historyВЕСТНИК РГГУ. Серия «Литературоведение. Языкознание. Культурология»RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series2073-6355RSUH10.28995/2686-7249-2024-4-12-29history-1580Research ArticleКУЛЬТУРНО-ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯSTUDIES IN CULTURAL HISTORYНесколько штрихов к характеристике мировоззрения Гелланика ЛесбосскогоSome features to characterization of Hellanicus of Lesbos’ outlookСуриковИ. Е.SurikovI. E.

Игорь Е. Суриков, доктор исторических наук, профессор

119334, Москва, Ленинский пр., д. 32а;

125047, Москва, Миусская пл., д. 6

Igor E. Surikov, Dr. of Sci. (History), professor

32a, Leninskiy Av., Moscow, 119334;

6, Miusskaya Sq., Moscow, 125047

isurikov@mail.ruИнститут всеобщей истории РАН; Российский государственный гуманитарный университетРоссияInstitute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russian State University for the HumanitiesRussian Federation202427062024041229Copyright © Суриков И.Е., 20242024Суриков И.Е.Surikov I.E.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://history.rsuh.ru/jour/article/view/1580

Гелланик Лесбосский был одним из виднейших греческих историков V в. до н. э. Его главный вклад в развитие историописания связан с тщательной разработкой им в трудах последнего периода жизни проблем хронологии, которой предшествующие авторы не уделяли достаточного внимания. Что касается мировоззрения Гелланика, в религиозной сфере он отнюдь не был атеистом или скептиком, однако его верования уже сопрягались с определенным рационалистическим критицизмом. Для суждения о политических взглядах историка существуют только весьма скудные и притом в основном косвенные данные. Если исходить из них, его можно назвать скорее противником, чем сторонником радикальной демократии того типа, какая существовала в Афинах в период Пелопоннесской войны, когда Гелланик писал «Аттиду» – трактат по афинской истории. Не исключено даже, что он добровольно или вынужденно покинул родной город Митилену, когда в нем олигархический строй сменился демократическим. Статья рассматривает систему представлений Гелланика Лесбосского на основе сохранившегося корпуса текстов.

Hellanicus of Lesbos was one of major Greek historians of the 5th century B.C. His main contribution to the development of historical writing is connected with his scrupulous elaboration of chronology issues in works of the last period of his life which was not a subject of sufficient attention for the preceding authors. As to Hellanicus’ outlook, in religious sphere he was by no means an atheist or skeptic, but his beliefs were already accompanied by a certain degree of rationalist criticism. For a judgment on his political views, there are only very scanty and, moreover, mostly indirect data. If we proceed from them, the historian may be characterized as an opponent rather than supporter of radical democracy of the type, which existed in Athens during the Peloponnesian War, when Hellanicus was writing his Atthis, a treatise on Athenian history. It could even be that he voluntarily or under compulsion left his home town of Mytilene, when an oligarchic regime there was replaced by a democratic one. The article analyzes the system of views of Hellanicus of Lesbos on the basis of the preserved corpus of texts.

Гелланик Лесбосскийклассическая ГрецияисториописаниехронологиядемократияолигархияАфинымифыГеродотHellanicus of LesbosClassical Greecehistorical writingchronologydemocracyoligarchyAthensmythsHerodotusИсследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда № 23-28-00024, https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00024/This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project № 23-28-00024, https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00024/ReferencesГаспаров 1997 – Гаспаров М.Л. Избранные труды: В 3 т. Т. 1: О поэтах. М.: Языки славянских культур, 1997. 664 с.Badian, E. (1994), “Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon. A study in some subtle silences” in Hornblower, S., ed., Greek Historiography, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 107–130.Грантовский 1998 – Грантовский Э.А. Иран и иранцы до Ахеменидов: Основные проблемы. Вопросы хронологии. М.: Восточная литература, 1998. 343 с.Boedeker, D. (2021), “End of the Histories”, in Baron, C., ed., The Herodotus encyclopedia. Vol. 2 (E–O), Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, USA, pp. 503–505.Струве 1952 – Струве В.В. Хронология VI в. до н. э. в труде Геродота // Вестник древней истории. 1952. № 2 (40). С. 60–78.Bradeen, D. (1964), “The fifth-century Archon list”, Hesperia, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 187–208.Суриков 2011 – Суриков И.Е. Очерки об историописании в классической Греции. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2011. 504 с.Braund, D. (2000), “Friends and foes. Monarchs and monarchy in fifth-century Athenian democracy”, in Brock, R. and Hodkinson, S., eds., Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of political organization and community in Ancient Greece, Oxford University Press,Oxford, UK, pp. 103–118.Суриков 2021а – Суриков И.Е. К хронологии жизни и творчества историка Гелланика // Вестник древней истории. 2021. Т. 81. № 4. С. 837–862.Debnar, P.A. (2000), “Diodotus’ paradox and the Mytilene debate (Thucydides 3. 37–49)”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Bd. 143, Ht. 2, SS. 161–178.Суриков 2021б – Суриков И.Е. Гелланик и Афины // Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры. 2021. № 3 (73). С. 176–196.Develin, R. (2003), Athenian officials 684–321 B.C., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, XIX, 556 pp.Суриков 2022 – Суриков И.Е. Геродот. М.: Академический проект, 2022. 439 с.Farrar, C. (1994), The Origins of democratic thinking. The invention of politics in classical Athens, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Суриков 2023 – Суриков И.Е. Будущее Геродота – настоящее Фукидида – прошлое Ксенофонта (ΑΡΧΗ, ΗΓΕΜΟΝΙΑ и империалистические тенденции в классической Греции глазами трех великих историков) // Античный мир и археология. 2023. Вып. 21. С. 31–51.Fornara, C.W. (2010), “The aftermath of the Mytilenian revolt”, Historia, Bd. 59, Ht. 2, SS. 129–142.Фролов 1981 – Фролов Э.Д. Факел Прометея: Очерки античной общественной мысли. Л.: Изд-во Ленинградского ун-та, 1981. 160 с.Forsdyke, J. (1957), Greece before Homer. Ancient chronology and mythology, Norton, New York, USA, 176 pp.Badian 1994 – Badian E. Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon. A study in some subtle silences // Greek Historiography / Ed. by. S. Hornblower. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. P. 107–130.Frolov, E.D. (1981), Fakel Prometeya: Ocherki antichnoi obshchestvenoi mysli [The torch of Prometheus, Essays on ancient social thought], Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta, Leningrad, USSR.Boedeker 2021 – Boedeker D. End of the Histories // The Herodotus encyclopedia. Vol. 2: E–O / Ed. by C. Baron. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2021. P. 503–505.Gasparov, M.L. (1997), Izbrannye trudy. T. 1: O poetakh [Selected works, vol. 1: On poets], Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, Moscow, Russia.Bradeen 1964 – Bradeen D. The fifth-century Archon list // Hesperia. 1964. Vol. 32. No. 2. P. 187–208.Gehrke, H.-J. (1985), Stasis. Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Beck, München, Germany.Braund 2000 – Braund D. Friends and foes. Monarchs and monarchy in fifth-century Athenian democracy // Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of political organization and community in Ancient Greece / Ed. by R. Brock, S. Hodkinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. P. 103–118.Grantovskii, E.A. (1998), Iran i irantsy do Akhemenidov: Osnovnye problemy. Voprosy khronologii [Iran and Iranians before the Achaemenids. Major controversies and chronological issues], Vostochnaya literatura, Moscow, Russia.Debnar 2000 – Debnar P.A. Diodotus’ paradox and the Mytilene debate (Thucydides 3. 37–49) // Rheinisches Museum für Philologie. 2000. Bd. 143. Ht. 2. S. 161–178.Hansen, M.H., Spenger, N., Williams, H. (2004), “Lesbos”, in Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H., eds., An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 1018–1032.Develin 2003 – Develin R. Athenian officials 684–321 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. XIX, 556 p.Harding, P. (1994), Androtion and the Atthis, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Farrar 1994 – Farrar C. The Origins of democratic thinking. The invention of politics in classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. X, 301 p.Harris, E.M. (2013), “How to address the Athenian assembly. Rhetoric and political tactics in the debate about Mytilene (Thuc. 3. 37–50)”, Classical Quarterly, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 94–109.Fornara 2010 – Fornara C.W. The aftermath of the Mytilenian revolt // Historia. 2010. Bd. 59. Ht. 2. S. 129–142.Irwin, E. (2021), “Date of composition”, in Baron, C. (ed.), The Herodotus encyclopedia. Vol. 1 (A–D), Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, USA, pp. 409–412.Forsdyke 1957 – Forsdyke J. Greece before Homer. Ancient chronology and mythology. N.Y.: Norton, 1957. 176 p.Jacoby, F. (1949), Atthis. The local chronicles of Ancient Athens, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Gehrke 1985 – Gehrke H.-J. Stasis. Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. München: Beck, 1985. 449 S.Möller, A. (2007), “The beginnings of chronography. Hellanicus’ Hiereiai”, in Luraghi, N., ed., The historian’s craft in the age of Herodotus, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 241–262.Hansen, Spenger, Williams 2004 – Hansen M.H., Spenger N., Williams H. Lesbos // An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation / Ed. by M.H. Hansen, T.H. Nielsen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. P. 1018–1032.Momigliano, A. (1987), “The historians of the classical world and their audience. Some suggestions”, Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa. Classe di lettere e filosofia, vol. 8, fasc. 1, pp. 59–75.Harding 1994 – Harding P. Androtion and the Atthis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. 236 p.Momigliano, A. (1990), The classical foundations of modern historiography, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.Harris 2013 – Harris E.M. How to address the Athenian assembly. Rhetoric and political tactics in the debate about Mytilene (Thuc. 3. 37–50) // Classical Quarterly. 2013. Vol. 63. No. 1. P. 94–109.Nicolai, R. (2006), “Thucydides continued”, in Rengakos, A. and Tsakmakis, A., eds., Brill’s companion to Thucydides, Brill, Leiden, Netherlands, pp. 693–719.Irwin 2021 – Irwin E. Date of composition // The Herodotus encyclopedia. Vol. 1: A–D / Ed. by C. Baron. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2021. P. 409–412.Ober, J. (1998), Political dissent in democratic Athens. Intellectual critics of popular rule, Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.Jacoby 1949 – Jacoby F. Atthis. The local chronicles of Ancient Athens. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949. 431 p.Osborne, R. (2003), “Changing the discourse”, in Morgan, K.A., ed., Popular tyranny. Sovereignty and its discontents in Ancient Greece, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, pp. 251–272.Möller 2007 – Möller A. The beginnings of chronography. Hellanicus’ Hiereiai // The historian’s craft in the age of Herodotus / Ed. by N. Luraghi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. P. 241–262.Pearson, L. (1975), Early Ionian historians, Greenwood Press, Westport, USA.Momigliano 1987 – Momigliano A. The historians of the classical world and their audience. Some suggestions // Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa. Classe di lettere e filosofia. 1987. Vol. 8. Fasc. 1. P. 59–75.Prakken, D.W. (1943), Studies in Greek genealogical chronology, Lancaster Press, Lancaster, UK.Momigliano 1990 – Momigliano A. The classical foundations of modern historiography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. XIV, 162 p.Rhodes, P.J. (2003), “Herodotean chronology revisited”, in Derow, P. and Parker, R., eds., Herodotus and his world. Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 58–72.Nicolai 2006 – Nicolai R. 2006: Thucydides continued // Brill’s companion to Thucydides / Ed. by A. Rengakos, A. Tsakmakis. Leiden: Brill, 2006. P. 693–719.Rubinstein, L. (2004), “Aiolis and South-Western Mysia”, in Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H., eds., An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 1033–1052.Ober 1998 – Ober J. Political dissent in democratic Athens. Intellectual critics of popular rule. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. XV, 417 p.Schmitz, T. (2010), “The Mytilene debate in Thucydides”, in Pausch, D., ed., Stimmen der Geschichte: Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie, De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, New York, USA, SS. 45–65.Osborne 2003 – Osborne R. Changing the discourse // Popular tyranny. Sovereignty and its discontents in Ancient Greece / Ed. by K.A. Morgan. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003. P. 251–272.Struve, V.V. (1952), “The chronology of the 6th century B.C. in Herodotus’ work” Vestnik drevnei istorii, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 60–78.Pearson 1975 – Pearson L. Early Ionian historians. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1975. VIII, 240 p.Surikov, I.E. (2011), Ocherki ob istoriopisanii v klassicheskoi Gretsii [Studies on historical writing in Classical Greece], Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, Moscow, Russia.Prakken 1943 – Prakken D.W. Studies in Greek genealogical chronology. Lancaster: Lancaster Press, 1943. 113 p.Surikov, I.E. (2013), “Herodotus and the Philaids”, in Mehl, A., Makhlayuk, A.V. and Gabelko, O., eds., Ruthenia Classica Aetatis Novae. A collection of works by Russian scholars in Ancient Greek and Roman history, Steiner, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 45–70.Rhodes 2003 – Rhodes P.J. Herodotean chronology revisited // Herodotus and his world. Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest / Ed. by P. Derow, R. Parker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. P. 58–72.Surikov, I.E. (2021), “On the chronology of the life and work of the historian Hellanicus”, Vestnik drevnei istorii, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 837–862.Rubinstein 2004 – Rubinstein L. Aiolis and South-Western Mysia // An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation / Ed. by M.H. Hansen, T.H. Nielsen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. P. 1033–1052.Surikov, I.E. (2021), “Hellanicus and Athens”, Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 176–196.Schmitz 2010 – Schmitz T. The Mytilene debate in Thucydides // Stimmen der Geschichte: Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie / Hg. von D. Pausch. Berlin; N.Y.: De Gruyter, 2010. S. 45–65.Surikov, I.E. (2023), “Herodotus’ past – Thucydides’ present – Xenophon’s future (ΑΡΧΗ, ΗΓΕΜΟΝΙΑ and imperialist tendencies in Classical Greece through the eyes of three great historians), Antichnyi mir i arkheologia, no. 21, pp. 31–51.Surikov 2013 – Surikov I.E. Herodotus and the Philaids // Ruthenia Classica Aetatis Novae. A collection of works by Russian scholars in Ancient Greek and Roman history / Ed. by A. Mehl, A.V. Makhlayuk, O. Gabelko. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2013. P. 45–70.Surikov, I.E. (2022), Gerodot [Herodotus], Akademicheskii proekt, Moscow, Russia.Vasilev 2016 – Vasilev M.I. The date of Herodotus’ visit to Macedonia // Ancient West and East. 2016. Vol. 15. P. 31–51.Vasilev, M.I. (2016) “The date of Herodotus’ visit to Macedonia”, Ancient West and East, vol. 15, pp. 31–51.Vattuone, 2007 – Vattuone R. Western Greek historiography // A companion to Greek and Roman historiography. Vol. 1 / Ed. by J. Marincola. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. P. 189–199.Vattuone, R. (2007), “Western Greek historiography” in Marincola, J., ed., A companion to Greek and Roman historiography, vol. 1, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 189–199.Winiarczyk 2016 – Winiarczyk M. Diagoras of Melos. A contribution to the history of ancient atheism. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2016. XVIII, 224 p.Winiarczyk, M. (2016), Diagoras of Melos. A contribution to the history of ancient athe- ism, De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, Boston, USA.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.