The main focus of this book is the ancient formation and development of the canons of Greek historiography. It takes a fresh look on the modern debate on canonical literature and deals with Greek historiographical traditions in the works of ancient rhetors and literary critics. Writings on historiography by Cicero, Quintilian, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus are chiefly taken into account to explore the canons of Greek historians in Hellenistic and Roman Imperial Ages. Essential in canon-formation was the concept of classicism which took shape in the Age of Augustus, but whose earlier developments can be traced back to Isocrates, a model rhetor according to Dionysius at the end of the 1st century BC. The analysis explores also late-antique authors of school treatises and progymnasmata, a field where historiography had a pedagogical function. Previous studies on canonical literature have rarely considered historiography. This book examines not only the works of ancient historians and their legacy, but also the relationship between historiography, literary criticism, and the rhetorical tradition.

This innovative study explores the emergence, survival, and continued cultural importance of historical texts considered to be 'classics'.

Ephorus of Cyme, who lived in the fourth century BC, is one of the most important historians of antiquity whose work has not survived and, according to Polybius, was the first to have written a universal history. His lost Histories are known from numerous 'fragments', that is, quotations by later authors such as Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo and Plutarch, among others. Through a study of these 'fragments' within their broader context, Giovanni Parmeggiani throws new light on the methodology of Ephorus and both the contents and the purpose of his work. By changing our perspective on a major Greek historian between Thucydides and Polybius, this book fills a significant gap in the field, and sets the basis for a new conception of the history of ancient Greek historiography and the Greek intellectual development in general.

This book aims to offer a unified historical treatment of all that is usually understood as “ancient scholarship” or “ancient philology” and is the first modern work to cover a period from the beginnings to the fall of Byzantium after John Edwin Sandys’ work published between 1903-1908. The field “ancient scholarship” includes the exegesis of Greek authors, the editing of their texts, orderly collections of materials useful for exegetical purposes – such as lexeis, onomatologies, collections of antiquarian materials et similia –, the study of grammar, reflection on language, and everything that can be linked to this sphere, that is to say literature and the instruments for interpreting it. If it is hard today to imagine such a work being undertaken by a single scholar, it is worth underlining the benefits offered by a volume with multiple expert voices in a field so complex and multiform. The book is based on the four historiographical chapters of Brill's Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship (2015), which have been enlarged, updated and rethought.

For centuries scholars have analyzed the composition of Luke-Acts presupposing that the reference to "many" accounts in Luke's Preface indicates the written texts which served as the author's primary sources of information. To justify this portrait of Luke as a text-based author, scholars have appealed to analogies with the text-based authors Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and Arrian. Luke among the Ancient Historians challenges this portrait of Luke's method through surveying the origins and development of ancient Greek historiography in chapters on Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus, and Luke. By focusing on the values and practices of ancient historians, Peters demonstrates not only that ancient authors following the model of Thucydides regarded the testimony of eyewitnesses, as opposed to texts, as the proper sources for historians but that Luke emulated the values, practices, and craft terminology of the contemporary historiographical tradition. Taking seriously the self-presentation of Luke as a reporter of contemporary events who claims to write on the basis of "eyewitnesses from the beginning," and personal investigation, this book argues against analogies with text-based historians who wrote about non-contemporary events and instead situates Luke within a portrait of the values and practices of historians of contemporary events.

Chance, in addition to the unavoidable ambiguity caused by time, is one of the main guilty parties in the transmission of ancient texts – or lack thereof. However, the same cannot be said for what concerns the mechanisms of selection and loss of historical and literary memory, where the voluntary awareness of obscuring is often part of a precise aim, thus leading the cultural memory of a literate society to become fragmented. The present volume explores the devices and criteria of selection and loss in Ancient and Medieval texts and the subsequent fragmentation of such literature, but it also addresses the questions of the damnatio memoriae, of literary strategies such as reticence and omission, as well as of known texts deemed lost but re-found thanks to state-of-the-art methods in digitization. The many and diverse nuances of the concepts of omission, selection, and loss throughout Ancient and Medieval literature and history are illustrated through a number of case studies in the four sections of this volume, each examining a different facet of the topic: ‘Mechanisms and criteria of textual loss and selection’, ‘Lost texts re-discovered’, ‘Voluntary omissions and desire for oblivion’, and ‘Re-working the known’.

This volume studies the marvellous stories of early Rome transmitted by ancient historians, to explore the porous boundaries and the hybrid borrowings between myth, history and historiography.