, 170, 177, 186.11, 198, 199, 216 Tiberius, 71-2, 117, 120, 125 Timaeus, 15, 33, 34, 10n.8, 43, 48, 52n.21, 56, 79, 105, 109 ‘Timagenes of Alexandria, timocracy, 22 ‘Toynbee, tragedy, ‘Trajan, 81, 229 ‘Trogus, Pompeius, 6, 12n.11, 74, 75, 77, 110, 134, 148, 144 Twelve Tables, the, 104 tyrannicides (Athenian), 17 |. 77, 109 243Index tyranny, 18-28, 53n,.52 unification of Germany, 84n.A7 of Italy, 87-96 Universal History, de 15-16, 56, 81, 102-3, 116, 14s 158n.17, 162, 170, 207-18, 221-34 USA, 11, 224, 227, 23% utility of history, 45; see also education Valerius Maximus, 186n.12 Varro, 88, 120 Velleius Paterculus, 8 102, 111 116-30, Vergil, 51, 88, 120, 152 Vieo, G., 218, 224 Vietorinus, M., 106 Voltaire, 184-5 von Ranke, 223, 226 wanderers, 119 war: see conflict Weber, M., 223 Weltgeist, 207 ‘Whig’ view of history, 1 World Fairs, 140 World War I, 11, 186n.8, 221-2, 225-6, 233 Xenophon, 62, 63, 65, 215, 216 Ya‘qobi, 196 year-by-year history: see annals Zacharias, 165 Zeitgeist, 11 Zoroastrianism, 180 244