Pawe! Janiszewski, The Missing Link: Greek PaganHistoriography in the Second Half of the Third Century andin the Fourth Century A.D. (Journal of Juristic Papyrology,Suppl. 6), Warsaw 2006, 532 pages, trans. D.Dzierzbicka.

This volume represents a comprehensive collection of ancient evidence andscholarly opinions on pagan historical authors writing in Greek between c. 250 andc. 400 A.D., none of whose works has survived. Janiszewski has produced morethan just a reference work: he organizes and analyzes the evidence for each authorand work, and then offers some conclusions about the nature of Greek historio-graphy in the Late Roman Empire. In the process, he sheds much light on anoft-ignored area of ancient historiography, and he provides a solid basis for futureresearch.

Pagan historiography after the first half of the third century has beendismissed as stale, frozen, and powerless to compete with a vibrant and triumphantChristian historical writing (a view held by no less an authority than ArnaldoMomigliano). As a result, the pagan historians of this period have not received theattention their Christian counterparts have – history, as they say, is written by thevictors. But surely part of the reason for this portrayal is the lack of any extantworks. Such a fate has befallen other eras. Polybios is claimed as the one brightspot in Hellenistic historiography; not coincidentally, his work is the only one tosurvive even partially, and we gain much of our knowledge about other authorsfrom his (usually polemical) references to them. But at least we can reach theselost authors through other avenues: figures like Theopompos, Kallisthenes, andTimaios are familiar ones. For the Greek historians of the Late Roman Empire,however, we lack even well-known names. A scholar asked to name a pagan Greekhistorian between Herodian and Procopius might, if pressed, come up with

PALAMEDES 3(2008) 1

Dexippos, but as Janiszewski puts it, he is merely ”better-known.”1 Finally, forwhat does remain from the historical works of the period – excerpts and referencesin later authors – the standard collections of Müller and Jacoby are spotty, andnew findings on papyrus as well as updated editions of Byzantine authors leavethem wanting. All of this has led to a gap in scholarship. Articles dealing withindividual authors or giving brief overviews of the period have appeared, but asJaniszewski points out (9), there has been no attempt to treat it systematically andat length.

Janiszewski’s prodigious research fills that gap, and it should also put an endto the idea of a decline in classical Greek historiography in this period. The pagesof The Missing Link reveal the rich variety of historical work that has been almostcompletely lost: 83 titles by 50 authors, ranging from chronicles to political/militarynarrative to imperial panegyric to histories of cities and regions (the last of whichforms the majority). Fortunately, Janiszewski has chosen to work with a broaddefinition of historiography, a term which he admittedly uses as a sort ofshorthand for ”literature devoted to history, or literary activity dealing with a moreor less distant” past (14). This allows him to clarify the nature of some workswhich appear in Jacoby or Müller but turn out not to be history after all (e.g.Philippos of Amphipolis, who Janiszewski concludes wrote romance novels). Healso casts a wide net chronologically, including some authors who most likely wereactive before the period in question (Pausanias of Antioch) or never existed(Ephoros the Younger of Kyme). This comprehensiveness adds greatly to the valueof the work: indeed, collections like Jacoby’s and reference works like PLRE shouldnow be consulted in conjunction with Janiszewski’s comments.

After an introduction describing the state of the field and explaining hisorganizational principles, Janiszewski presents the lost works in four chaptersroughly equivalent to Jacoby’s historical genres: Political Historiography (subdividedinto Universal Histories, Contemporary Histories, and Histories of Early Periods),Local Historiography, Histories and Biographies of Emperors, and Chronography.Within each chapter or sub-section, works are arranged chronologically (as far asthis is possible). As Janiszewski states, this ”typological” organization gives us anopportunity to trace development, to identify patterns, and to gain an idea of thebroad scope of historical writing during this time. One side-effect of this approach

1 Dexippos is the only Greek historian of the period discussed, very briefly, by J. Matthews inhis chapter in the recent Blackwell Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (vol. I, 297),edited by J. Marincola; and note that Matthews does not even mention the fragmentaryhistorians collected by Janiszewski, but points to other (surviving) literature from the late3rd century (Origen, Plotinus, Porphyry) before moving straight on to Ammianus. Similarly, B.Croke in his chapter on ‘Late Antique Historiography, 250–650 CE’ (vol. II, 568).

Christopher A. Baron

PALAMEDES 3(2008)2

is that works by the same author appear in different sections – but Janiszewskiprovides plenty of cross-references, and an index lists the authors alphabetically.

Each entry heading contains the author’s name, FGrH number (if any), andthe title of the work in Greek and English. The entry begins with a thoroughdiscussion of the author’s identity, including his suggested date and prosopographicalinformation where available. Here Janiszewski makes excellent use of epigraphicmaterial, and in some cases he proposes new identifications (Eusebios of Thes-salonika). Janiszewski then lists the sources of our knowledge about the work,presents the evidence for its title, and discusses its scope and structure. Finally, henotes the characteristics of the work which can be drawn from the fragments, withspecial attention paid to their relation to classical historiography. Exhaustivereferences to secondary scholarship are given near the beginning of each entry,sometimes in the form of a virtual bibliographic essay. Works are cited in full bothin the footnotes and in the bibliography, which appears to include every work thatis cited. This double-referencing is certainly convenient, if unusual.

For the most part, Janiszewski’s analysis is sound, striking the properbalance between caution and speculation necessary when dealing with fragmentaryhistorians. Examples include his excellent discussion of Soterichos of Oasis’mysterious work Pytho or On Alexander (149–161), and his willingness to accept thepossibility of otherwise unknown authors for unattributed papyrus fragments(235). However, his treatment of various authors is sometimes uneven: thusDexippos is described, almost as an afterthought, as an ”active participant” in thedefense of Athens against the Heruli (113), without any mention of scholars’questions about this author’s self-representation. Janiszewski could also haveimproved the work by providing more signposts for the reader: large issues, suchas the importance of religion (261) and the influence of biography (265), are raisedin the individual entries without any reference to the synthesis of these topicsJaniszewski attempts in his conclusion. But since most readers will consultindividual entries rather than read the book cover-to-cover, this may not bea significant problem.

In his conclusion, Janiszewski assesses the evidence he has assembled. Thepreponderance of it falls under local historiography, a ”genre” which turns out toencompass a wide array of subjects and forms of presentation. Janiszewskidescribes it as works which ”derive from the traditions of other literary genres and,in some cases, seem to cross the vague boundaries” modern scholars attempt tocreate (439). The impetus for producing such works could be the need to claima place for a city or region in the Greek cultural world, a response to currentpolitical/military events, or the desire to show off one’s erudition or rhetorical skill.Janiszewski places local historiography in ”the milieu of grammarians, rhetors and

Pawe! Janiszewski, The Missing Link

PALAMEDES 3(2008) 3

sophists” (441). This separates it from political and military history, written (as inprevious periods, one could add) by ”influential people who actively participatedin the events they described, politicians, soldiers, officers, imperial officials” (451).There does indeed appear to be a lack of ”great” historiography during this period–universal histories, accounts of the contemporary internal struggles of the empire,treatments of already-ancient events. It seems that attention was turned, at leastin the 3rd century, to the empire’s external wars, in works which Janiszewskisuggests may form a chain of continuators from Herodian through Dexippos (449).As far as the 4th-century gap, it is well-known that Eunapios claims to be takingup Dexippos’ work. But I would note that if Eunapios was, as Janiszewski states,”unaware” of Eusebios of Thessalonika’s text, it is certainly possible that othersexisted as well.

Janiszewski also includes an appendix listing the historians mentioned bythe author of the Historia Augusta. As he notes, this evidence first requiresa separate in-depth study, in order to determine whether these authors existed ornot, before it can be incorporated into an examination of Greek historiography ofthe period. In his comments on Onasimos/Onesimos (332–352), Janiszewski raisesvalid concerns about the methodology of Syme and others in ”proving” thefictitiousness of these authors, and he calls for a re-consideration of suggestionsthat they are all inventions on the part of the writer of the HA.

One aspect of the book which does require further comment is thetranslation, by Dorota Dzierzbicka. Overall, it is well-done and readable, andJaniszewski’s thoughts are conveyed without confusion. There are the usualdeviations from English idiom (”mentions on” rather than ”of”; ”informs” withouta direct object), as well as a curious overuse of the en-dash. One also finds regularspelling errors (”commands” for ”commends”, ”polemized” for ”polemicized”) aswell as Latinization or Germanization of technical terms and ancient names(”metrum” for ”meter”, ”Antioch” for ”Antiochos”). In some instances, though, thechoice of English words has led to ambiguity or worse. At several points, sentencesbegin with ”Conclusively” – which in normal English means ”without a doubt”– when, I believe, Janiszewski really means ”In conclusion” as in ”To sum up” (e.g.103, 411). In addition, ”that” is used instead of ”since” in a number of sentenceswhich are thereby rendered meaningless.

I raise these translation issues not to nit-pick, but to remind the reader tobe alert when evaluating Janiszewski’s arguments. Indeed, we should thankJaniszewski and Dzierzbicka for their efforts in making this valuable work availableto a wider audience. Janiszewski notes in his preface that a first translation (bya different translator) proved unusable, which resulted in delayed publication (tobe kept in mind when using the bibliography). We are fortunate that Janiszewski

Christopher A. Baron

PALAMEDES 3(2008)4

persisted, for his work renders a great service to those interested in ancienthistoriography, and it is an indispensible research tool for anyone studying Greekhistorical writing under the Late Roman Empire, and beyond.

Christopher A. Baroncbaron1@nd.edu

Department of ClassicsUniversity of Notre Dame304 O’Shaughnessy HallNotre Dame, IN 46556 USA

Pawe! Janiszewski, The Missing Link

PALAMEDES 3(2008) 5