The first chapter deals with the study of the historical figure of Theopompus, his works and his idea of writing history. Compared with the predecessors, Theopompus appears to have developed a new way of thinking of Greek history. For the historical material of the Philippica appears moulded through three distinct logoi: Greece, Persia and the West (and Sicily); this seems to reflect an entirely new historical conception, a three-part vision of the oecumene, virtually unknown to the previous historians and perhaps, to some extent, anticipated by the interpolator of Xenophon’s Hellenica. In fact, it is in this direction that the Sicilian and Persian interpolations of the first two books of Xenophon’s work should be read: the insertion of facts in accordance with the overall chronology of the Hellenica seems to reflect a particular conception of Greek history as parallel with Siceliot (Sicilian) and Persian history. It would be thus a new way of thinking of ‚Greek history‘, which still during Xenophon’s time, and at least until the appearance of Philip, had Greek subjects as the centre In the second chapter we discuss the method of composition of Theopompus’ Philippica. The ‚model‘ of „The Histories“ of Herodotus seems to be on the basis of Theopompus’ narrative technique. In fact, when the historian moves away from the narrative on Philip - that proceeds year by year from 360 to 337 B. C. -, he has narrative sections of different length, which are not relevant to history of Macedonia, and uses parekbaseis, in the same manner of Herodotus. In the Philippica there is evidence of large macro-structural parentheses, such as the narrative of Persian history, which stretches from Book XI to Book XIX (FF 105-124). These parentheses seem to form a chain of ‚narrative containers‘, each autonomous in terms of content and chronology. For example, the story of Acoris of Egypt appears as the narrative container of the story of Evagoras of Cyprus (F 103). At the micro-structural level, each ring (‚narrative-container‘) of this chain seems then to be articulated so as to include many inner concentric rings, where ‚stories within the stories‘ are created, like Chinese boxes. Even the Sicilian digression, a portion of a larger Western digression, is a large excursus on a macro-structural level, and spans the period from 406 to 343 B.C. On a microstructural level, the narration that extends from the activities of the son of Dionysus II, Apollocrates, to the tyranny of Nisaeus (357-346 B. C.) might have formed the ‚narrative container‘, the temporal frame of each single book of the Sicilian digression (39, 40, 41, 42). Within this container, in each book excursuses are grafted into other excursuses like concentric circles. Each of these excursuses is temporally independent from the chronology of the Sicilian digression (406-343 B. C.) and from the ‚narrative container‘ itself (357-346 B. C.). The particular way of narrating events moving backwards in time (via flashbacks) to origins of the populations with which the historian dealt - as the digression on Evagoras and on the Asians shows (F 103) - suggests the possibility that when Theopompus inserted a digression on a nation or region, he usually mentioned the origin of their people as well. Therefore, by analogy also in the Sicilian digression the historian might have used this same narrative technique. In conclusion, the analysis of our data has allowed us to reconstruct the peculiar features of Theopompus’ syngraphe, in terms of content, and method of composition, and to show his debt to Herodotus’ historical narrative technique. Within a chronological framework, which begins with the rise of Philip II in 337 B. C., Theopompus inserts continuously excursuses into other excursuses, in which he arranges events of Greek and non-Greek populations, some of which lived in the more remote areas of the world known at that time. Presumably, the failure of the Greek poleis and the rise of Philip brought about a new vision of the oikoumene and consequently a new way of writing history: the focus of Theopompus’ historiography will not centre exclusively on Greece, as occurred previously with the Hellenica, but will turn its attention to new realities, until then perceived as ‚peripheral‘, such as Persia and the West. In the third chapter, we address the question of how many books contained the Sicilian digression, which was itself embedded in a broader context of Western history (FF 184-205). Since several inconsistencies have emerged from Diodorus’ testimony about the number of books containing the Sicilian digression and its subject (XVI 71, 3), I here address that issue, and I reach the conclusion that books XXXIX to XLII of the Philippica (FF 184-198) dealt with res siculae from 406 to 343 B. C., from the tyranny of Dionysius I to the final expulsion of Dionysius II (exile in Corinth). Probably Sicily was also subject of a further digression, contained in Book XXI on the populations of the Adriatic sea (FF 128-134) and hinting at Dionysius the Elder. The inclusion of these two Sicilian logoi in accordance with the narration of Philip’s military activity in the Adriatic sea towards the middle of the fourth century B. C. suggests that the historian was hinting at the idea of a westward expansion for Philip, in the power vacuum created in Europe after the fall of the tyranny of Syracuse (343 B. C.). Furthermore, Theopompus’ opinion on the two sovereigns, Dionysius I and Philip II, expressed in quite similar terms (F 134), should also be interpreted in this direction. Philip, who like Dionysius was criticized for his moral dissolution, was at the head of the largest dynasty of Europe (Theop. FGrH 115, F 27 = Pol. VIII 11, 1), and was, thus, destined to take over the legacy of Syracuse. The historian’ s expectations were, however, not satisfied by the Macedonian, who, as we know, turned his attention to Asia. In the fourth chapter we set out to examine the characteristics and content of the books of the Philippica relating to Sicily (FF 184-198) in order to trace the influence of Theopompus on Sicilian historians and later biographers. The fact that a great number of citations from the Philippica come from Athenaeus has influenced greatly the interpretation that scholars give to Theopompus’ historiography - the greatest number of citations of Theopompus’ Philippica comes from Stephanus of Byzantium, followed by Athenaeus. That is to say, the selection of the material made by Athenaeus, author of a literary encyclopedia aimed at literary scholars and antiquarians, and whose interest in quoting Theopompus relied on the moralistic exempla coming from his work, has spread a false image of Theopompus, and has induced scholars to evaluate ‚moralizing‘ features of the Philippica as an expression of a particular historical perspective, one which replaced an objective and impartial analysis of the events with the personal evaluation of the historian. This has contributed to the creation of that label of ‚moralistic historian‘ which modern scholars, from Momigliano to Sordi, have applied to Theopompus. The content of the Sicilian digression only apparently gives evidence of the ‚supposed‘ moralistic perspective of his author. For Athenaeus, from whom the largest number of fragments on Sicily comes, cites Theopompus in sections of the Deipnosophistae (in books VI, X and XII) that are focused on the theme of tryphe. The randomness of his quotations urges caution, given that Theopompus fragment 193, quoted by Athenaeus himself, in his sixth book dedicated to the extraction of gold and precious minerals, tells of gifts to the Apollo of Delphi made by the tyrants of Sicily, and makes no mention of issues of moral character. A revision of this stereotypical image of Theopompus that has become dominant in historical studies would therefore be in order. The fifth chapter introduces the problematic issue of Theopompus’ contribution to later biography and historiography. In ancient times, interest in Theopompean production, both in terms of style and content, was enormous and involved several areas of Greek and Latin culture. Historians, biographers, scholars, and rhetoricians made extensive use of Theopompus’ material for various purposes. In the particular case of the Sicilian digression, many clues allow us to recognize the influence of Theopompus on some chapters of the Diodorean narrative (XIII-XVI) and that of Trogus (XIX-XX), and on the „Lives“ of Dion and of Timoleon written by Nepos and Plutarch. It is precisely because of the fragmentary state of our evidence that these borrowings are difficult to trace and quantify. Even in ancient times it was not possible to read Theopompus directly, because different parts of the Philippica circulated as independent works. Extracts of these probably existed, and were organized by topic. It is possible, for example, that Athenaeus made use of extracts on the subject of the tryphe of men and peoples, as Stephanus of Byzantium (from whom the highest number of quotations of Theopompus’ Philippica comes) may have used geographical anthologies based on the Philippica. Moreover, there were probably also vulgata concerning the most illustrious Greek and Roman personages which, over time, developed independently from their original historic, philosophic and rhetorical models. These assumed a fully independent status, and were available to authors of biographical works. These anecdotal works contained presumably salient episodes of the lives of famous personages. It is likely that both Nepos and Plutarch drew from this category of composition, into which most part of the biographical production from the fourth century B. C. onwards, including Theopompus’ material, merged. Furthermore, Theopompus could have been the ‚guiding source‘ of Diodorus’ sixteenth book. It is not unlikely that, writing that book, Diodorus could have used the Philippica repeatedly, though not continuously. That is, he could have also used the historians of the Sacred war, such as Demophilus, who covered the period until 341 B. C., and Diyllus, going on until the death of Philip. Moreover, the narrative of the Sicilian history that Theopompus included in the Philippica (Diod. XVI 71, 3) may have been used by Diodorus not only in the sixteenth book, with reference to the story of Dion and Timoleon, but also in the previous books, which deal with the career of Dionysius I (XIII-XV). The sixth chapter clarifies Theopompus’ interest in Dionysius’ (I) activity in the Adriatic sea. The military operations that Philip led in the Adriatic area gave the historian occasion for inserting the vast logos of Western history (FF 184-205, ll. from XXXIX to XLIII), which contains, as we have said, the Sicilian digression, in four books (FF 184-198, ll. from XXXIX to XLII) from 406 to 343 B. C. A further excursus, the Adriatic digression (FF 128-134) which once again is connected to the ‚Western‘ activity of Philip, probably contained res siculae as well. The significance of this shift in the historian’ s perspective (in comparison with the previous historians) can be explained well with those great changes that took place in the Western world, after the advance of the Celts into the Italian peninsula and the crisis of the tyranny of Syracuse. These events probably had resonance in Greece and ignited the debate on a possible westward expansion of Philip. Theopompus gives an ambiguous image of Dionysus and Philip, in both the public and private spheres. The Macedonian appears in the historian’s eyes very similar to the Sicilian tyrant, and emerges as the direct heir of Dionysian politics in Greece as well as the West. The seventh chapter, through a closer examination of the sources on the age of Dionysius the Younger, gives proof of the continued use of Theopompus’ Philippica by later biographers and historians. In particular, the Sicilian digression seems to have been used in the sixteenth book of Diodorus in his accounts of Dion and Timoleon, and in books XIII-XV regarding Dionysius I. In addition, Trogus could have used the Theopompean Philippica as a model, a reference draft, not only in relation to the historical information contained in his Historiae Philippicae, but also as regards the structure and the typology of his excursuses. So the information contained in the excursus on the western peoples of Trogus’ twentieth book appears to reflect closely the content of Theopompus’ Adriatic digression. It is also possible that Trogus, in his account of Dionysius I (Books XIX-XX) and in his treatment of the origines Venetorum et Graecorum et Gallorum (XX 1, 6-4. 5, 7-9), had used both Theopompus’ Adriatic excursus (XXI) and that on Sicily (books XXXIX-XLII), blending them together. Finally, the pro-Dionysius attitude of Nepos, Plutarch and Diodorus, and the critical attitude towards the dissolute habits of the young Dionysius as well as the Syracusans (Plutarch, Diodorus and Trogus) seem to have their origin in Theopompus’ Philippica. Furthermore, the presence of Theopompus in the accounts on Tiomoleon, as related by Plutarch, Diodorus and Nepos, might be extensive as well, especially as regards the events leading up to Timoleon’ s Sicilian expedition.
