Abstract This dissertation demonstrates that the ancient source traditions which furnish historians with information concerning Alexander the Great’s subjugation of India are deeply complex and often underappreciated as being such. This is done through a systematic analysis of the various extant and fragmentary traditions surrounding this period. Therefore, the evidence of the authors who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign directly after, or within a generation or so of it, are first discussed. This involves primarily a study of the extant fragments of many of the men who accompanied Alexander himself. This is followed by an investigation into the so-called ‘secondary authors’, or our extant histories of Alexander. The focus here is on evaluating the transmission of detail, bias, and distortion through the various aims, methods and prejudices of these later historians. Following this, there is a discussion of the numismatic evidence relating to the Indian campaign. This involves a study of Alexander’s ‘elephant medallions’ and various coins of the Diadochoi in which the intricacies of our documentary evidence is made evident. Finally, there is included in this dissertation a case study in which the problematic nature of the ancient evidence surrounding this period of the great conqueror’s life is shown. This is comprised of a detailed analysis of the evidence for the battle of the Hydaspes.

Abstract This dissertation demonstrates that the ancient source traditions which furnish historians with information concerning Alexander the Great’s subjugation of India are deeply complex and often underappreciated as being such. This is done through a systematic analysis of the various extant and fragmentary traditions surrounding this period. Therefore, the evidence of the authors who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign directly after, or within a generation or so of it, are first discussed. This involves primarily a study of the extant fragments of many of the men who accompanied Alexander himself. This is followed by an investigation into the so-called ‘secondary authors’, or our extant histories of Alexander. The focus here is on evaluating the transmission of detail, bias, and distortion through the various aims, methods and prejudices of these later historians. Following this, there is a discussion of the numismatic evidence relating to the Indian campaign. This involves a study of Alexander’s ‘elephant medallions’ and various coins of the Diadochoi in which the intricacies of our documentary evidence is made evident. Finally, there is included in this dissertation a case study in which the problematic nature of the ancient evidence surrounding this period of the great conqueror’s life is shown. This is comprised of a detailed analysis of the evidence for the battle of the Hydaspes.

Abstract This dissertation demonstrates that the ancient source traditions which furnish historians with information concerning Alexander the Great’s subjugation of India are deeply complex and often underappreciated as being such. This is done through a systematic analysis of the various extant and fragmentary traditions surrounding this period. Therefore, the evidence of the authors who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign directly after, or within a generation or so of it, are first discussed. This involves primarily a study of the extant fragments of many of the men who accompanied Alexander himself. This is followed by an investigation into the so-called ‘secondary authors’, or our extant histories of Alexander. The focus here is on evaluating the transmission of detail, bias, and distortion through the various aims, methods and prejudices of these later historians. Following this, there is a discussion of the numismatic evidence relating to the Indian campaign. This involves a study of Alexander’s ‘elephant medallions’ and various coins of the Diadochoi in which the intricacies of our documentary evidence is made evident. Finally, there is included in this dissertation a case study in which the problematic nature of the ancient evidence surrounding this period of the great conqueror’s life is shown. This is comprised of a detailed analysis of the evidence for the battle of the Hydaspes.

Abstract This dissertation demonstrates that the ancient source traditions which furnish historians with information concerning Alexander the Great’s subjugation of India are deeply complex and often underappreciated as being such. This is done through a systematic analysis of the various extant and fragmentary traditions surrounding this period. Therefore, the evidence of the authors who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign directly after, or within a generation or so of it, are first discussed. This involves primarily a study of the extant fragments of many of the men who accompanied Alexander himself. This is followed by an investigation into the so-called ‘secondary authors’, or our extant histories of Alexander. The focus here is on evaluating the transmission of detail, bias, and distortion through the various aims, methods and prejudices of these later historians. Following this, there is a discussion of the numismatic evidence relating to the Indian campaign. This involves a study of Alexander’s ‘elephant medallions’ and various coins of the Diadochoi in which the intricacies of our documentary evidence is made evident. Finally, there is included in this dissertation a case study in which the problematic nature of the ancient evidence surrounding this period of the great conqueror’s life is shown. This is comprised of a detailed analysis of the evidence for the battle of the Hydaspes.

<p>This dissertation interrogates existing scholarly paradigms regarding aetiology in the Histories of Herodotus in order to open up new avenues to approach a complex and varied topic. Since aetiology has mostly been treated as the study of cause and effect in the Histories, this work expands the purview of aetiology to include Herodotus’ explanations of origins more generally. The overarching goal in examining the methodological principles of Herodotean aetiology is to show the extent to which they resonate across the Histories according to their initial development in the proem, especially in those places that seem to deviate from the work’s driving force (i.e. the Persian Wars). Though the focus is on correlating the principles espoused in the proem with their deployment in Herodotus’ ethnographies and other seemingly divergent portions of his work, the dissertation also demonstrates the influence of these principles on some of the more “historical” aspects of the Histories where the struggle between Greeks and barbarians is concerned. The upshot is to make a novel case not only for the programmatic significance of the proem, but also for the cohesion of Herodotean methodology from cover to cover, a perennial concern for scholars of Greek history and historiography.</p><p>Chapter One illustrates how the proem to the Histories (1.1.0-1.5.3) prefigures Herodotus’ engagement with aetiological discussions throughout the Histories. Chapter Two indicates how the reading of the proem laid out in Chapter One allows for Herodotus’ deployment of aetiology in the Egyptian logos (especially where the pharaoh Psammetichus’ investigation of the origins of Egyptian language, nature, and custom are concerned) to be viewed within the methodological continuum of the Histories at large. Chapter Three connects Herodotus’ programmatic interest in the origins of erga (i.e. “works” or “achievements” manifested as monuments and deeds of abstract and concrete sorts) with the patterns addressed in Chapters One and Two. Chapter Four examines aetiological narratives in the Scythian logos and argues through them that this logos is as integral to the Histories as the analogous Egyptian logos studied in Chapter Two. Chapter Five demonstrates how the aetiologies associated with the Greeks’ collaboration with the Persians (i.e. medism) in the lead-up to the battle of Thermopylae recapitulate programmatic patterns isolated in previous chapters and thereby extend the methodological continuum of the Histories beyond the “ethnographic” logoi to some of the most representative “historical” logoi of Herodotus’ work. Chapter Six concludes the dissertation and makes one final case for methodological cohesion by showing the inextricability of the end of the Histories from its beginning.</p> / Dissertation

Cette thèse s’intéresse aux historiens classicisants de langue grecque de l’Antiquité tardive. Elle développe une analyse sociale de ces historiens et de leurs écrits. Son objectif principal est de souligner les interactions entre l’écriture de l’histoire, vu comme une pratique sociale, et la société romaine tardo-antique. La première partie dresse la biographie des historiens, d’Eunape de Sardes à Théophylacte Simocatta. Le profil social de ces historiens y est défini, et une attention particulière est portée aux liens entre activité littéraire et carrière professionnelle. La seconde partie étudie plus spécifiquement les élites provinciales tardo-antiques, groupe auquel appartiennent en majorité nos historiens. Elle explique pourquoi pratiquement tous les historiens étaient des avocats et comment ces derniers en venaient à écrire de l’histoire. La dernière partie analyse les fondements sociaux de l’histoire. Elle souligne ce que l’histoire devait à l’éducation tardo-antique et montre comment les vertus de l’historien reflétaient les vertus sociales attendues d’un membre de l’élite tardo-antique. / The main objective of this dissertation is to offer a social analysis of the classicizing historians of late antiquity. It aims to underline the interactions between history-writing and society. The first part presents the biographies of late antique classicising historians, from Eunapius of Sardis to Theophylact Simocatta. It describes the social profile of those historians, while insisting on the interactions between professional career and literary endeavours. The second part explains why most historians were lawyers and analyzes the place history-writing occupies in their social life. The third part deals with the social foundations of history writing. It focuses on the role of rhetorical education in the formation of future historians and shows how the virtues of the historian mirrored the social virtues of late antique elites.

Cette thèse a comme objet d'étudier la nature de l'oeuvre perdue d'Hellanicos de Lesbos et de cerner le rôle que ce dernier a joué dans le développement de l'historiographie grecque classique. Le premier chapitre constitue un examen des données (état du corpus, problèmes liés aux corpus fragmentaires, problème posé par les titres) et propose des pistes d'interprétation. Le deuxième chapitre s'intéresse à un thème récurrent dans l'oeuvre d'Hellanicos, celui du "prôtos heurétés", et étudie cette notion dans les fragments. Le troisième chapitre enfin, étudie le rapport intertextuel problématique entre Hellanicos et l'historien athénien Thucydide. Ce travail comporte le texte grec des fragments accompagné d'une traduction française, qui sont donnés dans un deuxième volume. / The object of this dissertation is the re-evaluation of Hellanicos of Lesbos' fragments so as to determine the nature of his lost work and understand what role he played in the development of Ancient Greek historiography. The first chapter re-examines the available data (the corpus itself, problems pertaining to fragmentary texts as well as the problem of the titles under which the works are transmitted) while proposing possible interpretations. The second chapter focuses on one particular aspect of Hellanicos' work, that of the prôtos heurétés. Finally, the third chapter deals with the problematic intertextual relationship between Hellanicos and the Athenian historian Thucydides. The Ancient Greek text as well as the translation in French are given in a separate volume.

Before 1891, it was commonly accepted that the most important source for the rule of the Four Hundred in Athens in 411 BCE was Thucydides' description. The situation changed thanks to the publication of the Aristotelian treatise On the Athenian Constitution, whose version of events differed markedly from Thucydides' one. There followed many attempts at determining which of the two versions was most reliable, or at combining the two versions. These controversies are the focal point of this thesis, but its ambitions are not limited to them: its ambition is also to reconstruct the chronology of the rule of the Four Hundred as precisely as is possible in context of the Peloponnesian war; and to formulate the limitations that are imposed on us by the character of sources at our disposal. Continuity of the coup with earlier developments and its impact on subsequent events are dealt with more briefly.