<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:E.ephorus_1</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:E.ephorus_1</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="E"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="ephorus-bio-1" n="ephorus_1"><head><persName xml:lang="la" xml:id="tlg-0536"><surname full="yes">E'phorus</surname></persName></head><p>(<persName xml:lang="grc"><surname full="yes">Ἔφορος</surname></persName>).</p><p>1. Of Cumae, a celebrated Greek historian, was, according to Suidas, to whom we are indebted
      for our information respecting his life, a son either of Demophilus or Antiochus; but as
      Plutarch (<hi rend="ital">Ei ap. Delph.</hi> p. 389a.) mentions only the former name, and as
      Ephorus's son was called Demophilus (<bibl n="Ath. 6.232">Athen. 6.232</bibl>), we must
      believe that the father of Ephorus was called Demophilus. Ephorus was a contemporary of
      Theopompus, and lived about <date when-custom="-408">B. C. 408</date>, a date which Marx, one of his
      editors, strangely mistakes for the time at which Ephorus was born. Ephorus must have survived
      the accession of Alexander the Great, for Clemens of Alexandria (<hi rend="ital">Strom.</hi>
      i. p. 403) states that Ephorus reckoned 735 years from the return of the Heracleidae down to
       <date when-custom="-333">B. C. 333</date>, or the year in which <ref target="alexander-the-great-bio-1">Alexander</ref> went to Asia. The best period of his life
      must therefore have fallen in the reign of Philip. Ephoris was a pupil of Isocrates in
      rhetoric, at the time when that rhetorician had opened his school in the island of Chios; but
      not being very much gifted by nature, like most of his countrymen, he was found unfit for
      entering upon life when he returned home, and his father therefore sent him to school a second
      time. (Plut. <hi rend="ital">Vit. X Orat.</hi> p. 839a.) In order not to disappoint his father
      again, Ephorus now zealously devoted himself to the study of oratory, and his efforts were
      crowned with success, for he and Theopompus were the most distinguished among the pupils of
      Isocrates (Menand. Rhet. <foreign xml:lang="grc">Διαιρές</foreign>. <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀποδεικτ</foreign>. p. 626 ed. Aldus), and from Seneca (<hi rend="ital">de
       Tranq. Anim.</hi> 6) it might almost appear, that Ephorus began the career of a public
      orator. Isocrates, however, dissuaded him from that course, for he well knew that oratory was
      not the field on which Ephorus could win laurels, and he exhorted him to devote himself to the
      study and composition of history. As Ephorus was of a more quiet and contemplative disposition
      than Theopompus, Isocrates advised the former to write the early history of Greece, and the
      latter to take up the later and more turbulent periods of history. (Suidas; <bibl n="Cic. de Orat. 3.9">Cic. de Orat. 3.9</bibl>; Phot. <hi rend="ital">Bibl. Cod.</hi> 176,
      260.) Plutarch (<hi rend="ital">de Stoic. Repugn.</hi> 10) relates that Ephorus was among
      those who were accused of having conspired against the life of king <ref target="alexander-the-great-bio-1">Alexander</ref>, but that he successfully refuted the
      charge when he was summoned before the king.</p><div><head>Works</head><p>The above is all that is known respecting the life of Ephorus. The most celebrated of all
       his works, none of which have come down to us, was--</p><div><head>1. <title>History</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἱστορίαι</foreign>)</head><p>A History (<foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἱστορίαι</foreign>) in thirty books. It began with
        the return of the Heracleidae, or, according to Suidas, with the Trojan times, and brought
        the history down to the siege of Perinthus in <date when-custom="-341">B. C. 341</date>. It
        treated of the history of the barbarians as well as of that of the Greeks, and was thus the
        first attempt at writing a universal history that was ever made in Greece. It embraced a
        period of 750 years, and each of the thirty books contained a compact portion of the
        history, which formed a complete whole by itself. Each also contained a special preface and
        might bear a separate title, which either Ephorus himself or some later grammarian seems
        actually to have given to each book, for we know that the fourth book was called <foreign xml:lang="grc">Εὐρώπη</foreign>. (<bibl n="Diod. 4.1">Diod. 4.1</bibl>, <bibl n="Diod. 5.1">5.1</bibl>, <bibl n="Diod. 16.14">16.14</bibl>, <bibl n="Diod. 16.26">26</bibl>; <bibl n="Plb. 5.33">Plb. 5.33</bibl>, <bibl n="Plb. 4.3">4.3</bibl>; <bibl n="Strabo vii.p.302">Strab. vii. p.302</bibl> ; <bibl n="Clem. Al. Strom. i. p. 403">Clem.
         Al. Strom. i. p. 403</bibl>.) Ephorus himself did not live to complete his work. and it was
        finished by his son Demophilus. [<hi rend="smallcaps">DEMOPHILUS</hi>, No. 1.] Diyllus began
        his history at the point at which the work of Ephorus left off. As the work is unfortunately
        lost, and we possess only isolated fragments of it, it is not possible in all cases to
        determine the exact contents of each book; but the two collectors and editors of the
        fragments of Ephorus have done so, as far as it is feasible.</p></div><div><head>Other Works</head><p>Among the other works of Ephorus we may mention--</p><div><head>2. <foreign xml:lang="grc">Περὶ εὑρημάτων</foreign></head><p><foreign xml:lang="grc">Περὶ εὑρημάτων</foreign>, or on inventions, in two books.
         (Suidas; <bibl n="Ath. 4.182">Athen. 4.182</bibl>, viii. p. 352, xiv. p. 637; <bibl n="Strabo xiii.p.622">Strab. xiii. p.622</bibl>.)</p></div><div><head>3. <foreign xml:lang="grc">Σύνταγμα ἐπιχώριον</foreign></head><p><foreign xml:lang="grc">Σύνταγμα ἐπιχώριον</foreign>. (Plut. <hi rend="ital">de
          Vit. et Poes. Homer.</hi> 2.) This work, however, seems to have been nothing but a chapter
         of the fifth book of the <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἱστορίαι</foreign>.</p></div><div><head>4. <foreign xml:lang="grc">Περὶ λέξεως</foreign></head><p><foreign xml:lang="grc">Περὶ λέξεως</foreign>. (Theon, <hi rend="ital">Progymn.</hi>
         2, 22; comp. Cic. <hi rend="ital">Orat.</hi> 57.) This work, too, like a few others which
         are mentioned as separate productions, may have been only a portion of the History. Suidas
         mentions some more works, such as <foreign xml:lang="grc">Περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ
          κακῶν</foreign>, and <foreign xml:lang="grc">Παραδόξων τῶν ἑκασταχοῦ
          Βιβλία</foreign>, of which, however, nothing at all is known, and it is not impossible
         that they may have been excerpta or abridgments of certain portions of the History, which
         were made by late compilers and published tinder his name.</p></div></div></div><div><head>Assessment</head><p>As for the character of Ephorus as an historian, we have ample evidence that, in accordance
       with the simplicity and sincerity of his character, he desired to give a faithful account of
       the events he had to relate. He shewed his good sense in not <pb n="27"/> attempting to write
       a history of the period previous to the return of the Heracleidae; but the history of the
       subsequent time is still greatly intermixed with fables and mythical traditions; and it must
       be acknowledged that his attempts to restore a genuine history by divesting the traditions
       from what he considered mythical or fabulous, were in most cases highly unsuccessful, and
       sometimes even absurd and puerile. He exercised a sort of criticism which is anything but
       that of a real historian (<bibl n="Strabo xii.p.550">Strab. xii. p.550</bibl>), and in some
       instances he forced his authorities to suit his own views. For the early times he seems to
       have preferred the logographers to the epic poets, though the latter, too, were not
       neglected. Even the later portions of his history, where Ephorus had such guides as
       Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, contained such discrepancies from his great
       predecessors, and on points on which they were entitled to credit, that Ephorus, to say the
       least, cannot be regarded as a sound and sate guide in the study of history. The severest
       critic of Ephorus was Timaeus, who never neglected an opportunity of pointing out his
       inaccuracies; several authors also wrote separate books against Ephorus, such as Alexinus,
       the pupil of Eubulides (<bibl n="D. L. 2.106">D. L. 2.106</bibl>, <bibl n="D. L. 2.110">110</bibl>), and Strato the Peripatetic. (<bibl n="D. L. 5.59">D. L. 5.59</bibl>.)
       Porphyrius (ap. Euseb. <hi rend="ital">Praep. Evang.</hi> 10.2) charges Ephorus with constant
       plagiarisns; but this accusation is undoubtedly very much exaggerated, for we not only find
       no traces of plagiarism in the fragments extant, but we frequently find Ephorus disputing the
       statements of his predecessors. (Joseph. <hi rend="ital">c. Apion.</hi> 1.3.) Polybius (<bibl n="Plb. 12.25">12.25</bibl>) praises him for his knowledge of maritime warfare, but adds
       that he was utterly ignorant of the mode of warfare on land; Strabo (<bibl n="Strabo viii.p.332">viii. p.332</bibl>) acknowledges his merits, by saying that he
       separated the historical from the geographical portions of his work; and, in regard to the
       latter, he did not confine himself to mere lists of names, but he introduced investigations
       concerning the origin of nations, their constitutions and manners, and many of the
       geographical fragments which have come down to us contain lively and beautiful descriptions.
        (<bibl n="Plb. 9.1">Plb. 9.1</bibl>; <bibl n="Strabo ix.p.400">Strab. ix. p.400</bibl>,
       &amp;c., x. pp. 465, 479, &amp;c.)</p><p>As regards the style of Ephorus, it is such as might be expected from a disciple of
       Isocrates : it is clear, lucid, and elaborately polished, but at the same time diffuse and
       deficient in power and energy, so that Ephorus is by no means equal to his master. (<bibl n="Plb. 12.28">Plb. 12.28</bibl>; Dionys. <hi rend="ital">de Comp. Verb.</hi> 26 ; Demetr.
        <foreign xml:lang="grc">Περὶ ἑρμην</foreign>. § 68; Dion Chrysost. <hi rend="ital">Orat.</hi> xviii. p. 256, ed. Morel.; <bibl n="Plut. Per. 28">Plut. Per. 28</bibl>;
       Philostr. <hi rend="ital">Vit. Soph.</hi> 1.17; Cic. <hi rend="ital">Orat.</hi> 51; Phot. <hi rend="ital">Bibl.</hi> Cod. 176.)</p></div><div><head>Editions</head><p><bibl>The fragments of the works of Ephorus, the number of which might probably be much
        increased if Diodorus had always mentioned his authorities, were first collected by Meier
        Marx, Carlsruhe, 1815, 8vo.</bibl>, <bibl>who afterwards published some additions in
        Friedemann and Seebode's <hi rend="ital">Miscellan. Crit.</hi> 2.4, p. 754, &amp;c.</bibl><bibl>They are also contained in C. and Th. Müller's <hi rend="ital">Fragm. Historicor.
         Graec.</hi> pp. 234-277, Paris, 1841, 3vo.</bibl> Both editors have prefixed to their
       editions critical dissertations on the life and writings of Ephorus.</p></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>