John Marincola

The essay, On the Malice of Herodotus, which has come down to us in the corpus of Plutarch, has often been considered a problematic work because of its hostile tone, the object of its attack, and the quality of its argumentation. This book seeks to set the work in the larger context of the standards and traditions of Greek and Roman historiography and classical criticism more generally as they developed in antiquity. Individual chapters explore Plutarch's place in the critical reputation of Herodotus in antiquity, the nature and importance of historiographical style, the 'signs and tokens' used by Plutarch to convict Herodotus of malice, the particular kind of polemic on display in the essay, its relationship to Plutarch's Parallel Lives, Plutarch's own attempts to re-write the famous incidents narrated by Herodotus, and the importance ancient critics placed on determining the disposition of the historian. The book shows that throughout the essay, Plutarch, although often revealing a distinctive approach towards his subject, is none the less working in a recognizable tradition using methods and approaches that many of his predecessors had employed and which are essential to understand in order to arrive at a more comprehensive evaluation of how the Greeks and Romans wrote history.

How did Greek and Roman historians claim the authority to narrate the deeds embraced by their histories? In this acclaimed and influential book, John Marincola examines all aspects of their self-presentation, surveying the entire field from Herodotus (fifth century BCE) to Ammianus Marcellinus (fourth century CE). He shows how each historian claimed veracity by imitating, modifying, and manipulating the traditions established by his predecessors. After discussing the tension between individuality and imitation, he analyses the recurring style used to establish the historian's authority: how he came to write history; the qualifications brought to the task; the inquiries and efforts he made in his research; and his claims to possess a reliable character. By showing how each historian used the tradition to claim and maintain his own authority, the book – now including a substantial new Introduction – helps us better understand the complex nature of ancient historiography.

How did Greek and Roman historians claim the authority to narrate the deeds embraced by their histories? In this acclaimed and influential book, John Marincola examines all aspects of their self-presentation, surveying the entire field from Herodotus (fifth century BCE) to Ammianus Marcellinus (fourth century CE). He shows how each historian claimed veracity by imitating, modifying, and manipulating the traditions established by his predecessors. After discussing the tension between individuality and imitation, he analyses the recurring style used to establish the historian's authority: how he came to write history; the qualifications brought to the task; the inquiries and efforts he made in his research; and his claims to possess a reliable character. By showing how each historian used the tradition to claim and maintain his own authority, the book – now including a substantial new Introduction – helps us better understand the complex nature of ancient historiography.

This book is a study of the various claims to authority made by the ancient Greek and Roman historians throughout their histories and is the first to examine all aspects of the historian’s self-presentation. It shows how each historian claimed veracity by imitating, modifying, and manipulating the traditions established by his predecessors. Beginning with a discussion of the tension between individuality and imitation, it then categorises and analyses the recurring style used to establish the historian’s authority: how he came to write history; the qualifications he brought to the task; the inquiries and efforts he made in his research; and his claims to possess a reliable character. By detailing how each historian used the tradition to claim and maintain his own authority, the book contributes to a better understanding of the complex nature of ancient historiography.

This book is a study of the various claims to authority made by the ancient Greek and Roman historians throughout their histories and is the first to examine all aspects of the historian’s self-presentation. It shows how each historian claimed veracity by imitating, modifying, and manipulating the traditions established by his predecessors. Beginning with a discussion of the tension between individuality and imitation, it then categorises and analyses the recurring style used to establish the historian’s authority: how he came to write history; the qualifications he brought to the task; the inquiries and efforts he made in his research; and his claims to possess a reliable character. By detailing how each historian used the tradition to claim and maintain his own authority, the book contributes to a better understanding of the complex nature of ancient historiography.