Parmeggiani's book is "a shortened and more accessible English version" (vi) of his 2011 monograph in Italian. [1] Here too he sets out to salvage the reputation of the fourth-century historian Ephorus, who has been much maligned by scholars over the past two centuries. The new edition is far from a simple summary and translation, however. Rather the earlier version has also been substantially reorganized and updated.

The Introduction provides a brief history of scholarship on Ephorus, tracing how he gained his poor reputation and outlining new approaches to fragmentary authors that "suggest that Ephorus deserves a far better treatment than that given by critics before and after Jacoby" (8). In Chapter 1 ("Questions and Answers") Parmeggiani refutes the foundational arguments for a low estimation of Ephorus in a series of short sections. He first investigates the alleged influence of Isocrates and so-called rhetorical historiography. The assumption that Diodorus provides essentially an epitome of Ephorus comes next, followed by a review of the ancient criticisms of his work in the testimonia. Finally, Parmeggiani takes up the claim that the Histories were inordinately focused on Ephorus' hometown of Cyme and that he was, in sum, an intellectually lazy historian.

The arguments in Chapter 1 are largely negative and serve to provide a clean slate for the positive argument mounted in Chapter 2 ("Ephorus' Histories: The Method"). The structure of Chapter 1 with its short, topical sections is here replaced by a longer, more sustained investigation of Ephorus' approach to historiography that starts with his explicit reflections on historical research and ends with his practical application of those principals. Similarities between Ephorus' methodology and that used earlier by Thucydides and later praised by Polybius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus are cited throughout to support the conclusion that Ephorus was, far from the lazy historian of tradition, a theorist and practitioner of the highest quality.

Chapter 3 ("Ephorus' Histories: The Contents") is the longest chapter by far at 180 pages and acts as a kind of running commentary on the most significant fragments. The object is to demonstrate how Ephorus organized his massive history into its various books and to consider the resulting implications for his periodization of the past. His attitude toward the competing hegemonic powers of the day (Sparta, Thebes, Athens, and Macedonia) are treated as each appears in the relevant fragments. At the same time, the chapter lends support to the central claim of the book, that Ephorus was a first-rate historian. To sustain such a detailed reconstruction of the individual books, Parmeggiani presses a number of fragments further than have previous commentators. Indeed, two that Parker declares incapable of coherent analysis in Brill's New Jacoby (FF 69 and 211) become linchpins in significant arguments (262-65; 286-92). [2]

The final chapter ("Ephorus the Universal Historian") is much shorter and focuses on Polybius' claim that Ephorus was the first true universal historian. Despite the presence of a brief conclusion, this chapter serves as "something of an arrival point" (332), by tying together the arguments that run through the earlier chapters. Here, Parmeggiani considers the overall intention, contribution, and influence of the work, as well as its relationship with contemporary political realities. After the formal conclusion, a short appendix raises, but does not endorse, the possibility that Ephorus was the so-called Oxyrhynchus Historian.

Parmeggiani's contribution answers a manifest need. The last book devoted to Ephorus in English was published in 1935. [3] But for any serious student of Ephorus or indeed Greek historiography between Thucydides and Polybius, this book must be used in tandem with the earlier Italian version, since readers will need to follow the numerous and helpful cross references to its more expansive discussions and bibliography. At the same time, however, those already familiar with the 2011 monograph cannot afford to forgo the present edition. Although much was cut for the English version, arguments have been updated throughout, and the bibliography includes roughly 200 new entries. Some of the substantive changes are signaled expressly (vi); others, however, can be difficult to spot at first glance (eg. 313 where a revised conclusion on the intended ending of the Histories is offered). [4]

One of the most impressive aspects of Parmeggiani's analysis is his command of the deep history and evolution of scholarly thought on Ephorus. At certain moments, however, this historical perspective causes him to sustain critical arguments by disproving the first expression of a given conclusion, while neglecting to engage meaningfully with more recent and sophisticated formulations. The argument against Diodorus' dependence on Ephorus in Chapter 1 is a case in point. Much here is devoted to demonstrating the flaws in Volquardsen's arguments from the mid-nineteenth century (38-49), but Parker's recent commentary and his subsequent contribution to an edited volume on Diodorus present a more succinct and persuasive case, unencumbered by the now largely outdated presumptions that plague Volquardsen. [5] Of course, neither treatment had appeared by the time Parmeggiani's Italian book was published, and one must appreciate his desire not to stray too far from the original (vi). Moreover, both titles are dutifully cited here and elsewhere. Nevertheless, a more thoroughgoing engagement with Parker's commentary in particular would have much strengthen this and other arguments in the revised edition.

Conclusions drawn about fragmentary authors are highly debatable by nature, and there is much in Parmeggiani's book to spark future debate. That said, the arguments are careful, detailed, and shed important new light on countless aspects of the Histories. His consistent attention to the broader context of the testimonia and fragments is particularly welcomed. This book, in short, constitutes a valuable addition to Parmeggiani's already substantial body of work on Ephorus and will certainly become (as its Italian predecessor already is) an essential reading for any serious study of this important author and his role in the broader evolution of Greek historiography.

Notes:

[1] G. Parmeggiani: Eforo di Cuma: Studi di storiografia greca, Bologna 2011.

[2] V. Parker: Ephoros of Kyme (70), in: I. Worthington (ed.): Brill's New Jacoby, Leiden 2011, ad loc.

[3] G. L. Barber: The Historian Ephorus, Cambridge 1935.

[4] Cf. G. Parmeggiani: Eforo di Cuma: Studi di storiografia greca, Bologna 2011, 600.

[5] V. Parker: Ephoros of Kyme (70), in: I. Worthington (ed.): Brill's New Jacoby, Leiden 2011, Biographical Essay II F; V. Parker: Errors and Doublets: Reconstructing Ephoros and Appreciating Diodoros, in: L. I. Hau / A. Meeus / B. Sheridan (eds.): Diodoros of Sicily: Historiographical Theory and Practice in the Bibliotheke, Leuven 2018, 189 n.1.

David Yates