Biography[edit]
Early Life and Education[edit]
Theopompus was born on the Aegean island of Chios between 337 and 338.[2] In his early youth, he seems to have spent some time at Athens, with his father Damasistratus, who had been exiled for his Laconian sympathies. In Athens, he became a pupil of Isocrates, and rapidly made progress in rhetoric;[2] we are told that Isocrates used to say that Ephorus required the spur but Theopompus the bit.[3][4]
At first he appears to have composed epideictic speeches, in which he attained to such proficiency that in 352–351 BC he gained the prize of oratory given by Artemisia II of Caria in honour of her husband, although Isocrates was himself among the competitors. It is said to have been the advice of his teacher that finally determined his career as an historian—a career for which he was peculiarly qualified owing to his abundant patrimony and his wide knowledge of men and places. Through the influence of Alexander III, he was permitted to return to Chios around 333 BC, and figured for some time as one of the leaders of the aristocratic party in his native town. After Alexander's death, he was again expelled, and took refuge with Ptolemy in Egypt, where he appears to have met with a somewhat cold reception. The exact date of his death isn't know, but scholars have placed it around 320 BC.[2]
Mention by others[edit]
Aristotle mentions the conception and testimony of Theopompus about the innocuousness of slavery, in Politics.[15] Jewish historian Flavius Josephus writes that Demetrius of Phalerum, in response to Ptolemy II Philadelphus asking why the Jewish Law had not been mentioned by any of his scribes or poets, told that due to the divine nature of the documents, any who endeavored to write about it had been afflicted by a distemper. He continued, saying that Theopompus once endeavored to write about the Jewish Law, but became disturbed in his mind for 30 days, whereupon during some intermission of his distemper he prayed for healing and determined to leave off his attempt to write, and was cured thereby.[16] A passage from Theopompus is given by Athenaeus in his Deipnosophistae.[17] Claudius Aelianus quotes both Theopompus and Lycus of Rhegium as sources on the cult practices of the Adriatic Veneti.[18]
Modern Scholarship[edit]
Modern scholarship by historians such as Gordon Shrimpton and W. Robert Connor have re-evaluated Theopompus's contributions to historiography. Shrimpton emphasizes Theopompus's refined portrayal of Phillip II. He argues that Theopompus's work reflected a sophisticated understanding of the nuances of power and corruption.[8] Connor highlights Theopompus's disillusionment with the moral state of Greece. This presents him as a critical observer and recorder of society.[19]
Riccardo Vattoune's analysis further examines Theopompus's innovations in methodology. The chapter explores how Theopompus approached writing of history, specifically his use of sources and his treatment of historical events.[20] One key aspect discussed is Theopompus's interest in "invisible" parts of history such as motivations, emotions, and character traits. These parts of history aren't readily apparent from the historical record alone, but his work preserves that part of history. Additionally, Vattuone dives into Theopompus's use of speeches, anecdotes, and character sketch's to give life to these invisible parts of history.[20] Overall, the chapter provides insight into Theopompus's innovations in the field of historiography.