Herodian on Greek and Roman Failings Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen Ancient historians resemble limited companies in that their market values fluctuate for reasons that are not always obvious. Long before the present financial crisis, that of Herodian was on a downward trend. Once his rating had been excellent: Photios, writing in the ninth century, thought that Herodian was ‘inferior to few in the good qualities of an historian’έ 1 In the sixteenth century, Herodian was being read and translated 2 and as late as the eighteenth, Edward Gibbon paid him the equivocal compliment of being ‘an elegant historian’. 3 By the second half of the twentieth century, however, Herodian’ὅ History from the time of Marcus Aurelius hἳἶ ἵὁmἷ tὁ ἴἷ ὄἷἵkὁὀἷἶ ἳ juὀk ἳὅὅἷt, ‘a farrago of clichés’ ... ‘stock formulae learned at school’ ... ‘quite unlike the brief, factual account of Dio’ 4 έέέ ‘mἷhὄ ἷiὀἷ Aὄt hiὅtὁὄiὅἵhἷὀ Rὁmἳὀὅ ἳlὅ ἷiὀ ύἷὅἵhiἵhtὅwἷὄk’έ 5 The author himself was judged to be an indifferent stylist, a careless historian, an uninspired compiler of banalities, a Mann ohne Eigenschaften. Within the last two decades, Herodiaὀ’ὅ ὄἷputἳtiὁὀ hἳὅ impὄὁvἷἶ ὅὁmἷwhἳt, ἴut hἷ iὅ ὅtill lἳὄgἷly ἵὁὀὅiἶἷὄἷἶ ἳ ‘hiὅtὁὄiἳὀ ὁf lἳὅt ὄἷὅὁὄt’ tὁ ἴἷ ἵὁὀὅultἷἶ ὁὀly whἷὄἷ ἳll ὁthἷὄ sources fall silent. While Herodian is not entirely without merits as a historiographer, he was obviously no Thucydides, nor a Tacitus, not even a Dio Cassius. The purpose of this paper, then, is not to rehabilitate Herodian as an historian but to examine him from the perspective of the Double Vision conference, that is, as a Greek intellectual living and writing within the Roman Empire. For Herodian was Greek, at least in the Roman sense of the word: a person hailing from one of the Greek-speaking eastern provinces of the Empire. He wrote in Greek; he was well versed in Greek literature; he took Greek historians as his models. But he was also Roman in 1 Photios, Bibl. 99. 2 Zimmermann 1999b: 120-1. 3 Gibbon 1776/1894, vol. 1: 100. 4 Bird 1976. 5 Alföldy 1971a: 431.