Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and Historiography

Egidia Occhipinti, Ph.D. (2006), awarded with the Merante prize (2011), Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford from 2011 to 2013 (FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IEF), has published many articles in peer-reviewed journals and in conference proceedings. She is involved as co-author in writing a critical edition of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia for the Italian series «I Frammenti degli Storici Greci».

"The book under review is the first systematic comparison of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia with a range of historians beyond the canonical comparanda (e.g. Thucydides and Xenophon), and it also recurs to narratology to understand the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. (...) the essay will remain an important contribution in any future study of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and of fourth century historiography." - Salvatore Tufano, in: Sehepunkte, Ausgabe 17 Nr. 9 (2017)''Occhipinti’s analysis is a refreshing contribution and stimulus in the renewed discussions on Diodorus. (…) I think Occhipinti largely meets the targets she (or the series editors) set her(self). I at least found it a joy to read this book.'' - Jan Stronk, in: Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2017.10.39"Occhipintis gründliche Studie richtet sich primär an Spezialisten der griechischen Historiographie, kann aber auch Lesern mit Interesse an allgemeiner griechischer Geschichte des 5.–4.Jh.s empfohlen werden." - Johannes Engels, in: Historische Zeitschrift 307 (2018)"Die elegant und gut lesbar geschriebene Studie von E. Occhipinti versucht eine neue Gesamtcharakterisierung der Darstellungsprinzipien des Autors und eine Beschreibung seines historiographischen Zugriffes." - Bruno Bleckmann, in: Gnomon 91 (2019)

• ContentsAcknowledgements1 The HO in the View of Modern Scholars1.1 The Authorship1.2 A New Proposal and Old Theories1.3 The HO and Xenophon’s Hellenicapart 12 The Work and the Reader 2.1 The Narrative Character of Fourth-Century Hellenica2.2 P. Oxy. V 842: Annalistic Framework, Synchronistic Narrative2.3 The Historian’s Evaluation and Its Impact on the Readers2.4 Conclusion3 Spartan Motivations: the HO and Xenophon3.1 Greek Hostility and Sparta’s Reasons3.2 Sparta’s Asiatic Campaign and Its Analysis3.3 Agesilaus’ Motivations and the Lasting Significance of the Spartan Campaign in Asia3.4 The End of a Dream?3.5 Conclusion4 Diodorus, the HO and Xenophon: A Reassessment4.1 The HO as a Source for Diodorus’ Bibliotheke4.2 Diodorus’ Thirteenth Book and the Florence Papyrus4.3 Diodorus, the Cairo Papyrus and Xenophon4.4 Diodorus on Theramenes: Final Observations4.5 Conclusionpart 25 The HO and Athenian Polypragmosyne5.1 Athenian πολυπραγμοσύνη: a Literary Topos5.2 A Fourth-Century Debate?5.3 Multa per Aequora… Sea Power and Athenian Motivation5.4 Cnidus According to the Oxyrhynchus Historian: a Solely Persian Success5.5 Conclusion6 Terra Marique…6.1 Decelea, or the Supremacy of Land over Sea6.2 The Sea as a Barrier6.3 τὸ συμπολιτεύειν: Thebes versus Boeotia?6.4 Conclusion6.5 Analytical Description of the Toponyms Occurring in the HO7 Historiography and Hegemony7.1 Sparta, or the Undisputed Hegemony7.2 Diodorus and the Debate on Hegemony7.3 Political Realities and Historiographical Simplifications7.4 Conclusion8 Historical Causation8.1 Why Do Things Happen?8.2 To Blame or not to Blame… Individual and Collective Responsibilities8.3 Visibility and Clarity in Historical Causation8.4 Thebes, or Intra-Greek Hostility8.5 Stasis, or the Dimension of Internal Conflict. What Awareness of Thucydides?8.6 Conclusion9 ‘Moralism’ in Historiography9.1 The HO and Thucydides: What ‘Moralism’?9.2 ‘Moralism,’ ‘Morality,’ and Moral Lessons9.3 Theopompus: ‘Moralism’ versus ‘Morality’?9.4 Praise/Blame in Ephorus?9.5 ConclusionConclusionAppendix1 A New Supplement for Lines 31–32 of the Theramenes Papyrus (P. Mich. 5982)2 History, Oratory and Their Audiences3 Diodorus and Rome4 TranslationsBibliographyIndex of NamesThematic Index