CAMBRIDGE ANCIENT HISTORY ^*

Since the Cambridge conference on "Greek Historiography in a national context" would hardly have been complete without a discussion of "Cambridge Ancient History" (hereinafter referred to as SUN), I suggest that we talk about ^it1 . My interest in this conversation should also be mentioned immediately, since I am the author of several chapters in the revised edition of the SUN, although I was only one of those who obeys orders, and does not give them ² .

Not so long ago, X. Habicht, reviewing the sixth volume of the new edition of the SUN, was seriously annoyed by two unfriendly remarks about "German science". If it is possible to talk about German scientists as well as English scientists, then there is much less reason to talk about the existence of German science than about English ³ . I share a similar point of view. But I also accept the thesis of the organizers of this conference. A nation and its associated national traditions may represent a context that inevitably affects those engaged in historical research. In this sense, it is very significant that, although good classical compendiums were born on the continent, it was the Cambridge Ancient History that appeared, and not the collective Berliner Alte Geschichte or Histoire ancienne de Paris.

In contrast, in the French "Histoire generale", founded by G. Glotz, volumes, not chapters, were written by individual authors, and in Germany the never-ending "Aufstieg und Niedergang"continues to be published. The closest analogue of the SAN, which is a comprehensive account of history with chapters written by various authors, is the Studia di Roma, edited by A. Momigliano and A. Schiavone: its final volume discusses issues that go beyond the chronological framework of the remaining volumes ^.4 The Greek equivalent of the above-mentioned publication is" I Greet " edited by S. Settis, which begins with "We and the Greeks" and ends with " Greeks Beyond Greece "( on the perception of Greek culture). This edition consists of three parts, each of which has a strict chronological reference, but the chapters are devoted to the widest range ^of problems5 . Although the development of the SAN, as we will see, is not entirely British, I believe that the idea of creating a historical work with separate chapters written by different authors can be called exclusively British. It is also quite remarkable that the" insufficiently British " Lord Acton pinned his hopes on the general direction of the publication to a greater extent than it actually managed to realize.

^* The article was first published in the electronic version of the Durham-based journal Histos. 1999. V.3.

¹ This article is a revised report from the Craven Seminar on "Greek Historiography in a National Context", held in Cambridge from 26 to 28 May 1999. I am grateful to Dr. P. Curtledge for inviting me to this conference, as well as to those who listened and discussed my report. In addition, I would like to thank Professors E. J. Graham and H. P. Blavatsky. Habichtu, Dr. T. Harrison, and L. Mitchell, who read the paper and provided advice.

² I have written the following sections: "Delian League to 449 B.C. "(V. V. Ch. 3. P. 34-61); "The Athenian Revolution" (V. V. Ch. 4. P. 62-95); "The Polis and the Alternatives" (V. VI. Ch. 11. P. 565-591).

³ " In this section (dedicated to Alexander the Great. - P. R.) the words "German science" are placed twice in quotation marks - as if only a German scientist represented a given - really vulnerable point of view. If there are German or English scientists, there is hardly a "German" or "English" science." on SAN V. 11.6] Gnomon. 1998. Bd 70. S. 130-135, this quotation is given on page 135).

⁴ Storia di Roma. V. I-IV / Ed. A. Momigliano, A. Schiavone. Turin, 1988-1993. Volume IV is entitled "Caratteri e morfologie".

⁵ I Greci / Ed. S. Settis. Turin, 1996. 4 vol. The first volume is entitled "Noi e i Greci", the second - "Una storia greca". III - "I Greci oltre la Grecia", IV, containing maps and diagrams, will be called "Atlante".

page 113

In March 1896, the Cambridge University Press syndicate sent an invitation ⁶ to Lord Acton, who, as Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, did not focus on narrowly British issues, but also on continental history ^.7 Acton conceived the idea of publishing the Cambridge Modern History (Mass media), which was aimed at "creating the best modern history that can be written by published and unpublished sources." At the same time, they expressed the belief that since "almost all the evidence that will appear is freely available", "we are approaching the highest stage in the study of history." SMN "will have to satisfy the tastes of any reader ... do not contain footnotes and quotations in foreign languages", it will be English only in the language, but it does not have an English or British bias. "According to our intentions, nothing will indicate the country, religion or party to which the authors belong." ⁸ However, Acton died before the first volume was published. The publishers tried to follow his plan, however, considering that "the final version of the story cannot be prepared by this generation." Publishers believed that the inclusion of multiple authors would increase the level of publication that a single author could not achieve, it would avoid "the dominance of one intelligence", and with a single guide, "instead of presenting a collection of fragments [it would be possible to achieve] a certain consistency of each of them" ⁹ .

The Cambridge Modern History appeared between 1902 and 1912; and between 1911 and 1936, the Cambridge Medieval History, published by Acton's heirs, an Englishman with Irish roots, J. B. Bury. The latter was the author of the Cambridge Ancient History, which was published between 1924 and 1939. He was one of the editors of volumes I-VI, all 12 volumes were edited by S. E. Cook and F. E. Adcock. M. P. Charlesworth edited volumes VII-XII, N. H. Baines - XII volume. Of all those mentioned above, Adcock may have played the most significant role in the publication of SUN ¹⁰ . The intention of the publishers of the Cambridge Medieval History was the same as that of the publishers of the Modern History, ¹¹ and the same can be assumed for the Ancient History.

The Cambridge Ancient History was originally supposed to be limited to eight vols, ¹² but from volume III the scheme was broken: what was to become Volume III became two volumes-III and IV ^.13 In total, twelve volumes of the main text were released, supplemented by five volumes of appendices. The first six volumes dealing with the Middle East and Greece (including small sections on Carthage and the Etruscans) were exclusively British in composition - with the exception of one chapter written by R. A. McAllister of Dublin and four chapters prepared by the Harvard scholar W. S. Ferguson (of Canadian descent). Volumes VII-XII are more international in their composition of authors. However, comparison with historical studies published in other countries in the first half of the XX century does not give reason to believe that the content of the publication can be purely British, although the French are more interested in social history, and Alexander the Great W. Tarna was written by a British gentleman.

⁶ The Cambridge Histories // TLS. 22. IV. 1939. P. 232-239 (rec. on SAN. V. XII and the whole series).

⁷ For Lord Acton, see Chadwick O. Acton and History. Cambr., 1998, as well as a reference to this edition-O'Brien M. Men's Affairs and God's Order / / TLS. 23. X. 1998. P. 29.

⁸ From Acton's letter to the project participants. The email was published by: Acton. Lectures on Modem History / Ed. J.N. Figgis, R.V. Lawrence. L., 1906. P. 315-318. App. 1.

⁹ Cambridge Modern History / Ed. A.W. Ward, G.W. Prothero. S. Leathes. Cambr., 1902. P. V-VIII.

¹⁰ See Wilkinson P. Frank Ezra Adcock. Cambr., 1969. P. 25-27. I thank Prof. Woodman, who drew my attention to this publication.

¹¹ SMN. V. 1 / Ed. by N. M. Gwatkin, J. P. Whitney. P. III.

¹² See Lust N. M. II Oxford Magazine. 1923/1924. V. 42. P. 138-142, see 138.

¹³ Cf. Gomme A. W. / / CR. 1926. V. 40. P. 160-162, see 160.

page 114

The majority of reviewers - both in the UK and abroad - gave the new edition a positive review. However, the first half of the publication was criticized by A. Gomm in the "Classical Review" ¹⁴ and D. McFadden in the "Classical Journal" ¹⁵ . One of the authors of the publication, H. M. Last, in the Oxford Magazine criticized volume I, and in Classical Philology he spoke approvingly of volume ^XII .

Acton's intention was that the control of the editors should make each volume not a set of fragments, but a single whole, although the volumes were prepared by a large team of authors. I can't judge "Modern" or " Medieval, "but this principle was not followed in the first volumes of the Cambridge Ancient History. The preface to volume I allowed the authors to disagree with each other.¹⁷ For example, if A. R. Munro dated the Battle of Marathon to 491 BC, then E. M. Walker adheres to the generally accepted dating - 490 BC.e. Other regrettable facts can be cited. This work could hardly be addressed to an outside reader who would find it difficult to read, and besides, they would find a lot of unexplained details in it. It could not be addressed to students and researchers: they would need references to the sources on which certain statements were based, as well as indications of their possible inconsistency or inconsistency. Writing chapters by different authors led not only to serious omissions, but also to the impossibility of setting important problems for a particular period. As a result, the publication turned out to be old-fashioned due to the predominance of subjects related to political and military history. And a final comment on the changes revealed in the last volumes: "It turned out that the text provided with links that are important for the researcher can also be accessible to third-party readers. Publishers, who have become more persistent as they gain experience, have managed to achieve harmony from the authors of the latest volumes-not in terms of their opinions on individual issues, but at least in understanding the idea of this undertaking, which one day should have revealed itself. " ¹⁸ The Times Literary Supplement, welcoming the completion of the publication, complained on the fact that " perfectly laid out pages and the uniformity of the English text gave way to fluctuations born of the age of researchers... and yet, in the absence of controversy, the unquestionable authority and harmony of the authors and the subjects they touch upon became a triumph for the authors of the idea. " ¹⁹

As for my own comments, I will make them after I mention the new edition.

Once again, the SMN has traveled the path: major volumes and atlases were published between 1957 and 1970. This edition concluded with a volume published in 1979 that discussed issues not covered in the other volumes. It discussed issues such as production, the peasantry, bureaucracy, and the scientific revolution. Two volumes from the main part were published in the second edition. However, this time the SUN has overtaken the "Medieval": the first volume of the latter was published in 1995. "Cambridge Ancient History" is the only publication to which the word "new"was not added to the title. It begins with volumes I and II, which appeared as a 71st issue between 1961 and 1971. And between 1970 and 1975. they were converted to four semitomes. In 1982, after a pause, the expansion and transformation started with vol. 1 and now almost complete. If the previous edition ended in time

¹⁴ CR. 1924. V. 38. p. 16-19 (on vol. I); 1925. V. 39. p. 20-23 (on vol. II); 1926. V. 40. P. 160-162 (on vol. Ill); 1927. V. 41. P. 64-68 (on vol. IV): 1928. V. 42. P. 183-189 (on vol. V and VI).

¹⁵ CJ. 1926/1927. V. 22. p. 393-396 (on vol. IV), main objections-1927/1928. V. 23. p. 141-145 (on vol. V).

¹⁶ Oxford Magazine. 1923/1924. V. 42. P. 138-142 (on vol. I); CPh. 1940. V. 61. P. 81-90 (on vol. XII and vol. V of the appendices).

¹⁷ See V. I. P. V-X, see VIII-IX.

¹⁸ CPh (rec. on SAN, vol. XII and vol. V of appendices). 1940. V. 61. p. 81-90. see 82.

¹⁹ See note 6 above.

page 115

after the reign of Constantine, the new edition, reflecting the trends of the second half of the XX century, will be brought to the end of the VI century A.D. This time the publication did not have common volumes for all publishers.

As one of the authors of the new edition, I had to "summarize the accumulated information" for readers "of the same level as the author, but without special training", for example, "for specialists in other historical periods or students studying the same period". Nothing was said here about the "third-party reader" of the first edition. In addition, the new edition cites sources much more widely, and pays more attention to debatable issues - the arguments presented and conclusions drawn, as well as what (in the opinion of the authors of the sections) is considered contradictory and what is not considered. Unlike the previous edition, the main problem was the slowness of some authors. Authors who prepared their own sections faster than others found that they were somewhat outdated by the time they were published.

Despite the unfriendly response of the Oxford reviewer, who "without any satisfaction" noted that it was more like "Oxford Ancient History" ²⁰-among the authors were Cambridge residents, and, in addition to them, authors from other countries, although not all of them were specialists in Greco - Roman history.

Among the authors of the original version of the publication was one woman - E. Strong-the author of the section devoted to Roman art. However, women were involved in translating sections written by foreign authors. The new edition already had several female authors, particularly among the publishers of Roman volumes. I believe that even an unfriendly reviewer will appreciate most of the sections of the publication - this was exactly what was required of the authors. However, I would point out two main problems.

First of all, let us ask what the authors of such publications are called upon to do. What is the subject of the sections they prepare? As early as the 1920s, some critics felt that the SUN's volumes on the ancient East and Greece focused too much on political and military history. Indeed, they paid more attention to personalities and events. There were only a few sections devoted to literature, religion, philosophy, and art. As for the analysis of socio-economic problems, only one chapter of volume V, prepared by M. Tod, is devoted to them.

Chapters on political and military history are also available in the new edition. But at the same time, there are sections that were not present in the previous edition. Of these, the first six chapters of volume V, devoted to the fifth century, had a quite traditional appearance, but even here it was stated that "a pronounced interest in the question of methods of historical research". And the section not quite correctly labeled as Chapter 8 (? a-h), which actually combines eight chapters with a total volume of about 200 pages-this is 2/5 of the entire text-contains such subjects as "Art", "Classical cities and sanctuaries", "Restoration of Athens and Attica", "Panhellenic cults and Panhellenic culture". poetry", "Athenian Festival Cults", "Athenian Religion and Literature", "Society and Economy", and "Athens as a Cultural Center". These sections are intended to "showcase cultural achievements in their historical, social and religious context" ²¹ .

Volume V is devoted exclusively to Greece, which explains to a greater extent its traditional appearance. However, Volumes V and VI should be considered as a single unit22 . Volume VI contains an overview of the history of individual regions in the V-IV centuries BC. This review, which covers more than 300 pages of text, is combined into two chapters devoted to the Persian Empire and its neighbors, as well as the West and the West.

^{Millar F.} 20 The Last Century of the Republic: Who's History / / JRS. V. 85. P. 236-243, see 236 (rec. on SAN, vol. II. 9).

²¹ Wed. SAN. V. V. R. XIII-XVI, see XV.

²² Ibid. P. XIII.

page 116

To the north. In addition, there is a chapter on socio - economic relations, as well as five sections that are part of one chapter and focus on Greek culture and science. Together with the mentioned sections, their volume is about 440 pages of text, i.e. half of the total text.

In the new edition, the chapters of the main text address more traditional questions that are solved with the involvement of these written sources. However, there is much that is new in both the question statements themselves and the interpretation of the sources compared to the previous edition. ²³ A wide range of questions are also raised in other chapters and they are solved on the basis of a wide variety of sources, using various approaches. In particular, the expanded volumes devoted to ancient Rome, where there is no hint of a game with the numbering of chapters, which is felt in the Greek volumes.

In other words, in comparison with the previous edition, a significant expansion of the review of ancient history is obvious. But is this extension sufficient? By today's standards-in contrast to the standards of 20 and 40 years ago, when the analyzed edition was prepared-this extension looks conservative. The organizer of our seminar, who did not write sections for the SUN, participated in editing an alternative publication published last year - "Cambridge Illustrated History of Ancient Greece", which looks more radical. ²⁴ The purpose of this publication was to draw attention to " women, slaves, foreigners, non-citizens and non-Greeks as well ...for adult male citizens. ... Priority is given to looking at history" as if through the eyes of a worm "- from the bottom up " ²⁵ . In practice, this means that the main presentation is condensed into a single section, focusing more on processes than on individual people and events. Other sections are devoted to such issues as "Rich and poor", "Women, children and men", "Work and leisure", "Performances". Traditional stories are presented in the chapters "Power and State", as well as "War and Peace". As in the new edition of the Cambridge Ancient History, the numbering of chapters is important here: if in the SAN it was assumed that the sections that supplemented the general presentation should be smaller, then in the Cambridge Illustrated History there are only 12 sections, not counting the non - numbered historical essay - "Intermezzo". According to the publication's cover statement (for which the publisher probably shouldn't be held responsible), the Cambridge Illustrated History is "a comprehensive and authoritative publication."

This brings me to a second and more significant point about SAN that might be made by relativists who believe that writing an objective history is impossible. Each historian creates his own history and each of them has an equal right to exist (although a cynic may think that what he has written is better than what his opponents have written) ^.26 However, for relativists, there are no significant historical works, and any attempt to create them is doomed to failure. And if they are also written by different authors, the result is neither the writing of a significant historical work, which in this case is voluntarily or involuntarily assumed, nor the creation of an individual story that could be prepared by one author. Indeed, the depersonalization inherent in the very scheme of work prepared by a team of authors reduces the value of specific sections written by individual authors. Although the sources and discussion points can be properly stated, the resulting result is

²³ I insist on this statement, although I accept Dr. M. Bird's warning at the seminar that it is very easy to consider yourself superior to your predecessors.

²⁴ The Cambridge Illustrated History of Ancient Greece / Ed. P. Cartledge. Cambr., 1998.

^{Elder A.} 25 New Cambridge History Launched in Athens: Not the Full Monty / / BSA Newsletter. V. I. Autumn, 1998. P. 12 (the second phrase belongs to P. Cartledge).

²⁶ See, for example. Millar. Op. cit. p. 236 (rec. on vol. IX); Smith S. Universal Histories // JRS. 1997. V. 87. pp. 241-248, see 246-248 (rec. on vol. X and Storia di Roma / A. Momigliano, A. Schiavone. V. I-IV. Turin, 1988-1993); Alston R. Augustan Establishment / / CR ². 1998. V. 48. P. 113-115 (rec. on vol. X).

page 117

the result represents a certain vector, because the authors cannot contrast their understanding of the sources and their own position with the position of other researchers. In this sense, Storia di Roma, as one reviewer wrote, is better than the Roman volumes of the new Cambridge Ancient History, although this edition does not do what could have been done ^.27

Perhaps I am a person of interest, because I am one of those who put some effort and professional pride into writing sections in the new edition of the SUN and who does not think that I wasted my time. But I have an idea of how a historian should do his work that would hardly have been different if I hadn't been involved in the preparation of this publication. If I resort to "isms", which I usually try to avoid, then I would call myself a pluralist rather than a relativist.

Yes, I am a pluralist, as I have already mentioned in my review of the Cambridge inaugural lecture by M. Finley28 . Since no consensus has been reached in recent years on the type of research that historians of antiquity should conduct, the first category of opponents of the SAN is those who believe that the required level of historical research has not been achieved. I believe that more attention could be paid to important historical figures and events. As for historical figures, in the Greek world they were adult free men, not foreigners. In addition, we know that additional features for analyzing factual material are not so straightforward and unambiguous. The impact of context on us - the circumstances in which we live and work-suggests that sometimes we can see things that even great historians did not see a hundred years ago.

Of course, this is not the only way to learn history. Although some of my works are devoted to this, not all of them are. Most of my work is devoted to the analysis of the functioning of the state mechanism - not only in classical Athens ,but throughout Greece and in the period of antiquity. ²⁹ Trade has now been rehabilitated - until recently, its role and significance were downplayed ^.30 In recent years, researchers have been increasingly attracted to the appeal to various categories of residents of the Greco-Roman world - other than the leading categories - free adult men ^.31 In other words, the SAN should have paid attention to these issues as well. But I welcome the breadth of approach of the authors of the new edition of the SUN, which distinguishes it from the previous edition. I also welcome the even broader approach of the Cambridge Illustrated History publishers. After all, our task is to study the Greco - Roman world in all its diversity, as well as to help make it understandable and interesting both for ourselves and for other people living on earth. After all, even in our world there are questions that we strive to ask, and the approaches to them that we consider worthy of attention, as well as the answers that we consider acceptable, are important for it. Therefore, any research method that really helps us do all this should be welcomed.

I am not a relativist, as one of my ^recent reviews32 stated . Although our world is still subject to change, and the world of the Greeks and Romans is no longer, we are not free

^Smith. 27 Op. cit. P. 247-248.

^2S DUJ ². 1971-1972. V. 33. P. 148-149 (see: Finley M. I. The Ancestral Constitution. Cambr., 1971), see also my inaugural lecture " What Alcibiades Did and What Happened to Him "(Durham, 1985. pp. 20-22).

²⁹ For recent publications, see Rhodes P. J., Lewis O. M. The Decades of the Greek States. Oxf., 1997.

³⁰ См., например: Oshorne R. Pots, Trade and the Archaic Greek Economy // Antiquity. 1996. V. 70. P. 31-44; Trade, Traders and the Ancient City / Ed. Н. Parkins, C. Smith. L., 1998.

³¹ See, for example: Cwtli'dge P. The Greeks. Oxf., 1993. Priority in addressing the problem of the other is given here to E. Levinas.

^{Rhodes P.J.} 32 How to Study Athenian Democracy (рец. на: Oher J. The Athenian Revolution. Princeton, 1996) / / Polis. V. 15. P. 75-82. see 78-80.

page 118

design it as we would like. Of course, we must approach that world in our own way, deciding what questions to ask and how to answer them, emphasizing one thing rather than the other, making connections that we consider essential. However, in doing so, we must be fair to the peoples and States that once existed, as well as to the diverse and extensive evidence about them. None of the constructions created in this way can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, because none of them can be complete, because we are not Greeks or Romans and we do not know much yet, but something is simply hidden from our view. Nevertheless, some constructions may be better than others, not because they meet our needs more than others, but because they interpret the subject more correctly ^.33 If we are serious about history, our job is not to give ourselves pleasure, but to study our chosen subject. Although exploring our inner world can be entertaining from time to time, curious to learn about what we do unconsciously, to learn about our own biases and inclinations - we still should not lose our sense of proportion. After all, we explore our inner world in order to engage in history, and do not engage in history in order to better understand our inner world.

What about Cambridge Ancient History? Should I have published it? Was it worth preparing a new edition? I answer all these questions positively. I believe that the occasional consolidation of authors, even in the conservative form that SAN presents, is commendable. Such consolidation can be beneficial for many authors. Of course, there are not many among us who could compete with Buzolt or Belokh, but by now we should take into account the results of serious historical research conducted over the past hundred years, as well as the accumulated and growing source material - inscriptions, papyri and much more. And if by the beginning of the Cambridge Histories, it was true that a researcher can only be an expert in his own narrow field, it is all the more true in our time. There is always a danger that something will be missed in the works prepared by a team of authors, but if the planning of such publications is carried out at the proper level, omissions will be minimal, and individual sections can become noteworthy reviews of what has been achieved in each specific area. After all, some people - not necessarily reviewers - will read everything in a row, even if one volume turns out to be more than a thousand pages. Therefore, those who prepared the new edition were right when they abandoned the previous appeal to an outside reader, focusing on a narrower audience. I would even venture to say that the publishers were also right to extend the boundaries of the publication and preserve its conservatism. Of course, someone will think about stories that could have been included in the new edition, but remained out of sight. However, the approach of the publishers of the Cambridge Illustrated History differs so much that I doubt whether it was possible to combine them successfully. In the end, Cambridge can be proud of both publications.

"THE CAMBRIDGE ANCIENT HISTORY"

P.J. Rhodes

The author gives an account of how the Cambridge Ancient History was created and considers its place in historiography. He thinks that it is worthwhile to perform an act of consolidation from time to time on the conservative kind of hisroty which the САН represents, and that consolidation can be done successfully in a work by many authors from many places.

³³ As my colleague Dr. D. S. Livin says, a historian can say that Brutus killed Caesar, or that Brutus attempted to kill Caesar, or that Brutus killed Caesar, but he cannot say that Caesar killed Brutus.

Permanent link to this publication: