orations of the kind, called Epideitic by the Greeks, that is, speeches on set subjects delivered for display, such as eulogiums upon states and individuals, and similar subjects. He himself tells us that there was no important city of Greece, in which he had not remained some time, and where he had not obtained great glory by the public exhibition of his oratorical powers. One instance of the kind is recorded. In B.C. 352 he contended at Halicarnassus with Naucrates and his master Isocrates for the prize of oratory, given by Artemisia in honour of her husband, and gained the victory (Gell. x. 18; Plut. Vit dec. Orat. p. 838, b; Euseb. Pruep. Ev. x. 3.) The other places which he visited are not mentioned ; but it appears from his own account, to which we have already referred, that he spent the greater part of the time of his exile in travelling, and in the acquisition of know- ledge. He was able to pursue this mode of life in consequence of his possessing a large fortune, which released him from the necessity of working for his livelihood, like Isocrates, by writing speeches for others, and giving instruction in oratory. (Phot. Cod. 176; Dionys. Ep. ad Cn. Pomp. c. 6 ; Athen. iii. p. 85, b.) On his return to his native country in B.C. 333, Theopompus, from his eloquence, acquirements and wealth, naturally took an important position in the state; but his vehement temper, haughty bearing, and above all his support of the aristocratical party, which he had inherited from his father, soon raised against him a host of enemies. Of these one of the most formidable was the sophist Theocritus, who had also been a pupil of Isocrates, and who likewise attacked Alexander and Aristotle in the bitterest manner. (Strab. xiv. p. 645.) As long as Alexander lived, his enemies dared not take any open proceedings against Theopompus; and even after the death of the Macedonian monarch, he appears to have enjoyed for some years the protection of the royal house. But when he lost this support, he was expelled from Chios as a disturber of the public peace. He fled to Egypt to king Ptolemy. (Phot. l. c.) Ptolemy did not assume the title of king till B.C. 306, and consequently if the expression of Photius is to be taken literally, we may place the arrival of Theopompus in Egypt in B.C. 305, when he was seventy-five years of age. Photius adds that Ptolemy not only refused to receive Theopompus, but would even have put him to death as a dangerous busybody, had not some of his friends interceded for his life. Of his further fate we have no particulars, but he probably died soon afterwards.
The following is a list of the works of Theopompus, none of which have come down to us.
1. (
Greek characters), An Epitome of the History of Herodotus. This work is men-
tioned by Suidas, and in a few passages of the
grammarians; but it has been questioned by Vossius
whether it was really drawn up by Theopompus,
on the ground that it is improbable that a writer of
his attainments and skill in historical composition
would have engaged in such a task. It has therefore been supposed that it was executed by some
later writer, who prefixed to it the well-known
name of Theopompus. It is, however, not impossible that Theopompus may have made the Epitome
at an early period of his life as an exercise in
composition.
2. (Greek characters) or (Greek characters),
A Historic of Greece in twelve books, was a continuation of the history of Thucydides. It commenced in B.C. 411, at the point where the history
of Thucydides breaks off, and embraced a period of
seventeen years down to the battle of Cnidus in
B. c. 394 (Diod. xiii. 42, xiv. 84 ; Marcellin. Vit. Thucyd. 45). Only a few fragments of this work
are preserved.
3. (Greek characters), also called (Greek characters) ((Greek characters)),
The History of Philip, father of Alexander the
Great, in fifty -eight books, from the commencement
of his reign B.C. 360, to his death B.C. 336. (Diod.
xvi. 3; Phot. Cod. 176.) Schweighaeuser supposed
that the Hellenics and the Philippics formed one
work, which was called the History of Theopompus,
but this opinion has been satisfactorily refuted by
Clinton. (Fasti Hell. vol. ii. pp. 374, *375, 2d ed.)
Wherever the History of Theopompus is quoted by
the ancient writers without any distinguishing
name, the Philippics are always meant, as this was
the more important work; when the Grecian
history is meant, it is cited by the title of Hellenics.
Moreover, as Clinton justly remarks, these two
works cannot be said to form one corpus historicum;
they did not proceed in one unbroken series, for
the first work terminated in B.C. 394, and the
second began in B.C. 360, thus leaving a space of
thirty-four years between them, which did not
belong to either. The great length of the Philippics
was not so much owing to the minute account
which it gave of the life and reign of Philip, as to
the numerous digressions of all kinds with which
it abounded. For as it was the original intention
of Theopompus to write a history of the whole
of Greece (comp. Polyb. viii. 13), he eagerly
availed himself of every opportunity that occurred
to give an account of other Greek states. Such a
digression sometimes occupied several books, as we
learn from Diodorus (xvi. 71), who informs us that
the 41st, 42d. and 43d books were devoted to the
history of Sicily. Moreover in these digressions
Theopompus did not confine himself to contemporaneous events, but frequently ascended to fabulous
times. The digressions in fact formed by far the
larger part of the work ; and Philip V. king of
Macedonia, was able, by omitting them and retaining only what belonged to the proper subject, to
reduce the work from fifty-eight books to sixteen.
(Phot. /. c.) Fifty-three of the fifty-eight books
of the original work were extant in the ninth
century of the Christian aera, and were read by
Pliotius, who has preserved an abstract of the
twelfth book. (Phot. l. c.) The five books lost in
the time of Photius were the 6th, 7th, 9th, 20th,
and 30th, and these were, without doubt, the same
five books, which were missing as early as the time
of Diodorus (xvi. 3). The Hellenics probably
perished earlier, as they were less celebrated :
Photius, at least, appears not to have read them.
The two works, the Hellenics and Philippics, contained together, according to Theopompus's own
statement, 150,000 lines (Phot, l.c.) The Philippics are constantly quoted by the ancient writers,
and many fragments of them are preserved.
4. Orationcs, which were chiefly Panegyrics, and
what the Greeks called (Greek characters).
Besides the Panegyric on Mausolus, which has
been already alluded to, Theopompus wrote Panegyrics on Philip and Alexander (Theon, Progymn.
pp. ! 9, 103; Suidas, s. v. (Greek characters)). Of his (Greek characters), one of the most celebrated was
addressed to Alexander on the state of Chios, and
