Polybius and his World. Essays in Memory of F.W. Walbank.pdf

Title Pages

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico %28UNAM%29; date: 27 March 2014

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

PolybiusandhisWorld:EssaysinMemoryofF.W.WalbankBruceGibsonandThomasHarrison

Printpublicationdate:2013PrintISBN-13:9780199608409PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:May2013DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.001.0001

TitlePages

PolybiusandhisworldEssaysinmemoryofF.W.WalbankPolybiusandhisWorld

(p.iv)

GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,UnitedKingdom

OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.ItfurtherstheUniversity'sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,andeducationbypublishingworldwide.OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries

Title Pages

©OxfordUniversityPress2013

Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted

FirstEditionpublishedin2013

Impression:1

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographicsrightsorganization.EnquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove

Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherformandyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataDataavailable

ISBN 978–0–19–960840–9

PrintedinGreatBritainbyMPGBooksGroup,BodminandKing’sLynn

Accessbroughttoyouby: UniversidadNacional

AutonomadeMexico%28UNAM%29

Title Pages

[UNTITLED]

Sleeptothenoiseofrunningwater

To-morrowtobecrossed,howeverdeep;

ThisisnoriverofthedeadorLethe,

To-nightwesleep

OnthebanksoftheRubicon—thedieiscast;

Therewillbetimetoaudit

Theaccountslater,therewillbesunlightlater

Andtheequationwillcomeoutatlast.

FromLouisMacNeice,

[UNTITLED]

AutumnJournalXXIV(1938–9)

Acknowledgements

(p.vi) Acknowledgements

The2007conferencewassupportedgenerouslybytheBritishAcademyaswellasbytheSchoolofArchaeology,ClassicsandEgyptologyoftheUniversityofLiverpool.DrGeorginaMuskettorganizedallaspectsoftheconferencewithgreatefficiency.WearealsogratefultoHilaryO’SheaandhercolleaguesatOxfordUniversityPressfortheircontinuingassistance,andtotheanonymousreadersfortheirreports.Chapter14waspreviouslypublishedinJ.Pastor,M.Stean,andM.Mor(eds.),FlaviusJosephus:InterpretationandHistory,SupplementstotheJournalfortheStudyofJudaism,146(Leiden,2011),149–62,andisprintedherebykindpermissionofBrill.Finally,weshouldliketoexpressourthankstooforthesupportandadviceofDorothyThompson,MitziWalbank,andChristopherWalbank.

Liverpool

March2011

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

(p.ix) Abbreviations

CAHCambridgeAncientHistoryCILCorpusInscriptionumLatinarum(Berlin,1853–)FGrHistF.Jacobyetal.,FragmentedergriechischenHistoriker(BerlinandLeiden,1923–)FHGC.MüllerandT.Müller,Fragmentahistoricorumgraecorum(Paris,1841–70)FRHH.BeckandU.Walter,DieFrühenRömischenHistoriker(Darmstadt,2001–)FWWFrankWilliamWalbankGGMC.Müller,GeographiciGraeciMinores(Paris,1855–61)GlockmanandHelmsG.GlockmanandH.Helms,PolybiosLexicon,Band2.1(Berlin,1998).

Abbreviations

HCPF.W.Walbank,AHistoricalCommentaryonPolybius(Oxford,1957–79)IAGL.Moretti,Inscrizioniagonistichegreche(Rome,1953)IGInscriptionesGraecae(Berlin,1873)I.LindosC.Blinkenberg,Lindos:Fouillesdel’acropole1902–1914,II.Inscriptions(BerlinandCopenhagen,1941)ILSH.Dessau,InscriptionesLatinaeSelectae(Berlin,1892–1916)Inscr.It.InscriptionesItaliaeI.MagnesiaO.Kern,DieInschriftenvonMagnesiaamMaeander(Berlin,1900)I.PeraiaW.Blümel,DieInschriftenderRhodischenPeraia(Bonn,1991)I.PéréeA.Bresson(ed.),RecueildesinscriptionsdelaPéréerhodienne(Besançon,1991)I.PrieneF.HillervonGaertringen,InschriftenvonPriene(Berlin,1906)ISEL.Moretti,Iscrizionistoricheellenistiche(Florence,1967–76).K-AR.KasselandC.Austin(eds.),PoetaeComiciGraeci(Oxford,1983–)LSJH.G.LiddellandR.Scott,AGreek—EnglishLexicon,9thedn.rev.byH.S.Jones(Oxford,1940)LSSF.Sokolowski,Loissacréesdescitésgrecques.Supplément(Paris,1962)MauersbergerA.Mauersberger,Polybios-Lexicon(1956–75);2ndedn.rev.byC.-F.Collatz,M.Gützlaf,andH.Helms(Berlin,2000–2004)(p.x)MRRT.R.S.Broughton,MagistratesoftheRomanRepublic(NewYork,1951–2;suppl.1986)NSA.Maiuri,NuovasillogeepigraficadiRodieCos(Florence,1925)P.KölnB.Krameretal.,PapyriKöln(Opladen,1976–)P.Mil.Vogl.A.Voglianoetal.,PapiridellaR.UniversitàdiMilano(Milan,1937–2001)P.Schubart

Abbreviations

W.Schubart,GriechischeliterarischePapyri(Berlin,1950)SCAUniversityofLiverpoolSpecialCollectionsandArchivesSEGSupplementumEpigraphicumGraecum(Leiden,1923–)SERG.PuglieseCarratelli,Supplementoepigraficorodio,AnnuariodellaScuolaArcheologicadiAtene,n.s.14–16(1952–4),247–316StaatsverträgeH.BengtsonandH.H.Schmitt,DieStaatsverträgedesAltertums(Munich,1962–75)Syll.3W.Dittenberger,SyllogeInscriptionumGraecarum,3rdedn.,4vols.(Leipzig,1915–24)T.Cam.M.SegreandG.PuglieseCarratelli,TituliCamirenses,AnnuariodellaScuolaArcheologicadiAtene,n.s.11–13(1949–51),141–318TGrFB.Snelletal.,TragicorumGraecorumFragmenta(Göttingen,1971–2004)TLGThesaurusLinguaeGraecaeTLLThesaurusLinguaeLatinae(Munich,1900–)

AbbreviationsforancientauthorsfollowLiddelandScott’sLexiconforGreekauthorsandtheOxfordLatinDictionaryforLatinauthors,withthefollowingexceptions:

Aesch.AeschylusDem.DemosthenesDioCassiusDioDiod.DiodorusSiculusDion.Hal.A.R.DionysusofHalicarnassus,AntiquitatesRomanaeEur.EuripidesJos.JosephusPlb.PolybiusPlut.Plutarch

Abbreviations

Soph.SophoclesStrab.StraboThuc.ThucydidesXen.Xenophon

List of Illustrations

(p.xi) ListofIllustrations

F.W.Walbank,Bassae(1936)6Period1:TheAgeoftheTelchines287Period2:TheAgeoftheHeliadae(sonsof‘Helios’)289Period3:TheAgeoftheArchegetae(‘Founders’)292Period4:TheAgeoftheHeroes295

List of Illustrations

Notes on Contributors

(p.xii) NotesonContributors

HansBeckisProfessorofAncientHistory,JohnMacNaughtonChairofClassics,andDirectorofClassicalStudiesatMcGillUniversityinMontreal.SomeofhismostrecentbooksincludeKarriereundHierarchie(2005)andatwo-volumeeditionoftheearlyRomanhistorians(2001,2004).Heistheco-editorof(amongothervolumes)ResPublica:HoldingHighOfficeintheRomanRepublic(2011).JohnBriscoewasReaderinLatinintheUniversityofManchesterfrom1982to1996andisnowanHonoraryResearchFellow.HeistheauthoroffourvolumesofcommentaryonLivy,coveringbooks31−45(1973,1981,2008,2012),aswellascriticaleditionsofthosebooks(1986,1991),andofValeriusMaximus(1998).Heisamemberoftheteamproducinganewedition,withEnglishtranslationandcommentary,ofthefragmentsoftheotherwiselostRomanhistorians.CraigeChampionisAssociateProfessorofAncientHistoryandClassicsintheMaxwellSchool

ofCitizenshipandPublicAffairsatSyracuseUniversity.HeistheauthorofCulturalPoliticsinPolybius’sHistories(2004),editorofRomanImperialism:ReadingsandSources(2004),GeneralEditoroftheWiley-BlackwellEncyclopediaofAncientHistory(2012),andco-editor(withA.M.Eckstein)oftheLandmarkeditionoftheHistoriesofPolybius(forthcoming).J.K.DavieswasFrankWalbank’ssuccessorasRathboneProfessorofAncientHistoryandClassicalArchaeologyattheUniversityofLiverpoolfrom1977to2003.HeistheauthorofAthenianPropertiedFamilies600–300BC(1971),DemocracyandClassicalGreece(1978),andWealthandthePowerofWealthinClassicalAthens(1981).Hehasjointlyeditedsixfurthervolumes,mostrecentlyTheEconomiesofHellenisticsocieties,ThirdtoFirstCenturiesBC(2011),andhasbeenEditoroftheJournalofHellenicStudiesandArchaeologicalReports.BorisDreyerisProfessorofAncientHistoryattheUniversityofErlangen-Nürnberg.HeistheauthorofUntersuchungenzurGeschichteAthensinspätklassischerZeit(1999),StädtischePolitikunterdenAttalidenundimKonfliktzwischenAristonikosundRom(2003),InnenpolitikderRömischenRepublik(2006),DierömischeNobilitätsherrschaftundAntiochosIII.(2007),AlsdieRömerfrechgeworden:Varus,HermannunddieKatastropheimTeutoburgerWald(2008),ArminiusundderUntergangdesVarus—WarumdieGermanenkeineRömerwurden(2009),andPolybios:LebenundWerkimBanneRoms(2011).Hehasalsoco-editedLokaleElitenundhellenistischeKönige:Zwischen(p.xiii) KooperationundKonfrontation(2011)andForschungenzurAltenGeschichte.KleineSchriftenvonGustavAdolfLehmann(2011).AndrewErskineisProfessorofAncientHistoryattheUniversityofEdinburgh.HeistheauthorofTheHellenisticStoa:PoliticalThoughtandAction(1990),TroybetweenGreeceandRome:LocalTraditionandImperialPower(2001),andRomanImperialism(2010).HeisalsotheeditorofanumberofvolumesincludingACompaniontotheHellenisticWorld(2003),ACompaniontoAncientHistory(2009),andmostrecently(withLloydLlewellyn-Jones)CreatingaHellenisticWorld(2011),andisaGeneralEditoroftheWiley–BlackwellEncyclopediaofAncientHistory(2012).BruceGibsonisProfessorofLatinattheUniversityofLiverpool.HispublicationsincludeStatius,Silvae5.EditedwithIntroduction,TranslationandCommentary(2006)andPlinytheYoungerinLateAntiquity(Arethusa,forthcoming,co-editedwithRogerRees).ErichS.GruenisGladysRehardWoodProfessorofHistoryandClassics,EmeritusattheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.AmonghispublicationsareTheLastGenerationoftheRomanRepublic(1974),TheHellenisticWorldandtheComingofRome(1984),CultureandNationalIdentityinRepublicanRome

(1992),HeritageandHellenism:TheReinventionofJewishTradition(1998),Diaspora:JewsamidstGreeksandRomans(2002),andRethinkingtheOtherinAntiquity(2011).EditedvolumesincludeImagesandIdeologies:Self-DefinitionintheHellenisticWorld(1993),HellenisticConstructs:EssaysinHistory,Culture,andHistoriography(1997),CulturalBorrowingsandEthnicAppropriationsinAntiquity(2005),andCulturalIdentityintheAncientMediterranean(2011).ThomasHarrisonisRathboneProfessorofAncientHistoryandClassicalArchaeologyattheUniversityofLiverpool.HeistheauthorofDivinityandHistory.TheReligionofHerodotus(2000),TheEmptinessofAsia:Aeschylus’PersiansandtheHistoryoftheFifthCentury(2000),andWritingAncientPersia(2011),andtheeditorof(amongothervolumes)GreeksandBarbarians(2002).JohnHendersonwasProfessorofClassicsattheUniversityofCambridgeandisaLifeFellowofKing’sCollege.Hehaspublishedacrosstherangeofclassicaltopics,includingAPlautusReader(2009),TheMedievalWorldofIsidoreofSeville(2007),‘OxfordReds’(2006),TheTriumphofArtatThorvaldsensMuseum(2005),andHORTVS:TheRomanBookofGardening(2004).JohnMarincolaisLeonGoldenProfessorofClassicsatFloridaStateUniversityinTallahassee.HeistheauthorofAuthorityandTraditioninAncientHistoriography(1997),GreekHistorians(2001),and(withMichaelFlower)Herodotus:HistoriesIX(2002).HehaseditednumerousvolumesandiscurrentlyatworkonabookonHellenistichistoriography.(p.xiv) BrianMcGingisRegiusProfessorofGreekandaFellowofTrinityCollege,Dublin.HispublicationsincludeTheForeignPolicyofMithridatesVIEupatorKingofPontus(1986),GreekPapyrifromDublin(1995),TheLimitsofAncientBiography(2006,editedwithJ.Mossman),andPolybius’Histories(2010).AndrewMeadowsisDeputyDirectoroftheAmericanNumismaticSociety(ANS).Hehaswrittenandeditednumerousbooksandarticlesonthehistory,numismatics,andepigraphyoftheGreekworld,includingthreevolumesintheSyllogeNummorumGraecorumseriesandCoinHoardsIXandX,andisEditorofthejointANS–CambridgeUniversityPressSeriesGuidestotheCoinageoftheAncientWorld.ChristelMüllerisProfessorofGreekHistoryattheUniversityofParisOuestNanterreLaDéfense.SheistheauthorofD’OlbiaàTanaïs:Territoiresetréseauxd’échangesdanslaMerNoireseptentrionaleauxépoquesclassiqueethellénistique(2010),theco-authorofArchéologiehistoriquedelaGrèceantique,2ndedn.(2006)andtheco-editorofLesItaliensdanslemondegrec(2002),Identitésetculturesdanslemondeméditerranéenantique(2002),andCitoyennetéetparticipationàlabasseépoquehellénistique(2005).

JosephineCrawleyQuinnisFellowandTutorinAncientHistoryatWorcesterCollege,Oxford.ShewritesaboutPhoenician,Greek,Roman,andNorthAfricanhistory,co-directstheTunisian–BritishexcavationsatUtica(Tunisia),andhasco-editedvolumesonTheHellenisticWestandThePunicMediterranean.RobinSeagerisHonorarySeniorFellowinClassicsandAncientHistoryattheUniversityofLiverpool.HeistheauthorofPompeytheGreat(1979,2ndedn.,2002),Tiberius(1972,2ndedn.,2005),andAmmianusMarcellinus:SevenStudiesinhisLanguageandThought(1986),andeditor/translatorofTheCrisisoftheRomanRepublic(1969),M.Gelzer,TheRomanNobility(1969),andPlutarch,FalloftheRomanRepublic(1972,rev.edn.,2005).MichaelSommerisProfessorofAncientHistoryattheCarlvonOssietzkyUniversityofOldenburg.HispublicationsincludeTheCompleteRomanEmperor:ImperialLivesatCourtandonCampaign(2010),DieSoldatenkaiser(2010),DieArminiusschlacht:SpurensucheimTeutoburgerWald(2009),DiePhönizier:GeschichteundKultur(2008),RomsorientalischeSteppengrenze:Palmyra—Edessa—Dura-Europos—Hatra:EineKulturgeschichtevonPompeiusbisDiocletian(2005).JohnThorntonisAssociateProfessorofRomanHistoryatSapienzaUniversitàdiRoma.HeistheauthorofLostoricoilgrammaticoilbandito.Momentidellaresistenzagrecaall’imperiumRomanum(2001),andhaswrittenmanyarticlesonHellenisticandRomanhistoryandhistoriography.(p.xv) MitziWalbankistheyoungerdaughterofF.W.Walbank.ShewasauniversityadministratorattheOpenUniversity,withwhomshetookherfirstdegree.Nowretired,shelivesnearherdaughterandgrandchildreninEastLothian.Sheisapublishedpoet.Hans-UlrichWiemerisProfessorofAncientHistoryattheUniversityofErlangen-Nürnberg.HeisauthorofLibaniosundJulian,StudienzumVerhältnisvonRhetorikundPolitkimviertenJahrhundertn.Chr.(1995),RhodischeTraditioneninderhellenistischenHistoriographie(2001),Krieg,HandelundPiraterie:UntersuchungenzurGeschichtedeshellenistischenRhodos(2002),andAlexanderderGrosse(2005),andhaseditedStaatlichkeitundpolitischesHandelninderrömischenKaiserzeit(2006),FeiernundErinnern:GeschichtsbilderimSpiegelantikerFest(withHansBeck,2009),andJohannGustavDroysen:PhilosophieundPolitik—HistorieundPhilologie(withStefanRebenich,2012).

Welcome to the Liverpool Conference

(p.xvi)WelcometotheLiverpoolConference

Goodmorning—andwelcometotheconference.IwishIcouldbewithyouinperson,butthisimpressivepieceoftechnologywillhavetodoforbothyouandme.IamgratefultomyLiverpoolcolleaguesforsettingitup.ItisformeagreatandmuchappreciatedhonourthatthisconferenceistakingplaceandespeciallythatitistakingplaceinLiverpool,wheremyworkonthePolybianCommentarywasinitiatedandcarriedthrough;thoughVolume3onlyappearedin1979,twoyearsafterIhadretired.

Theyear2007seemstherightdatetocelebratetheCommentary—ifindeeditistobecelebrated.But2007isalsoasignificantdateforquiteanotherreason.Itisthe80thanniversaryofmyfirstintroductiontoPolybius.AndIshouldatthispointliketopayalong-duetributetoE.H.Goddard,lateralifelongfriendandanoutstandingteacherofClassicsatBradfordGrammarSchool,wherein1927IwasjuststartingonmylastyearbeforegoinguptoPeterhouse.SoletmetellyouhowfirstImetPolybius.

TosaveusfromrepeatingthenormalprescribedperiodofRomanHistory,NedGoddardhadarrangedfortheJointMatriculationBoardtoprescribe,justforBradfordGrammarSchool,aspecialpaperontheperiod200–133BC.Tohelpusprepareforthis,hecameupwithasmallGermaneditionofPolybius—Idon’trecallwhoseitwas—which

Welcome to the Liverpool Conference

hehandedtoanotherboyandmyselfwiththeinstructiontotranslateanumberofchosenpassages,toprécisthemandreproducetheresult,usingakindofjellystainedwithpurpleink,fortherestoftheform,whichattheexpenseofseveralfreeperiodswedid.TherewasofcoursenoquestionofusingaLoebinthisoperation.Idon’tthinkweknewwhataLoebwas!

WhenIlastheardoftheotherboy,hewaslecturinginEconomicsattheUniversityofLeeds,soitseemslikelythatPolybiusdidn’tplayagreatpartinhislaterlife.Formeitwasobviouslygoingtobeadifferentstory.Ijustwonderhowmanygrammar-schoolboysinthelate1920swerereadingPolybius:notmany,Ifancy!Iwastheluckyone.

Wehaveasplendidrangeofparticipantsinthecongress:Iamreallymovedthatsomanyhavechosentocomelongdistancestotakepart.AndI’mgratefultoTomHarrison,BruceGibson,andtheircolleagueshereinLiverpoolfortheorganizationithassurelyinvolved.ButIhavealreadytakenenoughofyourtime;solettheworkbegin.

FrankWalbank

Introduction: F. W. Walbank, Polybius, and the Decline of Greece

Introduction:F.W.Walbank,Polybius,andtheDeclineofGreece

BruceGibson

ThomasHarrison

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0001

AbstractandKeywords

Thischaptertakesasitsstarting-pointWalbank'swritingsonGreekdecline.FarfromhavingrenouncedhispoliticalinterestsinordertowritehiscommentaryonPolybius,Walbank'sexaminationofthedeclineofancientsocieties(bothGreekandRoman)isdeeplyembeddedwithinWalbank'swiderpoliticalandsocialconcerns.Thoughthe1930sand1940swastheperiodwhereWalbank'shistoriographyismostobviouslyengagedwithcontemporaryconcerns,echoinghisinterestinhistorianssuchasRostovtzeffandDeSanctis,engagementwiththecontemporaryworldremainsasignificantbutunderratedelementofhisscholarshipthroughouthiscareer.DrawingextensivelyonWalbank'sunpublishedpapers(nowheldinLiverpool),thischapterseekstosetthepoiseandobjectivityofWalbank'sachievementasanancienthistorianincounterpointwithapervasiveandlong-lastingelementofhiswork,thecontinuingtopicalityofancienthistory

inthemodernworld.

Keywords:F.W.Walbank,Polybius,Greekdecline,Romandecline,DeSanctis,Rostovtzeff,Commentaries

Thisbookderivesfromaconference,‘Polybius1957–2007’,heldinLiverpoolinJuly2007tomarkthefiftiethanniversaryofthepublicationofthefirstvolumeofFrankWalbank’sHistoricalCommentaryonPolybius.Itmightinsteadhavecommemoratedothermilestones:thecompletion(ifnotthepublication1)seventy-fiveyearsbeforeofWalbank’sAratosofSicyon;or—stillfurtherback—hisintroductiontoPolybius,whenasan18-year-oldschoolboyin1927hewasaskedbyhisteacher,NedGoddard,totranslateandprécis‘asmall,rathergrubbyGermanschooledition’(inthephraseusedinWalbank’sownunpublishedmemoir,theHypomnemata).2Aboveandbeyondanysuchdates,ofcourse,theconferencewasintendednottohonouranyparticularvolumebutratherthemanbehindthem.FrankWalbankwasunabletoattendtheconferenceinperson,buthediscussedwithusourplansfortheconference,heopenedtheproceedingswithavideomessage(printedbeforethisintroduction),andhewasabletoreadanumberofthepapers.Hediedon23October2008.Togetherwiththecontributorstothisvolume,andmanymore,weremainhugelygratefulforhissupport,forhisexample,andforhisscholarlylegacy.

TherecanbenomodernscholarmorecloselyassociatedwithanancientauthorthanWalbankwithPolybius.AsPolybiusmadehislife’sworkthetellingofthestoryof‘bywhatmeansandunderwhatformofconstitutiontheRomansinlessthanfifty-threeyearssucceededinsubjectingthewhole(p.2) inhabitedworldtotheirsolegovernment’(Plb.1.1.5),PolybiusandhisworldwereWalbank'slifeandwork.3Inadditiontothe2,357pagesofdistilledscholarshipwhichmakeupthethree-volumeCommentary,themonographsonAratusandonPhilipVwhichwerethestepping-stonestoit,andhisrevisionstoPaton’sLoebedition(nowemerging,butwhichforalongtimeseemedtohave‘runintothesand’4),hisnumerousarticleswhichrangeoverHellenistichistoryandGreekhistoriography,eveniftheydonotfeaturethenameofPolybiusintheirtitles,5arefrequentlyrootedininterpretationsofhistext.‘Perhapsthedaywillcome’,wroteoneapprovingreviewerofPhilipV,6‘whenMrWalbank,ashematures,willattemptageneralview,andgivetothegeneralpublic(whathislearningqualifieshimtogive)apictureofthatHellenizedeasternMediterraneanintowhichRomemoved,andwithwhichRomefused,duringthesecondandfirstcenturiesB.C.’Thattoohedulyaccomplished,throughhisFontanaHistory,TheHellenisticWorld,and(formorescholarlyreaders)throughhiscontributionstothehistoriesofMacedoniaandtheHellenisticvolumesoftheCambridgeAncientHistorywhichheco-edited.7

Whateverdisagreementsmightbehadoverdetails,andnomatterthatsomeofhisearlierpublications—written,itshouldberemembered,aroundthree‐quartersofacenturyago—reflecttheconcernsandagendasoftheirtime,8itisclearthat,ifanyscholar’soutputcanbesaidtorepresentmorethanthesumofitsparts,Walbank’scan.Hisachievement,inthewordsofonerecentassessment(thatofJohnDavies),wasto‘[bring]Polybiosoutofthespecialistside-channelsintothemainstreamofhistoriography…tomakehisthemeandperiod…intooneofthecentralstoriesofClassical

Antiquity,and…tosetthegoldstandardforahistoricalcommentaryonaClassicaltext’.9InassessingWalbank’scareerin1984,ArnaldoMomiglianolistedhim,withRonaldSymeandA.H.M.Jones,asoneofthethree‘PersonsoftheGreatTrinityofcontemporaryBritishancienthistorians’.10AlthoughWalbank’s(p.3) laterwritingsarepepperedwithmodestacknowledgementsofhowhisviewshadbeenalteredbysubsequentwork,orofhisappreciationofthegreatercomplexityofagiventopic11—for,ashesaysofPolybius,‘nomancanremainentirelythesameforfiftyyears’12—,thereisalsoanextraordinaryconsistencyinhiswork,bothintermsofthethemesaddressedandthemanneroftheirtreatment,aconsistencywhichconveysthesensealmostofasustainedprogramme.

Howdidheachieveallthis?Inpart,ofcourse,suchproductivityistheresultoflongevity.AsJohnHendersonhasputit,‘melodramatically,wecouldsaythatittookRomelesstime,accordingtoPolybius,toachieveworldhegemony—fifty-threeyears—thanFWWhashadtopolishofftheHistories’13,andthesamepointwasmadebyWalbankhimselfinthecontextofBook6.14Itwasalsotheresultofanextraordinarydoggedness,aneyefordetail,and‘ship-shapeorganization’—traitsreflectedalsoinhisdealingswithpublishers,andtheorganizationofhispapers15—aswellasthedifficultpersonalcircumstancesfromwhichPolybiusprovidedarefuge.16

Italsorequiredimagination—theimagination,first,eventoconceiveofascholarlyenterprise,suchasthecommentary,onsograndascaleandwithsuchaconsistentformat.(AlthoughthefirstvolumeofA.W.Gomme’scommentaryonThucydideswaspublishedin1945,onlyayearafterWalbankhadagreedtoundertakePolybius,hisostensiblemodelinearlydiscussionswasHowandWells’Herodotus.17)Theleapofimaginationrequiredwasallthemoreextraordinarygiventhewartimecontext.AsKennethSisamofOxfordUniversityPresswrotetohiminannouncingthatthedelegates‘haveagreedtoencourage’thecommentary,‘Itisgoodtothinkthatinthesetimesscholarscanstillsettledowntosuchlong-distancetasks’.18

(p.4) ImaginationwasalsorequiredtosetPolybiusandhisHistoriessopainstakinglywithintheirsetting.Anunderstandingofthephysicalcontextofancienthistory,first,wasfundamentalbothtoWalbank’sownevolutionasahistorianandtohishistoricalapproach.ThecruiseonwhichWalbankfirstvisitedGreeceandSicilyinthespringof1930wastheprizeforaHellenicTravellers’Clubessaycompetitionwhichhadcaughthiseye,onthetopicoffederalismintheGreekworld.19‘[S]tudents[ofancienthistory]’,hewrotelater,‘shouldall(ideally)havemadetheirownperiegesisofsomeMediterraneanland.’20Hisearliestwork,AratosofSicyon,isrepletewithreferencestothegeographyofmodernGreece,theresultofaLeafTravellingStudentshipawardedbyhisCambridgecollegein1932.21(‘Fromthetop[ofPentelicon]’,hewroteinhisreportonhistravels,‘thereisasmuchtobelearntaboutGreekhistoryasfromweeksofBury.’22)Inhisreviewsofothers’work,sketch-mapsandillustrationsoftopographyarealwayswelcomed,though‘carelessnessinmattersoftopographymayseemmorevenial’.23Asheenjoinedhisstudents,‘UnlessoneknowsGreeceasis,constantlymakingfalsepictures.Needofaconsciousefforttocorrectthis.’24Atthesametime,however,heneededtoputPolybius(andhisaudience)withintheirintellectualsetting.AshisdiscussionofPolybiangeography

makesclear,heknewnottomakeunrealisticassumptionsofeither:25

Wehabituallyaskfromancienthistorianswhatwehavenorighttoask—namelythattheirtopographyshallbeadequatetopermitofpin-pointinganactiononthe(p.5)contoursofalarge-scaleAustrianStaffMap.Polybiushadnottheadvantageofsuchamap,norhisreaderseither.Forthem,alonglistofbarbarousplacenamescouldhavelittlemeaning

Thereisadanger,however,ofrenderingWalbankastoocoollydetached,hisscholarshipasmerelytheresultofalonggrindofhistoricalreconstruction.Justasacentralthemewithinhispublishedworkistheblindnessofhistoricalactorstothebroadermovementstowhichtheywerecontributing(discussedbelow),soWalbankwashighlysensitivetothecontextualcharacterofhistoricalworkitselfandofthecapacityofthehistoriantofailtoappreciatethis.Reviewing,halfacenturylater,hisearlierworkontheideaofGreekhistoryasa‘struggleforGreekunity’,hesupposedthat‘today…suchanapproachtoGreekhistorymustseemstrangelyout-of-date…mainlyimportanttoustodayasareminderofhowmuchourpreoccupationsashistoriansmaylaterbeseentohavereflectedcontemporaryissues’.26(Hisownapproachtothequestion,thoughitwasindeedcolouredbycontemporaryconcerns—asweshallsee—neverthelessinmanywaysanticipatedmuchsubsequentscholarshiponGreekidentity.27)Walbankalso—asbefitsahistorianworkingonPolybius—hadaclearvisionofhistoryasadialecticalprocess;orasheputitmoregraphically:‘Studyinghistorydoesnotmeanabsorbingthepastasifoneweredrinkingcoffee.’28Withretrospect,itiseasytoseehowthethemesofGreekfederalism,ofAchaeanresistancetothelooming‘cloudinthewest’,orafocusontheroleofgreatmeninhistory,spoketocontemporaryconcerns.29Insomeofhisearliestwork,however,aswillbecomeapparent,heshowedawillingnesstodevelopanalogiestocontemporaryhistory,ortorevealhisownpoliticalcommitment,30explicitly.AshisHypomnematamakeclear,hewas‘(p.6)

F.W.Walbank,Bassae(1936)

(p.7) oftenworriedbytheproblemofreconcilingthesubjectofmyworkwiththeworldwewerenowlivingin’.31

Theworkinquestioncovers,atleastprimafacie,awidehistoricalrange:inchronologicalorder,anunpublishedpaper‘SocialRevolutionatSparta’(1935),ashortpiecepublishedunderthepenname‘Examiner’asking‘IsourRomanHistoryTeachingReactionary?’(1943a),‘TheCausesofGreekdecline’(1944),hisshortbookTheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest(1946a),andacontributiontoTheCambridgeEconomicHistoryofEuropeonthelateRomaneconomy,completedinthesameperiodasTheDeclineoftheRomanEmpire,butpublishedonlyin1952.32Itisquicklyapparent,however,thatthesepiecesalldevelopacommonapproachandacommonhistoricalthesis—anapproachandathesiswhichdrewon(hisresponseto)contemporaryeventsandtoawholediscourseoncivilizationanditsdeclinewhichdominatedtheinter-waryears.33‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’maylookprimarilyatthereasonsforGreekimpotenceinthefaceofRomanexpansion,butitsoonturnsintoabroaderthesisofthedeclineofantiquity:‘ForinfacttheGreekandtheRomanfailuresareinessenceone.’34

History,first,ispressingly,urgentlyrelevant—orinWalbank’sterm‘topical’.‘[To]themenofWesternEuropetheproblemofwhyRomefellhasalwaysbeenatopicalquestion’(hisitalics)—evenif‘theanswerstothis(p.8) problemthemselvesformacommentaryupontheagesthatproposedthem’.35‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’beginswithSer.SulpiciusRufus’evocationofthedeathofthecitiesofGreeceinhisletterofconsolationtoCiceroonthelossofhisdaughter(Fam.4.5.4)before,withamagnificentfilm-likesweep,pressingtheurgencyofthequestioninacontemporarycontext:36

TheSaronicGulf,oncethecentreoftheworld,wasnow,forallthatGreecemeant,adeadlakelappingaboutthefoundationsofdeadcities.Inthattragicdecay—whichwasnotconfinedtomainlandGreece—weareconfrontedwithoneofthemosturgentproblemsofancienthistory,andonewithaspecialsignificanceforourgeneration,whowerealreadylivinginanageofeconomic,politicalandspiritualupheaval,evenbeforethebombsbegantoturnourowncitiesintoshatteredruins.37

Thecausesofdecline,whetherGreekorRoman,liedeeplyinthestructureofsociety:the‘socialrelationoftheclasses’,the‘contrastwhichunderlayancientcivilization,betweentheleisuredclassofthecityandthemultitudelabouringtosupportitontheland’,andthefailureofthemiddleclassestoextenddemocracy.38Thefoundationofclassicalcivilizationonslaveryandexploitationallowedfor‘brilliantminoritycivilization[s]’:so,forexample,the‘citizenoffifth-centuryAthensfelthimselftobethememberofacompact,brilliant,exclusive,andhighlyconsciouscommunity,whichwas,infact,livinglargelyattheexpenseoftheresidentalien,theslaveandthesubjectally’.39Buttherewasapricetopay.

Thepatternofclassdivisionled,first,toanideologicalcleavage,acontrastinGreekculturebetweenthe‘thingsofthehandandthethingsofthemind’.40IntheGreekcase,itledalsotoafailuretoachieveunity,‘theunitywhichalonemighthaveenabledthemtopreservetheirfreedomfromoutsideconquest’.41Andtheclasssystemalsobroughtaboutastagnationinthekindoftechnicaldevelopmentthatcouldhavetriggeredanindustrialrevolution—andwhich,inturn,wouldhaveallowedfor‘masscivilisation,andalsotheconcentration(p.9) oftheproletariatinfactoriesandminesunderconditionswhichenabledittoattainacommunityofpurposeandarealisationofitsownstrength’.42

Thereweresparksthroughoutantiquityofsocialrevolution43—atermwhichhejustifiesatlengthinhis1935lecture.44These,however,werecomfortablysuppressed.First,throughbreadandcircuses,inotherwordsbyputtingaplasteroverthesituation.Secondly,throughmoreaggressiveaction:by‘strengthen[ing]theinstrumentsoftheState’—whatherefersto(inthecontextoflaterRomanempire)asthe‘CorporativeState’.45(‘Rigidstatecontrol’thenunderminedthesuccessfullaissez-faireapproachtoeconomicactivityoftheearlyprincipate—withtheDiocletianicpriceedictstandingasasymbolofthetransformation.46)And,finally,throughwhatWalbankreferstoasa‘culturalfailure’,by‘theimplantingofbeliefsandattitudesconvenienttoauthority’.Platoisaparticularvillainhere,guilty—forhisrecommendationofreligionasameansofsocialcontrolintheLaws—of‘theblackesttreasontothatfloweringofthehumanspiritwhich

wecallHellenism’.Butsubsequentphilosophyislikewisecondemnedfornarrowingitsfocuswith‘acommonnoteofdefeat’.47

Thereisonewordwhichsumsupthisresponsetosocialinequality:fascism.The‘corporativestate’oflaterempirerevealsa‘completepolitical,socialandculturalcorrespondence’withmodernfascism:48

Bothinstitutionsrepresentanattempttoforceadecayingsocialsystemtocontinueworkingattheexpenseofthehappinessandfreedomofthemassesofthepeople.Bothcaterfortheluxuryneedsofafortunateminority,whileforcingtheresttoacceptscarcityandhardshipastheirnaturalportion.Bothgotogetherwithculturaldecay,adeclineinrationalismandscientificthought,andthefosteringofsuperstitionandnewmyths,whetherofthesavinggraceofMithras,orofthesavinggraceofAryanbloodandsoil.

‘TheSocialRevolutionatSparta’—apiecerichwithparallelstoLordRothermere,DrGoebbels,andEnglishpublicschools—likewisecaststheSpartan(p.10) reformerCleomenesIIIas‘unconsciously…foreshadowingthedevelopmentandmethodsofthefascistdictatorship’:49

Establishthecultofthenationaliststate,winapositionofunquestionedcommandbyacoupd’etat,andmaintainitbyforceofarmsandkeenpropaganda;letfreedombedefinedastherighttodoasoneistold…itisnomereaccidentthatwefindbothhereandinmodernGermanyappealstoanimaginarygoldenageunderLycurgosortheancientGermanicheroes;emphasisonagricultureasafirmbasisforthestate;marshallingoftheyounginmilitaryfashion;carefulorganisationofthoughtthroughpropagandaandcensorship;rootingoutofunsympatheticelementsfromthestatebytheemploymentofproscriptionsandassassinations;thesubordinationoftheindividualtothestateandanaggressivenationalismwhichrejectstheclaimsofanygreaterunitthanthenationalstate.

Wasthispatternofdecline—firstintofascism,thenatrophy—aninevitableone?Whenitcomestotheancientworld,theanswerisuncertain.‘TheSocialRevolutionatSparta’suggeststhattherewasanantidotetoGreekdecline(addressingtheunderlyingsocialproblem,extendingdemocracy)butthatitwasonewhichwasoutoftheirreach.(‘Whatno-oneoffered,becauseno-oneknewhowtoofferit,wasasolutionthatwouldhavegiventheworkmanafairreturnforhislabour,thatwouldhaveremovedthegapbetweentherichandthestarving,andwouldhaveenabledaunitedandcontentedGreecetofaceRomewithoutclass-warfareforeverstrikingherintherear.’50)‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’suggestsmoreemphaticallythatasolutionwasimpossibleinantiquity,projectingitshopesontothelateradoptionofaclassicallegacy.EveninthewesternhalfoftheRomanempiretherewasneveracompletebreak,inturnallowingforanancientlegacytobethebasisofaformofliberationinthemodernworld(butatwhatpoint?):51

Consequently,whenthebarbarianinvasionswerethemselveseventsinthedistant

past,andnewtownsbegantospringupinEurope,inhabitedbyneitherserfsnorslaves,thetechniquesoftheancientworldwerethereformentobuildon.Unobtrusivelythecraftsmengroupedaroundmanorormonasteryhad(p.11)passedtheirknowledgedownfromfathertoson.Andsooncemore,inanatmospherefreefromthedeadeningeffectoftheevermorerigidclass-systemoflateantiquity,mencouldgoforwardtothemasteryofnature.Withthemtheyborethefullculturallegacyoftheancientworld,adaptednowtoataskfromwhichantiquityitselfhadnecessarilydrawnback,butwhichgavepromiseofeasyaccomplishmenttothenewandfruitfulpartnershipbetweenmindandhand.

Inthemodernworld,bycontrast,therewasnoinevitabilitytofascismanddecline,apointhammeredrepeatedlyinDeclineoftheRomanEmpire.Fascismhadcloseditselfofftothechangingworld,butthedifferentcircumstancesofthemodernworld—industrialization,the‘unlimitedpossibilities’ofeconomicgrowth,andaboveall‘thewillandthecapacity[oftheworkingclass]totakeovertheorganizationofsocietyinordertotransformitintoanequalitariancommunity’—wereallentirelynew.52‘Hencewehavenoreasontoregardasourinexorablelotastagnating,latter-worldByzantinism,restingonarigidifiedindustry,withindustrialbaronsoffering,gangster-like,theonlyresistancetoanall-powerfulStateandcommonmencreepinghumblybeneaththeprotectionofbandsofrivalexploiters.Thefutureoffersussomethingbrighterthanthat.’53

Thisunshakeablebeliefinprogressextendsalsotohistoricalmethodology.‘Todaytheperiodistakingonamoredefiniteshape:graduallytheoldproblemsarebeingsolved.’54Inparticular,theexplosionofmaterialevidenceremovesthehistorian’sdependenceonliterarysources,makingitpossible‘forthefirsttime…toturnamicroscopeontheancientworld’.Theeffectsofthisonknowledgeofthe‘socialmanofantiquity’are‘thegreatestrevolutionintheclassicalstudiesofthelastsixtyyears’.55When‘Examiner’askedthequestion‘isourRomanhistoryteachingreactionary?’,itwasnotaquestionwhichlookedlongforananswer.‘Threeyearsofwarhaveclarifiedagoodmanyissues…Thewarhasforcedustotakesides.’56AndsoitiscrucialthatschoolboysshouldbeabletodistinguishintheirunderstandingofRomanhistorybetween‘intellectualassent’—understanding,forexample,thatAugustus’religiousrevivalwasa‘ “good”measureforhim,inthosecircumstances’hefaced—and‘moralapprovalandemotionalenthusiasm’.57Ifweonly‘turnoutthecramberepetitaofourgrandfathers,then,Isuggest,our(p.12)schoolsmightdobettertosticktomathematics.’58Anditisnotthecasethatschoolteachersareinadvertentlyfailingtopickuponamoreenlightenedconsensus:‘Ourpresentattitudetowardsthehistoryofthelaterepublicandearlyempireislargelyalegacyfromanageandaclasswhicharenowthemselvespartofhistory’.Historyneedstoberewrittenfromaperspectivefreeofclassdivisions—and,ashewroteintheaftermathofwar,thehumanistandthehistorianbroughttogether,inanallianceboth‘offensiveanddefensive’,withinarenewedClassicsinwhich‘wedrawnofrontiers’.59‘CiceromustnolongerbeforcedintothepatternoftheVictorianstatesman.Wemuststudyhimandreadhimagainsthisownbackgroundandtrytojudgehimbyhisownstandardsandcriteria.WemustbeconsciousofhowstrangetheGreeksandRomanswere,howdifferentfrom,aswellashowlikeourselves.’60

Thedriveheretoresolvethevariousdissonancesbetweenworkandworldisveryclear.Ifweallespousevaluesofdemocraticopenness,wemustteachaccordingly.Itisnotjust,however,thatthestudyofthepastshouldbealignedwithcontemporaryvalues.TheconclusionofDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWestisthat‘itisourduty…toexerteverysinewagainstthetendenciesinourownsocietywhichresemblethosepredominatinginthelateEmpire…’.61Theuniqueproblemsofthecontemporaryworlddemandedaneducationtailoredtothem.AsWalbankaskedinapost-warlecture‘Science,HistoryandtheAtomicBomb’,writteninthecontextofthenewEducationAct:‘Whatkindoftrainingwillcreatethekindofpeoplewhocanstabiliseworldsociety?i.e.WHATISANEDUCATIONfortheageofATOMICPOWER?’Theanswer:‘Mustbeacombinationofscienceandhumanestudies’.62Scienceprovidedthemeansforsociety’sdevelopment(aswellasforitsdestruction)(p.13) —oneshouldresistanobscurantistreactionagainstscientificculture—andyetsciencealsohaditslimits.63

Atthesametime,however,tensionsemergewhichareworthhighlighting.Theconclusionthatweshouldputourenergiesintorightingthewrongsofourowncivilizationisconceivedasanalternativeto‘solacingourselveswiththepassingofmoraljudgementsonthosewhoarenowlongsincedead’:64

itisanhistorian’sbusinesstounderstand,nottomoralize,todiscovercausesandresults,nottopassethicaljudgementsonindividualsandpolicies.Andletusavoidliketheplaguesuperficialanalogieswiththefundamentallydifferentcircumstancesofthemodernworld.(1943a:61)

AndyetitcanscarcelybeclaimedthatWalbankhereavoidsmoralizinghimself.‘Letusremindourclassesofthetruism—exemplifiedinEuropeto-day—thatnonationcanenslaveothersandyetremainfreeitself’;Romehad‘apricetopay’foritsexpansion;‘theprovincesfoundthemselvesobligedtoshoulderthewholeburdenofanextravagantoligarchyandanunnaturallyswollenanddegradedpopulace’:65itishardtoseethesestatementsasreflectingonlythedispassionateidentificationofhistoricalpatterns.

TheremightappeartobeacontradictionalsoinWalbank’sdisavowalofanalogiesbetweenancientandmodern.Butthereasonshegives(inafootnote)forthisposition—ontheonehand,thepresenceofslavery,ontheother,the‘completelychangedmaterialbasisofmodernsociety’,inotherwordsthetechnicalprogressthatoffersthemodernworlditsdefenceagainstfascism—suggestananswer:youranalogiesaresuperficial,minearenot.Asimilarcontradictionappearswhenitcomestotheideaofthe‘topical’.Thecontributionsto(thefirsteditionof)theCambridgeAncientHistoryofOertel‘conformtoanold-establishedtraditionfordiscussingthedeclineofRome…hehasapproacheditasatopicalquestion,relevant(asallhistorymustinthelongrunberelevant)totheissuesconfrontingusinourtimes’.66ItisnotclearwhereOertel’sfaultlies:wouldthelessonsonlyemergelater?InapproachingthefallofRomeasatopicalquestion,howwasheactingdifferentlyfromWalbank?Orwashisfaultnotinfactintheapproachbutintheanswersitgenerated?HadOertelfailedtotranscendhisowncontext?

(p.14) Finally,thereisperhapsanaporiainWalbank’smodelofthe‘masscivilisation’

thatindustrialtechniquescanunleash.‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’takesasitsstarting-pointRostovtzeff’squestion:67‘Isitpossible…toextendahighercivilisationtothelowerclasseswithoutdebasingitsstandardanddilutingitsqualitytothevanishingpoint?…Isnoteverycivilisationboundtodecayassoonasitpenetratesthemass?’Itisaquestionheanswersbyinvertingit:68itisonlybypenetratingthemassthatcivilizationscansurvive.Andyetwhatwouldthisidealcivilization,basedona‘partnershipofmindandhand’,looklike?Itwouldbebasedfirstonvalues‘towhichto-day…weallnecessarilysubscribe’:69

Webelieveinthevirtueoffreethoughtanddiscussion,incomingtoconclusionsonthebasisofobjectiveevidence,indecidingourcoursesofactionthroughtheoperationofaninformeddemocracy:weareagainsttheautocraticruleofagrouporanindividual,werejectdogmas(suchasracialteaching)basedonemotion,aprioriassertionsthatmustnotbetested,‘inspired’truthasthecontrollerofscientificinvestigation.Ifanyonedoubtsthatwehavemadeupourmindsaboutthesevalues,lethimconsiderthefactthat99.99percent.ofthepeopleofthiscountryarereadytofightoninanincreasinglyconsciousstruggleagainsttheFascistenemywhodeniesthemall.

Atthesametime,thereisalsoaharshness—bornofharshtimes—inboththerhetoricofscientific(andhistoriographical)progressandinthepictureofsocietythatisconjuredup.‘Inonewayoranother’,Walbankclaims,‘ourownsocietyhasincorporatedwithinitstextureallthatmattersofclassicalculture…’.70Butwhenonelooksforculture,theemphasisthroughoutisonthepractical,suggestingperhapsanuneaseoverhighculture:‘Buses,bicyclesandtrainsbringthevillagestothetown;thepostalcatalogue,thewireless,thevan,andthecinemabringthetownandcitytothevillage.’71Ifthisfailuretorealizeaculturedmasscivilizationcountsasanaporiaitisonesharedbyhiscontemporaries.Onthethresholdofwar,LouisMacNeiceaskedandansweredRostovtzeff’squestioninsimilarterms:72

…Itissohardtoimagine Aworldwherethemanywouldhavetheirchancewithout(p.15) Afallinthestandardofintellectualliving Andnothingleftthatthehighbrowcaredabout.Whichfearsmustbesuppressed.Thereisnoreasonforthinking That,ifyougiveachancetopeopletothinkorlive,Theartsofthoughtorlifewillsufferandbecomerougher Andnotreturnmorethanyoucouldevergive.

Thiswartimeperiodwas,unsurprisingly,thehigh-watermarkofWalbank’seffortstofinddirectpoliticallessonsinantiquity.AsJohnHendersonhasdiscussed,73notwithstandingthefactthathisworkonPolybius‘alwaysturnedontheassumptionthatthelifeandtimesofthehistory-writermustinteractivelyengagewiththeproductionofthework’,Walbanksoonlearnedtoeffacehisownpoliticalengagement,anengagementwhichhadhadtheironiceffectofdisqualifyinghimfromactiveserviceinthewaragainstfascism.74JustasPolybiuswas‘kidnapped,forHistory’,75soWalbankchosehenceforthto‘[abide]bythe

depersonalizingregimeofthecommentarywithintheasceticorderofScholarship’.76Inhismemoir—whichendsitsnarrative,significantly,in1946,thedateatwhichhewasappointedtotheLiverpoolChairofLatin—WalbankdistanceshisDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWestasatractforthetimes,‘notobjectivehistoryasthehistorianunderstandsit’.77Healsoappearstoundercuthisown‘politicaleffusion[s]’,byjuxtaposingreportsofhislecturesorpublicationswithmoremomentoushistoricalevents,VEDayorthebombingofHiroshimaandNagasaki.78AsHendersoncharacterizesWalbank’sownnarrative,‘FWWasgoodasmarriesintoa…politicalradicalismthatimplodesbeforeitcanchargeupacrusade,andinsteadendsupdeprivinghimofawar,ofallthehistrionicrushandprovingofself.His(substitutive)effortstomobilizehistoricalwritingandClassicsgetneatlymockedbytheplanetaryenormitiesofthermonucleardetonation…’.79

ThisnarrativeofWalbank’srejectionofanearliermoredirectpoliticalengagementthroughhistory-writing,ofhis‘[smoothing]awayobsolescentandlapsedinvestmentsandintellections’,80needstobequalified,however.First,itisclearthatinthefirstdecadeofhiscareer,hewaswritingin,experimentingwith,avarietyofstylesandapproaches.Manyofthethemesof‘SocialRevolutionatSparta’featureinAratos,althoughtheretheyare(p.16) subordinatedtoaconventionalhistoricalnarrativefreeofmorethanpassingreferencestocontemporaryevents.81Whatwasappropriateforthelecturehallwasnotappropriateforafirstmonograph.TheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWestwasadifferentkindofbookforadifferentaudience.(Andthesameholdstrueofhislaterwork:retrospectiveessaysallowforakindofreflectionnotpossiblewithincommentary.)

AnotherwayofputtingthiswouldbeWalbank’sown:academicwork,ontheonehand,andpoliticalactivityontheotherweretwoworlds—‘almostliketwoseparateformsofexistence’‘temporarilybroughttogether’:throughthefigureof(theSwanseaprofessor)BenjaminFarrington,orthroughthecorrespondencewithPieroTreveswhichmovedeffortlesslybetweenthetwo.82Inaletterof30May1942,forexample,Trevesdreamedofapost-warItaly:‘—afree,liberated,decentandEuropeanItaly—,whereFrankwillbecomingtolectureatourUniversitiesonthingsGreek,MarytoinquireintotheconditionsoftheItalianworkers,andthechildrentoenjoyItalianlandscape,artandcooking.’Asthismiragesuggests,however,itwasMaryWalbankwhowasthemoreactivelypoliticalofthetwo:he‘hadtheacademic’sinclinationtotalkanddiscussandthentoleaveitatthat:forMaryaconclusionwasthefirststeptoaction.’83Withgradualpoliticaldisillusionment,Mary’speriodicill-health,andanacademiccareerthatbecameincreasinglyengrossing,thetwoworldsofacademicworkandpoliticalactivitymaywellhavedivergedfurther.84

Atthesametime,itisworthemphasizingthattherootsofWalbank’slaterworkliepreciselywithinthisexplicitlypoliticalphase.ThisismostclearlytrueofWalbank’slong-standinginterestinfederalism:aconcernwhichreachesbacktothe1930prizeessaywhichlaunchedhimontheM.V.ThéophileGauthiertoGreece,andontohiscareer.ThiswastheveryyearthathehadjoinedtheLeagueofNationsUnion,85andthe‘FederalideainGreece—with(p.17) specialreferencetoitsdevelopmentinHellenistictimes’alreadydirectlyexploitstheparallelbetweenancientandmodern:86

TothemodernstudentthisconceptionofFederalismanditspracticalapplicationisofintenseinterest,sinceitistoaformofFederalismthatEuropeistodaylookingasaremedyforitsmisfortunes…AndsoitiswellthatweshouldatthesametimerecognisethatitistoGreecethatweoweouroriginalconceptionoffederalgovernment;thatitwasintheAchaeanLeaguethatmenwhosepatriotismwasfarmorelocal,andsofarmoreintensethanours,firstlearnedtosacrificethatpatriotismforthegoodofagreaterbody.

Walbank’ssubsequentreadinginthethirtiesincludedresearchesintothewidestvarietyofformsofpoliticalorganization:inCelticIreland,Polynesia,andpre-RomanItaly,amongothersocieties.87Afterthewar,however,thestudyofancientfederalismbecamenolongerjustasearchforabetteralternativebutalsoaformofinquest.So,intheconcludinglectureofhis1945–6courseonWorldAffairs:88‘Theproblemofpeace.Whydidwefail1918–39?GrowthofNaziGermany!Yes,butwhywastheLNinadequate?Becausethebignationswouldnotshelvenationalauthority.’Whatofthefuture?‘Towardsworldorganisation?Isaworldstatepossibleordesirable?Whatwouldbethetransition?Federation?InAchaea,Switzerland,USA.’Atthispoint,amarginalnoteshoutsout:‘valueofancienthistory!’

TherootsofWalbank’sleastdirectlytopicalwork,thePolybiancommentarycanalsobeseentoliewithinthispoliticalphase—andnotonlyinthelimitedsensethatitwasinthisperiodthatthecommentarywasinitiated.Walbank’smemoirgivestheimpressionthatthechoiceofPolybiusasthesubjectofacommentarywasalmostserendipitous.89Butthisisprobablymisleading.

Walbank’sreviewsofothers’workintheperiodrunningupto1944suggestthattheideaofanoutsizedscholarlyprojectthatmighttakealifetimehadbeenplayingonhismind.‘Thepublicationofvol.xiiofthe[Cambridge]AncientHistoryon20April,1939,bringsthisvastworktocompletion’;90aproject,headds,thedesignofwhichwasbasedon‘rigidexclusionofallprejudice,whetherofrace,creed,orparty’.‘Initscomprehensiveframework’,hiscritiqueofRostovtzeffconcludes,‘itsvastlearning,itscarefulweighingof(p.18) evidence,itslivelystyle,andaboveallinitsessentialhumanity,itstandsoutasatriumphantassertionofthatEuropeanscientifictraditionwhichadmitsnofrontiersofrace,language,orcreed’.91

Asisclearfromtheseexamples,suchprojects—andwemaysuppose,theideaofthePolybiancommentary—wereattractivebecausetheyembodiedvalues,notbecausetheywerefreefromthem.AshisreviewsofwartimeGermanscholarshipmakeclear,theideaofascholarshiptaintedbyideologyisnotjustanabstractconstruct.‘ItissincerelytobehopedthatG.willeventuallypublishhisproposedcontinuationofthisstudyunderconditionswhichnolongerencouragetheperniciousirrelevanciesofRassentheorie.’92SimilarlyhelampoonstheunderlyingnarrativeofStier’sGrundlagenundSinndergriechischenGeschichte:93

Ultimately,S’sinterpretationofGreekhistoryrestsonamystique,thatoftheindogermanic-nordicsoul,withitsuniquecollectionofvirtues…thechiefamong

thembeingloveoffreedom.GreekhistoryisthestoryoftheclashbetweentheinnateEuropeanideaoffreedomandtheideaoforder,whichtheGreekstookoverfromtheAryansofAsia,whohadabsorbeditfromthesoulofthatcontinent.Thisconflictbetweenfreedomandorder,aftermanyvicissitudes,waseventuallyresolvedbyChristianityontheinnerplaneoftheindividualconscience.

Atthesametime,however,evenaworkwhichtookamoreenlightenedcuefromcontemporaryevents(Schachermeyr’sAlexanderderGrosse),modellingitshistoricalprotagonistnegativelyinthelightoftherecentphenomenonofNationalSocialism,wasstillsubjecttocriticism:as‘perhapsover-schematic,toomuchinfluencedbyrecentexperiences’.94

Inotherwords,justasthewartimecontextencouragedthequestforahistorythatworeitstopicalityonitssleeve,italsoexertedacontraryforce:heightening,ratherthandiminishing,theappealofascholarshipconductedforitsownsake,thatcouldexpresshumanevaluesuntaintedbyideology.(Torespondappropriatelytothetopicalityofone’ssubjectwastotreadaperilouslynarrowpath.)Thismodelofhumanescholarship,however—thoughitmayhavebeenidealistic—wasneverwoolly.WalbankrevealedaninstinctivedistrustofabstractgeneralizationasearlyasAratos,butthistendencywas(p.19) onlyreinforcedinthisperiod.95Intheaftermathofthewar,forexample,hethrewhimselfintotherebuildingofscholarlylinksacrossEurope,96butashedidsoheresolutelydistancedhimselffromanybombast.‘Aconferenceon“theuniversalvalueofhumanism” ’,hebeganapapertotheRomemeetingoftheSodalitasErasmianain1949,‘cannotescapedefinitions’;hiswasaplea‘forthehumanist…tocomeoutofhisseclusionandadapt…tonewconditions’.97‘Onefeatureoftheold[humanistic]classicaltraining’,heinsistedlater,‘wastocreatecanonsofclarityandrelevance,andtodisciplinethewriter’.98Withoutthisfaithinscholarship,howelsecouldWalbankhavegoneonwritingandpublishing,inthedepthsofwar,suchdistilledscholarlypiecesas‘OlympichusofAlindaandtheCarianExpeditionofAntigonusDoson’?99Atthesametime,thegrandertheplannedprojectthegreatertheactoffaithinhumanescholarship.Toaskhowhecouldhaveconceivedsuchaplaninwartimeisononelevelmisconceived:thewaritselfhelpedtogeneratethescaleofhisambition.

WhyPolybius?GiventhescaleofhispreviousworkonHellenistichistory,thisisperhapsthewrongquestion.Thequestionthatneedstobeanswerediswhyheeverthoughttosuggestanyotherwork(Tacitus’Histories)?TheminimalistexplanationisthatTacitus’Historieswassuggestedtohimasatopic(in1943)byhismentor,andatthetimeHeadofDepartment,JamesMountford.DespiteMountford’spowerfulinfluence,however,thisminimalistexplanationforachoiceoftopicispartofapatterninWalbank’snarrativewherebyallhisacademicchoicesaresubjecttochance—apatternbeliedbytheintensityofhisacademicinterests.100Hisotherwritingsinthesameperiod(p.20) suggestsomealternativeanswers.AlthoughthedeclineofGreeceandthedeclineandfallofRomeareenvisagedaspartsofthesamestory,Greekdeclineisnomorethanthefirstact;inturningtotheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest,ontheotherhand,hewouldturnhisattentiontotheendofthestory.Secondly,althoughthismayseemremarkablein

thelightofhissubsequentachievement,hemaywellhavehadanintrinsicpreferencefortheprincipateovertheHellenisticworldasahistoricalperiod.Althoughitcontainedwithinitselfthegermsofitsowndestruction—andsoacommentaryonTacituswouldstillhavebeenacontributiontothecentralquestionofancienthistory,thequestionofdecline—Walbankconceivedoftheearlyempireinmostlypositiveterms,thehigh-pointofalaissez-faireapproachtoeconomicactivity,asuccessfulpoliticalcompromise.101Bycontrast,‘AnythingthatfollowsDemosthenes’,hewroteofHellenistichistoryin1943,‘mustseemananti-climax—thoughnot,ofcourse,withoutitsowninterestandsignificance’.102WhenTacituswasthoughttobespokenfor,herevertedtoPolybius,thehistorianofGreekdeclineandfall,sothatwhenwordcamefromSyme,inneutralTurkey,thatTacituswasinfactfree,hischoicewasirreversible.103Walbank’s1943piece‘PolybiusontheRomanConstitution’showsveryclearlythebridgebetween‘TheCausesofGreekdecline’,ontheonehand,andthecommentaryontheother:Polybiuswasunabletoseethe‘contradictionintheverystructureofsecond-centurysociety…;hiswholeupbringingcombinedtopreventhiscomingtotermswithit’.Hewasattractedtotheideaofanacyclosisashestruggledtodealwiththe‘shadowofcomingdisasterthrownalreadyovertheinternalhistoryofRomebytheaccumulationofforeignconquests…’.104Withonlyalittlehindsight,thechoiceofPolybiuscouldeasilyberationalized:asWalbankwrotein1950(inareviewofavolume(p.21) published,ashenoted,inaseriesentitledProblemid’oggi),‘therearefewancientwriterswhoseworkhasthesameimmediateclaimuponourintereststoday.POLYBIUSwritesaboutthingswehaveallknown,Italiansnotleast…’.105

Evenafterthispoint,evenastheurgenttopicalityofthe‘causesofGreekdecline’becomessublimatedincommentary,itisclearthatWalbank’sconcerntorelatehisworkwiththeworlddidnotevaporate.AsMomiglianolaterobserved,ofthethreePersonsoftheTrinity(Syme,Jones,andWalbank)‘eveninJonestheconcernforthemodernworldwaslesspressingandexplicitthanitwasandisforWalbank’.106

Farfrombeinglefttomoulderontheshelves,forexample,TheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWestwasreissuedinexpandedandrevisedformin1969asTheAwfulRevolution,atitlethatconsciouslyechoedGibbon.107‘[T]hestridentimmediacyoftheoriginalgavewaytoamorescholarlytone’;108furtherreadingsectionsareadded,andthecorporativeStateisrebrandedastheAuthoritarianState.Itisworthpausing,however,overwhatremained:thebook’sopeningdeclarationoftheperennialtopicalityoftheperiod(p.11)orofthepowerofnewapproachesinturningamicroscopeonsociallife(pp.16–18);itscharacterizationofthe‘minoritycivilization’ofAthens,basedonexploitation;itsfinalinjunctiontothereadertofocushisorherenergiesontheameliorationofmodernsociety,and—ingeneral—thewholethesisofsocialinequalityand‘stagnationoftechnique’leadingtoauthoritarianismandcollapse.ThequestionofwhetherasavagefascisminevitablyawaitsmodernEuropeisbroadened(pp.114–15).ThecommontrendintheLateEmpireandthemodernworldisnottowardsfascismperse,but

fromanageoflaissezfairetooneofcontrolandstateplanning.Fromthispointof

view—whatevertheirotherdifferences—thereisacommonelementintheregimesofnaziGermany,communistRussia,‘capitalist’U.S.Aandthe‘welfare’statesofGreatBritainandseveralotherEuropeancountries.Arewethen(itissometimesasked)witnessinganewandominousstageinourcivilizationinwhichwemustallgraduallysinkintoastateofregimentationsimilartothatwhichheraldedtheendofwesternRome…?

(p.22) Itmaybesaidquitedecisivelyandatoncethatthereisnosuchnecessitywhatsoeverdrivingtheworldofthetwentiethcenturytowardsauthoritariantyranny.

Thereasonagainisfoundinthedifferenteconomicconditionsofancientandmodernsociety.Inshort,thepoliticalcalloftheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWestisnotmutedbutrefreshed.Aslateas1983,hedescribeddeSteCroix’sClassStruggleintheAncientGreekWorldasabook‘whichgoestotheheartofsomeofthemostimportantproblemsconfrontingstudentsoftheancientworld’—whilstmaintainingpositionsfromhisDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest.109

ThesamepatternisevidentinWalbank’sadaptationofhisoriginalremarksonthe‘barbarianperil’inthemodernworld.In1946amoreconfidentpictureispresentedofbarbarismatbay,withamemorablequotationfromanotherpassageinGibbon’s‘GeneralObservationsontheFalloftheRomanEmpireintheWest’:‘Theplough,theloomandtheforgeareintroducedonthebanksoftheVolga,theObyandtheLena,andthefiercestoftheTartarhordeshavebeentaughttotrembleandobey.’110Ifbarbarianpeoplesstillposeadanger,itisonlybyvirtueoftheirgainingmaterialcivilizationandsothetechnicalmeansofthreateningcivilization—withJapancitedasanexampleofthedangersof‘tooreadilyassumingthattechnicalcivilisationnecessarilyinvolvesall-roundculture’.111By1969faithincivilizationislesspronounced,andthepotentialforbarbarismis,itisemphasized,withinallpeoples,thoughWalbankturnsoncemoretothesamepassagefromGibbon:112

Canwebesurethatthepossessionoftheplough,theloomandtheforge—tosaynothingofthejetfighterandthehydrogenbomb—aresufficientguaranteethattheirownerswillalsoautomaticallyexhibitahighdegreeofcivilization?…Asalutaryandpainfullessonhastaughtusthatbarbarisminthissenseremainsadangeratalltimes,andinallsocieties,andthatthepriceofcivilization,likethatoffreedom,iseternalvigilance.113

WalbanknomorerecantshisviewsoninequalitiesintheGreekworldthanonthefallofRome.SomuchismadeexplicitinWalbank’s1970Presidential(p.23) AddresstotheClassicalAssociation(CA),alecturewhichreturnedtothepaperwithwhichhehadfirstaddressedaCA‘AnnualAssembly’,atStAlbansin1944,‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’.114Hiscaptatiobenevolentiaegentlymockshisyouthfulself,explainingthegenesisoftheoriginalpaperintermsofitswartimecontext.QuotingtheresponseofFrankAdcock,thenProfessorofAncientHistoryatCambridge,tohisStAlbanspaper(‘perhapsalittleone-sided’),hesoughtthento‘atone’bygivingtheotherside,by

discussinga‘fieldinwhichtheHellenisticagecanbejustlysaidtohavemadeamorepositivecontribution’,theexperimentinGreekunionoftheAchaeanLeague.Andyethestudiedlyfailstorecantthepositionofthatearlierpaper:115

TheV2attackswerestillattheirheight;andwiththemanifestsignsofcatastropheoneveryside,ithadseemedtome—forIwasanearnestyoungman—thatthecausesofGreekdeclinemightbeanappropriatesubjectonwhichtoexpatiate.Mypaperwasdevoted,Iremember,toadiscussionoftheexclusivenessofGreekcivilisation,thetechnicalstagnationoftheHellenisticage,andthefailureoftheGreeksgenerallytoextendtheirculturedownwardstoreachthemassesofthepoor…[ProfessorAdcock]wasperfectlyright:itwasone-sided—thoughIthought(andIstillthink)itwasanimportantside.

InanearlierversionofthePresidentialAddress,apaper‘ThePoliticalContributionoftheAchaeanConfederacy’giveninJune1967,heinvokesanargumentreminiscentof‘TheSocialRevolutionatSparta’:byleavingthesocialproblem‘suppressedandunsolved’,theAchaeanLeague‘hadthussaddleditselfwithaliabilitywhichwastoplayasignificantpartinthefinaldebâcle’.116

Moreover,whenWalbankturnedbacktoGreekhistoricalnarrative,inhisFontanahistoryoftheHellenisticworld(firstpublishedin1981),itisstrikinghowmuchofthepatternofideasofhisearly‘political’phaseshinesthrough.TheFontanahistoryachieves,arguably,akindofmarriagebetweenthepoliticalandapoliticalstylesofthemid-thirtiestomid-forties.Long-standingsocialproblemswere‘endemicinGreeceformanycenturies’:‘alowlivingstandard,theabsenceofanymargintomeetleanyearsorupsetsduetomobilizationandwarwillhaveplayedalargepartinreducingpeasantstoaconditionofdependencefromwhichitwasvirtuallyimpossibletoemerge’.117Economicdistressandclassconflictledtothethreatof‘socialrevolution’,thoughtheupperclasseswere‘fairlysuccessfulintheiruseofpalliatives’.118(p.24) Here,inshort,istheessentialnarrativeof‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’,Walbank’sMarxisttheoryofdecline.119HisportrayalofthedecadentendofPtolemaicEgyptsignificantlyalsomakestheconnectionwiththeconditionsofthelaterRomanempireand—withoutinvokingthespectreoffascism—isclearlyreminiscentofthecorruptobscurantistCorporativeState:120

ThepowerthattheCrownhaslosthasfallenintothehandsofthepriestsandofcertaininfluentialindividuals,whoseabilitytoofferprotection…torunawaysandothersindistressseemstoanticipatetheconditionsofthedecliningRomanempirehalfamillenniumlater.ForthiscollapseofPtolemaicruletherearemanycauses,someofwhichhavebeenexaminedabove,buttothosemustbeaddedadisastrousforeignpolicy,thelossofmarketsabroad,thewastagecausedbyinternalunrestandcivilwars,incompetentgovernmentathome,bureaucraticcorruptionandcurrencydepreciation.InconsideringthewholesorrytaleitisdifficultnottoechothejudgementofE.WillthatPtolemaicEgyptfellavictimtoitsownwealthemployedintheserviceofinterestswhichwerenotitsown.

Bycontrastto‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’,however(butinlinewithotherearlier

formulations121),Walbankseekstobalancethepicture,justashehaddoneinhisCAPresidentialAddress.‘[The]flameofrationalenquiryhadbeguntoburnlowandwecandetectagrowthintheattractionofmysteryreligionsandeasterncults’,thoughtheHellenisticageisalsosaid(inthesamesentence)tohave‘remainedatimesingularlyfreefromobscurantismandcensorship…’.122Creditisgivenforthescientificdiscoveriesoftheage,but—forallthereasonswehavealreadyseen(thecheappriceofhumanlabour,whetherfreeorslave,thecontemptformanuallabour123)—theGreekcities‘nevertookadecisivestepinthedirectionofharnessingscientificdiscoveriestothepracticaluseofhumancommunitiesandtheachievementofmaterialprogress’.124Asinhisearlierworkalso,thedeclineofGreeceissetwithinagrander,historicalcanvas.Romeisbothdestroyerandheirof‘thisfertileage’;empireledtothecreationofa‘singleculturalcontinuuminwhichmany(p.25) aspectsoftheHellenisticworldlivedon’,toenjoya‘ghostlyexistenceinByzantium’.125Andtheissueofwhethertherewasanotherwayislefthanging.Walbankspeculateswhether,‘givenanothercenturywithoutRome,federalismmighthavedevelopedfreshandfruitfulaspects…Federalismofferedthepossibilityoftranscendingthelimitationsofsizeandrelativeweaknessoftheseparatecity-state.Buttimeranout.’126

Walbank’sconcernwiththetopicalsurvivesintherepeatedanalogiestothemodernworldscatteredthroughhiswork:inreferencestoChairmanMao,Smuts,theVietnampeacetalks,RedSquaremarch-pasts,workingmen’sclubs,or(lesspassingly)tocomparisonsbetweenancientandmodernfederalism(‘NoambassadorstravelabroadfromPennsylvania,Wyomingsignsnotreaties’127).Suchanalogiesaremorethanjustdecorative.The1970CAPresidentialAddressjustifiesthetopicoffederalismintermsofitscontemporaryimportance,albeitmoreguardedlythaninthegrandopeningofTheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest(‘SoperhapsitsroleintheGreekworldmayseemtobenotentirelywithouttopicalinterest’128).Hemakesthisclaimdespiteknowing,headds,that‘itisunpopularandeventhoughttobeslightlydisreputableforahistoriantopointtomodernanalogies’.

Forthemostpart,however,thetopicalaspectofWalbank’swork,andthesenseofthehistorian’scommitmentthatrelatestoit,fromnowonappearmoreobliquely.Acommonpatternisforsuchcontemporaryrelevancetobeprojectedontoothers—evenasWalbankguardshimselfagainstsimplisticassociationsbetweenancientandmodern.HissurveyofPolybianstudiesinthelastquarterofthetwentiethcentury,forexample,foundthat‘itishardtodissociate[theremarkablepost-warsurgeofinterestinPolybius]entirelyfromthecontemporaryclashofpowersandtheriseoftheUnitedStatestopre-eminence,whichweretodominatethenextfiftyyears’.129Similarly,theopeningwordsofWalbank’sprefacetothefirstvolumeoftheCommentary,throughcomparisonwithSchweighauser’seighteenth-centurycommentary,maketheimplicitclaimthathiscontemporarieswill,self-evidently,identifywiththethemesofPolybius’Histories:130

(p.26) ThelastfullcommentaryonPolybius,thatofIohannesSchweighauser,waspublishedduringtheFrenchRevolution;buthiseightmassivevolumes…arefundamentallyuntouchedbythestirringeventsgoingonatthetime.…His

commentaryisprimarilyphilological;whereasmostpeoplewhoreadPolybiustodayturntohimasthemainsourceformuchHellenistichistory,asthehistorianofthePunicWars,and,aboveall,asthefirstmanwhoreallycametogripswiththeproblemoftheriseofRometoworldempire—whichisequivalenttosayingthathisreaderstodayarepre-eminentlythosewhosharehisinterests.

Itisthesereaderswhoseneedsthepresentworkisintendedtomeet.

AsJohnHendersonhasputit,‘ “we”are“today”self-reflexivelyalivetotheRevolutions,thestirringevents,theproblemofworldempires,whichentitlesustoclaimtosharePolybius’interests’.131Hereistheclaimof‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’,thattheeventsofthedeclineofGreecehave‘aspecialsignificanceforourgeneration’,recapitulated.History-writingisnotovershadowedbytheenormityofsurroundingevents;itdrawsitspowerfromthem.

Nevertheless,itisparticularlyinthecontextofdiscussionsofthehistorian’srolethatasenseofthehistorian’spropercommitmentrevealsitself.Acrucialfigureinthisprocessofself-definitionasahistorianisGaetanoDeSanctis,whomhefirstreadasastudentin1930–1132andcitedasamodelasearlyas1943intheconclusionto‘IsourRomanHistoryTeachingReactionary?’‘Properlytold’,theRomanrepubliccouldbeatale‘damningtotheenemiesoflibertyanddemocracy’:133

ItisnomereaccidentthatGaetanodeSanctis,perhapsthemosteminentRomanhistorianofourgenerationandagreatliberalthinker,brokeoffhisStoriadeiRomaniabruptlyat167B.C.,nevertocompleteit.Hislastvolume,publishedin1923,whenFascismhadbeeninpowerforayear,isdedicated—whocanreadthewordsto-dayunmoved?—‘tothosefewwhodisdainaliketobeoppressedandtomakethemselvesoppressors’.ThestorythatDeSanctiscouldnotfinishinMussolini’sItalyitisourtaskasteachersofRomanhistoryinademocraticcountrytotell.

TheimplicitcontrastherebetweenDeSanctis’abrupthaltat167BCandPolybius'owndecision(3.4)tocontinuewritingRomanhistoryafter167BCisapowerfulone,butitismitigatedbyWalbank’sownclaimthatsuchhistoryisstillastorythatmustbetold.DeSanctisisalsothesubjectofalateressay,writtenin1983tocommemoratethefiftiethanniversaryofhisrefusaltoswearthefascistoath,publishedinEnglishonlyinWalbank’ssecondvolumeof(p.27) collectedpapersin2002.TheessayisinpartadefenceofPolybiusfromDeSanctis’chargethathewasaquislingofRome—clearlyachargeforDeSanctisbornfromhispersonalcircumstances,andarecurrentconcernforWalbank.134Atthesametime,however,itisdifficulttoresisthearingechoesofWalbank’sownpositioninwhathesaysoftheparallelsbetweenDeSanctis’andPolybius’careers(forboth‘analternativemeansofself-expression’).135AndevenasWalbankregretsthatDeSanctiscouldnothavebeenmoreforgivingofPolybius,evenashepointstowardsthedangersofusingendstojustifymeans,healignshimselfwithDeSanctis’moralperspectiveonhistory:136

HisdeepsenseofhumanityandhatredofinjusticeandoppressionwouldhavepreventedDeSanctisfromeversupposingthatends—whetherregardedasaimsor,retrospectively,astheresultsofthehistoricalprocess—canjustifymeans.Buttotalkofhistoricaljustificationistoruntheriskofseeinghistoryinthoseterms;andwhenwespeakofimperialconquestleadingtothespreadofhumanityandcivilisation,weshould,Ithink,notforget—asDeSanctisdidnotforget—thecruelfateofNumantiaandtheseveredhandsofUxellodunum.

DeSanctisisalsoakeyinspirationbehindoneofWalbank’smostemphaticmethodologicalstatements(fromhismuchcitedarticle,‘TheProblemofGreekNationality’)—astatement,ifnotofthehistorian’sdutytomakemoraljudgements,atleastofhisorherdutytomakefulluseoftheadvantageofhindsight.Walbankmakesadistinctionbetweentwolevelsofhistoricalinterpretation.Thefirstlevelofinterpretationisto‘investigatethevariouspoliciesandaimsofGreekandnon-Greekstatesmen,theinterestslikelytoinfluencethem,theactionsofthevariousstates,andtheiroutcome,intermsoftheconceptsandidealsandknowledgeactuallyavailabletothepeopleconcerned’.137Itisessential,hecontinues,however,thatthehistoriangoesbeyondthisfirstlevel:

(p.28) [He]isalsolivinginhisownage,withalltheadvantagesofknowinghowtheplayended;andhecanseeeachactinrelationtothewhole.138NowbecauseofwhatDeSanctishascalledthe‘creativityofhistory’itsprocessisnotamereseriesofpermutationsandcombinationssimilartothatofshufflingcardsorshakingdice.Outoftheclashofdeedsandpolicies,thegeniusorthemaliceofoutstandingindividuals,theunthinkingobedienceortherevulsionofthemass,thevictories,defeats,migrations,conquests,andsettlements,thesocialstruggles,theshiftingcurrentsoftrade,andalltheinfinitevarietyofathousandandoneotherfactors,somethingnewisconstantlycomingtobirth;andwhatisborninthiswayisneitherahaphazardnoranarbitrarycreationbutstandsinalogicalsequencetoallthatprecededit.

ThereisalsoaninterplaythroughWalbank’sworkbetweenPolybius’methodology,perspective,evenpersonalnarrative,andhisown.Atonelevel,weseeinWalbankanidentification—howeverunwitting—withthepracticalPolybius.Afunctionoftheprevailingideologyofcontemptformanualworkwas,accordingto‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’,‘thediversionofscientificthoughtawayfrompracticalexperiment…intonotionalandmetaphysicalchannels’.139Walbank’slaudatoryaccountoftheAchaeanLeague,inhisCAPresidentialAddress,climaxeswiththeobservation‘Andallthiswasdonebypracticalpoliticianswhoowedvirtuallynothingtopoliticaltheorists’.140Similarly,justasPolybiusresiststhetemptationtoarouseanemotionalresponseinhisreader,141sohelatersummarizesthestrengthsandweaknessesof(alaterstudyby)Stierbydescribingitasan‘extremelyinteresting,ifsomewhatemotionallycharged,study’.142Atthesametime,the‘disingenuousness’with(p.29) whichPolybiusclaimsto‘defendhighprinciple’,Polybius’identificationwithRomanimperialexpansion,his‘ruthless’acceptanceofthemeansemployed(‘successwasapttobehismaincriterion’),andhislackofsympathyforthosecaughtupinitsprogressareplainlyaconcern:143

Onethingworriesmealittle.Polybius’commitmenttothedoctrineof‘thepossible’isnodoubtapraiseworthyqualityinastatesman—eventhoughthereally‘great’statesmanisthemanwhomakeshisowndefinitionofthepossible.ButhadthiscommitmentperhapsaslightlycorruptingeffectonPolybiusasahistorian?WithhisincreasingsympathyforRome,thesuccessfulsuper-power,goesamarkedlackofsympathyforthosewhohadresistedher.144

Movingbeyondsuchexcathedrastatementsonmethodologyandapproach,andatriskofbeingfanciful,itisalsopossibletotraceamoredelicate,implicitrelationshipbetweenthesetwoco-dependenthistorians.GivenPolybius’famousopeningstatement,itisstrikinghowfrequentlythefigureoffiftyyearsfeaturesinWalbank’sownwork.DeSanctis’‘greatactofcourage’,theworkofSchwartz,hisownstudyofGreeknationality,thedevelopmentofHolleaux’sthesis,areallreviewedafterhalfacentury—ineachcasetoconsider(inaparalleltoPolybius’extension?)‘howfar[theyhave]stoodthetestoftime’.145Walbank’sreflection(quotedabove)onthecoincidenceofthepost-warsurgeininterestinPolybiusandcontemporaryaffairs—‘thecontemporaryclashofpowersandtheriseoftheUnitedStatestopre-eminence,whichweretodominatethenextfiftyyears’146—suggeststhatthisfifty-yeartropeismorethan,asitwere,aPolybiantick:eversotentatively,WalbankpointstothenewRomeandtoitsinevitableeclipse.147Therecurrenceofthismotif,moreover,isnotjusttheproductofWalbank’sunusualopportunityforhindsight,‘ofknowinghowthe[scholarly]playended’.Inanotherpassageofhis‘ProblemofGreekNationality’,heinfactanticipateshisownsubsequentreview:

(p.30) thoughthehistorianisapttobelievethatthesubjecthehaschosenforstudyisonewhichhecametobychance,orbecauseitseemedtohavebeenneglected,orbecauseitaroseoutofsomeearlierwork,orforsomeotherwhollypersonalreason,fiftyyearshenceitwillbequiteobviousthatthethemeschosenbyhistorianstoday,andthetreatmentaccordedtothem,weredirectlyrelatedtocontemporaryproblems,or,touseDeSanctis’words,tothespiritualneedsofmenandwomenlivinginthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury.(1951:60)

Walbank’snarrativeofhisownearlycareerintheHypomnematacontainsfurtherPolybianparallels.148Itplaysrepeatedlyonthetensionbetweenhis‘twolevelsofinterpretation’:thereconstructionofhisownlimitedvisionasanagentinhisownstory;andhisownvantage-pointfrombeyondthestory’send.149InWalbank’saccount,hisearlycareerturnsonasmallnumberofcrucialchances:hisknowledgefromacigarettecardthatPeterhousewastheoldestCambridgecollege,forexample;orhiswritingofanarticleelucidatingsomelinesoftheGeorgicsonweaving,latercitedasevidencethathewasnotan‘historianindisguise’whenhewasappointedtotheLiverpoolChairofLatin.150‘Inowknow’,hewrotelaterofthetwistthatledhimtotaketheClassicalsideatBradfordGrammarSchool,‘thatchanceanderrorplayagreatpartatalltimesinshapingone’slifeandIdonotregretatallthatmyparents’ignoranceturnedmeintoaclassicalscholar’.151ThispatterncanbeseeninpartinthecontextofHenderson’sthesisofhisself-effacement,Walbank’s‘coolantironyfortheactor-self’seffortstostringtogetherachosenpathtowardasettledgoalorrationalobjective’.152TheparallelwithPolybius

mightsuggest,however,amoreprovidentialformofTycheguidinghiscareer—nomatterhowknowingorironictheanalogymighthavebeen.153Inastrikingpassageofalatearticle,WalbankfindsthatPolybius’personalnarrative,thegenesisofhisgreatwork,islikewisefoundedonasmallnumberof‘arbitraryandidiosyncraticfeatures’:‘anAristotelianphilosopher’sobiterdictumontheriseofMacedonia154…agenerally(p.31)acceptedHellenisticbeliefinTyche,and,probably,hisfamilyinvolvementwithPtolemaicEgypt’.155

History,forWalbank,waslikewiseamatterofunintendedconsequences,ofswirlingmovementstheshapeofwhichwouldonlybecomeapparenttothehistorian,andofpracticalmendoingtheirbestinthemidstofthesegreatcurrents.Histwoearliestbooks,bothbiographicalinfocus,havestrikinglyironicendings.PhilipVistheunwittingvehicleforGreekculture‘tospreadalongthepathsofthelegionstoRome,andsotothewesterncivilisationthatgrewupafterher’.156Hislifehadbeen‘necessarilyading-dongstruggle,demandingaconstantreadaptationofbothendsandmeans,inwhichchangingcircumstancesagainandagainsuggestednewobjectives’.157Aratosseestherolesofitstwochiefprotagonistsreversed:‘Cleomenestheidealistandmanofactionbecomesamereexpressionofoneaspectofhisage,withoutsignificanceforthefuture;Aratos,bykeepingclosetoactualeventsandsituations,andlettingtheseconditionhisacts,shapesthehistoryoftheGreekpeopleforahundredyearsafterhisdeath.’158Thevalueofhistoryisnotjustageneralizedone,‘theenrichmentofexperiencewhichcomesfromanaddedunderstandingofallthatispastinthepresent’,andnorcanitbenarrowedtoasearchforinsightsintoaspecificcontemporaryobjective159—forthecontextforactionchangesfromhistoricalmomenttomoment160—but(p.32) ‘alsothatwisdomwhichisthefruitofmenpartlylikeandpartlyunlikeourselvesmeeting,andeithersolvingorfailingtosolve,problemsthatarepartlylikeandpartlyunlikethosewhichweourselveshavetoface’.161Inthisbroadercontext,inthe‘ding-dong’strugglewithitscountlesscontingencies,moraljudgementsarenecessarilyshaded.162Thehistorianbalancesdelicatelyabovethefray,awarethathisownworkishistoricallycontingent,thatitsmeaningandmotiveswillonlybeclearinretrospect—andisthereforewaryofbeingover-harshinjudgingpreviouswriterssimilarlyblindtotheirowncontext.163

Thehistorian’srole—asreflectedherethroughPolybius,DeSanctis,andtheidealhistorianofthe‘ProblemofGreekNationality’—isclearlylessdirectlypoliticalthaninWalbank’searlier‘politicaleffusions’.Itisarguablynolesspowerful,however:akindofromantic,moralcalling.Thechoiceofsuchhigh-flownlanguagemightseematoddswiththepracticalorientationofmuchofWalbank’swriting.(Though,asmanyofthepassagescitedabovereveal,Walbankwasnotabovehigh-flownlanguagehimself.)Critically,however,thereneedbenooppositionbetweenthedown-to-earth,thepractical,ontheonehand,andtheloftilyromanticontheother.ForWalbank,theromanticconsistsinthepractical:themenwhopioneeredfederalismwithoutanyphilosophicalguide;theitinerantcraftsmenwhokeptalivethelegacyoftheancientworld;thebuses,vans,andpostalcataloguesthatbringthetownandcountrytogetherandmarkprogress.Thehistorian(intheconsistentpatternofhisreviews)mustbebalancedandobjectiveinhisjudgements,hiswork(p.33) ‘anchoredinfacts,freefromabstractionand

generalization,andwithnoaxetogrind’.164Butheshouldalsotakepositions,‘[feel]passionateand…notshrinkfrombattle’.165

Inaseriesofpassagesthroughhiswork,WalbankidentifiedsimilaraspectstoPolybius.‘Whenonehasclearedawaythejejunemoralising,thedidacticismandthestiltedandcreakingmetaphysics’,hewroteinapaperin1946,‘thereissomethingsolidandvaluablebeneath…afirmconvictionthathistoryisathingthatmatters,arationalstudyinwhichoneasksquestionsandobtainsanswers,andusestheknowledgegainedtoenrichandinformone’sownexperience.’166Polybius’,unlikeHerodotus’,wasonlyan‘apparentcandour’,thatofaman‘whohaspersuadedhimselfofthetruthaboutmattersinwhichhehasastrongpersonalcommitment,andisnotpreparedeventoenvisagethepossibilitythattheremaybeanotherpointofview’.167ComparinghimselfwithOdysseus—‘agrand,ifslightlyhumourless,comparison’168—reveals‘disguisedbeneaththedidacticismofthepracticalhistorian…aglimpseofaromantic’.169Polybius’polemicsalsorevealhiddendepths:170

WeareapttothinkofPolybiusasadidacticandevenprosywriter.Hislongpassagesofpolemic,properlyread,enableustocorrectthatpictureandtoseesomethingofthestrongemotionalbackgroundwhichcolouredhisattitudesandprobablygavehimtheimpetustocarrythroughhisgreatenterprisetoasuccessfulconclusion.

Itmustremainanonliquet,butitishardtoresisttheconclusionthatforWalbanktooanequivalentemotionalbackgroundwassimilarlyfundamental,inallowinghimtoconceiveandtocarrythroughhisgreatenterprise.

AfterWalbank,whatnowforPolybius?Recentyearshaveseenanewsurgeofinterest:withawaveofnewvolumes(bothspecialiststudiesonparticularthemesandworksofsynthesisorintroduction),andaseriesofimportant(p.34) conferencesleadingtopublishedcollections.171Althougholderproblems,asWalbankhimselfobservedin2002,have‘remaineduppermostindiscussion’,itispossibletodivineanumberoftrendsinrecentwork.172Itisclear,first,thatinterestinRomanimperialismhasrarelybeenmoreintense.173WithhispositionbetweenGreeceandRome,asanimperialsubjectwhocametoidentifywithimperialpower,Polybiusprovidesasingularcasestudyforfurtherwork,forexampledrawingonpost-colonialapproaches,orrelatingourcharacterizationofancientimperialismtomoderndebates.174AsWalbankhimselfrecognizedinhis2002reviewof(latetwentieth-century)Polybianscholarship,recentworkhasshownanincreasinginterestinrhetoricandnarrative—thoughheaddedthebalancingnotethatthisnewapproach,‘isbasicallylessnovelthanitmightappeartobe’.175

Thisvolumelooksbothback,inappreciationofpastscholarship;andforward,lookingfornewanswerstooldquestions.Anumberofcontributions,forexample,examinetheintertextualrelationshipofPolybius’workwithothers—Phylarchus(Marincola),AratusofSicyon(Meadows),ZenoofRhodes(Wiemer),orXenophon(Gibson)—orLivy’suseofPolybiusasasource(Briscoe).OtherstakeafreshapproachtoPolybius’positionbetweenGreeceandRome(Thornton,Sommer),followWalbankincontrastingthe

responsesofJosephusandPolybiustoRomanpower(Gruen),oroffercontrastingapproachestooneofthemostfamiliarPolybianquestions,thatofPolybius’accountoftheRomanconstitutioninBook6(Erskine,Seager).176Stillfurthercontributions,influencedbynarratologicalperspectives,tracenarrativepatternsinPolybius’workthroughcloseanalysisofparticularsections:theMamertinecrisis(Champion),theyouthandlastyearsofPhilip(p.35) V(McGing,Dreyer),theroleoftheRomanprokataskeuēinBooks1and2(Beck),orPolybius’characterizationofBoeotiainBook20(Müller).TwochapterslookatPolybiusthroughawideMediterraneancontext,exploitingthewealthofsourcematerialPolybiusofferstotheeconomichistorian(Davies)ordrawingonBenedictAnderson’sideaof‘imaginedcommunities’toreconsiderPolybius’useofsynchronismsandthegeographicalcomingtogetherofMediterraneanhistory(συμπλοκή).177OneareaofpotentialresearchnotcoveredistherichreceptionhistoryofPolybius—withoneexception,thereceptionofPolybiusbyFrankWalbankhimself.Beyondthisintroductorychapter,twoverydifferentcontributionsbookendthevolume:thefirstadetailedaccountofthegenesisofthePolybiancommentary,byJohnHenderson;thesecondaninsightintothepersonalcontextinwhichthecommentarywasdeveloped,byFrank’sdaughterMitzi.

WhatofthefuturedirectionofPolybianscholarship?Basedonthedirectionofcurrentwork,wecanspeculatewithsomeconfidence:thattheemphasisonPolybiannarrativestrategieswillintensify,perhapswithliterarycommentariesonsomeindividualbooks;thattheremightbeagreaterconcentrationonPolybius’intellectualcontext,hisengagementwithcontemporarydebates;178thatthereligiousideasoftheHistories,Polybius’‘creakingmetaphysics’mightbereassessed,inthelightofnewapproachestoGreekreligiousbelief;179orthattheremightbearenewedinterestinissuesofidentityandtherepresentationofculturaldifferencewithinthetext.180Givenrecentexplorationsofthecommentaryasagenre,andgiventheextensivearchiveofpapersthatmightsupportsuchaproject,afulleranalysis(ascalledforbyJohnHendersonbelow)of‘theresearchmethods,rhetoricalstrategies,orarchivaleconomyembodied’inWalbank’scommentarymightalsobelikely.181

Howourcurrentinterestsareshapedbycontemporaryconcernsbeyondacademewemayonlyguess.However,witharecentexperimentinpoliticalunionreeling,thegapbetweenthe‘richandthestarving’extendingeverfurther,andtheidealofahumanescholarshipfacingrenewedthreat,fiftyyearshencewecanexpectthatreaderswillhavecontinuedtolook,withprofit,tobothPolybiusandWalbank.

Notes:

(1)Thefollowingyear,1933.AllreferencesinthischapteraretoWalbank’sownpublicationsunlessspecified;Walbank’spapersarereferredtobytheirfirstdateofpublicationinEnglish.

(2)1992a:76–7.ThememoircoversWalbank’slifeuntil1946;Walbank’sextensivepapers,lodgedintheUniversityofLiverpool’sSydneyJonesLibrary,includenotespreparatorytoasubsequentmemoir,‘Summaryofyears1946–1977’:SCA

D1037/2/3/21/57.

(3)ExploredbyHenderson2001a.

(4)2002:2.Fivevols.oftherevisedLoebhavenowbeenpublished.

(5)Cf.Davies2011:348–9.Manyofthesearticlesareincludedintwocollections:Walbank1985(whichincludesafulllistofWalbank’spublicationsuptothatpoint)and2002.

(6)DrErnestBarker,Observer,29Dec.1940.

(7)1984a,1984b,HammondandWalbank1988.

(8)SeeDavies’dispassionatecritiqueofesp.Walbank’sDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest,2011:330–1,343,ofWalbank’sventureintotheeconomyoftheLaterRomanEmpire(Walbank1952),2011:331–2,orhisremarksonAratos(Walbank1933),an‘apprenticework’,2011:327.Cf.Plb.3.59.2‘Weshouldnotfindfaultwithwritersfortheiromissionsandmistakes,butshouldpraiseandadmirethem,consideringthetimestheylivedin,forhavingascertainedsomethingonthesubjectandadvancedourknowledge',Walbank1962:1.

(9)Davies2011:349–50.

(10)Momigliano1984.ForWalbank’saccountofhisrelationshipwithMomigliano,andoftheimpactoftheirfirstmeeting(‘Ifoundthewholeweekend…acompletelynewworld’),seeSCAD1037/2/3/9/46,alettertoOswynMurraydated24Aug.1988.

(11)Seee.g.2000:21,2002:ix,12,18,140,153,154,andn.10,156,260andn.11,266n.46.

(12)1972a:26.

(13)Henderson2001a:221.Workonthecommentaryitself,however,beganin1944andendedinsubmissiontothepressofvol.iiiin1977.

(14)1998b:46:‘Ihavebeeninterestedinthisbookforoverfiftyyears—aslongasittooktheRomanstorisetoworlddominion!’

(15)SeeHendersoninthisvolume.Note,however,thecontrastdrawnbyDorothyThompson(inherfuneraladdress,SCAD1037/1/1/10/2)betweenWalbankwithinandoutsidehisstudy:‘Frankdideverythingatarush…Hecutourgrassinalatherandaflurry.Beingdrivenbyhimwasnotarestfulexperience.Whenhesatathisdeskthatoutpouringofenergybecamementalfocusandmayhelptoaccountforhisastonishingrecordofpublications.’

(16)SeeMitziWalbank’smemoirinthisvolume.

(17)SeefurtherHendersoninthisvolume.Note,however,thatthefirstvolumeof

Gomme’scommentary,likethatofWalbank(HCPi.vii),openswithanunderestimateofthenumberofvolumesofcommentaryrequired:‘Thisworkisplannedtobeinthreevolumes’(Gomme1945:v).

(18)Seebelow,p.53.SubsequentlyWalbankhimselfexpressedregretthatthepressureimposedforimmediatepublications‘makesscholarslessinclinedtotakeonworklikelytooccupyseveralyears’(2002:2).

(19)Seefurther1992a:103–6.Seebelow,pp.41–2,forWalbank’sfederalismessay.

(20)1949a:101;‘sincethisisnowrarelyfeasible’,hecontinues,‘itisessentialthattheyshouldhavesomealternativewayofgainingapictureofthosepermanentfeaturesoftheMediterraneanlandscapethatcontrolthewayoflifeofitsinhabitants’.Cf.Polybiusownemphasisontheneedforhistorianstostudytopography(12.25e.1).

(21)1933:ix;seefurther1992a:123–4.

(22)SCAD1037/2/5/3,p.6,continuing:‘Atticaliesspreadoutlikeamap,andonecantracethevariousroutesbywhichitcouldbeinvaded—DaphnionthepassthroughAegaleos,andtheeasierrailwayroutetothenorthofthemountain,throughAcharnae;theimportanceofDecelea,nowtheairstationofTatoi,duringthePeloponnesianWar,isatonceevident;andthestoryoftheshieldatMarathonisliftedfromtherealmoffable,andbecomesapossibility,ifnothingmore.’Walbankalsogaveamoreanecdotalaccountofhistravelsinalecture‘ModernGreece’,fromthesameperiod:SCAD1037/2/4/8/1/4.

(23)Seee.g.1947a(witha‘collectionofAlpineviewssufficientlycatholictosuitalltheoriesofHannibal’sroute’,p.109),1960b(onHammond),1950a(ontopographicalerrors).

(24)Lecturenoteson‘GeographicalbackgroundtoGreekhistory’,SCAD1037/2/3/18/125p.4.See,inparticular,1956a,ontherouteofHannibal’spassthroughtheAlps,andhisrecurrentconcernwiththerouteoftheViaEgnatia,e.g.1977c,1983a,1986(seealso‘TheViaEgnatia:itsroleinRomanstrategy’,SCAD1037/2/3/9/19/1).

(25)1948a:164,foreshadowedinanunpublishedlecture‘TheReliabilityofPolybius’,delivered18June1946,p.7(SCAD1037/2/1/5/1–2);cf.1943c:79(‘todemandcompleteconsistencyinPolybius’useoftechnicallanguageistoinvitedisappointment’),1972a:117–24.SeealsohiscritiqueofJ.O.Thomson,1949b:361,forhislackofsympathyforhissubject-matter,‘littlepatienceforthepastmythsandfolliesofmankind,foritsconfusionsofthoughtanderrorsofjudgement…heseemsalmosttoapologizeformentioningsuchobviousnonsense’.

(26)2000:19;muchoftheargumentofWalbank1951isanticipatedin1933:e.g.2(thoughcf.p.21).Cf.hiscommentsonRostovtzeff1941:Walbank1944:10(‘hisviewofancienthistoryappearstohavebeeninfluencedbyhisownvividapprehensionofcertaincontemporaryeventsinEurope’),orontheinterestofSouthAfricanhistorians,1953a,inthe‘broadquestionofhowmenofdifferingrace,nationality,religion,andpoliticsgotontogetherintheancientworld’.

(27)Seealso1972b:146–7.

(28)1993a:15:‘itisadynamic,dialecticalprocessinvolvinginvestigation,selectionandinterpretation.Ateachstagethehistorianinteractswithhismaterial.Thepastisinsomesenserecreatedafreshforeachpersonwhoconcernshimselfwithit.’Cf.theprefaceto1940a:xi(‘Historicalscience,nolessthanhistoryitself,representsacontinuousprocessofintegration’).

(29)Cf.Henderson2001a:228.Forgreatmen,seee.g.1933:1,28,165–6;seefurtherpp.9–10below,onCleomenesIII.

(30)Byhisownaccount,WalbankhadbeenaLaboursympathizersince‘atleast1922,when[he]feltstronglyonthesideoftheminers’,1992a:120;hehadjoinedtheSocialistSocietyandtheLeagueofNationsUnionin1930–1atCambridge,1992a:108.Duringaseven-weekstayinJenain1931he‘hadbecomeveryconsciousofthedangerspresentedbytheNazimovement’,1992a:121(cf.pp.115,128–9);reinforcedbyMary’smorepracticalcommitment(p.132),laterinthe1930s,hejoinedtheCommunistparty,wasHon.Sec.oftheMerseysidebranchoftheNationalCouncilforCivilLiberties(activeinwritingtolocalpaperstocounterNationalUnionofFascistspropaganda),andwasChairmanofthelocalbranchoftheLeftBookClub.Forhisreadinginthisperiod,seebelow,n.33.

(31)1992a:188,citedbyHendersonbelow.

(32)Theargumentof1944canbeseenanticipatede.g.inWalbank1943d,andespecially1942c(areviewofRostovtzeff1941).ForWalbank’sextensivenotesonthelateRomaneconomy,seeSCAD1037/2/3/15.ByWalbank’saccount,1992a:97,acrucialroleinintroducinghimtotheideasofRostovtzeffwasplayedbytheundergraduatelecturesofMartinCharlesworth.

(33)ApointgivenprominencebyMomigliano1984:‘Firstofall,itisimpossibletothinkof[Walbank]asamanandasahistorianwithoutbearinginmindthepre-waratmosphereofdiscussiononancientandmodernproblemsofcivilization.’ForWalbank’sreading,seee.g.1992a:76(indoctrination,byNedGoddard,withtheideasofOswaldSpengler’sDeclineoftheWest:‘later,ofcourse,weallthrewofftheseideasandmanyothersemi-mysticalnotionstowhichGoddardwaspartial’),p.121(G.B.Shaw).Anearlynotebook,SCAD1037/2/3/22,containstwopagesofreactionstoToynbee,AStudyofHistoryIV.58 ff.SpenglerandToynbeefeatureinhisdiscussionofthereceptionofthemixedconstitutioninhisthird1957GrayLecture,SCAD1037/2/1/11/9,p.332(Polybius‘amongthedistantprogenitorsofOswaldSpenglerandDr.Toynbee’),thoughcf.itspublishedversion,1964a:34–5.TheintensityandbreadthofWalbank’sengagementwithcontemporaryeventscanbegaugedbyhisyear-longWorkers’EducationalAssociation(WEA)courseonWorldAffairs,runatLytham,in1945–6,SCAD1037/2/1/4;lectures(mostlycountrybycountry)areinterspersedwithweeklyupdatesoneventsacrosstheglobe;seebelowfortherangeofWalbank’smodernanalogiesinlaterwritings,p.25.

(34)1944:11;forthepairingofGreekandRomandecline,cf.1983b:199,whereWalbanklocatestheachievementofdeSteCroix’sTheClassStruggleintheAncientGreekWorldin‘itstreatmentoftwodevelopmentsofmagnitude—thedestructionofGreekdemocracyfrom400BConwardsandthecausesofthedeclineandfalloftheRomanEmpire'.Walbankbrackets1943a,1944,and1946atogetherinhismemoir,1992a:188–9.

(35)1946a:1.

(36)1944:10.

(37)Aphrasesharpened,perhaps,bydirectexperience:Walbank’sserviceintheUniversityFireWatch,‘tak[ing]abearingonanyfirethatmightbestartedbyincendiarybombs’.Seefurther1992a:175–7.

(38)1944:12,1946a:23.

(39)1946a:67,1944:12.Cf.his‘violentdissent’fromthepositionofJ.L.Myres,1946b:‘Forinstance,if“eveninthemostadvancedand…progressiveculturesoftheMediterraneantheconfessedgoalwasstaticalequilibrium”,thestoriesoffifth-centuryAthens,republicanRome,Dandolo'sVenice,andMussolini’sItalysuggestthatthisconfessedgoalhadlittlerelevancetoactualpolicies.’

(40)1946a:24.ContrastRostovtzeff1941:1311–12,seeingthelackofGreekunityasputtingastoponcreativity.

(41)1944:11:‘…wheretheartisticachievementoftheAthenianAcropoliswasmadepossibleonlybyatyrannousimpositionexactedfromunwillingsubjects,whathopewasthereofunity?Andwhatmeaningwasthereinfreedom?’

(42)1944:19,1946a:68.Walbank’suseofthephrase‘masscivilisation’caninpartbeseenasarejoindertothemuchmorenegativeandconservativeuseofthetermbyF.R.Leavis,authorofthenotoriousMassCivilisationandMinorityCulture(Cambridge,1930).WalbankwastakenforteawiththeLeavises,in1930–1:see1992a:123.

(43)1946a:71–2.

(44)Theuseofthetermis,verylikely,duetothestronginfluenceatthetime—onbothFrankandMaryWalbank—ofPalmeDutt’sFascismandSocialRevolution:AStudyoftheEconomicsandPoliticsoftheExtremeStagesofCapitalisminDecay(London,1934):see1992a:128.

(45)1946a:46–7;cf.p.68fortheaggressionoftheCity-State(which‘preciselybecauseitwasaminorityculture,tendedtobeaggressiveandpredatory,itsclaimtoautonomyslidingoverinsensibly,ateveryopportunity,intoaclaimtodominateothers’).

(46)1952:33.

(47)1944:15,1944:12;cf.1946a:68.ContrastRostovtzeff’scharacterizationofthe‘buoyantoptimism’oftheage,1941:1095.

(48)1946a:76.

(49)1935:16,continuing(pp.16–17):‘Theanalogymustnotofcoursebepressedtoofar;thereareforcesofcapitalandlargescaleindustrybehindmodernfascismthatsimplydidnotexistin3rdcenturySparta.’TheportrayalofCleomenesinWalbank1933ismarkedlylessnegative;seealso1966afortheargumentthatPolybiussawCleomenesastyrannicallyundoing,ratherthanreturningto,theLycurganconstitution;hisaccountofCleomenes’revolution,1984b:458–9,alsocontainsnofascistovertones.

(50)1935:29–30.

(51)1944:20.Cf.1946a:82–4,1952:85(‘Withthecollapseoftheimperialstate,thatlargesectionoftheeconomywhichdependedonitsimplydisappeared.Theresidue—smallartisansandtradersinthetowns,localmarkets,itinerantcraftsmen,thevillagesaroundthemanororthemonastery,and,fortherich,anirregulartradeinluxuriesfromallpartsoftheMediterranean—wasleftastheeconomicfoundationofmedievalEurope’).Forasimilartropeoflong-termtransmissionofaclassicalheritage(theideaofmonarchy)see,withvariations,1983d:20,1984a:100.

(52)1946a:76–9.Walbankdoesconceivedangersinindustrialization,e.g.thetendencyofindustryto‘exportitself’,1946a:28,78,exemplifiedbythemigrationofcottonmanufacturefromLancashiretoBombay.

(53)1946a:80;cf.p.76.

(54)1937:224,continuing‘butthereareunfortunatelystillenoughtomakeasimpleexpositionwellnighanimpossibility’.Cf.1954b:51onHolleaux.

(55)1946a:5–6;seealso1945b.Walbankwasclearlythinking,inlargepart,ofRostovtzeff:see1991/2:90.

(56)1943a:57.

(57)1943a:60–1.

(58)1943a:60;adelayedresponseperhapstothedomineeringheadofClassicsatBradfordGrammarSchool,L.W.P.Lewis,forwhomsee1992a:65(citedbelowbyHenderson,pp.39–40).

(59)1950d:117;cf.hisInaugurallectureasProfessorofLatin(1946),‘TheRomanHistoriansontheRomanRepublic’,SCAD1037/2/1/7/1/1,p.3(‘TheHumanitiesareoftheiressencethewholestoryoftheclassicalworldanditsheritage,andwithinthemwedrawnofrontiers’).

(60)1950d:116–17.ThepassageisreminiscentofWalbank1951:58(quotedbelow,p.28)aswellasofthefamouspassageofMacNeice’sAutumnJournal,sectionIX.

(61)1946a:80;cf.pp.84–5.Thesameurgencyisreflectedinanearlierlecture,givenaspartofaseriesoncitizenship(thoughhistory)fortheDurhamCountyCommunityServiceCouncilinSept.1938.Thefinallectureconcludeswithquestionsover‘thefutureofourliberties’,SCAD1037/2/1/3/1:

Conclusion:

—thereisanattackonourliberties

Defence—vigilanceandagitation:unity.

Context:thatofwide-spreadfascism[illegiblereferencetoUlsterUnionists,1913]

BurningofPapers—Hitler

Chamberlain—?

DutyofCitizentosafeguardhisrights,towatchoverthoseonwhomauthorityisconferred.

(62)SCAD1037/2/1/9/1/7.

(63)BrashandWalbank1946:80,85(‘[Lascience]…estimpuissanteàcréeruncodedemoraleetuneéchelledesvaleurs,àresoudrelesproblèmesd’organisationsocialeetàdeterminerlesprincipesd’unevieraisonable,toutesquestionssurlesquelleslacultureclassiqueatoujourssonmotàdire’);thewar,foughtforwesternhumanisticvalues,hadhadtheironiceffectofsubordinatingthehumanitiesto‘desétudesayantunrapportplusimmediateaveclesbesoinsdelaguerremécanique’(p.73,reprisedat1950d:113).

(64)1946a:85.

(65)1943a:60,1946a:ix,17;seealso1942c:82onRostovtzeff’sbourgeoisie.

(66)1946a:69,74–5.

(67)1944:10onRostovtzeff1926:436,484;cf.Rostovtzeff1941:1125.

(68)Cf.Davies2011:331.

(69)1943a:57.ThereisacloseparallelagainherewithWalbank’sdirectlypoliticalwritings.Seee.g.hisletterstotheWallaseyNews,inanswertoaMissCollinsoftheBritishUnionofFascistsandNationalSocialists,SCAD1037/1/8/6(e.g.aletterof27Nov.1937:‘Letusbequiteclear:Fascismisamovementwhichdeniesdemocracyintheoryandoutragesitinpractice;anditclaimslibertyofspeechto-dayonlyinorderthatitmaydestroyitthemomentitachievesthepowertodoso.’)

(70)1946a:84.

(71)1946a:73.Ontheinterpenetrationoftownandcountry,seeWalbank’sobservations,1991/2:94.

(72)LouisMacNeice,AutumnJournal,sect.III,written1938.

(73)2001aand2001b.

(74)SeeDavies2011:329–30forthecircumstances;fortheHansBaueraffair,Walbank1992a:161–5,170–2.

(75)Henderson2001b:37(‘Thealiensgoodasflewhimofftoanotherplanet,andmadePolybius“ours”’).

(76)Henderson2001a:222.

(77)1992a:187–8.

(78)1992a:191;onVEday,Walbank‘wastalkingtotheStAnne’sRotaryClubon“IsHistoryBunk?”’.Cf.hisaccountofKoestler’sstay,1992a:146–7,revealingthattheywerereallyliberals.

(80)Ibid:229.

(81)1933:e.g.49–51,86–7,95,notablygivingCleomenescreditforbeing‘largelypromptedbyagenuineidealism’(p.86).

(82)Twoworlds:1992a:153,166;cf.p.187forFarrington’sinvitationtoWalbankin1943towritetheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest.Trevescorrespondence:SCAD1037/2/3/1/55–6,59–63,121.

(83)1992a:132.

(84)AcrucialmomentinWalbank’sownnarrativeistheMolotov–Ribbentroppact:‘thispoliticalreversalcoincidedwithMary’sbreakdownandseemedtobepartofashatteringofallpreviouspointsofreference’(1992a:173);cf.p.188(‘IwasstillaMarxist(ofsorts)’,inthecontextofthelatest‘contemptible’shiftofCommunistpolicy,theirreversaloftheirattitudetothewarafterHitler’sattackontheSovietUnioninJune1941).

(85)1992a:108;ClassicsandtheLeagueofNationshadcoincidedforWalbankinthefigureofGilbertMurray,whohadspokentotheBradfordGrammarSchool‘SixthClassical’whenhewasinBradfordforaLeagueofNationsUnionmeeting(1992a:74),andwholecturedontheHellenicTravellers’Cruise,1930(1992a:105).ForMurray’sLeagueofNationsactivities,seeStray2007:esp.pp.217–37.

(86)SCAD1037/2/4/1/2,pp.11–12;seeD1037/2/4/1/1fornotesfortheessay,D1037/2/4/1/3–5forassociatedpaperwork.ComparethesecondlectureofWalbank’s1938DurhamCountyseriesoncitizenship,SCAD1037/2/1/3/1,askingwhetherthe‘voluntaryliquidationofstates’waspossible.Seealso1935,‘SocialRevolutionatSparta’,p.3(onthedebtofmodernfederalorganizationstotheAchaeanLeagueandAratus),p.9(ontheAchaeanLeagueas‘theinstrumentoftheupperclasses,aconsolidationandguaranteeagainstsocialrevolt’).

(87)SCAD1037/2/3/18/8,10;D1037/2/3/21/1,23.

(88)SCAD1037/2/1/4/32,entitled‘FormsofWorldOrganization’.

(89)SeefurtherHendersoninthisvolume,pp.46–53.

(90)1939/40:54.

(91)1942c:84.Cf.1945bonTaubenschlag,TheLawofGreco-RomanEgyptintheLightofthePapyri(‘Thepresentvolumeisamonument…totheintegrityofpurposewhich,attheoutsetofthewar,broughtthissixty-year-oldprofessorfromCracowtoAix-en-Provenceandsubsequently,in1940,toColumbiaUniversity,sothathemightcrownalife’sworkwiththisstudy…’).

(92)1942b:88.FortheemphasisonracialdiscriminationinWalbank’spoliticalactivity,seee.g.hisanti-fascistletterstotheWallaseyNews,SCAD1037/1/8/6,orhislectureonanti-semitism,‘oneofthegreatestdangersandtricksinthereactionaries’pack’,foraWEAWorldAffairscourserunatLytham,1945–6,SCAD1037/2/1/4/29.

(93)1948b:161.

(94)1950c:188.FortheparticularrelationshipbetweenGermanscholarshipandtheHellenisticworld,see1991/2:91.

(95)Seealsothepatternofhisdistrustofmetaphorsmasqueradingasexplanation:e.g.1946a:66,1959b:245.

(96)Seee.g.BrashandWalbank1946,Walbank1950d,andtheevidenceofhiscorrespondencewithLouisRobert,SCAD1037/2/6/1/20/52,54,55,56,inwhichRobertgavealistofwartimeFrenchscholarship.

(97)1950d:112,116,continuingtoask:‘inshort,ifwecannot—asweassuredlycannot—havethewholecake,whetherwecannothaveahalf,aquarter,oratleastsomefragment,whichmayawakenatastehereandthereforadisciplinewhichwecannotaffordtolose’.

(98)1953b:49.Cf.hispuncturing,1966c:197,ofthe‘inflatedandbombasticclaims’ofahistorysponsoredbyaspecialInternationalCommissionforaHistoryoftheScientificandCulturalDevelopmentofMankind.Itwasperhapsthistendencytoundercutgrandclaimsthat—forallhispoliticalpassion—preventedhimfromeverbeinga‘partyman’.Ashe

warnedthestudentsoftheSocialistSocietyinapost-warlecture,SCAD1037/2/1/9/1/2,‘Warning:Don’tbecome“party”maninanarrowsense(—ofanyparty!).Joinpartiesifyouthinktheyarerightbut—don’tpretendtheyareinfallible.Infallibilityisareligiousclaimnotapoliticalone.Don’tsurrenderyourpowerofjudgement.’

(99)1942a;anarticleappreciatedbyLouisRobertintheirpost-warcorrespondence(‘précieuxpourmoi’),letterdated4Nov.1945(SCAD1037/2/6/1/20/54).

(100)Mountford’ssuggestion:1992a:186.Cf.hischoiceofAratus(asopposedtotheDelphicoracle)ashisfirstresearchtopic(p.109),orhissettlingonabiographyofPhilipV(after‘recallingastatementbyW.W.TarnthataseriesofmonographsontheAntigonidkingsofMacedoniawasadesideratum’,p.151).WalbankundertookconsiderablepreliminaryresearchonTacitus’Historiesinthisperiod,althoughitisnotclearwhetherthisantedatesMountford’ssuggestion(aterminuspostquemisprovidedbya1942exampaperusedasscrap):SCAD1037/2/3/18/5–6.WalbankwasclearlystillentertainingthepossibilityofworkingontheDelphicoracleaslateas1939:aletterfromBenjaminFarrington,29Jan.1939,SCAD1037/2/6/1/20.

(101)Seee.g.hisreviewofvonFritz,1955b:154:‘Itisclearlyquiteunrealistictominimizetheweaknesseswhichlaybeneaththefaçadeofearlyimperialprosperity.ButitisequallyunrealistictoneglecttheachievementsofthefirsttwocenturiesoftheprincipateandtherelativesuccessofAugustus’compromise.’

(102)1943b:91.

(103)1992a:186.

(104)1943c:89,88,continuing‘InaflashofinspirationthebourgeoishistorianofMegalopolisbegantorecognizeinthefirstsignsofpopularunrest,inthefirstsystematicchallengefromwithintotherulersofanempirenowunchallengeablefromwithout,theheraldofapproachingochlochracy’.Cf.McDonaldandWalbank1937onRomanimperialism,‘PolybiusandtheGrowthofRome’(summarizedasWalbank1946d),SCAD1037/2/3/21/3,pp.30–1:‘Polybiuswasblindtosomeofthemostessentialfeaturesofthescene,becausehewasobsessedwiththepresuppositionsofthecirclefromwhichhesprang,anditscounterpartamongwhichhelivedatRome;hisblacksweretooblackandhiswhitestoowhite.Andwhenatlastthefactsofchangeintrudeduponhisnotice,hissolutionwastosuperimposethepessimistictheoryoftheanacyclosis,tosubstituteperpetualmovementforperpetualimmobility—butinaformwhichequallyruledouttheideaofprogressivedevelopment.’

(105)1950b:273.

(106)Momigliano1984;‘Walbank’,hecontinued,‘wouldnotbethehistorianheiswithouthisdeepcommitmenttorationality,socialjusticeandinternationalunderstanding’,beforespeculatinghowmuchofthatisowedtofamilybackground.

(107)1992a:189.Seethe‘GeneralObservationsontheFalloftheRomanEmpireinthe

West’inch.38ofGibbon2004:iv.175–6:‘Thisawfulrevolutionmayusefullybeappliedtotheinstructionofthepresentage.’

(108)Davies2011:343;itwasstill,headds,‘aseriousessayinhistoriographicaltheory,offeringafullyworked-outMarxistanalysisofthe“DeclineandFall” ’.

(109)1983b:200.ForhisextensivenotesondeSteCroix1981,seeSCAD1037/2/3/21/22.SeealsohiscommentsonMarx’sdistinctionbetweenAsiaticandClassicalmodesofproduction(andondeSteCroix’sunderestimationofserfdom),1991/2:92–3andn.12.Seealso1956b:esp.p.293,takingissuewithKatz’sTheDeclineofRomeandtheRiseofMedievalEurope,forfailingtodojusticetotheimportanceofslaveryasacauseofdecline,reiteratingtheargumentsofWalbank1946a,butthenconceding‘thisismerelyonepoint,singledoutlargelybecauseitintereststhereviewer’.

(110)Gibbon2004:iv.177.

(111)1946a:78.

(112)1969:118–19.

(113)Comparehiscallforvigilanceina1938lecture,SCAD1037/2/1/3/1,quotedabove,n.61.

(114)PublishedasWalbank1970b;seealsoWalbank’senthusiasticreceptionofClaudeMossé’sMarxistthesisofthedeclineoftheGreekcity-state,1963b.

(115)1970b:13–14;WalbankreturnstothethemeoftheStAlbanslecture(‘thefailureoftheAchaeanconfederacytosolvethesocialproblem’)inconclusion,1970b:26,buttheninsistsonfinishingonapositivenote.

(116)SCAD1037/2/3/21/38,p.28;cf.1935:29–30(quotedabove,p.10).

(117)1992b:166.

(118)1992b:167–75,170.

(119)ThoughcontrasttheopeningofMomigliano1984:‘Itmusthavebeenin1947or1948whenItoldFrankWalbankthat(Soviet)Russianreviewersofhisbooks,thoughthinkingthathisattemptsatbeingacoherentMarxistwerenotverysuccessful,hadahealthyrespectforhisscholarship.’

(120)1992b:122.

(121)Seee.g.thesynopsis,SCAD1037/2/1/6/1,ofalecture‘TheHellenisticAge’,readtotheSheffieldBranchoftheCA,6Nov.1946,opening‘AjustappreciationoftheGreekcontributiontoWesternEuropecannotomittheachievementsoftheHellenisticAge’,orthepositivedefinitionoftheHellenisticworld(focusingontheexchangeofideas,prosperity,andthelinguistickoine)at1935:3–4.Cf.thebolderdescriptionofthe

Hellenisticage,1991/2:113,as‘oneofthemostdynamicinMediterraneanhistoryandperhapsoneofthemostinfluentialinrespectofwhatwastofollowafterwards’.

(122)1992b:250;cf.p.209ontraditionalreligionasahusk.

(123)1992b:192–4.

(124)1992b:184;cf.194–5.

(125)1992b:251,249,28;notably,itisprimarilythroughthecities,‘vitalunitsofcivilizedlife’,thattheHellenisticlegacywastransmitted(p.249).

(126)1992b:157–8.

(127)1976/7:35,1964a:244,1977b:85,1984c:54;cf.1972b:148,1967:135,1991/2:96,1992b:63.

(128)1970b:14.Cf.1966b:388onToynbee’suseof‘enlivening’parallels,1949b:360(onJ.O.Thomson),1954a:18,reviewinganeditionofPlutarch’sDion:‘noneofPlutarch’sLivesismoreimmediatelyrelevanttothesepost-waryears,whenDionandHeracleidesarestillfamiliarfiguresinaliberatedEurope’.

(129)2002:1.Forasimilarlitotes,see1964a:260(therolesoftheUSandRome‘notaltogetherdissimilar’).Cf.Walbank’sobservation(1944:10)onRostovtzeff1926:‘ThecomparisonwithBolshevikRussiaandtheancientworldindecayisconstantlyimplicitinhisnarrative,andfrequentlyhepausestodrawadirectanalogy’.

(130)HCPi.vii.

(131)Henderson2001a:230–1.

(132)1992a:108(hisreadingofDeSanctiswasatfirstlimitedtoalargeportionontheHannibalicWar);seehereDavies2011:327.DeSanctisacknowledgedacopyofPhilipVinapostcarddated10Nov.1945,SCAD1037/2/6/1/20/58;WalbanksubsequentlywenttoDeSanctis’doorinRome(andmethimbriefly),inSept.1949(pers.comm.,April1998).

(133)1943a:61.

(134)Cf.1970a:305,1995:274,284.

(135)2002:320,continuing‘ItwasasadirectresultofhisownpersonaldisasterthatPolybiusproducedhisgreatwork’.

(136)2002:313.

(137)1951:58.Theitalicsareours.ThetensionbetweentheselevelsofinterpretationisexploredearlierthroughWalbank’snarrativeofAratus,e.g.initsironicconcludingcomparisonofCleomenesandAratus(1933:166)orhisanalysisofSicyon’sadmissionto

theAchaeanLeague(‘thereisnoevidencethat[Aratus]envisagedanyoftheconsequencesofthestephewastaking’),intheconclusionofPhilipV,1940a:275,orinhiscritiqueofStier1948b:160:‘Notonlythefacts,butthecriteriabywhichtojudgethemmustsometimesbedrawnfromtheknowledgeoflatergenerations.OneneednotmakeananachronistictheoryofGreekunityone’stouchstoneinordertoassesstheoverwhelmingpricewhichGreecepaidfortheluxuryofinter-poliswarfare,andtoseeinthislossoneofthecausesofherdownfall;norisitunhistoricaltocharacterisethenationalismwhichcouldnotadvancebeyondthecity(justassofarwehavefailedtoadvancebeyondthenationstate)asparticularist.Ifthehistorianisconcernedwiththewholestoryhemustassignresponsibilityinthisway:ifontheotherhandhistaskismerelytoassessthepositivecontributionoftheGreeks(asS.seemstosuggest),hemayprefertolimithimselftotheirownstandards.’

(138)Walbank’sanalogyofhistoryanddramagoesbacktohisprizeessayonfederalism,SCAD1037/2/4/1/2:oneresultofthemoderninterestinfederalism(p.1)isthat‘thecurtainhasceasedtofalluponthespectacleofGreekhistorywiththedeathofAlexander,buttheplayhasbeenprolongedtoatrueriflessdramaticclimaxintheroutofScarpheiaandtheburningofCorinth’.

(139)1944:15;healsoportraysexpenditureonfestivals,asopposedto‘capitalistandindustrialexpansion’,as‘goingintounproductivechannels’.Cf.Plb.9.20.5–6,citedat1972a:124:‘Istronglydisapprove…ofanysuperfluousadjunctstoanybranchofknowledgesuchasservebutforostentationandfinetalk…andIamdisinclinedtoinsistonanystudiesbeyondthosethatareofactualuse.’

(140)1970b:27.Cf.1947b:658(‘Thielwritesoftheseaasonewhoknowsit…’).

(141)Cf.1938:64:‘Polybiusmakesnoattempttoinvolvethereaderemotionallyinthedevelopmentofthesituation’.Walbankwouldreturntothecontestedtopicoftragichistoryin1960a:seenowMarincolainthisvolume.

(142)1963a:7,discussingStier1957.Statesmentoo,notleastPhilipV,areregularlyassessedforthedegreetowhichtheyaremasteredbytheiremotions,e.g.1940a:260,HammondandWalbank1988:219(‘DemetriusoccupiedthethroneofMacedonia…withouteverdisciplininghisrestlessnaturetothepursuitofasingleconsistentpolicy,ordecidingwhethertoconcentraterealisticallyonrulingMacedoneffectivelyortofollowthewill-o’-the-wispofauniversalempire’).

(143)1963a:11,1974b:28–9,1970a:301,1972a:54,86–7,178,andesp.180–1.Thecharacterizationofa‘great’statesmanrecallsWalbank’sopeningdescriptionofAratus,1933:1(‘hissignificanceheattainednotbyforcingeventsintotheshapeheplanned…’).

(144)Cf.Walbank’sdiscussion(HCPiii.669–70)ofthemuch-debatedpassageonGreekviewsofRomanpolicytowardsCarthageintheThirdPunicWar(Plb.36.9–10).

(145)Walbank1963a:1,1960a:216,1962:8,11.‘Greatactofcourage’:2002:321.See

alsoWalbank’sreflectiononthefiftyyearsseparatingthefirstandsecondeditionsoftheCambridgeAncientHistory,1991/2:113.

(146)Walbank2002:1.

(147)ThesameanalogybetweentheUSandRomeisdrawnintheconclusionof1964a,alecture(adaptedfromthethirdofhis1957GrayLecturesatCambridge:SCAD1037/2/1/11/9)withwhichWalbanktouredanumberofUSuniversities:‘Forthisfeature[theinheritanceofthemixedconstitution],goodorill,wemust,Isuggest,reserveatleastapartofourthanksorexecrationforPolybius,whoseessayontheconstitution…hasthusbyastrangeandunexpectedchanneloftransmissionhelpedtoshapethedestinyofapeoplewhoseroleinthemodernworldisperhapsnotaltogetherdissimilartothatoftheRomansintheirs’(p.260).

(148)SeeHendersoninthisvolume,pp.37–8andn.2.Itstitle,ofcourse,refersfurtherbackinhisowncareertotheHypomnemataofAratus,thoughWalbank’sowngrandfather’smemoirwasacrucialmodel:SCAD1037/1/1/9.

(149)Cf.1994:29–30:‘Itisanobservedfactthatmanyhistorianshaveastronginclinationtocreatesomesortofoverallstructureorpatternfortheeventswithwhichtheyaredealing’.

(150)1992a:85,149.Georgicsarticle:1940b.

(151)1992a:65.

(153)Cf.hisremarkonPolybiantyche,1972a:65(cf.1972a:165):‘itishardtoresisttheimpressionthatashelookedbackontheremarkableandindeeduniqueprocessofRome’sswiftrisetopower,andrecollectedthewordsofDemetriusofPhalerum,hewasledtoconfusewhathadhappenedwithwhatwasdestinedtohappen,andsotoinvesttheriseofRometoworldpowerwithateleologicalcharacter’.

(154)DemetriusofPhalerum,citedatPlb.29.21.4–6,observingthatnoonewouldhavebelievedthewarningthatinfiftyyearsthenameofthePersianswouldbeobliterated;referredtoalsoatWalbank1970a:291,1980:41,1993a:22,1994:34–5.

(155)Walbank1994:42;cf.1972a:2–3,1963a:6,8,12:‘Butahistoryisnotnecessarilytheworsebecauseitissustainedbyaconvictionthatitrevealsapurpose;andperhapswithoutDemetriusofPhalerumandPolybius’beliefthathehadwitnessedtheunfoldingofasuperhumanplantherewouldhavebeennoHistories—certainlynoHistoriesintheformwehavethemintoday’(p.12).

(156)1940a:275:‘Buttheclearlogicofworldmovementsemergesonlyfromoutofaninfinitevarietyofminorstreams,ahostofcontingencies,conflictingambitionsandcross-currents:whatinthelightofcenturiesprovesall-importantmayberegardedaslittle

morethananaccident,ormayevenpassunnoticedbytheuncomprehendinggazeofitscontemporaries’.Cf.theironicconclusion,1984a:100,that‘theveryprocessof[theRomans’]annihilatingtheHellenistickingdomshadaccentuatedtheconditionswhichmadethesurvivaloftherepublicimpossible’,ortheconclusionofWalbank’s1946inaugurallectureasProfessorofLatin,‘TheRomanhistoriansontheRomanRepublic’,SCAD1037/2/1/7/1/1,p.36(‘historyhadbecomeaprofessiondivorcedfrompolitics.Itgainedautonomyatamomentwhenitceasedtobepossibleforrealpoliticalhistorytobewritten’).

(157)1940a:258.Cf.1958a:271onthecareerofDio(‘oneofthemoststrikingillustrationswithinthefieldofancienthistoryoftheextenttowhichanygivenpoliticalendlayslimitationsuponthemeanswhichcanbeemployedtoachieveit,andfurtheroftheextenttowhichtherealitiesofpoliticallifeandhumannaturethemselvesrestrictthefieldofprofitableaction’),1946c:43,onPhilipV.

(158)1933:166(ouritalics).

(159)SeeWalbank’scritique,1954c:102,ofMichaelGrant’sfocusonthepreventionofwar:‘Itisalsoarguablethatthegreatestservicethathistorycanrendertothoseseekingtounderstandthepresentliesinthegeneralincreaseofawarenessthatcomesfromthestudyofanyrealhistoricalproblem,ratherthaninauniversalconcentrationononeselectedissue.Inshort,topreventwarsweshouldstudynotmerelypastwars,buthistoryingeneral.’

(160)Cf.1984a:71–2onHellenistickings’useof‘acombinationofforceandcajoleryinaproportionwhichvariedaccordingtothelocationandstrengthofthecityandthepoliticalconstellationofthemoment’.

(161)1951:60.Cf.hischaracterizationoftheutilityofhistoryaccordingtoThucydides,1990:254–5(historywasuseful,‘not,itistrue,inprovidingaseriesofformulaeorblue-printsforfuturegeneralsandstatesmen,butcertainlyingivinghisreadersanextensionofthatgeneralisedexperiencewhich,asvonFritzputsit,enablesaship’scaptain—or,onemightsay,thedriverofacar—toknowtherightthingtodoinaparticularemergency’),orinalecture,‘HowDemocracyBegan’givenSept.1957,SCAD1037/2/1/10/1,p.18(‘noonewouldbesofoolishastouseourexperienceofdemocracyatAthenstoprovideablue-printformodernpracticeoraprognosticationastohowmoderndemocracyislikelytoturnout.…But,evenso,thestoryofGreekdemocracyisvaluabletous,notperhapstoinciteuslikecertainpoliticiansoftheeighteenthcenturytorevolutionaryaction,butrathertoemphasiseandillustrateinasmallercontextwhatarestillimportantproblemswhichdemocracyhastosolve…itremainsoneoftheessentialobjectsofstudyforanyonewhoisconcernedwiththeproblemsthatconfrontmoderndemocracy.’).

(162)Seee.g.2002:321,1984b:224onPyrrhus;cf.hisearlycharacterizationofPolybius’‘moralist’sviewofhistory’,1938:58:‘tohimhistoryisastorehouseofmoralexamples,atrainingforlife’svicissitudes.Sensationalismobscuresthemoralissues,

inaccuracyofdetailputsthelatereventsintheirwrongperspective,neglectofcauseandeffectruinsthewholemoralscheme.PolybiuswasafirmbelieverinthepowerofFortune(Tyche)tobringamanthedestinyhehadearned;thehistorianhadonlytosiftthedetailscarefullyandpatiently—thebaldrecordofwhatwassaidanddone—bringoutthenexusofcauseandeffectandthemorallessonwouldemerge,clearforalltosee.’

(163)Seee.g.hisjudgement,1967:692–3,ofPlutarch,‘thiswarm,shrewd,butmediocrewriter’,whose‘enviablemyopia[concerningRomeandthepossibilityofhistoricalchange]…goesalongwaytowardsaccountingfortheunruffledkindlinessthatishismostattractivecharacteristic’;cf.1964a:241onPolybius,1983conHieronymusofCardia.

(164)1959a:217onSyme’sColonialElites;seealso1954b:51onHolleaux;contrast1968:253(‘L.isnotthekindofscholarwhobelievesthatagoodwaytoexercisehistoricalobjectivityistoholdthebalancelevelbetweengoodandevil’).

(165)1964b:211–12onGomme;cf.1963a:2onHolleaux’spassion.Contrast1958b:157onCloché(‘Hishonestyisexceededonlybyhiscaution;andthiscombinationcansometimesbesomewhatparalysing’).

(166)‘PolybiusandthegrowthofRome’,SCAD1037/2/3/21/3,pp.30–1,continuing‘Polybiussaw—andsaid—thatifhistorywasnotthis,itwasnothing.Itisinthisthathisclaimtogreatnesslies.’

(167)1972a:6.

(168)1972a:52,includingthesuggestionthatCato’smockeryofPolybius’attemptstorestorehonourstotheAchaeanexilesasakintoOdysseusgoingbackforhishatfromtheCyclops’cave(Plb.35.6.4)mayhavebeenapointedrejoindertosuchself-comparisons.

(169)1948a:171–2;Walbankhimselfcompiledalistofhistravels,yearbyyear:SCAD1037/2/5/15.

(170)1962:12.

(171)GuidoSchepensandJanBollansée’s2001Leuvenconference,leadingtoShadowofPolybius(2005);the2008conferenceinmemoryofPeterDerow,whichsoughttocompletehisunfinishedprojecton‘RomeandtheGreeks’,SmithandYarrow2012;animportant2010conferenceonPolybius,organizedintheHelmut-Schmidt-UniversitätinHamburgbyVolkerGriebandClemensKoehn.Forconferencesbefore2000,seethebriefsurveyofWalbank2002:3–4.

(172)Walbank2002:1:‘ontheonehandPolybius’viewsofhisowncraft,hismethodsofcompositionandthecontentandpurposeofhisworkand,ontheother,hisexplanationofhowandwhyRomehadbeensosuccessful,togetherwithhisownattitudetowardsRomeandherdominationsince168B.C.’

(173)StudiesofRomanimperialismwhichhavedrawnonPolybiusincludevolumesby

Champion2004a,Erskine2010,andmostrecentlyBaronowski2011,publishedtoolateforconsiderationinthisvolume.

(174)Forasurveyofrecentcomparativework,seeVasunia2011.Cf.theemphasisonimperialismintheeditedcollectionofSmithandYarrow2012.

(175)2002:9,continuing(pp.9–10):‘Thegoodcritichasalwaysknownthatbehindahistorian’saccountlieassumptionsandaimsdirectlyrelatedtohispredecessors,tohiscontemporarysituationand(ifheisapublicfigurelikePolybius)tohisownpoliticalcareer,hispresentstanceandhisfutureambitions;alsothatliterarypresentationcanaffecttheemphasisofhisnarrative.’Arecent,innovativeapproachtoPolybiannarrativeisMcGing2010.

(176)ForasurveyofearlierworkonBook6,seeWalbank2002:14–17.

(177)On‘imaginedcommunities’,seeAnderson2006,andQuinninthisvolume.Ontheσυμπλοκή,thestarting-pointisofcourseWalbank1975.WalbankreservedparticularpraisefortheapproachofClarke1999(2002:8,25).

(178)Cf.1948a:175–81.

(179)SeeWalbank’scomments,2002:7.

(180)Seeesp.Erskine2000.

(181)Seebelow,p.39.Davies2011:346n.44notestheabsenceofdiscussionofWalbankfrome.g.GibsonandKraus2002,Most1999.

‘A piece of work which would occupy some years…’ Oxford University Press ArchiveFiles 814152, 814173, 814011

‘Apieceofworkwhichwouldoccupysomeyears…’OxfordUniversityPressArchiveFiles814152,814173,814011

JohnHenderson

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0002

AbstractandKeywords

ThischapterexaminesthehistoryofWalbank'sengagementwithPolybiusandsubsequentlywithhiscommentaryonPolybius,whoseoriginsanddevelopmenttowardspublicationischartedagainstthematerialsheldinthearchivesofOxfordUniversityPress,andagainstWalbank'scareerandhisunpublishedmemoir,Hypomnemata.Aswellasshowinghowthehistoryofscholarshipcanbeilluminatedbythestudyofpublicationpractice,thesustainedexaminationofcorrespondencebetweenthePressandWalbank(andinvolvingotherscholarsaswell)demonstrateshowWalbank'sinitialplanofwritingonTacitus'HistoriescametometamorphoseintoacommentaryonPolybius.HisskilfulcorrespondencewiththePressoverdecadesthusenabledhimtoensurethathiscommentaryhadthenecessaryscaleandphysicalscopeofthreesubstantialvolumesthatsuchaprojectof'long-distancewriting'needed.

Keywords:F.W.Walbank,Polybius,Commentaries,OxfordUniversityPress,historyofscholarship,historyofpublishing

CoincidencebetweentwoverydifferentprojectsconcentratedmyfireonPolybiusattheturnofthemillennium:theinvitationtocontributetoacollaborativeOxonconferenceorganizedaroundstand-off/co‐operationbetween‘scholarship’and‘theory’;andaCantabessaycollectiononbipolarity/integrationinHellenicculturalidentityunderimperialRome.ForthefirstIlinedupona‘Historicism’panel,anddeterminedtoexploreparallelisminthenarrativesofthewritingofPolybius’HistoriesandofFrankWalbank’sgreatcommentaryonsame,knowingbeforehandthatFWW(asIhadknownhimsinceIdid‘Greats’RomanHistory:‘EarlyPeriod’)hadbegunhismarathonamemberoftheBCP[BritishCommunistParty],andhadnotshirkedthefraughtissueofhisauthor’spoliticsthroughtheirhalfcenturiesofongoingproductivity.Forthesecond,IjoinedthepreponderantbandofUKPolybiansrecruitedfromWadhamCollegeandoutlinedmytakeonPolybius’fighttorespondtohistorythroughhis,andHellas’,switchbackslideintosubjection/conversiontoRome;whichmeantre-readingandcatchingupwithWalbankonsame,fromgiantcommentarythroughdefinitivepaperuponclassicarticle.WhatmadetheseforaysspecialformewasFrank’sinvolvement;hereadwhatIwrote,promptlyandwithembarrassingclarity,andgavemeagoodlongchatovertheattemptI’dmadeto‘situate’hisowninvestmentinPolybius.1Inparticular,FrankmadesureIgottoreadhisstillunpublishedmemoir,from(p.38) birthtoappointmenttotheLatinchairatLiverpoolin1946(–1951),Hypomnemata(Walbank1992a).2

WhenIlearnedoftheplantocelebrate‘Polybius1957–2007’,IcheckedtheUniversityofLiverpoolLibraryholdings,andwasatoncechuffedtofindFrankhadin1996contributedArtsatLiverpool:TheFirstHundredYears(intheLibrary’sSpecialCollection:TomHarrisonkindlylentmehiscopyattheconference),butnotraceofthememoir.3Myplantoputthatrightandsharethestraight-twinklingfranknessofthisvividlydetailedaccountofascholar’snegotiationoftheinter-wareraandthewaryearswithhistroopofadmirerswaswellandtrulyupstagedattheoutset,whentoday’scd-romvideotechnologybroughtusarenderingfromthehorse’smouthintheformofaprofessionallypolishedfive-minutetasterthatleftnooneindoubtthatthey’dbeenmissingatreatofprecisenarrativeinbesthumour.

MysecondplanwastoinvestigatethepublishinghistoryofthegreatPolybiuscommentaryasdocumentedintheOUPArchives,wheretheDirector,MartinMaw,andhisstaffhavegotusedtomyirregularrepeatvisitstoinspectfilesonclassicalbooksbythedozen,andhelpedmesecurefromtheSecretarytotheDelegatespermissiontouseandcitetellingrecordsandcorrespondence.Sinceconfidentialityextendstoeven‘dead’filesoflivingauthors,IfirstexplainedtoFWWwhatIwasupto,andgothimtoOKmyrequesttobeallowedtoconsulttheCommentaryfilesonhisbehalf.Myreckoningthathewasn’tagainstfindingoutiftheremightbeanythinginterestingtherehe’dneverseenwaslargelybutnotentirelydeflatedwhenhegentlyobservedthattherewouldbenoskeletonsinthecloset—‘I’mnotconsciousofanysecrets’—andofferedtosendoverthecomplete‘archive’ofpublishinghistoryfortheCommentaryashehadconserveditfromhisend,parcelledinabulgingpaperbagtiedupwithstring.Didn’ttakelongformeto

twighowhecouldbe‘quite’so‘happyfor[me]todiganduseanythingthatturnsup’.Asitchanced,IsetaboutgleaningtheOxoncropfirst;andsettledtocollatewiththeCantabcounterpartthereafter:thetwocachesweretheproductofratherdifferentmotivesandfilters,butwiththeexceptionofoneortwoitemsbywayofpreliminaryadviceontheproposalfortheCommentaryanditscommissiontoFWW—equivalentsoftoday’s‘readerreports’—I(p.39) found,tomydelight,thattherewasvirtuallynodivergenceatallbetweenthetwinparadoses:more,FWWhadnotonlykepteachtypescriptmissive4asreceivedmatchedtoeachreplyincarbon-copy,buthadclippedthestuffchronologicallyorderedincoherentbatches/meaningfulphasesofactivity.Nodoubttheshipshapeorganizationwasitselfasymptomofthemindsetrequiredfor,andtrainedby,thesuccessfulnegotiationofaneditiomaiorlonghaul;andtheretirementshotatself-appraisalrealizedasHypomnematahadbeenfacilitatedbytheorderlyaccumulationofpapers,andhadthensuperimposeditsownsupplementarydiscipline,chapterbyposteventumchapter.

IfIhadbeenouttodigupdirtordiscovergemstotickleFrankpink,heknewtheoddsstackedupagainstthelikelihood.Butno—IthoughtthatmemoirandfilecombinedwouldsupplyanarrativeofthepublicationhistoryoftheCommentary.Ihadgotusedtorummagingthroughthegestationofmoreorlessmodestworkingeditionswithcommentary,butrealizedfromtheoutsetthattheeditiomaiorsetsitsownagenda:Iwasn’tgoingtopresumeto‘systemsanalyse’,5letaloneappraisetheresearchmethods,rhetoricalstrategies,orarchivaleconomyembodiedinthesedoorstoptomes:Vol.I(1957),(then)xviii+776,Vol.II(1967),xvi+684,Vol.III(1979),xxi+834.Rather,Imeanttostickwithtwoquestionstoputtothese(now802+700+855 =)2,357pagesofpreciselygraduatedandunwaveringlycondensedmassesofeditorialdivisionesbossingtheirmyriadadnotationessectionbysection,thenfragmentuponfragment.

Howcomethatnovicethoughthecouldbigitup,andpullitoff?

Howdidhegetawaywithitinthefirstplace,andthereafter?

LittledidIforeseethatthesnoopwouldblunderbigtimeintothehistoryofpublication,thoughitshould’vehitmethatthisisthewaytheseriallifeworkgenre,themaiusopus,isboundtocathect.Ireckonthatthedocumentswritemystoryforme,clearandsharp:you’llfindIneedonlyplayscrivener.MovingfromHypomnematatoCorrespondencewiththePress.Forthelatter,IputlettersfromthePressinitalics.[Butallemphases,whethertoorfro,aremebeinghelpful.]

IntoClassicsThememoirisnotshyofironyandenthymeme:‘Ioptedfortheclassicalsideowingtoacompletemisunderstandingofwhatwasinvolved.[Thesituation]shouldhavebeenasplainasapikestaff,butitjustwasnot;anditwasneverexplainedtomyparents,largely,Ibelieve,becauseL.W.P.Lewis,a(p.40) domineeringandratherarrogantman,whowasheadofclassics,exploitedsuchconfusiontocaptureanybrightboysfortheclassicalside.Oneofhismostdismissiveinsultstoanyonewhohadfailedtomeethisacademicdemandswastosay:“Ifthat’sthebestyoucando,you’dbettergooffandread

mathematics(pronouncedinthemostcontemptuousmanner)”.Inowknow,however,thatchanceanderrorplayagreatpartatalltimesinshapingone’slifeandIdonotregretatallthatmyparents’ignoranceturnedmeintoaclassicalscholar.Indeed,IshallalwaysbeintenselygratefulthatIfoundmyselfataschoolwhereIwasabletolearnLatinandGreek.Todaysuchopportunitiesareofcoursemuchrarerandhardertocomeby.’(1992a:65)

IntoPolybiusFirstbase,andthehistoric-didacticmode,atBradfordGrammarSchool(1924–28):‘OurotherclassicsmasterwasE.H.Goddard.…Ned,manyyearsinadvanceoftheacceptanceof“generalknowledge”asasubject,usedtodevoteonehouraweektowhathecalled“gas”,whenhewouldcomealongandtalktousaboutsay,theatomictheory,thetableofelements,thebackgroundofthegeneralstrike(1926),philosophicalproblems,Nietzschianoppositesoranythingelsethatcameintohismind.OnethingthatwasalwaysverymuchinhismindwasOswaldSpenglerandwewereallindoctrinatedwiththecyclicalviewsofTheDeclineoftheWest,atheorytowhichhefullysubscribed…|[O]neyearNedhadtheJointMatriculationBoard(theJ.M.B.)approveaspecialperiodofRomanhistoryforourschoolalone(thiswaspermittedundertheregulations).TheperiodhechosewasRomanHistory200–133B.C.;andthisledtoapieceofinitiativeonhispart,whichwastobedecisiveformywholelife’swork—littlethougheitherheorIcouldhaveforeseenthisatthetime.PointingoutthatthemainGreeksourcefortheperiodweweretostudywasthesecondcenturyAchaeanhistorianPolybius,heproducedasmall,rathergrubbyGermanschooleditionofthisauthor(Idonotknowtothisdaywhateditionitwas)andinstructedanotherboyinmyyear,PhilipSheard—hewaslatertobecomealecturerineconomicsatLeedsUniversity—andmetotakethisuptotheprefects’roominfreeperiods,translateandmakeaprécisofit,writethisoutandduplicateitonajelly—theprimitiveformofduplicationthenused—fortherestoftheform.Thesecondcenturywasadifficultperiodtostudy(apartfromthemainwars)andIdon’tthinkIever,atthisstage,quiteunderstoodhowthehistoriangotfromthescatteredevidence(apartfromPolybiusandLivy)tothestraightnarrativecontainedinthetext-books(norindeedwhydifferenttext-booksgavedifferentdatesforsomelawsandminorincidents).Tohavegraspedthatwouldhavebeenamajorstepinmytrainingasahistorian.Butevenwithoutthatillumination,toreadchunksofPolybiusintheoriginal(Iforgetnowhow(p.41) fardownwewent)andtosetoutthegistofhisaccount,includingtheconstitutionalsectioninBook6,wasaveryenlighteningexperienceand,asIhavesaid,firedmewithaninterestinthatauthorwhichwaslatertobearunexpectedfruit.’(1992a:75–7)

IntoOxbridgeSecondbase,moreconcentratedcoincidence,andingrainedpennywisdom;backingandshuntingtheboyintohisshoo-indestiny:‘(T)herestofuswereencouragedtochooseoneofthelessformidableinstitutions.MyownchoicewasbasedonwhatIlaterrealisedwereveryunsubstantialreasons.Fromasetofcigarettecards,whichIhadcollectedsomeyearsearlierwhenIwasinthethirdform,IhaddiscoveredthattheoldestcollegeinCambridgewasPeterhouse,foundedin1284.Iknewabsolutelynothingofits

reputationorwhowouldbeteachingme,shouldIgothere.…IheardthatIhadbeenelectedtoaMinorScholarshipatPeterhouseworthsixtypoundsperannum.AlongwiththeCountyMajorScholarship,worthahundredpounds,itnowputmewithinreachofthetwohundredandtwentypoundsestimatedasnecessarytocoverayearatCambridge;andlateranOldBoysFoundationmademeanadditionalgrantofthirtypounds,bringingthetotaltoonehundredandninety,andleavingonlyasmallamountformyfathertofind.…FromtheoutsetIregardedmyselfasprimarilyahistorianandIneverhadanydoubtthatIshouldtakeGroupC(AncientHistory)inPartII,adecisionstrengthenedbythefortuitousadvantagethatBertrandHallwardwashimselfahistorianandcouldprovidethenecessaryteachingwithintheCollege.…[M]ostofourRomanhistorylectureswereconcentratedontherepublic—perhapsbecausethatwasthesubjectoftheCambridgeAncientHistoryvolumeswhichwerebeingwrittenatthattime.TheexceptionherewasMartinCharlesworth,wholecturedontheearlyempire.…DuringtheMichaelmastermofmysecondyearatCambridge(1929)IreadintheTimesEducationalSupplementthattheHellenicTravellers’Clubwasofferingfourprizes,twofor‘undergraduatesatOxfordorCambridge’andtwofor‘sixthformboysatpublicschools’foressaysonspecifiedsubjects;theseweretotaketheformoffreeplacesonClubcruises.…Whatinterestedmewasthefirstsubject,‘FederalismintheGreekWorld’,andIatoncedecidedtohaveashotatit.SointheChristmasvacationIdidsomereadingofFreeman,Tarnandoneortwootherbooksandwrotemyessay(usingthereferenceroominthelocalPublicLibraryasaquietplaceinwhichtowrite).SomeweeksintotheLentTermIheardtomygreatdelightthatIhadwontheprizeforthatsubject.TheexaminerwasT.R.GloverandIwenttoseehimandgottheessaybackfromhim.…ThecruisetookplaceinMarch–April1930;andthiswasthefirsttimethatIhadbeenoutofGreat(p.42) Britain.…IshouldperhapsaddthatinthepreviousLentTermIhadattendedHallward’smodernGreekcourseandthesmatteringofthelanguageIacquiredwasquiteusefultomewhenIgottoGreece.…Myfinalyear,1930–1931,Ienjoyedgreatly.Iwashappytoberidofthecompositionsandabletospendthebulkofmytimeonmymaininterest,ancienthistory.Thetwospecialsubjectswere,inGreekhistorythesixthcentury,andinRomanhistorytheSecondPunicWar.ButtherewerealsolongishprescribedperiodsofGreekandRoman(republican)historyforthemoregeneralpapers.…OntheeveningofJune19thIreceivedatelegramfromHallwardsummoningmebacktoCambridgeandreturnedthenextmorningtolearnthatIhadgotagoodfirstwithdistinctioninboththegeneralpartoftheexaminationand(moreimportant)inthespecialAncientHistorypapers.WouldIcaretostayonforafourthyearanddoa‘pieceofresearch’?…Hallward’ssuggestionwasveryattractivetomeandatonceIagreed…InowhadtodecidewhatIshoulddomyresearchon;andsincetheCommitteewhichdealtoutscholarshipsandawardswasmeetingthatafternoon,anearlydecisionwasessential.IretiredtotheWardLibrarytoponderandwritedownideas.Onlytwostickinmymind.OnewastheDelphicOracle;butwhenIsawHallward,hesaidtoomanypeoplehadalreadyworkedonthat(notquitetrue,Ithink,thoughlaterParkeandWormellcertainlycorneredthatmarket).However,Ihadabetteridea.InmyessayonGreekfederalismfortheHellenicTravellers’Clubcompetition,IhadcomeacrossanAchaeanstatesmancalledAratus,whohadplayedanimportantpartintheriseoftheAchaeanLeagueinthethirdcentury.WouldastudyofAratusdo?BertrandHallwardgavehis

approvalandsolaterdidAdcock,sothatthiswasputforwardasthesubjectofmyresearch.IwasgivenaUniversitygrantfromtheGeorgeCharlesWinterWarrfundandbytheCollegeaHugodeBalshamResearchStudentship;andlater,withaWestRidingCountyStudentshipandaDrummondStudentshipfromtheBradfordGrammarSchoolOldBoys’AssociationImademyincomefor1931–2uptoover£300,whichwasuntoldwealth.’(1992a:85,96,100,103–4,107–8,109–10)

OnintoresearchOnekeyafteranother,toaworkinglifetimeofdedicatedgrit:‘IreturnedfromJenatostartuponayear’sresearch.HavinggotmysubjectacceptedbytheappropriateUniversityCommittee,Ihadacleargoal:toproduceanessayofabout60,000wordsontheAchaeanpoliticianandgeneral,AratusofSicyon,andsubmititthefollowingsummerfortheThirlwallPrize.…AtsomepointinthesummerIsubmittedmyAratusfortheThirlwallPrize.Ihadtypeditoutmyself,havingboughtasecond-handtypewriterinBradford(for,Ithink,about£5)andhavingbeentaughtbyJosietouseallfingersintyping—alesson(p.43) forwhichIamstillgrateful.Thetypewriter,incidentally,aportableRemington,remainedingoodshapeuntilabouttwoyearsago,soIhadoverfiftyyears’useofit.’(1992a:119,125)

HirepoliticsandovertoLiverpoolWherelivesaremade,betweenkairosandwangle:‘InSeptember1933anAssistantLectureshipwasadvertisedatLiverpoolUniversitytofillthevacancycreatedbytheappointmentofR.B.OnianstotheAberystwythChairofLatin.IdecidedtoapplyandinduecoursewascalledforinterviewonSeptember19th.AratosofSicyon(inthisbookIusedthe—osformsforGreeknames)hadbeenpublishedtendaysbeforeandIwasthereforeabletosendacopytoProfessorJ.F.Mountford,theHeadoftheDepartment,insupportofmyapplication.Meanwhilewedecidedtocelebratethepublicationinamorefestiveway….AtLiverpooltwoofuswereinterviewed,theotherbeingStanleyF.Bonner,whohadthatsummergraduatedatPembrokeCollege,Cambridge.Hetoohadnouniversityteachingexperience,buthehadreadtheliteratureoptioninthetripos;alsohecamefromthemidlands,whichmayhavesubconsciouslyinfluencedMountfordinhisfavour,forhetoocamefromthatpartofthecountry.Anyhow,thesmallsub-committeechoseBonnerandIassumedthatMountford’sexpressionofregretthattherewerenottwovacancieswasjustaformalpieceofconsideratepoliteness.However,fortunewaswithmeafterall.ForonSaturday,November25th,Igotaletterfromhimtosaythatanothermemberofhisdepartment,C.G.Cooper,hadbeenappointedtoachairinNewZealandandofferingmethejob,asAssistantLecturer,at£200fortheperiodJanuarytoSeptember1934.Thisletterstandsoutinmymemoryasoneoftheturning-pointsinmylife.…[T]heregulationsatLiverpool(asinmanyuniversitiesatthattime)hadnoprovisionforpromotionfromAssistantLecturertoLecturer.Unlessavacancyatthehighergradeoccurred,howeverhardyouhadworkedandhowevercompetentyouhadbeen,attheendofthreeyearsoutyouwent.…[I]nthenextyear(1934–5),whenhewasduetolosebothBonnerandmyself,[Mountford]usedhisveryconsiderablediplomaticandadministrativeskillstogettheregulationschanged,sothatwebothmoveduptofulllectureships(withathreeyearprobationaryperiodinGradeII)withoutahitch.’(1992a:

129–30,136)

IntoprintHere’showspecializingsomehowemerges,onewayandanother:‘WealsoranaLatinReadingCircle…LaterwewentontotheGeorgics,andasaresult(p.44) Iwroteanarticle,laterpublishedintheClassicalQuarterly,inwhichIwasgivenconsiderablehelpbyMary.Itwasentitled“Liciatelaeaddere”anddealtwithapassageintheGeorgicsdescribingthesettingupofaloom;mosteditorshadshownadeplorableignoranceofwhatthewordsmeantandhowaloomactuallyworked.Thisarticlewassubsequentlytobeofquiteunforeseenimportanceinmycareerforwhen,manyyearslater,IwasacandidatefortheChairofLatin,itwasquotedtomyadvantageasevidencethatIwasagenuineLatinistandnotsimplyahistorianindisguise(whichofcourseIreallywas).TheseminarwhichgaverisetothearticlelaterstuckinbothmymindandMary’sbecauseIhadconstructedasmallmodel“loom”toillustratethetechnicalpointsinvolvedandMountfordhadbeensoimpressedbythisthathesuggested(notwhollyseriously)thatwekeptitintheDepartment;butIhadreluctantlytorejectthisproposal,sincethemainbeamhadbeenborrowedfromourbathroom,whereitnormallysupportedtherolloftoiletpaper.…SoonafterIarrivedinLiverpoolIbegantoaskmyselfonwhatsubject,followingthepublicationofAratos,Ishouldnowwork;andrecallingastatementbyW.W.TarnthataseriesofmonographsontheAntigonidkingsofMacedoniawasadesideratum,IdecidedtowriteabiographyofPhilipV,whohadalreadyengagedmyinterestwhileworkingonthesecondhalfofthelifeofAratus.Thisconstitutedmymainresearchprojectfrom1934to1938,whenIpresenteditfortheHarePrizeintheUniversityofCambridge.ButinthecourseofmyworkonthisIalsowroteseveralarticles,oneonthedateofaccessionofPtolemyV,whicheventuallyappearedintheJournalofEgyptianArchaeology.…IalsowroteanarticleontheoriginsoftheSecondMacedonianWarinconjunctionwithAlexMcDonald,anAustraliannowlecturingatNottingham,aftertakingadoctorateatCambridge.WewerebroughttogetherbyAdcock,whosuggestedthatwemightcombinetwoarticleswhichwehadsubmittedatthesametimetotheJournalofRomanStudies.IhadalreadymetMcDonaldwhenwewerebothcandidatesfortheancienthistoryjobatNottingham,whichhegot,butwenowhadaclosecollaboration,whichwasthebeginningofalongfriendship.Muchlater,in1969,wewroteanotherjointarticleonclausesoftheRomantreatywithAntiochusIII;andintheJRSfor1979Ihadthemelancholytaskofwritingashortobituaryforhim.AthirdarticleduringthisperiodconcernedPolybius’“tragic”treatmentofPhilip’slastyearsandthisappearedintheJournalofHellenicStudiesfor1938.’(1992a:149,151–2)

TowarIntopoliticalcommitment,throughtheNationalCouncilforCivilLiberties(Hon.Sec.),theSpanishMedicalAidCommittee,theLeftBookClub…—and(p.45) aconvictionforaidingandabetting,andfailingtoreport,anillegalalientotheauthorities….TherewasthisothersidetotheWalbanks:‘InNovember1939thetwoworldsIwaslivinginweretemporarilybroughttogether,whenweputupProfessorBenjaminFarringtonofSwanseaandafteralittleprobingonbothsides,hewasabletoringuphiswifetosaythathehad“fallenamongcomrades”.BenwasadelightfulsouthernIrishmanfromCork,whosebookson

ancientscience,thoughtheyoftenmissedthemarkordrewunsustainableconclusions,wereimportantfortheirconvictionthatscienceandphilosophyhadtobeseenagainstthebackgroundofthesocietyinwhichtheysprangup.HewasaMarxistand(asIshallexplainlater)wastoberesponsibleformywritingmymostcontroversialbook,TheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest.…Thespringof1939wasalsomarkedbyanothereventwhichsticksinmymemory—aperformanceofAeschylus’AgamemnoninthetranslationofA.Y.Campbell,whohimselftookthepartoftheleaderofthechorus.Wejuniorlecturers,includingHarriHudson-Williams,whohadrecentlyreplacedFletcherintheGreekDepartment,weremembersofthechorus.6…[I]nMarchwewenttoCambridge,stayingwithRobertandMargaretGettyinGilbertRoad,inordertoseetheGreekPlaythere.ItwastheAntigone.TheGreekambassadorattendedandIthinkeveryonefeltthetensionintheair,sincethisplayembodiedsomuchofwhatwefeltwasatstakeintheEuropeof1939.InthecourseofthisvisittoCambridgeIcalledonS.C.RobertsattheCambridgeUniversityPress,fortowardstheendofJanuaryIhadheardthatIhadwontheHarePrizewithmystudyofPhilipVofMacedon,sothatitwasprettycertainthatthePresswouldpublishit.…ThePressagreedtopublish,butrathermeanlyrequiredmetoputdownonehundredpounds.SincetheHarePrizewasatthattimewortheightypounds,itleftmetwentypoundsoutofpocket.However,LiverpoolUniversitycameupwiththirty-fivepoundstocoverthecostoftheillustrations,soIendedupwithaboutfifteenpoundsinhandoverthewholeaffair.Jumpingahead,ImayaddherethatIgotmyhundredpoundsbackin1968(muchdiminishedinvalue),whenthebookwasreprintedbyafirminAmerica.…[T]heworst[bombingraids]occurredinMarchandMay1941,twointensiveperiodsofaboutaweekeach,inthecourseofwhichthecentreofLiverpoolwasalmostcompletelydestroyed.…AboutthistimeIstartedlecturingtotroops,anextremelyusefulexperience,sincetohavetocaptureandholdtheinterestofatiredgroupofsoldiers,manyofwhomhavenointellectualinterests,isgoodpracticeforlecturinganywhere.OverthenextfewyearsIlecturedwidelyon“CampaigningwithAlexander”(p.46) (actually“theGreat”,thoughanofficeratoneunitthoughtIwasgoingtotalkaboutcampaigningunderGeneralAlexanderinNorthAfrica),“ThesituationinGreece”,“TheProblemofAlbania”andeventuallyawholeseriesoftalkscalled“BritishWayandPurpose”,organisedthroughABCA(ArmyBureauofCurrentAffairs)anddesignedtogetsmallgroupstalkingandthinking,notleastaboutpost-warEngland.’(1992a:166–7,176,178)

TotheCommentaryBuyingintotheevitable,ourauthorbaresthejokeofnecessity:‘OncePhilipVwasbehindmeandthetaskofseeingitthroughthePressover(itwaspublishedinDecember1940witharatherpusillanimousprintnumberofonly500),Iwroteseveralarticlesratherthanembarkonalargeprojectwhilethefutureseemedsouncertain.Butin1943Ibegantofeeltheneedforsomethingmoresubstantial.MountfordsuggestedthatImightundertakeacommentaryonTacitus’HistoriestotaketheplaceofSpooner.ThiswouldbeofinteresttomeasahistorianandwouldalsobeasuitabletaskforalecturerinLatin.ItwasagoodideaandIhadsomecorrespondencewithMartinCharlesworthaboutit;hewasenthusiastic.SoIwrotetoKennethSisamattheOxfordUniversityPresswiththisproposal,’—

January16th,1943

DearSir,

IhaverecentlybeenworkingonTacitus’sHistories.andIamconsideringwritingacommentaryonthem.TheonlyworkofthiskindinEnglish,theeditionofW.A.Spooner,nowoutofprint,waspublishedoverfiftyyearsago,in1891,andeventhenleftmuchtobedesired.However,Idonotwanttospendalotoftimeonthisproject,ifthereisnolikelihoodofitsbeingeventuallypublished,andIamthereforewritingtoyounow,beforeinvolvingmyselffurtherinthework.

WhatIhaveinmindisasinglevolume,containinganintroductiontoTacitus’sHistoriesandafullcommentary,stylisticandhistorical,basedontheOxfordClassicalTextofC.D.Fisher,andarrangedinsuchawaythatthecommentarycouldalsobesplitupandpublishedseparatelywiththevariousbooksforuseinschoolsanduniversities.Ihavediscussedtheschemewithvariousscholarsandteachers,includingProfessorJ.F.MountfordofLiverpoolUniversity,andtheyagreethattheworkwouldfilladefinitegap.

Irealiseofcoursethatyoucannotmakeanyprecisestatementatthisstage,particularlyunderpresentconditions.ButasTacitus’sHistorieshave[unreadable]forsolong,{it}ispossiblethatasimilarprojecthasbeenalreadyenvisagedorundertakenbysomeotherscholar.I{t}wouldbeofgreathelptomethereforeifyoucouldinformmewhethertheDelegatesarewithoutpriorcommitmentsasregardsTacitus’sHistories,andwhether,whentimesaremorenormalandthe(p.47) workisfairlywelladvanced,theywouldbelikelytoconsidermyproposalsympathetically.

Yoursfaithfully,

—‘butwasalittledisappointedtobetoldthatRonaldSymewassupposedtobedoingthatverything.’—

19thJanuary1943

DearSir,

Thankyouforyourletterof16thJanuarysuggestingacommentaryonTacitus’sHistories.Imustexplainthatwearepreoccupied.ThisworkwasundertakenforthepressbythelateW.W.How,whomadeconsiderableMS.collections.Onhisdeath,Mr.R.SymeofTrinityCollegeundertookthecommentary,and,thoughheisnowengagedonwarworkintheMiddleEast,wehaveeveryreasontobelievethatheintendstocontinuetheworkwhenhereturnstoOxford.

Wedorecognisethegap,andIamverysorrytohavetoreportthatwearepre-committed,asthereisfartoolittlecentralworkonbookscalebeingdoneinclassicalsubjects.

Yourstruly,

—‘However,Sisam(whointhemeantimehadconsultedArnaldoMomigliano,whowasnowinOxford,saidhewouldgetintouchwithSyme,whowasatthattimeholdingaBritishCouncilpostatAnkarainneutralTurkey,andenquirewhetherhestillproposeddoingtheTacitus.Inthemeantime,incasehedid,hadIanyotheralternativeprojectinmind?…’—thatis,todocumentthiscrucialforeplayindetail,onreceiptofpolitethanksfromFWW(plus(?)positivenoisesfrome.g.Charlesworth—whohadencouragedFWWtoapproachOUPinanoteof15thJanuary1943),theultimatelydecisivefollow-upnote:

3rdFebruary,1943

DearSir,

Thankyouforyourletterof23rdJanuary.Inthesedays,whensofewbooksarebeingwritten,Idonotliketoleaveasuggestionwithareasonthatmustbefinalagainstitfromourpointofview.SomayIaskwhetheryouhaveanyothersubjectorpossiblesubjectsinmindwhichyouwouldbepreparedtomentioninformally,sothatwemightconsiderencouragingthemi.e.acceptingforpublicationinprinciple,subjecttotheworkbeingfinishedonapproximatelythelineslaiddownandthestandardweshouldexpectfromyou?Frankly,welikecentralbooks,nottoonarrowinfield,becausetoomuchclassicalworkisbeingdoneonthefringe;butyoursuggestionindicatesthatyouarethinkingofamajorworkforthenextfewyears.

—‘Iponderedandremembered,firsthavingreadPolybiuswithPhilipSheardintheSixthFormatBradfordGrammarSchool,andthenmyconstantuseofPolybiusinmyworkforAratosandPhilipV.Moreover,Ihadrecentlywritten(p.48) anarticleonPolybius’discussionoftheRomanconstitution.SoIboldlyreplied:Yes,acommentaryonPolybius.’(1992a:186)—

February8th,1943.

DearSir,

ImustthankyouforyourletterofFebruary3rd,withitsenquirywhetherIhaveanyothersubjectinmindwhichIwouldbepreparedtoputbeforetheDelegates.Apieceofworkwhichwouldoccupysomeyears,andwhichIshouldbegladtoundertakeontheconditionsyousuggest,wouldbeahistoricalcommentaryonPolybius’sHistories.IhavebeenworkingwithPolybiusconstantlyforthelasttenyears,andIhavefrequentlyfelttheneedofaworksuchasHowandWellshaveprovidedforHerodotus.WhatIhaveinmindisabookonthoselines,whichwouldassistanyonecomingtoPolybiuseitherasasourceforthehistoryofthe3rdand2ndcenturiesorforhisideasonhistoriographyandhispoliticalphilosophy.Thereisalreadyanadequatetext(Büttner-Wobst),andIshouldnotproposetodiscusstextualorlinguisticquestionsexceptwheretheyareessentialtoanunderstanding

ofhistoricalorhistoriographicalproblems.Specialtopicswouldprobablybestgointoappendices.Astothelengthofsuchabook,Ishouldbeinabetterpositiontoestimatethisafterworkingonitforsometime.

Ithinksuchacommentarywouldfallwithinyourdefinitionofa‘centralbook’,sincealthoughPolybiusliesoutsidethemain‘classicalperiod’,andisnotreadforhisGreek,heisthemainsourceforavitalperiodofbothGreekandRoman—indeedonemustsayGraeco-Roman—history,andisplacedanunchallengedthirdamongtheGreekhistorianswhoseworkssurviveinanybulk.IshouldbegladthereforetohearifyouwouldbeinclinedtoencouragesuchaprojectasIhaveoutlined.

Yourstruly,

On12FebruarySisampushedArnaldoMomigliano’sbutton:‘Hedoesn’tindicatethelengthofhisproposedbookonPolybius,whichIsupposewouldbeuseful,thoughdifficultandcontroversial.Ishouldn’texpectittosellverymuch,butwelldoneandnottoobigitwoulddeservetheDelegates’consideration.Ishouldlikeyourveryshortviewofhissuggestion’.L’uomotooknearlyaweektooblige—definitively:

18Feb.1943

DearSisam,

IamsorrythatafewdaysofabsencehavedelayedmyansweronWalbank.IencloseashortmemorandumwhichismeanttointegratewhatIwrotebefore.IagreewithyouthatacommentaryonPolybiuswillnotbeaveryremunerativeaffair,buttheClarendonPresscouldnotchooseamoreusefulsubjectinthefieldofancienthistory.Walbankseemstometohavetherightblendofyouthandwisdomforsuchamagnificententerprise.

Yourssincerely,

(p.49) I—AcommentaryonPolybiusisanotorious‘desideratum’inanylanguage.WearestillleftwithCasaubon(1609)andSchweighaeuser(1789).ALexiconPolybianumtoreplaceSchweighaeuser’sappendixtohiseditionwould,too,beveryuseful.7

II—Mr.WalbankisingeneralqualifiedforacommentarytoPolybiusbyhispainstakingandhighlyaccuratemethodofresearch.Asforthespecialqualificationsnecessaryforthiskindofwork—a)competenceinthemilitaryanddiplomatichistoryoftheHellenisticperiod;b)understandingofstylec)soundjudgmentinhistoryofhistoriography—somuchcanbesaid:

—Onpointa)Mr.Walbank’scompetenceisestablishedbeyondanydoubt.

—Onpointb)Mr.Walbank’sgoodjudgmentseemstomeprovedwellenoughbythewholeofhiswork.AnarticleinClass.Quart.1940seemsalsotogiveevidence

thatW.hascapacitytounderstandminutephilosophicalinterpretation.That,ofcourse,doesnotnecessarilymeanthathecandooriginalworkonPolybius’linguisticside,butsomuchdoesnotseemtomeimplicitinahistoricalcommentary.

—Onpointc).TheobservationsonsourceswhicharetobefoundinW’stwobooksarenotalwaysthosewhicharelikelytobeapprovedbyspecializedstudentsofhistoriography,buttheywerewrittenbeforeMr.Wbecameinterestedinthiskindofresearch.TwoarticlesonPolybiuswrittenlater(onepublishedinJHS1938andtheotheronP.’sconstitutionaltheorieswhichIhaveseeninMS)representdefiniteprogress.

ApainstakingworkerofMr.W’sclasswilllearnmuchasheproceedswiththeworkand,inmyopinion,cansafelybetrustedwiththecommentary.PerhapsDr.Jacobymightbeaskedattherightmomenttogivesomeadvice.

Sisamatoncepoppedthequestion,ofscale(22February1943):‘Thankyouforyourletterof8thFebruarysuggestingacommentaryonPolybius.Youmustgivemealittletime,asweareveryshortofhistoriansinOxfordnow,butIparticularlyneedaroughindicationofthelengthofthecommentaryyouhaveinmind:HowandWells’Herodotuswouldserveasabasisof(p.50) comparison.Inthepost-warperiod,wemustreckononhighcosts,whichwillhardlybeequalledbyincreasedmoneyinthehandsofscholarsorstudents.SoIthinkthatconcisenesswillbecalledfor…’.FWWneverflinched,butinstantlyquantified—preciseanddecisive:

February24th,1943

DearMr.Sisam,

ThankyouforyourreplytomysuggestionofacommentaryonPolybius.Iappreciateyourneedforsomekindofindicationoflength,andIhaveattemptedwhatmustnecessarilybearatherrough-and-readycalculation.

HowandWells’commentaryonHerodotuscontains869pages,foratextcovering799,say800Teubnerpages.Polybiussetupinthesametyperequires1716pages,butthelastvolumehasacriticalapparatusatthepagebottoms:subtract116pagesforthis,leaving1600pagesinall,whichisdoublethelengthofHerodotus.However,IthinkitmightbepossibletodealmoreconciselywithPolybiusthanHerodotus…

Onthebasisofthesecalculations,itlooksasifIshouldrequirerathermorespacethanHowandWells;withtheirformat,say1000–1200pagesinall.Infact,onceIgotdowntothework,Imightfinditcameoutatsomethingconsiderablyless.Butofcoursecompressionbeyondacertainpointcanonlybeacheivedveryundesirablyattheexpenseoftheusefulnessofthecommentary.

Yourssincerely,

Meantime,asecondopinionwassought,fromtheGomme(1March1943,enpassant,hookedintosizingupproofs):‘Bytheway,F.W.WalbankofLiverpoolrecentlyproposedtousacommentaryontheHistoriesofTacitus.…Ididnotliketoleaveanybodyreadyforbigworkswithablanknegative,soIaskedifhehadanythingelseinmind.HenowproposesacommentaryonPolybius,whichmightmake1,200pagesintheusualstyle.Itwould,ofcourse,beanexpensivework,onwhichanypublisherwouldloseagooddeal,butIshouldbegladofafriendlyhintfromyou;firstonthedesirabilityandusefulnessofsuchabook,andsecondlyonWalbank’squalificationsforit,whichare,Igather,notnegligible,thoughtomakeafirstratejob,hewouldhavetoshowdevelopmentinsomedirections’.

March17

DearSisam,

[MemoryofFWW’stwoarticles‘refreshed’]…Heshowscareandgoodsense(in,perhaps,acautioussortofway).IhopeIamnotdampeningtheproject;ontheGreekhistorysidethereisademandforafirstratecommentary.Itisaworkwhichwd.needbothhistoricaljudgmentandimagination;and,asfarasIknow,Walbankhashardlyyetshownthathepossessesthese.Butdon’ttakethisformorethanthenegativeopinionthatitis.(ItispossiblethatRomanhistorians,suchasLast,knowmoreabouthim.)…

MeantimeSisamhadruntheproposalbytheDelegates,‘inapreliminaryway’,andwrotethesameday(5March1943),keepingFWWdangling,since(p.51) ‘Tacitushasthebetterclaims,andifforanyreasonMr.Symehasdecidednottogoon,theDelegateswouldliketoreconsideryouroriginalsuggestion.IshallwritetoIstanbul,andIhopeyouwon’tmindalittledelayorthinkthatitindicatesanydisinclinationtoundertakethecommentaryonPolybius.’Ayear(someyear!)passes,andSyme’sreplydeterminesthefatesofbooks:

Extractfromletterof17thMarch1944fromProfessorR.Syme

NowletmeanswerasclearlyandbrieflyaspossibleyourquestionabouttheHistoriesofTacitus.Atpresent,andforanumberofyears,letussayfourorfive,Iseenoprospectofbeingabletoproduceaneditionofthatwork.ThereforeIshouldresigninterestinit:itwouldbewrongtoblockanybodyelse.ThisdoesnotmeanthatIhavenoprojectstosubmittothePress.

NowaboutPolybius.Aproperannotatededitionismuchneeded.Thetimeissuitable—itwoulddigestinanaccessibleformtheresultsoftheintensive(anddispersed)studyofHellenistichistoryinthelastgeneration.ThereisnocommentaryinanyEuropeanlanguage.AsforTacitus,imperialhistoryinthelastthirtyyearshasbeenabletogetalongverywellwithoutanexhaustivecommentaryontheHistories.Theycoverashortperiodoftime,ayearandahalfatthemost.Few,ifany,newdiscoverieshavesupervened.One’sopinionsabout

eithertheeventsortheauthorhavenotbeenmuchmodified.Almostanyprofessionalhistorian,whateverhis‘period’,wouldwelcomeaneditionofPolybius—andespeciallythosewhohithertohavefoundthatauthorratherforbidding.

Thequestionofsalesisanothermatter.TacitusfindsmorereadersthanPolybius—fortunately.Hewouldsellbetter—buthowmuchbetter?Thefuturewillseeadeclineinthenumberofreadersoftheclassicsfortheirliterarymerits.Ontheotherhand,institutionssuchasAmericanlibrarieswillpresumablypurchaseeditionsofancientauthors,whoevertheymaybe,iftheyissuefromyourPress.And,ifthereiseveraEuropeanmarket,universitiesandlibrarieswill,Ifancy,benotlessattractedbyanOxfordPolybiusthananOxfordTacitus.

Thisisallapartfromthepersonaltastesandqualificationsofanyeditorsincontemplation.Inanycasepleaserulemeout.

AmonthlaterandSisamwasapologizingfordelayandrelayingonSyme’sdecision:

18thApril,1944

…IhadtorepeatmyenquiriesaboutTacitus…severaltimes,becausehisletterstomeshowedthattheyhadnotreachedhim.…Iamsurethat,ifhehasanymaterialshere,hewouldbewillingtotransferthemtoyouwithHow’spapers.

PerhapsyouwillletmeknowwhetheryouwouldprefertodotheTacitus’Historiesasyouoriginallyproposed,treatingPolybiusasasecondaryormoredistantproject.Asapublisher,Ishouldslightlyfavourcontinuingouroldplan.ThereisprobablylesstobedoneonTacitus,butfarmorepeoplehereandinAmericawillreadhim;theDelegateshavethatprojectinbeing,asitwere;andtheyareboundforsometimeafterthewartothinkofmakinggoodnecessaryuniversitytextbooks,ofwhichtheshortagewillbeacute.Butbysayingthis,Idonotwantto(p.52) ruleoutPolybiusasalearnedprojectwelldeservingyourtimeandourconsideration.

Iamsorrytohavebeensolong,butyouwillunderstandthatIhavenocommandoverthevagariesofthepostinthesedays.

FWWsawatoncehowtoturnthisaround:

April22nd,1944

…Ifullyappreciatethereasonsforthedelay,andalsothepreferencethattheDelegateshaveforTacitus.SinceourlastexchangeoflettersinMarchoflastyear,however,IhavebeenputtingallmyworkintoPolybius,withtheresultthatIhavenowassembledagooddealofgeneralmaterialandhavealmostfinishedmyfirstdraftofthecommentaryonBook1.Ishouldthereforeprefertogoonwiththis,iftheDelegatesarestillwillingtoconsiderit.

ThisdoesnotmeanthatIhavelostinterestintheHistories,andIhopetocollectmorematerialduringthecomingsessionwhenIshallbelecturingonBookII.IshouldthereforebegratefulifyouwouldkeepmeinformedifanythingisplannedfortheHistories,sinceafterthePolybiusisfinishedImightwellfeelinclinedtoreverttomyoriginalplan.MeanwhileIshouldbegladifyouwouldputtheschemeforacommentaryonPolybiusasadefiniteproposaltotheDelegates.

AstheMemoirnotes‘adloc.’(1992a:187):‘littledidIrealisethenthatPolybiuswasgoingtooccupythenextthirty-fouryearsofmylife’.Sisamtookthereinsstraightback,tantalizingwiththeprospectofCapitalizationwhilenicelybrandishingthepowerratiowithhiscrucialpun:

24thApril,1944

…Attheirnextmeeting,IshallasktheDelegateswhethertheycanencourageyourCommentaryonPolybius.Butclearlythequestionoflengthwillbulklargeintheirconsideration:onehastothinkofthepriceofabookandhowmanycanafforditinthenewworld.Inyourletterof24thFebruaryyouthoughtitmightrequire1,000–1,200pagesofHowandWells.AfterdraftingtheCommentaryonBookI,canyoutellmehowthisestimatestands?

Onthechin,andrightbackathim,stealthfoldsinwiththebravura:

April25th,1944

ItisnotveryeasytobecertainabouttheultimatelengthofthefullcommentaryonPolybius,asIhaveworkedsofarontheprincipleofmakingitasfullaspossibleinthefirstdraft,withaviewtocuttingdownbulklater.ButmyimpressionisthatmyestimateofayearlastFebruarystillstands,viz:1,000to1,200pp.ofthesizeofHowandWells.CertainlyIdon'tthinkIcouldsaveanythingonthis;andtokeeptothatfigurewillmeanpublishingsome‘appendixmaterial’separately,asindeedIproposedoing.

Thissufficedtoopensesame.Evidentlyaready-reckonedpound-a-pagetabwasthegoingrateinmindattheoutset:

(p.53) 1stJune1944

DearMr.Walbank,

TheDelegateshaveconsideredyourplanforaCommentaryonPolybius,andhaveagreedtoencourageabook(presumablyintwovolumes)of1,000pagesmoreorless,inthestyle(Imeantypographicalstyle)ofGomme’sCommentaryonThucydidesnowinthePress.Isendyouastylesheetofthisinproof,sothatyoumayseewhatwehaveinmind.Theythinkgreaterlengthwouldbeundesirable,butmustnotbeunderstoodtosay‘Onnoaccount1,050pages’,oranythingsonarrow,forsomemarginisessentialtoyourpurpose.

InthesetimesImustmakeareservation,whichIdon’tlikemaking:assumingafirst-ratebookonthissubject,presentcostsandthelimitednumberofspecialistswhoreadPolybiussuggesttousadebitbalanceofsomethinglike£1,000–£1,200.ThattheDelegatesarewillingtoundertake,butinthesetimes,whenweareparticularlyunluckyintaxation,wecannotguaranteethatitwouldbeconvenienttoprovideitinanyfutureyearwhenyourMS.isready.Ihopeitwillbeallright,becausewearecarefulofourcommitments,anddealwiththeminsomeorderofpriority,butiftimesareawkwardwhenyouhavefinishedwemighthavetoaskfordelay.

Idon’tthinkIshouldattempttogointomoredetailatpresentbeyondsayingthatweshouldbeverygladtogivetechnicaladviceonanyquestionofpreparingthecopy,andthatitisofthegreatestimportancetousthatthecopyshouldbefinishedandpolishedinalldetailswhenitcomesin,andthatawholeMS.shouldbefinishedbeforewebeginprinting.Solongaworkmakesitdifficulttomaintainregularityinallthedetailsofpunctuation,reference,etc.,butperhapsyouhadadoptedwhatMr.H.W.Fowlerusedtocalla‘stylebook’,i.e.anotebookinwhichheenteredalldecisionsofformashemadethem,tosecurethathehadnotforgottenbythetimehehadreachedthelastpagewhathehaddoneatthebeginning.

Pleaseputanyquestionsthatoccurtoyouastheyoccur,bearinginmindthatIcangiveyounohelpwithPolybius,butonlywiththetechnicalquestionsofproduction.Itisgoodtothinkthatinthesetimesscholarscanstillsettledowntosuchlong-distancetasks.

FWWtookallthisonboardinstanter(3June1944).Hehadjustbeen‘inOxfordoverWhitweekend,readingapaper(onPolybius)tothePhilologicalSociety’andregrettedtherewasnochancetomeetup(andshakehandsonit—‘becomepersonallyacquainted’).

TopeaceandtheLatinchair‘[I]n1943IwasapproachedbyBenFarringtontowriteabookonthedeclineoftheRomanempireinthewestforaseriesplannedbytheCobbettPress,aleft-wingpublishingfirm.…Thesubjectfascinatedmeandthebook,whenwritten,waslivelyand,Ithink,quiteexciting.IwasstillaMarxist(ofsorts)(p.54) thoughIhadsplitdecisivelyfromtheC.P.,whoseshiftsofpolicymadeitcontemptible.(ForwhenHitlerattackedStalin,thewarhadintheirviewoncemorebecomeajustoneandtobesupported.)Moreover,especiallyduringtheearlywaryears,Iwasoftenworriedbytheproblemofreconcilingthesubjectofmyworkwiththeworldwewerenowlivingin—thatconstantlyrecurringproblemof“relevance”.ThisbookonthedeclineofRomeseemedtoofferanopportunitytomakeastatementabouthowIsawthepresentandthefuture.Itwasgoingtobeatractforthetimesandmyfirstsentencespeaksof“turningtotherecordsofthepastforlightupontheproblemsofthefuture”.Thiswasnotobjectivehistoryasthehistorianunderstandsit;butitsuitedverymuchmymoodaroundtheendofthewar.Bythetimethebookappearedin1946thewarwasalreadyoverandtheatomicbombhadbeendroppedonJapan.8

…MyconcernwiththerelevanceoftheClassicsalsosurfacedintwootherthingsIwroteaboutthesametime.ThefirstwasashortarticlepublishedinGreeceandRomeinJune1943,entitled“IsourRomanHistoryTeachingReactionary?”Itdealtwiththeinstitutionoftheprincipateasasolutiontotheproblemsofthefirstcenturyandthetendencyofteachers(asrevealedinanswersservedupinH.S.C.scripts)toapplaudthisautocraticsolutionandtoechotheRomanoptimatecondemnationoftheGracchi.Isignedit“Examiner”,asIthought(unnecessarily)thattheBoardmightobjecttomyusingmaterialobtainedasanexaminertodrawwhatwerereallypoliticalconclusions.Myother“political”effusionwasapaperIreadtotheClassicalAssociationatitsAnnualGeneralMeeting,heldatStAlbans,in1944andpublishedintheJournalofHellenicStudiesthatyear,entitled“TheCausesofGreekDecline”.IthadgrownoutofareviewIhadwritten(intheClassicalReviewfor1942)ofRostovtzeff'sSocialandEconomicHistoryoftheHellenisticWorldanditwas,amongotherthings,anattackontheroleofPlato.…InMaycameVEday—8May,tocelebratevictoryinEurope;thatdayIwastalkingtothe[Lytham]StAnne’sRotaryclubon“IsHistoryBunk?”ShortlyafterwardscamethedroppingoftheatombombsonHiroshimaandNagasakiandthecapitulationofJapan.’(1992a:187–191)

‘AtLiverpooltheVice-Chancellor,ArnoldMcNair,nowresignedtogotoCambridgeand…MountfordacceptedandasaresultIwasappointedActingHeadoftheLatinDepartmentfor1945/6.Itwasanobviousappointment,(p.55) sinceBonnerhadonlyrecentlyreturnedfromtheforces,havingbeeninvalidedoutafterabreakdown,andhewasoutoftouchwithaffairsinLiverpool.Beforeweknewofthisfurtherdevelopment,wehadinvitedtheMountfordsovertoStAnne’sfortheweekend9andwethoughtthattheyoughtnottobedeprivedoftheexperienceofvisitingBlackpool.ItgaveJFMgreatsatisfactiontoespyontheSouthShoreaboothcontainingProfessorXandhisFleaCircus.‘Now’,heobserved,‘IrealisethetruevalueofthetitleofProfessor’(whichhewas—thoughIdidnotyetknowit—onthepointofrelinquishing).

Thewarwasover,butwestayedoninStAnne’sforthetimebeing,sincetherewerelikelytobeseniorpostsgoingandwedidnotknowwherewemightfindourselves,ifIwerefortunateenoughtobeappointedtoone.Nothinghappenedintheautumnterm,butthenchairswereadvertisedatUniversityCollege,King’sCollege,andRoyalHollowayCollege,allintheUniversityofLondon.InApril1946IwasinterviewedontwosuccessivedaysinLondonfortheKing’sandRoyalHollowayposts;andatthefirstinterviewIlearntthattheU.C.L.chairhadbeenfilledinternally.Igotneither;norwasIsuccessfulatReading,whereCormack,theactingheadofthedepartment,waspreferred.ThiswasallratherdiscouragingandIrememberfeelingalittledisconsolatewhen,aweeklater,IspentanightwithGordonRawcliffe(mytowerwatchcompanion)atBristol,wherehehadbeenelectedtoachairtheprevioussummer.ThiswasonmywaytotheClassicalAssociationA.G.M.atExeter[where]Ireadapaper…on“PolybiusandtheGrowthofRome”.AsaresultofMountford’sappointment,theLatinChairatLiverpoolwasnowadvertisedand,afteraskinghisadvice,Iputinanapplicationandwascalledforinterviewon28May.Thisinterviewcameastheclimaxofasomewhathecticfourdays.AttheweekendIhadbeeninvitedtoaratherexclusivegatheringofancienthistoriansat

Bedford,runonasortofpatronagebasisbyNormanBaynes,F.E.Adcock,andHughLast.…OntheSundaynightIwentonfromBedfordtoCambridgeandspentitwithmyoldfriendsRobertandMargaretGetty—aratherpiquantsituation,sinceGettywasalsoacandidate,andIbelievedaverystrongone,fortheLiverpoolLatinChair.OntheMondayIwentuptoBirmingham,whereIhadpromisedtolectureattheUniversityontheHellenisticage;andthatnightIreturnedtoLiverpool,whereforthefirsttimeinmylifeIstayedatanhotelinthatcity.NormallytheMountfordswouldhaveputmeup,butinthecircumstancesthatwouldnothavebeenappropriate.SoIbookedinattheShaftesburyHotelatthebottomofMountPleasant(whichfiguresinthefilm‘LettertoBrezhnev’astherendezvousforthetwoscouselassesandtheirRussianpickups).Theinterviewstookplacein(p.56) theoldSenateRoomintheVictoriaBuildingandtherewerefourcandidatesontheshortlist,allwithLiverpoolconnections.TheotherthreewereRobertGetty,StanleyBonner,andG.B.A.Fletcher.IknewalltheCommitteemembers,includingMauriceBowraandW.B.Anderson,thetwoexternaladvisers.Theinterviewwentreasonablywell,butIwasalittledisturbedwhenMountford,whowasinthechairasVice-Chancellor(somewhatanomalously,sinceitwashischairthatwasbeingfilled),askedmewhatmyreactionwouldbeifIwereappointednowandlaterachairweretocomevacantinthenearfuturein,forexample,AncientHistory.Thiswasnohypotheticalsituation,sinceOrmerodwasduetoretireinaboutfiveyears’time.Apparentlymynon-committalanswertothisquestionwasthoughttobesatisfactory.Buttherewasofcoursenoindicationofthelikelyresult.IntheearlyafternoonIhadtoattendtheFacultyApplicationsCommittee,sittingalongsideseveralofthecolleagueswhohadbeeninterviewingmethatmorning.No-onegavetheslightestcluetotheirdecisionandIfeltveryuncertain.But,onmyreturntomyroom,IfoundanotefromtheVice-Chancellor’ssecretary,MissKay,askingmetogoatoncetohisoffice.WhenIgotthereinastateofsometrepidationheatoncethrustouthisrighthandandtoldmethatIhadbeenappointedtotheChair.Itwasoneofthegreatmomentsofmylife.’(1992a:192–4)10

Therest—therestisHistor…icalCommentary.Throughtoretirementage,andonintotheThirdMillennium.11

VolumeI;oftwoThefileismuteuntil1948,12bywhichtimeFWWhadoutlastedhiseditor.D.M.DavinwrotetosaytheretiredSecretarySisamhadpoppedinand(p.57) remindedhimto‘askifthereisanythingwecandotohelp’withtheCommentaryonPolybius(8October1948).NewSecretaryP.J.Spicer(Peter,butitstays‘(Mr.)Spicer’and‘(Professor)Walbank’inthiscorrespondence)enters,inatizz:

22ndSeptember,1950

ItislongtimesinceweheardfromyouaboutPolybius.Howishegoing?Wearestillanxioustohavethisedition,andouranxietyhasrecentlybeensharpenedbytheimpatienceoftheUniversity,forofcoursePolybiusisasetbookintheearlypartoftheRomanHistorySchoolinGreatsanduntilyoureditionisavailabletherecanbenothingverysatisfactoryfortheundergraduatetouse.

Here,onasaucer,wasthebridgeheadtowardsseparatingandsequencingVolumesIandII:

September27th,1950

ThankyouforwritingtomeaboutPolybius.YourletterleadsmetoraiseapointIhavehadinmindforsometime.TheHistories,assurviving,fallintotwoparts.BooksI–Vwhicharecomplete,andBooksVI–XLwhicharefragmentary.Inbulk,I–VwiththefragmentsofVI,VII,andVIIIoccupythreeoutofthesixLoebvolumes.SinceIbeganmycommentaryaboutthemiddleof1943IhavefinishedthefirstdraftdowntoBookV,chapter30.Itistruethatthesesevenyearshavenotbeendevotedexclusivelytothiswork;Ihaveatvarioustimesbeeninvitedandhaveacceptedinvitationstodooneortwosmallerthings,andIhavepublishedaseriesofarticlesdevotedmainlytomattersarisingfrommyworkonthecommentaryitself.Butsince,asyouinformme,thereissomeimpatiencetohavetheworkforuseinGreats,Iwonderifitwouldnotbeagoodideatoaimatpublishingthefirstvolumeseparately,AsGommehasdoneinthecaseofhisThucydides,andtocarryonwiththefragmentarybooksafterwards.

Ifyouthinkthisisagoodplan,asecondpointwhicharisesis:shouldtheveryimportant,butfragmentaryBookVIontheRomanconstitutionandarmyorganizationgowithI–V,orwiththelaterbooks?IcouldfinishBookVduringthecurrentacademicyear,butBookVIwillobviouslybeoneofthemostdifficult,perhapsthemostdifficultofall,andwoulddelaypublicationconsiderably.Inanycase,ImustworkasecondtimeoverwhatIhavewritten,sincemycommentaryonI–IV,excludingthepartofBookValreadycompleted,amountstobetween650and700quartopagesinhandwriting,andIshallhavetoreducethisbulkconsiderablytogetitwithinthescopeenvisagedforthewholework.

Perhapsyouwouldletmehaveyourcommentsonthissuggestion.

ThePressjumpedattheoffer:

(p.58) 4thOctober,1950

…TheanswertoyourfirstquestionisIthinkquiteclear.IfwehadnoobjectiontoproducingGomme’sThucydidesintwoparts,oneaftertheother,weshouldhavemuchlessreasonforobjectingtoproducePolybiusinthesameway.SoletushaveyourfirstvolumeassoonasitisreadyforthePrinter.

Asforyoursecondquestion,wethinkitwouldbebettertokeepbookVIwithbooksI–V.Itwouldbebetter,wefeel,fromthepointofviewofcontent,thatitshouldbegroupedwithI–Vinthisway,andalsoitwillmakeamoresatisfactorydivisionfromthepointofviewoflength.Ifmycalculationsarerightthefirstvolumewouldinthiswaycontainratherlessthanhalfthewhole,perhapsmaking400outofthethousandpagesenvisagedforthewhole.ToputbookVIwiththe

laterbookswouldmeanvolumesofverydisproportionatesize,ortheveryunsatisfactoryalternativeofgoingtothree.Mycalculationsassumeofcoursethatyourcommentariesonthebooksareofasizeproportionatetotheirlength—anassumptionwhichIperhapshavenorighttomake.Anyhow,Ishouldbegratefulifyouwouldletmeknowifthefactslooklikebeingverydifferentfromthis,andinparticular,ifyouthinkyouaregoingtoexceedgreatlytheestimatedlengthof1,000pagesofthesizeofGomme’sThucydideswhichwereoriginallylaiddown.

IfyoudoputbookVIwithbooksI–Vweshallhavetoacceptthenecessarydelayinpublishingthefirstvolume.Ishallbegladofanyestimateoftimeyoucanusefullymake;istheadditionofbookVItowhatyouhavealreadydonegoingtomeanthatwedonotgetcopyforthefirstvolumeuntil1952?Iaskoutofcuriosityratherthananydesiretopressyou;naturallywewanttopublishassoonaspossible,butIshouldnotlikethedesireforspeedtodeteryoufromgoingoverthecopyascarefullyaspossiblebeforeitissentinforprinting,asalterationsintheproofstageareoneofthemosttroublesomeobstaclestoswiftandsatisfactorypublishingthatthereare.

FWWwas‘glad’VolumeIcouldgoaheadwithoutwaitingfortherest;butheatonceputupasimultaneousbarrageofcaveats,blinds,andsomeofthequestionsthatshouldhavebeensettled‘at’any‘outset’:

October8th,1950

…MyimpressionisthatBooksI–VI,thoughnotquitehalfthetextwillbeabouthalfthecommentary,sincemanyofthegeneralproblems—dateofcomposition,objectsinwritingetc.—tendtobediscussedinconnectionwiththeearlierbooks;andthoughBooksXIIandXXXIVpresentspecialproblems,thereisnothingquitelikeBookVIinthesecondhalf.Thismeans,Ithink,thatIcanaimatmakingthetwovolumesapproximatelythesamesize.

YouenquirewhetherIamlikelytoexceedtheoriginal1,000pages,whichweestimatedattheoutset.Itisdifficulttoanswerthisatthepresentstage,asIhaveworkedontheprincipleofputtingasmuchasIcouldintothefirstdraft,andbeingpreparedtobefairlyruthlessinrevision.My650–700MSpagesforBooksI–IVcanundoubtedlybecutdownagooddeal;butjusthowmuchIshantknowtillIstartdoingthatparticularjob.Andofcoursetherewillnodoubthavetobeanallowanceforintroductoryremarksanddiscussionofgeneralquestions,aswellasforindices.Idoappreciatetheneedontheonehandtokeepthething(p.59)withinassmallacompassaspossible;ontheotherhand,itisimportantnottoomitanythingessential,whichmightleadtojustifiablecriticismsofthebook,anddetractfromitsusefulness.Entirelyasanimpression,notbasedonanycalculations,IshouldsaythatIamlikelytoover-runthe1,000pagestosomeextent;buthowmuchIcantyetsay.IshallcertainlytrytohavethecopyascompleteasIpossiblycanbeforesendingittoyou.

Aboutdates.WiththeadditionofBookVIIshouldsaythatlate1952istheearliestIcanhopetohavecopyready.…

Whatevertheirsalt,allRomanhistoriansknowperfectlywellthataVolumeIwithBooks1–6waswhatwaswanted—andnotjusttogiveGreatsstudentssomethingtobegoingonwith.HellenistichistoriansandLatinistsworkingonLivymightbecryingoutforhelpforBooks1–5,but6istheprize:thedecisiontocutthewholeCommentaryintotwoequalpage-countswasentirelysuperficial,comparedwiththeconsequentialweightinginfavourofthefirst,andimpending,publishedvolume,overagainstwhatwouldbeleftastheresidueforVolumeII,wherethefragmentarinesstookpermanenthold,andtherewastobenocompensatorymainattractiontorivaltherichesofbook6.Tosell,VolumeIIwouldhavetotrusttobuyerswhohatetohave‘Vol.I’solitariaontheirshelves—particularlyonceVolumeIwasdesignedtostandfree,readysuppliedwithitsownindicespendingcompletiontobook40.Ontheotherhand,nowitsextentwassettled,VolumeIpromisedtobagcustomersa-plenty,and,withafairwind,soon:

9October,1952

IseethatitistwoyearssincewecorrespondedlastaboutyourgreatcommentaryonPolybius,andIhopeyouwon’tmindagentleenquirynowhowthingsaregettingon.…

ThereisonepointwhichIcannotseehaseverbeendiscussed,thequestionoftext.Isupposeyouhavenointentionofpreparinganewoneyourself?IaskbecauseIbelievetheTeubnerisverydifficulttoget,sothatanewtextwouldsurelyaddgreatlytothevalueofyourbook.

The‘How&Wells’modelofthe‘HistoricalCommentary’,amplifiedinGomme’sThucydides,hadneverenvisagedtheproductionofatext:recentlyinstalledasChairofAncientHistory(1951),andsoslowedbyafreshload,FWWshutthisterrorsomedoorinatrice:

October11th,1952

ThankyouforwritingtomeaboutPolybius.IhavenowcarriedmyfirstdraftdowntoVI,15,whichleavesonlyVI,19–58stilltobedone.…OnreturningtotheproblemsofBookVI,IfoundmyselfrevisingviewswhichIhadputforwardinClass.Quart.1943,withtheresultthat,incollaborationwithmycolleagueC.O.Brink,Ihaverecentlyplannedandwrittenmostofasubstantialarticlewhichwehopewillputtheproblemonabetterfooting.Thiswasessential,andinthelongrunshouldreducetheamountwhichneedstobesaidinthe(p.60) commentary;butnaturallyithastakentime.…AssoonasBookVIisfinished,Ishallbegintheworkofrevisingandcompressing.HowlongthispartwilltakeitisalittlehardtosayuntilIgetdowntoit;butIshallwritetoyouassoonasIhaveanideaofthis,andalso,ofhowfaritispossibletokeepwithinthelimitsoriginallyenvisaged.

Ihadalwaysassumedthattoprintatextalongwiththecommentarywouldsendthecostuptoaprohibitivefigure.…Indeedthiswouldbesobigataskthatitcouldhardlyhavebeencombinedwiththewritingofahistoricalcommentary.ItistruethattextsofPolybiusarehardtocomebynow;butIhaveassumedthatatanyrateaLoebeditionwillbereprintedfromtimetotime.…Ofcourseanewtext,forinstanceintheO.C.T.series,wouldbeasplendidthing;butIfeelthatitwouldbebetterdonebysomeonewhoseinterestsweremorephilologicalthanmyown.MayIaddthatifatanytimeyoufoundanyonepreparedtoundertakeatext,IshouldbeveryhappytogiveanyhelpIcouldfromthehistoricalside.

IntoproductionThevolumebehaveditselfinthewritingup,didit?Therewasjusttheproblem,occurringasifunforeseeable,ofgettingamajorcommentary,anymajorcommentary,toliedownstillandgetdone…inthepre-xeroxera:

March22nd,1953

…Compressionisnotprovingtoohard,andasfarasIcanestimateitshouldbepossibletogetI–VI(withintroductionandextras)into500pagesthesizeofGomme’sThucydides.

InJanuary[atameetinginOxford]yousuggestedthatbeforegoingveryfarwiththerevisionIshouldsubmitaspecimenforgeneralcommentandadviceasto‘style’inreferences,lay-out,etc.SinceInowhaveabout60pagesofrevisedcopyready,IamwonderingwhenIoughttosendit.WhatIhadn’tforeseen(thoughitwasperhapsobvious)wastheextenttowhichasIgoforwardIhavetokeepreferringbacktowhatIhavewritten.Consequently,whileyouhavetheMSSIamlikelytobeatastand-still.SoIshouldliketosenditatatimewhenIamnotlikelytohavemuchleisureforPolybius.…IfIsentyouasmuchasIhavewrittenonApril20th,doyouthinkyoucoulddowhatyouwanttodowithitbyMay11th?Ifyouthinkyoucould,Iwillsenditthen.

Therewasevidently(tobe)noquestionofrefereereportsonthescholarlyqualityofthesubmittedcopy:bynow,thedébutantcommentatorhadturnedmuch-publishedprofessor.Sothiswasbornalreadya‘greatwork’,thankstolengthofgestation.AndthePressjumpedtoit,too,preciselyoncommand:

7May1953

We’venowhadagoodlookatyourspecimenchunkofcopy,andsohasthePrinter,andIappendourcommentsandsuggestionsonaseparatesheet.Thankyouvery(p.61) muchforgivingustheopportunityofseeingitatthisstage:Iamsureyouwillfindthatattentiontotheselittlepointsnowsavesanawfullotoftime,troubleandmoneywhenwestarttoprint.

ThePrinterestimatesthatthese143foliosofcopywillmake101printedpagesin

thestyleofGomme’sThucydides.Icalculatethereforethat900folioswillmakeacommentaryof635pages.CanyougivemeanyideaofhowlongVolumeIIislikelytobe?TheDelegateswouldnotinsiston1,000pagespreciselyforthewholework,butIoughttoreporttothemifthediscrepancyisgoingtobemorethanabout200.

Iamsogladthatthegreatworkreallyismakingprogress,andlookforwardkeenlytothedaywhenyoucansendusallyourcopyforthePrinter.

Theshuntingofchunksofcopybetweenauthorandpresswasunderway,withfewhitches,butmore(wemighthavesupposed)bigdecisionstrippedoverobiter,asandwhentheycroppedup:

16December1954

ItseemstomethatthemethodadoptedbyGommewilldoverywellforyourownproblemofthebibliographyandabbreviations.…

RathertomysurpriseIseethatGommehasacompletesetofindexesforthisvolume,oneforsubjects,oneforauthorsandpassagesdiscussed,andoneforGreekwords.Idon'tknowwhetherhecontemplatesconflationwhenallhisvolumesarepublished,butIseenoreasonwhyyoushouldnotadoptthesameplan.

28January1955

IwritemerelytoacknowledgereceiptoftheninepagesofMS.thatyouhavereturned,andyourletterof25January.Wewillnowpressaheadwithcomposition.

18October1955

IamsendingyousomesheetsofyourPolybiuswhichSymehaslookedthrough.Asyouwillsee,hehasfoundverylittletochange;Isupposeweshouldbegratefulforthat.[!]

18thMay1956

DearSpicer,

IhavejustrealisedthataninconsistencyhascreptintotheprintingofmyPolybius,inrelationtotheuseofvanduinrepresentingLatinwords.…IfyouagreethatweshouldtrytogetthevformsIwillmakesureoftheminsubsequentrevises.

Myonlyotherpointisthis.Iamatpresentreceivingrevisesattherateoftwosheetsafortnight.ThismeansthatitwilltakeafurthersixmonthsbeforeIhavethelast,whichdoesn'tlookveryhopefulfortheappearanceofthebookthisautumn!Isthereanypossibilityofspeedingup?…

22May1956

DearWalbank,

ὠ̑πόποι:IhearthatsheetsB–Ohavejustgonetothemachineroomforprinting.Itwillmeangettingthemback,and(Ifear)readingthemrightthroughagain.Butnodoubtweoughttodoit:‘Seru.’atleastrevoltsme.IwillaskthePrinter,and(p.62)meantimepleasedocarryonontheassumptionthatweshallusetheconsonantalvforpropernamesinfuture.

IexpectthePrinterwouldsaythatitisexaminationpapersthathavesloweduptherevises.Theymustbeoutofthewaynow,andweoughttobeabletomakebetterprogressinfuture.

12July1956

IdonotthinkthatanythinghaseverbeensaidabouttermsforyourPolybius.Youwillnotexpectthebooktobeamoneymaker,thoughweregarditasagreatcontributiontoscholarship,andIhopeyouwillnotbeinsultedifIsuggestafeeof£100tobepaidonpublication,withafurther£100ifandwhenourcondensedaccountshowsthatwehaveitstandingtoourbalance.

Iamafraidthatthepricewillhavetobe84/-.

Allthisapplies,ofcourse,toVolumeIonly.

16August1956

ThePresshasjustsentmeacopyofyourAutumnBookslistandIampleasedtoseethat‘Polybius’figuresinit.Thereis,however,aprinter’serrorinitwhichIamwritingtocorrect,asIunderstandthatthesameblurbwillappearonthedust-cover.ThisisthespellingofSchweighaeuser.Hespellsitlikethat,butwiththeAandEjoinedtogether.Ihaveusedtheform‘Schweighaeuser’throughout,andpreferit.Butifachangeistobemade,thenitmustbexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSchweighäuser,andnot(asinyourlist)Scheighaüser.

Wehaveneverdiscussedthebinding.IsittheintentiontogiveitasimilarbindingtoGomme,orhaveyouanyotherColourinmind?

Kindregards,

30thOctober1956

DearSir,

Wearepleasedtosendtoyoutoday,underseparatecover,anadvancecopyofPolybius:Vol.I,whichwehopetopublishon3rdJanuary,price84/-net.…

Thefinishedcopieswill

have‘Vol.I’onthespine.

1November1956

Warmestcongratulationsontheappearanceofyourgreatwork(VolumeI).Ihopeyoulikeitsform,andthinkthatitisworthyofthecontents.

5November1956

Verymanythanksforyourgoodwishes.Itwascertainlypleasanttoseethevolumeaftersolong(my‘solong’,notyours,forIthinkthePresshasreallybeenmostexpeditiousingettingthroughaconsiderablejob).Ifindtheformatattractive,andhavenothingtodetractfromtheadmirationIhavefeltallthroughfortheworkofthePressandespeciallyitscompositorsandproof-readers.Inevitablythereareafewmisprintswhichhaveslippedpast,butveryfewforthenumberofpages(atleastIhavespottedveryfewsofar).Themainslip-upisthesketch-maponp.536,wherethekeyhasbeenomittedandthelettersA,B,(p.63) andCarenowhereexplained.Itisntveryimportant,however,forIthinkmycommentarymakesthesenseoftheplanclear.

However,pleasedontregardthisasacriticism!I’mreallyverywellpleasedwiththebookandonlyhopeitwillgetareceptiontojustifyallthecarefulworkthathasgoneintoitsproduction.

ThetoneforreceptionwassetbythatcomradeAlexMcDonald(inJournalofRomanStudies,48(1958),179–83):‘AfteracenturyandahalfwehaveaworthysuccessortoSchweighaeuserinProfessorWalbank.…Wemaycongratulatehimuponamodelofscholarship.…Thisreviewhasdonescantjusticetoadistinguishedandusefulworkofscholarship.…Wemayexpectfreshactivitywherehehasrakedthesand.Buthewillbebusyontheotherhalf,performingthesameservice,andwemaywishhimwellinhissecondvolume’.

By25March1959SpicerwasabletoinformFWW‘thatourtotalsalestodatemustbealittlemorethan750.Iwouldsaythatthiswasveryreasonableforabookofthissizeandcomplexity,andIthinkthisisaboutwhatweshouldhaveexpected.Ihopeyouwillnotconsideritdisappointing’.

AndVolumesII?TheCommentarytookholdofitsfragmentedtextintothe1960squietlyenough.1965maderipplesintheformofnegotiationswithJ.M.Moore,‘whowasapupilofMcDonald’satCambridge,andisnowteachingatRadley’for‘apossibleO.C.T.ofPolybius’(J.K.Cordy,8July1965).Giventhreeweekstocomeupwithreactionstoaspecimen,FWW’s‘generalreactionisfavourable.HisapproachseemsworkmanlikeandasfarasIcanjudgeaccurate.’Hecomesupwithasetofpointedquestionstopress,andwindsupalltoodamply(28July1965):

…ItwouldbeagreatthingtohaveanOCTPolybiusandIhopeMoorewillbeencouragedtoproduceone.Anewtextofthisauthorisadesideratum.ButIshouldaddthatIdonotexpectthatthehistorianisgoingtogetanythingsubstantialoutofthiswork.Pédech’sexcellentversionofbookxiiintroducedmanychanges(mainlyrestoringtheMSreading)butIthinkonlyabouttwohadsignificanceforthesubstanceofwhatPolybiussaid.Thisisajobthatneedsgreatdevotion,andIhopeMoorewilldoitandseeitthrough.

Nothingcameoftheidea.Andbynowthesecond,orthird,grandcouphadwellandtrulycomeoff,backin1962,justwhenSpicerwasmovingawaytolookafter‘theschoolside’(11April1962).FWW’sbigdare(déjàvu),blitzingthePresswithablindinghailoffiguresandcalculations,wasaccordinglypassedontothenewclassicalsupremo,Cordy:

(p.64) 8thApril1962

DearSpicer,

IthinkthetimehascometodiscussPolybiusagain,sincethecommentaryhasnowreachedapointtwothirdsofthewaythroughbookxvi,andIhaveenoughmaterialtomakesomecalculationsabouttheprobablelengthofthewhole.

WhatIhavealreadywrittenamountsto693pagesofquartoMSrepresentingcommentaryon414sidesofTeubnertext.FrombookviitotheendoftheHistoriescomesto1,042Teubnersides.IfthereforeIcontinuetokeepthesameratio(andthisseemslikely),thefirstdraftofmyMSwillamounttoabout1750pages,whichwouldprobablybereducedinthereviseddraftto1,450–1,500pages.Thisworksoutaboutthesameasthefiguresforvol.1,where672Teubnersidesproducedacommentaryof900MSpages.

WhatIhavegraduallycometorealise(andperhapsshouldhaverealisedearlier)isthattheoriginalplantocompletetheworkinonemorevolumewastoooptimistic.Invol.1900pagesofMScameto708printedpages(Iamspeakinghereoftheactualcommentary,andignoringintroduction,abbreviations,indices,appendices,addendaandcorrigendaetc.,perhapsanother75–100pages,makingsay1250inall.

Iamafraidthisbeginstolookliketwovolumes;andif,asIhope,thePressiswillingtoacceptthisinprinciple,thequestionariseswherethebreakshouldcome.Ifafterxviiiweshallhavethecommentaryon497Teubnersidesinvol.2andthaton545invol.3;ifafterxxi,vol.2wouldcontainthecommentaryon685Teubnersidesandvol.3thaton457.Asplitafterxx(therearenosurvivingfragmentsfromxix)wouldnotbesuitablesinceitwouldcomeinthemiddleofthewarwithAntiochus;whereastheendofxviiiortheendofxxiwouldmakeareasonablebreak.Myownpreferenceistohavethebreakafterxviii.Thiswouldhavetheadvantagethatitwouldallowustogetvol.2outearlier,andalthoughitwouldleaveaslightlylargervolumeforthelastone,Ishouldfindthepsychologicaleffect

ofreachingthelastlapearlierquiteconsiderable!Asitis,therewouldbemorethantwoyearswork,togetdowntotheendofxxi[onretainedcopy,laternoteinpenbelow:‘shouldbexviii’]andthentorevisethewholething,rewriting,checkingreferencesandlookingupoddthingsIhaventyetbeenabletosee.

Ishouldbegratefultohearyourviewsaboutthis,forIrealisethatitimpliesaratherbiggercommitmentthanwehadoriginallythoughtof;butIderivesomeencouragementfromtheprecedentofGomme’sCommentary,whichalsoworkedoutlongerthanwasexpected,andalsofromtheunanimityofthereviewersthatvolume1atleastavoidedprolixity.

Withkindregards,

CordynotesonthePresscopy,forSecretarytotheDelegates:‘Idon’tseehowwecanresisthisdivision’,towhichColinRobertsresponds:‘Iagreewecan’tresistonthepointofdivision,somethingwillturnonwhethereachVol.istohaveitsownindex,appendices,etc.ornot?’SotheCordyeraopenswithinstantcave-in,andbutacrackofthewhipforsavinggrace:

(p.65) 16April1962

Spicerhaspassedonyourletterof8April.ThefiguresyougiveareirresistibleanditisquiteobviousthatyoumusttaketwovolumestofinishPolybius.IfyouhadbeenkeepingalltheindexesfortheendtheremighthavebeenacaseformakingthebreakafterBookXXIsoastoleaveroomfortheminthelastvolume.ButpresumablyyouwillfollowthepatternofVolumeIandhaveindexesinbothoftheothertwovolumes,sothatabreakafterBookXVIIIwouldbeperfectlyacceptable.Likeyou,wearestronglytempted[superscriptbyhand:influenced]bythethought,ofgettingVolumeIIpublishedtwoyearsearlierthanwouldbepossibleifthebreakcamefurtheron.

Sothedo-or-diewascast:

17thApril1962

IamimmenselyrelievedthatyouhavebeenabletoaccepttheideaoftwomorevolumesforPolybiussoreadily.SinceIwroteIhavefinishedthedraftofxvi,somynextboutwilltakemeintothelastbookforvol.2,bookxviii.

Ihavenotedamistakeintypinginmylastletter.Twolinesfromtheendofp.1whatImeanttosaywasthat‘downtotheendofxviii’wouldinvolvemorethantwoyearswork.Itistruethattogetdowntotheendofxxiwouldmeanaconsiderabletimeonthetopofthat,thoughnot,Iwouldhope,twoyears.Anyhow,IshallaimatlettingyouhavetheMSofvolume2bytheendof1964.

15March1965

…MyeightmonthsinPittsburgh[asMellonVisitingProfessor]gavemethechancetowriteoutthedefinitiveversionofbooksvi–xviii,whichformvol.2.SinceIreturnedinSeptemberIhavebeencheckingthereferencesandgotthesedowntoalittleunder300.…IshouldbeabletohandovertheMSsometimethissummer.ImaybedelayedbyalargeFrenchbookonPolybius’historicalmethod(pp.644),butIhopeitwillbedealtwithfairlyquickly.

13August1965

UnderseparatecoverIamsendingyouthemanuscriptofvolumeiiofmycommentaryonPolybius.LikevolumeiitisliterallymanuscriptandIhopethatitwillnotworryyoutoomuchtohaveitthatway.Icouldnotfacethetaskofhavingittypedandcorrectingit,andIrememberedwhatasplendidjobyourcompositorsdidfrommanuscriptwithvolumei.

Ithinkeverythingisself-explanatory.Buttwothreepointsneedwatching:wheremypaginationwentwrong…

2November1965

IamafraidyourmanuscriptwasavictimofwhatIsuspectisanaturallawinthiskindofpublishing:thatwhenweareonholidayourauthors,beingonlyonvocation,[sic]areunusuallyactive,sothatwhenwegetbackthereisaparticularlyrichcropofscriptswaitingaswellastheaccumulationofroutineproblems.However,itisonthemovenowandIhopewillgosmoothly.ItisjustpossiblethatthePrinterwillbeindifficultiesoverthefactthatyourcopyishandwritten;Ihopenotbecausehedidafterallcopewiththefirstvolume,andinallformalmattersitlooksadmirablyprepared,butastheamountofworkcomingintohim(p.66)increasesyearbyyearitgetsharderforhimtofindtheextratimethatevenclearhandwritingtakestocomposeascomparedwithatypescript.…

Therewasonethinglefttosort.Nothingagentlemanwouldhavenoticed:

24December1967

IlearnfromMr.HorsemanthatPolybiusistobepublishedonDecember28th;judgingfromtheadvancecopysenttomeabouttwomonthsagothePresshasmadeitsusualexcellentjobofwhatcannothavebeenaneasybooktoproduce.MayIsaymythank-yousthroughyou!

ThearrivalofaninvoicefromyourLondonofficeforhalfadozenextracomplimentarycopieswhichtheyarekindlysendingoutformeremindsmethatwehavenotyethadanydiscussionaboutthetermsofpublicationforVol.2.ForVol.1Ireceived£100paidonpublication,withafurther£100tobepaidifandwhenthecondensedaccountshowedthatitwasstandingtothebalanceofthePress.Iassumethatthisdesirablepointhasnotyetbeenreached,butIshouldbeinterestedtoknowhowsalesstandatpresent;inMarch1959whenIlastenquired

theywerealittleunder750,accordingtoSpicer.IdonotknowatwhatnumbersoldthePresswouldbreakeven.

IimagineyouwouldwishtosuggestsomesimilararrangementforVol.2;certainlyneitheryounorIhaveeverthoughtofPolybiusasamoney-spinnerforauthororPress.However,moneyvalueshavechangedagooddealsince1957,andthisispartlyreflectedintheincreasedpriceofVol.2,whichis25%[correctedto50%]higherthanthatofVol.1,thoughVol.1wasalittlelarger.Iwonderifyouwouldfeelthatthisfactorshouldalsofindsomereflectioninthepaymentduetotheauthor.

Withseasonalcomplimentsand

bestwishesfor1968,

29December1967

Manythanksforyourletterof24December.Itrytopersuademyselfthatweareunworldlyratherthanmean,butthereisalimittotheunworldlinessweoughttopractiseatotherpeople’sexpense.SoIamgladofthereminderthatweareindangerofoversteppingthelimitinyourcase.ForVolume2letusputtheinitialfeeat£250,withafurther£100whenthevolumebreakseven.OfVolume1wehadsold1,480copiesat31March1967andwerestill£175inthered.Wehaveprobablysoldenoughcopiessincethentohavepaidthisoff,andsoarereadytopayyour£100wheneveryoulike;Iwonderwhetheryouwouldlikeitnoworwhetheryouwouldprefertowaituntilafter5April.

Bestwishes,

Asecondvolume,andasecondreviewfromMcDonald;allasyouwere(JRS,58(1968);232–5):‘…nolessdistinguishedthenthefirst…foritsmethodandthevarietyofitsdetail.Thereisanartofhistoricalcomment…W.isamasteroftheart.ServingPolybiusheremainsautonomousinhisjudgment;inelucidatingthehistorianhewritesancienthistoryhimself.…Nosinglereviewercandofulljusticetothisbook…Wecanbegratefulthathehasbeenallowedathirdvolumeinwhichtocompletehiswork.’

(p.67) Volume3(or,rather,III)‘TwotermsattheInstituteforAdvancedStudyatPrincetonin1970/1enabledmetomakesubstantialheadwaywiththefinalvolume’(1992a:187).Workingtowardsprivatelyhardeningupaprivatedeadline,progresswas—silent:

20June1967

Itseemsalongtimesincewewerelastintouch.Canyougivemeanyidea,Iwonder,ofwhenyouexpecttofinishPolybius,Vol.III?

Ihopealliswellwithyou.

24June1973

…Brieflythen,Ihavestilltowritethecommentaryon130pagesoftextandthenImustrevisethewholeofvol.IIIandcheckthereferences.IwouldaimatlettingyouhavetheMSinthreeyears,butthisisboundtodependonwhatothercommitmentsarise.However,canIsaythatIamatlastbeginningtoseethelightattheendofthetunnel?

Infact,progresswentaheadofschedule:

27December1975

AtthesametimeasIsendthisletterIamdispatchingtoyoubyparcelpost,withrecordeddelivery,themanuscriptofVolumeIIIofmyCommentaryonPolybius.IshallberelievedtohearthatithasarrivedsafelyandIhopethatyouwillhaveitbefore1975isout.AsImentionedtoyouearlier,ithasworkedoutalittlelongerthanthefirsttwovolumes;butthistimeitisunquestionablythelast.Thelay-outwillpresumablyfollowthatofVols.IandII;butIhopethatthespinewillresemblethatofVol.IIratherthantheheavierletteringofVol.I.…

Ifthereareanyqueries,pleasewriteandraisethem.Ihopeourestimatethatitcanbedoneby1977isstilltrue.Oughtwenowperhapstohaveacontract?

8January1976

Manythanksforyourletterof27December,andforthetypescript,forwhichIhopeyouhavealreadyreceivedtheacknowledgement.Ihaven’thadachancetolookthroughthematerialyet,butfrompreviousexperienceIimaginethatyouwillhavegotthewholethinginexcellentshape.

Youarequiterighttoraisethequestionofacontract,thoughIdon’tbelievewehadonefortheearliervolumes.Onvolume2thearrangementwasthatweshouldpayyou£250onpublicationandafurther£100whentheaccounthadbrokeneven.Thatdoesn’tnowseemtomeaverysatisfactoryarrangement.…Theplanthatwouldsuitusbestwouldbetopayyouaroyaltystartingafteracertainnumberofcopieshadbeensold,say,500.Wouldthatsortofpatternsuityou,Iwonder?Thereissomethingtobesaidforleavingthedetailsunsettleduntilwehavehadaprinter’sestimate,butifyouwouldpreferacommitmentnowIwillbequitehappytosendyouadraftagreement.

(p.68) 13January1976

ItwasarelieftohearthatthemanuscriptofPolybiusIIIhadreachedyousafely.

Thesortofarrangementyousuggestwouldsuitme…

Itwouldalsobehelpful,whenyouareinapositiontodoso,ifyoucouldgivemea

likelytime-tableforthearrivalofproofs,sothatIcanfitincommitmentshere.

20January1976

…Becauseoftheeffectofinflationontheflowofcashwearehavingtospaceoutourproductionoveralongerperiodthanusual.AsthingsstandatthemomentIamhopingwecanaimtopublishbetweenAprilandJuly1977.Buttheoutlookisabituncertainandwemighthavetowaitabitlonger.AsfarasIcanjudgenow,though,thereisatanyrateagoodchanceofpublicationin1977—whichisobviouslydesirabletocompletethepatternofvolumescomingoutattenyearintervals.

True,halftrue,thiswashalftheplan.TheotherhalfeludedthePress,andthelonghaulnowimposeditsowndebenture:

9June1976

PolybiusIII

…Therearecertainproblemsinournegotiationswiththeprintersarisingoutofthefactthatthematerialishandwritten,butIexpectweshallbeabletoresolvethem:inanycaseIwillwriteagainaboutthis.Wecertainlyhavenotputthemanuscriptontoashelf,andlikeyouIhopethatweshallbeabletopublishitduring1977.ItwouldbehelpfulifyoucouldletushaveyourcorrigendatowardstheendofJuly.

TheMS.—allc.350,000wordsofit—wasin1976ahandwrittenproblem:P.P.A.,acopy-editor,hadservednoticeontheclassicseditor:

5May1976

…apartfromtheprelims,thewhole1,000-pageMS.ishandwritten.…Iwouldbefrightenedtotryandcopy-editthiscopy,forfearofmakingitharderforthecomp.toreadcopy.

…Iamatalosstoestimatethetimeneededforthisone.Inawayitisperhapsunnecessary/unwisetoattempttocopy-edititinitspresentform—,—wecouldperhapstryitontheprinterasitis?

TowhichCordyhad,moreorlesspromptly,memoedDavin:

13July1976

…Iwouldbegrateful,though,tohavearulingfromyouonwhat,ifanything,shouldbechargedtotheauthor.Noquestionswereraisedabouttheearliertwovolumes,whichwerealsohand-written(thoughforallIknow,thePrintersilentlyincludedachargeforclarificationinhisbill);andinordinarytimesIshouldnotthinkofchargingWalbank—thisisafterallaconsiderableanddisinterested

contributiontoknowledge,notamerethesis.

(p.69)…[hand-writtenadcalcem]Ifforcedintoacorner,Idon’tthinkwecdinsistthatW.pay,giventhekindofscholarheis.

21July1976

PolybiusIII

Imentionedinanearlierletterthatwewerehavingsomeproblemswithyourhandwrittencopy.Thetroublemainlyisthattherearen’tanylongerkeyboardoperatorswithexperienceofsettingfrommanuscript.Yourwritingisunusuallyclear,butinanyhandthereislikelytobesomedifficultyinreadingunfamiliarwords.InyourcopyInoticethisinthenamesofsomeGermancommentatorsIdon’tknow,soIcanimaginethedifficultiesthatmightfaceanoperatorwithnoknowledgeofLatinorancienthistory(theGreek,overwhichyouhaveobviouslytakenspecialpains,doesn’tseemtobeaproblem).SowhenthePrintersaysthatnamesandLatinwordsneedclarifyingbeforesettingstartsIthinkwehavetoacceptthat.…

ThePrintercouldhavetheclarificationdonebyoneofhisgraduatereadersandheestimatesthathischargeforthiswouldbeabout£530.…A…possibilitywouldbetohavethewholeworktyped,whichforallIknowcouldbedonefor£500;thedisadvantageofthis,apartfromthedelay,wouldbethedangerofmistakescreepingin.

Themainconsiderationistogettherightresultwithoutwastingtime.Butthereisalsothequestionofthecost.Imentionthisfortworeasons.First,inpresentconditionswemustnotincuranyavoidableexpense(£500evennowadayswouldnearlypayforthereprintofasmallOCT).Second,youwererashenoughtosuggesthavingaformalagreement,andthatagreementprovidesthat‘theAuthorshalldeliver…inafitstatefortheprinterthecompletetextandillustrationsoftheworkfreeofcharge’.Letmesaystraightoutthatwehavenointentionoftryingtoenforcethisclause,butitdoesjustifyourinvolvingyouintheproblem—andofcourseweshouldn’tactuallyrejectanyofferoffinancialorpracticalhelp.

28thJuly,1976

…ClearlythesituationinyourprintinghousehaschangedsincetheysetupvolumesIandII…Thetypingandcheckingofover1,000A4sheetsislikelytobeslowanddelayastartyetfurther.

SoIcomebacktotheideaofclarification,andreluctantlyreachtheconclusionthatthesimplestandquickestsolutionisformetodoitmyself.IfyoucanassuremethattheonlyproblemfortheprinterliesinnamesandLatinwords(andcouldoneaddtitlesinforeignlanguages?),Iwouldbepreparedtogothroughitputting

theseincapitalsaboveorinthemargin;andatthesametimeif,onre-reading,InoticedanywordthatseemedobscureIwouldclarifythat.

Doesthissoundafeasiblesolution?…

31August1976

PolybiusIII

Thankyouforreturningthemanuscriptofthis.Itisareliefthattheprinterissatisfiedwithmyclarification,andIamgoingaheadwithitashardasIcan;Iamuptoaboutp.350now,butitisahorriblejob!

(p.70) YourremarkabouttheletterLwasveryhelpful—thekindofthingonecanveryeasilymiss,withbadresultsallround.

IshallletyouhavethewholethingbackassoonasIcan.

Thenextletter’saddresstellsplainwhat1977meanttoFWW:Septemberbroughtinanewacademicyear,butPolybiusIIIhadnowmissednotjustitsdecadebuthisretirement,andapermanentmovesouthtoCambridge:

64,GrantchesterMeadows,

CambridgeCB39JL

7November1977

PolybiusIII

Ireturnfirstproofsofpp.63–86…

IreceivedmyfirstbatchofproofsthethirdweekinJune;thissetarestamped21Octoberandwehavereachedp.86.AmIrightinthinkingthattheyarecomingratherslowly?

28December1977

Herearepp.116–154;butIhopetosendyouanother150pagesverysoon,indeedwhenIhavehadmydaughter’scomments(sheisreadingasetofproofsbutcantgoasquicklyasIcan,sinceshehasotherclaimsonhertime).Myindexisonslipstop.300andmypileisgettingdangerouslylow.Canyousendmeanotherbatchofslips,please,sinceIamnotyetathirdofthewaythrough.

Withbestwishesfor1978(andmayitseethepublicationofPolyb.III!)

11September1978

PolybiusIII

Isitpossibletoimprovethespeedwithwhichrevisedproofsarebeingprocessed?TodayIcorrectedthirtypages(pp.289–320),receivedthismorning;pp.241–288cametowardstheendofJuly.Revisesfirststartedtoreachmeinmid-December1977,soinninemonthsIhavehadrathermorethanathirdofthebook.AtthisrateIcanhardlyexpecttohaveseenthewholeoftherevisesbeforeearlyin1980.SinceIamnotreadytoreturnsheetsapprovedasforfinalprintingbeforeseeingthewholetext—inabookofthiskindthingsareapttoturnuplaterwhichinvolvegoingbacktoearlierpages—prospectsforpublicationdateseemtoberecedingtolate1980!SurelyitcannotberightthatamanuscriptwhichIpostedtothePresson27December1975shouldstillbesofarfrompublication.

…Idohopethatyoucandosomethingaboutit.

25October1978

PolybiusIII

Itwasmarvelloustogetthosetwoparcelsthismorningcontainingtherevisesasfarasp.792(apartfrompp.vii–x).Sotheprinterhastosomeextentredeemedhimself,thoughitwouldhavebeenmuchmoresatisfactoryforyouifhehadkeptupasteadyflow.

Iwillaskforyoutobeshownafurtherproofofthebitsyouwant,andIwillcheckthewhereaboutsoftheaddendatoVolumeIII.

(p.71) 18April1979

PolybiusIII

Hereatlastisanadvancecopy.IhopethatyouwillagreethatifthePrinterhastakenhistimeaboutithehasatleastproducedaworthyresult.Publicationisscheduledfor24May.…

P.S. IwasdelightedtohearfromHammondthatyouhadagreedtocollaboratewithhimonMacedoniaIII.IshallhavetothinktwiceaboutdistractingyoubyaskingyouradviceasfrequentlyasIhavelately.

21April1979

ThankyouforsendingmetheadvancecopyofPolybiusIII,whicharrivedthismorning.Expectatusdiu,itiscertainlyabeautifulpieceofworkofrealClarendonPressqualityandIamverygladtoseeitandhaveitonmyowndesk,whereitcantaketheplaceofthepileofproofsIhavebeenusinguptonow.…

ThankyouforallyourhelpovertheyearswithPolybius.Itishardtobelievethatitisatlastatanend;Ibeganitin1942.

Jobdone.Deskneatandtidy:readytoroll!Withthat,andthefollowing1-linerfromtheRoyaltyManager,thecorrespondenceisclosed(…soonwith‘aFontanabookandtwochaptersandanintroductiontoCamb.Anc.Hist.VIIPartI(ed.2)’,plusMacedoniaIII.):

16July1980

Thankyouforyourletterof11July.

WeconfirmthattotalsalesofyourCommentaryonPolybiusduringtheyearended31March1980,amountedto1,026copies,andthatthesalesrecordedonourroyaltystatementare,therefore,correct.

It’seasytobesure,inlargeterms,thatMegalopolitanPolybiusprovidedFWWwiththerich,multifaceted,scholarlylongevitythattheGreeknameportends.TheshiftingproblemsofhandlingHellenisticintoRomanhistoricalnarrative,compoundedbytheaccidentsoftransmissionhighlightedbythelapsefromfulltextthroughmajortableautoconcurrentflightsofexcerption,madeforanevolvingchallengetoadaptmethodsandfocusundertheshelterofamarvellouslylevelandmeasuredrhythmofexegesissecuredintheshrinkageoffirstdraftintorevisedcopyforthefirstvolume.Astimespedby,steady-as-you-gotendingoftheCommentaryanchoredthecumulatingyears’workroundaself-justifying‘projectforlife’,whileateveryturnprovoking,requiring,demanding,spin-offsalliesintomajorproblemsobiter.Papersforconferences,turningtoarticlesforjournals,turnedtocollectedpapers,alwayssupplyingregenerativereinforcementforthemainchance,andinturndrawingrenewedenergyfromthegatheringtroopofcommittedfellowspecialistsunitedbytheinspirationoftheworkachievedandtheirneedformore,fortherest,forcompletion.From‘wall’to‘bank’:IbetFrankwasn’tabitsurprisedtofindhecouldpenhisnotescleanandclearacrosssomanyunlinedsheets,andregretsofewcorrigendanomatterhowlonghelived;but(p.72) thathisvocationbroughthimsomanycontactsworldwideandstirredhimintoevermoreurgentencounterswithhisauthorthroughhistorymusthavewowedhimeverynextnewstepoftheway.Polybiusdoesn’tneedheralding:he’sabigenoughdealtoobligeandrepaysomuchexpenditureoflabour.Butwhathiscommentatorneededwasthemotivation,temperament,andopportunitytofindthenecessarystickability—plustheabilitytomaketheluckthatkepthimatit,smoothingthelongpathaheadandtearinguptheleasttrackbehind.Thetrickwasn’t,afterall,verymuchtodowithhowthethinggotofftheground,with‘chanceanderror’.Itwasmuchmoreaboutbeinggoodenoughtotakeacceleratingprogressofresearchinhisstride,whilecontributingtoandcompoundingit.Andofcourseitallboilsdowntolong-distancewriting,mechanicallyunassistedpen-pushing,topulloffanorganiccontinuityintheteethoftimeandtechnology.Writingwhichrequired,asitfed,astronglyabsorbentandelasticapproachtothesynthesisofmaterialintoproduct,throughcommitmentto‘getfromthescatteredevidencetoastraightnarrative’:nonmihisilinguaecentumsint.13

Notes:

(1)Henderson2001aand2001b.Theprojectontheclassicalcommentarywhichbecame

GibsonandKraus2002spurredmetoexploreseveralbooksthatIlearnedwith,fromVictoriansthroughElizabethans,toing-and-froingbetweenthebooksandpertinentrecords,especiallyfilesintheOUParchives,asinthecaseofWalbank’sPolybius:seepublicationslistedinmyfinalfootnotebelow.I’msogladIgottohearfromFrankfirsthand.

(2)These‘memoirs’willhavebeensotitledafterAratus’ownwork,whereintheauthorplayedeyewitnessandparticipant,providingPolybiuswithhisown‘starting-point’bothchronotopicallyandgenerically,andprovidingFWWwithhisfirstbookand,inthesememoirs,hisown‘starting-points’inandonautobiography:thisishowcomePolybiusattheoutsetdubshisownworkhupomnemata(1.1.1,etc:seen.adloc.,withMarincola1997:180).OnPolybiusandAratus,seefurtherMeadows,ch.4,inthisvolume.

(3)Walbank1998a:118.Cf.Walbank1996:101–5,‘1940s–1980s’—fromarrivalin1934‘(at£250p.a.)’.ThevolumetitlerecyclestheretirementtributetothefounderoftheUniversity’sArtsFaculty,JohnMacdonaldMackay,1884–1914incumbentintheRathboneChairofHistory(laterofAncientHistoryandClassicalArchaeology)heldbyFWW1951–77.

(4)TS:Thiswilltakeonsignificanceasthestoryunfolds.

(5)Someoneshould.SomeproperPolybian.

(6)ThisisHarriLlwydHudson-Williams,theself-styled‘monoglottWelshmanuntiltheageoffour’andmodestlymacrobioticKingsman(1911–98:matric.1932),whowentonpost-wartobecomeReader,thenProfessor,inGreekTyne-side,beforeasDeanofArtshelpingtofoundtheUniversityofNewcastle:‘hisonebookonIsocrateswasrejectedbyOUPandHarrididnotbothersendingitanywhereelse’(King’sCollege,AnnualReportfor1999,p.73).

(7)AtthisthesolepointofcontextualizationoftheproposalfortheCommentarywithinthehistoryofPolybiusscholarship,Ishouldmention(asthePressdidnot)thecuriosityofthegrandeditionwithErnesti’stextplusparallelLatintranslation,apparatus,andcriticalannotationes,bytheRevd.PhilipWilliams(1742–1830)whichwasprintedbutneverpublishedbyOUP’spredecessor:pp.1–642,BooksI–XVII;645–8,Prooemium;649–808,EPolybiihistoriisexcerptaelegationes;809–888,ExcerptaexPolybiodevirtutibusetvitiis;889–998,Polybiifragmenta;989–1008,HistoriaeUniversaePolybiisynopsischronologica.ThecopyinWinchesterCollege,broughttooureditors’attentionbyBarryShurlock(cf.his1986)aseditorof‘TheWilliamsPapers’,isbeingstudiedbyStray(forthcoming),fromwhomIbutgarblethisnote.WilliamshadbeenatworkonhisfolioPolybius(originallyusingCasaubon’stext)sincewellbefore1772whenthePressenquiredintohisprogresssofar,withnegotiationsatOUPhottingupthrough1783,butascompletionnearedin1798(whenWilliamswasthenewprebendaryofWinchesterandhisfirst-bornjustupatNewCollege),withdiscussionfocusingonsingleormultiplevolumeformattingandthelike,thepublicationofSchweighäuser’sIndexin700+pages(1795;volume1:1789)intervened:despiterepeatoutlaytowardsafarmed-outindex

theDelegatespulledtheplugon2April1804.

(8)‘In1962IwasapproachedbyIwanamiShotentoauthoriseaJapaneseeditionandItoldthemthatIhad…additionalmaterial,whichtheycoulduse.Soin1963theJapaneseenlargedversionwaspublished.In1969theLiverpoolUniversityPressbroughtoutanewEnglishedition(theoriginalpublishershavingrelinquishedthecopyrighttome),incorporatingthenewmaterial.TodistinguishitfromthesmalleroriginalIgaveitthenewtitleofTheAwfulRevolution,whichwasintendedtorecallGibbon’sremarkthatweshould“learnthelessonsofthisawfulrevolution”.TherewerelaterSpanishandSwedisheditions;andIwanamiShotenwentonpayingmeroyaltiesforabout25yearsandsoldinallover13,000copiesinJapan.’(1992a:189)

(9)TheWalbanksmovedtoStAnne’s-on-Sea,atLytham,thetranquilendofBlackpoolontheFylde(coast),during1941–6,toavoidthebombing,copewithpostpartumproblemsforMaryWalbankwiththehelpofhermother,andcompletethefamilywithtwomorechildren;afterthewar,theymovedtoBirkenhead,‘wheretheschoolswerebetterthaninLiverpool’(1992a:195).

(10)Inconclusion:‘AfterdiscussionwiththeMountfordswedecidedtogoforahousein…Oxton,wherewestayeduntil1951.InthatyearwemovedtoHopeLodge,5PoplarRoad,whereweweretoremainuntilIretiredin1977.Butthatisanotherstory.||'(1992a:195)

(11)SeeWalbank2005a,‘TheTwo-wayShadow:PolybiusamongtheFragments’,keynoteandoverturetoSchepensandBollansée2005.

(12)Butforacomicmomentin1946whereSisamunsubtlywardsoffanofferedcommentaryonTacitus’HistoriesfromK.Brink,warningFWWoffcollaboration,andsignsoff(31January):‘Ihopeyouaregettingonwiththegreatwork.Symeisnowback,andtherearesignsofarevivalinourOxfordSchoolofRomanHistory’.He‘hadtemporarilyforgottenthatPolybiuscamefirstinyourdoubleplan,but“was”gladyouwrote,becauseIdon’tthinkSymehaschangedhismindabouttheHistories(hehasmanyotherthingsonhand),sowehopeyouwillgoontodothatwhenPolybiusisdone.Thereisnohurry,butweareanxiousthatthefieldshouldbeoccupied’.(7February).Frankquips,‘Ifeltnodesireatthatpoint[1979]toreturntoTacitus’Histories.…’(1992a:187).Plusthequietusin1961,‘unawareoftheseearliertentativesandwithProfessorSyme’sadvice,wehaveaskedMr.ChilverandMr.WellesleyofEdinburghtocollaborateonacommentary.Ithoughtyououghttobetoldofthisatonce,sinceitmayaffectyourmorelongdistantplans.…Iwonderifyouwouldbewillingtoputit[‘materialtowardstheTacituscommentary’]atthedisposalofMr.Chilver?’,cappedincrassnessbythefollow-up:‘IamgladthatourTacitusplansarenotprovingawkwardforyou.Idonotthinkweneedtroubleyouforthematerialyouhadcollected;IimaginemostofitChilverwillalreadyhavenoted.Butitiskindofyoutooffer.’(D.M.Davin,16and20February).

(13)CompareandcontrasttheprojectsstudiedinHenderson1998(Juvenal’sMayor),

2001c(Farnell’sCults),2002(R.G.Austin),2003(‘Paroperisedes:MrsArthurStrongandFlavianstyle’),2006(‘OxfordReds’),2007a(J.E.B.Mayor,Juvenal),2007b(‘The“EuripidesReds”Series’),2010(theOxfordLatinDictionary).

Polybius, Phylarchus, and ‘Tragic History’: A Reconsideration

Polybius,Phylarchus,and‘TragicHistory’:AReconsideration

JohnMarincola

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0003

AbstractandKeywords

Theproblemof'tragichistory'inHellenistichistoriographyhasgeneratedmuchscholarlydebate.ThischapterexaminesPolybius'attackonPhylarchusinBook2ofhisHistories,oneofthecrucialtextsforsuchcontroversies.Whereasthepassagehasoftenbeenseenasacriticismofanotherhistorianforwritingwithaviewtostirringupinappropriateemotion,thischaptershowshowPolybius'evocationofthemethodsoftragicpoetsallowsforcriticismofPhylarchusforhiswillingnesstoresorttoinventionandfalsehood.Thereis,moreover,withinPolybius'ownwritingaplaceforappropriateemotion,suchasinhisaccountofScipio'sreactiontothefallofCarthage,andfordiscussionoftopicssuchasreversalsoffortune.TheearliertendencyamongstscholarstointerprettheattackonPhylarchusinthelightofAristotle'sPoeticsthusneedstobemodified,asthepassageispartofwiderdebatesontheroleofhistoryandtragedy,andtheneedforhistorianstoavoidfalsehoods.

Keywords:Polybius,Phylarchus,historiography,tragedy,polemic,emotion,truth,fiction,'tragichistory'

Intreatingthetopicof‘tragichistory’IrealizethatIamtakingupatime-worntheme,butitseemsappropriate,inavolumehonouringFrankWalbank,torevisitanissuetowhichhehascontributedsosubstantially,andtoreconsideramatterwhich,itseemstomeatleast,iscriticalinevaluatingnotonlyPolybiusbutalsothewritingofhistoryinantiquityasawhole.1

Tragichistoryisthoughttohaveitsoriginsinareactionbysomehistorians—thereisdebateoverwhotheseare—againstAristotle’scriticisminthePoeticsthatpoetry(i.e.tragedy)ismorephilosophicalthanhistoryisbecausepoetryspeaksmoretouniversals,historymoretoparticulars;2andso,inadesiretomakehistorymoreuniversal,theybegantousethemannerandmethodsoftragedy.Nowalthougheachscholarmighthaveadifferentlynuancedideaabouttragichistory,thereareneverthelesscertainrecurringfeaturesthatareconsideredcharacteristic:first,aparticularlyemotionalnarrative,thatis,anarrativeinwhicheitherscenesfullofemotionaredepicted,orscenesinwhichthehistorian’saimistoraisethereader’semotions;secondly,aparticularlyvividstyle,onewhichisfullofdetailsandmayincludespeechesofasortonefindsintragedy,particularlygive-and-takespeeches;and,finally,(p.74) anarrativethatisfullofπεριπέτειαι,reversalsoffortune,somethingwhichAristotlethoughttobeespeciallycharacteristicoftragedy.3

WhatIwishtodointhispaperistore-examinethesinglemostimportantancienttestimoniumontragichistory,Polybius’refutationinhissecondBookoftheAthenianhistorian,Phylarchus.Althoughotherpassageshavebeenadducedindiscussionsoftragichistory,4thisis,sotospeak,thefoundationaltext,foritisherethatPolybiusexplicitlyaccusesPhylarchusofconfusingthetwogenres.InreconsideringthispassageIshallsuggestfirstthat,forPolybiusatleast,thecriticismofhistorianswhowrote‘tragically’didnot,asisoftensupposed,refertotheirstyleortheiruseofrhetoricortheiremploymentofemotion,butratherwasconcernedwiththetruthorfalsityoftheiraccount;and,secondly,thatPolybius’criticismsarebestunderstoodnotinnarrowdialoguewithAristotle’sPoetics,butwithinthelargercontextofafar-reachingancientdiscussiononthebenefits,aims,andmethodsofseveralgenres,nottomentiontheinter-genericcompetitionthatwasitselfafeatureofancientliterarycriticism.

IPolybius’attackonPhylarchusoccurswithinhisnarrativeoftheCleomeneanWar.InstatingthathewillfollowtheMemoirsofAratusofSicyonforthiswar,5Polybiusexpectssurprisefromsomeofhisreaders,sincePhylarchus,whoalsotreatedtheseevents,hasagoodreputation.Inanattempt,therefore,tojustifyhisdecisionandtodiscreditPhylarchus’authority,Polybiusfocusesonfourincidentsfromthelatter’shistory,themostimportantofwhichforourpresentpurposesisthefirst,thefallofMantineain223atthehandsofAratusandtheAchaeans.Thecrucialpartsareasfollows(2.56.3,6–13):6

(3)καθόλουμὲνοὐ̑νὁσυγγραφεὺςοὑ̑τοςπολλὰπαρ’ὅληντὴνπραγματείανεἰκῃ̑καὶὡςἔτυχενεἴρηκεν.…(6)βουλόμενοςδὴδιασαφειν̑τὴνὠμότητατὴν

ἈντιγόνουκαὶΜακεδόνων,ἅμαδὲτούτοιςτὴνἈράτουκαὶτω̑ν᾿Αχαιω̑ν,φησὶτοὺςΜαντινέαςγενομένουςὑποχειρίους[A]μεγάλοιςπεριπεσειν̑ἀτυχήμασι,καὶτὴνἀρχαιοτάτηνκαὶμεγίστηνπόλιντω̑νκατὰτὴνἈρκαδίαντηλικαύταιςπαλαισ̑αισυμφοραις̑ὥστεπάνταςεἰςἐπίστασινκαὶδάκρυατοὺς῞Ελληναςἀ(p.75) γαγειν̑.(7)[B]σπουδάζωνδ’εἰςἔλεονἐκκαλεισ̑θαιτοὺςἀναγινώσκονταςκαὶσυμπαθεις̑ποιειν̑τοις̑λεγομένοις,εἰσάγειπεριπλοκὰςγυναικω̑νκαὶκόμαςδιερριμέναςκαὶμαστω̑νἐκοβολάς,πρὸςδὲτούτοις[C]δάκρυακαὶθρήνουςἀνδρω̑νκαὶγυναικω̑νἀναμὶξτέκνοιςκαὶγονευ̑σιγηραιοις̑ἀπαγομένων.(8)ποιει̑δὲτου̑τοπαρ’ὅληντὴνἱστορίαν,[D]πειρώμενος〈ἐν〉ἑκάστοιςἀεὶπρὸτω̑νὀφθαλμω̑ντιθέναιτὰδεινά.(9)τὸμὲνοὐ̑νἀγεννὲςκαὶγυναικω̑δεςτη̑ςαἱρέσεωςαὐτου̑παρείσθω,τὸδὲτη̑ςἱστορίαςοἰκειο̑νἅμακαὶχρήσιμονἐξεταζέσθω.(10)δει̑τοιγαρου̑νοὐκἐκπλήττειν[Casaubon:ἐπιπλήττεινmss.]τὸνσυγγραφέατερατευόμενονδιὰτη̑ςἱστορίαςτοὺςἐντυγχάνοντας,οὐδὲτοὺςἐνδεχομένουςλόγουςζητειν̑καὶτὰπαρεπόμενατοις̑ὑποκειμένοιςἐξαριθμεισ̑θαικαθάπεροἱτραγῳδιογράφοι,τω̑νδὲπραχθέντωνκαὶῥηθέντωνκατ’ἀλήθειαναὐτω̑νμνημονεύεινπάμπαν,κἂνπάνυμέτριατυγχάνωσινὄντα.(11)τὸγὰρτέλοςἱστορίαςκαὶτραγῳδίαςοὐταὐτὸνἀλλὰτοὐναντίον·ἐκει̑μὲνγὰρδει̑διὰτω̑νπιθανοτάτωνλόγωνἐκπλη̑ξαικαὶψυχαγωγη̑σαικατὰτὸπαρὸντοὺςἀκούοντας,ἐνθάδεδὲδιὰτω̑νἀληθινω̑νἔργωνκαὶλόγωνεἰςπάντατὸνχρόνονδιδάξαικαὶπεισ̑αιτοὺςφιλομαθου̑ντας,(12)ἐπειδήπερἐνἐκείνοιςμὲνἡγειτ̑αιτὸπιθανόν,κἂνᾐ̑ψευ̑δος,διὰτὴνἀπάτηντω̑νθεωμένων,ἐνδὲτούτοιςτἀληθὲςδιὰτὴνὠφέλειαντω̑νφιλομαθούντων.(13)χωρὶςτετούτων[A]τὰςπλείσταςἡμιν̑ἐξηγειτ̑αιτω̑νπεριπετειω̑νοὐχὑποτιθεὶςαἰτίανκαὶτρόποντοις̑γινομένοις,ὡ̑νχωρὶςοὔτ’ἐλεειν̑εὐλόγωςοὔτ’ὀργίζεσθαικαθηκόντωςδυνατὸνἐπ’οὐδενὶτω̑νσυμβαινόντων…

(3)Ingeneral,then,thishistorian[sc.Phylarchus]throughouthiswholeworkhasmademanyrandomandcarelessstatements…(6)WishingtoemphasizethecrueltyofAntigonusandtheMacedoniansandwiththemthatofAratusandtheAchaeans,hesaysthattheMantineans,whendefeated,[A]weresubjectedtogreatmisfortunes,andthatthemostancientandthegreatestofcitiesinArcadiawrestledwithsuchgreatmisfortunesastobringalltheGreekstodismayandtears.(7)[B]Eagertoarousethepityofhisreadersandtomakethemsympathetic(lit.,fellow-feelers)towhatisbeingsaid,hebringsonwomenclingingtooneanother,tearingtheirhairandbaringtheirbreasts,andinadditionhedescribes[C]thetearsandlamentationsofmenandwomenaccompaniedbytheirchildrenandagedparentsbeingledawayintocaptivity.(8)Hedoesthisthroughouthishistory,[D]strivingoneachoccasiontoplacethehorrorsbeforeoureyes.(9)Letusignoreforthemomenthisignobleandwomanishdisposition,7andconsiderwhatisproperandusefultohistory.(10)Nowthenitisnotthehistorian’stasktostartlehisreadersbydescribingthingssensationally,norshouldhetry,asthetragicwritersdo,torepresentspeecheswhichmighthavebeendelivered,ortoenumerateallthepossibleconsequencesoftheeventsunderconsideration,butrathertorecordwithfidelitythingsthatwereactuallyspokenanddone,howevercommonplacethesemightbe.(11)Fortheaimoftragedyisnotthesameasthatofhistory,but

theopposite.Thetragicpoetseekstothrillandcharmhisaudienceforthemomentbythemostpersuasivewords,whilethehistorian’staskistoinstructandpersuadeforalltimethosewholovelearning,bymeansofthetruthofthewordsandactionshepresents,(12)sinceinthefirstcase(p.76) thesupremeaimisprobability,evenifwhatissaidisuntrue,thepurposebeingtodeceivethespectators,butintheseconditistruth,thepurposebeingtobenefitthosewholovelearning.(13)Andapartfromtheseconsiderations,Phylarchus[A]relatesthemajorityofthereversalsinhishistorywithoutsubjoiningwhythingsweredoneandtowhatpurpose,withoutwhichitisimpossibleeithertofeelpityreasonablyorangerappropriatelyatanyoftheevents…

Ihaveindicatedbylettersthesupposedlymainaspectsoftragichistory:thenarrationofreversalsoffortune[A];emotionalism,heretheattempttoarousethepityofreaders[B];anarrationfullofdetail,heredetailedscenesofsuffering[C];andavividstylebywhichthingsareplaced‘beforetheeyes’oftheaudience[D].Thepassagethusatfirstglanceseemstobearoutthetraditionalinterpretation,yetanexaminationofPolybius’argumentisessentialtoputeachofthesemattersintoitspropercontext.

Tobeginwith,wenotethatthedistinctionmadebyPolybiusbetweenhistoryandtragedyin§11followsimmediatelyfromageneralobservationthatthehistorianmustnot,byusingτερατεία,shockhisreaders,normustheseekaftertheprobableutterancesofthecharacters,norenumeratetheconsequencesoftheeventsunderconsideration,butrathernarratewhatwassaidanddoneinactualfact(κατ’ἀλήθειαν,§10).Thisisthenfollowedbyanexplanatoryγάρclause,anditisherethatwefindthecomparisonofthetwogenres.Thusthecomparisonismeanttoexplainandilluminatethenatureofinvention—thisiswhatPolybiushasjustmentioned—andinfactthatisexactlywhatitdoes.Tragedyisalignedwithpersuasion,historywithtruth,evenifthattruthismodest.Phylarchus’scenesarefaulted,therefore,inthefirstplacebecausetheyareinvented.PolybiushadindicatedasmuchintheintroductiontohisattackonPhylarchus,whenhesaidthepurposeofitwas‘sothatwemaynotallowthefalsehoodinhiswritingstohaveequalweightwiththetruth’,8andPolybiusconfirmsthistowardstheendofhisrefutationwhenheclaimsthattheMantineansinactualfactdidnotsufferinthewaythatPhylarchusclaimed:

οὐκου̑νὁλοσχερεστέραςτινὸςκαὶμείζονοςτυχειν̑ἠ̑σανἄξιοιτιμωρίας,ὥστ’εἴπερἔπαθονἃΦύλαρχόςφησιν,οὐκἔλεονεἰκὸςἠ̑νσυνεξακολουθειν̑αὐτοις̑παρὰτω̑νἙλλήνων,ἔπαινονδὲκαὶσυγκατάθεσινμα̑λλοντοις̑πράττουσικαὶμεταπορευομένοιςτὴνἀσέβειαναὐτω̑ν.ἀλλ’ὅμωςοὐδενὸςπεραιτέρωσυνεξακολουθήσαντοςΜαντινευ̑σικατὰτὴνπεριπέτειανπλὴντου̑διαρπαγη̑ναιτοὺςβίουςκαὶπραθη̑ναιτοὺςἐλευθέρους,ὁσυγγραφεὺςαὐτη̑ςτη̑ςτερατείαςχάρινοὐμόνονψευ̑δοςεἰσήνεγκετὸὅλον,ἀλλὰκαὶτὸψευ̑δοςἀπίθανον,κτλ.

Thesementhereforewereworthierofsomefarheavierandmoreextremepenalty;sothateveniftheyhadsufferedwhatPhylarchusalleges,itwasnotreasonablethattheyshouldhavereceivedpityfromtheGreeks;instead,praise(p.77) andassentshouldhavebeengiventothosewhoexecutedjudgementon

themfortheirimpiety.YetwhilenothingmoreseriousbefelltheMantineansintheirreversaloffortunethanthepillageoftheirpropertyandtheenslavementoftheirfreepopulation,thiswriter[sc.Phylarchus],forthesakeofsensationalism,composednotonlyafalsehood,butanimprobablefalsehood,etc.9

AfurtherindicationthatinventionorfalsehoodiswhatPolybiushasinmindisthathebeginsthisrefutationbysayingthatingeneralthroughouthiswholehistoryPhylarchushas‘spokenatrandomandasithappened’(εἰκῃ̑καὶὡςἔτυχενεἴρηκεν,2.56.3),acharacterizationthatechoesThucydides’criticismofhispredecessors,10thecontextforwhichispreciselythesame,namely,acontrastbetweentheactualeventsandexaggeratedorfalseaccounts.

AnexaminationofPolybius’remarkselsewhereinhishistoryontragedyandthetragicbearsouttheinterpretationthatfalsehoodorfactualinaccuracyisthecoreissue.EarlierinBookIIPolybius,indescribingthegeographyofthePovalley,saysthathewillomitfromconsiderationGreekstoriesabouttheriver(2.16.13–14):

…τἄλλαδὲτὰπερὶτὸνποταμὸντου̑τονἱστορούμεναπαρὰτοις̑Ἕλλησι,λέγωδὴτὰπερὶΦαέθοντακαὶτὴνἐκείνουπτω̑σιν,ἔτιδὲτὰδάκρυατω̑ναἰγείρωνκαὶτοὺςμελανείμοναςτοὺςπερὶτὸνποταμὸνοἰκου̑ντας,οὕςφασιτὰςἐσθη̑ταςεἰσέτινυ̑νφόρειντοιαύταςἀπὸτου̑κατὰΦαέθονταπένθους,καὶπα̑σανδὴτὴντραγικὴνκαὶταύτῃπροσεοικυια̑νὕληνἐπὶμὲντου̑παρόντοςὑπερθησόμεθα,κτλ.

…theothertalestheGreekstellabouttheriver,ImeanaboutPhaëthonandhisfallandthetearsofthepoplartreesandtheblackclothingofthosewhodwellaroundtheriver,who,theysay,stilldressthiswayfromtheirgriefforPhaëthon,andallmatterfortragedyandthelike,maybeleftasideforthemoment,etc.

Polybiusemphasizesherethefabulousormythicalnatureofthematerialwhichputsitinadifferentrealmfromhistory.Elsewhere,Polybiusfindsfaultwithsomewriterswho,hesays,soexaggeratedthedifficultiesofHannibal’scrossingoftheAlpsthattheyhadsomeheroappeartohimtoshowhimapassthroughthemountains.Theydothis,hesays,becausetheythemselvesareignorantofAlpinetopography(3.48.8–9):

…ἐξὧ̑νεἰκότωςἐμπίπτουσινεἰςτὸπαραπλήσιοντοις̑τραγῳδιογράφοις.καὶγὰρἐκείνοιςπα̑σιναἱκαταστροφαὶτω̑νδραμάτωνπροσδέονταιθεου̑καὶμηχανη̑ςδιὰτὸτὰςπρώταςὑποθέσειςψεύδειςκαὶπαραλόγουςλαμβάνειν,τούςτεσυγγραφέαςἀ(p.78) νάγκητὸπαραπλήσιονπάσχεινκαὶποιειν̑ἥρωάςτεκαὶθεοὺςἐπιφαινομένους,ἐπειδὰντὰςἀρχὰςἀπιθάνουςκαὶψευδεις̑ὑποστήσωνται.

…fromthis,asonewouldexpect,theyfallintothesamedifficultiesasthetragicdramatists,allofwhom,tobringtheirdramastoaclose,requirethegodandthecrane[i.e.thedeusexmachina],sincethedatatheychooseonwhichtofoundtheirplotsarefalseandimprobable.Thesewriters[sc.onHannibal]suffersomethingsimilarandmusthaveheroesandgodsappear,sincetheybuildonbeginningsthatareimprobableandfalse.

Againweseefalsehood,exaggeration,andinvention—allboundtogether,notcoincidentally,withametaphorfromthetheatre.

OnelastpassageconcernsthedownfalloftheSicilianHieronymus(7.7.1–6):

τινὲςτω̑νλογογράφωντω̑νὑπὲρτη̑ςκαταστροφη̑ςτου̑Ἱερωνύμουγεγραφότωνπολύντιναπεποίηνταιλόγονκαὶπολλήντιναδιατέθεινταιτερατείαν,ἐξηγούμενοιμὲντὰπρὸτη̑ςἀρχη̑ςαὐτοις̑γενόμενασημεια̑καὶτὰςἀτυχίαςτὰςΣυρακοσίων,(2)τραγῳδου̑ντεςδὲτὴνὠμότητατω̑ντρόπωνκαὶτὴνἀσέβειαντω̑νπράξεων,ἐπὶδὲπα̑σιτὸπαράλογονκαὶτὸδεινὸντω̑νπερὶτὴνκαταστροφὴναὐτου̑συμβάντων,ὥστεμήτεΦάλαρινμήτ’Ἀπολλόδωρονμήτ’ἄλλονμηδέναγεγονέναιτύραννονἐκείνουπικρότερον.[…](4)κατὰδὲτὸνχρόνοντου̑τονἕναμέντινακαὶδεύτερονἐστρεβλω̑σθαικαίτιναςτω̑νφίλωνκαὶτω̑νἄλλωνΣυρακοσίωνἀπεκτάνθαιδυνατόν,ὑπερβολὴνδὲγεγονέναιπαρανομίαςκαὶπαρηλλαγμένηνἀσεβείανοὐκεἰκός.[…](6)ἀλλὰμοίδοκου̑σινοἱτὰςἐπὶμέρουςγράφοντεςπράξεις,ἐπειδὰνὑποθέσειςεὐπεριλήπτουςὑποστήσωνταικαὶστενάς,πτωχεύοντεςπραγμάτωνἀναγκάζεσθαιτὰμικρὰμεγάλαποιειν̑καὶπερὶτω̑νμηδὲμνήμηςἀξίωνπολλούςτιναςδιατίθεσθαιλόγους.

SomeofthehistorianswhohavedescribedthefallofHieronymushavedonesoatgreatlengthandintroducedmuchsensationalism,tellingoftheprodigiesthatoccurredbeforehisreignandthemisfortunesoftheSyracusans,andwritinguptragicallythecrueltyofhischaracterandtheimpietyofhisactions,andfinallythestrangeandterriblenatureofthecircumstancesattendinghisdeath,sothatneitherPhalarisnorApollodorusnoranyothertyrantwouldseemtohavebeenmoresavagethanhe….Itispossiblethatoneortwomenmayhavebeentortured,andsomeofhisfriendsandoftheotherSyracusansputtodeath,butitishardlyprobablethattherewasanyexcessofunlawfulviolenceoranyextraordinaryimpiety….Butthosewhowritemonographs,itseemstome,sincetheydealwithasubjectthatiscircumscribedandnarrow,arecompelledforlackoffactstomakesmallthingsgreatandtodevotemuchspacetowhatisreallynotworthyofmemory.

Heretooweseethattragedysupposesanunderlyingfactualinaccuracy:notetheremarkthatitwasonlyafewwhowereactuallytorturedandputtodeath—thesamekindofargumentPolybiususedwhenattackingPhylarchus’supposedexaggerations.The‘tragic’portrayalofHieronymusisthus(again)closelylinkedwithalackoftruthfulnessandaccuracy.

(p.79) Thisisnot,however,thesolesenseof‘tragic’inPolybius.Intwoplacesheinvokesthe‘tragic’todescribethesplendourandpompofindividuals.ThefirstdescribesthearrivalofApellesintoCorinth,anentrythatisdescribedas‘tragic’onaccountofthemultitudeofleadersandsoldierswhocameouttogreethim.11ThesecondconcernsHasdrubalwhenhemeetsGolossesandisportrayedasadvancingslowly,infullarmourandpurple,cuttingsuchafigure‘astoleavethetyrantsoftragedyfarbehind’.12Here

thereisanemphasisonpageantryandspectacle,aswellasareference,nodoubt,totheelaboratecostumeswornonthetragicstage.

SomewhatdifferentarePolybius’usesofthenounτραγῳδίαandtheverbἐκτραγῳδέωinBookVI.Inthefirstpassage,Polybiusnotesthatdecisionsabouttriumphsarereservedforthesenate(6.15.7):

καὶμὴντὰςἐπιτυχίαςτω̑νἡγουμένωνἐκτραγῳδη̑σαικαὶσυναυξη̑σαικαὶπάλινἀμαυρω̑σαικαὶταπεινω̑σαιτὸσυνέδριονἔχειτὴνδύναμιν.

Thesenatehasthepowertocelebrateinsplendourandmagnifythesuccessesofthegeneral,orinturntoobscureandbelittlethem.

Thecontrastoftheinfinitivesἐκτραγῳδη̑σαιandσυναυξη̑σαιwithἀμαυρω̑σαιandταπεινω̑σαιshowsthatPolybiusisherethinking,asinthepreviousexamples,ofpompandsplendour(perhapsexactlyinthemannerofHellenistickingsorcondottieri).TheotherappearanceinBookVIisrelated.HerePolybiusisdiscussingthewayinwhichtheRomansdealwithreligion(6.56.8–11):

ἐπὶτοσου̑τονγὰρἐκτετραγῴδηταικαὶπαρειση̑κταιτου̑τοτὸμέροςπαρ’αὐτοις̑εἴςτετοὺςκατ’ἰδίανβίουςκαὶτὰκοινὰτη̑ςπόλεωςὥστεμὴκαταλιπειν̑ὑπερβολήν…του̑πλήθουςχάριντου̑τοπεποιηκέναι…ἐπεὶδὲπα̑νπλη̑θόςἐστινἐλαφρὸνκαὶπλη̑ρεςἐπιθυμιω̑νπαρανόμων,ὀργη̑ςἀλόγου,θυμου̑βιαίου,λείπεταιτοις̑ἀδήλοιςφόβοιςκαὶτῃ̑τοιαύτῃτραγῳδίᾳτὰπλήθησυνέχειν.

Thesemattersareclothedinsuchpompandintroducedtosuchanextentintheirprivateandpubliclivessoastoomitnoexcess…Theyhaveadoptedthiscourseforthesakeofthecommonpeople…[S]inceeverymultitudeisfickle,fulloflawlessdesires,unreasonedpassionandviolentanger,themultitudemustbereinedinbyinvisibleterrorsandsuchpageantry.

Inthesepassages,asinthepreviousones,thereisanemphasisonpompandpageantry,andalthoughthereisnosuggestionoffalsehood,itisnoteworthythatthesplendourandpompareemployedintheserviceofatypeofdeceptivecontrol.

(p.80) Oneadditionalpassage,differentintonefromthosementionedabove,occursinBookV,whereMolonfallsuponthecampofXenoetasandslaughtersthesoldierswhoaredrunkandscatteredabout:thosewhocangetawayrushintotheriver,forgettingthestrengthofthecurrent,andtheyandalltheiranimalsandequipmentaresweptaway,creating,Polybiussays,ascenethatwas‘tragicandextraordinary’.13Inthispassage,‘tragic’isusedtomeansomethingparticularlyhorribleorpitiable,aswemightsay‘atragicturnofevents’,althoughneitherinPolybiusnorinEnglishdoessuchaphrasenecessarilysuggestthetheatre,muchlessawholemethodofwritinghistory.

Inthecasessketchedhere,then,itcanbeseenthatPolybiususes‘tragic’asawayofindicatingsomethingthatisfalseorexaggerated,orsomethingthatispompous,empty,orvain,andinatleastonecasesomethingespeciallypitiableorsorrowful.Thereisone

otherimportantpassageinwhichPolybiustalksofhistoryandtragedy,butIwanttosavethatforaslightlylaterpoint.14

LetusmoveontothechargethatPolybiusisfaultingPhylarchusandthus‘tragic’historyforraisingtheemotionsoftheaudience:thisisprobablythemostcommonclaimmadebyscholars;inthisinterpretation,emotionalismissetattheoppositeextremefromeducationandpragmaticor‘sober’history.Ihavealreadydealtwithsomeaspectsofthistopic,15soIshallheresimplynotethefollowing.ThemainevidenceagainsttheviewthatPolybiusisopposedtoemotionalportrayalsinhistoryistobefoundattheendofthepassagewithwhichwebegan(2.56.13),wherePolybiusfaultsPhylarchusforfailingtogivecausesandpurposesofactions,‘withoutwhichitisimpossibleeithertofeelpityreasonablyorangerappropriately’(οὔτ’ἐλεειν̑εὐλόγωςοὔτ’ὀργίζεσθαικαθηκόντωςδυνατόν).NowtheforminwhichPolybiushereexpressestherelationshipbetweeneventandemotionshowsclearlythatwithorintheappropriatecontextonecouldfeel,andthehistoriancouldraise,pityoranger.Indeed,thisishardlysurprising,giventhatangerisneverfarfromthesurfaceinPolybius’retellingofthestoryofMantinea,andonecanseeitespeciallyclearlyinhisindictmentofTimaeusinBookXII.16

Furthermore,itcanbeshownfromPolybius’ownworkthatemotionisinnowayinappropriatetothebusinessofhistory:note,forexample,hispraiseoftheRomanfunerarycustomofrecitingthegreatdeedsofthedeceasedmanandhisancestors,apractice,Polybiussays,thatmakesthelistenersshareinthefeelings(συμπαθεις̑,thesamewordusedforPhylarchus),suchthattheyfeelthelosstobetheirown(6.53.2–3):

(p.81) πέριξδὲπαντὸςτου̑δήμουστάντος,ἀναβὰςἐπὶτοὺςἐμβόλους,ἂνμὲνυἱὸςἐνἡλικίᾳκαταλείπηταικαὶτύχῃπαρών,οὑ̑τος,εἰδὲμή,τω̑νἄλλωνεἴτιςἀπὸγένουςὑπάρχει,λέγειπερὶτου̑τετελευτηκότοςτὰςἀρετὰςκαὶτὰςἐπιτετευγμέναςἐντῳ̑ζη̑νπράξεις.δι’ὡ̑νσυμβαίνειτοὺςπολλοὺςἀναμιμνησκομένουςκαὶλαμβάνονταςὑπὸτὴνὄψιντὰγεγονότα,μὴμόνοντοὺςκεκοινωνηκόταςτω̑νἔργων,ἀλλὰκαὶτοὺςἐκτός,ἐπὶτοσου̑τονγίνεσθαισυμπαθεις̑ὥστεμὴτω̑νκηδευόντωνἴδιον,ἀλλὰκοινὸντου̑δήμουφαίνεσθαιτὸσύμπτωμα.

Thewholemassofthepeoplestandroundtowatch,andhis[sc.thedeadman’s]son,ifhehasleftoneofadultagewhocanbepresent,orifnotsomeotherrelative,thenmountstheRostraanddeliversanaddresswhichrecountsthevirtuesandthesuccessesachievedbythedeadmanduringhislifetime.Bythesemeansthewholepopulace,notjustthosewhosharedinthedeedsbuteventhosewhodidnot,areinvolvedintheceremonysothatwhenthefactsofthedeadman’scareerarerecalledtotheirmindsandbroughtbeforetheireyes,theybecomesharersofthefeelingstosuchanextentthatthelossseemsnottobeconfinedtothemournersbuttobeapubliconewhichaffectsthewholepeople.

OrcomparePolybius’portrayalofScipio’stearsatthefallofCarthage:Scipio’semotion,indicativeofhisremembrance,attheheightofhissuccess,ofthemutabilityoffortuneisthereasonthatPolybiuscandescribehimas‘agreatandperfectman,and,inshort,one

worthytoberemembered’.17Polybiusisnot,therefore,condemningtoutcourttheportrayalofemotioninhistoryorattemptsbyhistorianstoraisetheirreaders’emotions;rather,hefindsfaultwithPhylarchusforraisingthewrongorinappropriateemotionsgiventheactual(κατ’ἀλήθειαν)situationoftheMantineans.

NextthereisthenotionthatPhylarchus’vividness,hisplacingthingsbeforetheeyesofhisreaders,isalsoacomponentoftragichistoriography.Itisindeedtruethattragedy,ofallthegenres,isthemostimmediateintermsofvisualimpact,sinceitliterallybringsthingsbeforetheeyesofitsaudience.Polybiusheremightcertainlybereferringtosuchathing,yetwhenweexaminethisconceptof‘placingbeforetheeyes’(πρὸὀφθαλμω̑ντιθέναι)elsewhereinPolybius,itseemsclearthattragedyisusuallyfarfromhismind.Sometimeshereferstowhatancientliterarycriticismcalledἐνάργεια,thevividnessofdescriptionwhichwasconsideredadesirabletraitinthebestwriting,aqualityextolledbyPlutarch:18

themosteffectivehistorianishewho,byavividrepresentationofemotionsandcharacters,makeshisnarrativelikeapainting.AssuredlyThucydidesisalwaysstrivingforthisvividnessinhiswriting,sinceitishisdesiretomakethereadera(p.82) spectator,asitwere,andtoproducevividlyinthemindsofhisreaderstheemotionsofamazementandconsternationthatwereexperiencedbythosewhobeheldthem.

Yetvividnessandemotionalarousalarebynomeansthewholestory.

ForwhenwelookatPolybius’ownuseofthisconcept,itisclearthatvividness,thisplacingsomethingbeforetheaudience’seyes,ismostofallatooltoconveyknowledgeandimpartexperience,sinceitallowsthereadertoseethingsclearlyandthereforetounderstandtheissuesatstake.Davidson’sstudyofthegazeinPolybiusshowedtheextenttowhichPolybiusreliesonvisualizations,bothforhischaractersandforhisownaudience.19Theproper‘envisioning’byacharacterofhissituationisoftenthekeytosuccessorfailure,andPolybiushimselffrequentlyemphasizeshowimportantitisforhisaudiencetoplacebeforetheireyeswhatisgoingon.20See,forexample,thelistenersattheRomanfuneralmentionedabove,wherethedeedsofthedeadmanandhisfamilyarebrought‘beforetheireyes’;inanotherpassage,Polybius,inthecourseofpraisingtheRomansandtheCarthaginiansfortheirconductintheSecondPunicWar,comparestheiractionswithsomeearlierGreekheroes,andsumsupbysaying(9.9.9–10):

ταυ̑ταμὲνοὐ̑νοὐχοὕτωςτου̑ῬωμαίωνἢΚαρχηδονίωνἐγκωμίουχάρινεἴρηταιμοι…τὸδὲπλειο̑ντω̑νἡγουμένωνπαρ’ἀμφοτέροιςκαὶτω̑νμετὰταυ̑ταμελλόντωνχειρίζεινπαρ’ἑκάστοιςτὰςκοινὰςπράξεις,ἵνατω̑νμὲνἀναμιμνησκόμενοι,τὰδ’ὑπὸτὴνὄψινλαμβάνοντεςζηλωταὶγίνωνταιπαράβολονἔχειντικαὶκινδυνω̑δες,τοὐναντίονἀσφαλη̑μὲντὴντόλμαν,θαυμασίανδὲτὴνἐπίνοιαν,ἀείμνηστονδὲκαὶκαλὴνἔχειτὴνπροαίρεσινκαὶκατορθωθέντακαὶδιαψευσθένταπαραπλησίως,κτλ.

ItisnotforthepurposeofextollingtheRomansortheCarthaginiansthatIhave

offeredtheseremarks…butratherforthesakeoftheleadersofboththesestates,andforall,nomatterwhere,whoshallbechargedwiththeconductofpublicaffairs,sothatbyrememberingsomethingsandbyplacingbeforetheireyesotherthingstheymaybemovedtoemulation,andnotshrinkfromundertakingdesignswhichmaybefraughtwithriskandperil,butonthecontraryarecourageouswithoutbeinghazardous,areadmirableintheirconception;andtheirexcellence,whethertheresultbesuccessorfailurealike,willdeservetoliveinmen’smemoriesforever,etc.

ThisconnectionbetweenthevisualandtheintellectualcanbeseenalreadyinThucydides,whousesthetermτὸσαφές(‘clarity’or‘clearness’)toindicate(p.83)whatheseesastheobjectofhisaudience’sattention.21VividnessforPolybiusisalsorelatedtothewholeissueofthehistorian’sexperience:PolybiusattacksTimaeus,sayinghisworklacksvividnessbecauseitisnotaproductoflife,andἔμφασιςcancomeonlyfromαὐτοπάθεια.22Elsewhere,Polybiuslinksἐνάργειαwiththereliabilityoftestimonythatcomesfrombeinganeyewitnessofevents(20.12.8):

οὐχὅμοιόνἐστινἐξἀκοη̑ςπερὶπραγμάτωνδιαλαμβάνεινκαὶγενόμενοναὐτόπτην,ἀλλὰκαὶμεγάλαδιαφέρει,πολὺδέτισυμβάλλεσθαιπέφυκενἑκάστοιςἡκατὰτὴνἐνάργειανπίστις.

Itisnotatallthesametojudgeofthingsfromhearsayandfromhavingactuallywitnessedthem,butthereisagreatdifference.Inallmattersacertaintyfoundedontheevidenceofone’seyesisofthegreatestvalue.

Andthisconceptofeyewitness,ofcourse,isanabsolutelycrucialelementnotonlyforPolybiusbutforallancienthistoriography.23Insum,then,wefindthatvividnesscanbeatoolforraisingtheemotions24but,justas(ifnotmore)importantly,itisalsoatoolforinstructionandexplanationbythehistorian.25Thereisnothinginherentlyproblematic(andmuchthatisinherentlybeneficial)withbringingmatters‘beforetheeyes’ofone’sreaders,andthatisnotwhyPhylarchusisbeingfaulted.

Wecomethentoπεριπέτειαι,reversals.ItiswellknownthatforAristotlereversalsarecrucialinhisdefinitionoftragedy,fortheyaretheveryheartofthetragicaction.PolybiusreferstoreversalstwiceinhisattackonPhylarchus,oncewiththeverbπεριπεσειν̑(§6;noteἀτυχήμασιalso),andoncewiththenounitself,τὰςπλείσταςτω̑νπεριπετειω̑ν(§13).ItisthusassumedthatthereversalsofwhichPolybiusspeaksmustbespecificallyAristotelian,andindeedsomescholarshavetranslatedthewordhereas‘tragic’or‘dramaticreversals’.Butisthiswarranted?Theshortansweris‘no’.Foralthoughreversalsoffortuneare,ofcourse,foundintragedy,theyareinnowaythespecialpreserveoftragedy.Theyhadalreadybeenpartofepic—indeed,nodoubt,ofstory-tellingfromitsorigins—andbeginningwithHerodotus,reversalsoffortunebecomethesubject-matterofhistoryaswell:‘forthecitiesthatweregreatinmytimeweresmallonceandthosethataresmallinmytime(p.84) wereoncegreat’(1.5.4).ThucydidestooincorporatesthisnotionintheaccountofthereversalsexperiencedbyAtheniansandSiciliansinhisBooksVIandVII.26Mosttothepoint,however,are

Polybius’ownremarksattheoutsetofhiswork,wherehepraisesthevalueofhistory(1.1.2):

ἀληθινωτάτηνμὲνεἰν̑αιπαιδείανκαὶγυμνασίανπρὸςτὰςπολιτικὰςπράξειςτὴνἐκτη̑ςἱστορίαςμάθησιν,ἐναργεστάτηνδὲκαὶμόνηνδιδάσκαλοντου̑δυνάσθαιτὰςτη̑ςτύχηςμεταβολὰςγενναίωςὑποφέρειντὴντω̑νἀλλοτρίωνπεριπετειω̑νὑπόμνησιν,κτλ.

…thatthetruesteducationandtrainingforthelifeofpoliticalactionisthestudyofhistory,andthattheclearest[ἐναργεστάτην,whichreturnsustoourdiscussionofἐνάργειαabove]andindeedtheonlymethodoflearninghowtobearbravelythevicissitudesoffortuneistherecollectionofthereversalsofothers,etc.

Polybiusgoesontonarratethesechangesoffortunewhichcan,ofcourse,befromgreattosmall,butcanalsobetheotherwayround,asinthecaseoftheprotagonistofPolybius’work,Rome.Sothenarrationofreversalsoffortuneisnotsomethingtobefaulted—PhylarchuswasnotwrongtonarratethefallofMantinea—butrathertheyaretheverysubject-matterofhistory.

Someclarification,however,inthismatterofreversalsisaffordedbyalaterpassagewherePolybiuscomparesthecourtierofPtolemyPhilopator,Agathocles,whomhedeemsaworthlessvillain,withAgathoclesofSicily,whomheconsidersanappropriatepersontostudyandemulate(15.36.1–7):

διὰδὴταύταςτὰςαἰτίαςτὸνμετ’αὐξήσεωςλόγονἀπεδοκιμάσαμενὑπὲρἈγαθοκλέους,οὐχἥκισταδὲκαὶδιὰτὸπάσαςτὰςἐκπληκτικὰςπεριπετείαςμίανἔχεινφαντασίαντὴνπρώτηνἀξίανἐπιστάσεως,τὸδὲλοιπὸνοὐμόνονἀνωφελη̑γίνεσθαιτὴνἀκρόασινκαὶθέαναὐτω̑ν,ἀλλὰκαὶμετάτινοςὀχλήσεωςἐπιτελεισ̑θαιτὴνἐνέργειαντω̑ντοιούτων.δυειν̑�γὰρ�ὑπαρχόντωντελω̑ν,ὠφελείαςκαὶτέρψεως,πρὸςἃδει̑τὴνἀναφορὰνποιεισ̑θαιτοὺςδιὰτη̑ςἀκοη̑ςἢτη̑ςὁράσεωςβουλομένουςτιπολυπραγμονειν̑,καὶμάλιστατῳ̑τη̑ςἱστορίαςγένειτούτουκαθήκοντος,ἀμφοτέρωντούτωνὁπλεονασμὸςὑπὲρτω̑νἐκπληκτικω̑νσυμπτωμάτωνἐκτὸςπίπτει.ζηλου̑νμὲνγὰρτίςἂνβουληθείητὰςπαραλόγουςπεριπετείας;οὐδὲμὴνθεώμενοςοὐδ’ἀκούωνἥδεταισυνεχω̑ςοὐδεὶςτω̑νπαρὰφύσινγενομένωνπραγμάτωνκαὶπαρὰτὴνκοινὴνἔννοιαντω̑νἀνθρώπων.ἀλλ’εἰσάπαξμὲνκαὶπρω̑τονσπουδάζομενἃμὲνἰδειν̑,ἃδ’ἀκου̑σαι,χάριντου̑γνω̑ναιτὸμὴδοκου̑νδυνατὸνεἰν̑αιδιότιδυνατόνἐστιν·ὅτανδὲπιστεύωμεν,οὐδεὶςτοὺςπαρὰφύσινἐγχρονίζωνεὐδοκει·̑τῳ̑δ’αὐτῳ̑πλεονάκιςἐγκυρειν̑οὐδ’ὅλωςἂνβουληθείη.διόπερἢζηλωτὸνεἰν̑αιδει̑τὸλεγόμενονἢτερπνόν·ὁδὲτη̑ςἐκτὸςτούτωνσυμφορα̑ςπλεονασμὸςοἰκειότερόνἐστιτραγῳδίαςἤπερἱστορίας.

ForthesereasonsIrefrainedfromenlargingonthestoryofthisman[Agathoclesthecourtier],andnolessbecauseallsensationalreversalsareworthyofattentiononlywhenfirstpresentedtoourview,butafterwardsitisnotonlyunprofitableto(p.85) readaboutthemandkeepoureyesonthembutsuchanexerciseofourfacultiesproducesacertaindisgust.Forsincetherearetwoobjects,benefitand

pleasure,whichthosewhowishtostudyanysubjecteitherbytheuseoftheirearsortheireyesshouldkeepbeforethem,andsincethisisespeciallytrueofthestudyofhistory,atoogeneroustreatmentofsensationaleventscontributestoneither.Forwhowouldwishtoemulateirrationalchangesoffortune?Noonehasanypermanentpleasureinseeingorreadingofthingswhicharecontrarytonatureandcontrarytothegeneralsentimentofmankind.Itistrueweareinterestedinseeingorhearingofthemonceforallandatfirst,justforthesakeofobservingthatwhatseemedtobeimpossibleispossible,butonceweareconvincedofthisnoonetakesanypleasureindwellingontheunnatural,andthereisnoonewhowouldhavetheleastwishtomeetwithfrequentreferencestothesameeventofthisclass.Thereforewhatistoldusshouldeitherexciteemulationorcausepleasure,andtheelaboratetreatmentofaneventthatdoesneitherissuitablerathertotragedythantohistory.

ThepassageisvaluablebecausePolybiusherespeaksofvariouskindsofreversalsoffortune,onlysomeofwhichheseesasappropriatetohistory.Thosewhicharesensationalorirrationalmustbeconsignedtotherealmoftragedy;thosemoreinaccordwithnatureareworthyofhistory.Again,itisnotreversalsthemselveswhichareproblematic,27butonlycertainkindsofreversalswhichPolybiusseesascharacteristicoftragedy.

Tosumupthisfirstpart,then,wemayreasonablyquestionwhetherPolybiusfoundfaultwithPhylarchusforhisemotionalscenes,forhisvividness,orforhisnarrationofreversalsoffortune.Phylarchus’crimeinPolybius’eyeswasnotthatheemployedthesedevicesbutthathemisusedthem,becauseunderlyingthemallwastheessentialfalsehoodofhisnarrative,sincethesufferingsPhylarchussupposedlydescribeddidnot,accordingtoPolybius,actuallyoccur.

IIFromtheearliestscholarshipon‘tragic’history,ithasbeencustomarytoconnectPolybius’attackonPhylarchuswithAristotle’sPoetics,andindeedseveralscholarshavelaidtheresponsibilityforthephenomenonoftragichistoryatthedoorofthePeripatos.28This‘connection’issupposedlyguaranteedamongotherthingsbythestrongsimilarityofvocabularybetweenthePoeticsandPolybius’characterizationofwhatPhylarchuswasdoing.Onescholarhaseventabulatedthem,29andalthoughhiscollocationsseematfirst(p.86) sightverypersuasive,closerexaminationrevealsthattheyhavebeenmadewithnoregardforcontextineitherPolybiusorAristotle;sufficeittosaythatineverycasethereareproblemswiththecorrelations.30WhatIconsidertobethemosttellingpointisthatPolybiusinhisattackonPhylarchusisnotconcernedwithAristotle’stragicemotionsofpityandfear,butratherwithpityandanger(ἐλεειν̑…ὀργίζεσθαι,2.56.13),emotionswhich,asIhavepointedoutelsewhere,areassociatednotwiththetragicpoetbutwiththeorator.31

SoifPolybiusisnotindialoguewithAristotle’sPoetics,howaretheremarkstobeunderstood?Theybelong,Isubmit,toalong-standingdebate,begunatleastthreecenturiesbeforePolybius,ontheimportanceandvalueofliteratureingeneralandthe

variousgenresinparticular:tragedy,history,butalsoepic,andevencomedy.Aristotle’sPoetics,ofcourse,ispartofthatdebatealthoughwetendtooveremphasizeitsimportancebecauseofitsauthorandbecauseithappenstosurvive.Muchoftheancientdiscussionisconcernedwiththatoldchestnut,thecontrastbetweenpleasureandutility.Putsimply,nowriter,unlessheisbeingsatirical,suggeststhathisworkprovidespleasurebutnotutility.YetintheagonisticsocietyofGreece,itwasacommonmeansofattacktosuggestthatyouropponent’sgenreprovidedpleasurebutnotutility.32

NowEratosthenes,forone,famouslydeniedanyinstructionalvaluetoHomericoranyotherpoetry,notingthat‘everypoetstrivesforentertainment,notinstruction’.33ButthiswasnottheviewofNeoptolemusofParium,atleastasitcanbereconstructedfromBookVofPhilodemus’OnPoets.Neoptolemus,thethird-centurycriticatAlexandriabestknownperhapsfromPorphyrion’sremarkthathisviewswerethesourceofallthemainpreceptsofHorace’sArsPoetica,saidthatpoetryaimedatbringingbenefitalongwithpleasure.34

EvenbeforeNeoptolemus,however,thelate-fifth-orearly-fourth-centurycomicpoetTimoclessawtragedyasprovidingpleasureandinstruction.Inoneofhisplays,acharacterspeaksofthebenefitofpoetry,specificallytragedy:

ὠ̑τα̑ν,ἄκουσονἤντισοιδοκω̑λέγειν.

ἄνθρωπόςἐστιζῳ̑ονἐπίπονονφύσει,

καὶπολλὰλυπήρ’ὁβίοςἐνἑαυτῳ̑φέρει.

(p.87) παραψύχαςοὐ̑νφροντίδωνἀνεύρετο

ταύτας·ὁγὰρνου̑ςτω̑νἰδίωνλήθηνλαβών[5]

πρὸςἀλλοτρίῳτεψυχαγωγηθεὶςπάθει

μεθ’ἡδονη̑ςἀπη̑λθεπαιδευθεὶςἅμα….

ἅπανταγὰρτὰμείζον’ἢπέπονθέτις[17]

ἀτυχήματ’ἄλλοιςγεγονότ’ἐννοούμενος

τὰςαὐτὸςαὑτου̑συμφορὰςἡ̑ττονστένει.

Mygoodman,listen,ifIseemtoyoutosaysomethingworth-while.Manisacreaturebornfortoilsandhislifecarriesmanydistressesinitself.Hehasthereforecontrivedforhimselftheseconsolationsforhisanxiousthoughts.Forhismind,forgettingitsownprivatetroublesandtakingpleasureatthoseofanother,departs[sc.fromthetheatre]inpleasure,whileatthesametimeinstructed….[17]Forinthinkingaboutallthecalamitiesgreaterthanhisownwhichhavehappenedtoothers,hegroanslessathisownmisfortunes.35

Thisthought—thatpartoftragedy’seducativevalueliesinitsabilitytohelppeoplebeartheirownsufferingsbetterwhentheyseethatother(sometimesgreater)menhavehadtoendurebadfortune—isalsopresupposedbyascholiononthegrammarianDionysiusThrax,which,thoughlaterthanPolybius,ispartofadebatealreadyvisibleinTimocles:36

τραγικοὶδὲὄντεςκαὶθέλοντεςὠφελειν̑κοινῃ̑τοὺςτη̑ςπόλεως,παραλαμβάνοντέςτιναςἀρχαίαςἱστορίαςτω̑νἡρώωνἐχούσαςπάθητινά,ἔσθ’ὅτεκαὶθανάτουςκαὶθρήνους,ἐνθεάτρῳταυ̑ταἐπεδείκνυντοτοις̑ὁρω̑σικαὶἀκούουσιν,ἐνδεικνύμενοιπαραφυλάττεσθαιτὸἁμαρτανειν̑.

Beingtragicpoetsandwishingtobenefitmenofthecitypublicly,theytookupcertainancienthistories[ornarratives]ofheroesthatcontainsufferings,sometimesevendeathsandlamentations,andtheydisplayedthesethingsinthetheatretothoselookingonandlistening,pointingouttothemtobeontheirguardagainstmakingerrors.

Thesufferingsofothersteachushowtobearbetterourownsufferingsandtheyteachushowtoavoidmistakes:arethesenotexactlytheclaimsmadebyhistoriansconcerningthevalueoftheirownwork?WenotedPolybius’openingremarkabove,andDiodorusechoeshiminhisownpreface:

Forbyofferingaschooling,whichentailsnodanger,inwhatisadvantageousthey[sc.historians]providetheirreaders,throughsuchapresentationofevents,withamostexcellentkindofexperience.37

(p.88) Yetherewastragedyclaimingtheverysamething.Howthenwashistorytoshowitssuperiority?Although,asWalbanklongagopointedout,tragedyandhistoryhadcommonrootsinepic,38tragedydevelopedearlierthanhistory,anditsprestigewasgreater.TheHellenisticworld,moreover,sawarevivalofinterestinhistoricaltragedy,perhapsbestrepresentedbyMoschion,activeinthesecondhalfofthethirdcentury,andauthorofaThemistoclesandaPeopleofPherae,thelatteraplayaboutthemurderofthetyrantAlexanderin358atthehandsofhiswifeandherbrothers.39Withtragedymoreprestigiousandsharingthesubject-matterofhistory,thehistorians,notsurprisingly,hadrecoursetoalineofcriticismthatquestioneditstruth-value.

Nowitsohappensthattherewereseveralschoolsofthoughtinantiquityonthenatureoftragedy:somecriticsclassifieditashistory(ἱστορία,historia)forthesamereasonsasepicwasthoughttobe,i.e.becauseitssubjectswereconsideredhistoricalpeople;othersasfiction(πλα̑σμα,argumentum);stillothersasmyth(μυ̑θοςorfabula).40Intwoofthethreecategories,truthwasabsent,sinceπλα̑σμαwasdefinedassomethingthatwasprobablebuthadnotactuallyhappened,whileμυ̑θοςwasimprobableandhadneverhappened.

Historians,notsurprisingly,werekeentoremovetragedyfromanyprivilegedrelationshiptotruth,andintheirattemptstheyfoundanunusualallyinthecomicpoets,forwhomthereisevidencetosuggestthattheyoftencriticizedtragedyincomparison

withtheirowngenre.Suchcriticismappearsinawell-knownfragmentfromAntiphanes’Ποίησις,writtenprobablyinthemid-fourthcentury.Thespeakercontraststheeaseofwritingtragedywiththedifficultyofwritingcomedy:thetragedianhashisplotandcharacterstohand,whilethecomedianmustinventitallandmakeitprobableandconvincing:

μακάριόνἐστινἡτραγῳδία

ποίημακατὰπαντ’,εἴγεπρω̑τονοἱλόγοι

ὑπὸτω̑νθεατω̑νεἰσινἐγνωρισμένοι,

πρὶνκαὶτιν’εἰπειν̑·ὥσθ’ὑπομνη̑σαιμόνον

(p.89) δει̑τὸνποητήν.Οἰδιπου̑νγ’ἂνφῃ̑�μόνον�[5]

τὰδ’ἄλλαπαντ’ἴσασιν·ὁπατὴρΛάιος,

μήτηρἸοκάστη,θυγατέρες,παιδ̑εςτίνες,

τίπείσεθ’οὑ̑τος,τίπεπόηκεν.ἂνπάλιν

εἴπῃτιςἈλκμέωνα,καὶτὰπαιδία

πάντ’εὐθὺςεἴρηχ’,ὅτιμανεὶςἀπέκτονε[10]

τὴνμητέρ’,ἀγανακτω̑νδ’Ἄδραστοςεὐθέως

ἥξειπάλιντ’ἄπεισι[…………]

ἔπειθ’ὅτανμηθὲνδύνωντ’εἰπειν̑ἔτι,

κομιδῃ̑δ’ἀπειρήκωσινἐντοις̑δράμασιν,

αἴρουσινὥσπερδάκτυλοντὴνμηχανήν,[15]

καὶτοις̑θεωμένοισινἀποχρώντωςἔχει.

ἡμιν̑δὲταυ̑τ’οὐκἔστιν,ἀλλὰπάνταδει ̑

εὑρειν̑,ὀνόματακαινά,[…………]

[…………]κἄπειτατὰδιῳχημένα

πρότερον,τὰνυ̑νπαρόντα,τὴνκαταστροφήν,[20]

τὴνεἰσβολήν.ἂνἕντιτούτωνπαραλίπῃ

ΧρέμηςτιςἢΦείδωντις,ἐκσυρίττεται·

Πηλει̑δὲπαντ’ἔξεστικαὶΤεύκρῳποειν̑.

Tragedyisfortunateineveryrespect,sincefirstofallthestoriesarewellknowntotheaudienceevenbeforeacharacterspeaks.Andsothepoetmustsimplyremindthem.Forifthepoetmerelysays,‘Oedipus’,theyknowalltherest.HisfatherLaius,hismotherJocasta,whohisdaughtersandsonswere,whathewillsuffer,whathehasdone.If,inturn,onesaysAlcmeon,straightawayhehasmentionedallhischildren,andthatinamaddenedstatehekilledhismother;andAdrastus,beingaggrieved,straightawaywillcomeandthendepart[somewordsmissing].Andthen,whenthepoetscansaynomore,andtheyarealtogetherexhaustedintheirdramas,theyraisethecrane,likethefinger[sc.ofadefeatedathlete],andthespectatorsaresatisfied.Butwe[sc.comicpoets]cannotdothesethings;wemust,onthecontrary,inventeverything—newnames[somewordsmissing]andwhathashappenedbefore,thecurrentsituation,theoutcome,theprologue.IfaChremesoraPheidon[i.e.acomiccharacter]leavesoutanyoneofthesepoints,heishissedoffthestage;butaPeleusoraTeucercandoanything.41

Especiallyimportanthereisthemetaphor(13–16)ofraisingthecraneandcontrivinganimprobableending,preciselythesamechargewesawaboveusedbyPolybiusinhisattackontheHannibalhistorians.Thisnotionthatthetragicpoet’scharactersarenotboundbyprobability,muchlesstruth,isalsoechoedbyAntiphanes’slightlyyoungercontemporary,Diphilus,whenhespeaksof‘thetragicpoets…whoaloneareatlibertytosayanddoanything.’42

Suchanattackontragedyprovidedforthehistoriansaplacewherethegenrewasvulnerabletocriticism.Ifsomeclaimed—astheydid—thatthevalueof(p.90) tragedywasitsabilitytoportrayhumanreversalsandtoimpartunderstandingtotheaudience,thenthosewhodefendedhistoryclaimedinoppositionthathistorywassuperiortotragedybecauseitcontainedrealevents,notinvented,fictive,ormythicones,andassuchitaloneprovidedrealmodelsforconsolationoremulation.AndsoforPolybius,thosewho,likePhylarchus,inventedthingscrossedoverintotherealmoftragedy,aworldoffalsehoodsandimprobabilitiesfromwhichthereadercouldderivenobenefitorlearning.

Ourre-examinationofPolybius’attackonPhylarchushascalledintoquestionsomeoftheacceptedwisdomontragichistory,andonPolybiusaswell.ThesupposedcharacteristicsoftragichistorycannotbejustifiedfromacontextualreadingofPolybius,andinpracticefalltotheground:allgoodhistorians—includingPolybius—soughttoraisetheirreaders’emotions;toportrayeventswithvividnesssothattheiraudiencecouldvisualizethem;andtonarratereversalsoffortune,fromwhichhumanbeingscouldlearn.43WhenPolybiusaccusessomeoneofwriting‘tragically’,heisreferringprincipallytothefalsehood,thenon-factuality,oftheaccount,ortothemechanicalandimprobablewayinwhichanauthorresolvesdifficultiesorcontradictionsinhisnarrative(itselfaresultofbuildingonfalseorimprobablebeginnings).

Inaddition,Polybius’criticismofPhylarchusshouldbeseennotinanarrowdialogue

withAristotle’sPoeticsbutratherasacontributiontotheongoingdebateinantiquityconcerningthepurposeandvalueofthedifferentgenres.44WalbankpointedoutlongagothatitwasHomertowhomthehistoriansandtragediansbothlooked,andwhoprovidedthemodelsthattheyneeded:fromthegreatpoettheycouldlearnhowtostructureascene;howtobringvividnesstotheiraccounts;andhowtocreateanimpressiveemotionalnarrative.45Polybiuswasawareofthis,ofcourse,andhisattackonPhylarchuswaspartofhisattempttoasserttheclaimsofhistoryasamorevaluableendeavourthantragedybecauseofhistory’scloserelationshiptotruth,i.e.toreallife.Inthiswayhewaspartakingofafarlargerand,inmanyways,farmoreinterestinganddynamicdebateinantiquityontheimportanceofallliterature,bothfactualandfictional.46

Notes:

(1)Thescholarshipontragichistoryisvast;foritshistorytotheearly1970sseeMeister1975:109–26,towhichadd:Sacks1981:144–70,Fornara1983:124–34,Zucchelli1985,Pauw1986,Gray1987,Vegetti1989,Meister1990:95–101,Rebenich1997,esp.269–70,Pédech1989:368–466,Leigh1997:30–40,Canfora1999,Fromentin2001,Moles2001,Halliwell2002:289–92,Marincola2003,Zangara2007:70–85,Marincola2009,McGing2010:71–5.Walbank’sworkonthisissue—asalways,amodelofgoodjudgement—canbefoundinWalbank,HCPi.259–63,andWalbank1960a.

(2)Arist.,Poetics9,1451a38–b5,esp.theremarkἡμὲνγὰρποίησιςμα̑λλοντὰκαθόλου,ἡδὲἱστορίατὰκαθ’ἕκαστονλέγει.

(3)Itwouldbefruitlesstodocumenteachoftheseitemsindividually;cf.Meister1990:85–91andRebenich1997:269–70forrepresentativeapproaches.Formoreonπεριπέτειαι,seeBeckinthisvolume.

(4)Esp.DurisofSamos,FGrHist76F1;Diod.20.43.7;andCic.Fam.5.12.

(5)FormoreonAratus,seeMeadowsinthisvolume.

(6)ThetranslationsofPolybiushereandelsewherearemodified(sometimessubstantially)fromtheLoeb;forBooksI–IVIusetherevisedversionbyFrankWalbankandChristianHabicht.

(7)OnPhylarchus’‘womanish’disposition,seeMarincolaforthcoming.

(8)Plb.2.56.2:ἵναμὴτὸψευ̑δοςἐντοις̑συγγράμμασινἰσοδυναμου̑νἀπολείπωμενπρὸςτὴνἀλήθειαν.AlreadyrecognizedbyFromentin2001:85.

(9)Plb.2.58.1–15,esp.10–12;wemustleaveaside,ofcourse,whetherornotPolybiusisbeinghonestinhiscriticismofPhylarchus;fortheevidencethatPolybiusinpolemicisnotalwaystobetrustedseeWalbank1962;cf.McGing2010:71–4forthispassageinparticular.

(10)Thuc.1.22.2:‘ButthedeedsofthewarIdeemeditworthytowriteupnotfromanychanceinformantnorhowitseemedtome(οὐκἐκτου̑παρατυχόντος…οὐδ’ὡςἐμοὶ

ἐδόκει),butbygoingthroughwithaccuracyoneachmatter,bothforthoseatwhichIwaspresentandthosewhichIheardfromothers.’

(11)Plb.5.26.9:γενομένηςδὲτη̑ςεἰσόδουτραγικη̑ςδιὰτὸπλη̑θοςτω̑νἀπαντησάντωνἡγεμόνωνκαὶστρατιωτω̑ν,κτλ.Walbank,HCPi.559translatesτη̑ςεἰσόδουτραγικη̑ςas‘entryinpomp’.

(12)Plb.38.8.6:ὁδὲ[Hasdrubal]πάλινἐξεπορεύετομετὰμεγάληςἀξίαςἐντῃ̑πορφυρίδικαὶτῃ̑πανοπλίᾳβάδην,ὥστετοὺςἐνταις̑τραγῳδίαιςτυράννουςπολύτιπροσοφείλειν.

(13)Plb.5.48.9:ἐξὡ̑νσυνέβαινετραγικὴνκαὶπαρηλλαγμένηνφαίνεσθαιτου̑ῥεύματοςτὴνφαντασίανὡςἂνὁμου̑τοις̑νηχομένοιςφερομένωνἵππων,ὑποζυγίων,ὅπλων,νεκρω̑ν,ἀποσκευη̑ςπαντοδαπη̑ς.

(14)15.36.1–7,quotedbelow,pp.84–5.

(15)SeeMarincola2003,wherefurtherevidenceandargumentsareadduced.

(16)Fortheraisedemotionaltoneofhistoriographicalpolemic,seeMarincola1997:218–24.

(17)Plb.38.21–2,esp.21.3:ἀνδρὸς…μεγάλουκαὶτελείουκαὶσυλλήβδηνἀξίουμνήμης.

(18)Plut.deglor.Ath.347A:…καὶτω̑νἱστορικω̑νκράτιστοςὁτὴνδιήγησινὥσπεργραφὴνπάθεσικαὶπροσώποιςεἰδωλοποιήσας.ὁγου̑νΘουκυδίδηςἀεὶτῳ̑λόγῳπρὸςταύτηνἁμιλλα̑ταιτὴνἐνάργειαν,οἱο̑νθεατὴνποιη̑σαιτὸνἀκροατὴνκαὶτὰγινόμεναπερὶτοὺςὁρω̑νταςἐκπληκτικὰκαὶταρακτικὰπάθητοις̑ἀναγινώσκουσινἐνεργάσασθαιλιχνευόμενος.FormoreonἐνάργειαseeZanker1981,Walker1993,Newman2002,andZangara2007:55–69.

(19)Davidson1991;forcharactersholdingorkeepingthings‘beforetheireyes’asawayofvisualizingthemintenselyseePlb.2.35.8;3.6.13;5.11.7;5.54.3;15.10.2;15.11.5;15.11.8;20.9.1;22.8.11,andpassim.

(20)Cf.Polybius’interestintopography,whichiscertainlytobeconnectedwithhisinterestinvisualization.

(21)Thuc.1.22.4:‘Andinthehearingperhapsthelackofamythicelement(τὸμὴμυθω̑δες)willperhapsappearlesspleasurable(ἀτερπέστερον).Butitwillbesufficientifallthosewhowillwishtoexaminetheclarityofthethingsthathavehappenedandthatwillagainhappeninthesameorsimilarwaysinaccordancewithhumannature(τω̑ντεγενομένωντὸσαφὲςσκοπειν̑καὶτω̑νμελλόντωνποτὲαὐ̑θιςκατὰτὸἀνθρώπινοντοιούτωνκαὶπαραπλησίωνἔσεσθαι)judgethisuseful(ὠφέλιμακρίνειν).’SeeS.Hornblower1987:102,Woodman1988:23–7,Kallet2006,esp.360–3.

(22)Schepens1975.

(23)Schepens1980,Marincola1997:63–86.

(24)Fortheconnectionbetweenἐνάργειαandemotion,seeZangara2007:55–89.

(25)Notethat‘clarity’isintroducedrightatthebeginningofthehistory:1.1.2,quotedbelow,p.84.

(26)SeeRood1999.

(27)ThenounπεριπέτειαandverbπεριπίπτωareextremelycommoninPolybius,seeMauersbergers.vv.

(28)Seeesp.vonFritz1958.

(29)Zegers1959:6.

(30)SeeFromentin2001:85;Marincola2009.

(31)Marincola2003:301.

(32)Onecanevenseethediscussioninintragenericterms,e.g.inPlb.9.1–2,wherePolybiussuggeststhatdifferenttypesofhistorybringdifferenttypesofpleasureandutility.(IthankBruceGibsonforremindingmeofthispassage.)

(33)Eratosthenesap.Strabo1.2.3:ποιητὴν…πάνταστοχάζεσθαιψυχαγωγίας,οὐδιδασκαλίας.

(34)Philod.OnPoemsV.col.xiii(xvi)9–14:…τῳ̑τελείῳποιητῃ̑μετὰτη̑ςψυχαγωγίαςτὴντω̑νἀκουόντωνὠφέλησινκαὶχρησιμολογίανκαὶτὸνὍμηρον…‘…fortheperfectpoetalongwithhisentertainingqualitiestobenefithishearersandtellthemusefulthings,andthatHomer(bothpleasesandprofits?)…’ThetranslationisthatofDavidArmstrong.

(35)Timocles,F6.1–7,17–19K–A.Line19isalsorecordedasτὰςαὐτὸςαὐτου̑συμφορὰςῥᾷονφέρει(‘hehimselfbearsmoreeasilyhisownmisfortunes’):seeK-Aadloc.(vii.758–9);seealsoOlson2007:170onthedevelopmentofthoughtfromtheearlierlinestothelater.

(36)Schol.inDion.Thracem,p.746.1.Dionysiuswasbornc.180BC,onlytwentyyearsorsoafterPolybius.

(37)Diod.1.1.1:ἀκίνδυνονγὰρδιδασκαλίαντου̑συμφέροντοςεἰσηγησάμενοικαλλίστηνἐμπειρίανδιὰτη̑ςπραγματείαςταύτηςπεριποιου̑σιτοις̑ἀναγινώσκουσιν.

(38)Walbank1960a.

(39)Moschion'sThemistocles:TGrFi,97F1;hisPheraioi:ibid.F3.OnHellenistictragedy,seeSchramm1929,Easterling1993and1997,FantuzziandHunter2004:432–7.

(40)Tragedyashistory:Schol.inDion.Thracem,p.173.3–4:ἡμὲντραγω̑δίαἱστορίανἔχεικαὶἀπαγγελίανπράξεωνγενομένων,κτλ.Cf.Asclepiadesap.Sext.Emp.Math.1.253:τη̑ςδὲἀληθου̑ς[sc.ἱστορίας]τρίαπάλινμέρη·ἡμὲνγὰρἐστιπερὶτὰπρόσωπαθεω̑νκαὶἡρώωνκαὶἀνδρω̑νἐπιφανω̑ν.ἡδὲπερὶτοὺςτόπουςκαὶχρόνους.ἡδὲπερὶτὰςπράξεις.(‘Andoftruehistoryagaintherearethreeparts:onesortisthataboutthepersonsofgodsandheroesandnotablemen,anotheraboutplacesandtimes,thethirdaboutactions.’).

Tragedyasfiction:Herm.Progymn.4.16Rabe:πλασματικὸνδιήγημα,ὃκαὶδραματικὸνκαλου̑σιν,οἱα̑τὰτω̑ντραγικω̑ν(‘fictionalnarrative,whichtheyalsocall“dramatic”,suchastheworksoftragicpoets’).

Tragedyasmyth:[Cic.]Rhet.Her.1.13:fabulaestquaenequeuerasnequeuerisimilescontinetres,uteaesuntquaetragoedistraditaesunt(‘themythicaltalecompriseseventsthatareneithertruenorprobable,likethosehandeddownintragedies’).

(41)Antiphanes,F189K–A(ii.418–19);IhaveusedthetextofOlson2007:154–5.

(42)Diphilus,F29.4–5K–A(v.65):οἱτραγωιδοὶ…οἱς̑ἐξουσία|ἔστινλέγεινἅπαντακαὶποιειν̑μόνοις.

(43)SeeMcGing2010:72–4forabriefbutgooddiscussionofdramaticandemotionalscenesinPolybius’history.HenotestherethatPolybius’truthisnotnecessarilyours.

(44)Cf.Zucchelli1985(aworkIshouldhavecitedinMarincola2009)onthecomplicatednatureofPolybius’relationshiptoAristotle.

(45)Walbank1960a.

(46)EarlierversionsofthispaperweregiveninOxford,Cambridge,TelAviv,Austin,Leeds,Providence,andDublin.Ithanktheaudiencesthereforstimulatingandhelpfulcomments.IthankalsotheparticipantsintheconferenceatLiverpool,especiallyArtEcksteinandJohnRich,forstimulatingdiscussionoftheissuesinvolvedhere;andalsoBruceGibson,whomadeanumberofveryhelpfulsuggestions.Noneofthesepeopleshouldnecessarilybethoughttoagreewiththeconclusionsofthispaper.

Polybius, Aratus, and the History of the 140th Olympiad

Polybius,Aratus,andtheHistoryofthe140thOlympiad

AndrewMeadows

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0004

AbstractandKeywords

ThischapterreassessesPolybius'claimthathewasacontinuatorofthememoirsofAratusofSicyon,whichendedattheendofthe139thOlympiadinAugust220BC.ExaminationofPolybius'narrativeofAchaeanaffairsandtheSocialWarinGreeceintheyearsthatfollowed220infactrevealsacomplexityofsourcematerial.Thisisevident,forexample,inPolybius'puzzlingnarrativeoftwoAetolianinvasionsinthecampaigningseasonof220BC;thetwoinvasionsarebetterseenasadoubletreflectingtheaccountsofasingleAetolianinvasiongivenbytwoseparatesources.Likewise,thepresenceofextensivepro-Arateanmaterialintheperiodbeginningwiththewintersolsticeof219BCsuggeststhatPolybiusmaywellhavebeenusingunpublishedmaterialwrittenbyAratusforthissectionofhisnarrative.

Keywords:Polybius,AratusofSicyon,sourcecriticism,SocialWar,Achaeanleague,Aetolianleague,PhilipV,Macedonia

BeforePolybiustherewasAratus.Thisistruehistoricallyandhistoriographically.ButitisalsotrueofthecareerofFrankWalbank.BeforeHCPtherewasAratosofSicyon.AtanumberoflevelsitseemsappropriatetocelebratethepublicationofthefirstvolumeofthegreatcommentarydevotedtoBooks1–6oftheHistorieswithanexaminationofthecomplexrelationshipbetweenPolybiusandhispredecessor.Morespecifically,IamparticularlycuriousabouttheplacethatAratus’MemoirsoccupyinPolybius’ownarticulationofhisstarting-point,aswellasinhissubsequentnarrativeofAchaeanaffairs.

InwhatfollowsIshallattempttoshowthatPolybiuswasusingAratusashissourceforlongerthanhasgenerallybeensupposed,andindeedforlongerthanPolybiushimselfstates.IndoingsoIshallsuggestthatPolybius’accountofeventsinGreeceduringthe140thOlympiadisinfactbadlymuddledasaresultofhismishandlingofmultiplesourcesforthesameevents.Theresultingaccount,particularlyofthewarfareinthePeloponnesein220BC,willemergeasquiteimplausible.IconcludebyofferinganexplanationforwhyPolybiuspresentedhisrelationshipwithAratusashedid,andsuggestingwhatthismaytellusconcerningPolybius’intentionsatthisearlystageofhiswork.

PolybiusintroducesustoAratus’Memoirsattheverybeginningofhisfirstbook,whereheoffersanexplanationforhisdecisiontobeginhishistoryproperatthe140thOlympiad:

MyHistorybeginsinthe140thOlympiad.Theeventsfromwhichitstartsarethese:amongtheGreeks,whatiscalledtheSocialwar,thefirstwagedbyPhilip,sonofDemetriusandfatherofPerseus,withtheAchaeansagainsttheAetolians;amongthosewhoinhabitAsia,thewarofCoele-SyriawhichAntiochusandPtolemyPhilopatorfoughtagainsteachother;intheareaofItalyandLibyathe(p.92) warbetweenRomeandCarthage,whichmostcalltheHannibalicwar.TheseeventsarecontinuouswiththelasteventsintheworkofAratusofSicyon.1

Thewatershed,asdescribedhere,iscreatedbytheconfluenceoftheSocialWarofPhilipandtheAchaeansagainsttheAetolians,theFourthSyrianWarbetweenAntiochusIIIandPtolemyIV,andtheSecondPunicWarbetweentheRomansandCarthaginians.2Inhistoriographicalterms,Polybiusalsodefinesthisperiodasfollowingonfromtheendoftheaccount(Syntaxis)ofAratusofSicyon.ForWalbank,thisisasignthatPolybiusisinsertinghimselfwithinthehistoriographicaltraditionof‘continuation’.3

AftertheprokataskeuēofBooks1and2,andhisbooklengthaccountoftheeventsinSpainandItalyinthe140thOlympiad(Book3),Polybiusturnstotheeast,andbeginsBook4withanotherjustificationofhisstarting-pointinOlympiad140,or220BC:

brieflysummarisingtheeventsincludedinmyprokataskeuēuptothedeathsofAntigonus,Seleucus,andPtolemy,sincetheyalldiedataboutthesametime,IannouncedthatIwasbeginningwiththeeventsimmediatelyfollowingthese.Ithoughtthiswasthebestpoint,firstbecausetheaccountofAratuscomestoanendatthisperiod,andIhaddecidedtotakeuptheaccountfromthispointandprovideacontinuationforGreekaffairs;andsecondly,becausetheperiodofmy

historywouldfallpartlyinourgenerationandpartlythatofourfathers;andthusIshouldbeabletospeakaseye-witnessofsomeoftheevents,andfromtheinformationofeye-witnessesforothers.WereItogofurtherbackintimeandwritethereportofareport,IdonotthinkIwouldseemreliable,eitherinmyinferencesormyassertions.But,aboveall,IbeganatthisperiodbecauseitwasthenthatTychewasbeginningtoremaketheworldanew.4

(p.93) Havingexplained(4.1.9)thathehassummarizedeventsuptothedeathsofAntigonosDoson(221),SeleucusIII(223),andPtolemyEuergetes(222),herecallsthepromisetobeginhishistoryimmediatelyafterthis,firstbecauseAratus’accountendswiththesetimes;secondlybecauseitcoincideswithhisownandtheprecedinggeneration;butmostofallbecauseTychewasremakingtheworldafresh,ἀπὸτούτων…τω̑νκαιρω̑ν.AgainwenotetheemphasisthatisplacedontheendofAratus’Syntaxis.ItmayindeedhavebeenconventionalbythesecondcenturyBCforahistoriantoestablishhimselfasacontinuerofapreviouswriter,buttwothingsaboutPolybius’prominentlyexpressedchoiceofAratusas‘continuedauthor’strikemeasodd.

First,itisintriguingthatPolybius,whosehistoriographicalconceptionofanaccountoftheriseofRome’spowercomprisedaninterweaving(συμπλοκή)ofregionalhistoriesintoasingleworkwithageographicalsweepfromSpaintoEgyptandSyria,5shouldhavecasthimselfasthecontinueroftheworkofAratus,atleastasthelatter’sworkisconventionallyenvisioned.Aratus’work,twicereferredtoherebyPolybiuswiththesomewhatneutraltermSyntaxis,iselsewheredescribedbyhimasπερὶτω̑νἰδίων…πράξεωνὑπομνηματισμούς(2.40.4 = FGrHist231T3)orhypomnemata(2.47.11 = FGrHist231T5),andbyPlutarchasHypomnemata.6ThetitlethesebooksarecommonlygiveninEnglishisMemoirs,andtheyhavesometimesbeencitedasanearlyformofautobiography.7Certainly,theyseemunlikelytohavebeenanaccountoftheoecumene,whosehistoryPolybiuswasnowtakingup.

Secondly,Polybius—andothers—hadarathermixedopinionbothofthemanand,insomecases,ofhiswork.ForPolybius,theaccountofAratus’owndeedsinhisMemoirscouldbeclearandaccurate(2.40.4:λίανἀληθινοὺςκαὶσαφεις̑),butattimesAratus’ownpositionintheeventshenarratedcouldresultinobfuscation,oromissionofimportantdetailsaltogether.8Elsewhere,PolybiusexpresseshisdisapprovalofrelianceonHypomnemataaloneas(p.94) historicalsources(Plb.12.25e.5–7).Ofthemanhimself,PolybiusgivesusaforthrightassessmentinBook4,Chapter8.Insummary,hewasanexcellentpolitician:agoodspeaker,clearthinker,couldhandlefellowpoliticians,andacleverwheeleranddealer.Butthesameman,whenoncampaign,wasslow-witted,timid,andcowardly,anassessmentsharedbyPlutarch,whoaddsthedetail‘thatwhenevertheAchaeangeneralpreparedforbattle,hisbowelslosttheirretentivefaculty;thatwhenthetrumpetsounded,hiseyesgrewdimandhisheadgiddy;andthatwhenhehadgiventheword,heusedtoaskhislieutenantsandotherofficerswhatfurtherneedtherecouldbeofhim,sincethediewascast,andwhetherhemightnotretire,andwaittheeventofthedayatsomedistance’(Plut.Aratus,29.7).

Justasthereweretwosidestohischaracter,sothereweretwosidestohisMemoirs,

which,asaconsequenceofthetrophiesthatlitteredthePeloponnesecommemoratinghisdefeats(Plb.4.8.6),apparentlycontainedmuchapologetic,omissionoffact,andmanipulationofdetail.Itwasnot,then,forhisreputationorthescopeofhiswritingsthatPolybiusheldupAratusasthemanhewasfollowing.

SoinwhatsensewasPolybiusacontinuerofAratus?AnddidhishistoryindeedstartwhereAratus’Memoirsended?Thelatterquestionrequirescloserexaminationthanithashithertoreceivedand,inansweringit,wemaycomesomewhatclosertoansweringtheformer.

Ithasgenerallybeenassumed,onthebasisofthetwopassagesofPolybiusquotedabove,9thattheMemoirsofAratusstoppedin220BC,ifnotearlier.So,forWalbank,‘Aratus’MemoirsdidnotdescendbeyondtheaccessionofPhilipV’,10whileJacobydeducedthattheyran‘biszumendedesKleomenischenKrieges’,suggestingthattheBattleofSellasiamarkedasuitablepointforAratustosignoff.11ForErringtontheMemoirs‘endedbeforePolybius’fourthbookbegins’.12Whicheverofthesestopping-pointsweaccept,theassumptionthathasbeenmadeisthatPolybiusisacontinuerofAratusinthesamesense,say,asXenophonisofThucydides.Tobesure,PolybiususedAratusasasourceforhisaccountoftheCleomeneanWarinBook2,andexplicitlyacknowledgesthatfact.Butafter220BC,theassumptionhasbeenthattheMemoirswerenolongeravailable,andPolybius’sourcesfortheSocialWar,whichbeganinthatyear,weredifferentandarenowobscure.

This,Ithink,isanassumptionthatcanbechallengedattwolevels.First,wemustexaminethecontextofPolybius’statementsaboutthecontinuationof(p.95) Aratus;secondly,wemusttakeacloserlookatPolybius’narrative.Inhisfirststatement(Plb.1.3.1–2),Polybiuscitesthreewarsashisstarting-point,thefirstofwhichbeganin220BC,theothersin219BC.Itisthesethings(ταυ̑τα)—notetheplural—thatcontinuefromthefinalparts(τοις̑τελευταίοις)—noteagaintheimpreciseplural—ofAratus’Syntaxis.Inthesecondpassagethingsbecomeevenmorevague,andPolybiusisclearlyself-consciousabouttheloosenessofthesesynchronisms.Againwenotethevaguepluralofπερὶτοὺςαὐτοὺςκαιρούς(4.1.9).Inthehistoricaleventshealightsupon,thereasonforthisisclearenough.AntigonusDosondiedin221,SeleucusCeraunusin223,andPtolemyEuergetesin222.ItwasthusoveraperiodofmorethantwoyearsthatFortune(Tύχη)hadbuilttheworldafresh.Infact,indescribingtherefreshingoftheworldin4.2.5–11,PolybiusgoesontoexpandhisgeographicalhorizonsbeyondthesethreeHellenisticmonarchiesandbeyondtheperiod223–1.Obviously,thereisnoonepointintimeatwhichallthingsbegantochange.Polybius’pointisthatthedeathsofthevariousmonarchsallhappenedinthe139thOlympiadandleduptowarsthatbeganinthe140th.Butinthisgeneralchronologicallandscape,wemustbecautiousaboutpositingapreciseend-pointforAratus’Memoirs.Polybiusisstretchingchronologyinthesepassagestoproduceaneffect.Moreover,givenPolybius’ownorganizationofbooksbyOlympiad,evenifAratus’workhadfinishedinthemiddleofayear,oreven,say,three-quartersofthewaythroughanOlympiad,thelikelihoodisprobablyagainstPolybiushavingworriedaboutasmalltime-lagoroverlap.

So,atonelevel,Polybius’ownstatementscannotbeusedtodefinetheend-pointofAratus’narrative.AmoredetailedlookatPolybius’ownnarrativeofthe140thOlympiadmakesitalmostcertain,tomymind,thatPolybiuswasusingAratusasasourceafterthepointatwhichtheMemoirshavetraditionallybeenthoughttoend,andthattherelationshipbetweentheHistoriesandtheMemoirs,atleastwithinthisOlympiad,ismorecomplexthancontinuation.Toclarifythis,itwillbenecessarytotakeafairlydetailedlookattheaccountofAchaeanaffairsandtheSocialWaracrossBooks4and5,whicharebrokenupbyPolybiusinto3sections(Table1).

Toanticipateoneconclusion,furtherexaminationofthesethreesectionsshowseachofthemtobeofafundamentallyseparatenature.Thisemergesmostclearlyifweconsidertheminreverseorder.

Section3(Plb.5.91–105.3)Thelastandshortestofthethree(5.91.1–5.105.3)dealswiththeeventsoftheseasonof217fromearlysummer(theentranceofAratustotheAchaeanstrategia)downtothePeaceofNaupactusintheautumn,anddisplaysin(p.96)

Table1.AsummaryofaffairstreatedinBooks4and5Book4 1–2 Introduction:ReasonsforbeginningwithOlympiad140

13–37 OriginsoftheSocialWar:itscoursetillspring21938–52 SituationofByzantium;herWaragainstRhodesandBithynia53–55 EventsinCrete;CnossianHegemony;DestructionofLyttus56 MithridatesofPontosattacksSinope;RhodianHelp(?220)2a57–87 TheSocialWar:Eventsof219andfollowingwinter

Book5 2b1–30.7 TheSocialWar:eventsof21830.8–57 RevoltsinEgypt

Molon’srebellionagainstAntiochus(222–220)58–87 TheFourthSyrianWar(219–217)

ContemporaryeventsinAsiaMinor(79–87Antiochus’campaignsof217;BattleofRaphia)

88–90 TheRhodianEarthquake391–105.3 Campaignsof217inGreece:endoftheSocialWar105.4–10 EventsofGreece,Italy,andAfricalinkedtogether106–107 Eventsof217/16inGreece,EgyptandSyria108–111 ActivitiesofPhilipandPrusiasin217/16

microcosmthemovementthatistakingplaceintheHistoriesasawholeatthispoint:thesymploke,orweavingtogetherofdisparatestrands.13TheactivitiesofAchaeans(5.91–5),Aetolians(5.95–6),andMacedonians(5.97–101)aretoldinturn,culminatinginthesceneatArgos(5.101.6),whereRomeiswovenintoo.Forobviousreasons,thissection

oftheSocialWarnarrativedisplaystheleastunityoffocus.

TheAchaeanpart(5.91–5.95)hasadistinctlyofficialringtoit:inthelatterhalfofchapter91PolybiusprovidesaparaphraseofanAchaeandecree(δόγμα);14inchapter93theargumentsofadebateatMegalopolisoverfortificationsandconstitutionarerecalled(togetherwithAratus’contribution)andtheinscriptionoftheresolutionmentioned(5.93.10).Attheendofchapter94thenewsoffinancialsuccessonthehighseasprovokesthereactionthatthearmybecameconfidentofitspay,andthecitiesoftheirfinancialpositions,andsinceatthebeginningofthechapterAratushaddepartedtoasynodos,15itseemsmostplausibletoassumethatthereactionwasfeltatthatmeetingandthestoryrecountedinchapter94recordedintheofficialrecords.ThenarrativeoftheIllyrianandAetolianmovementsinchapter95mightalso(p.97) infactderivefromofficialAchaeansources.Thepatternissimilartothenarrativestructureofchapters91and92:hostileactivityfollowedbyAchaean(Aratus’)responses.Soinchapter95,hostileactivityisfollowedbyAchaeanresponses—weareeventoldthelocationofthestrategos(5.95.5),althoughhetakesnopartinthesubsequentaction.

ThesourcesforthetwostoriesabouttheAetoliansinchapter96areunrecoverable.TheepisodesarelinkedbytheinvolvementinbothoftheAetolianstrategosAgetas;thebiasiscertainlyanti-Aetolian,butthiscould,ofcourse,bePolybius’owncontribution.

TheactivitiesofPhiliponhiswaydownthroughThessalyandcentralGreece(chapters97–101)areperhapstobeattributedtooneofthe‘writersofmonographsonPhilip’thatPolybiusispresumedtohaveturnedtofromtimetotime.16Philip’smovementsandtheirtimingsarerecordedwithsomeattentiontodetail(e.g.5.97.3–5,5.100.1,5.100.4),thoughspicedupwithcharacteristicPolybiandidactic(5.98.1–11).In5.101.5PhilipfinallyarrivesinArgosfortheNemeangames,perhapsinJuneorJuly,where,aswehavealreadybeentold,Aratuswaswaiting(5.95.5).17Thus,whenthenewsoftheRomandefeatatTrasimenearrivedandPhilipsoughtadvicefromhisphiloi,Aratuswasamongthem.Indeed,fromthedescriptionofthemeetingandPhilip’sreaction,Aratus’adviceemergesasthecatalystfortheking’sdesiretonegotiate(5.102.2–4).TheAchaeanstrategoshasresumedhisplacecentre-stageatthiskeysceneintheHistories,evenupstagingthecolourfulDemetrius,whohadbeenfirsttohearthenewsfromPhilip.

Section2(Plb.4.57–87and5.1–30.7)ThisconcentrationonAratusandhisinfluenceovertheyoungkingwasthesubjectofadetailedstudybyR.M.Errington,whoidentifiesthissame‘Arato-centric’biasascentraltomuchoftheactionofthesecondmainsectionontheSocialWar.Hisconclusions,brieflysummarized,areasfollows.ALeitmotivofthissectionofthenarrativeisthefeudingamongPhilip’sadvisers,culminatinginthedemiseofthreekeyMacedonians:Apelles,Leontius,andMegaleas.‘ThispoliticalcrisisandtheeventsleadinguptoitareseenbyPolybiusthroughtheeyesofAratusandtheAchaeans.AchaeathereforeplaysacentralpartinPolybius’account,anddevelopmentswithintheMacedoniangoverningcliquetendtobeinterpretedinthelightoftheireffectonAratusorAchaea.ThisisveryclearwhereAratusorhissonarepersonallyinvolved:(p.98) forAratussawhimselfcompetingwiththeseMacedoniannoblesforPhilip’sattention,wasthereforehostile

towardsthemostinfluentialofthemandpronetoexaggeratehisownsuccess.’18ThiscentralityofAratuscanbeobservedtimeandagainatcriticalpointsinthestory.At4.76AratusscoresavictoryagainstApellesinthematterofthetreatmentofAchaeantroops.PhilipisforcedtodecidebetweenAratusandApelles,andchoosestheformer.IntheelectionsfortheAchaeanstrategiainthefollowingyear(218)thehostilitybetweenthetwobreaksoutagain,andAratusisequated,bysomerathershamelessflattery,withthegreatnessandfreedomofAchaea(4.82.2–3).LaterthatyearatDyme,followingtheplotbyApellestodiscreditAratus,thelatterincreasedhisstandingstillfurther(4.86.8).

WhenheexperiencestroublecoaxingmoneyfromtheAchaeantreasury,PhilipdropsApelles’andLeontius’stoogestrategos,Eperatus,andapproachesAratusforhelpinstead,andobtainsit(5.1.9–10).Again,atCephallenia,wherePhilipmustchoosewhethertosailnorth(Aratus’advice)orsouth(Leontius’advice),thekingfavourstheAchaean(5.5.10).TherefollowsasimilarclashbetweenLeontiusandAratusattheAchelouswithasimilarresult(5.7.4–5).ButforAratus,weareledtobelieve,Philip’sglorioussuccessatThermumwouldneverhavehappened.TheaffairreachesitsculminationatThermum,whereMegaleasisfinedandimprisonedforanassaultonAratus,andPolybiussummarizestheaffairquiteexplicitlyat5.16.9–10:

ThustheplotofApellesandLeontiusturnedoutquitecontrarytotheiroriginalhopes:fortheyhadthoughtthat,byterrifyingAratusandisolatingPhilip,theycoulddowhateverwasintheirinterests;buttheresultwasquitetheopposite.19

ForErringtonthiscentralityofAratusinMacedonianaffairsisamirage;theconceitoftheAchaeanstatesmanwhowashimselfmerelythepawnofthecalculatingyoungking:‘Hisown[Aratus’]claimstoinfluenceatcourt,retailedfaithfullybyPolybius,wereunrealisticwhennotwhollyfalse.’20Whetherornotweacceptthisextremeviewofthetruthofthestory,thebiasoftheaccountremainsobvious.21PolybiusmostcertainlydoeshavehisinformationfromanAchaean,pro-Arateansource.Thequestion,then,iswhatmightthissourcebe?Erringtondoesnotcommithimself:‘AlthoughAratus’MemoirsendedbeforePolybius’fourthbookbegins(Pol.I.3.2;IV.2.1),thequantityof(p.99) informationaboutAratus(andbiasinhisfavour)isnotappreciablylessafter220.ThismayreflectanArateanfamilyrecord:AchaeastillhadapoliticallyactiveAratusin180whowasassociatedwithPolybius…’.22Arewethentoacceptthisviewofafamilyhistory,oristhereanotherpossibility?

Theanswerlies,Ibelieve,inastillcloserexaminationofthiscentralportionoftheSocialWarnarrativeandtheeventsthatframeit.ForthevastmajorityoftheaccountthefocusremainsfixedfirmlyonPhilip.23Thescenerychangesatrapidspeed,butthekingisalwaysthere.Hisactivitiesarenarratedinextraordinarydetail.PhiliparrivesatCorinthunexpectedlyintheheartofwinter.Acloseindicationofdateisgiven:περὶτροπὰςχειμερινάς(4.67.7),thewintersolstice(around22December219).FromthispointonuntilearlyFebruaryofthefollowingyear(4.87.13)Philip’smovementscanbeaccountedforonalmosteveryday.Ireconstructthesemovements,taking22Decemberasastartingdateexempligratia,inAppendix1.ThesequenceendsattheendofBook4

asPhilipdismisseshistroopstoMacedonia.Book5picksupverymuchwherethepreviousbookleftoff:5.1.1beginswithasimilarlyclosedating:περὶτὴντη̑ςΠλειάδοςἐπιτολήν—around22May218.Afterabriefstutter,wecanagainaccountforPhilip’smovementsdaybydayfromaroundthebeginningofJuneuntilearlyJuly(5.2.11–5.24.10).AreconstructionofthissequencewithsomeexempligratiadatesappearsasAppendix2.

Suchprecisionofdatingoversolongaspan(over40chapters,coveringsome60days)isunparalleledanywhereelseinthesurvivingtextofPolybius.Thereismorethanjustchronologicaldetailthatunifiesthissectionofthenarrative,however.WhenPhilipfirstarrivedatCorinthinDecember219,oneofhisfirstactionswastosendforAratus(4.67.8).AttheendofthecampaigninthePeloponneseinthefollowingyear,welearnthatPhilip’sreactiontothehonoursbeingpaidtoApelleswasnotgood,becauseAratuswasalwaysathissideworkingawayonhisownbehalf.24

AratuswasPhilip’sconstantcompanion.Evenwerewenotgivensuchexplicitstatementofthefact,itwouldbeevidentfromthenarrativealone.Throughoutthecampaignofwinter219/18Aratuswaspresent:hewasonhandtodealwithApelles’insultstotheAchaeantroops(4.76.8–9);hewasclearlypresentoncampaignatElis,thelocationofhissupposedplotwithAmphidamus(4.84.8).25Inthecampaignofspring/summer218,Aratuswas(p.100) presentatCephalleniatoadvisetheking(5.5.8)ashewasattheRiverAchelous(5.7.4)andatthesackofThermum(5.12.5).HewaspresenttobeassaultedonthenightofPhilip’sreturntohisshipsatLimnaea(5.15).InthePeloponnesiansectionofthecampaign,heturnsupatAmyclaeleadingtheMacedonianphalanx(5.23.6).Finally,afterhisabortivePhocianexpedition,PhiliplandedatSicyonandtakingupresidencewithAratushepassedallhistimewithhim.26

AratuswasconstantlyinPhilip’spresencethroughoutthesecampaigns.Thus,Polybius’sourcecouldaccuratelylocatenotonlythekingoneverydayduringthisperiodbutalsotheAchaeanstatesmanandwriter.Thiswemightreadilyattributetocoincidence,wereitnotforthefactthatthisisalsothesectionofnarrativethatwasclearlyidentifiedbyErringtonaspro-Arateaninitsbias.WemoveinexorablytotheconclusionthatPolybius’sourceforthissectionofhisnarrativemusthavebeenAratushimself.27

Section1(Plb.4.3–37)Thematterofthesourcesforsection2lookslikeanopen-and-shutcase,andwemightthereforeexpectthefirstsectionoftheSocialWarnarrativetodemonstrateasimilarappearance.Intriguingly,thisturnsoutnottobethecase.ThisfirstsectionishighlycomplexandappearsmarkedlydifferentfromtheobviouslyArateanmiddlesection.Foreaseofdiscussion,Ishallfurtherbreakdownthefirstsectionintothreesubsections,takingasmydividinglinesPolybius’ownschemeofdivision:thepointsatwhichthecausesofthewarstopandthewaritselfstarts.Thethreesubdivisionsthusformedrunfrom(a)4.3.1–4.13.7,(b)4.14.1–4.25.8,and(c)4.26.1–4.37.7,andtheirpositioninthePolybiansystemofcausation28isoutlinedinTable2.

Thefirstandlastofthesesubsections([a]and[c])arethemoststraightforwardandsoit

iseasiesttostartwiththem.Thefirstofthese(a)isexplicitlydividedfromtherestofthenarrativebyPolybiushimselfatthebeginning(‘thecausesofthis[sc.theSocialWar]wereasfollows’)andend(‘suchwasthecauseandpretextoftheSocialWar’).29Inbetweenthesetwo‘bookends’(p.101)

Table2.SummaryofthefirstsectionoftheSocialWarNarrativeSubsection Nature(a) 4.3.1–4.13.7 Aitiaiandprophaseis.Pro-Aratean(b) 4.14.1–4.25.8: Muddle.Twoprincipalsources(c) 4.26.1–4.37.7 Archai.Heterogeneous

comesastraightforwardnarrativeaccountoftheeventsfromthearrivalofDorimachusatPhigaleiaandtheactivitiesoftheAetoliansinthespringof220,tothedefeatoftheAchaeansatCaphyae,somedays(τιναςἡμέρας)beforetheAchaeansynodosofaroundlateJulyorearlyAugustinthesameyear.30Ofthemselves,theeventsdetailedinthissubsectioncausefewproblemsandneednottroubleusfurtherforthetimebeing.Asfarasthesourcesareconcerned,thereareoneortwotell-talehints.InthebackgroundtotheAetolian–Messenianhostilityanimpressiveamountoflocaldetailisdeployed.31Polybius’sourcewaswellinformedonlocalmatters.Later,asweentertheAchaeansphere,afamiliarbiasputsinitsfirstappearance.Aratus,anxioustodosomethingabouttheevilAetolians,takesthestrategiafivedaysearlierthanusual(4.7.10:notethespecificnumberofdays).WithAratus’accessiontothestrategiaacertainprecisionstartstoappearinthenarrative.Themovementsandcounter-movementsoftheAchaeanandAetolianarmiesarerecorded.Therearetwofurtherpreciseindicationsoftime.32ThedescriptionofthebattleofCaphyaehasproveddetailedandaccurateenoughtoallowidentificationofthebattle-sitetobemade.33Butperhapsmosttellingofallisthecodatothissection—thedescriptionofthesubsequentAchaeanassembly.ThedefeatofCaphyaebecomesafoilforthedisplayofloyaltytoAratusbytheassembledAchaeans:

Thecrowdquicklyandgenerouslyreversedtheiropinionandwereconsiderablydispleasedwiththoseofhisenemieswhohadattackedhim,andinsubsequentaffairstheyacceptedAratus’adviceinallthings.34

OncemoreitbecomestemptingtoattributethissortofaccounttoAratushimself.IfthedefeatofCaphyaewaspresentinAratus’Memoirs,itshouldnotsurpriseus,foritpavedthewaytoAratus’greatergloryattheveryend(p.102) ofthe139thOlympiad.35Thepicture,then,forsubsection(a)isofalocalPeloponnesiansource,inplacesdetailed,withpro-Arateanbias.Aratusisastrongpossibilityfortheentireaccount.Ishallcallthisthepro-Arateansource.

Subsection(c)isamorefragmentedaffair,butunityisprovidedbythehistorianhimself.Itsbeginning,forPolybius,marksthebeginning(ἀρχή)oftheSocialWar:

Withthepassageofthisdecreeinthefirstyearofthe140thOlympiadtheso-calledSocialWarbeganinamannerbothjustandappropriatetothecrimesthathad

beencommitted.36

Thereaderisinanycasewellpreparedforthisdivision,forhehasbeenwarnedofitalready,whenthediscussionofαἰτίαιcametoaclosetwelvechaptersearlierattheendofsubsection(a):Plb.4.13.6.

Attheendofthecampaigningseasonof220ameetingofthesymmachyhadvotedtodeclarewarontheAetolians(Plb.4.25).Now,atthebeginningofsubsection(c),envoysaresenttoeachstaterequestingaformalvoteforwarandPhilipdispatchesalettertotheAetolians(4.26.1–4).Subsection(c)describesthereactionsofthevariousmajorplayerstotheseevents.FirstthemeetingoftheAchaeanLeagueratifyingthedecreeofthesymmachy(4.26.7–8),nextthedecreeoftheAetoliansattheirautumnmeetingstatingthattheywerenotgoingtowar(4.27.1–3).ThencomePhilip’sownarrangements(4.27.9–29.7).Finally,thereceptionoftheenvoysisthemotifusedtounifytheaccountsofreactionsatAcarnania(4.30.1–5),Epirus(4.30.6–8),Messenia(4.31.1–2),andSparta(4.34.1–36.6).

Thenarrativeofsubsection(c)iswhollygivenovertodiplomacy.Thesourcesforthesevariouseventsmaywellbeasvariedasthegeographicallocations.TheoverallimpressionisofacollectionofheterogeneousepisodeslinkedtogetherbyPolybiususingthediplomaticmotif.Thechronologyinallcasesisleftvague,abroadterminuspostquembeingprovidedbytheautumnmeetingoftheAchaeanLeague,aroundtheautumnalequinox(4.26.7).37Thetwosynchronisms(4.28.1and4.37.1–7)confirmthisdateandofferaterminusantequemofaroundMay219.38

(p.103) Now,whenweturntosubsection(b)ofthefirstsectionofPolybius’SocialWarnarrative,ourfirstquestionmustbeabluntone:whatisthis?Aswehaveseen,subsection(a)containedthecauses(αἰτίαι)forthewar,amongwhichPolybiusminglesthepretexts(προφάσειςorἀφορμαί);39thebeginningofsubsection(c),thatistosaythedecreeofthesymmachy,markedthebeginning(ἀρχή).AsfarasthePolybianrhetoricofoutbreakofwarsisconcernedthen,subsection(b)fallsinnoman’sland.Thisisnottheonlyproblemcausedbysubsection(b),however.Pédech,inabriefexaminationofthissection,hasraisedsometroublingquestionsaboutitslogic.IftheactionsoftheAetoliansthatprecedethissectionaretheαἰτίαιandπροφάσεις,howisthefactthattheMacedoniansandEpirotsseetheseactionsasnothingmorethanpiracytobereconciled?Bothofthesepowersinfactvotetoremainatpeaceatthisstage(4.16.1–3).WhatwasitthatchangedPhilip’smindandcausedhimtoappearsuddenlyatCorinthwithanarmy(4.22.2)?HowhasAratusbecomeakeyadvisertoPhilipbythetimehearrivesatSparta(4.24.3)?AsfaraseditorialPolybiusisconcerned,thequestionofcauseshasbeenresolvedsincethebattleofCaphyaeinsubsection(a).Thenarrativethatfollowsbetraysaninconsistencyandabsenceofcrucialfact.40

Mattersbecomemorecomplicatedagainoncloserexaminationofthenatureofthenarrativeinsubsection(b).FirstcomestheaccountofAratus’successattheLeaguemeeting,which,asnotedabove,seemstoformaunitwiththenarrativeofsection(a)thatprecedesit.ThisdescriptionoftheLeaguemeetingends,quitestrikingly,inaprecise

datingoftheendoftheOlympiad(4.14.9).Itissostrikinginfact,thatsomehavedoubteditsauthenticity.41However,giventhecarethatPolybiustakesoverhisOlympiaddateselsewhere,42thisseemsanunnecessarilyboldreactionhere.Rather,wemustassumethatPolybiushadverygoodreasonsforplacinghisdateatthisexactpoint,theobviousreasonforthisbeingthathehadprecisedatesbothforwhatprecededandwhatfollowedthisdate.Polybius’pro-ArateansourcespecificallydatedAratus’triumphintheassembly(orpermittedPolybiusto).Thedecreethatfollows(4.15.1–4)wasundoubtedlyalsoclearlydated.43Butthereismoretothisdatethansimplechronologicalinterest,foritmarksthefirstpointatwhichadivergencefromtheprecedingnarrativesource(subsection[a])canclearlybeidentified.ThismightbeexplainedawaysimplyasPolybius’desireto(p.104) supplementhisone-sidednarrativewithofficialrecords,wereitnotforthefactthatitisalsothepointwherePolybius’ownnarrativestartstoloseitscoherence.

Tobeginwith,thereisthefundamentalirreconcilabilityoftheaccountoftheAetoliancampaigndescribedinsubsection(a)withthatdescribedashavingfolloweditinsubsection(b).Theconfusedaccountsofthesetwopurportedcampaignshavetendedtoobfuscatethefactthataproblemexists.ItmaybeperceivedmostclearlybyconsideringthemovementsoftheAetoliancommanderDorimachusandhistroopsimpliedinthesetwosubsections.

Inthespringof220,beforethefirstsynodosoftheAetolianLeague,DorimachusisinAetoliaplottingwithScopas.AtthispointtheysendoutprivateerstoravagethePeloponnese.FollowingthemeetingDorimachusgatherstheentireAetolianarmy(pandemei)andcrossestheCorinthianGulfatRhium.TheAetoliansmovesouthviaPatrae,Pharae,Tritaea,andPhigaliabeforeinvadingMessenia.WhenthreatenedbytheAchaeanarmy,Dorimachusmarchesfirstnorth-easttoOlympia,beforeencampingatMethydriuminArcadia.FromherehemarchesnorthagainpastOrchomenustoCaphyae,wherehedefeatsAratusinbattle.TheAetoliansnextmakeanassaultonPellene,plundertheterritoryofSicyon,beforetakingthecircuitousrouteviatheIsthmusbackhometoAetolia.BythetimetheyreachedThermum,Dorimachusandhistroopshadmarchedmorethan1,000kilometres,foughtamajorbattleandanumberofskirmishes,ravagedtheterritoryofseveralcities,andspentaweekatminimumterrorizingtheMessenians.44OnPolybius’chronology,theyhadcompletedthissubstantialcampaignbetweenthespringmeeting(precisedateuncertain)oftheAetolianLeagueandthethirdmeetingoftheAchaeanLeague(lateJuly/earlyAugust).But,onPolybius’account,Dorimachuswasnotfinishedfortheyear.Insubsection(b)weencouterhimnegotiatingforthebetrayalofthecityofCynaethainArcadia.OncemoretheAetoliansinvadethePeloponnese,againpandemei.AftersackingCynaetha,theAetolianarmymarchesviaLusitoCleitorbeforeeventuallyreturningtoAetolia,thistimeapparentlybysea.ThelatesummerinvasionofthePeloponnesehadinvolvedamarchofnolessthan350kilometres,andmustfitbetweenthethirdmeetingoftheAchaeanLeagueinlateJuly/AugustandtheAetolianautumnmeeting.

Thisnarrative,whichpositstwoAetolianinvasionsofthePeloponnesepandemeiwithin

onecampaigningseason,thesecondnotcommencinguntilAugust,lookshighlyquestionable,ifnotsimplyimpossible.Inadditiontothisfundamentalhistoricalimplausibility,thereisaspecificchronologicalproblem.ImmediatelyfollowingtheAchaeanLeagueassemblyatthetimeofthe(p.105) Olympicgames(July/August),thereoccursanaccountofτη̑ςκαθηκούσηςἐκκλησίαςoftheAetolianLeague(4.15.8),‘anexpressionwhichprobably,butforotherevidence,wouldbetakenbyeverybodytomeanaregularmeeting’.45However,accordingtotheorthodoxview,therewereonlytworegularmeetingsoftheAetolianLeague,oneinthespringandoneintheautumn.Sincethisonemustoccurinthefirstyearofthe140thOlympiad(4.14.9),itoughttobetheautumnmeeting.However,theautumnmeetingisclearlythatdescribedat4.27.1–3,whentheAetolianelectionstakeplace.Thestandardexplanationofthemeetingat4.15.8–11hasbeen,sinceHolleaux,thatitwasanextraordinarymeetingandthattheapparentmeaningofthewordκαθηκούσης(‘regular’or‘customary’)cannotbetrusted.46

Thisisclearlyspecialpleading,andthereisanother,simplerexplanationwhichitisworthexploring:thattheAetolianmeetingrecordedat4.15.8–11andthatat4.27.1–3areboththesameevent.Infact,Polybius’accountsofthetwomeetingsmakethemsoundsimilar.Thecentraldecisionofbothmeetingsisidentical:inthefirstεἰρήνηνἄγειν(4.15.8),inthesecondμὴπολεμειν̑(4.27.2).Thedifferentinterests(inthefirsttheAchaeandecisionregardingtheMessenians;inthesecondtheelectionofScopas)maybeexplainedasaproductoftheinterestsofthedifferentsourcesPolybiushadforthesemeetings.47YetwhydidPolybiussituatethetwoaccountsthus?HowcouldhehavemissedthefactthathewasrelatingaccountsofthesameAetolianassemblyattwodifferentpointsinhisnarrative?Theanswerisperhapstwofold.First,thereisthesubject-matter:theAetolian‘Messenian’meetingfollowsdirectlyondiscussionofAchaean-Messenianrelations(4.15.2–7).The‘election’meetingcomesattheappropriatepointforAetolianelections,adatewithwhichPolybiuswasfamiliar(4.37.2).Thesecondpartoftheanswermaybestructural:inbothcases,Polybiusdescribesthemeetingsinpairs.In4.15,asin4.26.7–4.27.2,AetolianassemblyispairedwithAchaean,asifinanswertoit.ThusPolybiuscameuponthemeetingdescribedin4.15.8–11inhissourceeitheralreadypairedwiththerelevantAchaeanmeetingandleftitthere,ormadetheconnectionhimself.

Iftheabovesuggestioniscorrect,thenPlb.4.15.8–11providesthefirstevidencethatPolybiushadtwosourcesforthisyear,whichoverlappedintheinformationtheyprovided.SupportforthisradicalproposalcomeswiththeaccountofAchaeanactivitiesinthetwomonthsbetweentheirthirdandfourthassemblies,andtheaccountofthesecondAetolianinvasion.At4.15.(p.106) 6–7.theAchaeanstrategos(Aratus)enrollsthelevy.Itislateintheseasonforenrollinganewarmy(probablyaroundmid-August),yetthisshouldnottroublethereader,sincePolybiusclaimsthatthisisbeingdone‘accordingtothedecree’(κατὰτὸδόγμα:4.15.6).Butacloserlookatthetextshowsthatthisisjustnottrue.ThedecreepassedbytheAchaeansat4.15certainlydoesprovideforthelevyingofsuchaforce,butitdoessoonacondition—ἐὰνἐπιβαίνωσινΑἰτωλοὶτη̑ςχώραςαὐτω̑ν(theMessenians).Atthispointintime,accordingtotheearliernarrative(4.13.5)theAetolianshavereturnedhomeviatheIsthmus,sothelevyprovidedforbythe

decreeshouldnothavebeentriggered.Again,whenwefindtheAchaeanlevyalreadycomplete(4.16.6),itisonlythenthattheIllyrianssetsail,probablynowinmid-to-lateAugust.TheAetoliansstilldonotinvadeatthispoint,however:itisnotuntilScerdilaidashassailedhalfwayroundthePeloponneseandbackagainthattheAetoliansfinallydecidetoattack(4.16.10).WemustnowbeinlateAugustattheveryearliest,andagainthequestionoftimingcomesup.Asalreadynoted,itisscarcelycrediblethattheAetolianscommencedanexpeditionwiththeirentirearmy(πανδημεί:4.16.11),theirsecondof220,thislateintheyear.WhenweencountertheAchaeanlevyforthethirdtime(4.19.1),sometimeafterwehaveheardthatitwasalreadycompleted(4.16.6),Aratusisstillenrollingit(4.19.1—συνη̑γε).Finally,wemustquestiontherationaleoftheAetolians’expedition.TheycrosstoAchaea,attackCynaetha,marchtoCleitor,thenbacktoCynaetha,andthenrunscaredtoRhiumwheretheycrossbacktoAetolia.InthemeantimetheAchaeanlevyaboutwhichwehavebeentoldatlengthisnowheretobeseen.Thereisonlytheapologeticstatementat4.19.11–12thatAratuswastooworriedbyhisrecentdefeattodoanything.TherethenfollowsalengthydigressionontheCynaetheans(4.19.13–4.21.12),beforethemysteriousappearanceofPhilipatCorinth.

Whatistobemadeofthismuddle?Itshouldbenotedthatthenarrativeofsubsection(b)coversthecrucialperiodofAratus’andPhilip’srapprochement.Sincewehearnothingaboutit,itseemsasafebetthatthesourcethatPolybiuswasusingherewasnotAratus,andthereforeprobablynotthesamesourcethatheusedforthenarrativeofsubsection(a)—afurtherindicationthattherearenowtwosourcesinplay.

TheresolutionofthemuddleoverAchaeanandAetolianactivitiesinthelatterpartof220hinges,Iwouldsuggest,onthefactthatPolybiuswasnowusingtwosources.JustasthesetwosourcesoverlappedontheAetolianautumnassembly,sotootheytoldslightlydifferentversionsofthesamemilitaryoperations.Themilitaryactivitiesrelatedin4.16.6–4.19.12inpartduplicatethosealreadynarratedinsubsection(a)(4.3.1–4.13.7).Thereisanobvioussimilarityinthepatternofevents(Table3).

ThereasonforPolybius’confusionbecomesclearonexaminationoftheendingandbeginningoftherespectiveaccounts.Inthepro-Arateanversionofsubsection(a),themainmilitaryeventwasthebattleofCaphyae.The(p.107)

Table3.StructuralsimilaritiesintheaccountsofthetwoAetoliancampaignsof220Subsection(a) Subsection(b)

Firstcampaign(Caphyae) Secondcampaign(Cynaetha)Dorimachus,Scopas,andfriendsarrangehostilitieswithoutofficialsanctionfromAristonandtheassembly(4.5.1–10)

Agelaus,Dorimachus,andScopasarrangehostilitieswhilestateisofficiallyatpeace;Aristonremainsathome(4.16.11–17.1)

Aetolianssendoutπειρατάς,whoreturntoAetoliaanddisposeofbootycapturednearCythera(4.6.1)

ScerdilaidasandDemetriussetsailaroundPeloponnese.AtsomepointbetweenPylosandtheCycladesScerdilaidasturnsbackandarrivesatAetolia.ArrangesbootydistributionandagreestoinvadeAchaea.(4.16.6–10)

DorimachusandScopastheninvadePeloponneseviaRhium(4.6.7–8)

AccountofAetolianmilitaryactivityinAchaea(4.16.11–4.19.12)

Aetolians,havingbeatentheAchaeanarmy,andwithoutanyformofpursuit,advancedthroughthemiddleofthePeloponnesemakinganattemptonPelleneandplunderingtheterritoryofSicyon,beforedepartingoftheirownaccord.TheAetolians,thankstotheblunderofAratus,hadAchaeaattheirmercybutjustwentstraighthomebywayoftheIsthmus,eventhoughPolybiushaspreviouslyexplainedthatDorimachus’planhadbeentoengagetheAchaeanssothathemightembarkatRhium(4.10.8).Thisaccountissuspiciousinitself.OnturningtotheopeningofthenarrativeofAetolianactivitiesinthe‘second’campaignthough,wefindthatthereisnorecordoftheAetolianscrossingovertothePeloponneseagain.Polybiusplungesthereaderinmediasres:‘Dorimachus,havingmarchedacrossAchaea,appearedsuddenlybeforeCynaetha.’48

WherehadDorimachuscomefrom?PlainlythereissomethingamissinPolybius’accounthere.However,ifweassumethatatthispoint(4.17.3)PolybiushaspickedupanaccountofthesameexpeditionastheCaphyaeexpedition,containingeventsafterthebattle,allbecomesclear.WhencaughtbyAratusatCaphyaeDorimachuswasontheroadfromOrchomenusacrossOlygyrtustoAmilus(4.11.5),whencehehadthechoiceofproceedingeithertoStymphalusortoPheneus.49ForDorimachusPheneusshouldhavebeentheobviousnextdestinationwhereverhewantedtogointhenorthernPeloponnese(includingPellene):itformedthecrossroadsformanyoftheroutesthroughthispartofthecountry.50FromhereDorimachusmusthave(p.108) takentheroadnorth-easttoPellene(4.13.5),madeafeinttowardsSicyon(ibid.)beforereturninginthegeneraldirectionofhisfleetviaPheneusagain.Polybius’claimatthispoint(ibid.)thattheAetoliansnowleftviatheIsthmuswillbeanincorrectinferencenecessitatedbythebreak-offofhisCynaethasourceatthispoint,andderivedfromtheapparentdirectionDorimachuswastravelling.FromhereDorimachusthentookthenorth-westroadtoCynaetha.Itisatthispointthatthesecondaccountpickshimup(4.17.3).FromhereDorimachusmarchedsouthtoCleitorthenbackagain(4.18.9–12,4.19.2–4),receivingwordatthispointofstirringsinMacedonia,andstruckoutacrosscountrytoRhium(4.19.6),preciselyashehadpreviouslyplanned(4.10.8).

TheproblemoftheAchaeanleviessolvesitselfifweacceptthattherewasonlyoneAetolianinvasionin220.Theremustpresumablyhavebeentwolevies:oneearlyintheyear(firstdescribedat4.9.1);thesecondfollowingtheAchaeanassemblyinthewakeofCaphyae.Thesetwoleviessharedoneimportantaspect:theproperparticipationofSpartaandMesseniawasanissue.AtthetimeofthefirstassemblytherewasclearlyconcernamongtheAchaeanstatesthatMesseniashouldcontinuetoplayherpart—hencetherequiredhostages(4.9.5);similarlyPolybiusmakesapointofexplainingthat

theSpartanswereparticipatingaccordingtotheiralliancewiththeAchaeanLeague(4.9.6).ThatitwasstillanissueatthetimeofthesecondlevyisclearfromthetermsofthedecreepassedatthethirdAchaeanassembly.51

Giventhesimilarityoftheprevailingconcerns,itwasalltooeasytoconfuseundatedaccountsofthetwoseparatelevies,andthisiswhatPolybiusdid.Eventhoughthelogicofhisownaccountshouldnothaveallowedforalevyimmediatelyuponthepassageofthedecree,hewasluredintoassumingonebythedesireforneatness:thedecreeprovidedforthesendingofambassadorsandtheholdingofalevy(ifeveritwerenecessary);theambassadorsweredulysentandthusalevywasalsoheld.However,sinceatthispointinthetext(4.15.5–6)Polybiuswasmovingbackinsourcefromofficialrecordstonarrativeaccount,hewasforcedtocastaroundamonghisnarrativesourcestofindtheappropriatelevy.Hefoundwhathethoughtwasthecorrectlevyinthe‘Cynaetha’source;unfortunately,thiswasinfactthefirstlevyoftheyear,sinceinthe‘Cynaetha’sourceitmusthaveprecededthearrivaloftheIllyrianandAetolianexpedition.Thusitisalsothefirstlevythatisbeingdescribedat4.16.6.ThethirdmentionoftheAchaeanlevyinthe‘Cynaetha’source(4.19.1),ashasbeennoted,contradictsthispreviousone.However,ifweassumethat,asitsplaceinthenarrative(aftertheAetolianmovetoCleitor)requires,thisisareferencetothesecondlevy,thecontradictionvanishes.

(p.109)

Table4.Thepro-ArateanCaphyaeandtheCynaethasourcescompared220BC

Subsection(a):Caphyae Subsection(b)Cynaetha

A AchaeanLevy(1)(16.6)B PrivateerssentoutbyDorimachusand

Scopas(6.1)B TheIllyrianprivateerssail

aroundthePeloponnese(16.6–8)

April–May

C TheyreturntoAetoliawithcapturedMacedonianshipanddividebooty(6.1)

C ScerdilaïdasreturnstoAetoliaandarrangesdistributionofbooty(16.9)

D PrivateerssendforcethroughPeloponnesetoClariumDorimachusandScopasinvadewithAetoliantroops(6.3–12)

D CombinedprivateerandlandforcesinvadePeloponnese(16.10)

A AchaeanLevy(1)(7.1–10)June–July

E TheCaphyaeCampaign(9.1–13.3)

Aug–Sept

F DorimachusmovesnorththroughthePeloponnese(13.4)

F DorimachusmovesnorththroughthePeloponnese(17.3)

G TheCynaethaCampaign(17.4–21.12)

H Aetolianautumnmeeting(15.8) H Aetolianautumnmeeting(27.1)

ToclarifythesuggestionIammakingaboutthesetwosources,ItabulatethemainpointsinthetwoaccountsinTable4.Thefirstsource,the‘pro-Aratean’Caphyaeaccount,ranfromthestartoftheyear220downtotheendofthe139thOlympiad(?lateJuly/August220).The‘Cynaethean’sourceshowedlittleinterestinanythingotherthanwhathappenedintheneighbourhoodofCynaethaandCleitor.Thisfocus,togetherwiththesimilaramountofdetailinthestoryoftheAetolianattackonAegeira(4.57.2–58.12),maywellpointtoaregionalnorthern-Achaeansourcehere.

Forthe‘pro-Aratean’source,weareconfrontedwiththeinterestingquestionofwhyitstoppedwiththeAchaeanassemblymeetingattheendoftheOlympiad.Onepossibleanswerisbynowobvious:thatitwasherethattheMemoirsofAratusstopped.Thechronologywasright,sowasthemoment.ThereasonfortheabsenceofAratus’diplomacytowardsPhilipisexplainedtoo.Aratus’Memoirswerenolongeravailable,andAratus’inactivitywhiletheAetolianscontinuedtoravagethePeloponneseensuredthatthestrategoskeptalowprofileeveninfriendlysources.PolybiushimselfwasforcedtoapologizeforAratus’inactivity(4.19.11–12).ConfirmationoftheabsenceofanyaccountbyAratusofthisperiodcomesintheaccountofPhilip’sspeechatSparta(4.24.1–3).PolybiuscannotsayoutrightthatAratusadvisedPhiliptospeakashedid.HeisforcedtoassumethatamongPhilip’sadvisers‘itistoAratusthatonemightmostplausiblyattributetheopinionexpressedbythe(p.110) king’.52TheinferenceisperhapsmadeonthebasisofwhatPolybiusknewofthesubsequenthistoryofthetwomen,andseemsaclearindicationthathedidnothaveexplicittestimonyashedidforepisodesinthecentralsectionoftheSocialWarnarrative.

Subsection(b)closeswiththemeetingofthesymmachyatCorinth—againwiththecuriousabsenceofAratus(4.25.1–8).Thesource,itturnsout,isanotherdecree.53Theorderofeventsintheprefacetothedecreecouldhavehelpedlittleinthecorrectnarrationofevents.Thelistisincomplete,Pylosischronologicallymisplaced,andtheattackonMegalopolisobscure.54

Ifthisiscorrect,thenwecanseethatwhenhecametodealwiththisfirstsectionoftheSocialWar,Polybiusfacedacomplexproblem.HepossessedAratus’MemoirsdowntotheendoftheOlympiad,butthereafterwasreliantuponalocalAchaeanhistoryforanyothernarrativedetailandofficialdecreesforthedecisionsatthetwokeymeetingsoftheyear.Bothofthesedecreeswereimportedatpivotalpointsinthestory.Thefirstmarkedtheendofthecausesandpretexts(αἰτίαιandπροφάσεις)(a),aswellastheendofhisbestnarrativesource.Thesecondmarkedthebeginning(ἀρχή)ofthewarproperandthetransitionpointfromthebarelocalhistory(b)tothevariedsourcesof(c)thatweretobelinkedbythethemeofdiplomacy.Inbothcasesthecontentofthepivotaldecreesgavethestructurallinktowhatfollowed.Inthelattercase,thedecreeoftheambassadorsformedasmoothunifyingconnection;intheformerthedecreeofthelevy

ledPolybiusintoabadblunder.

ConclusionItseems,then,highlylikelythattheterminaldateofAratus’Memoirswas,asPolybius’owntestimonysuggests,preciselytheendofthe139thOlympiad(c.August220BC),concludingprobablywiththeassemblyoftheAchaeanLeaguethatcoincidedwithit.However,wehavealsonotedthatthesubsequentaccount,beginningaroundthewintersolsticeinDecember219BC,offersaday-by-dayaccountofAratus’and(Philip’s)activitiesfortwoperiods,bothinexcessofamonthinlength.ThesourceofthisaccountislikelytobeAratus,yetthisislongafteranyonehaspreviouslysoughttoplace(p.111)theendofAratus’Memoirsand,indeed,ayearafterPolybiushimselfseemstosuggestthattheyhadceased.

Thedailycharacterofthislatteraccountmayholdthesolutiontothisapparentcontradiction.Aratus’Hypomnemata,orpublished‘Memoirs’,mayhaveendedwiththe139thOlympiad,buthiscareerdidnot.Andnor,presumablydidtheephemeridesorjournalsinwhichastatesmanrecordedhisactivitiesonadailybasis.55Itwastotheselatterdocuments,ratherthanpublishedbooks,thatPolybiuswasabletoturnfortheeventsof219–218BC.

Aswehaveseen,itislikelythatPolybius’firstsourcefortheeventsof220cametoanendinAugust.Aratuswasnotactivemilitarilyafterthisevent,sofaraswecantell.CertainlyheisabsentfromtheaccountofeventsatCynaetha,andPolybiuscannotbecertainabouthisroleinPhilip’sactionsintheautumnofthisyear(4.24.3:seen.52above).ThisabsenceofAratusinthenarrativefromAugust220untilDecember219issurelytheclearestsignthatAratus’Memoirswereunavailableatthispoint.ButforPhilip’scampaignoflate219and218PolybiuswasabletodrawonAratus’unpublishedjournals.ThispatternofavailabilityperhapsexplainshowPolybiuswasabletomakesuchamessoftheaccountof220,yetprovidesuchadetailedaccountfortheeventsof219/18BC.

Thisfragmentationofsources,andthedisappearanceofAratus’MemoirsmayalsoservetoexplaintworemainingpuzzlesconcerningPolybius’broaderarticulationofhishistoriographicalproject.ThefirstoftheseconcernstheplaceoftheaccountoftheSocialWarwithintheHistoriesaswhole.Polybiushadbegunhisworkwithanintroduction,theπροκατασκευή(Books1and2),butdidnotregardthemainbodyofhisworkasbeginninguntilthepointatwhichtheaffairsofItaly,Greece,Africa,andAsiabecamefullyentwined,themomentofσυμπλοκή(interweaving),inthethirdyearofthe140thOlympiad,whenhistorybecameaunifiedwhole(σωματοειδής).56TheSocialWarfallsintoaninterimperiodbetweentheintroductoryBooks1and2andthismomentofsymplokelateinBook5.PolybiuswasclearlyconsciousofthetransitionalnatureofthecontentsofBooks3–5andanticipatedcriticismoftheapproachhetooktotheshortperiodtheycovered:

WereitthecasethatthefirstactivitiesofHannibalwereconnectedtoGreekaffairsfromthebeginning,clearlyIwouldhaveincludedthelatterinmypreviousbook

(Book3).…ButsincetheaffairsofItaly,Greece,andAsiaweresuchthat(p.112)thebeginningsofthewarstherewereparticulartoeachplace,whiletheirendswerecommontoall,IdecidedtogiveaseparateaccountofeachofthemuntilIreachedthepointatwhichtheseeventsbecameentwinedwithoneanotherandbegantomovetowardsasingleend.…ThissymplokecameaboutaroundtheendoftheSocialWarinthethirdyearofthe140thOlympiad.Therefore,afterthatdateIshallnarrateeventsincommonaccordingtochronologicalorder;butuptothatpoint,asIsaid,Ishallgiveseparateaccounts,onlycross-referringtothoseeventsthathavebeendescribedinthepreviousbook.57

SoconcernedwasPolybiusthatthereaderunderstandthisrationale,thatherepeatstheexplanationlaterinBook5:

Tomakemynarrativeeasytofollowandclear,IthinkitisessentialthatforthisOlympiad(the140th)Idonotinterweaveeventswitheachother,butkeepthemseparateanddistinguishthemfromoneanotherasmuchaspossible,untilinthefollowingOlympiadsIcanbegintonarratethingsinchronologicalorder.58

Polybiusclaimsthathewillpresenthisreaderswithaseparateaccountoftheeventsineachofthetheatres(Italy,Hellas,andAsia)immediatelyprecedingthemomentofσυμπλοκή.ThisisthehistoriographicalcontextofPolybius’narrativeoftheSocialWar.Orisit?For,nottenchaptersafterhehasmadeusthepromiseabouthisorganizationjustquoted,Polybiusbreaksit.Thereadermightlegitimatelyexpect,havingreadacompleteaccountoftheSecondPunicWardowntotheσυμπλοκή,tobepresentedwithacompleteaccountofGreekwarsandthenAsianwars,forPolybiusclearlydifferentiatesbetweenthetwoat4.28.3whenhemakesthepromise.However,whenitcomestotellingofGreekandAsianevents,thisisnotwhathappens.PolybiusdoesinterweavehisaccountsfortheentireOlympiad,asisclearfromTable1above.HisnarrativeoftheSocialWarisbrokendownintothreeseparatesectionsandinterleavedwithaccountsofeventsinAsiaMinorandtheSyriankingdom.

ThereasonforthisbrokenpromiseperhapsliesinthenatureofthesourcesPolybiushadathisdisposal,andmayperhapsbeconnectedtotheprominentplacethathegivestotheterminaldateofAratus’Memoirsinhisarticulation(p.113) ofastarting-point.FollowingtheendofAratus’accountatthecloseofthe139thOlympiad,therewasnocontinuousaccountofAchaeanaffairsthatPolybiuscouldtakeasasinglesource.Polybius’narrationoftheseeventswasbaseduponapatchworkofevidenceconsistingoflocalhistories,officialdocuments,andunpublishedjournals.Inthissense,therefore,itwasnecessaryforPolybiustobeginatthebeginningofthe140thOlympiad,becausetherewasnootherhistoricalaccountfortheeventsoftheseyears.

YetonecannothelpsuspectthattherewassomethingmoreinPolybius’emphasisonAratusthanjustthechronological.MixedthoughhisopinionofAratusmayhavebeen,oneaspectofAratus’MemoirshadobviousappealtoPolybius.Theyconstitutedapersonalaccount—howeverflawed—oftheeventstheydescribed.ForPolybius,theconceptsofautopsyandautopatheiawere,aswehaveseen,decisiveinhischoiceofhis

history’sstarting-point(4.2.2:quotedabove,n.4).ButbycastinghimselfasacontinuerofAratus,PolybiusalsoimplicitlycontrastedAratus’parochial,self-interestedMemoirswiththebroadersweepofhisownHistories.Polybiusdidnotjustfollow,hesuperseded.59

(p.114)

Appendix1:Philip’sCampaignsinDecember–January219(Plb.4.67–87)Tentativedate Event Reference22Dec. Philiparrivesunexpectedlyat

Corinth67.7–68.5

ShutsgatesandsendsforelderAratusLeavesCorinthandencampsnearPhliusEuripidasmarchesonSicyononsamenight

23Dec. PhilipunawarebreakscampandheadsforCaphyae

68.6–69.9

HappensuponEleansandisvictorious

24Dec. MarchesthroughOlygyrtusinSnow

25Dec. ArrivesatCaphyae 70.126Dec. RestsatCaphyae 70.227Dec. RestsatCaphyae 70.228Dec. SetsoutforPsophisthrough

Cleitor70.2–5

29Dec. MarchesonPsophis 70.2–530Dec. Arrivesandencampsopposite

Psophis70.5

31Dec. Marchesontownandcapturesit 71.3–72.4

[chainbreaksdownatthispointwithPhilip’senforcedstayat

72.5–7

Psophisforseveraldays.Datesfromhereonexmpligratia]5Jan. PhilipmarchesonLasionand

takesemptytown72.7–73.2

TakesStratusalso6Jan. enrouteforOlympia 73.3

7Jan. enrouteforOlympia 73.38Jan. enrouteforOlympia 73.39Jan. ArrivesatOlympiaandsacrifices 73.310Jan. RestsatOlympia 73.311Jan. RestsatOlympia 73.312Jan. RestsatOlympia 73.313Jan. AdvancesintoElis,encampsat

Artemisium73.4

14Jan. AdvancestotheDioskourion 73.5whenceheraidsThalamaesuccessfully

75.2–8

15Jan. ReturnswithbootytoOlympia60andencamps

[show-downbetweenApellesandAratus]

76–77.4

16Jan. SetsoutforTelphousaandthencetoHeraea

Holdssaleofbootyandrepairsbridge

17Jan.61 PhilipcrossesbridgeandarivesatAlipheira

78.2–5

18Jan. PhiliptakesAlipheira 78.6–13Triphyliansstarttoworryandgiveup

19Jan. Philip’sconquestofTriphylia 79–80.1420Jan. Philip’sconquestofTriphylia 79–80.1421Jan. Philip’sconquestofTriphylia 79–80.1422Jan. LeavesLepreumforHeraea 80.1523Jan.62 DividesupbootyatHeraea;

picksupheavybaggage80.16

24Jan. ArrivesatMegalopolisinmid-winter

25Jan. MarchesfromMegalopolistoTegea

[TherefollowsthemeddlingofApellesintheAchaeanElections,tobedated,independentlybyAymard,toearlyFebruaryatthelatest

82.2–8]

Afterthis PhilipmarchesthroughPatraeandDymetoTeichos

83.1–2

Encampsbeforecity?nextday Thegarrisonsurrenders 83.3? PhilipadvancesintoElisand

pillagesit83.5

ReturnswithbootytoDyme[Apelles’plotagainstAratus 84–87.

12]? PhilipreturnstoArgos,

dismissinghistroopstoMacedonia

(p.115)Appendix2:Philip’sCampaignsinMay–July218(Plb.5.1–30)Day Events Chapters22May EndofYoungerAratus’strategia 1.1?lateMay PhilipsummonstheAchaeanstoanekklesia 1.6–12

firstatAegiumthenatSicyon?lateMay PreparesfleetatCorinth;departureofApelles 2.1–10?1June63 PhilipsetssailfromCorinth 2.11?2June ArrivesatPatrae 2.11

Sendsdispatchestoallies 3.3?3June ArrivesatPalusinCephallenia 3.3–4.2?4–7June64 SiegeofPalusandarrivalofallies 4.3–131 AratuspersudesPhiliptosailtoLeucas 5.1–112 PhiliparrivesatLeucasatnight 5.113 PhiliparrivesatLimnaea(beforedaybreak) 5.12–6.6

JoinedbyAcarnaniansMarchesfor60stades;stopsforsupper;continues

4 ArrivesatAchelousbetweenStratusandConope 6.6–8.7Aratus’goodadvicenottodelayOccupiesMetapaandnegotiatespassOccupiesPamphiumMarchestoThermum,encamps,andplundersarea

5 ThesackofThermum(anddigression) 8.8–12.8Returnsviasameroad;winsbattleofthepass 13.1–8SacksPamphium;encampsatMetapa

6 RazesMetapa;marchesto,andencampsat,Acrae 13.87 Advancesto,andencampsat,Conope 13.98 RemainsatConope 13.99 MarchesalongAcheloustoStratus 13.10–15.9

Failstoprovokebattle;continuestowardsLimnaeaRearguardactionoutsideStratusPhilipencampsearlyatLimnaeaThebanquetandAratus’run-inwithLeontiusetc.

10 Show-downbetweenLeontiusandPhilip 16.1SetssailforLeucasovernight 18.8

11 ArrivesatLeucas 18.812 RemainsatLeucas 18.913 SetssailforLechaeum 18.914 RavagesOeantheandarrivesatLechaeum 18.9

SpendsnotimeatCorinth,breakscamp 18.1MarchesviaArgos

15 ArrivesatTegea 18.1–2PicksupAchaeansandsetsoutforLaconia

16 MarchtoLaconia 18.2–317 ArrivesonhilloppositeSparta 18.2–3

CampsatAmyclae 18.10–19.118 PlundershiswaytoPyrrhus’Camp 19.2–419 Plundersthearea 19.420 PlundershiswaytoCarnium 19.421 FailedassaultonAsine;ravagesasfarasTaenarus 19.5–7

PassesbyGythium;encampsindistrictofHelos22 DevastatesasfarasAcriae,Leucae,andBoiae 19.8–923 LeavesHelosandravagestheland 20.1224(1July?) RavagesenroutetoAmyclae 20.1225 RavagesenroutetoAmyclae 20.1226 ArrivesatAmyclae:thebattle;Aratus’role 20.12–24.627 MarchestowardsTegea;encampsatSellasia 24.6–828 ReachesTegea;holdssaleofbooty 24.9–1029? LeavesTegea 24.1030? ArrivesatCorinth 24.10–12

ReceivesembassiesfromRhodiansandChians

GoesdowntoLechaeumTheconspiracyhotsup;Philiprushesbacktosquashit

? Apellesisputdown 25.1–26.15Afewdays TheKing’sPhocianbusiness:sailsfromLechaeum 26.16–27.4afterwards businessfallsthrough,returnsviaElateaandCirrha

toSicyon.HestayswithAratus? ReturnoftheRhodianandChianAmbassadors 28.1–3

PhilipacceptstruceandsummonsalliestoPatraeNextday ArrivesatPatrae?nextday65 Aetoliansprocrastinate;Philipcallsofftruce 29.1–4

PhilipreturnstoCorinth?nextday PhilipdismisseshistroopstoMacedonia 29.5

(p.116)

Notes:

(1)Plb.1.3.1–2:Ἄρξειδὲτη̑ςπραγματείαςἡμιν̑τω̑νμὲνχρόνωνὀλυμπιὰςἑκατοστήτεκαὶτετταρακοστή,τω̑νδὲπράξεωνπαρὰμὲντοις̑Ἕλλησινὁπροσαγορευθεὶςσυμμαχικὸςπόλεμος,ὃνπρω̑τονἐξήνεγκεμετ᾽Ἀχαιω̑νπρὸςΑἰτωλοὺςΦίλιππος,Δημητρίουμὲνυἱός,πατὴρδὲΠερσέως,παρὰδὲτοις̑τὴνἈσίανκατοικου̑σινὁπερὶΚοίληςΣυρίας,ὃνἈντίοχοςκαὶΠτολεμαιο̑ςὁΦιλοπάτωρἐπολέμησανπρὸςἀλλήλους·ἐνδὲτοις̑κατὰτὴνἸταλίανκαὶΛιβύηντόποιςὁσυστὰςῬωμαίοιςκαὶΚαρχηδονίοις,ὃνοἱπλεισ̑τοιπροσαγορεύουσινἈννιβιακόν.ταυ̑ταδ᾽ἔστισυνεχη̑τοις̑τελευταίοιςτη̑ςπαρ᾽ἈράτουΣικυωνίουσυντάξεως.

(2)Assuch,PolybiusiswritingwithinanestablishedGreekframeworkofsynchronism,albeitnewlyadaptedtotheriseofRome.SeeFeeney2007:43–67,noting(p.59),‘AGreekpredispositiontoconceiveoftheoecumeneinintegratedtermsisforcedtoredefineitselfinordertoaccommodatethenewpowerofRome’.

(3)Walbank,HCPi.43on1.3.2:‘InmakinghimselfAratus’continuatorP.followedanestablishedtradition.AmongThucydides’continuatorswereXenophon(Hell.i.1),Theopompos(P.viii.11.3),andCratippus(Dion.Hal.Thuc.16);andXenophonanticipatesacontinuator(Hell.vii.5.27).’Polybius,too,wouldbecontinuedbyPosidonius:FGrHist91T2(ἰστέονὅτιδιαδέχεταιτὴνΠολυβίουἱστορίανΠοσειδώνιος)withClarke1999:144–5,thoughnotethecautionofYarrow2006:161–2.

(4)Plb.4.1.9–4.2.5:συγκεφαλαιωσάμενοιδὲτὰςἐκτη̑ςπροκατασκευη̑ςπράξειςἕωςτη̑ςἈντιγόνουκαὶΣελεύκουκαὶΠτολεμαίουτελευτη̑ς,ἐπειδὴπερὶτοὺςαὐτοὺςκαιροὺςπάντεςοὑ̑τοιμετήλλαξαν,λοιπὸνἐπηγγειλάμεθατη̑ςαὑτω̑νπραγματείας

ἀρχὴνποιήσασθαιτὰςἑξη̑ςτοις̑προειρημένοιςπράξεις,καλλίστηνὑπόστασινὑπολαμβάνοντεςεἰν̑αιταύτηνδιὰτὸπρω̑τονμὲντὴνἈράτουσύνταξινἐπὶτούτουςκαταστρέφειντοὺςκαιρούς,οἱς̑συνάπτοντεςτὴνδιήγησιντὸνἀκόλουθονὑπὲρτω̑νἙλλήνωνἀποδιδόναιπροῃρήμεθαλόγον,δεύτερονδὲδιὰτὸκαὶτοὺςχρόνουςοὕτωςσυντρέχειντοὺςἑξη̑ςκαὶτοὺςπίπτονταςὑπὸτὴνἡμετέρανἱστορίανὥστετοὺςμὲνκαθ᾽ἡμα̑ςεἰν̑αι,τοὺςδὲκατὰτοὺςπατέραςἡμω̑ν,ἐξοὑ̑συμβαίνειτοις̑μὲναὐτοὺςἡμα̑ςπαραγεγονέναι,τὰδὲπαρὰτω̑νἑωρακότωνἀκηκοέναι.τὸγὰρἀνωτέρωπροσλαμβάνειντοις̑χρόνοις,ὡςἀκοὴνἐξἀκοη̑ςγράφειν,οὐκἐφαίνεθ᾽ἡμιν̑ἀσφαλεις̑ἔχεινοὔτετὰςδιαλήψειςοὔτετὰςἀποφάσεις.μάλισταδ᾽ἀπὸτούτωνἠρξάμεθατω̑νκαιρω̑νδιὰτὸκαὶτὴντύχηνὡςἂνεἰκεκαινοποιηκέναιπάντατὰκατὰτὴνοἰκουμένηνἐντοις̑προειρημένοιςκαιροις̑.

(5)OnPolybiusandσυμπλοκήWalbank1975remainsfundamental;seealsoQuinninthisvolume.

(6)Plut.Arat.3.3( = FGrHist231T6),32.5(FGrHist231F2),33.3(FGrHist231F3),38.6(FGrHist231F4a),Cleom.16.4(FGrHist231F4b).

(7)See,ingeneral,JacobyFGrHistIIbKomm.654–6,Walbank1933:6–9,Porter1937:xv–xvii.OntheMemoirsasautobiography:Momigliano1971:89,citingalso(n.23)E.Fraenkel.

(8)2.47.9–11(FGrHist231T5):διόπερἔχωντοιαύτηνπρόθεσινἀδήλωςαὐτὰδιενοειτ̑οχειρίζειν.ἐξοὑ̑πολλὰπαρὰτὴνἑαυτου̑γνώμηνἠναγκάζετοκαὶλέγεινκαὶποιειν̑πρὸςτοὺςἐκτός,δι᾽ὡ̑νἤμελλετὴνἐναντίανἔμφασινὑποδεικνύωνταύτηνἐπικρύψεσθαιτὴνοἰκονομίαν.ὡ̑νχάρινἔνιατούτωνοὐδ᾽ἐντοις̑ὑπομνήμασικατέταξεν.

(9)Plb.1.3.1–2andPlb.4.1.9–4.2.5 = FGrHist231T2.

(10)HCPi.228on2.40.4;cf.Walbank1972a:42,79withn.73.ForPédechalsotheMemoires‘s’étendaientjusqu’en221’(1964:261),thoughseebelown.27.

(11)JacobyFGrHistIIbKomm.654,taking221asthedateforSellasia,insteadofthemorelikely222(forthelatterdateseeHCPi.272on2.65–9).ForSellasiaastheterminalpoint,cf.Porter1937:xvi.

(12)Errington1967a:20n.9.

(13)Cf.Sacks1981:116n.47:‘ThereisatransitionfromkatagenostotheannalisticmethodinBooksiv–v.’

(14)Notetherepetitiveuseofthecognatesin§§5(δόγμα),6(ταδόξαντα),8(ἔδοξεδὲ),andtheuseoftheaccusativeandinfinitiveintheofficialstyle.Cf.Walbank,HCPi.623on5.91.5:‘P.mayherehavedrawnontheAchaeanrecords’.OnPolybius’useofAchaeanrecordsingeneral,seeWalbank1972a:83n.105.

(15)ForthenatureoftheAchaeanσύνοδοςatthisperiod(apparentlytheprimaryassemblytowhichallcitizensoftheLeaguewereadmitted),seeLarsen1955:76–85,Aymard1938:88–95.

(16)Walbank,HCPi.30.

(17)Walbank,HCPi.628on5.101.5givesthemonthofJuly,butthisisfarfromcertain:seeDerow1976:276–7n.36.

(18)Errington1967a:22.

(19)Ἡμὲνοὐ̑νἈπελλου̑καὶτω̑νπερὶτὸνΛεόντιονπρα̑ξιςἐντούτοιςἠ̑ν,παλίντροπονλαμβάνουσατὴνπροκοπὴνταις̑ἐξἀρχη̑ςαὐτω̑νἐλπίσιν.ἔδοξανμὲνγὰρκαταπληξάμενοιτὸνἌρατονκαὶμονώσαντεςτὸνΦίλιππονποιήσεινὅτιἂναὐτοις̑δοκῃ̑συμφέρειν,ἀπέβηδὲτούτωντἀναντίαSeealsoMcGinginthisvolume,p.195.

(20)Errington1967a:36.

(21)Infact,asMcGing2010:116–17notes,thereisacleartensioninPolybius’treatmentofPhilip.Atonelevelhisnarrativehighlightstherapidityofhisactionsandthemisperceptionofhimasyoungandfoolish;ontheotherhand,timeandagain‘whenPhilipmakesagooddecision,itmustbeduetoAratus’(p.117).

(22)Errington1967a:20n.9.

(23)SeenowthedetailedaccountofMcGing2010:97–117.

(24)Plb.5.26.6:παρὰπλευρὰνὄντοςἈράτουκαὶπραγματικω̑ςἐξεργαζομένουτὴνὑπόθεσιν.

(25)Thereisnoevidence(paceErrington1967a:26)thatAratusfell‘outoffavourwithPhilipinthelatewinter’of219/18.Aratus’failuretosecuretheelectionofTimoxenusprovesnothingaboutAratus’relationshipwiththeking.PolybiusmakesitclearthatApelles(Philip’senemy,ifErringtoniscorrect)wasresponsiblefortheelectionresult(4.82.8).Allthis,ofcourse,presupposesthatApellescouldhavehadanyinfluenceontheresultandthattheelectiondoesnotratherbespeakdivisiveAchaeanfactionalism.Forthelatterview,seeWalbank1933:166.

(26)Plb.5.27.3:παρὰδ᾽Ἄρατονκαταλύσαςμετὰτούτουτὴνπα̑σανἐποιειτ̑οδιαγωγήν.

(27)Pédech1977:21–2infactstatesthistobethecase,thoughwithoutargument.Elsewhere(aboven.10)heacceptsthetraditionalenddateoftheMemoirs.

(28)TheclearestexplicationofthistheorycomesatPlb.3.6–7.OnthetheoryofthecausesofwarsinPolybius,seethelengthydiscussionofPédech1964:75–98.Moresuccinctly:Walbank1972a:157–60,McGing2010:76–80.

(29)οὑ̑τὰςαἰτίαςσυνέβηγενέσθαιτοιαύτας(Plb.4.2.11)andτὴνμὲνοὐ̑ναἰτίανκαὶτὴνἀφορμὴνὁσυμμαχικὸςπόλεμοςἔσχενἐκτούτων(Plb.4.13.6).

(30)Plb.4.14.1.Forthedateofthemeeting,seeWalbank,HCPi:461–2adloc.

(31)AnἐπαύλιονbelongingtoacertainChyronisattacked(4.4.1).Anephor’sname(Scyron)isrecorded(4.4.3),asisthatofaprivatecitizen,Barbyrtas(4.4.5).

(32)Plb.4.9.10:μετὰδύ᾽ἡμέρας;4.10.1:Ὁδ᾽Ἄρατοςἐπιμείναςδύ᾽ἡμέρας.

(33)Pritchett1969:120–32.

(34)Plb.4.14.8:οὕτωςταχέωςκαὶμεγαλοψύχωςμετεμελήθητὸπλη̑θοςὥστεκαὶτοις̑συνεπιτιθεμένοιςαὐτῳ̑τω̑νἀντιπολιτευομένωνἐπὶπολὺδυσαρεστη̑σαικαὶπερὶτω̑νἑξη̑ςπάνταβουλεύεσθαικατὰτὴνἈράτουγνώμην.ForsimilarexpressionsofrespectforAratus’advice(γνώμη)inpassagesthat,aswehaveseen,mayderivefromAratusseePlb.4.76.9and5.5.10.

(35)Cf.Walbank1936,whosecommentontheinclusionofAratus’mistakesatCynaethain241(Plb.9.17)inhisMemoirsmightwellapplyheretoo:‘whileitistruethatAratosdidnotasarulestressincidentstohisdiscredit,hehadnoobjectiontoexcusinghisfailures,particularlyiftheyhappenedtobefollowedbyacorrespondingsuccessshortlyafterwards’(p.65).

(36)Plb.4.26.1:Τούτουδὲτου̑δόγματοςκυρωθέντοςκατὰτὸπρω̑τονἔτοςτη̑ςἑκατοστη̑ςκαὶτετταρακοστη̑ςὀλυμπιάδοςὁμὲνσυμμαχικὸςπροσαγορευόμενοςπόλεμοςἀρχὴνεἰλήφειδικαίανκαὶπρέπουσαντοις̑γεγονόσινἀδικήμασιν.

(37)OntheidentitiesanddatesoftheAchaeanassembliesin220,seeAymard1938:263–64,Larsen1955:79–81.

(38)FortheroughdatesofthesesynchronismstogetherwitharejectionofPédech’s‘sixmonth’theory,seeWalbank1974a:60–5,78.

(39)Pédech1964:161withn.320,towhichaddPlb.4.5.8.

(40)Pédech1964:164:‘Aratoseutsansaucundoutefortàfairepourconvaincrelesunsetlesautres.MalheureusementPolybeditpeudechosedesonactivitédiplomatique,oudumoinsdel’essentiel,quiétaitd’emporterleconsentementdePhilippe.’

(41)e.g.Walbank,HCPi.462adloc.

(42)SeePédech1955.

(43)ItlooksverymuchagainasifPolybiusisquotingthetextofthedecreeitself.Notetheabundanceofaccusativeandinfinitives.Cf.Walbank1972a:83n.105andthediscussionabove(p.96withn.14)of5.91.6–8.

(44)Forthislastestimate,seeScholten2000:277.

(45)Larsen1952:5.

(46)Holleaux1905:363( = 1938–68:i.220),cf.Larsen1952:5–6,Scholten2000:286n.112.Walbank,HCPi.463(andPaton,Walbank,andHabicht2010)translates‘appropriateassemblies’.

(47)TheMessenianinterestsofthefirstmaylinkittotheMessenianorientedaccountoftheαἰτίαι;theelectionaspectofthesecondmaypointtoamoredocumentaryaccountofthemeeting;thepolemic,ofcourse,isPolybian.

(48)οἱδὲπερὶτὸνΔωρίμαχονδιὰτη̑ςἈχαιάτιδοςποιησάμενοιτὴνπορείαν,ἡ̑κονἄφνωπρὸςτὴνΚύναιθαν(4.17.3).

(49)Pritchett1969:127–8,130,whoneglectsthebranchtoPheneus.Pausanias(8.13.4–5)describestheroutesoutofOrchomenus.

(50)AsdescribedbyPausanias,therewasonesouthtoAmilus(8.13.5),onenorth-easttoPellene(8.15.2),oneeasttoStymphalus(8.16.1–17.5),onesouth-westtoCleitorandnorth-westtoNonacrisandCynaetha(8.17.5).

(51)ThestrategoswastoberesponsibleforagreeingtermswiththeSpartansandtheMessenians(4.15.4)

(52)Plb.4.24.3:Ἀράτῳτιςἐπιεικέστατ᾽ἂνπροσάπτοιτὴντότεῥηθεισ̑ανὑπὸτου̑βασιλέωςγνώμην.

(53)Plb.4.25.6:προθέμενοιδὲτὰςπροειρημέναςαἰτίαςἐντῳ̑δόγματι.…Cf.Walbank,HCPi.472adloc.:‘P.probablysawacopyofthedecree’.

(54)Walbank,HCPi.472adloc.suggeststhatPolybiusmayhavebeenglossingoverinternalstasis;theAetolianadvancetoMethydriumτη̑ςΜεγαλοπολίτιδος(Plb.4.10.10)maybeaslikelytobetheeventbeingreferredto.

(55)FortheriseandimportanceoftheἐφημερίςduringtheHellenisticperiod,seeWelles1934:283–4.ForapossiblePtolemaicexample,cf.the‘GurobPapyrus’( = FGrHist160).ThemostobviousparallelforelaborationandpublicationisRoman:Caesar’sCommentarii.Onthedifferencesbetweenὑπόμνηματα/ὑπομνηματισμοίandἐφημερίδεςasofficialdocuments,seeBickerman1933:esp.351–2:‘Die“Ephemeriden”warenAufzeichnungübereinzelneTage,der“Hypomnematismos”ProtokollübereinenEinzelakt,dieerstenwurdenaufRollen,derzweitealsEinzelschriftaufgesezt.’

(56)Cf.Plb.4.28.5and,themomentofoccurrence,5.105.4–6.SeealsoWalbank1975.

(57)Plb.4.28.2–6:εἰμὲνοὐ̑ντὰςπρώταςἐπιβολὰςτὰςἈννίβουταις̑Ἑλληνικαις̑πράξεσινἀπ᾽ἀρχη̑ςεὐθέωςἐπιπεπλέχθαισυνέβαινε,δη̑λονὡςἐντῃ̑προτέρᾳβύβλῳ

περὶτούτωνἂνἡμα̑ςἐναλλὰξἔδει…ἐπεὶδὲτάτεκατὰτὴνἸταλίανκαὶκατὰτὴνἙλλάδακαὶκατὰτὴνἈσίαντὰςμὲνἀρχὰςτω̑νπολέμωντούτωνἰδίαςεἰλήφει,τὰςδὲσυντελείαςκοινάς,καὶτὴνἐξήγησινπερὶαὐτω̑νἐκρίναμενποιήσασθαικατ᾽ἰδίαν,ἕωςἂνἐπὶτὸνκαιρὸνἔλθωμεντου̑τονἐνᾡ̑συνεπλάκησαναἱπροειρημέναιπράξειςἀλλήλαιςκαὶπρὸςἓντέλοςἤρξαντοτὴνἀναφορὰνἔχειν…ἐγένετοδ᾽ἡσυμπλοκὴτω̑νπράξεωνπερὶτὴντου̑πολέμουσυντέλειανκατὰτὸτρίτονἔτοςτη̑ςἑκατοστη̑ςκαὶτετταρακοστη̑ςὀλυμπιάδος.διὸκαὶτὰμετὰταυ̑τακοινῃ̑τοις̑καιροις̑ἀκολουθου̑ντεςἐξηγησόμεθα,τὰδὲπρὸτου̑κατ᾽ἰδίαν,ὡςεἰπ̑α,προσαναμιμνήσκοντεςμόνοντω̑νκατὰτοὺςαὐτοὺςκαιροὺςἐντῃ̑προτέρᾳβύβλῳδεδηλωμένων.

(58)Plb.5.31.4–5:τὸδ᾽εὐπαρακολούθητονκαὶσαφη̑γίνεσθαιτὴνδιήγησινοὐδὲνἀναγκαιότερονἐπὶταύτηςτη̑ςὀλυμπιάδοςἡγούμεθ᾽εἰν̑αιτου̑μὴσυμπλέκεινἀλλήλαιςτὰςπράξεις,ἀλλὰχωρίζεινκαὶδιαιρειν̑αὐτὰςκαθ᾽ὅσονἐστὶδυνατόν,μέχριςἂνἐπὶτὰςἑξη̑ςὀλυμπιάδαςἐλθόντεςκατ᾽ἔτοςἀρξώμεθαγράφειντὰςκατάλληλαγενομέναςπράξεις.

(59)MythanksareduetoDavidPotter,whocommentedonaveryearlydraftofthispaper,andtoBruceGibsonforhisthoughtsonalaterone.

(60)Polybiusdoesnotmakeitclearthatthishappenedonthefollowingday,butcouldtherehavebeenenoughtimeonthedayofthebattle?SincePhiliphadestablishedacampatDioskourion,bettertosupposeheusedit.

(61)PolybiusdoesnotmentionanightspentatHeraea,butitseemsbesttoassumeone:PhiliphadbeentravellingheavysinceOlympiaandneededtimetorepairabridge.

(62)Theovernightstopisaguess.

(63)Approximatedatesuppliedexempligratia.

(64)Howquicklycanonediga200ftmine?

(65)Aguess.

Some Misunderstandings of Polybius in Livy

SomeMisunderstandingsofPolybiusinLivy

JohnBriscoe

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0005

AbstractandKeywords

Livy'stextshowsonlyafewmisunderstandingsofPolybius'Greek,anditismisleadingtospeakofLivyassomehowbeingnegligent.Thereare,however,afewexampleswheretechnicalmilitarylanguagecreatesconfusion,suchasthepracticeofloweringspearstohorizontalpositioninordertoattack,whichLivyrendersusingLatinponere,givingthemeaningof'layingdown'spears;similarly,Livy'saccountofthesiegeofAmbraciain189BCalsocontainstwoconfusions(oneofwhichmayarisefromanearlycorruptiontoPolybius'text).ThechapteralsoexaminesoccasionswhereLivy'sadoptionofpresenttensesfromPolybius'descriptionofmattersthatarecurrentcreateswhatareineffectanachronismsinLivy'sowntime.

Keywords:Polybius,Livy,translation,intertextuality,militaryhistory,anachronisms,sourcecriticism

ItwasintheyearaftertheappearanceofthefirstvolumeofWalbank’sCommentarythat

PeterWalshpublishedashortarticleentitled‘TheNegligentHistorian;“Howlers”inLivy’.1InitWalshdiscussedanumberofpassagesinBooks33and38inwhichLivyhas,invariousways,misunderstoodPolybius.HisconclusionwasthatthemistakeswereduenottoignoranceofGreek—Polybius’language,hethought,‘providesnogreatdifficultytoanyonefamiliarwithGreek’—,butto‘acarelessandcasualscrutinyofhissources’.2

IntheintroductiontomyfirstvolumeofcommentaryonLivy’sfourthdecadeIrepeated,Iregrettosay,Walsh’suseof‘howlers’andaddedanumberofotherinstancesofmisinterpretationofPolybius,certain,probable,orpossible,bothinpassageswherePolybiussurvivesand(though,ofcourse,noneoftheseiscertain)inthosewherehedoesnot.3Iproducedfurtherlistsforbooks34–7and38–40.4ThematterisbrieflydiscussedbyAdamsatthebeginningofBilingualismandtheLatinLanguageandinmoredetailbyKooninInfantryCombatinLivy’sBattleNarratives.5

Asiswellknown,PolybiuswasLivy’sprincipalsourcefortheeventsintheHellenisticworldnarratedinBooks31–45,whichcovertheyearsbetweentheendoftheSecondPunicWarin201andtheendoftheThirdMacedonianWarandtheexterminationoftheMacedonianmonarchyin167(adeliberatepolicyofregimechangeandthatisnottheonlysimilaritybetweenLivy’saccountofthewarandtheeventsof2003inIraq).ItwasHeinrichNissen,in(p.118) 1863,6whofirstidentifiedthesectionsofLivywhich,evenwhenthePolybianoriginaldoesnotsurvive,canbeseentohavebeenderivedfromPolybius.ButLivydidnotmerelytranslatePolybius:headaptedhimforhisownliterarypurposes,leavingoutwhatheregardedasunimportantorofnointeresttohisreaders,makingadditions—sometimesinsertingblatantfalsehoodswhichhefoundinhisnormalLatinsources,principallyClaudiusQuadrigariusandValeriusAntias—andre-arrangingthePolybianmaterialinwhatseemedtohim,oftenrightly,amoresatisfactoryway.7ThedetailedstudyofLivy’smethodsbeganin1910withtwolongarticlesbyWitte8(heparticularlystressedLivy’sdesiretoconstructdiscreteepisodes);themostimportantcontributionsincethenisthatofHermannTränkle,inhisbookLiviusundPolybios,publishedoverthirtyyearsago.9Theamountofthismaterialoverthewholefifteenbooksisimmense—andletusrememberthatLivywillhavecontinuedtousePolybiusfortheyearsfrom166to145,whenPolybius’narrativeended(thelastOlympiadyearinPolybiuswasalmostcertainly146/510),andwhichLivycoveredinBooks46to52.Overall,itisfairtosaythathesucceededinconveyingtohisreadersboththeessentialsandthedetailsofRome’srelationswiththeHellenisticworld(andwiththewesternMediterranean).Inthatperspective,evenifallthosepassagesIclassifiedaspossiblemisunderstandingsareincluded,11thenumberisrelativelysmall.Theycertainlydonotindicate—incasethisseemsmoreplausiblethanWalsh’saccusationofnegligence—thatLivycouldbesaidtohavehadadeficientknowledgeofGreek,atleastinthesenseofareadingknowledge:whetherhecouldbesaidtohavebeenbilingualinLatinandGreekis,ofcourse,quiteanothermatter.

IwouldnowliketoreconsiderthetwopassageswhichWalshdiscussedfirst.TheyarealsothetwotowhichAdamsrefers,andarethemostfamousoftheso-calledhowlers.ThefirstcomesfromtheaccountofthebattleofCynoscephalae,inThessaly,in197BC,in

whichT.QuinctiusFlamininus,consulin198,defeatedPhilipVofMacedonandbroughttheSecondMacedonianWartoanendonRome’sterms.Polybius(18.24.9)hasγενόμενουδὲτούτου,καὶτω̑νπολεμίωνἐνχερσὶνὄντων,τοις̑μὲνφαλαγγίταιςἐδόθηπαράγγελμακαταβαλου̑σιτὰςσαρίσαςἐπάγειν,Livy(33.8.13)Macedonumphalangemhastispositis,quarumlongitudoimpedimentoerat,gladiisremgerereiubet.WalshtranslatesPolybiusthus:‘Thereupon,sincetheenemywascloseathand,themenofthephalanxwereorderedtolowertheirpikesandcharge’.Livy,however,says(mytranslation)‘He(sc.Philip)orderedthe(p.119) Macedonianphalanxtolayasidetheirspears,whoselengthwasanencumbrance,andtodothebusinesswithswords’.

Itisclearwhathashappened.καταβάλλεινheremeans‘lowerintoahorizontalposition’.Livyrecognizedtheword,buttookitinthesenseof‘laydown’and,sincetheMacedonianswereobviouslynotgoingtoexposethemselvestotheRomanlegionsunarmed,explainedthattheyweretousetheirswordsandthatthelengthofthespearswasthereasonforlayingthemdown.AsAdamssays,Livywillhaveanalysedκαταβάλλεινcorrectly,butdidnotrecognizethetechnicaluseoftheverb.(Polybiusreferstothemanœuvreat18.30.2(τὴνπροβολήν),inthecourseofhisdigressioncomparingthelegionandthephalanx(18.28–32);hemakesnoreferencetheretoproblemscreatedbythelengthofthespears,butinhisaccountofthebattleofPydnain168,derivedfromPolybius,Livy(44.41.7)writesimmobilemlongitudineetgrauitatehastam.)EvenWalshdescribedthiscaseas‘amorepardonablemistake’.12

TwofurtherfactorsmayhavecontributedtoLivy’serror.First,hisbattlescenes,reflectingactualpractice,frequentlyinvolvetheRomansoldiersdiscardingtheirspearsandfightingwithswords(cf.,e.g.,6.12.8pilisantepedespositisgladiistantumdextrasarmemus‘letuslaydownourspearsatourfeetandarmourrighthandswithswordsalone’)andhewouldhaveassumedthatthephalanxactedinthesameway.13Secondly,byἐνχερσίνPolybiusmeans‘closeathand’,butitoftenreferstohand-to-handfighting(cf.LSJs.v.χείρ6 f)andLivymaywellhavetakenitthus.14

InfactAdamsisnotconvincedthatLivymisunderstoodPolybiusatall.Inhistexthedescribesitasapossiblecase,butinafootnotesays‘thepossibilitycannotberuledoutthatLivymadeadeliberatechangetothenatureoftheevent,forwhateverreasonsofartistry’.15IdonotmyselffinditverylikelythatLivy,ifhehadcorrectlyunderstoodPolybius,wouldhavedeliberatelyintroducedapieceofmilitarynonsenseforliteraryreasons.(Itshouldbesaidthatitisbynomeanscertain,asisoftenthought,thatLivyhadnomilitaryexperience:evenifhewasbornin59BC,not,asSymeandOgilviethought,in64,16hecouldhaveservedinthePerusineWar.17)

ItlooksasifLivymadethesamemistakeat35.35.18ponerehastasequitesAlexamenusiubet(‘Alexamenusorderedthecavalrymentolaydowntheirspears’;thepassageconcernsthekillingofNabisofSpartabyAetoliancavalryledbyAlexamenus),thoughtherewedonothavethetextofPolybiustoenableustobesure.Inarecentarticle,however,C.L.H.Barneshasdiscussed(p.120) both33.8.13and35.35.18,seekingtoshowthatLivyunderstoodPolybiuscorrectly.18Hisargumentmaybesummarizedasfollows:

(i)Livydidnotmisunderstandκαταβάλλειν,sinceponerecanbeallowedtomean‘placeinattackposition’;(ii)gladiisisaninterpolationbyascribewhomadethemistakenormallyattributedtoLivy;(iii)35.35.18impliesthattheAetoliansstillhadtheirspearsandusedthemtokillNabis;(iv)quarumlongitudoimpedimentoeratisnotanexplanationofhastispositis,butaclue(sc.toLivy’sreaders)thattheMacedonians’formidableweaponwouldleadtotheirdefeat.

Thisistotallyunconvincing:

(i)onecannotsimplyassignawordameaningitdoesnotpossessanywhereinLatinliterature;19(ii)remgerere,whichisneverusedwithoutsomeformofqualification(cf.TLLvi/2.1944.31 ff.)doesnotmean‘settlethematter’:toexpressthatLivywouldhavehadtosayremconficereorremfelicitergerere;andwhileaninterpolationisalwayspossibleinprinciple,toproposeoneheresmacksofdesperation;(iii)Alexamenusorderedhistroopstolaydowntheirspears:thereisnoindicationthathedidsohimself;andwhileitisindeedthecasethattheAetoliansmusthavekilledNabiswithspears,itdoesnotfollowthatLivydidnotthinkthattheyusedswords.(iv)itisinconceivablethatquarumlongitudoimpedientoeratisnotintendedasanexplanationofhastispositis:hadLivywantedtopointforwardtotheresultofthebattle,hewouldhavewrittenfuturaeratormadethecommentinaseparatesentence.20(p.121)

ThesecondpassagecomesfromtheaccountofthesiegeofAmbracia,innorth-westGreece,byM.FulviusNobilior,consulin189.AmbraciabelongedtotheAetolianLeague,withwhichRomewasstillatwarfollowingtheLeague’sinvitationtoAntiochusIIItoinvadeGreece.Orthodoxsiegemethodshavingprovedunsuccessful,Fulviusdecidedtounderminethewallsbyatunnellingoperation.TheAmbraciotsrealizedwhatwashappeninganddugatrenchtomeettheRomantunnel.Anundergroundbattletookplace,whichprovedindecisive,accordingtoPolybius(21.28.11)διὰτὸπροβάλλεσθαιθυρεοὺςκαὶγέρραπρὸαὑτω̑νἀμφότεροι(‘bothsidesusedshieldsandwattlesasprotection’).

Livy(38.7.10)writessegniordeindeea(sc.pugna)factaest,intersaepientibuscuniculumubiuellent,nuncciliciispraetentis,nuncforibusraptimobiectis(‘it(sc.thebattle)becamerathersluggish,theAmbraciotsblockingthetunnelwherevertheywished,nowstretchingoutblankets,nowhurriedlyusingdoorsasbarriers’).Itseemsthatwehaveaconfusionofθυρεός‘shield’andθύρα‘door’,aseriouserror,onemightreadilyconclude.Thereis,however,asAdamssuggests,arealpossibilitythatthetextofPolybiususedbyLivywascorruptandreadθύρας.21Ifthatsoundslikespecialpleading,considerPolybius27.5.3and,derivedfromit,Livy42.46.7,whereΘήβας/Thebasare

manifesterrorsforΘίσβας/Thisbas.22Livy,knowingnothingofThisbe,mightwellhavemadesuchanerrorhimself,butPolybius,obviously,wouldnothavedoneso.Itmustbe,asMommsensaw,23thatthetextofPolybiuswasalreadycorruptbythetimeofLivy.Tränkle24refusedtoacceptthis,unabletobelieveinsuchanearlycorruption—corruption,ofcourse,canoccurthefirsttimeatextiscopied—andheld,withReiske,25thatalacunashouldbepositedbetweenεὐνοίαςandτω̑νδέ(Plb.27.5.3–4),whichcontainedwhatappearsatLivy42.46.8,withnothingcorrespondingtoitinPolybius.Tränkle,ofcourse,wrotethisbeforethepublicationofHCPiii,whichmighthavepersuadedhimtochangehismind.

IreturntothesiegeofAmbraciaandtoanother,evenmoreextraordinaryerrorinthesamesentence,one,however,whichhasattractedlittleattention,thoughitdidnotescapethenoticeofTränkle.26InPolybiusmentionofthe(p.122) shieldsisfollowedbyoneofγέρρα,whileinLivynuncforibusraptimobiectisisprecededbynuncciliciispraetentis.γέρραarewickerworkscreensorwattles,usedinsiegeoperations,coveringwhatinLatinarecalledpluteioruineae.27InfactPolybiushadmentionedthemearlierinthechapter,atthebeginningofhisaccountofthetunnellingoperation(21.28.4)andLivycorrectlyrenderedγέρραwithuineis.Here,however,hewroteciliciis:ciliciaareroughblanketsandIcannotconceivewhatpossessedLivytotalkofthemhere,butpresumablyhecouldmakenosenseofγέρραinthiscontext;ciliciadooccurinanavalcontextinafragmentofSisenna(107P),28butthesignificanceofthat,ifany,isunclear.

Whatshouldbeadded,however,isthattherefollowsinPolybius(21.28.12–16)adescriptionofadevice—ajarfilledwithfeathers—whichtheAmbraciotsconstructedinordertoblowsmokeintothetunnel.Livy(38.7.11–13)29misunderstoodtwopoints:spearstopreventtheRomansapproachingthedevicewereplacedbetweenthejarandthewallsofthetunnel,notthroughtheholesinthelid,wheretheywouldhavebeenuseless;andfirewasplacedinthejarbeforethelidwasfitted,notafterwards,buthecanreadilybeexcusedforfailingtograspallthedetailsofadifficultpieceofGreek,andhesucceeds,taking,asoften,farlessspacethanPolybius,inconveyingthegeneralnatureofthedeviceaccuratelyenough.Tränkle’sclaimthattheattentivereaderscarcelygetsovertheirbewilderment30isover-harsh.

InowturntoadifferentcategoryofmisrepresentationofPolybius,namelypassageswhereLivyappearstohavetakenoverapresenttensefromhissourceinawaythatcreates,ormaycreate,ananachronism.31At33.17.5–8Livyhasageographicalexcursus,clearlytakenfromPolybius,whowasfondofsuchthings,concerningtheislandofLeucas,offthecoastofAcarnania,innorth-westGreece:hesays(§6)Leucadianuncinsulaest,uadosofretoquodperfossummanuestabAcarnaniadiuisa;tumpaeninsulaerat(‘Leucasisnowanisland,dividedfromAcarnaniabyamanuallyexcavatedshallowstrait;thenitwasapeninsula’).Polybiusmusthavesaid,inaccordancewiththenormalview,thatLeucaswasonceapeninsula,butinhistimewasanisland(thelandjoiningittothemainland,perhapsonlyasandbar,wasbelievedtohavebeenseveredinthetimeofCypselusofCorinth32).LivytookthisoverwithoutalterationandthusappearstobesayingthatLeucaswasapeninsulain197butanislandatthetimehewaswriting.

(p.123) At34.51.5LivysaysthattheThessalians,becauseoftheirrestlessnature(inquietoingeniogentis;heisalwaysinterestedintheinnatecharacteristicsofvariouspeoples33),wereunabletoholdpeacefulmeetingsofpoliticalorgansiamindeaprincipioadnostramusqueaetatem(‘rightfromthebeginninguptoourownage’).ItisimprobablethatLivyknewanythingofcurrentThessalianpolitics,anditislikelythatagainhehasmerelyrepeatedaphrasewhichinPolybiusreferredtothemid-secondcenturyBC.34Similarly,whenat35.38.3LivytalksofafestivalofDianaofAmarynthusatEretriaquodnonpopulariummodosedCarystiorumetiamcoetucelebratur(‘whichiscelebratedbyagatheringtogethernotonlyofthelocalpeoplebutalsoofthoseofCarystus’),itisunlikelythatheknewofsuchacelebrationinhisowndayandhehasprobablytakenoverapresentfromPolybius.

ThreefurtherpassagescomefromtheendofBook39andthebeginningofBook40.At39.49–50LivyrelatestheeventsleadingtothedeathofthegreatAchaeanleader(andheroofPolybius)Philopoemen.MessenehadattemptedtosecedefromtheAchaeanLeagueandwarhadresulted.Philopoemenwascaughtinanambush,fellfromhishorse,andwascapturedbytheMessenians.Itwasdecidedtoimprisonhimovernightinanundergroundstore,andLivywrites(39.50.3)eouinctusdemittitur,etsaxumingens,quooperitur,machinasuperimpositumest(‘Hewasputdownintoit,bound,andahugerock,withwhichitiscovered,wasputontopwithalever’—thelatterisprobablythemeaningofmachina;Walsh35translates‘crane’).ItisscarcelycrediblethatLivyhadanyknowledgeaboutsucharrangementsatMesseneinhisowntime,andthepresentoperiturwasprobablytakenoverfromPolybius.ThatwastheviewofWeissenbornandMüllerintheirnoteonthepassage,36thoughtheysuggestalternativelyandlessplausibly(theyoffernoparallelsforsuchauseofthepresent)thatoperiturreferstothefactthatthestonehadtobereplacedinpositioneachtimethestorewasopened.Itmaybe,though,thatLivywasinfluencedbythecommonuseofthepresentofverbsofclosingandsurroundingtoindicateastateofaffairsbroughtaboutbypastaction.37

At40.3.3LivyistalkingaboutPhilipV’sforcedmovementofpopulationfromthecitiesofthenorthcoastoftheAegeantothehinterlandandtheirreplacementbyThraciansandothernon-Greekpeoples.HewritesiamprimumomnemferemultitudinemciuiumexmaritimisciuitatibuscumfamiliissuisinEmathiam—quaenuncdicitur:quondamappellataPaeoniaest—traduxit(‘Firstofall,hetransplantedalmostthewholeofthecitizen(p.124) populationofthemaritimestates,togetherwiththeirhouseholds,toEmathia—asitnowis;itwaspreviouslycalledPaeonia’.InthiscasethecorrespondingpassageofPolybiussurvives,andhewrites(23.10.4)τὴννυ̑νμὲνἨμαθίαν,τὸδὲπαλαιὸνΠαιονίανπροσαγορευομένην,whichcorrespondsexactlytothewordsofLivy.Here,then,thereisnodoubtthatLivyhastakenquaenuncdicitur38fromPolybius:whatisuncertainiswhetherhehasinfactcommittedananachronisminsodoing.HehimselfwillscarcelyhavehadanyideawhetherornotEmathiawasstillthenameofthearea.

ThefollowingchapterofLivyrelatestheextraordinarystoryofTheoxena.Sheandhernowdeadsister,Archo,hadbeenmarriedtomenwhohadbeenputtodeathbyPhilipV.ShehadsubsequentlymarriedArcho’ssecondhusband,Poris,and,whenPhilip,soit

wassaid,decidedtokillallthechildrenofthosehehadexecutedearlier,committedsuicidetogetherwithherhusband,hersonbyherfirstmarriage,andallthechildrenofArcho.At40.4.9LivysaysproficiscunturabThessalonicaAeneamadstatumsacrificiumquodAeneaeconditoricummagnacaerimoniaquotannisfaciunt(‘TheysetoutfromThessalonicatoAeneaforafixedsacrificewhichtheyperformfortheirfounderAeneaseachyearwithgreatceremony’).Thepassageispreciselyparallelto35.38.3:thePolybianoriginaldoesnotsurvive,buttherecanbenodoubtthatheindicatedthatthesacrificewasbeingperformedathistime.Livyisperhapsunlikelytohaveknownwhetheritwasstillbeingperformed,and,again,thereisnootherevidence.39

Finally,42.55.3,inLivy’saccountofthefirstyear’scampaign(171)oftheThirdMacedonianWar.TheconsulP.LiciniusCrassus,marchingfromtheAdriaticcoasttowardsThessaly,encountersdifficultterraininAthamania.Livycontinuescuisiuexatishominibusequisquetironemexercitumducentiacieinstructaetlocosuoettemporeobstitissetrex,neRomaniquidemabnuuntmagnasuacumcladefuissepugnaturos(‘Iftheking,ataplaceandtimewhichfavouredhim,hadblockedtheconsul’swaywhenhewasleadinganarmyofrecruitsandwhenhismenandhorsesweredistressed,noteventheRomansdenythatthebattlewouldhaveresultedinagreatdisaster’).ThisisclearlythecommentofPolybius,referringtowhatcontemporaryRomanshadtoldhim:theRomansofLivy’sowntimewouldnothavehadaviewonthematter.

Notes:

(1)Walsh1958.

(2)Walsh1958:88.

(3)Briscoe1973:6;intherevisedversionofthissectionoftheintroduction(Briscoe2009:467)Ihavereplaced‘howlers’by‘errors’;cf.myremarksinBriscoe1993:48.

(4)Briscoe1981:2,2008:3.

(5)Adams2003:4–5,Koon2010:25–6(atanearlierstageSamKoonkindlyshowedmethecorrespondingpagesofhis2007ManchesterPh.D.thesis).

(6)Nissen1863.

(7)Cf.Briscoe1973:1–8( = 2009:461–70),1981:1–3,2008:1–3.

(8)Witte1910.

(9)Tränkle1977.

(10)Cf.Walbank,HCPiii.50.

(11)Adams(2003:4n.9)callsthese‘evenlessconvincing’(sc.thantheoneIshalldiscussshortly)andinsomecases‘purelyspeculative’.

(12)Walsh1958:84.

(13)SeeOakley1995:509–10,commentingon6.12.8.

(14)Iheredevelopapointmadebyacontributortothediscussionattheconference(IregretthatIdonotknowhisidentity).

(15)Adams2003:4n.9.

(16)Syme1979:414–16,Ogilvie1965:1;contraBadian1993:10–11.

(17)Cf.Koon2010:23.

(18)Barnes2005.

(19)BruceGibsondrawsmyattentiontoVirg.Aen.9.586,wherepositis…hastisclearlyreferstolayingdownspears.

(20)ThefootnotestoBarnes’sarticlecontainanumberofmisleadingstatementsabouttheviewsofvariousscholars,thoughitisunclearwhetherthisisduetomisunderstandingorclumsinessofexpression.Thusatn.1Iamsaidtohave‘condonedreadinghastispositistomean“move(thespears)intoahorizontalposition” ’:whatIsaidwas‘itiswrongtobeover-impressedbyLivy’sfamous“howlers”suchasinterpretingκαταβάλλειντὰςσαρίσαςas“puttingtheirspearsontheground”ratherthan“moveintoahorizontalpositionreadyforthecharge” ’(Briscoe1993:48).Inn.3thestatementthatCrévierandDrakenborch‘preferreddemittere’mightsuggestanemendation:whatBarnesshouldhavesaidis‘thoughtthatLivyoughttohavewrittendemissis’(whichishowCasaubontranslatedPolybiusintoLatin);Drakenborch(1741:690),moreover,merelyreportstheviewofCrévier:hedoesnothimselfexpressanopinion.Inn.5BarnesclaimsthatPianezzola(1969:86)‘pointedoutthatLivyhadplentyofopportunitiestoencountertheterm(sc.καταβάλλειν)throughoutthetextofPolybius’:infacthesaidthatPolybiususeditonotheroccasions;thepassagesconcerned(5.85.9,11.15.6,and11.16.1)allconcernpurelyGreekaffairsandLivymaywellnothavebotheredtoreadthem.Inn.11WeissenbornandMüller(1883:13)aresaidtohave‘realizedthatgladiisoughttorefertotheRomans,nottotheMacedonianphalangites’:theyinfactsaidthattheRomansfoughtwithswords,buttheMacedonianphalanxdidnot.

(21)Adams2003:4.

(22)Cf.Walbank,HCPiii.298.

(23)Mommsen1913:287–8.

(24)Tränkle1977:39–40n.72.

(25)Reiske1763:688.

(26)Tränkle1977:180–1n.11.IhererepeatwhatIwroteinmynoteonthepassage

(Briscoe2008:44).

(27)Cf.Briscoe1981:81.

(28)puppisacetomadefactiscentonibusinteguntur,quossuprapereptuaaclaxesuspensaciliciaobtenduntur.aclaxeisaconjectureofSalmasiusforaclassiintheMSS(ofNoniusMarcellus,thesourceofthevastmajorityofthefragmentsofSisenna)andisfarfromcertain.

(29)IrepeatherewhatIsaidinmynoteonthepassage(Briscoe2008:45).

(30)Tränkle1977:186‘…deraufmerksameLeserkaumausdemStaunenherauskommt’.

(31)ToaconsiderableextentIamrepeatingmynotesonthepassagesconcerned,buthopethattheywillacquiregreaterpointbybeingbroughttogether.

(32)Cf.Walbank,HCPi.541.

(33)Cf.Oakley1998:264,Briscoe2008:53.

(34)At2.14.1,whereLivywritesmostraditusabantiquisusqueadnostramaetatem(‘acustomhandeddownfromtheancientsrightuptoourowntime’),thereisnoreasontosuspectananachronism.

(35)Walsh1994:95.

(36)WeissenbornandMüller1909:108.

(37)Cf.KühnerandStegmann1955:i.118.

(38)ForLivy’suseoftherelative+nuncinsuchformulations,seeOakley1998:376(thoughcf.Briscoe2008:288,417).

(39)InthediscussionattheconferenceJohnMarincolaarguedthatsinceAeneaswasinvolved,thisisjustthesortofdetailwhichsomepeopleatRomemaywellhaveknownabout.FortheAeneaslegendatAenea,seeErskine2001:94–5,Briscoe2008:421.

Polybius’ Roman prokataskeuē

Polybius’Romanprokataskeuē

HansBeck

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0006

AbstractandKeywords

ThischapterexaminesPolybiusRomanprokataskeuē('introduction'),whichrunsfromtheopeningofBook1to2.37.Thisisauniquepieceofhistoriographicalwriting,whichisdesignedtoprovidetheintroductiontoauniversalhistory,butwhichalsodescribesRome'sfirstconflictwithCarthageandtheperiodleadinguptotheHannibalicWar.Withinthesummarynarrativethatisoffered,Polybiuscanbeseentofocusonkeyeventsandreversals,especiallyinhistreatmentoftheFirstPunicWar.WhiletraditionallythevalueoftheevidenceofCassiusDio/Zonarasforthisperiodhasbeenaccordedlessweight,CassiusDio/ZonarasneverthelessrepresentanimportantcontrolforexaminingtheunderlyingassumptionsandmethodologiesofthePolybianprokataskeuē,whichisheavilyconcernedwithemphasizingthenatureoftheRomanachievement.

Keywords:Polybius,CassiusDio,Zonaras,Philinus,FabiusPictor,universalhistory,FirstPunicWar,sourcecriticism

Itisatruismthatwenevergetthefullstoryofevents,pastorpresent.Thehumanbrainworksinaninnatelyselectiveway,andourabilitytocollect,analyse,andprocessdatafromsourcesotherthanourindividualexperiencehasitslimitations.Thenemesisofsubjectivityaddstotheaccumulationofgapsandomissions.Inordertocreatenarrativesandfillthemwithmeaning,weselectwhatwethinkissignificantinanygivencontext,aselectionwhichisbasedonpreconceptionsthat,again,aretheresultofoursubjectiveapproach.Theinevitableprocessofselection(randomordeliberate)posesoneofthegreatestproblemsforthewritingofancienthistory.Literaryandmaterialevidenceisscarceandoftenisolated.Historiansarenotalwaysinapositiontocomparedifferentaccountsonanygivenincident;moreoftenthannot,weareforcedtorelyontextualremainsthatofferbriefsnapshotsofeventsratherthancomplexaccounts,writtenfromdifferentperspectivesandretrievedfrommultiplelayersofinvestigation.

Thesourcenarrativeisinitselftheproductofahighlysubjectiveprocess.Whatmightappearasa‘fact’isnothingmorethanthepreselectionofanancientauthor,madesubconsciouslyorconsciously,andmodelled,presented,andappraisedaccordingtohisownpreconceptions.Anauthormayhavecomposedhisaccounttomeetcertainliterarystandardsandsuitartisticpurposes,toachieveamorepersuasivemessageormeaning,orsimplytoadheretotheneedsofhissupposedaudience.Indeed,theancientauthorwillhaveomittedasredundantinformationwithwhichhisaudiencewasmostlikelyveryfamiliar.Atthesametime,hewillhavemeticulouslyspelledoutotheritemsandepisodes.Butoftentheyonlymadesensebecausetheaudienceunderstoodtheminrelationtoothernotionsthatwereleftunsaid.Finally,someremarkswouldhavebeencompletelynewtotheaudience,inwhichcasetheywereatthemercyoftheauthorandhispreconceptions,forbetterorforworse.1

(p.126) Theprocessesofomission,selection,andframingcontributetoadramaticreductionofwhatwecallthe‘bodyofevidence’.Muchremainsunknownor,atbest,opentospeculation,becausedetailshavebeenexcludedfromthenarrative;orsimplybecauseanotherpieceofinformation,crucialforunderstandingthesignificanceofwhatwasincluded,hadbeenomitted.Awareofthisproblem,JacobBurckhardtreachedthefamousverdictthatThucydides’Historiesmaywellcontainapieceoffirst-classinformationthatwillonlybediscoveredinacenturyorso.2Thekeywillbetorecoverthemissinglinkthatonceconnectedtherelatedpieceofevidencetotheinformationthatwasprecluded.Inthemeantime,selectionandsubjectivityprevailmorethanever.

Thewritingofacommentaryisoneofthemosteffectivescholarlyantidotesagainstselectivity.Commentariesexpanduponthenarrativeoftheancientsources:theyspellouttheunspoken;theydelveintothetextinanattempttoreadbetweenthelines,tryingtoseewhatthesourcesrevealaboutthesubconsciousassumptionsandknowledgeofawriterandhisaudience.Thepropercommentary,tobesure,distinguishesitselfthroughlinguisticexpertise.Forinstance,whenCatoissaidtohaveusedthewordbiber,thelearnedmodernscholiastnotesatsomelengththatthismaynotmean‘drinker’,butrather‘todrink’,sincebiberisanarchaicinfinitiveandnotanoun.3Thisisimportant.Butitishardlythissortofcommentarythat,toborrowaPolybianphrase,enlightensthe

readersothathecanmakehisownjudgementanddrawforthnewconclusions.

Incontrast(andalthoughthegenreitselfisexposedtothepitfallsofselectivity),thehistoricalcommentaryattemptstofillthegapsofselectivityandprovideameaningtothenarrativetraditionthatgoesbeyondtheaccountofthewrittenword.Itexplainsbothintra-andextra-textualreferences,andelaboratesontheculturalcharacteristicsofapastenvironment;inthisregard,italsoresolvestextualorlinguisticambiguities.But,mostofall,itshedslightonthetext’simplicitassumptionsandsilentinnuendoes.Itdisclosestheintellectualenvironmentsurroundingtheauthorandhisreadership,sinceitilluminatesthebackgroundknowledgeoftheircommunication.Inthisregard,thecriticalcommentarybecomesonewiththeancienttradition.4Thedangers(p.127) associatedwithsuchanenterpriseareobvious:redundancyisone,over-interpretationanother;andbehindthefaçadeofacquaintancewiththeancientauthoritieslurksthetemptationofself-importance.HCPisfreefromanyofthesemisfortunes.FrankWalbanknotonlymasteredtheskillofcriticalcommentarywriting,buthiscommentaryitselfhassetthestandardsforgenerations.Itisanexemplummaiorum,apermanentreminderofwhathasbeenachieved,andcanbeachieved,bymeansoftruescholarship.

ItwasperhapsHCPVolume1thatchallengeditsauthorinhisdealingswithselectionandsubjectivitymorethananythingelse.Volume1coversBooks1–6.ThesebooksincludeapreludetotheactualtopicofPolybius’universalhistory,famouslyannouncedas‘thefifty-threeyears[from220to167]inwhichtheRomanssucceededinbringingalmostthewholeinhabitedworldunderthem’.5Beforeheturnedtothis,Polybius‘thoughtitnecessarytoprefixthisbook[thefirst]andthenext’(1.3.8),inorderthat‘nooneafterbecomingengrossedinthenarrativepropermayfindhimselfataloss,andaskbywhatcounselandtrustingtowhatpowerandresourcestheRomansembarkedonthatenterprisewhichhasmadethemlordsoverlandandseainourpartoftheworld’(1.3.9).Thegrandschemeisclear.Books1and2weredesignedtoprovideapreliminarysketch,whilethepropernarrativecommencedinBook3.Thisprefacewasnecessary—atleastthisiswhatPolybiusthought—becausetheGreekswerenot‘wellacquaintedwiththetwostateswhichdisputedtheempireoftheworld’.Thisledhim‘todeal…withtheprevioushistory[oftheRomansandtheCarthaginians]andtonarratewhatpurposeguidedthemandonwhatsourcesofstrengththeyrelied,inenteringuponsuchavastundertaking’(1.3.7).

Polybiusframedanewtechnicalexpressionforthispreface,ἡπροκατασκευή,whichsignifiesthe‘preparation’or‘introduction’tothemainhistory(theκατασκευή,HCPi.216).HegenerallyusesthetermprokataskeuēforthecontentsofBooks1and2,6boththroughoutthebooksthemselves,whenherefersto‘thebriefsummaryofeventsincludedintheseintroductorybooks’(1.13.1),andinlatersectionsofhisHistories.Forinstance,inBooks4and5,whenthereaderisremindedofeventsdescribedinthepreface,heisreferredtotheprokataskeuē(4.1.9;5.111.10).Onthefirstoccurenceofprokataskeuēinthetext(1.3.10),HCPvolume1listsotherreferencesinthePolybiantextandinformsthereaderthat,eventhoughthewordisanewtermforan(p.128)introduction,‘thecustomofappendingintroductionswasalreadyusual’(44).Walbank

refersthereadertoThucydidesBook1,whoseArchaeology(1.2–22)maywellhaveformedamosteminentandmostinfluentialintroductiontomonographichistory-writinginantiquity.7

Lateroccurrencesofthetermprokataskeuē,alloftheminBooks1–5,receivenospecificdiscussioninHCPVolume1,withonenotableexception.In2.37.2,towardstheendofhisRomanpreface,Polybiusremarksthathehasnow‘givenacontinuoussketch,suitabletothepreliminaryplanofmybook,ofeventsinSicily,Libyaandsoforth…downtothesecondwarbetweentheRomansandCarthaginians.This,asIstatedattheoutset[1.3.1–2],isthedateatwhichIproposetobeginmyownnarrative.’Yet,asthetextunfolds,Polybiusturns‘totheaffairsofGreece,sothateverywherealikeImaybringdownthispreliminaryorintroductorysketchtothesamedate’(2.37.3).Inotherwords,PolybiusclosestheRomanprokataskeuēin2.37.2withthepromisetoturntohisgenuinetopic.However,inthenextsentence(3)hebeginstoappendalengthysurveyoftheearlierhistoryofMacedonandAchaea(2.37.3–70.8).Thisisremarkableinthesensethatitpresentsasignificantruptureinthetext.Italsocontradictstheprogrammaticstatementonthenatureoftheprokataskeuēin1.3.7–10(citedabove),whichwasconceivedofasanintroductionnecessarybecauseofHellenicignoranceofRomanandCarthaginianhistoriespriortotheHannibalicWar.

ThiscontradictionhastriggeredalivelydebateontheHellenicprokataskeuēanditsplaceintheHistories.Notably,MatthiasGelzerandRichardLaqueurhavearguedthatPolybiusinsertedtheAchaeanintroduction(2.37.3–70.8)onlytowardstheendofhislife(after146).8GelzerinparticularassumedthatthesecondhalfofBook2wasnotenvisagedatallwhentheHistorieswerecomposed.Onasimilarnote,hesuggestedthatreferencestothecontentsoftheHellenicintroduction(suchas1.13.5)werealsolateradditions.9GelzersurmountstheobviousdifficultycreatedbythosereferencesbyproposingthehypothesisofanearlyPolybianworkwhichwascomposedinsupportofthepropagandaconductedforthereturnoftheAchaeanexilesafterPydna.AccordingtoGelzer,thatworkwaslaterincorporatedintothemainhistory,alongwithaseriesofcross-referencesandanticipatorynotes.10ThisviewpromptedalengthyresponseinHCPi.215–16.Itsmainobjectivewastocounterthehypothesisofalaterinsertion.WalbankpointstovarioussectionsoftheintroductorychaptersthatimplythecontinuedexistenceoftheAchaeanLeagueatthetimeofthecompositionofBooks1and2.11Thisargument(p.129) alonemakesitdifficulttoacceptthehypothesisofalaterinsertion,andthereseemstobenocompellingreasontoreviveit.However,thissolutionstillprovokesacertaindiscomfort,sinceWalbankdoesnotexplainthebreakinthenarrativeat2.37.2–3asnotedabove,whenPolybiusclosestheRomanintroductionandpromisestoturntohisownnarrativeonlytocontinuewiththeHellenicintroduction.HCPVolume1leavesthisincongruitywithoutcomment.

Theissueisdifficulttoresolve,buttheterminologyin2.37mayhintatabetterunderstandingofthiscrucialpassage.WhiletheaccountofRomanaffairspriortotheHannibalicWarisagainreferredtoasprokataskeuē(2.37.2),thehistorywhichfollowsisannouncedassyntaxis(2.37.3)and,forthefirsttime,asapodeiktikēhistoria(ibid.).As

Walbankhasshownasearlyas1945andagaininHCPVolume1,Polybiususesapodeiktikosheretomean‘supportedbyfullreasons’,whichhighlightsapodeiktikēhistoriaas‘detailed,well-arguedhistory’.12Thetermthusopposesthe‘apodeictic’narrativeofthemainthemeandthepreparatoryaccountthatconsistsofmereassertions(cf.4.40.1)or,asofthispoint,theprokataskeuēofBooks1and2.Theapodeicticnarrativeisconcernedwithafully-fledged,elaboratemethodology,tracingcausesandeffects.Incontrast,theprokataskeuēiskephalaiōdōs,‘summarilyasintroduction’or,literally,‘accordingtoheadtopics’(cf.1.13.7;2.1.4).13Itssummarynaturedoesnotallowforanin-depthanalysis,anditmaynotevenleaveroomforacriticalreviewofotherhistorians,letalonetheinclusionofmaterialofatragiccharacter.14Inshort,apodeiktikosanditsopposite,kephalaiōdēs,refertodistinctmethodologiesthatareappliedtodifferentsectionsoftheHistories.Polybiusendorsesthisideain2.37,attheendoftheRomanintroduction.Hedoesso,mostlikely,toremindthereaderofthedifferenttextureoftheintroductorybooksandthemainnarrative.

TheconcludingremarksofBook2againhighlighttheconceptualapproachtowardshistoryintheprokataskeuē.PolybiusstressesthatthetopicalandmethodologicalschemeoftheHistoriesmadeitnecessary‘tomakeclearlyknowntoeveryonethestateofaffairsinMacedoniaandGreece’(2.71.2).Thetermfor‘making(orbeing)clearlyknown’appliedhereandelsewhere(2.37.6;cf.also1.5.4,citedbelow)isγνώριμονὑπάρχειν,whichreferstoacommon(p.130) knowledgethatisgenerallyagreeduponandfreefromdisputesanddoubts.15TheHellenicintroductionisthusconsistentwiththehistoriographicalprinciplesspelledoutfortheprokataskeuē.Despiteitserraticpositioning,itiswellinlinewiththegrandschemeofanintroductorysectionthatiswrittenprogrammaticallyandwithoutin-depthanalysesofthecausationofevents,andthatpresentsthereaderwithan(allegedly)undisputednarrativeofevents.PolybiusendorsesthisapproachbothatthebeginningandtowardstheendoftheHellenicintroduction.

TheRomanprokataskeuēislesstroublesome,atleastasfarasitsplaceintheHistoriesisconcerned.ThesectiondealswithaffairsinthewesternMediterraneanbefore220.Itstartsfrom‘thefirstoccasiononwhichtheRomanscrossedtheseafromItaly’,aneventthat,accordingtoPolybius,tookplaceinthe129thOlympiad(264–1,thatis)andthatfollowedimmediatelyonthecloseofTimaeus’History.16ItisclearfromthisannouncementthattheRomanprokataskeuēcoveredtheperiodoftheFirstPunicWar(1.10–63),theMercenaryWar(1.64–88),17aswellastheeventsthatledtotheHannibalicWar(2.1–36),aperiodofaboutforty-fiveyears.ThisisindeedhowPolybiussummarizesthecontentsatthebeginningofBook2andagainin2.37towardstheendoftheRomanintroduction.Butthispreparatoryoutlinereceivesyetanotherintroduction:afterasuccinctdescriptionoftheGallicWarsofthefourthcenturyandtheexpansionofRomanpowerinItaly(1.6.1–4),PolybiusrelatestheeventsthatledtotheTarentineWar,Pyrrhus’engagementinItaly,andtheconflictbetweenMessanaandRhegium(1.6.5–9.8).Thisopeningsectionisdesignedtoextrapolateaclearstarting-point,thatis,abeginningthatisgenerallyagreeduponandrecognized,andalso‘self-apparentfromtheevents’(1.5.4).18

Itisironicthatofallpossiblecandidatesforsuchanundisputedstarting-point,Polybiuspicksthemostcontroversialonepossible—theRomancrossingtoSicily,anincidentwhichheintendstorelatewithoutcommentsothathisnarrativewillnotbediscreditedbydisputesanddigressionsearlyinthe(p.131) text(cf.1.5.5).Hence,theRomanprokataskeuēstartswithahistoriographicalbigbang.Inordertoestablishagenuineandundisputedbeginning,PolybiusrelatestheoccasionandmotivesofthefirstRomancrossingfromItalywithanarmedforce(1.7.1–12.4).Buthedoessoinahighlyopinionatedfashion,accordingtoeventswhichhehadselectedassignificantintheircontextandcrucialforhisapproach,andhedoessowithnoreferencewhatsoevertoalternativeinterpretations,letalonetothecontradictoryaccountsofotherauthorities.

Asmentionedabove,theprincipleofincludinganopeningsectionmighthavebeeninspiredbyThucydides.ButuponacloserlookatwhatfollowsaftertheRomancrossingfromItaly,itbecomesobviousthatPolybius’prokataskeuēhaslittleincommonwithThucydides.Theverynatureofauniversalhistorysetadistincttone.Inhisattempttodisentangletheinterconnectednessofeventsthatenablethereadertograspasenseofthewholeworld,Polybius’conceptualapproachdiffersfromthatofThucydides,whoseaimwastodisclosethemechanicsofbipolarity.19Thisdifferenceisalsoreflectedinthenumberofpageseachdevotestotheintroduction.WhilePolybius’introductionfillsnearlyoneandahalfbooks(some155Loebpages,excludingtheHellenicintroduction),Thucydides’treatmentofasimilartimespancomprisesonly28chapters(1.89–117,23Loebpages).So,despitehispreviouscommitmenttoprovidethereaderwithanintroductionwritteninakephalaiōdēsstyle,summarilyandaccordingtokeythemes,Polybius’actualtextisremarkablydetailedand,attimes,long-winded.ThisleadstoathirdmajordifferencebetweenThucydides’andPolybius’introductorysections,whichisalsothemosteminentone.ForunlikeThucydides,whosePentekontaetiawasanunprecedentedattempttocomposeanarrativeonthetopic,Polybius’enterprisewasbynomeanswithoutpredecessors.TheFirstPunicWarhadbeentreatedbyhistorianswhohadplentyoffirst-handinformation,includingpersonalexperience.TheirhistorieswerebothaninvaluablesourceforPolybiusandachallenge.

ThemostimportantsourceswereofcourseFabiusPictorandPhilinus.20ScholarshavelongbeenpuzzledoverwhichofthetwohistoriansPolybiusfollowedashisprincipalsourceinanygivenpassage.Thisexercisehas(p.132) attractedscholarsofallagesand—naturally—ithasproducedcompetingandoftenconflictingviewsonPolybius’useofhissources.21ThereisnoneedtoflogadeadhorsehereandofferanotherprecariousexerciseinQuellenforschung.AsGelzerpointedoutlongago,Polybius’RomanintroductionwasnotamechanicallyconstructedpatchworkofeasilyseparablematerialfromFabiusandPhilinus.22Forinstance,GelzerhasshownthatwhenPolybiusmentionsallRomanconsulsfortheyears263to250,thisinformationassuchdoesnotindicatetheuseofFabiusPictor(and,inturn,theabsenceofconsulnamesdoesnotpointtotheuseofPhilinus).23Walbankhasdevelopedthisideafurther.In‘Polybius,Philinus,andtheFirstPunicWar’hestressedtheinterweavingoftwoinextricablyconnectedstrandsinthePolybiantradition.24Thiswasnotanewaperçu,butWalbank’sanalysisalso,andmoregenerally,raisedaredflagaboutPolybius’independencefromhissourcesintheRoman

introduction.HedemonstratedthatmanypassagesthatseemessentiallyPolybianincharactermayinfactderivemoreorlessastheystandfromhispredecessors.25WalbankconcludesthatlongsectionsinBook1maygobackdirectlytoeitherFabiusor,moreextensively,Philinus,whosedidactichistorydoes‘not[appear]dissimilarintemperament’26toPolybius’.

Theseobservations,iftakenseriously,castadditionallightonourunderstandingofPolybius’Romanintroduction.Thesectionismethodologicallyandconceptuallyunique,ahistoriographicalpiecesuigeneris.Itisdesignedtosetthestageforauniversalhistory,butitactuallyrelatestheconflictbetweenRomeandCarthagepriortotheHannibalicWar.Thematerialisarrangedkephalaiōdōs,butthetextislengthyandsignificantlydetailed.And,whilethenarrativeisclearlynotapodeiktikosbutratheropinionatedandselective,itisseeminglyatthemercyofitssources.

From1.20on,PolybiusrelateswhenandhowtheRomansfirstbuiltnavalforces.Theincident,intheconsulshipofCn.CorneliusScipioandC.Duiliusin260,isdescribedasagreatturning-pointthatmarksadefiningmomentinthecourseoftheFirstPunicWar(cf.2.1.2).WhentheRomanssawthatthewarwasdraggingon,thesenatedecidedtobuildafleetof100quinqueremesand20triremes(1.20.9–10).Beforethebuildingprogrammeandthetrainingofthecrewswerecomplete,theconsulappointedtothecommandofthenavalforces,Cn.CorneliusScipio,embarkedonamissiontoLiparatocapturetheislandwiththesupportofcertaintraitors.Buttheplanfellthrough.The(p.133) RomanarmadawascapturedandScipiowastakenprisoner(1.21.1–8),whichleftthebulkofthefleetstillinOstiawithoutacommander.Onlynow,asPolybiusreports,wasC.Duiliusappointedtothenavalcommand.Onceatsea,hetrouncedaCarthaginiannavalcontingentnearMylae,landedonSicily,anddroveouttheCarthaginiansfromtheareaaroundSegesta(1.22.1–24.2).Duilius’stunningsuccessissaidtohavebeenduetoatechnicalrevolution.Forsomeone(τις:1.22.3)hadtheideaofequippingtheRomanvesselswithboardingplanks—thefamousravens—whichallowedforanovelfightingmethodmuchmoreadvantageoustotheRomansthanthetraditional‘ramandsink’.AtleastthisiswhatPolybiussays.27

Thisaccountisnotunchallenged.Forinstance,theroleoftheravenshaslongbeenquestioned.Theirimpactonnavalwarfareinandafter260wasmostlikelymuchlesssignificantthanPolybiussuggests.28Butthereareother,andmoreprofound,objections.Epigraphicevidence,aswellasfragmentsoftheRomanannalistictradition,offeradifferentoutline.29TheirversioniscomplementedbyDio/Zonaras,whoprovidestheonlycoherentnarrative,besidesthatofPolybius,tosurvive.30TheRomantraditionsetsadifferenttone.InDio,Duiliusisincommandofthenavalforcesfromthebeginning,31anditisDuilius,notScipio,whoiscreditedwiththetrainingofthecrewsandtheinventionofthecorvi.32ThebattlesofMylaeandnear(p.134) Segestaarepresentedashispersonalachievements(PolybiusdoesnotmentionDuiliuswithregardtotheseevents),whileScipio’sattempttoseizeLiparaisportrayedasanunauthorized,andinfactfoolish,expedition.33

Dio’snarrative,alongwithscatteredevidencefromtheannalistictradition,enablesusto

reassessPolybius’.Foronce,weareinapositiontocompareaccountsandevaluatetheircoherenceandcredibility.IthasbeenarguedelsewherethattheRomantraditionaspreservedinDio/ZonarasistrustworthyandinfactsuperiortoPolybius’version,whichnotonlysuffersfromalackofplausibilitybutalsofrominternalcontradictions.34AclosereadingoftheRomantraditionrevealsaremarkablycoherentalternative,analternativethatshedsadifferentlightontheeventsasoutlinedbyPolybius:notScipio,butDuiliuswasinchargeofthefleet.35Asconsulwiththenavalprovincia,heoversawthetechnicalequipmentandthetrainingofthecrews.36AnditwasduetohisexpertisethattheRomanfleetfoughtafirstsuccessfulnavalencounterwiththeCarthaginiansanddrovethemawayfromSegesta.37Asmentionedabove,ithasthereforebeensuggestedthatourpictureoftheseeventsneedsthoroughrevision,which,consequently,bringsnewlighttotheunderstandingofadefiningmomentinthehistoryoftheFirstPunicWar.But,withregardtohistoriography,whataretheramificationsofthisforourunderstandingofPolybius’prokataskeuēandtheveracityofthesectioningeneral?

BothFabiusPictorandPhilinustreatedtheeventsinquestionatsomelength,butitisnotalwayseasytoseetowhatextenttheiropposedprejudicescolouredtheiraccounts.38AsfarasScipio’sdisasternearLiparaisconcerned,theRomantraditionaccusestheCarthaginiansofbetrayalandtreason;(p.135) allegedly,theconsulwastakenprisonerduringcertainnegotiations.39Polybius,too,impliesthatScipio’smissionwasbasedonfalsepromises(1.21.5;cf.8.35.9),butherefrainsfromallegations,letaloneaccusations,againsttheCarthaginians.ThisobservationpointstoPhilinusratherthanFabius,whomostlikelywillhavepromotedtheversionofCarthaginianinfidelity.40Polybius’useofPhilinusmayalsobesupportedbyhisemphasisonelementsofsurpriseandunexpectedturnsthroughoutthatpassage.Theopeningremarkin1.20.9thatthesenatedecidedtobuildawarfleetonlyin260,whentheRomanssawthatthewarwasdraggingon,setsthestageforagenuineturning-pointinPolybius’accountandenhancesitsdramaturgy.ButitalsoeclipsesthepointthatamassiveRomanfleetofmorethan100shipshadalreadybeenbuiltandwasinuseasearlyas263.Polybiussimplyignoredthis,mostlikelytoincreasethenarrativetensionofthepassage.41In1.23.1,hepinpointstheperipeteiathathadbefallenScipio,andin1.24.1itisstatedthatthenavalsuccessatMylae(Duiliusisnotmentionedbyname)cameparadoxōs,‘contrarytoallexpectation’.Thestressonparadoxa,sensationalandunexpectedreversalsoffortune,aswellastheprominentpartplayedinhumanaffairsbytyche42seemtohavebeencharacteristicofPhilinus’work.Again,thiswasdemonstratedlongagobyWalbank,whodeemsPhilinus’historyanoutstandingcontributiontotheHellenistictragicschool.Itisthuspossibletoreinforcetheproposalthattheeventsof260asrelatedbyPolybiusstemlargelyandwidelyfromPhilinus.43Butthereisatleastoneimportantexception.ForneitherPhilinusnorFabiuswillhavechangedtheprovinciaeoftheconsuls.44ThismusthavebeenaPolybianingredient.Whatappearsasaminorormaybeacosmeticmanipulationofadetailedpieceofinformationhad,however,hugeramificationsfortheoverallaccountinthatsection.NotonlywasCn.CorneliusScipioportrayedinamorefavourablelightthanhedeserved45butthecourseofeventswastweakedandturnedintoamajorperipeteia.Underthe(p.136) smokescreenoftheprokataskeuē’sconceptualapproach,Polybiustookthelibertytopromotethisversionassomethingthatwascommonknowledge.

Whiletheyear260ishighlightedasaperipeteiaintheFirstPunicWar,thetechniqueofsinglingoutindividualyearsandmarkingthemasgreatturning-pointsisbynomeanslimitedtothatonecampaigningseason.Indeed,itisaprominentfeaturethroughouttheprokataskeuē.ThenavalbattleofCapeEcnomusin256(1.26.1–28.14),tobefollowedbyRegulus’expeditiontoAfrica(1.30–4),isanothermajorcaesurainthenarrative,asisthebattleofDrepanain249(1.49.6–51.12).AsWalbankhasdemonstrated,Polybius’sourceinbothcasesseemstohavebeenPhilinuswhowaseitherhimselfacontemporaryoftheeventsordrewonsourcesfromeyewitnessaccounts.46BothdescriptionsrevealasignificantinterestinbattleformationsandtacticalmanœuvringwhichunderlinestheirimportanceinPolybius’grandschemeofevents.InRegulus’case,histragicfateeveninvitedalongerreflectionontheperipeteiaofRomanandCarthaginianaffairsthatwasbroughtaboutbytheconsulandbyXanthippusrespectively(1.35).WhileRegulusillustratestheturnofhistorywroughtbyfortune,Carthagewas(temporarily)restoredtoconfidencethroughtheaidofasingleman(cf.HCPi.92–4).

ItwasrecentlyarguedbyBrunoBleckmannthatPolybius’focusonthenarrativeexpositionof‘bigevents’andturning-pointshardlyreflectstherealitiesofthebitter,exhausting,andtenacioushostilitiesthathadworndownbothpartiesinthe250sandearlieryearsofthe240s.47BleckmanndemonstratesthatPolybius’tendencytooveremphasizetheimportanceofsingleeventsalsoincludesattemptstopresenttheyearsprecedingsuchkeymomentsasrelativelyeventless.Thenarrativestrategyseemstohavebeenthatofa‘calmbeforethestorm’,i.e.thereader’santicipationofamajorconflictisfuelledbytheinsinuationthatbothpartiesrefrainedfromfightinginordertoprepareamajorstrikeinthefollowingyear.Forinstance,inPolybius’accountofthecampaigningseasonof257(beforeEcnomus)thenavalengagementoffTyndarisisportrayedasaminorskirmish,andC.AtiliusRegulus’operationsonSicilyarepresentedas‘nothingworthyofmention’,asbothpartiesspenttheirtime‘inminoroperationsofnosignificance’(1.25.6).

Incontrast,Dio/ZonarasrelatesthattheRomanfleet,aftertheTyndarisencounter,wagedafull-scaleattackonLiparatocapturetheisland.48TheRomantraditionalsoclaimsthatAtiliusRegulussailedasfarasMaltaandplunderedtheharbour.49Bothreferencesmaybeauthentic:towardstheendof(p.137) 258,thesenatefreedfundstoinaugurateanexpensiveship-buildingprogramme,whichwasdesignedbothtoexpandandintensifythewarfareatsea.50Exploringnewsearoutesandwideningthemaritimehorizon,theexpeditiontoMalta,themostsouthernspottowhichaRomanfleethadeversaileduntilthatdate,wouldhavefittedintothatstrategy.UponhisreturnAtiliusReguluscelebratedatriumphusnavalisovertheCarthaginians,whichprovesPolybius’accountofadullcampaignseasonwrong.51

Theconceptualapproachtotheeventscoveredintheprokataskeuēallowedforsuchapin-pointing;infact,thearrangementofthematerialinakephalaiōdēsmannermadeitnecessarytofocusonpeaksandturns.Butatthesametime,theinformationrelatedintheintroductionexceedswhatisannouncedasasummaryintroduction;itoftendepartsfromtheprincipleof‘headtopics’.Severalpassagesareextremelyelaborateandfilled

withnumerousdetailsthatobfuscateratherthansharpenthenarrativeagendaofatopicalpeak.ItisinthosesectionsthatPolybius’accountseemstobeparticularlypronetounreliability.Theevaluationofthenarrativeontheconsularyearsof260and257suggestsasmuch.

ThefinalyearsoftheFirstPunicWarpointinthesamedirection.Inafamouspassage,Polybiusclaimsthattheendofthewarwasnotprecipitatedbymutualexhaustioninthefightingonland.For‘bothsidesemployedeverydeviceandeffortthatthesiege[atMountEryx]demanded.Bothenduredeverykindofprivationandbothessayedeverymeansofattackandeveryvarietyofaction.Atlengthnot,asFabiusPictorsays,owingtotheirexhaustionandsufferings,butliketwouninjuredandinvinciblechampions,theyleftthecontestdrawn.Forbeforeeithercouldgetthebetteroftheother…thewarhadbeendecidedbyothermeans.’52Despitethedecisionofthepeople’sassembliestowithdrawfromlarge-scalenavalenterprisesin247,53whichbythattimehadinvolvedheavylossesanddevouredenormoussumsfromthestatetreasury,thesenatein242decidedonceagainto‘courttheprospectofusingsea-forces’(1.58.2).Polybiussetsthisdecisioninstarkcontrasttothepreviousmaximofavoidingthesea.Itwasduetothisreversal,sohestresses,thatRomeultimatelyprevailedovertheCarthaginians,sincethelatterhadneglectedtheirnavalforcesformanyayear,‘owingtotheirhavingneverexpectedtheRomanstodisputetheseawiththemagain’(1.61.5;cf.1.58.3).54Rome’sreturntotheseaisanunexpectedmovethatmarksthefinalperipeteiaontheroadtovictory.

(p.138) Thispictureiswidelyacceptedamongscholars,althoughthetraditionisnotunchallenged.TheannalistictraditionaspreservedinDio/ZonarascontainsvariousreferencesthatpointtoahighfrequencyofsearaidsthatwereundertakenbyRomanprivateersintheyearsafter247.Mostprominently,alengthypassageonanavalencounterintheharbourofHippoinNorthAfricadocumentsthatthefightingatsearesembledsomeofthemajoroperationsinthedecadebefore,especiallyintermsofthenumbersofcombatantsinvolved.55Thesemanœuvrescontinuedand,infact,increasedintheyearsbefore242.56Ithasbeenarguedthatthevesselsusedduringthosecampaignsweremaintainedbyprivateentrepreneursratherthanthestatetreasury,andthatthecrewsweresignedonfromprivateersandpirates,wholookedforplunderandbooty.57Thismayindeedhavebeenthecase.ButitisstrikingtonotethatDio/Zonarasascribesaninterestingsidelighttothoseoperations.Henotesthat‘bytheravagingofAfricaonthepartoftheprivatecitizenswhoweremanagingtheships,theywerenolongerwillingtoneglectthesea,butagaingottogetherafleet’.58Inotherwords:whentheRomans‘officially’returnedtotheseain242,thiswasnotsomuchduetoadeadlockinthewaronlandandthegeneralexhaustionthatwasprovokedbyit,butwastriggeredbyaseriesofsuccessfulencountersfoughtbyRoman‘privateers’,whosevictoriesinstilledthevotingassemblieswithnewconfidenceatsea.59Polybius’notoriouspictureofRome’scapacitytomobilizeitsresourcesandovercomethemiseriesofexhaustion—acapacitythatisultimatelyexplainedbyRome’smoralsuperiority60—seemstobeimperfectatbest.TheannalistictraditionoffersadifferentexplanationfortheRomanreturntothesea,anditisnoteworthythatDio’saccountrestsonelaboratehistorical

contextualizationratherthanonmoralpreconceptions.

WhenC.LutatiusCatuluswaselectedconsulfor242Romanhopeswereputtothetest.PolybiusmakesitclearthatLutatius’actionsweredeterminedbyspeed.Heunexpectedly(paradoxōs:1.59.9)appearedoffthecoastofSicily,(p.139) ‘allowednotimetopassuselessly’(11)and,believingthatitwasonlybyaseabattlethatthewarcouldbefinished,readiedhisoarsmen‘inaveryshorttime’(12).Polybius’accountinsinuatesadramaticallyacceleratedcourseofeventsthatleadstothefinalshow-downattheAegatesIslands.AccordingtothealternativetraditionofDio/Zonaras,uponhisarrivalonSicilytheconsulwaswoundedduringthepreparationsforthesiegeofDrepana,whichposedasignificantdelaytothenextsteps.61Inthecourseofevents,theactualseabattleislessdramaticinDio,anditsoutcomeisamuchnarrowervictory.62TheRomantraditionagaintakesintoaccountvariousdetailsandsomedetoursthataddtoalessstreamlinedcourseofevents.Ontheotherhand,Polybius’versionseemsonceagainoversimplified,focusingonthesensationofRome’smilitaryandmoralachievement.

AfterhisvictoryneartheAegatesIslands,C.Lutatiusdemandedthesurrenderofarmsanddeserters,butwhenHamilcarrefused,theconsuldidnotpressthesedemandsandreadilyconsentedtonegotiateapeacetreaty.Polybiusreiteratestheexhaustionmotive,stressingthatLutatius’readinessforpeacewastriggeredbythefact‘thattheRomanswerebythistimewornoutandenfeebledbythewar’(1.62.7).ButwhenthepeacetermswerereferredtoRomeandputbeforethepeople’sassembly,thepeopledidnotacceptthemandsenttencommissionerstoexaminethematterinthenextspring(241).63Polybiusoffersnoexplanationforthisdelay,whichseemstobeodd,atbest,inthelightofomnipresentweariness.ThehistoricalreasonsfortherejectionofthefirstdraftofthepeacehavebeendebatedsincethedaysofMommsen:ithasbeensuggestedthattheprocedureofsendinglegatiindicatesabreakwiththenobility,orthatthepassagecloakstheactivitiesoftheequiteswhopressedforharshereconomictermstogethigherinterestontheirloanstothestatetreasury.64Morerecently,ithasbeenarguedthattheideaofsendingagroupoftenemissarieswasindicativeofthearistocracy’sattitudethattheyshould,ratherthanallowLutatiustomonopolizevictory,divideitamongtheleadingfamiliesthathadprovidedholdersofimperiumoverthepasttwodecades.65

(p.140) Bethatasitmay,inhistoriographicalterms,HCPVolume1basesthePolybianaccount‘nodoubt…onFabius’(127)andlinksitwiththelatter’sthesisof‘populargreed’(ibid.),whichhaddecidedtheissueofhelpingtheMamertiniatthebeginningofthewar.FabiusPictor’stextforbothinstances,attheoutbreakofthewarandonitsconclusion,is,ofcourse,lost,whichputsWalbank’sassumptioninaplausiblerealm,yetitnonethelessremainsunverifiableQuellenforschung.Itisstrikingtonotethatthegreedmotiveisinfactrelatedinthesources.WhenDio/ZonarasnarratestheeventsthatledtothepeacetreatywithCarthage,herelatesthatthepeoplerejectedthefirstdraftoftermsbecause‘theycouldnolongerrestrainthemselves,andhopedtopossessallofAfrica’.66Thatistosay,inDio’saccount,theRomanforcesarebynomeansexhausted,noristheconsul’sdesireforpeacedrivenbythehardshipsofawarthatwasdraggingonformorethantwodecades.Instead,DiopointstoRome’seagernesstomaximizewarspoilsand,if

necessary,prolonghostilitiesforthesakeofamoreprofitablepeacearrangement.Onceagain,Dio/Zonaraspresentsthereaderwithanalternativeaccountthatisnotaltogetherunconvincing,whereasPolybius’version,forcefulasitmaybe,suffersfrominternalinconsistencies.

BythetimeofHCPVolume1,Polybius’superiorityoverCassiusDioandtheremnantsoftheannalistictraditioninhisworkwasaxiomaticinclassicalscholarship.Itwasbasedononeofthefundamentaltenetsofancienthistorythatsourcesmorecontemporarytotheeventstheydescribearecreditedwithmoreweightthanlaterauthorities,thoughnotuncritically.TherewasalsoawidespreadconsensusthatPolybius’skillswereintellectuallyandmethodologicallypreferabletothoseofCassiusDioand,withregardtothefirstquarterofhishistory,hisByzantineepitomizer,Zonaras.67Thelatter’srecordwasmostlydisregarded.InonlyaveryfewinstancesdoesHCPVolume1referthereadertotheaccountofZonaras,whilereferencestoCassiusDioareevenlessfrequent.68Thisprominentviewwasonlyrecentlysubjectedtothoroughrevision.Thein-depthanalysisofDio/Zonaras’narrativeontheFirstPunicWarbyBleckmannrevealsstrikingsimilaritiesbetweenDioandavarietyofnon-annalisticsourcematerials,includingepigraphicevidence.Bleckmannis(p.141) abletoextrapolatetracesofatraditionthatisnotnecessarilyannalisticinarigidsenseoftheconcept,butwhichpreservesscatteredpiecesofcontemporaryevidencefromthethirdandsecondcenturies,aswellashistoriographicalinformationfrombothannalisticwritersandotherauthors.69Revisitingthisstreamofthetradition,Bleckmanncreditsitwith‘evenmoreweight’70thanPolybius,atleastconcerningeventsrelatedintheprokataskeuē.

Thetruevalueofthe‘new’Dio/Zonaras,then,isnotsomuch—andcertainlynotinthefirstplace—toprovePolybiuswrongorconvicthimof‘lies’.71Rather,thecomparativeapproachenableshistorianstobroadenthebasisoftextualremainsandtacklethechallengesofselectivity.Mostsignificantly,itallowsforabetterunderstandingofwhatisactuallyrelatedinPolybius’work.Inotherwords:itisnotnecessarilytheirpotentialtorevisePolybius’informationthatmakesparallelaccountssuchasDio/Zonaras’sovaluable,butrathertheircontributiontothevexedprocessofunearthingtheunderlyingassumptionsofPolybius’Historiesanddecipheringitsinherentpatternsofselectingthematerial,creatinganarrative,andpromotingacertainmeaning.WithregardtotheRomanprokataskeuē,thisapproachisparticularlypromising.Scholarsforlonghavebeenpuzzledbythemethodologyandnarrativetechniquesappliedtotheintroductionandalsobyitsreliability.ThetraditionpreservedinDio/Zonarasmakesanimportantcontributiontothesequestions.

OnPolybius’ownaccount,thenarrativeoftheRomanintroductionwasdesignedtoprovidethemainpointsnecessaryforunderstandingthehistoryproper.ItsgoalwastofamiliarizetheGreekaudiencewithaffairsinthewesternMediterraneanandtonarratewhatpurposeguidedtheRomanswhentheybegantheuniqueundertakingofbecomingthemastersofall.Toillustratethis,thematerialwaspresentedsummarilyandinkeytopics,kephalaiōdōs.Inturn,thisimpliedthattheintroductioneschewedhistoricaldetailandin-depthanalysis,amethodologythatwaspresentedincontrasttothepragmatic

styleofthemainhistory.Onemaywonderhowmuchjusticetheprokataskeuēdoestothatgoal.Tobesure,thenarrativeontheFirstPunicWarmeetsadidacticaiminthesensethatitillustratessomeofPolybius’basicconvictionsandbeliefs:theworksoftyche,butalsothemoralmatrixofpolitics(p.142) andRome’ssuperiormentalqualities,notablyitsψυχομαχία.72But,unlikeThucydides,Polybiusoftenrefrainsfromaxiomaticreductions.Hisdidacticagendaisembeddedinlong-windednarrativesoncampaignseasonsandthetechnicalitiesofwarfare.Theactualcontentofthisyear-by-yearaccountisrenderedfromFabiusandPhilinus—indeed,itisnotimplausibletosuggest,asWalbankhasdone,73thatmuchoftheRomanprokataskeuēwascopiedfromPhilinus.Inthisregard,theRomanintroductionremarkablylacksindependence.

Yet,atthesametime,theapproachisindividualisticandhighlyopinionated,especiallywhendidacticorotherhigh-mindedgoalsareatstake.True,thistechniquewascoveredbytheclaimtowritekephalaiōdōs.ButitmightbearguedthatthisprinciplealsohelpedtopromotePolybius’preconceptionsanddistortthereportingofdetailssothattheysuitedthedidacticormoralagendaofapassage.Itisnoteasytodeterminetowhatextentsucharewritingofeventstookplace,butthecomparisonwithDio/Zonaras’accountsuggeststhatPolybiuswasnotover-scrupulousinhisdealingswithwhathehadfoundinhissources.TheRomanintroductionoscillatesbetweenthereproductionofmaterialthatwasalreadyrelatedbyhisforerunnersandPolybius’creativerewritingofselectedevents.Itisthisdichotomythatdefinesitsuniquehistoriographicallegacy.74

Notes:35ThisisalsosuggestedbytheDuiliusinscription,ll.5–6(citedabove).

(1)Cf.Morley1999,whoseopinionatedaccountishighlyenjoyable.Itechoespost-modernapproachesandadvancesinnarratology,discourseanalysis,andcriticalthinking.Butitalsooffersmanytraditionaltakeson‘whathistoryis’or,inanycase,whatitshouldbe.A.J.Woodman’smoregeneralremarks,Woodman2004:ix–xxiv,esp.xv–xix,onthecomplexcorrespondencebetween‘event’andnarrative,pointinthesamedirection;theyareawelcomereminderofhowfragileourtoweringintellectualconstructsinancienthistoryattimesare.

(2)1982:252.

(3)Briscoe2003:355.

(4)Cf.alsoFRHI2,pp.52–3,whichelaboratesonthiswithregardtohistoricalfragments.ThisisnottheplacetoopenPandora’sboxandembarkonanin-depthanalysisofthevexedrelationbetweentextandcommentary.Earliernotions‘againstinterpretation’(e.g.S.Sontag,AgainstInterpretationandOtherEssays,4thedn.,NewYork1964),notablythebeliefthatonlythereadermayprovideaviablecommentary(inhisorherhead,thatis),havelostmuchplausibility.AssmannandGladigow1995isoneofthemostimportantsinglestepstowardsareconceptualizationofthegenre;seealsoMost1999,andGibsonandKraus2002.

(5)Plb.1.1.5.ReferencestoPolybiusandtranslationsarebasedonW.R.Paton’sLoebedn.(firstpublished1922,latestrepr.2005),unlessotherwisestated.

(6)1.3.10;1.13.1–8;2.14.1;2.16.14;2.37.2–3;4.1.9;5.111.10.Cf.GlockmannandHelms,s.v.προκατασκευή;Petzold1969:20–5.

(7)Cf.Luraghi2000,Tsamakis1995,esp.20–63;alsoS.Hornblower1991:4–56,whichreplacesGomme’searlierinterpretationoftheArchaeology.

(8)Gelzer1940a,cf.alsoGelzer1940b,Laqueur1913:10–11,Petzold1969:91–100.

(9)Gelzer1940a:28–9,30–3.

(10)Ibid.:33–5.

(11)Plb.2.38.4;2.42.2–6;2.62.4.

(12)HCPi.216;Walbank1945a:16,Sacks1981:171–86,Mauersberger,s.v.ἀποδεικτικός.

(13)Forthismeaningofκεφαλαιώδης(Latin:capitulatim)cf.FRHI2,p.151andMauersberger,s.v.;onhistoriographicalimplementationsoftheconcept,seeBeck2003,Walter2004:287,Timpe2007:156–60.

(14)Cf.HCPi.181.ThecriticismofPhylarchusintheHellenicintroduction(2.56–63)isanexceptionalcase.AsWalbankhasindicated,Polybius’polemicagainsthimwasnotonlyinspiredbyPhylarchus’ethosas‘tragic’historianbutalsobyhispartisanshipforCleomenesagainstAratus.Thus,thedigressionisapowerfulpoliticalstatement,forwhichtherewasnootherplacethantheHellenicintroduction.SeealsoJohnMarincola’scontributioninthisvolume.

(15)Mauersberger,s.v.γνωρίζω.

(16)ThecrossingwouldbethatofAp.ClaudiusCaudex(cos.264),whichseemstohaveoccurredinthelatesummer,HCPi.46.Timaeushasnowbeenre-editedbyCraigeChampioninFGrHist566,whoalsooffersafully-fledgeddiscussionofthecloseofhisHistory.

(17)Onthis,seethecontributionbyBruceGibsoninthisvolume.

(18)Thepassagedeservestobequotedinfull:‘Ishalladoptasthestarting-pointofthisbookthefirstoccasiononwhichtheRomanscrossedtheseafromItaly.ThisfollowsimmediatelyonthecloseofTimaeus’History,andtookplaceinthe129thOlympiad.ThuswemustfirststatehowandwhentheRomansestablishedtheirpositioninItaly,andwhatpromptedthemafterwardstocrosstoSicily,thefirstcountryoutsideItalywheretheysetfoot.Theactualcauseofthecrossingmustbestatedwithoutcomment;forifIweretoseekthecauseofthecauseandsoon,mywholeworkwouldhavenoclearstarting-

pointandprinciple.Thestarting-pointmustbeaneragenerallyagreeduponandrecognized(ὁμολογουμένηνκαὶγνωριζομένηνἀρχὴνπαρ’ἅπασι),andoneself-apparentfromtheevents,evenifthisinvolvesmygoingbackalittleinpointofdateandgivingasummaryofinterveningoccurrences.’(1.5.1–4)

(19)Thelocusclassicusis1.1,whenThucydidesjustifieshisperceptionofthePeloponnesianWarasgreatandnoteworthyaboveall,‘inferringthisfromthefactthatbothpowerswereattheirbestintheirpreparationsforwarineveryway,andseeingtherestoftheHellenestakingsideswiththeonestateortheother,someatonce,othersincontemplation’.Onthis,Fliess1966,andStraussandLebow1991arestilluseful.Cf.nowalsoEckstein2003,whosereadingofThucydides’interstatetheoryflirtswithneo-realistparadigms.OnPolybius’universalapproach,seePédech1964:496–514,Sacks1981:96–121,Marincola1997:37;cf.alsoChampion2004a:2:‘TheunificationofworldeventsunderRome’saegisrequiredanewkindofhistory,universalinscope.’

(20)ThemostrecenteditionsofbotharethoseofHansBeckandUweWalterinFRHI2(Fabius)andCraigeChampioninFGrHist174(Philinus).Botheditionsincludeextensivebibliographies,biographicalaccounts,andcommentariesonindividualfragments.Cf.alsoAmbaglio2005.

(21)e.g.Pédech1964;Lehmann1974.ThemostrecentcontributionisthevolumeeditedbySchepensandBollansée2005.Itcontainsup-to-datediscussionsonPolybiusandallofhiseminentsources.

(22)Gelzer1933:133.

(23)Ibid.:133–42.

(24)Walbank1945a:1.

(25)Ibid.:7–8,11–14.

(26)Ibid.:14.

(27)Esp.1.23.6:‘WhentheRomancrewsboardedbymeansoftheravensandattackedthemhandtohandondeck,someCarthaginianswerecutdownandotherssurrenderedfromdismayatwhatwasgoingon,thebattlehavingbecomejustlikeafightonland.’

(28)HCPi.77–8givestherelevantliteratureonthetopic.LaterdiscussionsincludeSordi1967,whoarguesagainsttheimportancePolybiusattributestothecorvi;cf.alsoPoznanski1979,Lazenby1996:68–71.

(29)Theso-calledDuiliusinscription,Inscr.It.13.3.69=ILS65=CILI225andVI,8,31300Add.:[consolsecest]ano[s,sociosp(opli)R(omani),Cartaciniensiom|opsidione]dexemetlecione[squeCartaciniensisomnis|m]aximosquemacistr[a]tosl[ucipalampostdies|n]ovemcastreisexfociontMacel[amqueopidom|5p]ucnandodcepet.enqueeodemmac[istratudbene|r]emnavebosmaridconsolprimosc[esetcopiasque|c]lasesque

navalesprimosornavetpa[ravetque]|cumqueeisnavebosclaseisPoenicasomn[isitemma|x]umascopiasCartaciniensispraesente[dHanibaled]|10dictatoredol[or]ominaltodmaridpucn[advicet]|viquenave[iscepe]tcumsocieissepter[esmomI,quin|queresm]osquetriresmosquenaveisX[XX,mersetXIII.|aur]omcaptomnumei(triamiliaseptingentei),|[arcen]tomcaptompraedanumei(centummilia)[---;|15omne]captomaes(interundetriciesettriciesquatercentenamilia).|triump]oquenavaledpraedadpoplom[donavet|multosque]Cartacinie[ns]is[ince]nuosd[uxitante|curum---]eis[---]capt[---].TherecentanalysesbyBleckmann2002:116–25,andKondratieff2004:10–14,argueconvincinglyforacompositionshortlyaftertheeventsinquestion.LiteraryevidenceincludesLiv.Per.17;Val.Max.6.3.4;6.6.2;Polyaen.6.16.5;Flor.1.18.9–11;Eutr.2.20;Oros.4.7.7–9.SeealsoMRRi.205.

(30)Diofr.11.16–18/Zonar.8.10–11.

(31)Zonar.8.11.

(32)Zonar.8.11;cf.Fron.Str.2.3.24;Flor.1.18.9–10;Devir.ill.38.1.Lazenby1996:70,isawareofthesesources,buthegoesoutofhiswaytodissociateDuiliusfromthecorvi,becausePolybiusdoesn’tmentionhiminthisregard:‘Unfortunatelyhe[Polybius]doesnotsaywhosuggestedit[theideaofboarding-ladders],butitmayhavebeenaSyracusan,perhapsevenArchimedes.However,oneshouldnotruleoutthepossibilitythataRomanwastheinventor.’

(33)MylaeandSegesta:Zonar.8.11.ForScipio’sprematurestrikeonLipara,see8.10:‘Thelatter[Scipio],neglectingthewaronland,whichhadfallentohislot,sailedwiththeshipswhichhehadtoLipara,ontheunderstandingthatitwastobebetrayedtohim.ButthiswasaruseonthepartoftheCarthaginians.’

(34)ItissurprisingthatScipioputtoseawithonlyseventeenshipstosailtoMessanaandthentoLiparabeforethebulkofhisfleetwasready.Plb.1.20.5makesitclearthattheCarthaginiansbythattime‘maintainedwithoutanytroublethecommandofthesea’,whichmakesScipio’sactionasconsulwiththenavalcommand(Polybius)mostquestionable.Ifappointedtothenavalcommand,therewouldhavebeennoneedtorush.Athoroughrevisionoftheseevents,contrathePolybius-basedcommunisopinio,hasbeensuggestedbyBleckmann2002:113–31,andBeck2005:22–5.Cf.alsoKondratieff2004.

(36)Again,seell.7–8oftheDuiliusinscription(citedabove),whichexplicitlycreditDuiliuswiththis.

(37)Cf.ll.1–5oftheDuiliusinscription,whichreferstohisadvanceonSicily.UnlikeZonaras,theinscriptionplacesDuilius’landengagementonSicilybeforethenavalencounternearMylae.Mostlikely,thisfollowstheformulaicorderterramarique,whichalsoaddedtoaclimaxofDuilius’actionsaslistedintheinscription(i.e.theseabattleashismostmemorableachievementcomesattheend):seeDegrassi’scommentaryonInscr.It.13.3.69andWalbank,HCPi.80.

(38)Cf.Polybius’famousverdictonFabius’andPhilinus’partisanshipin1.14.1–3,onwhichseeWalbank,HCPi.26–35,64–6,andtwoseminalarticlesbyGelzer1933and1934.Cf.alsoFRHI21F27(comm.);Marincola1997:171.

(39)Liv.Per.17;Val.Max.6.6.2;Flor.1.18.11;Eutr.2.20;Oros.4.7.7–9;Polyaen.6.16.5.

(40)Cf.Walbank,HCPi.77.

(41)PisoFRHI27F32(withcommentaryandForsythe1994:361–2)relatesashipbuildingprogrammeintheconsulshipofM.ValeriusMessalla(cos.263);cf.alsoIned.Vat.FGrHist839F4.BothsourcesarediscussedbyThiel1954:70–1and,morerecently,Steinby2007.Acollegiumofduovirinavalesclassisornandaereficiendaequecausaisattestedasearlyas311:Liv.9.30.4.

(42)e.g.Walbank,HCPi.16–26(aclassicdiscussion).

(43)Walbank1945a:11–13,contraGelzer1933.

(44)Bleckmann2002:134andn.1believesthattheprovinciaewerechangedbyawriterafterFabius,mostlikelybysomeonewhorepresentedpro-Scipionicfamilytraditions.Butwhowouldthatbe?Polybiusisnotoriousforhispro-Scipionictendencies(asBleckmann’sownanalysisreveals:131–9).Theswitchisbestascribedtohim.

(45)Plin.Nat.8.169relatesScipio’snickname‘Asina’tohisunfortunateLiparaexpedition.TheemphasisonCarthaginianinfidelityasreportedintheRomantradition(seeabove)exculpatedScipio;seeThiel1954:180–1,Eckstein1995:9.ButPolybius’account,too,isnotunfavourabletoScipio.

(46)Walbank,HCPi.85–9,113–17.

(47)Bleckmann2002,esp.19–31.

(48)Zonar.8.12,acceptedbyLazenby1996:76–9,Bleckmann2002:157–8.

(49)Naeviusfr.32Strzelecki:transitMelitam|Romanusexercitusinsulamintegramurit|populatur,vastat,remhostiumconcinnat;cf.Oros.4.8.5;Bleckmann2002:158.

(50)Cf.Thiel1954:200–10,Lazenby1996:82–4,Beck2005:235–6.

(51)Inscr.It.13.1.77;Itgenshorst2005:no.133.

(52)Plb.1.58.4–6 = FabiusPictorFRHI21F28.

(53)Plb.1.55.2;cf.Zonar.8.16.

(54)Polybius’accountoftheyears247to242(1.55to1.59)indeedreferstowarfareonlandinSicilyexclusively.

(55)Zonar.8.16;cf.Fron.Str.1.5.6,whocreditsC.DuiliuswithasuccessfulraidinportuSyracusano(probablytobeemendedtoinportuHippocritano,i.e.HippouAcra:Lazenby1996:147).Thepresenceofthefamousconsulof260duringthosecampaignsraisesdoubtsabouttheirstrictly‘private’character.Notethataflotillaofonly20quinqueremeswouldhaverequiredacrewofc.6,000men.

(56)Cf.MRRi.216–17,whichassemblestheevidenceforvariousoperationsatsea.Zonaras’account(8.16)makesitclearthatoperationssuchastheoneagainstHippowerebynomeansextraordinaryorisolatedaffairs.

(57)Lazenby1996:146–7.

(58)8.16.

(59)Thedichotomybetween‘private’raidsand‘public’campaignsshouldnotbeoverstretched.ThetwocomplementedeachotherinancientMediterraneanwarfare.OnRomeandprivatemercenarycampaignsinancientItalyingenereal,seeSchulz2000,Loreto2001,andSteinby2007;adrem,Bleckmann2002:209–14.

(60)Notee.g.thedidacticreferencestoRomanψυχομαχίαin1.58.7–59.6;cf.Bleckmann2002:212.

(61)Zonar.8.17(questionedbyLazenby1996:155).

(62)AccordingtoZonar.8.17,theRomansprevailedonlybecausetheCarthaginianvessels‘wereimpededbythefactthattheyalsocarriedfreight,grainandmoney’.Diodorus,basedonPhilinus,alsoreportsaclosevictory(24.11).

(63)Plb.1.63.1–3;cf.Lazenby1996:158.

(64)Forrelevantreferences,seeWalbank,HCPi.127;cf.Hoyos1998:120andn.8.

(65)Thenamesoftheemissariesareunknownexceptforthatoftheirleader,Q.LutatiusCerco(cos.241),brotheroftheconsulofthepreviousyear,C.LutatiusCatulus,MRRi.219.Henceprosopographyfallsshort.Althoughthepeoplefirstrejectedtheterms,theembassyofthedecemviridoesnotseemtohavemadesubstantialchangestoLutatius’proposal.Hence,therewasnocontroversyoverthecontentsofthepeacebutratherovertheformalarrangement.TheprocedureofsendingdelegatesanticipatesthattowardstheendoftheHannibalicWar,whenthesenatestipulatedutP.ScipioexdecemlegatorumsententiapacemcumpopuloCarthaginiensiquibuslegibuseividereturfaceret(‘thatPubliusScipioontheadviceoftenenvoysshouldmakepeacewiththeCarthaginiansuponsuchtermsashesawfit:’Liv.30.43.4).Onthis,seeEckstein1987a:255–66andBeck2005:352–4,whopointtothenobility’sdesiretode-monopolizeScipio’sfame.

(66)8.17,implicitlyacceptedbyHoyos1998:119.

(67)ThestandardgeneralaccountsofDioarestillMillar1964andManuwald1979.Millar’snotionthataspecialstudyonDio’searlybooks,whichhedeliberatelyomitted,wouldbeworththeeffort(3),hasfinallybeensatisfied:Bleckmann2002andUrso2005;notealsoLaBua1981.Forthelaterepublic,cf.Zecchini1978,Fechner1986,Berti1988,Lintott1997.

(68)IndexreferencestoZonarasandCassiusDioarerare:fiveandtwo,respectively.Onatleastoneoccasion,HCPVol.1findsDio’saccountpreferabletothatofPolybius(‘quitecredible’:168).

(69)Dio’ssourcesareanotoriousproblem.NeitherMillar1964norManuwald1979(cf.aboven.67)wereabletoidentifyspecificauthorswithcertainty.ThemostcomprehensiveaccountsarethosebyBleckmann2002:36–50andUrso2005:163–93.Thelatterarguesforaliberdemagistratibus(byAeliusTubero?)assourceofDio’searlyRome.Bleckmann’sintentionisnotsomuchtonameDio’ssources,buttoextrapolatesimilaritiesbetweenDio’s(late)accountandmorecontemporaryRomansourcesfromthethirdandsecondcenturies,includingepigraphicevidence(e.g.theDuiliusinscription,elogiaoftheScipios,fasti).

(70)Bleckmann2002:18.

(71)Cf.theprovokingtitleofHoyos1985a.

(72)i.e.theabilitytofight,andsucceed,underextremepressure:1.59.6andWalbank,HCPi.123;cf.also6.52.7andn.60above.

(73)1945a:11–14.

(74)Iwouldliketothanktheorganizersofthesymposium,ThomasHarrison,BruceGibson,andGinaMuskett,fortheircordialinvitationandkindhospitality.BruceGibsonalsoprovidedmanyvaluablecommentsandsuggestionsonthetext.ThanksarealsoduetomycolleaguesinMcGill’sthink-tankontheRomanrepublic,especiallyMichaelFrondaandJohnSerrati.

Historiographic Patterns and Historical Obstacles in Polybius’ Histories: Marcellus,Flaminius, and the Mamertine Crisis

HistoriographicPatternsandHistoricalObstaclesinPolybius’Histories:Marcellus,Flaminius,andtheMamertineCrisis

CraigeChampion

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0007

AbstractandKeywords

Polybius'workhasanoverallnarrativepatterninginwhichRomanorderandvirtuedeterioratesafterthetimeofCannae(216BC)evenasRomanpowerexpands.Polybiusdoes,however,includeexamplesofquestionableRomanconductfromthethirdcenturyBC,suchasM.ClaudiusMarcellusandC.Flaminius:whileonthesurfaceproblematicforthewidernarrativepatterning,theseexamplesarebestseeninthelightofthecomplexityofPolybius'multiplereadershipsandaims.ButPolybiusdealswiththecontroversyoverRome'sinterventioninSicilyin264BCwithdeliberateindeterminacy,throughtheambiguousreferencetothe'many'takingthedecisiontointervene(1.11.2),whichcouldrefereithertoamajorityoftheSenateortheRomanpeople.ThedeliberateobfuscationoftherolesofSenateandpeopleenablesPolybiustoavoidgeneratingtooviolentacontradictionofhiswidernarrativepatterningofRomanvirtueandwiseguidancefrom

theSenateinhisearlyperiod.

Keywords:Polybius,FirstPunicWar,M.ClaudiusMarcellus,C.Flaminius,Messana,causation,Romandecline

ThischapterexaminessomehistoriographicproblemsinPolybius’Histories,seekingtounderstandseemingincongruitiesbetweenlargenarrativepatternsintheworkanditsrepresentationsofparticularhistoricalevents.Myfirstsection(‘NarrativePatterninginPolybius’Histories’)summarizesanargumentImademoreextensivelyinanearlierstudy(Champion2004a);namelythatPolybiusrepresentstheRomanpolityasawell-orderedpoliticalcommunityattheoutset,butasthehistoryproceedsheshowsRome’sdeteriorationinbothitsdomesticandforeignpolicyspheres.Accordingtohispoliticaltheory,thecausesofthisdeteriorationwereRome’suncontestableinterstatepowerandtheriseofthepopularelementinpoliticallife.YettherearenotableinstancesofwhatPolybiusregardedasegregiouslydeplorablebehaviouronthepartofRomanofficialspriorto,orattheverybeginningof,thestatedonsetofthisdecay(sometimeaftertheheroicRomanresponsetothedisasteratCannae;cf.6.11.1,51.3–8).

Mysecondsection(‘ReadingMarcellusandFlaminius’)considerstwooftheseinstances:therepresentationsofthebehavioursofM.ClaudiusMarcellusandC.Flaminius,whichIusetostudytheapparentcontradictionbetweenPolybius’generallypristineimageofthird-centuryRomeandhisrepresentationofparticularexamplesofimproperbehaviourintheperiod.

Inmythirdsection(‘Curia,Comitia,andtheMamertineCrisis:HistoriographicInterventions’)Iturntothemainfocusofthischapter:thegenerallypositiverepresentationoftheRomandecisiontocrosstoSicilyunderarmsin264.Criticssharplycondemnedthisactionasduplicitousandimmoral,bothatthetimeofitsoccurrenceandatthetimeofPolybius’composition—makingtheRomanresolutionfitmostuncomfortablywiththeimageofthird-centuryRomanpoliticalvirtue.Someoftheinterpretativestrategiesproposedinmy(p.144) secondsectionarenotofmuchhelphere,suggestingthattheMessanacrisispresentsperhapsthemostdifficulthistoriographicproblemintheentirehistory.1MycontentionisthatwecanbestunderstandPolybius’representationofthiscrucialjunctureinRomanhistorybyattendingtothelargenarrativetrajectoriesoftheHistories.

NarrativePatterninginPolybius’HistoriesProfessorWalbankhastaughtusmanythingsaboutPolybius,notleastofwhichistheneedtounderstandthehistorianonhisownterms,givingdueconsiderationtohistoriographicproblemssuchasthehistorian’sconceptionoftyche(Fortune),hisideasonrelationshipsbetweenhistoryandtragedy,andhisconcessionstothesupernaturalinhistoricalcausation.Hehaswrittenthat‘althoughPolybiusiscommonlyregardedasarationalor“factual”historian,hisworkrevealsanobsessionwithwhatImaycallhistoricalpatterns’.2

Inabookpublishedseveralyearsago,Itriedtomakeacaseforthepresenceofsuch

patternsintheHistories,claimingthatinPolybius’representation,Roman(andAchaean)collectivecharacterdeterioratesastheworkprogressestowardsthehistorian’sownday.Thisdeterioration,inPolybius’opinion,wastheresultofpoliticalandsocietaldebasement;meanwhiletheRomanpolityinthethirdcenturywas,bycontrast,initsoptimalconditionasa‘mixedconstitution’underthedirectionofitsaristocraticelement,theRomansenate.3Polybiusmaintainsthatpoliteiaiintheirprimeoperateaccordingtothedictatesofreason,orlogismos.Intheircorruptedform,theyslideintoochlocracyormob-rule,inwhichcollectivebehaviourischaracterizedbyintemperance,irrationality,andviolentemotion—therealmofthePolybianbarbarian.Iassertedthatthesepoliticalconvictionsareever-presentthroughoutPolybius’work;andthatattheoutsetoftheHistorieshisnarrativeobjectivespushedhimtodepictRomeatitsacme,beforethecorruptionhadbegun.

(p.145) ThemostimportantpassagesforthisnarrativepatterningintheHistoriesareasfollows.PolybiusemphasizestheRomanpoliteiainhisaccountoftheriseofRome,4whichisshowntohavereachedthepinnacleofitsmoralvirtuesometimearoundthetimeoftheHannibalicWar(6.2.5–6,11.1).AtthistimeCarthage,Rome’sgreatnemesis,wasalreadyindecline(6.51.5–8,explicitlycontrastingtheconditionofCarthageandRome’sapogee),thecauseofwhichwas,asforallPolybianstates,thepreponderanceofthepopularelementinpoliticallife,whichisaresultofinterstatesupremacyanddomesticprosperity.ForPolybius,thenon-elitesarealwaysresponsibleforthisdecay(6.57.7–9).

AsforPolybius’owntime,Romancollectivedegeneracywasalltooevidentinthehistorian’sestimation.Forexample,Romanmilitaryvirtuewasbutashadowofitsformerself,andRomanpublicofficialsnolongeruniformlyexhibitedintegrityinfinancialtransactions.5Incasessuchasthese,PolybiuscontrastsglaringlybasebehavioursonthepartofRomanswiththestatedperiodofimmaculateRomanpoliticalandmoralvirtue.Adissonantnarrativetensionarises,however,whenimmoralRomanbehavioursoccurintheperiodinwhichRomewasostensiblyatitsheightofpoliticalandmoralexcellence.Thisdissonancedemandssomeattemptatanalysisandexplanation.Thefollowingsectionbrieflyconsiderstwosuchinstances—Polybius’representationsofM.ClaudiusMarcellusandC.Flaminius—anditconcludesbysuggestingsomeinterpretativestrategiesforunderstandingsuchseeminglyincongruouspassages.

ReadingMarcellusandFlaminiusM.ClaudiusMarcellusfirstappearsinPolybius’narrativeastheconsulin222engagedinsuppressingtheremnantsoftheGallictumultus,whosemainforcewasbrokenatthebattleatTelamon.PolybiusmentionsMarcellusastheleaderoftheRomancavalryandasmallinfantryforcethatrespondedtotheInsubres’siegeofClastidium,buthefeaturesMarcellus’consularcolleague,Cn.CorneliusScipioCalvus,asthecommanderresponsiblefortakingtheInsubres’strongholdofMediolanumandthusendingthewar.6Münzer(p.146) reasonablybelievedthatPolybiusmayhaveemphasizedCornelius’roleatMarcellus’expenseoutofpartisanshipfortheCorneliiScipiones.7

IfPolybiusonlyslightedMarcellusinhisaccountofthefinalphaseoftheGallicWarofthe220s,Livy’snarrativesuggeststhatheroundlycondemnedhisbehaviouratthesiegeof

Syracusein211,inthecourseoftheHannibalicWar.8EarlierintheLeontiancampaign,Marcellushadhad2,000Romandesertersbeheaded,andafterSyracusefell,heplunderedpreciousGreekartworkinordertoadorntemplesnearthePortaCapena.9WhenPolybiuscomestorecounthisdeathasanunwittingvictimofHannibal’sambushinVenusia,heplainlystatesthatMarcellusactedmorelikeanimbecilethanageneral.10

MeanwhileC.FlaminiuswasbrandedinRomansenatorialtraditionasarenegade,demagogicpolitician,arevolutionaryvillaininthemouldoftheearlyrepublicansocio-economicagitatorsSp.CassiusVecellinus,Sp.Maelius,andM.ManliusCapitolinus,whocallouslydisregardedRomanreligioustraditions.11Flaminiuswasoneofthosetraitorousmembersofthepoliticalelitewhoseradicalsocio-economictacticsregularlyelicitthehistorian’ssavagecontempt.12Polybius(2.33.1–9)remarksthattheGallicwarsofthe220srevealedtheexcellenceofRomanmilitarytraininganddiscipline,whichcouldovercomeeventheineptitudesofcommanderssuchasFlaminius.However,heflatlystatesthatFlaminius’landredistributionschemewasthebeginningofthemoraldeclineofthepopulace—astatementcuriouslyatoddswiththeideathattheonsetofRomandeteriorationbegansometimeafterthemoralhigh-pointoftheRomanresponsetothedisasteratCannae(6.2.5–6,11.1).13

Polybius’acknowledgementofthedegeneracyofMarcellusandFlaminiusstrikesadiscordantnotewithhislargernarrativetrajectoryfromthird-(p.147) centuryRomanpoliticalexcellenceandmoralvirtuetoamid-second-centurydebasedRomanmorality.InthiscontextitiswelltorememberthatforPolybiustheindividualistheproductofhissocietyandanaccuratemirrorofitsculturalpractices.14

Howarewetoaccountfortheapparentdiscrepancy?Wemightpositinfluencesfrompoliticalpressuresappliedbythesenatorialaristocracy.Aswehaveseen,MünzerarguedthatPolybius’representationofM.ClaudiusMarcellusredoundedtothecreditofhisconsularcolleaguein222,amemberoftheCorneliiScipiones,thehistorian’spatrons.InthecaseofC.Flaminius,Polybius’highlynegativeassessmentwouldhavesimplyfallenintolinewithwhatseemstohavebeenanundisputedsenatorialtraditiononanoutlawandtreacherousdemagogue.Alternatively,wemightsimplyconcludethatPolybiuswasnotalwaysabletoreconcilehiscommitmenttopainstakingaccuracyandimpartialitywithhishistoriographicpatterning.15Finally,wecouldreadthecondemnatoryassessmentsofaMarcellusorFlaminiusaspartofasubtleattempttogivevoicetoanti-RomansentimentsamongPolybius’Greekreadership,offeringsubtextsthatcreateatensionwithandresistthestraightforwardideaofthird-centuryRomanexcellence.ElsewhereIhaveadoptedthisapproach,callingthehistoriographicstrategya‘politicsofculturalindeterminacy’(Champion2004a).

EachoftheseapproachesoffersavalidinterpretationofspecificinstanceswherePolybius’historicalnarrativesareindiscordwithhisgeneralimageofthird-centuryRomanpoliticalculture.Itwouldbeabsurdtoinsistthatoneofthemiscorrecttotheexclusionoftheothers,butinmyopiniontheideathatPolybiuswrotewithaneyetohismultiplereadershipsandtheirpoliticalpredispositionsrendersaninfinitelymoresubtle,

complex,andinterestingwriterandartist.IshallreturntotheseinterpretativeapproachesintheconclusiontothischapterinordertounderscoretheuniquehistoriographicproblemPolybiusstruggledwithattheveryopeningofhisHistoriesinrecountingRome’sdecisiontocrosstoSicilyunderarms.

(p.148) Curia,Comitia,andtheMamertineCrisis:HistoriographicInterventionsPolybius’primarysourcesfortheFirstPunicWar—Q.FabiusPictorandPhilinusofAgrigentum—undoubtedlypresentedamuchfullernarrativeoftheeventsthanwefindinhisBook1.Hisabbreviationofthesenarrativesrequiresexplanation.AlongtheselinesIshallarguetwopoints:(1)thefactthattheaccountoftheFirstPunicWaroccursinPolybius’prefatoryandcursoryintroductionisinitselfaninsufficientexplanationforthetruncatedandambiguoustreatmentoftheeventsatRomein264;and(2)thenarrativeobfuscationisbestunderstoodbyattendingtoPolybius’historiographicpatterningandhiscontemporaneousreaderships.

InstudyingRomanimperialism,historiansrightlystressthedeterminationin264tocampaigninSicily.ThisdecisionmarkedthefirststepinRome’stransitionfromapowerfulstateconfinedtotheItalianpeninsulatooneofworldhistory’smostsuccessful,largest,andlongest-lastinghegemonicempires.16Yetthedecision-makingprocessesultimatelyleadingtoMediterranean-widedominationareinPolybius’versionshroudedinobscurity.ThehistoricalissueconcernedthestrategicallyimportanttownofMessana,andSyracusanandCarthaginianinterventionsthere.Theso-calledMamertines(Campanianmercenaries)seizedMessanaandmadealargepartofnorth-easternSicilyinsecurebytheirmaraudingactivities(Plb.1.8.1–2;cf.Diod.22.13.1;23.1.4;Plut.Pyrrh.23.1,5).UnderpressurefromHieroIIofSyracuse,theMamertinesappealedtobothCarthageandRomeforaid.AccordingtoPolybius,RomansenatorsfearedCarthagewouldacquireabridgeheadatMessanaforinvadingItaly,butthequestionablemoralityofassistingthetreacherousMamertineusurpersgavethempause(1.11.1;cf.3.26.6).Polybius’narrativecompressionmakesitunclearastowhetherthesenateorthepopularassemblydeterminedtoaidtheMamertines,andjustwhatthenatureofthisaidwastobe.Hesimplystates,οἱδὲπολλοί…ἔκρινανβοηθειν̑(1.11.2,‘themajority…determinedtogiveaid’).

Chapters10and11ofthefirstbookcompriseouronlydetailednarrativeofthemomentousRomanresolutiontobecomeinvolvedinSicilianaffairs—a(p.149)resolutionwhicheventuallyledtotheFirstPunicWar.ThepreliminariestothewarinPolybius’account(1.7–10)arewellknown;onlyabriefsummaryisrequiredhere.ItalianRhegium,fearingbothPyrrhus’designsonItalyandCarthaginiannavalpower,appealedtoRomeforaprotectivegarrison.17AroundthetimeofPyrrhus’crossingtoItaly,theRomanssenttoRhegiumagroupof4,000CampanianmercenariesunderthecommandofacertainDecius.18TheseCampaniansforciblytookcontrolofRhegium,muchastheCampaniansinSicilyhadtreacherouslyoccupiedMessana.InSicily,HierodefeatedtheMamertinesnearbytheLonganusriver,andthenreturnedtoSyracuse,wherehewasnamedking(1.8.3–9.8).InItaly,aRomanexpeditionsubduedandpunishedthe

treacherousmercenariesatRhegium.19

TheMamertinesnowfoundthemselvesinadifficultsituation,sincetheyweredeprivedofthesupportoftheircompatriotsatRhegium.TheyhadbeensoweakenedbytheirdefeatatHiero’shandsthattheycouldnolongerpursuewarlikeactivitieswiththeirownresources.Theywereforcedtoseekoutsideassistance,buttheydisagreedastowhomtheyshouldappeal.OnepartysentforhelptotheCarthaginians,entrustingthemselvesandtheirdefencestothem.OtherswenttoRome,offeringtoplaceMessanaunderRomanprotectionandbeggingforassistanceonthegroundsofkinship.20ThisembassycausedthesenatorialquandaryatRome.

Inameticulousstudyoftheevents,EcksteinhaspersuasivelyarguedthattheRomandecisionwasinitiallytomakeapublicstatementtotheinternationalpoliticalcommunitythatRomehadreceivedMessanaintoitsamicitia,andthatitwasonlylaterthattheconsulAp.ClaudiusCaudexwasentrustedwithrelievingtheSyracusanandCarthaginiansiegeofthetown,bydiplomatic(p.150) or—asalastresort—militarymeans.21ThereforethereappeartohavebeenatleasttwostagesintheRomandeliberations,whereasPolybius’compressednarrativesuggestsonlyone.

Polybius’accountofthisdiplomaticsituationformspartoftheso-calledprokataskeuē,thesomewhathurriedandabbreviatedBooks1and2.Thesebooksstandoutsideofhishistoryproper,whichbeginswiththe140thOlympiad(220–16).Inhisprokataskeuēhesoughtonlytosketchearlierhistoryinorderforhisreadershiptohavetherequisitebackgroundknowledgeforthedetailednarrativetofollow.HewasthereforeinterestedinmerelysummarizingthesequenceofeventsleadinguptotheFirstPunicWar;inhistoriographicterms,hissimplificationis,therefore,understandable.22YetaccordingtoPolybius(1.63.1–9),theRomanactionprecipitatedthegreatestwarinhumanmemoryandcreatedambitionsforuniversaldominion.Itisthereforereasonabletoexpectalucidandcompletetreatmentofsuchanimportantchainofevents.

AsEcksteinhasdemonstrated,theancienttraditionoutsideofPolybius’history(mostimportantlythesurvivingfragmentsofDiodorus’Books22and23)suggeststhefollowingsequenceofevents:theMamertineexpulsionofasmallCarthaginiangarrisonfromMessana(whichitselfhadbeencalledinasadefenceagainstpossibleaggressionfromPyrrhus);theformationofaSyracusan–CarthaginianallianceagainstMessana,nowundersomesortofRomanprotection;andajointSyracusan–CarthaginiansiegeofMessana(Diod.22.13.9–23.3,esp.23.1.4).BeyondDiodorus’fragmentaryaccount,theannalistictraditionalsoisconsistentwithahistoricalreconstructioninvolvingmorecomplexcircumstancesthanthatofferedbyPolybius.23

Indeed,at1.20.13–16PolybiushimselfnarratesClaudius’navalskirmishinginthestraitsofMessana;andat3.26.6heseemstosaythatthereweretwodistinctstagesinthedevelopmentofRomaninterventioninSicily:acceptanceoftheMamertinesintoamicitia(Polybius’προσέλαβονεἰςτὴνφιλίαν);andlater(Polybius’καὶμετὰταυ̑τα)aresolutionforactiveassistance.Finally,at1.11.4–9,theMamertinesinviteClaudiusintoMessanaaftertheyhaveexpelledtheCarthaginiangarrison,buthecrossesovertoSicilyonly

aftertheCarthaginiansandSyracusanshaveformedsomesortofallianceandhavebeguntobesiegethecity.

(p.151) ClearlyPolybiusknewofafullertraditionconcerningtheseeventsandchosetotruncateit.Hissourceswere,onhisownadmission,thepro-CarthaginianPhilinusandthepro-RomansenatorialhistorianFabiusPictor.24Alivelypolemicregardingthequestionofwar-guiltinformedthedebate,withPhilinuscharacterizingtheRomansasunjustaggressors,andFabiusrepresentingthemasuprightandmorallyimpeccablestatesmen,engaginginwaronlyasalastresort.

Suchdebatescontinuetothepresentday,buttheycannotproceedveryfarwithoutconsideringtheso-calledPhilinusTreaty.Thisisnottheplacefordetaileddiscussionofthelong-standingcontroversysurroundingthetreaty,which,ifhistorical,probablydatedtotheyear306.Formypurposes,itwillbesufficienttostatethattherewasanintense,politicallymotivatedhistoriographicargumentastowhetheraRomano-Carthaginiantreatyofthelatefourthcentury,stipulatingthattheRomansmuststayawayfromthewholeofSicilyandtheCarthaginiansfromthewholeofItaly,actuallyexisted;andthatPolybiusvigorouslydeniedit(3.26.1–7).Iftherewasindeedsuchatreaty,thentheRomancrossingin264violatedaformalinternationalagreement.Philinusaccepteditashistoricalfact—asdidthelaterannalistictradition,whichdidnotcontestthetreaty’sexistencebutratherstrovetoprovethattheCarthaginianswerethefirsttobreakitwhentheysentafleettoTarentumin272.25

SincepublicationofaseminalarticlebyMatthiasGelzer,scholarshavebeeningeneralagreementthatFabius’history,writteninGreek,wasinlargepartaimedatjustifyingRome’sdiplomaticandmilitaryactionsbeforeareadershipoftheGreekpoliticalclasses.26Polybius’accountoftheearlierpartofthewarsuggeststhathereliedmoreheavilyonFabiusthanonPhilinus,sinceherehereferstoconsul-names;whereasinhisnarrativeofthewar’slaterstageshe(p.152) mentionsyearsofthewar,whichsuggestsheavierrelianceonPhilinus.27ButsuchcircumstantialevidenceisnotnecessaryforustobeconfidentthatFabiuswasPolybius’mainsourceforthird-centuryRomandiplomacyingeneralandthedecision-makingprocessesin264inparticular.

WhatcanwereasonablyconjectureaboutFabius’treatmentoftheRomandeliberations?Polybius’narrativeshowsthatFabiusdescribedlong,agonizingsenatorialdebatesregardingtheMamertineappeal(1.11.1,καὶτὸμὲνσυνέδριονοὐδ'εἰςτέλοςἐκύρωσετὴνγνώμην).Ecksteinhaswrittenofa‘complexandhighlyfluiddiplomaticsituation’,inwhichthesenatepresentedClaudiuswitha‘spectrumofpossibleactions’.28TwopassagesfromlaterRomansourcesmayalsoreflectFabius’representationoftheevents;atleasttheyareconsistentwithhispictureofamorallyconscioussenatethatdidnotaggressivelyinitiatetheFirstPunicWar.

First,Livy’sPeriocha16statesthatwhentheMessanaaffairreachedacrisispoint,thesenatedeterminedtoaidtheMamertines.29DiodorusstatesthatassoonastheRomanslearnedthatMessanawasundersiegebyCarthaginianandSyracusanforces,theysentClaudiustoRhegiumwithastrongarmy.30Claudiusdispatchedenvoystobothpartiesin

ordertonegotiatealiftingofthesiege.TheharshresponseDiodorusattributestoHiero,castigatingtheRomansfortakingimpiousmurderersundertheirprotectionandthinlydisguisingunderthepretextoffidestheirlustforpossessingSicily,showsthatDiodoruswasnotfollowingonlyFabiusbutprobablyusingthepro-CarthaginianPhilinusaswell.31Consequently,itisimportanttoexercisecautioninattemptingtostudyDiodorusinordertoascertainwhateitherFabiusorPhilinushadtosayaboutthecrisis.

Thatcaveatnotwithstanding,itisnoteworthythat,beforeHiero’shostilereply,DiodorushasClaudiusstatepubliclythathewouldnotproceedwithwaragainstHiero.32ThecombinationofLivyandDiodorusmaycautiouslybetakenasevidencethat,inaverydetailedaccount,FabiusrepresentedClaudiusasagonizingoverhisdutytocarryoutthesenate’sauthorizationtoaidtheMamertines,butunwillingtotakeanyactionthatmightprecipitateawar(p.153) againstSyracuseand/orCarthagewithoutaformalwardeclarationfromtheRomansenateandpeople.Intheend,thedemandsoffidestowardstheMamertinesgaveClaudiuslittlechoicebuttoengageinopenhostilitiesatMessana,whichledtowarwithCarthage.

NoneofthesedetailsispresentinPolybius’narrative.Hisοἱπολλοίat1.11.2hasspawnedavigorousscholarlydebateonthedecision-makingprocessesatRome.ForalongtimeanearlyunanimousconsensusheldthatοἱπολλοίmeanstheRomanpeoplemeetinginformalassembly.33Beginningaroundthemid-pointofthetwentiethcentury,however,scholarshaveraisedobjections,arguingthatοἱπολλοίinsteadmeanshereamajorityinthesenate.34Eckstein’s1980article,inparticular,wasdealtasharprejoinderbyHoyos,whoattemptedtorestoreοἱπολλοίasthepeoplemeetingincomitialassembly.35Calderoneandhiscollaboratorssuggestedthat1.11.1,containingthephraseκαὶτὸμὲνσυνέδριονοὐδ'εἰςτέλοςἐκύρωσετὴνγνώμην,wasmeantasaconditionalapodosiswithoutἄν,butthatPolybiusbecameinvolvedinexplainingtheaitiaiforthesenate’shesitationandleftthephraseasananacoluthon.EcksteinarguedPolybiusdidnotstatetherewasapermanentdeadlockinthesenate,butintendedforthephraseεἰςτέλοςtohaveintensive,nottemporal,force.Headdedthattheμένat1.11.1wasareduplicatedμέν,resumedfrom1.10.9,sothecorrectreadingisthatthesenatedebatedatlength(Ῥωμαιο̑ι…πολὺνμὲνχρόνονἐβουλεύσαντο),butultimatelythemajorityofthesenatorsresolvedtohelptheMamertines(1.11.2,οἱδὲπολλοί…ἔκρινανβοηθειν̑).Finally,HoyosarguedagainstEcksteinthattheδόγμαat1.11.3neednotmeanasenatusconsultum,butratherrepresentsaformalvoteincomitialassembly.36

Alloftheseclosephilologicalargumentsbasedonparticularwordsorphrasesbegahistoriographicquestion:whydidPolybiusrepresentthesituationinsuchawaythathasallowedforthisfiercedebatetoariseinthefirstplace,especiallysinceelsewhereheunambiguouslydescribesactivitiesofboththesenateandthepopularassemblies?37Asalreadystated,partofthereason(p.154) forthisisthatPolybius’treatmentoftheFirstPunicWarformspartofhisfirsttwosummarybooks,butIwouldliketosuggestthatamoresatisfactoryexplanationliesinconsideringthelargernarrativepatternoftheHistoriesandthecircumstancesofitscomposition.

Polybius’firstsixbookswereprobablywrittenandpublishedbefore150,whenhewasstilltechnicallyapoliticalprisoner.38DuringtheseyearstherewereintensedisagreementsinGreekpoliticalcirclesaboutthejusticeofRome’sacquisitionofempire.Polybiusindicatesthepresenceofsuchdebates,bothinstatingthathisworkwillenablereaderstodecidewhethertheRomandominionwasworthyofpraiseorblameandinrelayingdividedopinionsofGreekstatesmenonRomanbehaviourduringtheThirdPunicWar.39Inthisconnectionwemayconsiderthecelebrated‘philosophicalembassy’toRomein155,whentheAcademicphilosopherCarneadesmesmerizedmembersoftherulingelitewithhislectures,inwhichheapparentlycalledintoquestionthejusticeoftheRomanimperium.ThereisevidencethatPolybiushimselfmayhaveattendedCarneades’lectures.40Inanyevent,PolybiusmakesitclearthatthedubiousmoralityofRomanimperialexpansionwasdiscussedparticularlyinthelightofthecrossingtoSicilyin264.41

ItisreasonabletoassumethatPolybius’personalpredicamentasapoliticalhostageandthefactthathewroteforbothRomanandGreekreadershipshadaprofoundinfluenceonhiscomposition.42ThedecisiontoassisttheMamertinespresentedahistoriographicdilemma—therewasnowaytoexplaintheactionwhilepreservingtheimageofathird-centuryRomansocietymorallysuperiortothatofthemid-secondcentury.Toassignunequivocallythe(p.155) responsibilityforcrossingtoSicilytothesenate,whichIhavesuggestediswhatPolybiusmayhavefoundinFabius,wouldhavebeentorepresentthesenatorsinamorallydubiouslight.43Ontheotherhand,tostateunambiguouslythatthepeopletookthisexecutivedecisionwouldhaveunderminedhisimageofRomeatthistime,sincetheriseofthepopularelementinanystatewasforhimaclearsignofdecadenceandcorruption.44Hisambiguousοἱπολλοίat1.11.2,therefore,canbeviewedasadevicetoavoidcommitmenttoeitheroftheseinterpretations—andonewhoseindeterminacyservesthelargernarrativepattern.

Incasesofhistoriographicshaping,weshouldexpecttofindinconsistenciesanduneasytensionsbetweennarrativepatternsandactualevents.ThesedoinfactoccurinPolybius’work:forexample,intheaftermathoftheFirstPunicWar,RometookadvantageofCarthaginianweakness(1.79.1–7),asPolybiustouchesononlylightlyinBook1.HestatesthatatthetimeoftheCarthaginianmercenaryrebellioninSardinia,bothRomeandCarthageadheredtotreatyobligations;andthat,foritspart,RomereturnedallprisonersofwartoCarthage,didnotacceptaninvitationfromtherebelstoenterSardinia,andwouldnotacceptUtica’ssurrender.45PolybiusconcedesthatatsomelatertimetheRomansdidinfactaccepttheinvitationtoenterSardinia,andtheythreatenedtodeclarewarontheCarthaginianswhenthelatterbegantomakeretaliatorypreparationsagainsttheirrebelliousmercenaries.AlthoughCarthageprotestedthatithadsovereignrightsoverSardinia,itwasforcedtosubmit,relinquishingtheislandandagreeingtopayanadditionalwarindemnityof1,200talents.46AlthoughtheseeventscouldbeusedtocastRomeinamostnegativelight,itisimportanttorecognizethatPolybiuspreserveshisrepresentationofthird-centuryRomebymakingnomoraljudgementontheRomanbehaviourinBook1,andthathedoesnotrelatethesenate’sroleatthisjuncture.47

(p.156) Polybius’criticismsofRomedowntotheclimacticbattleatCannae(Books1–6)areinfrequent;wehaveageneralizedstatementontheRomans’obstinateapplicationofβία,orforceagainstnature(1.37.7),andonseveraloccasions(includingrepresentationsofMarcellusandFlaminius)Polybiuscensuresthemistakesofindividualcommanders.48Overall,however,hisrepresentationofthird-centuryRomansocietyandgovernmentishighlypositive.Asnotedearlier,herepresentedRomanvirtueinthisperiodasbeingpredicateduponitspoliticalandsocietalinstitutions,andaboveallthestrong,guidinghandofthesenate.NowheredoeshestatethismoreexplicitlythaninhisnarrationofreactionstotheaftermathofthedevastatingdefeatatCannaeinBook3.Inthisseeminglyhopelesssituation,heshowsthesenatetakingfirmcontrolbyencouragingthemasses,preparingforthecity’sdefence,anddeliberatingonallnecessarymeasurestomeetthecomingchallenges.49ItisnotuntilafterhisaccountoftheRomans’responsetoCannaeinBook6thatthenarrativepatternchanges,andPolybiusmoreopenlysuggestssignsofRomandeterioration.

Aswehaveseen,PolybiuswaswillingtoadmitsomeanomaliestouprightRomanbehaviourcharacteristicofearlierperiods(MarcellusandFlaminius).ButhecouldnotdenythatthecrossingtoSicilyin264initiatedtheFirstPunicWarandwastheobjectofthesharpestcriticism,bothatthetimeofitsoccurrenceandamongstatesmeninthemid-secondcentury.Hechosetoomitthecontroversyinthenarrativeofhisintroductorybooks.Attheopeningofhishistory,heinsteaddeflectedthequestionofthedecision’sdubiousmoralityfromthesenate.Atthesametime,heavoidedanyexplicitstatementthatthepopularassemblyplayedtheleadingrole,anotionwhichwouldhavebeenincongruentwithhisrepresentationofthethird-centuryRomanpoliteia.Theambiguousοἱπολλοίat1.11.2wasthereforeakeyphraseinhelpinghimtoperformthisdelicatehistoriographicbalancingact.

(p.157) ConclusionInconclusion,letusreturntotheinterpretativestrategiesoutlinedattheendofthesecondsectioninordertoappreciatethemagnitudeofthehistoriographicproblemwhichrecountingtheMamertinecrisispresentedforPolybius.ClearlywecandiscountthepossibilityofinfluencefrompossiblesenatorialrivalriesorhispoliticalallegiancetotheCorneliiScipiones,sincein1.10–11thehistoriandiscussesthesenateasacollectivebody,withoutmentionofanyparticularstatesmen.WecanalsorejectthepositionthatinthiscasePolybius’exactingstandardsfordetailedandaccuratereportingresultedinacontradictionwithhislargerhistoriographicpattern.Onthecontrary,IhavearguedthathisaccountofRomandeliberationsontheMessanacrisisseemstobedeliberatelyvague,50andthattheindeterminacyactuallyservedthegoalofhishistoriographicpatterning,sinceitobscuresboththeresponsibilityforaidingtheMamertinesandwhatpreciserolesthesenateandpeopleplayedinthedecision.51ToassigntheresponsibilityunequivocallytoeithercuriaorcomitiawouldnothavesimplyunderminedPolybius’patternofprogressivedeteriorationfrompristineRomanmoralvirtue;itratherwouldhaveutterlydestroyedthegrandstructureatitspointofinception.Theindeterminacyofthehistorian’srepresentation,onthecontrary,allowedhisGreekandRomanreaderstointerprettheRomandecisiontocrosstoSicilyunderarmsin264accordingtotheirown

politicalpredispositions.

Notes:

(1)MyargumentaddressesahistoriographicprobleminPolybius’Histories;itisbestservedbytreatingthepassagesunderconsideration(concerningMarcellus,Flaminius,andtheMamertinecrisis)inreversechronologicalorder,leadinguptothemomentousRomandecisiontocrosstheStraitsofMessanain264.AnearlierversionwaspresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAssociationofAncientHistoriansheldatPrincetonUniversity,4May2007.IwishtothanktheorganizersofPolybius1957–2007,ThomasHarrison,BruceGibson,andGinaMuskett,forinvitingmetoparticipate,andtheparticipants(aswellastheaudienceatPrinceton),whosetrenchantcommentsandpenetratingquestionsenabledmetomakethepaperamuchbetterone.IextendspecialthankstoBruceGibsonforhiseditorialqueriesandsuggestions.Anyremainingflawsare,ofcourse,entirelymyown.AlldatesareBC.

(2)Walbank1994:29.

(3)Champion2004a:105–22.

(4)Plb.3.2.6;cf.1.1.5,64.2;3.118.8–9;6.2.2–3,18.4–5;8.2.3–11;39.8.7–8;Pédech1964:303–30.

(5)Plb.13.3.6–8;18.35.1–2;Champion2004a:144–69.

(6)Plb.2.34.1–35.1.AccordingtoPlutarch(Marc.6.5–7.1),MarcellussavedCorneliusatMediolanum,andthesenatedecreedatriumphforhimalone;cf.Eutr.3.6;Oros.4.13,15;Zonar.8.20.

(7)Münzer1899:col.2738.InadditiontofailingtomentionMarcellus’triumph,PolybiusissilentonMarcellus’single-handedcombatwiththeGallicleader,BritomarusorVirdumarus,hiswinningofthespoliaopima,andhisdedicationofatempletoVirtusandHonos,allamplyattestedintheannalistictradition;Münzer1899:cols.2739–40assemblesthereferences.Note,however,thatMarcellusisthefirstconsulmentionedat2.34.1.

(8)ForadetailedanalysisofMarcellus’Siciliancampaign,seeEckstein1987a:157–69,345–9;forLivy’sdepictionofMarcellus’character,seenowLevene2010:197–214,333–4.

(9)Liv.24.30.6;forMarcellus’savagery,seefurtherLiv.24.19.9–11(Casilinum);24.35.2(MegaraHyblaea);24.39.1–10(Henna);26.30.4–5(Leontini),withNissen1863:53–85,esp.83–5,forLivy’srelianceonPolybiusinthesebooks.Polybiuselsewhere(9.10.1–13;39.2–3)condemnsRomanremovalofGreekartwork,whichmadetheRomanstargetsofhatred.Cf.Cic.2Verr.2.4forafavourabletraditiononMarcellus’behaviouratSyracuse(cf.salusSiciliae,2.Verr.2.8),mentionedinordertoexcoriateVerres.

(10)Plb.10.32.7–8,withWalbank,HCPii.242–3on10.32.1–33.7,Eckstein1995:28–9.

(11)Champion2004a:190–2,Rosenstein1990:58n.11,77–8n.74.AccordingtoZonaras(8.20),thesenatedeniedatriumphtoFlaminiusin223,butthepeopleoverturnedthesenators’wishes.ForFlaminius’careerandsenatorialpolitics,seeFeigVishnia1996:11–48.

(12)SeeWelwei1966,Mendels1979,1981b,1982,Eckstein1995:129–40,Champion2004a:185–93,Champion2004b.

(13)Plb.2.21.8(‘thefirststepinthecorruptionofthepeople’);cf.2.33.8–9;3.80.3,84.4–5.

(14)Plb.6.47.3–5.Conversely,itistruethatforPolybius,wherestrongindividualsareinpower,changesintheirdispositionscanresultinchangesinthenatureoftheirstates:see9.23.8–9;cf.4.2.10–11,withChampion2004a:103–5.Suchcases,however,appeartobemoreorlessconfinedforPolybiustomonarchiesorpoliteiaiinadecadentconditiontobeginwith(e.g.Boeotia,Aetolia).Forthewell-orderedstateofAchaea,atanyrate,PolybiusfeelscompelledtodigressonindividualpsychologyinordertoexplainAratusofSicyon’sdeviationsfromAchaeancollectivecharacter(4.8.1–12).Heconcedesthatrareindividuals,whoarepoliticallyandmorallysuperiortotheircontemporaries,canariseinstatesalreadyindecline;seeChampion2004a:146–51,158–63.

(15)ForPolybius’ideasonthemaincriterionoftruthinhistoricalwriting,seePlb.1.14.6–9andassembledreferencesatChampion2004a:22n.30.

(16)Interestingly,Polybiusgivesanother‘firststep’whenhereportsthenewsofthefallofAgrigentumearlyin261(1.20.1–2).HerepresentsthearrivalofthenewsatRomeasthemomentwhenthesenatefirstbegantothinkofendingtheCarthaginianpresenceinSicily.Consequently,theideathattheRomansweremerelyhelpingtheMamertinesin264,withnoimperialdesigns,isreinforced.Forhistoricalreconstructionsofthepreliminariestoandoutbreakofthewar,seee.g.Hoffmann1969,Petzold1969:129–79,Hampl1972:413–27,Rich1976:119–27,Eckstein1980,Hoyos1984,Eckstein1987a:73–101,Scullard1989:537–45,Lazenby1996:11–42,Hoyos1998:33–99.ForRome’simperialexpansioninthisperiod,see(fromamongavastliterature)Errington1971,Harris1979,Gruen1984,Ferrary1988,Hoyos1998,andnowEckstein2008.Kallet-Marx1995isindispensablefortheperiodfromtheAchaeanWartotheascendancyofCn.PompeiusMagnus.

(17)Plb.1.7.6–7;cf.Diod.22.1.2–3;Diofr.40.7–12;Dion.Hal.A.R.20.4.1–5.5.DionysiusstatesthattheRomanconsulC.FabriciusLuscinussentoutthegarrison;basedonFabricius’consulships,thedispatchwasin282;anattackontheCampanianusurpersatRhegiumfollowedin278(MRRi.189,194).

(18)Plb.1.7.6;seeWalbank,HCPi.52–3on1.7.6–13fordiscussionofthedateandnumericalvariantsforthesizeofthegarrison.TheidentityofthecommanderDeciusisexceedinglycomplicated;seeLiv.Per.12(DeciusVibellius);Liv.28.28.2–4(registeringaD.Vibulliusasmilitarytribune);App.Samn.9.2–3;andthe‘Jubellius’atVal.Max.2.7.15

(withCampanianmercenariesasciuesRomanos,cf.Salmon1967:39n.1onthelegioCampana;MRRi.199).DeciuswasclearlyamemberofapowerfulCapuanfamily(cf.Cic.Agr.2.93–4,withSyme1955:129).

(19)Rhegiumwasreducedin270:Walbank,HCPi.53on1.7.6–13;MRRi.198.OnlyinBook3doesPolybiusconcedethattheRomanactioncouldbecondemned(3.26.6–7;passagequotedinfullinn.41.).

(20)Plb.1.10.1–3,δεόμενοιβοηθήσεινσφίσιναὐτοις̑ὁμοφύλοιςὑπάρχουσιν;Serrati2006:131n.70assemblesreferencesforItalianappealstoconsanguinitywithRome;onkinshipdiplomacygenerally,seeJones1999.ThequestionofthechronologicalrelationshipbetweenthebattleattheLonganus(269or265/64?)andtheMamertineappealstoCarthageandtoRomeisvexed,butZonar.8.8isclearaboutHierobesiegingMessanain265/64,whichledtotheMamertinerequestforoutsideassistance;seePetzold1969:160–1,Eckstein1987a:74n.3.

(21)Eckstein1987a:73–101,335–40.

(22)OnPolybius’prokataskeuē,seeGelzer1940aand1940b(the‘Achaeanprokataskeuē’),Petzold1969:135–48;cf.Champion2004a:138n.150.SeealsoHansBeck’schapterinthisvolume.

(23)Liv.Per.16;Dio11,fr.43;Zonar.8.8(Romanhesitation,οὐταχέωςαὐτοις̑ἐπεκούρησαν);Flor.1.18.3–6;Devir.ill.37.2;Oros.4.7.1.Forcarefulreconstructionoftheevents,see,inadditiontoEckstein1987a:73–101,335–40(whodiffersinsomedetails),Hoyos1998:33–104.

(24)Plb.1.14.1–3;forPolybius’furthercriticismsofFabius,see1.15.12,58.5;3.8.1–9.5;ofPhilinus,1.15.1–12;3.26.2–7,withWalbank,HCPi.64–5on1.14.1;andnowAmbaglio2005.PolybiusperhapsalsodrewuponTimaeus,fromwhomhisdigressiononHieroII(1.8.3–9.8)islikelytohavederived;seeWalbank,HCPi.53–4on1.8.3–9.8.ForthefragmentsofPhilinus,seemyarticle(Champion2010),‘FGrH174Philinos’,inBrill’sNewJacobyOn-Line(http://www.brillonline.com);forFabius,seeBeckandWalterFRHI2,pp.55–136.

(25)Seee.g.Serv.A.4.628(cf.Serv.A.1.108;Catofr.84Peter,referringtoafoedus);Liv.9.43.26;21.10.8;Per.14,withHampl1972:422n.18.Thepost-Polybianannalistictraditionalsofabricatedaformaltreaty(foedussociale)betweenRomeandtheMamertinesatthetimeMessanacameunderattackin264:Liv.30.31.4;Flor.1.18.3.Serrati2006,esp.120–9,hasrecentlyarguedforthehistoricityofthePhilinusTreaty,andprovidesbibliographicreferencesformodernscholarlypositions,bothforandagainst,at120n.25(seealsoHoyos1984:92n.6;Hoyos1998:10n.10,Foucault,Foulon,andMolin2004:191n.117);cf.Hampl1972:423n.20forearlierliteratureonthequestion.

(26)Gelzer1933(seealsoGelzer1934);cf.Hampl1972:413andn.2,withreferencesto

earlierliterature.ForFabius’compositioninGreek,seeDion.Hal.A.R.1.6.2;Cic.Div.1.43,withFrier1999:255–84.

(27)SeeWalbank,HCPi.65on1.14.1;theperverseattempttoreversethisreasoningatLaqueur1938:col.1283mustberejected.IntheprokataskeuēPolybiuswasdependentonthechronologicalmethodsusedbyhissources;seeErrington1967b.

(28)Eckstein1987a:74.

(29)Liv.Per.16:auxiliumMamertinisferendumsenatuscensuit.ForLivy’sdirectuseofFabius,seeLuce1977:159–62.

(30)Diod.23.1.4.NotethatDiodorus’senseofurgency(ὃς[Ap.Claudius]εὐθὺςἠ̑λθενεἰςῬήγιον)conflictswiththedelayinZonar.8.8(seen.23above).

(31)DiodoruscitesPhilinusthreetimesasasourceforhisaccountoftheFirstPunicWar(23.8.1;23.17;24.11.1).ForDiodorus’suseofFabius,seeDiod.7.5.4,withSacks1990:118n.3.

(32)Frontinus(Str.1.4.11)describesClaudius’ruseincrossingfromRhegiumtoMessana.Thegeneralproclaimedthathecouldnotengageinwarwithoutaformalwar-voteoftheRomanpeople,andthen,feigningareturntoItaly,turnedaroundandsailedtoSicily.

(33)Eckstein1980:176n.5assemblesthereferences.

(34)DeMartino1951:239–40,Develin1973:121–2,Calderone1977,Eckstein1980and1987a:80–2,Calderone,Bitto,deSalvo,andPinzone1981.

(35)Hoyos1984.

(36)Calderone1977:386,Calderone,Bitto,deSalvo,andPinzone1981:27–30,Eckstein1980:182andn.22,188andn.39,Eckstein1987a:82andn.35,Hoyos1984:89–90;cf.Hoyos1998:57–64.

(37)WhenPolybiuswantstodenoteunequivocallytheRomansenate,heusesτὸσυνέδριον(butonlyat1.11.1inBooks1–2;italsodescribestheCarthaginian‘senate’at1.31.8andPythagoreancouncilsinMagnaGraeciaat2.39.1)orἡσύγκλητος(intheprokataskeuēat1.20.1and2.8.3).Inrelationtotheδόγμαat1.11.3,notethatPolybiusfrequentlymakesitclearthathereferstosenatusconsultabyaddingthewordsτη̑ςσυγκλήτου(6.13.2;18.44.1,2,5;24.10.3(αὐτη̑ς);28.13.11,16.2;29.27.2;30.30.2–3,31.20).AsEckstein1980:184–5notes,οἱπολλοίclearlymeansamajorityintheRomansenateat33.18.10–11,wherePolybiusdiscussesadivision(τοις̑μὲνοὐ̑νμετρίοις…οἱδὲπολλοί),butthiscannotbesaidof1.11.2.WhenPolybiuswantstoreferunambiguouslytotheRomanpeoplemeetingformallyincomitia,heregularlyusesδη̑μος(twenty-oneoccurrences),notοἱπολλοί(Eckstein1980:183andn.28);butwedoreadοἱπλείονεςinwhatisclearlyacomitialcontextat6.12.4;cf.Hoyos1984:91.

(38)Walbank1972a:19–25.

(39)Plb.3.4.6–8;36.9.1–10.1,withChampion2004a:193–203.Cf.Plb.1.83.3–4(onHieroII’swisdomincounterbalancingthepowersofRomeandCarthage),οὐδέποτεγὰρχρὴτὰτοιαυ̑ταπαρορα̑νοὐδὲτηλικαύτηνοὐδενὶσυγκατασκευάζεινδυναστείαν,πρὸςἣνοὐδὲπερὶτω̑νὁμολογουμένωνἐξέσταιδικαίωνἀμφισβητειν̑(‘forthesekindsofthingsshouldneverbeoverlooked,andweshouldneverassistanempiretosuchanextentthatnonedaredisputewithitconcerningacknowledgedrights’).

(40)Cic.Rep.3.7Powell(Lactant.Inst.5.14.3–5);Quint.Inst.12.1.35;Polybius’attendance:Plb.33.2.10(Gel.6.14.10),withFerrary1988:360andn.30.Champion2004a:197–8respondstothereservationsofGruen1984:342andFerrary1988:351–63concerningthehistoricityofCarneades’lectures.

(41)Plb.3.26.6,οὐμὴνἀλλ’εἰκατὰτου̑τότιςἐπιλαμβάνεταιῬωμαίωνπερὶτη̑ςεἰςΣικελίανδιαβάσεως,ὅτικαθόλουΜαμερτίνουςπροσέλαβονεἰςτὴνφιλίανκαὶμετὰταυ̑ταδεομένοιςἐβοήθησαν,οἵτινεςοὐμόνοντὴνΜεσσηνίωνπόλινἀλλὰκαὶτὴνῬηγίνωνπαρεσπόνδησαν,εἰκότωςἂνδόξειενδυσαρεστειν̑(‘ItmightseemplausibletoblametheRomans,intheirinvasionofSicily,forhavingtakentheMamertinesintoallianceatall,andforansweringtheirrequestforaidwhentheyhadbetrayedRhegiumaswellasMessana—onecouldreasonablydisapprove[oftheaction]’).

(42)ForPolybius’multipleaudiences,seePlb.6.11.3–8;31.22.8,withChampion2004a:4n.5.

(43)Intheend,thequestionofFabius’representationoftheeventsin264mustremainopen.Gelzer1933:134–6andHampl1972:417,421,andn.17arguedthatFabiusassignedresponsibilityforthedecisiontotheRomanpopularassembly;Bung1950:138andHoffmann1969:171suggestedthatthiswasPolybius’ownreconstruction.WhatiscertainistheambiguityofPolybius’οἱπολλοίat1.11.2,whichthischapterattemptstoexplaininhistoriographicterms.

(44)SeeWelwei1966,Eckstein1995:129–40,Champion2004a:185–93,Champion2004b.Cf.Plb.12.25k.6–7,wherePolybiusdiscussesTimaeus’representationofHermocrates’speechatGelain424(cf.Thuc.4.59–64).Hermocrates,accordingtoTimaeus,praisedtheGeloansandCamariniansformakingsurethatimportantmattersofstatewerenotdiscussedbythemultitudebutratherbytheleadingcitizens.PolybiusmissedfewopportuntiestocastigateTimaeus(cf.Sacks1981:21–95),buthedoesnotherequestionthepoliticaljudgementofTimaeus’Hermocrates.

(45)Plb.1.83.5–11;cf.3.28.3,30.4.FortheRomantraditionontheseevents,seeZonar.8.17;App.Pun.5;Sic.2.3;Nep.Ham.2.3;Val.Max.5.1.1;Walbank,HCPi.146on1.83.2–4.

(46)Plb.1.88.8–12;cf.3.10.3–4;thesetermswerenotpartofanewtreaty,butratherwereanἐπισυνθήκηtothearrangementsof241;seeWalbank,HCPi.355on3.27.2–8.

(47)PolybiustakesupRome’sseizureofSardiniainhisdiscussionofRomano-CarthaginiantreatiesinBook3.HesaystherethattheRomanaction(ἀφαίρεσις)gavetheCarthaginiansjustcauseforundertakingthesecondwaragainstRome(3.30.3–4).At3.28.1–2,hestatesthatRome’stakingofSardiniawasπαρὰπάντατὰδίκαια;cf.3.15.10.ButinthisaccountCarthagestillemergesastheinitiator,albeitwithgoodcause,oftheHannibalicWar.Moreover,Polybius’aitiaiforthewarsubordinatetheSardinianaffairtotheaggressivedesignsoftheBarcidsandto‘Hannibal’sOath’,whichoccupytheemphaticfirstandlastpositionsinPolybius’listofcausesofthewar;seeRich1976:64–71,1996:5n.5formodernscholarshiponPolybius’aitiai;cf.Champion2004a:119–20.

(48)Cf.Champion2004a:199–201.

(49)Plb.3.118.5–9;cf.6.58.1–13.ItisnoteworthythatinhistreatmentofthepreliminariestotheHannibalicWar,Polybius(3.20.1–9)disallowsanydivisioninthesenateregardingawardeclarationagainstCarthageafternewsarrivedofSaguntum’sfall.Othersourcespresentamorecomplicatedpicturewithintensesenatorialdebatesoverthecorrectpolicy(forthelikelihoodthatthesedebateswereinFabius’history,seeBung1950:34–5):Liv.21.6.6–7.1;Diofr.55B;Zonar.8.22;Sil.1.675–94;App.Ib.11,withWalbank,HCPi.331–2on3.20.1,Frier1999:245–6;seeRich1976:110n.182formodernworksrejectingPolybius’account.

(50)NotethatPolybius’treatmentofRome’smoreambitiousplansafterthefallofAgrigentum(1.20.1)alsoseemstobedeliberatelyvague.ThenewsisbroughttotheSenate(εἰςτὴνσύγκλητον),butPolybiusthenshiftstoanunspecifiednominativeplural(περιχαρεις̑γενόμενοι):senatorsorRomansingeneral?

(51)Thediscussionperiodfollowingthepaper’spresentationatPolybius1957–2007wonderfullysupportedmycontentionthatPolybius’accountmayhavebeendeliberatelyobscure,astherewaslengthydebateastowhatparticularwordsandphrasesin1.10–11mightpossiblymean.

Polybius and Xenophon: The Mercenary War1

PolybiusandXenophon:TheMercenaryWar1

BruceGibson

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0008

AbstractandKeywords

Unlikemostmodernhistorians,PolybiusallotsagenerousdegreeofcoveragetotheMercenaryWarfoughtbetweenCarthageanditsmercenariesaftertheFirstPunicWar.ThoughtheMercenaryWaranditsaftermathisanimportantfactorinthecausationoftheSecondPunicWar,theepisodedeservesconsiderationasanimportantopportunityforPolybiustoexplorethethemeofmercenarysoldiers.AkeyintertextforhistreatmentofmercenariesisXenophon'sAnabasis,whichallowsforexaminationofthemessuchasethnicity,unityanddisunity,aspartofawiderprocessofcomparisonbetweenCarthageandRome.JustasPolybiusacknowledgesthesignificanceoftheexpeditionofthe10000againstPersia(3.6),sotoodoestheMercenaryWarallowforanexplorationofCarthaginianweaknessandcruelty,amidthewidercontextofRome'slatentpowerwhichseesSardiniasnatchedfromCarthageattheendoftheMercenaryWar.

Keywords:Polybius,Xenophon,MercenaryWar,Mercenaries,Carthage,Rome,ethnicity,intertextuality

IntroductionTheMercenaryWarwasaviolentandparadoxicalcodatoCarthage’sfinaldefeatintheFirstPunicWarin241BC,withCarthagenowforcedtofightitsownmercenariesandtheirAfricanallies.2Thoughthedatingoftheconflictissubjecttosomeuncertainty,asnotedbyFrankWalbankinhiscommentary,3thiswasawarwhich,accordingtoPolybius,lastedforthreeyearsandfourmonths(1.88.7).AsregardsPolybius’sources,whileithasbeenarguedthatPolybiusmayhaveusedPhilinus,WalbanksuggeststhatPhilinusmayhavebeentheauthorofamonographontheFirstPunicWaralone,andisthereforedoubtfulthatPhilinuswasthesource.4Polybiusis,ofcourse,carefultoexplainwhyhechoosestocoverthiswar(Plb.1.65),offeringthreereasons:first,thewaristheperfectexampleofwhatatrucelesswarislike;secondly,itgivesasalutarywarningoftheneedforcautioninusingmercenaries;5and,thirdly,itofferscrucialmaterialforanyonereflectingontheoriginoftheSecondPunicWar,especiallyasthecausesofthatwararethemselvesamatterfordebate.Beforeweconsiderthesereasons,6itmaybe(p.160)usefulinthefirstinstancetoaddressthestrikingissueoftheextentofPolybius’coverageoftheMercenaryWar.

IfweconsidertheeventsofthefirsttwobooksofPolybius,7theMercenaryWarisproportionatelygivenalargeamountofspace.8ThechaptersinBook1coveringtheFirstPunicWar,evenifweexcludethechaptersonthatwar’sorigins(1.5–9),runfrom1.10(wherewefirsthearoftheRomansconsideringhowtorespondtotheMamertines)to1.64,wherePolybiusroundsoffhistreatmentofthewarwithgeneralreflectionsonthenatureandsignificanceoftheconflict.Therearethusfifty-fivechaptersdevotedtotheFirstPunicWar,coveringthetwenty-threeyearsfromtheoutbreakofthewarin264BCtothefinaldefeatoftheCarthaginiansinthenavalbattleoftheAegatesIslandsin241BC.PolybiusthenmovesontohiscoverageoftheMercenaryWar,whichcoverstwenty-fourchaptersfrom1.65to1.88,theendofthebook,sothatitreceivesjustunder45percentofthespacedevotedtotheFirstPunicWar.IfwelookforwardintoBook2,theachievementsofCarthageintheperiodbetweentheMercenaryWarandtheoutbreakoftheSecondPunicWararecrammedintoaverysmallspaceindeed.Thusasinglechapter(2.1)isgivenovertotheperiodofHamilcarBarca’scommandinSpain(237–229BC);9anotherchapterisgivenovertoHasdrubal’scontinuationofHamilcar’sSpanishcommand(2.13),takingeventsdownto221BC;whileathirdchapterdealswithHasdrubal’sdeathandHannibal’sassumptionofthecommandinthesameyear(2.36).Thus,eventhoughPolybiusspecificallymentionstheangerofHamilcarBarcaandthesuccessofCarthageinSpainashisfirstandthirdcausesoftheoriginsoftheSecondPunicWar(3.9–10),10Carthage’shistoryaftertheMercenaryWardowntoHannibal’sassumptionoftheSpanishcommandisonlydiscussedinthreechaptersinBook2.WhilstthesecondcauseoftheSecondPunicWargivenbyPolybiusinBook3,CarthaginianangeroverthelossofSardiniaintheimmediatesequeltotheMercenaryWar(3.10.1–4),issaidbyPolybiustobethegreatestcauseoftheSecondPunicWar,itremainsthecasethatPolybiusdealswiththelossofSardiniaandtheadditionalindemnityof1,200talentsimposedbytheRomansonlyverybriefly,inthelastchapterofBook1(1.88.8–

12).11Furthermore,ifwecomparetheothermaterialinBook2,thecoveragegiventotheMercenaryWarissimilartothatgivenovertoRome’sdealingswiththeGauls(2.14–35),12(p.161) andmoreextensivethanthespaceallottedtotheFirstIllyrianWar(2.2–12);onlytheFirstPunicWaritselfinBook1andtheaccountgivenofGreekaffairsinthesecondhalfofBook2areinfactlengthierthantheMercenaryWarintermsofcoverage.

NowPolybiusdoesatthestartofhisnarrativeoftheMercenaryWarexplainthatthereisalinkwiththeoriginsoftheSecondPunicWar(1.65.8):

τὸδὲμέγιστον,τὰςαἰτίαςἐκτω̑νἐνἐκείνοιςτοις̑καιροις̑πεπραγμένωνκατανοήσειεν,δι’ἃςὁκατ’ἈννίβανσυνέστηῬωμαίοιςκαὶΚαρχηδονίοιςπόλεμος.

ButthemostimportantthingisthatonemightfromtheeventsthattookplaceinthosetimesbeabletounderstandthereasonsbecauseofwhichthewararosebetweentheRomansandCarthaginiansinthetimeofHannibal.

ItistruethatSardiniadoesreceiveafewmentionsinthecourseofthenarrative:in1.79themercenariesstationedthererevoltfromCarthageandkilltheCarthaginiancommandersenttorelievethem,Hanno.13ThesignificanceofthismomentastheendofCarthaginianpowerintheislandisaccompaniedbyPolybius’observationthatSardiniahasbeendescribedatgreatlengthalreadybyotherwritersanddoesnotrequireadescriptionfromhim(1.79.6–7).TherearetwootherbrieferreferencestoSardinia:at1.82.7,thereisapassingreferencetoCarthagehavinglosttheisland;whilein1.83.11,PolybiusrecordsaninvitationfromthemercenariesonSardiniatotheRomanstoinitiateanoccupation,anopportunitywhichonthisoccasionwasturneddown,thoughin1.88.8,theRomanssubsequentlyacceptthechancetoannexSardinia,ataroundthetimeofCarthage’sfinalvictoryoverthemercenariesinAfrica.14

Thus,thefactthatSardiniawouldbeanimportantcausefortheSecondPunicWarcannotreallyexplainwhyPolybiusshouldgivesuchextensivecoveragetotheMercenaryWarattheendofthefirstbook.Ifweturntomodernnarrativehistoriansofthewiderperiod,thecontrastwithPolybiusisstriking.15ThusJohnLazenby,inhishistoryoftheFirstPunicWar,endswithanepilogueofsixpagesinwhichhementionstheMercenaryWarandtheRomanseizureofSardiniainitsaftermath,16remarkingthat‘Thedetailsdonotconcernus,butthewiderrepercussionsdo’(Lazenby1996:173);similarly,inhisearlierbookontheSecondPunicWar,LazenbymentionstheMercenaryWaronlyontwopages.17Walbankhimself,whendiscussingPolybius’(p.162) reasonsforincludingtheMercenaryWar,observesthat‘InfactthelinkwiththeHannibalicwarisverytenuous,andamountstonomorethantheRomanseizureofSardiniaduringtheLibyanwar.…HavingdecidedonadetailedaccountoftheLibyanWar,P.isdeterminedtojustifyitintermsofthewholework.’18

ThoughPolybiuscouldhavepassedovertheMercenaryWarveryrapidly,ashedoeswiththeCarthaginiancampaignsinSpainthatarebrieflymentionedinBook2,hechoosesnotto.Theextentofhiscoverageinvitesustoaddressthecontributionoftheepisodeto

Polybius’history.AcrucialfeaturethatemergesisPolybius’exploitationofthetreatmentofmercenariesinearlierhistoriographicaltraditions,notablythepresentationofmercenariesintheAnabasisofXenophon.19Atfirstglance,theremightappeartobelittleincommonbetweenthesetwotexts.Assuredly,bothepisodesdealwithmercenaries,20butonemightfeelthatthesimilaritiesendthere.HowcouldtherebemuchincommonbetweenPolybius’accountofthehorrorsofwhatmightappeartobeafairlyunimportant,ifunpleasant,conflictinAfrica,andCyrus’famousexpeditionoftheTenThousandagainstArtaxerxesIIofPersia?

PolybiusandXenophonOneissuewhichcanbeaddressedstraightawayiswhetherPolybiusshowsanyinterestinXenophon’sworks.PolybiusrefersdirectlytoXenophononthreeoccasionsinhisHistories.21OneinstanceisPlb.6.45.1,wherePolybiuspraisesXenophonaspartofalistofλογιώτατοι(‘menmostlearned,mostskilledinwords’)whohavewrittenabouttheconstitutionofCrete,whichincludesEphorus,Callisthenes,andPlato.22AnotherisPlb.10.20.7,wherePolybiusisdescribingScipio’sactivitiesinNewCarthage(Cartagena),wherehepointsoutthatanobserverwouldhavetoresorttoXenophon’sphrasing(p.163) (Hell.3.4.17;Agesilaus,1.26)incallingtheplaceanἐργαστήριονπολέμου,a‘workshopofwar’.ThoughthephrasemightbyPolybius’timehavebecomeproverbial—whichwouldinanycasepointtothewiderinfluenceofXenophon—Polybiusagainchoosestomentionhimbynamehere.23ThethirdinstanceofdirectreferencetoXenophoncomesearliestinthetext,inPolybius’discussionofthecausationoftheSecondPunicWar,whichthenbecomesamorewide-rangingdiscussionofotherinstancesofcausation,includinghisconsiderationofthecausesofthewarbetweenthePersianempireandAlexandertheGreat(Plb.3.6.10):

ἠ̑νδὲπρώτημὲνἡτω̑νμετὰΞενοφω̑ντοςἙλλήνωνἐκτω̑νἄνωσατραπειω̑νἐπάνοδος,ἐνᾑ̑πα̑σαντὴνἈσίανδιαπορευομένωναὐτω̑νπολεμίανὑπάρχουσανοὐδεὶςἐτόλμαμένεινκατὰπρόσωποντω̑νβαρβάρων·

AndthefirstcausewasthereturnoftheGreekswithXenophonfromtheuppersatrapies,duringwhich,whiletheyweremarchingthroughthewholeofAsiaashostileterritory,noneofthebarbariansdaredtofacethem.

ForPolybius,therefore,theeventsoftheexpeditionoftheTenThousandwereofgreatsignificance,theargumentbeing(3.6.12–13)thattherevelationoftheweaknessofthePersianempireinthefaceofadeterminedaggressorwasadecisivemotivationforPhilipII’splans,andAlexander’sinvasion.ThepointisborneoutbythefactthatPolybius’secondcauseofAlexander’swarwasAgesilaus’successinPersiaafterthecampaignoftheTenThousand(3.6.11);similararetheviewsofIsocratesonthemarchoftheTenThousand(Or.4.145–9;5.90–101),thatitexposedtheweaknessofthePersianempireandcouldshowthewaytofutureHellenicsuccess.24Isocrates,however,doesnotnameanyGreekcommanderinthePanegyricus(Or.4),andonlymentionsClearchusinthePhilippus(Or.5),whereasPolybiusexplicitlyassociatesthereturnoftheTenThousandwithXenophon.Inthisrespect,PolybiusalsodiffersfromXenophon’sHellenica,sinceXenophonmakesnomentionofhimselfinthefamouslybriefsummaryoftheexpeditionof

CyrusatHell.3.1.2,wherethereaderissimplyreferredtoThemistogenestheSyracusan,usuallythoughttobeapseudonymforXenophonhimself.25

Thus,intermsofdirectreferencestoXenophon,ourexamplesincludementionofthereturnoftheTenThousand,whichdrawsontheargument(p.164) thattheactionsoftheGreekswereatoolinunderstandingtheweaknessofthePersianempire,andalsoaninstanceofdirectquotation.WemightalsobeopentoconsideringPolybianallusiontoXenophonintermsofhistoriographicalpractice.Consider,forinstance,Polybius’remarksonhisdecisiontocontinuehisworkbeyond167BC(3.4.12–13):

διὸκαὶτη̑ςπραγματείαςταύτηςτου̑τ’ἔσταιτελεσιούργημα,τὸγνω̑ναιτὴνκατάστασινπαρ’ἑκάστοις,ποίατιςἠ̑νμετὰτὸκαταγωνισθη̑ναιτὰὅλακαὶπεσειν̑εἰςτὴντω̑νῬωμαίωνἐξουσίανἕωςτη̑ςμετὰταυ̑ταπάλινἐπιγενομένηςταραχη̑ςκαὶκινήσεως.ὑπὲρἡ̑ςδιὰτὸμέγεθοςτω̑νἐναὐτῃ̑πράξεωνκαὶτὸπαράδοξοντω̑νσυμβαινόντων,τὸδὲμέγιστον,διὰτὸτω̑νπλείστωνμὴμόνοναὐτόπτης,ἀλλ’ὡ̑νμὲνσυνεργὸςὡ̑νδὲκαὶχειριστὴςγεγονέναι,προήχθηνοἱο̑νἀρχὴνποιησάμενοςἄλληνγράφειν.

Andthereforethiswillbethefinalworkofthishistory,torecognizetheconditionofeachpeople,whatitwasaftereverythinghadbeendefeatedandfellintothepoweroftheRomans,untiltheturbulenceanddisturbancethatagaintookplaceafterthis.Aboutthis,duetotheextentoftheactions,andtheunexpectednatureoftheevents,and,mostofall,duetothefactthatIwasnotonlyawitnessofmostevents,butwasinvolvedinsomeandwaseventheleadactorinsome,IwasimpelledtowriteasifIwerestartingtowriteanotherhistory.

LorenzobservedthatthelanguageofturmoilusedbyPolybiushererecallssimilarphrasinginothertexts,includingXen.Hell.7.5.27,wherethewordταραχήoccurs.26ThetemptationmightbetoseeXenophonasoneofanumberofpossibleparallels,andthereforeofnosignificance,butthepassagefromtheHellenicameritsfurtherexamination:27

ἀκρισίαδὲκαὶταραχὴἔτιπλείωνμετὰτὴνμάχηνἐγένετοἢπρόσθενἐντῃ̑Ἑλλάδι.ἐμοὶμὲνδὴμέχριτούτουγραφέσθω·τὰδὲμετὰταυ̑ταἴσωςἄλλῳμελήσει.

TherewasstillmoreconfusionandturbulenceinGreeceafterthebattle[ofMantinea]thantherewasbefore.Butletwhathappeneduptothispointbewrittenbyme.Perhapstheeventsthathappenedafterthiswillbeaconcernforsomeoneelse.

TwofeaturesmightbefelttolinktheHellenicapassagewithPolybius’announcementofhisintentiontocontinuehishistory.28Inthefirstplace,(p.165) wecannotePolybius’useofμετὰταυ̑τα(‘afterthis’)todenoteasubsequentperiodofchaos,whichisapossiblesubjectforhistory.Evenmoreimportant,though,isthepositionofXenophon’sHellenicapassage,foritistheverycloseoftheHellenica.Polybiusthus,inacomplex

move,evokes—inwhatiseffectivelyasecondproemtotheHistories—aclosuraldevicefromanotherhistorian,whichitselfevokesanotheropening,Xenophon’sownbeginningtotheHellenica(Μετὰδὲταυ̑τα,Hell.1.1.1),withitsimpliedcontinuationofThucydides;29atthesametimePolybiusoffersanewtakeontheconventionofcontinuationsofprevioushistoriographybybecominghisowncontinuator.Xenophon’scloseisthusevoked,butasareasonforanewstartintheproemtothethirdbook,andPolybiuseclipseshispredecessorbyprovidingthecontinuationofhisownhistory.30

PolybiusandXenophononMercenariesIfwereturntotheMercenaryWarinPolybius,IshallattempttodemonstratecumulativelyareaswherereadingPolybiusthroughXenophoncanbeproductive,andthenconsiderhowsuchaconnectionmightactuallyworkinpractice.ItisimportantattheoutsettonotethattherelationshipwithXenophonmightnotoperatesolelyintermsofsimilaritiesandparallels:differencesinemphasismightalsobeasignificantaspect.

Onastraightforwardlevel,wecanbeginbynotingoccasionswheresimilaractivitiesaredescribed.Forexample,inbothXenophonandPolybius,mercenarytroopsaretoldtoleaveacityandwaitelsewherefortheirpay,atAnab.7.1.7,whenAnaxibiustellsthetroopstoleavethecitywiththeirbaggage,andat1.66inPolybius,31whenthetroopsaresenttoSicca.32And,onthemilitaryside,onemightcomparethetacticsusedbythemercenariesatPlb.1.75,thedeploymentofforcesinthehillsandtheattempttopreventtheCarthaginians(p.166) fromcrossingtheriverMacaras(Bagradas),33withasimilarmomentinXenophon:HamilcarBarca’scrossingoftheriverattherightmomentinthischapterofPolybiusmightbecomparedtothesuccessfulriver-crossingintoArmeniainAnab.4.3.Suchdetailsmightofcourseseemtobecoincidences(thesearethekindofactivitiesonewouldexpectmercenaries—oranykindoftroops—tobeengagedwith),soonemightnotexpecttoplacetoomuchweightonsuchparallelsinthemselves.

Anareaworthconsidering,however,isthelanguagewhichPolybiususesofthemercenaries.Inspiteofawillingnesstorefertomercenarieswithwordssuchasμισθοφόροι,unambiguouslyreferringtothefinancialbasisoftheirservice,includingwithintheMercenaryWaritself,34hefirstintroducestheconflictbycallingitawarπρὸςτοὺςξένουςκαὶτοὺςΝομάδαςκαὶτοὺςἅματούτοιςἀποστάνταςΛίβυας,‘againstthexenoiandtheNumidiansandtheLibyanswhohadrevoltedwiththem’(1.65.3).35Xenoi,asMatthewTrundlehasnoted,isawordwhichXenophonusesextensivelyofthearmyofCyrusintheAnabasis,whilstavoidingwordslikeἐπίκουροιandμισθοφόροι;Trundlesuggeststhatxenoimayevenberegardedasakindofeuphemism,withhintsofritualizedfriendship.36InPolybius’case,theuseofsuchawordmightseemtomisdirectthereadertowardsexpectationsthatarefartoohigh:37thelanguagethatXenophonhadfavouredturnsouttobeillusionasonemoralconventionafteranotherisoverthrownbythemercenaries.

Polybius’accountoftheMercenaryWaremphasizes,aswehaveseen,itsimportanceasapartofthecausationoftheSecondPunicWar.ButitalsocontainsapreambleinwhichPolybiuspresentsthecausationoftheMercenaryWaritself,evenifthissectionisnotexplicitlyhighlightedassuch.Thusin1.70henotesthatthearrestoftheCarthaginian

commanderGescoandotherswithhimwasthebeginning(ἀρχή)38ofthewar(1.70.7).39Theprecedingchapters(1.66–70)describehowthisstateofaffairscameabout,andareessentiallyastudyoftheMercenaryWar’scausation.WithinthisfirstsectionofPolybius’coverage,anumberofthemesplaytheirpartintheslidetowardswarfarewhichalsohavearesonancewithXenophon.

(p.167) Inthefirstplace,thethemeofnegotiationaboutpay,40whichisoneoftheimmediatereasonsforthewar,hasawideXenophonticresonance.Theideaofpaymentformilitaryservicespreviouslyrendered,theconcernoftheCarthaginians’mercenaries,hasobviousparallelsinXenophon:asearlyasthefirstbookoftheAnabasis,theissueofnon-paymentandtheneedtosecurefundsisraised,whenCyrusisaskedforthreemonths’payowedtohistroopsandgivesreassurance(Anab.1.2.11).Similarly,alittlewhilelateron,thereisaminormutinyatTarsus(Anab.1.3),cleverlydealtwithbyClearchus,whichendswithapromisefromCyrusofmorepay.AfterCyrus’death,thethemeofpaynaturallyrecedesforawhile,butitreturnswithavengeanceattheendoftheAnabasis,wherethestartofBook6seesreportsofpromisestothearmyfromtheSpartanAnaxibiusthattheywouldbepaidoncetheyhadlefttheBlackSearegion(Anab.6.1.16),apromisewhichcomestonothingatthestartofBook7;thislastbookalsohasthestoryoftheThracianSeuthes,andhisattemptstoavoidremuneratingtheGreeksfromCyrus’army(Anab.7.5–7).Polybiusnotonlyraisestheissueofnon-paymentbytheCarthaginiansbutalsothethemeofpromisesofexceptionalpaymentsmadebygenerals(Plb.1.66.12).Similarly,Polybiusisatpainstopointoutthatamercenaryarmyisonlyasgoodasitsfunding,whenhenotesthatthedefectionofmostofLibyatothemercenaries’sidemeantthattheircommanderswereabletofundalongwaragainstCarthage(1.72.6).Inasimilarvein,wecannotethattheconstantLeitmotivoftheAnabasis,theneedtoprovidesuppliesforthemercenaryarmy,isathemealludedtoinPolybius’accountoftheMercenaryWar,thoughinfactwithreferencetoproblemsexperiencedbybothsides.41Intheend,ofcourse,itisthemercenariesandtheirallieswhofallvictimtotheextremeeffectsoflackofsupplies,starvationandcannibalism(1.84.9–1.85.2),whentheyaresurroundedbyHamilcarBarca’sforces;notetoothehintin1.85.2,wherethemercenarycommandersdecidetoseektermswithCarthagebecausetheyrecognizedthedangerstothemselvesfromtheirowntroopsinthisextraordinaryplight.42WecansetthismomentalongsideXen.Anab.6.4.13–19,whenthereunitedarmyattheharbourofCalpeisunable,becauseofpooromens,togooutinordertoobtainsuppliesatatimewhentheywererunningdangerouslylow,andXenophonisblamed.ThestarvationthatovertakesthemercenariesinPolybiusissomethingwhichconstantlyloomsovertheTenThousand,butisalwayssomehowavertedintheAnabasis.

(p.168) AfurtherthemewhichemergesrepeatedlyinPolybiusisthedisunityofthemercenaries.Thisisacomplexissue,sincethereareoccasionswheretheyarecapableofactingwithresolve,43butPolybiusdoesrepresenttheeffectsoftheirlackofunityaswell.Thisisamotifwhichisarguablylinkedtoquestionsofethnicityandnotionsofthecontrastbetweencivilizedanduncivilizedpeoples,sincePolybiusmakesitclearattheoutsetofhisnarrativethatonereasonforcoveringtheMercenaryWaristogainanunderstandingofsuchdifferences(1.65.7):44

…πρὸςδὲτούτοιςτίδιαφέρεικαὶκατὰπόσονἤθησύμμικτακαὶβάρβαρατω̑νἐνπαιδείαιςκαὶνόμοιςκαὶπολιτικοις̑ἔθεσινἐκτεθραμμένων·

Andadditionally,[onemightrecognize]howandtowhatextentnationsthataremingledandbarbarousaredifferentfromthosewhohavebeenraisedthrougheducationandlawsandthecustomsofcity-states.

SuchconcernsofcourseemergeinawholehostofGreekauthors,andtheAnabasisofXenophoniscertainlyatextwhichdirectlyexplorestheseideas.EthnicityisacentralthemeoftheAnabasisasawhole,withCyrus’Greeksoldiers(andofcoursetheirAsiaticallies)holdingtheirownagainstthePersianempire.InXenophon,anearlyinstanceofthispolarityoccursatAnab.1.2.14–18,whereCyrusreviewshisGreekandnon-GreekforcesatTyriaeum,inwhatmaybeacomplexechoofXerxes’reviewofhistroopsatAbydosinthePersianwaragainstGreece(Hdt.7.44–53),45anddecidestotellhisGreekphalanxtomarchforwardasifabouttofight.Aftertheresultingpanic,XenophonroundsofftheepisodebyreportinghowpleasedCyruswasthathisGreektroopsinspiredsuchterrorinhisotherforces(Anab.1.2.18);thepointisthenreinforcedalittlefurtheronwhenCyrusexplainstohisGreekcommandersthatheissurethattheyarefarbettermenthanhisAsiaticsoldiers(Anab.1.7.3).ElsewhereinXenophonthesamepointismadethroughthegeneralcontrastbetweentheGreeksoldiersandtheadversities,bothmilitaryandphysical,ofthePersianempirewhichtheyareabletoovercome.EncounterswithvariousothernativepeoplesalsopointoutthedifferencebetweenGreekandnon-Greek:afterthemeetingwiththeMossynoeci(Anab.5.4)XenophonnotesindeedthatthearmyexplicitlyratedthatpeopleasthemostdifferentfromtheGreeksintheircustoms(5.4.34).ThusinXenophontheaccountoftheactivitiesofthemercenaryarmyofGreeksisalocuswhichallowstheexplorationofethnicdifference.

(p.169) InPolybius,thepositionismorecomplex.Thisispartlybecausethemercenariesinquestionaremainlynon-Greeks,thoughitisinterestingtonotethatPolybiusinfactdoesmentionthepresenceofsomemercenarieswithGreekconnections,inhisratherdismissivelistofnationalitiesinvolvedat1.67.7:46

ἠ̑σανγὰροἱμὲνἼβηρες,οἱδὲΚελτοί,τινὲςδὲΛιγυστιν̑οικαὶΒαλιαρεις̑,οὐκὀλίγοιδὲμιξέλληνες,ὡ̑νοἱπλείουςαὐτόμολοικαὶδου̑λοι·τὸδὲμέγιστονμέροςαὐτω̑νἠ̑νΛίβυες.

ForsomewereIberians,somewereCelts,somewereLiguriansandfromtheBalearicisles,andnotafewweremixellenes,ofwhommostweredesertersandslaves.ButthelargestpartofthemwereLibyans.

Thecontemptuousreferencetomixellenesshouldperhapsnotbetakensoseriously,47butshouldratherbeseenasanattempttomakeitclearthatregularGreekmercenariescouldnotpossiblyhavebeenpresent.Thisis,ofcourse,inspiteofthefactthatPolybiushasalreadymentionedinhistreatmentoftheFirstPunicWartheexploitsoftheSpartangeneralXanthippus,culminatinginhisroleinthedefeatofRegulus.Xanthippusplaysalargerole,butPolybiusalsoreportsthathecamewithagreatnumberoftroopsfrom

Greece(1.32.1),whocanonlybemercenaries.48InfactthepossibilitythatGreekmercenarieswerepresentintheMercenaryWarseemsnotunreasonable,especiallyastheirpresenceinSicilyisattestedinthesiegeofLilybaeum(1.48.3).ThatandthefactthatthemercenarieswereevacuatedfromSicily—andthatSicilyitselfofcourseincludedmanyGreekcities—meanthatPolybius’attempttodismissthepresenceoftheGreeksintheMercenaryWarasonlymixellenesmaybenomorethanasmokescreen.OnecancomparethewayinwhichheiskeentodenigratethosewhosupportedtheAchaeanWaragainstRomeasmenoflowstatus(Plb.38.12.5).49

TheemphasisonethnicdivisionsamongthemercenariesmayalsobeseenasaresponsetoXenophon’streatmentofdifferentkindsofdivisionamongtheGreeksoftheTenThousand.InPolybius,divisionsbetweennationalitiesreplacethoselatentdiscordsthatinXenophonthreatento(andoccasionallydo)breakoutbetweentheGreeksofthearmy.InXenophon,themost(p.170) dangerousmomentoccursinBook6,wherethearmyinfactsplitsintothree,withthejointArcadianandAchaeancontingentbeingparticularlyhostiletoXenophon,untiltheyhavetoberescuedbyhim(Anab.6.1–3);thereisobviouslyalsoawiderthemeofGreekdisunitypresentintheAnabasis,reflectedintherathertenserelationsbetweenthearmyandtheSpartansintheclosingphaseofthework,especiallyatByzantium(Anab.7.1),andindeedinsomeoftheencounterswithGreekcitiesalongtheBlackSea,suchasCotyora(Anab.5.5).

Polybius’approachistoemphasizethatdivisionsamongmercenariesrepeatedlyleadtodifficulties.Oneissueusedtobringoutthispointislanguage.Polybiusintroducesthethemein1.67.4byspecificallymentioningtheCarthaginianhabitofhavingtroopsfrommanydifferentnationalitiesasameansforpreventinginsubordination;Polybiusadds,however,thatthispracticecanbackfirewheninsubordinationtakesplace,asitisveryhardtocalmfeelingswhensomanylanguagesareinvolved(1.67.5).50Thisthemeistakenupimmediatelyintherestofthechapter,withtheinitialattemptofHannotosoothethemercenaries’feelingsfailingowingtothevarietyoflanguagesbeingspokenandtheresultingconfusion(1.67.8–13).51Polybiusreturnstothisthemewhenhenotesin1.69.12thatβάλλε,‘stonehim’,52wastheonlywordwhichwaswidelyintelligible,asSpendiusandMathostookcontroloftheconfusioninsettingthemercenariesonapathtowardswar.Polybiusseemstoplaceunusualemphasisontheimperativeβάλλε:thewordisfoundimmediatelyafterwardsat1.69.13,wherestoningsareahabitualsequeltothemiddaymeal.Italsooccursat1.80.5–11,wheretheGallicmercenarycommanderAutaritussucceedsinrecommendingtheharshesttreatmentfortheCarthaginiansbecausehehadsomeknowledgeofPunic,53alanguagewhichwastosomeextentunderstoodacrossthevariousnationalities:thoseindividualswhoattemptedtoargueforlesscrueltreatmentoftheCarthaginiancaptivesinotherlanguageswereagainshouteddownwithdemandsforthemtobestoned(βάλλε,1.80.9),andimmediatelykilled.

(p.171) ThesearetheonlythreeinstancesoftheformβάλλεintheextantremainsofPolybius,allfoundwithinhistreatmentoftheMercenaryWar.ThisconcentrationmightlookbacktotheuseofthewordintheAnabasis.AtAnab.5.7.21,Xenophon,addressingthearmy,recallsanincidentwhenthepeopleofCerasushadcomplainedaboutthe

stoningoftheirambassadors,andhowsomeofthoseresponsiblesentupacrytostonethen:Παιε̑παιε̑,βάλλεβάλλε,‘strikethem,strikethem,stonethem,stonethem’.Xenophonsubsequentlyrepeatsthephraseβάλλεβάλλε(Anab.5.7.28),whenheevokesinhisspeechthekindofchaoticviolencewhichmightovertakethearmyinthefutureifthereisnoresponsibleleadership.Similarly,suchbehaviourisseenasbestialbothinPolybius(1.80.10,wherethosewhohavebeenkilledarecomparedtothevictimsofwildbeasts,ὥσπερὑπὸθηρίωνδιεφθαρμένους)andintheAnabasis(Anab.5.7.32,whereXenophonaskshisaudienceiftheviolationoftherightsofambassadorsistheactionofwildbeastsratherthanmen,εἰμέντοιὑμιν̑δοκει̑θηρίωνἀλλὰμὴἀνθρώπωνεἰν̑αιτὰτοιαυ̑ταἔργα).Polybius’treatmentofthemercenaryarmy,andthemoralcollapseofitsmembers,thusreflectsanenactmentofthepotentialforanarchicviolencewhichisforthemostpartkeptundercontrolintheAnabasis.54ThefactthatinXenophontheissueofstoningisraisedinconnectionwithaviolationoftherightsofambassadorsalsohasastrongresonanceinPolybius:onecancomparethedecisionfirsttocaptureandthentokillGescoandthosewithhimwhenhehadbeennegotiatingwiththemercenaries(1.70.4–6;1.80.4–13),andthewarningtotheCarthaginiansthatheraldswouldbekilled(1.81.3).

ThegeneralpointcanalsobemadethatXenophon’srepeatedemphasisonassembliesanddiscussionsamongthearmyintheAnabasisissomethingthatfindsitswayintoPolybius,whogivesagooddegreeofdetailonthedeliberationsandvotesofthemercenaries.Thuswehearat1.69.14thatMathosandSpendiuswereelectedasgeneralsafterthedecisiontocaptureGesco,recallingthekindofdebatesandelectionswhichwefindinXenophon.55IndeedthenotionofanarmyasakindofpotentialpolisisathemewhichfindsvariousapplicationsinbothXenophonandPolybius.56Thus,soonafterthedeathofCyrusatthebattleofCunaxa,XenophonrecordshissuggestiontohistroopsthattheymightwishtogivetheimpressiontothePersiansthattheyareabouttosettleandestablishthemselveswithinthePersianempire(Anab.3.2.24);(p.172)furtheron,heevenconsidersfoundingacityontheBlackSea(Anab.5.6),whichcomestonothingowingtotheoppositionofthesoldiers.57InPolybiusthemercenariesofcoursegofurther,sincetheirconflictwithCarthage,whichbeginsasadisputeoverpay,turnsintosomethingmuchmoreelemental,withthemercenariesseekingtoconquerCarthage;58thisismadeclearrightatthestartofthenarrative(1.65.4),wherePolybiusemphasizesthedangertotheCarthaginianstate(inlanguagewhichwillbecloselyechoedwhenhedescribesthedangerincurredbyRomeintheSecondWar).59Moreover,themercenarieshadtheirfamilieswiththem,somethingPolybiuscriticizesasagravestrategicerroronthepartoftheCarthaginians(1.68.3),sincetheyhadlosttheopportunityforusingthemasabargainingtoolforgoodbehaviour.ThisisathemewhichisbrieflymentionedintheAnabasis:whenXenophonnotesthatalthoughtherewereGreekwomenandchildrenkeptatTralles(Anab.1.4.8),Cyrusmagnanimouslyexplainedthathewouldnotusethefamiliesasaweaponagainsttwoofhiscommanders.

Amirrortoempires?IfweconsiderwhyPolybiusmighthavechosentomakesomuchoftheMercenaryWar,variousanswersarepossible.Inthefirstplace,thepervasivenessandimportanceof

mercenariesinPolybius’owntimeshouldnotbeunderestimated.MercenarieswerearegularpartofthesceneinHellenisticwarfare,60butnotinthecaseofRomeitself.InBook6,PolybiusaccordinglycontraststhesuperiorpoliticalarrangementsoftheRomans,whodidnotmakeuseofmercenaries(6.52.5–7),withthoseoftheCarthaginians,whodid.(p.173) Onesignificantaspect,therefore,ofPolybius’treatmentoftheMercenaryWaristheemphasisontheshortcomingsofmercenaries.61ItisofcourseathemewhichhadalreadybeguntoemergeintheearlierpartofBook1.Thus,afterconcludinghisaccountofRome’srisetopowerinItaly,Polybiusmovesonin1.7towriteofhowCampanianmercenarieswhohadservedwithAgathoclesofSyracusehadseizedMessanaduringthe280s,62callingthemselvestheMamertines,whichisanearlyindicationofthedangertheycouldpose.Mercenariescanalsoprovideincentivestootherstocausetrouble,forthisishowPolybiusalsoexplainstheroleofanotherCampanian,theCapuanDecius,commanderofagarrisonsenttoprotectRhegium,intakingoverthecity(Plb.1.7),perhapsin280BC.63Similarly,thereistheextraordinaryanecdotegivenbyPolybiusin1.9aboutHiero’sstrategyforconsolidatinghispositioninSyracuse,andhisdeliberatedecisiontogointobattleagainsttheMamertines64inthehopeoflosinghismoredifficultmercenariesinbattle,beforeimmediatelyafterwardsrecruitingmoremercenaries(1.9.4–6).Book1thusstartsandendswithdifficultiescausedbymercenaries;similarly,problemscausedbyCampaniansalsobeginandendthebook,sinceSpendius,therunawayRomanslavewhoisoneofthemercenaries’twokeyleaders,isalsofromCampania.65Thereare,moreover,episodesduringtheFirstPunicWarinwhichmercenariesareprominent:PolybiusreferstotherecruitmentofIberian,Celtic,andLigurianmercenariesbyCarthagetobedeployedinSicilyveryearlyoninthecourseofhisnarrationofthewar(1.17.4),andmembersofallthesegroupingswillbementionedasbeingamongthosewhorevoltedintheMercenaryWar(1.67.7).ThereisalsothemomentduringthesiegeofLilybaeumat1.43,whentheAchaeanAlexonintervenestopreventsomeofthemercenaryofficersopeningnegotiationswiththeRomansforthehandoverofthecity.ThereislikewiseareferencetoanearlierdesertiontotheRomansofsomeGallicmercenariesat1.77.5inthevicinityofMountEryx;66thewidercontextoftheMercenaryWarnarrativeunderlinesthepoint,alreadyadumbratedinPolybius’accountoftheFirstPunicWar,thatmercenarytroopscannotbeconsideredassomethingsafe.

However,afurthereffectoftheMercenaryWaristhatitprovidesanextensiveopportunitytoconsidertheinternalaffairsofCarthage.Inthis(p.174) respect,theepisodemightpointbacktotheAnabasiswhichholdsupakindofmirrortothePersianempire,asatAnab.1.5.9,whentheempire’sfundamentalweaknessintermsofitsvastsizeandthescattereddeploymentofitsforcesisnoted.InPolybius,wehearmoreoftheinternalpoliticsofCarthageinthiswarthanwedoeveninthemuchlongerFirstPunicWar.ThisaffordstheopportunityforanumberoftellingobservationsabouttheCarthaginianstate:Polybiusaccordinglynotesitsdependenceonmercenaries(evenduringtheMercenaryWaritself,theCarthaginiansareforcedtoraisemercenaryforces,1.73.167),anditsunsatisfactoryrelationswithitsAfricanallies(1.72),whosedefectionleadstosuchseriousconsequences.PolybiusalsohighlightstheerraticnatureofCarthage’scommanders;thoughhepraisesHamilcarBarca,68thereare,asintheFirst

PunicWar,enoughexamplesofpoorleadershipfromtheCarthaginiansevendowntotheclosingphasesofthewartosuggestthecountry’sweaknesses.

TheseCarthaginianfailingsillustratedwithintheMercenaryWarcanalsobelinkedtoPolybius’widerdiscourseonCarthaginianmoraldeterioration.InBook6,whencomparingRome’sandCarthage’sconstitutions,PolybiusindicatesthatCarthagehadundergonedeclinebythetimeoftheSecondPunicWar(6.51.3).69This,ofcourse,modifiestheearlierpictureofmoralequivalencebetweenRomeandCarthagethatPolybiusemphasizesattheoutsetoftheFirstPunicWar(1.13.12):70

αὐτάτετὰπολιτεύματακατ’ἐκείνουςτοὺςκαιροὺςἀκμὴνἀκέραιαμὲνἠ̑ντοις̑ἐθισμοις̑,μέτριαδὲταις̑τύχαις,πάρισαδὲταις̑δυνάμεσιν.

Andthetwostatesthemselvesinthatperiodwereasyetunravagedintheirmorals,enjoyedonlymoderatefortune,andwereequalintheirstrength.

AttheendoftheFirstPunicWar,Polybiusagainimpliessomethingverysimilar(1.64.5),suggestingthatbothsideswereequalintheirefforts,theirgreatnessofspirit,andtheirdesireforthegloryofprimacy.71

ButbythetimePolybiuscomestodiscussCarthageingeneraltermsinBook6,setatthemomentofRomancrisisafterCannae,moraldeclinehassetin.Partoftheevidenceforthattendency,itmaybeargued,isprovidedin(p.175) Polybius’accountoftheMercenaryWar.ThoughPolybiusunderlinesthewickednessofthemercenaries’actionsintheconflict,72hisaccountalsorevealsdisturbingsimilaritiesbetweenthetwosides.Polybius’claimthatthewarshowsthedifferencesbetweenbarbarouspeoplesandthoseeducatedinacivilizedmanner(1.65.7)issomethingthatis,infact,underminedrepeatedlythroughoutthenarrativebythedegenerationofCarthaginianconduct.73Thus,afterthetortureandmurderofGescoandhisfellow-Carthaginiansat1.80,theCarthaginianswishtoachievevengeance.EventhoughHamilcarBarcahaspreviouslyfollowedapolicyofsparingprisoners(1.78.13–15),74thisapproachisabandoned,withcaptivesbeingthrowntotheelephants(1.82.2),75inanechoofthemercenaries’owndecisionnottotakeprisoners(1.81.4);76thewidercontextincludesPolybius’reflectionsonthefactthatneitherpardonnorretaliationhasanyeffectonsoulsthatareuntreatable(1.81).NowadetailsuchasthismightsimplybeexplicableinthelightofPolybius’viewsontheneedtoexterminatearebellionofsuchsavagery,butwecanalsonotethatHamilcarusesatrickwiththeheraldsofthemercenaries.Whentenleadersfromthemercenaries’sidegotonegotiate(1.85.3–5),Hamilcarsecurestheagreementthathecantakeinhispossessionanytenindividualsofhischoicefromtheotherside.Oncethedealisagreed,HamilcarthenclaimsashistencaptivesSpendiusandtheothernineemissaries;herewemightseeaparallelwithTissaphernes’stratagemtogetholdofClearchusandotherGreekleaderswithafatalconference(Xen.Anab.2.5).ThisrefusalonthepartoftheCarthaginianstotreatenvoysproperlyalsorecallsthemercenaries’ownrejectionofCarthaginianheraldswhoaskforthereturnofthedead(1.81.2–3),andevokesPolybius’openingdescriptionofthewarasa‘trucelesswar’(ἄσπονδονπόλεμον,1.65.6).ThisphrasemightbeseenasaprogrammaticechoofthedecisionoftheTen

ThousandnottonegotiatewithPersia(Xen.Anab.3.3.5):77

…ἐδόκειτοις̑στρατηγοις̑βέλτιονεἰν̑αιδόγμαποιήσασθαιτὸνπόλεμονἀκήρυκτονεἰν̑αιἔστ’ἐντῃ̑πολεμίᾳεἰε̑ν.

…tothegeneralsitseemedthatitwasabetterdecisionforthewartobewithoutheraldswhiletheywerewithinenemyterritory.

(p.176) ButwhereasinXenophonthedecisionnottonegotiateisarationaldecisiontakenonthebasisoftreacheryalreadycommittedbythePersians,Polybius’interestinatrucelesswarismuchmoreconcernedwiththeoutragesthatsuchaconflictcanproduce,inthiscaseonbothsides.ThusthepunishmentofSpendiusandhiscolleagues,eventhoughitmightseemjust,issomehowtaintedinPolybius’accountbyitsjuxtapositionwiththesimilarfatemetedoutinreplytotheCarthaginiangeneral,Hannibal,whoiscrucifiedonthesamecrossthathadbeenusedforSpendius(1.86.6);thethirtyCarthaginiansslainaroundhim78provideadisturbingandstrikingechooftheTrojanskilledbyAchillesatthefuneralofPatroclusinHomer(Iliad23.175–6),79anincidentwhichinHomerfurnishesarareinstanceofexplicitmoralcomment:κακὰδὲφρεσὶμήδετοἔργα,‘heplannedevildeedsinhisheart’(Iliad23.176).80PolybiusindeedexplicitlygoesontounderlinethemoralequivalencebetweenthetwosidesintheMercenaryWar(1.86.7):

…τη̑ςτύχηςὥσπερἐπίτηδεςἐκπαραθέσεωςἀμφοτέροιςἐναλλὰξδιδούσηςἀφορμὰςεἰςὑπερβολὴντη̑ςκατ’ἀλλήλωντιμωρίας.

…asiffortuneweredeliberatelyforthesakeofcomparisongivingtobothsidesinturnincitementstowardsexcessivecrueltyintakingvengeanceagainsteachother.

Thisisborneoutinthewar’sfinalact,whereMathosisledthroughCarthageandtortured,withPolybiusobservingthatthewarwasthecruellestofall(1.88.6–7).ThehumilationofMathosisdescribedasτὸνθρίαμβον(‘triumphalprocession’),inwhatiscuriouslythefirstinstanceofthewordinPolybius’work,givingastrangeechoofRomancelebrationsoftriumphsoverdefeatedenemies.ThoughthenouncanalsocarrytheimplicationofaBacchichymnofcelebration(seeLSJ,s.v.),weshouldnotethatPolybiusdoesexplicitlyidentifytheθρίαμβοςasaRomanpracticeinBook6,explainingtheinstitutiontohisreadersat6.15.8,andonlyotherwiseusingθρίαμβοςinthesurvivingtexttodenoteRomantriumphs.81ItisstrikingthatwhilePolybiusdoesnotrecordtheRomantriumphcelebratedovertheFalisciinhisbriefaccountofRome’sconflict(1.65.2),82hedoesusethelanguageoftriumphforthefirsttimeinhisworkinreferencetotheCarthaginian‘triumph’overMathos.

(p.177) Indeed,theequivalencebetweentheCarthaginiansandtheirenemiespositedbyPolybiusmayencouragereflectionontheevocationofanotherpossibleequivalenceinBook1,thatbetweenCarthageandRome.ThecommentontheparallelismbetweentheCarthaginiansandthemercenariesin1.86.7isstrikingindeedifwereflectthatin1.64.5–6PolybiusoffersamuchmorepositivepairingofsimilaritiesbetweentheRomansand

Carthaginians,praisingtheirsimilarvirtues,andonlydistinguishingbetweenthemintermsofthegreatercourageoftheRomans,andthesuperiorgeneralshipofHamilcar.Lookingoverthetrajectoryofthewholeofthefirstbook,theequivalenceestablishedbetweentheRomansandtheCarthaginiansatthebeginningofthenarrativeoftheFirstPunicWarin1.13.12(‘Andthetwostatesthemselvesinthatperiodwereasyetunravagedintheirmorals,enjoyedonlymoderatefortune,andwereequalintheirstrength’,citedabove)isreaffirmedattheendofthewar,at1.64.5–6.However,Polybius’suggestionofparityonthelevelof(im)moralitybetweentheCarthaginiansandthemercenariesrepresentsastrikingshiftattheendofthebook,asCarthage,havingpreviouslybeenamatchforRome,nowseemstobemovinginaratherdifferentdirection.

Rome,however,isalatentpresenceintheMercenaryWarnarrative,whichPolybiusbeginsbyevokingthesimilarproblemsfacedbyRomeandCarthageat1.65.1–3:therevoltoftheFalisci,whichRomewasabletocrushveryrapidly,andthemuchmoreseriouswarfacedbyCarthageagainstitsinternalenemies.Attheend,PolybiusalsodrawsouttheparallelismbetweenthefinalvictoryoftheCarthaginiansoverthemercenariesandtheRomandecisiontoaccepttheinvitationtoSardinia;theCarthaginianattemptatprotestisfollowedbythethreatofwarfromRomeandPunicacquiescence(1.88.8–12).WithintheMercenaryWarnarrative,therearevariousretrospectiveglancesattheRomansintheFirstPunicWar(1.68.7,1.71.5,1.77.5,1.82.8),buttherearehintsatthefutureaswell.PolybiusmentionsrightattheoutsettherolethattheMercenaryWarplayedinthecausationoftheSecondPunicWar(1.65.8),butthereisalsothereferencetoHiero’sdesiretohelptheCarthaginiansandthustopreserveabalanceofpowerasameansofsecuringhisfriendshipwiththeRomans(1.83.3–4).TheRomansthemselvesarealsoinvolvedat1.83.5–11,wheretheydecidetoobservetheirtreatywithCarthage,eventhoughthereisapotentiallyawkwarddisputeaboutthefateoftradersfromItalywhohavehaddealingswiththeenemiesofCarthage;theyalsodeclineinvitationstoacceptthesurrenderofSardiniaandUtica(1.83.11).ThereisthusalwaysthepossibilityforRometobeinvolvedinaffairsbeyondherborders,andthedecisionnottointerveneinSardiniais,ofcourse,reversedattheendofthebook,andevenaccompaniedbythethreatofwar.TheMercenaryWarillustratesthepropensityoftheRomanstoactatmomentsoftheirchoosing,thatwillbeseenlaterinthetextonoccasionssuchastheRomandecisiontopayheedtothecomplaintsaboutIllyrianpiracythathadhithertobeenignored(2.8.1-3),orthedecisiontodonothingabouttheassassinsofCn.Octaviuswhohadbeenhandedoverto(p.178) thembytheSeleucidking,DemetriusI,onthegroundsthatthisgrievancemightusefullybestoredupforlateruse(32.2.1–3;32.3.10–13).

ConclusionForPolybius,theMercenaryWaristhemomentwhenCarthagewasmostthreatened.Thisismadeclearattheoutsetin1.65.4,whentheCarthaginiansaresaidtohavebeenfightingnotjustforterritory(withanimplicitglanceatbothofthefirsttwoPunicWars)butfortheirverysurvival.ItisthusforCarthageatimeofdangeranalogoustoRome’ssituationintheimmediateaftermathofCannae,whichis,ofcourse,thecontextof

Polybius’discussionoftheRomanconstitutioninBook6.ThatmomentofcrisisforRomemoreoverfurnishesPolybiuswiththeanecdotein6.58aboutthetenambassadorssenttoRomefromamongtheprisonersafterCannaetonegotiatearansom,andtheRomanrejectionofthisopportunity.Carthage’sconductduringtheMercenaryWarandinitsaftermathsimilarlyrevealsakindofstrengthandendurance,83butPolybiusalsosuggeststhatCarthaginianmoraldeclineisalreadyunderway.TheMercenaryWaristhusanextremelyimportantepisodeforPolybius:aswellashisstatedexplanationforhisaccount,theconnectionwiththecausationoftheSecondPunicWar(surelynotasufficientlygoodreasonforsuchdetailedcoverage),itallowshimtorevisitandprepareongoingaspectsofthemilitaryconflictbetweenRomeandCarthageinboththeFirstandSecondPunicWars,aswellasanticipating—ifoneconsidersPolybius’workinitsfinal,extendedform—theemphasisonCarthageandAfricaintheaccountoftheThirdPunicWar.TheMercenaryWarholdsupamirrortothetruestateofCarthage’spower(andherweaknesses),justasPolybiusarguedthatthemarchoftheTenThousandwithXenophonshoweduptheweaknessofthePersianempire(3.6.10).WecanmoreovernoteafurtherhintatRome’songoingtrajectorytowardsdominionwiththeepisodeoftheRomanseizureofSardiniaintheverylastchapterofBook1.ThereisalsoananticipationofwhatistocomewiththeIllyrians,whentheRomanscomplaintoCarthageonbehalfoftheirseatraderswhohadbeenimprisonedbyCarthagefordealingwiththemercenaries(1.83.6–8),whichlooksforwardtothecomplaintsmadetoRomeaboutIllyrianpiratesinBook2(2.8).

ThenarrativeoftheconflictalsoenablesPolybiustoexplorethemercenarytheme,84whichinthecaseofCarthageofferssuchanimportantfoiltohisemphasisonthesignificancenotonlyofRome’slegionsbutalsoofherItalian(p.179) allies,whorepresentanimplicitpointofcontrastwiththedefectionsoftheovertaxedandresentfulLibyansintheMercenaryWar.ItalsoaffordsPolybiusanopportunityforextensiveengagementwithXenophon’saccountoftheTenThousand,akeytextonmercenaries,echoingaspectsofthenarrativebutalsoofferingadifferentviewofmercenaries,andperhapsevendrawingattentiontosomeofthemoreproblematicsidesofXenophon’saccount,suchasthedangersofindisciplineanddisunity.

ItisworthremindingourselvesthatPolybiusinfactsinglesoutthewarasonewhichwasexceptionalandwhichinsomerespectswentbeyondothers.WehavealreadyseenPolybius’remarksonthedangerfacedbyCarthageinthewar(1.65.4),apointechoedat1.71.5,wherePolybiuscontrastsCarthage’swaroverSicily,theFirstPunicWar,withthedangeroftheMercenaryWar,foughtforsurvival.85ForPolybius,notonlywastheMercenaryWaragreaterandmorefearfulwar(μείζονοςγὰρἐνίστατοπολέμουκαταρχὴκαὶφοβερωτέρου,1.71.4),butitalsofarexceededallotherwarsinsavageryandwickedness(ὠμότητικαὶπαρανομίᾳ,1.88.7).86Weareobviouslynotdealingherewithawarwhosegeographicaloreventemporalscalecouldmatchmorecelebratedconflicts.Nevertheless,PolybiusappliestotheMercenaryWaraversionofthetime-honouredtropeusedbyThucydidesandothers—includingPolybiushimself—thattherewasnogreaterwar.87

Notes:

(1)IamindebtedtoThomasHarrison,JohnMarincola,ChrisPelling,TimRood,ChristopherTuplin,andTonyWoodmanfortheircommentsandsuggestionsonearlierversionsofthispaper,andalsotoaudiencesinLiverpoolandattheCenterforHellenicStudiesinWashington,DC.

(2)KeyrecentstudiesareHuss1985:252–68andHoyos2007.

(3)Walbank,HCPi.148–50on1.88.7–8.Hoyos2007:275–6offersachronology,whichhecautionsisapproximate.HedatestheoutbreakofthemutinytoNovember241BC,andputstheendofthewarinMarch237BC.

(4)Walbank,HCPi.130–1;cf.i.65on1.14.1.SeealsoHoyos2007:xviii–xxiforanoverviewofthesources;cf.id.263–6.

(5)Fordiscussionofthistheme,seeEckstein1995:125–9;cf.Hoyos2007:272–3.

(6)ForPolybius’reasonsfornarratingthewar,seealsoHoyos2007:xix–xx.

(7)Ontheprokataskeuē,seeBeckinthisvolume.

(8)Foradifferentemphasis,seeHoyos2007:xviii–xxi,whoarguesthatthewarsinBook1arecoveredinafairlyconciseandcompressedfashion.

(9)Hoyos2007:276suggestsApril237BCasthedateforHamilcar’sdepartureforSpain.

(10)OnPolybiancausation,seeDerow1979:9–13;Derow1994.

(11)ThoughnotethatPolybiusmentionsRomanambitionsinSardiniaasearlyas1.24.7;seealsoChampioninthisvolume(p.155).

(12)Notethewayinwhichbothconflictsaresummedupwiththephraseτοιου̑τονἔσχετὸτέλος(1.88.5;2.35.2),beforegeneralreflectionsonthetwoconflicts.

(13)Onthisrevolt,seeHoyos2007:154–9.

(14)SeeWalbank,HCPi.148–50forthechronologyofthewarandthedateoftheRomanannexation:WalbanksuggeststhatitispossiblethattheRomanexpeditiontookplacein238/7,whileTi.SemproniusGracchuswasstillconsul,thoughEutr.3.2putsitinthefollowingyear,whichmightimplythatthediplomacytookplacesoastogiveafinalsettlementin237/36.SeealsoHoyos2007:249–52,276,whodatesthediplomaticcrisistoMarch–April237.

(15)Hoyos2007is,ofcourse,asubstantialandextremelyimportantstudyofthewar,butisnotageneralhistoryoftheperiod.

(16)Lazenby1996:171–6

(17)Lazenby1978:20–1.

(18)Walbank,HCPi.132on1.65.5–9.

(19)FortheNachlebenofXenophoninantiquity,seeMünscher1920,esp.pp.36–70ontheHellenisticperiod.NotethestrikingclaimofArrian(Anab.1.12.3)thatXenophon’saccountofthemarchoftheTenThousandwasbetterknownthanthestoryofAlexander’sconquests.

(20)TwoimportantrecentstudiesofmercenariesinXenophonareRoy2004andAzoulay2004.

(21)Comparee.g.thesinglereferencebynametoThucydides(Plb.8.11.3).FortherecentandwelcometendencytoattachmoreimportancetoPolybius’historiographicalpredecessors,seeMcGing2010:52–66.Rood2012examinesPolybius’accountsoftheFirstPunicWarandoftheRomanconstitution,andcompellinglyarguesthatthesignificanceofThucydidesinPolybiushasbeenunderestimated.

(22)Itisworthnoting,however,thatwehavenoextantevidenceforXenophonwritinginthisvein,anditispossiblethatPolybiusmaybedrawingoninaccuratememoryhere:seeWalbank,HCPi.727on6.45–47.6,thoughseealsoPédech1964:326–7forthesuggestionthatwearedealingwithareferencetoalostwork.Dillery2004:265offersaharsherviewofPolybius’knowledgeofXenophoninthispassage;seealsoPrandi2005:76–7.

(23)PaceDillery2004:265,whooffersascepticalassessmentofthelinkbetweenPolybiusandXenophonhere.McGing2010:62–3hasamuchmorepositiveviewofXenophonticconnection;seealsoLevene2010:92–5foraperceptiveanalysisofLivy’sexploitationofthispassageofPolybiusina‘parasitic’caseof‘doubleallusion’bothtoPolybiusandtoXenophonatLiv.26.51.7–8.Forotherechoesofthisphrase,cf.Plut.Marc.21.3,Ath.10.18.4–5,421b,Julian,Epist.444a( = Epist.50Wright,59Hertlein),whereπολέμουisHertlein’sconjecturalsupplement.

(24)Walbank,HCPi.307on3.6.10;seealsoPédech1964:96–7,andthediscussionofRood2004a:306–7ontheancientreceptionoftheTenThousand.

(25)AtraditionwhichgoesbacktoPlut.Mor.345e(DegloriaAtheniensium):forthegeneralissueshere,seee.g.Marincola1997:186,Tuplin2004:15–16.

(26)Lorenz1931:102n.252;cf.Walbank1989/90:49.Note,too,thatsuchlanguagecanbefoundinscientificcontexts:seee.g.Aristotle,Insomn.461a24–5,Ph.248a1–2.

(27)OnthecontextofXenophon’sending,seeBadian2004:44–5.

(28)SeealsoRood2004c:155–6forthelinksbetweenthispassageofXenophonandtheintrusionofanew(posthumous)narratorintheremainsofBook39ofPolybius.Another

linkwiththeHellenicahasbeensuggestedbyEisen1966:107,whosuggeststhatPolybius’comparisonbetweenHannibal’smarchonRomeinordertorelievethesiegeofCapuaandEpaminondas’marchesfromTegeatoSpartaandthenbacktoArcadia(Plb.9.8–9.10)islikelytohavedrawnonXen.Hell.7.5.8–14,butnotethatWalbank,HCPii.127–8suggeststhatPolybius’sourceislikelytohavebeenCallisthenes.

(29)OnXenophon’sglanceattheopeningoftheHellenicaattheendofthework,seeRood2004b:341.

(30)Forthecomplextraditionsofcontinuationofearlierhistoricalworksinancienthistoriography,seeMarincola1997:237–57;cf.Rood2004boncontinuationsofThucydides.ForPolybius’ownroleasacontinuator,seealso1.3.1–2and4.2.1,onstartingthemainnarrativefromtheendofAratusofSicyon’sworkatthebeginningofthe140thOlympiadin220/19BC(thoughforthecomplexitiesofthis‘continuation’,seeMeadowsinthisvolume),and1.5.1forstartingthenarrativeintheprokataskeuēwiththeFirstPunicWarin264BCwhereTimaeushadfinished.Seealso8.11.3,wherePolybiusnotesthatTheopompussetouttocontinuewhereThucydidesfinished.ThispassageispartofalongerdiscussionwherePolybiuscriticizesTheopompusforchanginghismindbyturningfromageneralhistoryofGreecetowritingaboutPhilipIIofMacedon;seefurtherShrimpton1991:40–3,M.A.Flower1994:29–32,100–1.

(31)OnthemeaningofἀποσκευαίinPlb.1.66.7,seeWalbank,HCPi.133,Huss1985:253,Hoyos2007:36;cf.Trundle2004:35.

(32)Onthisepisode,seeHoyos2007:36–9.

(33)Fordiscussionofthecrossingandthesubsequentbattle,seeHoyos2007:111–24.

(34)μισθοφόροι:1.66.5,10;1.68.2,6;1.72.6;1.73.1,6;1.74.9;1.75.2;1.79.1,8;1.81.11;1.83.11;1.84.3;1.88.7,8.

(35)Cf.1.70.7Ὁμὲνοὐ̑νπρὸςτοὺςξένουςκαὶΛιβυκὸςἐπικληθεὶςπόλεμος.FordiscussionoftherelationshipbetweentheLibyansandthemercenaries,seeHoyos2007:78–9.Polybiusalsoreferstothewarasa‘kindredwar’(πόλεμον…ἐμφύλιον,1.71.5;cf.1.71.7ἐμφυλίουστάσεωςκαὶταραχη̑ς),usingthesamephrasingthatheusedtodescribetheRomanconflictagainsttheFalisci(1.65.2).

(36)Trundle2004:14–17.

(37)Forthistechniqueofsubvertingtheexpectationsofreaders,seefurtherMcGinginthisvolume.

(38)Forsuchlanguage,cf.e.g.Hom.Il.11.604,Hdt.5.97.3.OntheroleofbeginningsinPolybiancausation,seeDerow1979:9–11,Derow1994:86–7.

(39)OnthearrestofGesco,seeHoyos2007:74–6.

(40)Onthepayandhireofmercenaries,seeTrundle2004:80–131;cf.Hoyos2007:8–10.

(41)Seee.g.Plb.1.71.1(theCarthaginianshadbeenaccustomedtodependfortheirlivelihoodsfromthecountryside);1.82.6(theCarthaginiansloseafleetofsuppliesinastorm),1.84.1–2(themercenariesareforcedtoraisethesiegeofCarthageduetolackofsupplies).OntheimportanceofsuppliesinPolybius,seeDaviesinthisvolume.

(42)OnthebackgroundtothedecisiontoattempttonegotiatewithHamilcar,seeHoyos2007:213.

(43)Notee.g.thedecisionofMathosandSpendiustolaysiegetoCarthage(1.82.11),orMathos’suddenattackonthecampoftheCarthaginiangeneral,Hannibal(1.86.5).

(44)Onthistheme,seeHoyos2007:274–5.ForPolybianconceptsofbarbariansandtheusageofβάρβαρος,seeErskine2000,Champion2004a:70–5,245–54.

(45)OnsuchimperialreviewsofAchaemenidarmies,seeBriant2002:196–8;ontheπομπήinXenophon,seeDillery2004.

(46)Huss1985:253notesthatthislistincludesnomentionofNumidians.Foranotherdismissivelistofmercenaryforces,seePlb.13.6.4(varioussocialoutcastsenlistedwithNabis),withEckstein1995:127.

(47)Themeaningofthistermhereisdebated:Tarn1938:38andWalbank,HCPi.134seethewordasreflectingethnicmixing,whileDubuisson1982:11–14seesthewordasdenotingindividualsintheprocessofgainingaculturalidentityasGreeks.Hoyos2007:6–8suggeststhatthemixellenesheremayoriginatefromGreekcitiesofsouthernItalyandSicily.SeealsoHarrison1998:19onconceptionsofmixedethnicitiesinHerodotus.

(48)InspiteoflatertraditionsthatSpartawasanallyofCarthage,rightlyrejectedbyWalbank,HCPi.91on1.32.1.

(49)Seee.g.Eckstein1995:135–6onthefollyofthemassesinPolybius,Champion2004a:220–2.

(50)Forthistraditionalclichéofbarbarianlanguagesasmultipleandchaotic,seee.g.Dubuisson1982:23–4,Harrison1998:19–20.ComparealsothecontrastbetweentheunisonshoutsoftheRomansandtheconfusedanddiscordantlanguagesoftheCarthaginianmercenariesatPlb.15.12.8–9(cf.Liv.30.34.1andseeLevene2010:88–91ontheuseofHomer,Il.4.437–8bybothPolybiusandLivy),andPlb.11.19.3–5onthedisparateforcesledbyHannibalinItaly(cf.Liv.28.12.2–5,andseeLevene2010:237–9).

(51)Onthisepisode,seeHoyos2007:43–6,whosuggests(p.45)thatthefinancialcharacterofHanno’smessagemayhavecausedsomeofhisofficerstomisunderstandthedetails.

(52)Hoyos2007:70–1suggeststhatβάλλεmeansthattheactualGreekwordwasused,withtheimplicationthatitwasfirstusedbythemixellenes,whomhecloselyassociateswithSpendius,inviewofPolybius’descriptionofhimasaCampanianex-slavein1.69.4.

(53)Ontheissueoflanguage,seeagainHoyos2007:43–5,whodoesnotseetheepisodeofAutaritusascontradictingtheearlierstoryofHanno’sproblemsinconveyinghismessage.

(54)McGing2010:63notesthestoningofDexippus(Anab.6.6.5–7),andthenear-stoningofClearchus(Anab.1.3.2),andthethreatofstoningmadeagainstXenophonhimself(Anab.7.6.10).

(55)Hoyos2007:71–2citesprecedentsinCarthaginianhistoryforarmiestakingcontrolofaffairs,andalsonotestheelectionofnewofficersinXen.Anab.3.1.47–2.1.S.Hornblower2004isakeypaperonthethemeofpoliticalactivityamongtheTenThousand,arguingthatotherGreekarmiesalsoexhibitsomeofthesamefeatures.

(56)AndalsoinThucydides:seee.g.Avery1973:11–13onthepresentationoftheAthenianforcesinSicilyaslikea‘cityonthemove’(p.11).

(57)Onthepotential(alwaysthwarted)oftheTenThousandfoundingacityintheAnabasis,seeMa2004:339–40.

(58)NotethesiegeofCarthagebrieflyembarkedonbySpendiusandMathosat1.82.11,onwhichseeHoyos2007:188–96.ThisepisodeperhapsechoestheearlierthreatofsiegefromRegulusduringtheFirstPunicWar(1.31.2–3)andalsoofcourselooksforward—afterPolybius’decisiontokeepgoingdownto146BC—tothefallofCarthageitself,sothatassaultsonCarthageoccurtowardsthebeginningandendoftheHistories.

(59)1.65.4:…ἐνᾡ̑πολλοὺςκαὶμεγάλουςὑπομείναντεςφόβουςτέλοςοὐμόνονὑπὲρτη̑ςχώραςἐκινδύνευσαν,ἀλλὰκαὶπερὶσφω̑ναὐτω̑νκαὶτου̑τη̑ςπατρίδοςἐδάφους;3.2.2:…ἐρου̑μενὡςεἰςἸταλίανἐμβαλόντεςΚαρχηδόνιοικαὶκαταλύσαντεςτὴνῬωμαίωνδυναστείανεἰςμέγανμὲνφόβονἐκείνουςἤγαγονπερὶσφω̑νκαὶτου̑τη̑ςπατρίδοςἐδάφους,μεγάλαςδ’ἔσχοναὐτοὶκαὶπαραδόξουςἐλπίδας,ὡςκαὶτη̑ςῬώμηςαὐτη̑ςἐξἐφόδουκρατήσοντες.Thesamephrase,περὶσφω̑νκαὶτου̑τη̑ςπατρίδοςἐδάφους,isalsousedbyPolybiusattheendofthethirdbook(3.118.5)indescribingRomananxietiesafterthecatastropheatCannae;seealso15.6.6,whereHannibalobserveshowtheRomansinthepastandnowtheCarthaginiansareindangerπερὶτου̑τη̑ςπατρίδοςἐδάφους.

(60)OnthesocialcontextofmercenaryserviceintheHellenisticperiod,seetheusefuldiscussionofChaniotis2005:80–8.NoteventheAchaeanLeagueavoidedusingthem:seeGriffith1935:99–107.

(61)OnthegeneralissueofmercenariesinPolybius,seee.g.Eckstein1995:125–9,175–6,Champion2004a:83,111.

(62)Forthedate,seeWalbank,HCPi.52.

(63)Walbank,HCPi.52.Onthe‘chronologicalcompression’(p.106)inthissectionofPolybius’narrative,seeChampion2004a:106–7.SeealsoChampioninthisvolume(p.149).

(64)StrikinglyreferredtoasτοὺςβαρβάρουςτοὺςτὴνΜεσσήνηνκατασχόνταςin1.9.3.

(65)OnSpendius,seefurtherHoyos2007:66–9.

(66)Champion2004a:110n.33,however,notesthatPolybiusdoesnotmentionthetraditionfoundinDiod.23.21thatthedrunkenbehaviourofCelticmercenariesruinedaCarthaginianattempttorecapturePanormusin250BC.

(67)Hoyos2007:92suggeststhattheseadditionalmercenaryforcesmayhavebeenrecruitedintheregionofCapBonandByzacium.

(68)ForHamilcarBarcaintheMercenaryWar,seeEckstein1995:174–7,whoseestheepisodeascontrastingtherationalityandcivilizedgeneralshipofHamilcarwiththechaosofthemercenaries.

(69)OnPolybius’viewsofCarthaginiandecline,seeChampion2004a:117–18.

(70)Forprogrammaticstatementsofparitybetweentwomainprotagonists,cf.e.g.Thuc.1.1.1…τεκμαιρόμενοςὅτιἀκμάζοντέςτεᾐ̑σανἐςαὐτὸνἀμφότεροιπαρασκευῃ̑τῃ̑πάσῃ…;Liv.21.1.2(withLevene2010:235–6).

(71)1.64.5:πλὴνἔνγετῳ̑προειρημένῳπολέμῳτὰςμὲντω̑νπολιτευμάτωνἀμφοτέρωνπροαιρέσειςἐφαμίλλουςεὕροιτιςἂνγεγενημέναςοὐμόνονταις̑ἐπιβολαις̑ἀλλὰκαὶταις̑μεγαλοψυχίαις,μάλισταδὲτῃ̑περὶτω̑νπρωτείωνφιλοτιμίᾳ…

(72)SeefurtherChampion2004a:83;seealsoe.g.Hoyos2007:xx.

(73)1.65.7:…πρὸςδὲτούτοιςτίδιαφέρεικαὶκατὰπόσονἤθησύμμικτακαὶβάρβαρατω̑νἐνπαιδείαιςκαὶνόμοιςκαὶπολιτικοις̑ἔθεσινἐκτεθραμμένων.Eckstein1995:177hasapositiveviewofthewar’soutcomeasbeingthesavingofcivilization,buthintsinn.73that‘theCarthaginiansthemselves…arecontinuallysusceptibletodisreputableemotion’.SeealsoErskine2000:170–1onthewidertraditionofcharacterizingCarthaginiansasbarbarian.

(74)OnHamilcar’sinitialdecisiontosparetheprisoners,seeHoyos2007:152–3.

(75)Onthispractice,seeHoyos2007:175,withn.4.

(76)Hoyos2007:174seesthistacticasdesigned‘toextendindefinitelytherebellion’sbondingthroughblood’.

(77)Hoyos2007:174notestheparallel.

(78)Onthisincident,seeHoyos2007:224,whosuggeststhatthethirtyCarthaginianswouldhavebeenseniorofficersormembersofHannibal’sentourage.

(79)Plb.38.22,withScipio’squotationofIliad6.448–9atthefallofCarthageis,ofcourse,acelebratedinstanceofPolybianexploitationofHomer,butnotealsoPolybius’extensiveinterestinHomericgeography,onwhichseefurthere.g.Pédech1964:582–6,Walbank1972a:51,125–6.

(80)Cf.thedescriptionofthemutilationofHectorasἀεικέα…ἔργαatIliad22.395.

(81)θρίαμβος:2.31.6;3.19.12;4.66.8;11.33.7;16.23.5–6;21.24.17.Cf.25.1.1(ἐνταις̑θριαμβικαις̑πομπαις̑).

(82)FortheancientsourcesonthewaragainsttheFalisci,seeMRRi.219–20.

(83)AsnotedbyChampion2004a:111.

(84)SeealsoChampion2004a:111;cf.Eckstein1995:129,Champion2004a:114onthebetrayalofPhoenicebyGallicmercenariesinBook2.

(85)Forthisantithesis,cf.e.g.Dem.Olynth.1.5,andotherparallelscollectedbyOgilvieandRichmond1967:243onTac.Ag.26.2.SeealsoRood2012:60–1,notingtheparallelbetweentheevocationofthedesperatesituationfacedbyCarthageatPlb.1.71.5–6andThuc.8.1.2ontheplightoftheAtheniansaftertheSiciliandisaster.

(86)Onπαρανομία,seeChampion2004a:243–4.FortherhetoricalpresentationofactsofsuperlativesavageryinThucydidesandXenophon,seenowGray2011:82–4.

(87)Cf.Hdt.7.20.2(onthesizeofXerxes’expedition);Thuc.1.1.2–3(onthePeloponnesianWar;cf.1.10.3ontheTrojanWarasapreviousgreatestconflict,and1.23.1–3forThucydides’emphasisonthelengthandextentofthesufferingcausedbythePeloponnesianWar);Plb.1.63.4(ontheFirstPunicWar),withRood2012:60;Liv.21.1.1–2(ontheSecondPunicWar).Onthismotif,seefurtherHerkommer1968:164–71,Woodman1983:171onVell.2.71.1,MartinandWoodman1989:251onTac.Ann.4.69.3,Wiedemann1990:293,Marincola1997:34–43,Gibson2010:53–4.

Youthfulness in Polybius: The Case of Philip V of Macedon

YouthfulnessinPolybius:TheCaseofPhilipVofMacedon

BrianMcGing

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0009

AbstractandKeywords

YouthfulnessappearswidelyinPolybiusassomethingwhosefailingsandweaknesscanbedisadvantageousforaleader,inspiteofmorepositiveexamplesofyoungmensuchasAratusofSicyonandScipioAemilianus.ThepresentationoftheyouthofPhilipVinBooks4and5ismarkedbynegativeexpectationsfocalizedfromthepointofviewofvariouscharacters,expectationswhicharehoweverunderminedbyPolybius'narrativewhichpresentsanimpressionofasuccessfulanddynamicking.InhisSocialWarnarrative,PolybiusshowshowPhilip'svigorousandeffectivekingshipsurpassestheexpectationsofforeignanddomesticopponents,thoughthedestructionofThermumbyPhilipalsogivesaglanceforwardtohisdescentintotyranny.Polybius'literaryartistryhasingeneralremainedunderappreciated,andhisnarrativeisfarmoreartfullydesignedthaniscommonlyappreciated.

Keywords:Polybius,PhilipV,SocialWar,Macedonia,youthfulness,narratology

IthasbeenobservedbeforethattheliteraryaspectofPolybius’Histories,withwhichyoumightexpectmodernapproachestoengageclosely,hasnotreceivedtheattentiondevotedtootheraspectsofhiswork.1ThisprobablystemsfromtwoconspicuouscharacteristicsofPolybius’writing.First,theperceivedordinarinessofhisliterarystyle,famouslydisparagedbyDionysiusofHalicarnassus(Decompositioneverborum4.110):failuretopayadequateattentiontothepropercompositionofwords,Dionysiusargued,madePolybiusoneofthemanyauthorsthatnoonecouldabidetoreadfromcovertocover.AndindeedPolybiussayshimselfthatheconsciouslyespousedasimple,straightforwardstyle(16.17.9–11).Distractedbythislackofornament,readerscanalltooeasilybelulledintothinkingthathereisahard-nosed,straight-talkingsoldier-statesmanwhotellsthetruth,simpleandunvarnished(29.12.8).2AlongwithPolybius’stylisticplainnessgoesareadinesstothinkoutloudthatwasquiteuncharacteristicofmostotherhistorianswritingintheancientworld.AsJ.B.Burynoted:3

Heisalwaysonthestagehimself,criticizing,expounding,emphasizing,makingpoints,dottingthei’sandcrossingthet’s,propoundinganddefendinghispersonalviews…Polybiustakesthereaderfullyintohisconfidence,andperformsalltheprocessesofanalysisinhispresence.

(p.182) Althoughthisconstantauthorialinterventioncanappeartiresometoamodernaudience,4itisalsothecasethatitproducesanalyticalpassagesofgreatinterestandimportanceonahostofdifferenttopics.Thesehaveattractedclosescholarlyattentionandperhapsdiverteditfromthesimplenarrative.Andyetitwasthestorythatinterestedancientaudiences.Polybiusmaynothavebeenasharpstylistintheuseoflanguage,buthedidproduceanarrativeofverycarefullycontriveddesign.JustoverseventyyearsagoFrankWalbankwroteanarticleonthissubject,examiningPolybius’treatmentofPhilipVofMacedonasasortoffigurefromGreektragedy.5ItdealslargelywiththeendofPhilip’sreign.InthisarticleIlookatitsbeginning,examininghowPhilip’spresentationasa‘young’kingaffectsthedevelopmentofthenarrative.BeforeturningtoPhilip,itmightbeappropriatetoplacethisyouthfulnessinthewidercontextofPolybius’engagementwithage.

IFromtheverybeginningoftheHistoriesPolybiusdisplaysaninterestinage,howoldpeopleare(1.1.4–5):‘theextraordinarynatureoftheeventsIdecidedtowriteaboutisinitselfenoughtointeresteveryone,youngorold,inmywork,andmakethemwanttoreadit’.6Later,heexplainsthathehasspokenatsuchlengthaboutScipioAemilianusbecausehethoughtitwouldbepleasantforolderpeopleandusefulfortheyoung(31.30.1).7Onthewhole,Polybiusdoesnothaveagreatdealtosayaboutoldage.Oldermensometimeshavewiseadvicetooffer.WhenPhilipVwastryingtodecidehowtodealwiththeSpartansin221BC,someurgedhimtomakeanexampleofthem,butoldercourtiers(ἕτεροιδὲτω̑νπρεσβυτέρων)saidthiswastooharsh(4.23.9);intheendhetreatedtheSpartansleniently.AlittlelatertheSpartanswereinvitedtojointheAetoliansagainstMacedon,butolderSpartans(τω̑νπρεσβυτέρωντινές)couldrememberthe

benefitsbestowedonthembyAntigonusandpersuadedtheirfellowcitizenstomaintainthealliancewithMacedon(4.34.8–9).Whenactionwascalledfor,however,asyoumightexpect,oldagewasadisadvantage.InresponsetoAntiochusIII’sinvasionofhisterritory,forexample,ArtabazanesofAtropateneyieldedwithoutafight,mostlybecause(p.183) ofhisage,forhewasaveryoldman(τελέωςγὰρἤδηγηραιὸςἠ̑ν,5.55.10).AndAlexandertheIsianrefusedtopayaransomforhisfreedomwhencapturedbytheEpirots:heremainedinprison,anoldman(πρεσβύτεροςἄνθρωπος),eventhoughhewastherichestpersoninGreece(21.26.14).Theimplicationisthathewasastubbornoldfool,ratherthanthatPolybiuswassorryforanoldpersonbeinginprison.Oldageevenaffectedthegreat,but70-year-old,Philopoemen(ὑπὸτη̑ςἡλικίαςβαρυνόμενος,23.12.1).TheexceptionthatprovestherulewasprovidedbyArchimedes,whoseartilleryanddefenceengineshelpedtoprotectSyracuseagainsttheRomansduringtheSecondPunicWar:‘ifsomeonewouldonlyremoveoneoldSyracusan(πρεσβύτηνἕναΣυρακοσίων)’,theRomansbelievedtheywouldhavenotroubleincapturingthecityimmediately(8.7.8–9).

ItisoverwhelminglyyouthfulnessthatattractsPolybius’attention,inparticularyoungleaders.8Heconveysawidespreadbeliefamongtheactorsofhisstorythatyoungmenaregullible,rash,andnotabletomanagepublicaffairs.Youngmenspeakoutofturn.AtthesiegeofAbydosin202BC,theyoungest(νεώτατος)oftheRomanambassadors,M.AemiliusLepidus,addressedkingAttalusinanabruptmanner.Thekingwasshockedbutforgavehimforthreereasons:hewasyoungandinexperienced(πρω̑τονμὲνὅτινέοςἐστὶκαὶπραγμάτωνἄπειρος);hewasextremelyhandsome;andhewasaRoman(16.34.6).AtanaudiencewithqueenTeutaofIllyriatheyoungerCoruncaniusspoke‘withacandourwhichwaswhollyjustified,butfarfromdiplomatic’(ἐχρήσατοπαρρησίᾳκαθηκούσῃμέν,οὐδαμω̑ςδὲπρὸςκαιρόν,2.8.9):Polybiusdoesnotactuallysayso,buttheimplicationisthatCoruncaniusspokewiththerashnessofyouth.

Youngmenarealsounabletodealwithcomplicatedaffairs.WhenDemetrius,sonofPhilipV,wassenttoRometodefendhisfatheragainstamultitudeofcomplainants,thesenateexcusedhimfromhavingtospeakhimself:theylikedhim,Polybiusexplains,andsawthathewasveryyoungandquiteincapableofdealingwithsuchatangleofcomplications(23.2–3).9Thisassessmentprovedcorrectinamostunfortunatemanner.Forthesenate’sfavourturnedtheyoungman’shead(ἐμετεώρισεμὲντὸμειράκιον)andannoyedPhilipandhisotherson,Perseus.ThesituationwasmadeevenworsebyFlamininus,whotooktheyoungman(τὸμειράκιον)intohis(p.184) confidenceanddeludedtheyouth(τόντεγὰρνεανίσκονἐψυχαγώγησεν)intothinkingthatRomewouldimmediatelysecurethethroneofMacedonforhim.Thisallledtohisdeathintheend.

Inthemilitarycontext,althoughyoungmenmustdothefighting,inexperiencecanbeaproblem.AntiochusIII,beingyoungandinexperienced(ὡςἂνἄπειροςκαὶνέος)—hewas24or25—assumedfromhisownsuccessthathehadwonthebattleofRaphiain217BC;heneededanolderofficertopointoutthetruth(5.85.11–12).WhenbesiegingCynaethain241BCtheAchaeangeneralAratus,whowas30atthetime,10mistookasignalandattackedtooearly(9.17);forPolybiusthecauseoftheproblemwastheuseof

asignalbyacommanderwhowasstillyoung(νέονἀκμὴνὄντα)andignorantoftheuseofdoublesignals.

Evenifyouwerenotyoung,youcouldstillshowchildishgullibility.AtthebeginningoftheSecondPunicWar,forexample,theCarthaginiangeneralBostarallowedhimselftobetrickedintohandingoverSpanishhostagestotheIberianprinceAbilyx,thusgivingAbilyxtheopportunitytousethemstrategicallyinsteadofdoingsohimself(3.98–9).Forthisdisplayofgullibilityandnaivetyhewasthoughttohaveactedratherchildishly,givenhisage.11Andtheword‘childish’canfunctionasatermofabuseforpeopleactinginaparticularlystupidway.TheAetoliangeneralAristonpretendednottoknowabouttheAetolianinvasionofAchaeain220BC,whichisidentifiedas‘achildishlysillythingtodo’(εὔηθεςκαὶπαιδικὸνπρα̑γμαποιω̑ν),sincethefactsprovedotherwise(4.17.2).PolybiusfeltitwasnecessarytodiscussthehydrographyoftheBlackSeabecauseof‘thefalseandfancifulyarnsofseafaringtraders:weshouldnotbecondemnedbyourignorancetobelieveeverythingwehear,likechildren’(4.42.7–8).12IncontinuingtobelievethatAfricawasdry,sandy,andbarrenTimaeuswas‘likeachildwhoisquiteincapableofthinkingforhimself’(παιδαριώδηκαὶτελέωςἀσυλλόγιστον,12.3.2).Similarly,hisbeliefthatthesacrificeoftheOctoberhorsewasconnectedwiththeTrojanWarwas‘amostchildishnotion’(πρα̑γμαπάντωνπαιδαριωδέστατον,12.4b.2).Andwritingspeechesinwhichyoutelltheaudiencewhattheyalreadyknow,asTimaeusdid,isutterlyfutileandchildish(ματαιότατονεἰν̑αιπάντωνκαὶπαιδαριωδέστατον,12.25k.9).

ItisinthefieldofpoliticalleadershipthatyouthfulnessintheHistoriesisperceivedtobemostdisadvantageous.WhenHieroIIofSyracusedied,in215BC,theRomanssentamissiontohis15-year-oldsuccessorandgrandson,Hieronymus,inordertoconfirmthetreatybetweenRomeandSyracuse(7.3).(p.185) Hieronymustactlessly(ἀστοχία)sympathizedwiththemonbeingsobadlydefeatedbytheCarthaginiansinItaly,andaskedwhytheyhadsentafleettoPachynumbeforehisgrandfather’sdeath.TheanswerwastheythoughtHierohaddiedandwereafraidthattheSyracusanpeoplewoulddespisehissuccessor’syouthfulness(καταφρονήσαντεςτη̑ςτου̑καταλελειμμένουπαιδὸςἡλικίας)anddeposehim.Nomatterhowself-interestedtheRomanactionandbogustheclaim,theexcusewasthattheywerewatchingoverhiminhisyouthfulnessandprotectinghisrule.Asayoungster,theassumptionis,hewouldnotbeabletodothishimself.Hieronymusruledforonlyayearbeforebeingdeposed,andalthoughPolybiusadmitsthathewasextremelyrashandviolent(διαφερόντωςεἰκαιο̑ναὐτὸνγεγονέναικαὶπαράνομον),healsosaysyouhavetorememberthathewasonlyaboy(παις̑)whenhesucceededtothethroneandlivedonlyforanotherthirteenmonths(7.7).HeseemstoaccepttheRomanviewthatHieronymuswassimplytooyoungtoruleanddidnotlivelongenoughtoimprove.ThesortoftroubleayoungrulercouldgetintoisillustratedbythecaseofCharopsofEpirus(32.5–6)in160/59BC.WhenRomeremovedhisrivals,heandhiscourtierswentonarampageofcriminalmisgovernment,ashewashimselfveryyoung(ἅτενέοςμὲνὢναὐτὸςκομιδῃ̑)andtheyweretheworsttypes.AlthoughnotactuallydeposedbyRome,hewasstudiouslyignoredbyleadingRomansandthesenate,whenhewenttolookfortheirsupport.

Ayoungkingwasalwaysatthemercyofenemiesandunscrupulouscourtiers.AttheSeleucidcourtthewickedHermiasthoughthehadtheyoungAntiochusIIIentirelyunderhiscontrol(διὰτὴνἡλικίανὑποχείριονἔχωντὸννεανίσκον,5.45.7),andMolonandAlexanderdecidedtorevoltagainstAntiochuspartlybecausetheydespisedthekingforhisyouthfulness(καταφρονήσαντεςμὲναὐτου̑διὰτὴνἡλικίαν,5.41.1).ToPolybius’disgust,PhilipVandAntiochusIIIgangeduponPtolemyVEpiphanesofEgypt,whowasonlyaninfant(παιδίοννήπιον)—hewas5yearsoldwhenhisfatherwaskilled13—andplannedtocarveuptheboy’skingdombetweenthem(τὴντου̑παιδὸςἀρχήν,15.20).AdecadelaterthePtolemaiccourtierScopasisdescribedasenjoyingstrongsupportandagoodopportunityasEpiphaneswasstillonlyaboy(παις̑,18.53.4).Asweshallsee,variouscourtiersandopponentsregardedPhilipVasayoungsterwhocouldbedisregarded.

TheprocessofmovingfromyouthfulincapacitytoadultcapabilityisillustratedbytheSeleucidprinceDemetrius(31.2).Hehadbeenheld,unjustlyitwasthought,ashostageinRomeformanyyears,buthadpreviouslydonenothingaboutit,‘ashewasstillaboy’(ἠ̑νγὰρἔτιπαις̑).Nowthathewasgrowntoadulthood(τότεδὲτὴνἀκμαιοτάτηνἔχωνἡλικίαν)—hewas23yearsold14—heappearedbeforethesenatetoaskforpermissiontoreturnandtake(p.186) upthethrone.Hisrequestwasrefused,Polybiusbelieved,becausethesenatethoughtthattheyouthandincapacityoftheyoungAntiochusVservedtheirinterestsbetterthanakinginhisprime.15TheevidenceforthissenatorialattitudeistheembassyofCn.Octaviussentin163toburntheSeleucidwarshipsandhamstringtheirelephants:noonewaslikelytoresistasthekingwasaboy(του̑μὲνβασιλέωςπαιδὸςὄντος)andtheleadingSeleucidcourtiersweredelightednottohaveDemetriusfoistedonthem.Inspiteofcallinghimanadult,PolybiuswasstillworriedthatDemetrius’fondnessfordrinkandextremeyouthcouldendangertheplansforhisescapefromRome(31.13.8).16AndhedidnotevenhavethegoodsensetotakePolybius’advicenottoaskthesenateforreleaseasecondtime.Instead,heconsultedoneofhisentourage,Apollonius,whowasguilelessandveryyoung(ἄκακοςὢνκαὶκομιδῃ̑νέος)andgaveDemetriuspooradvice(31.11).

Thefaultsofyouth,however,donotaffectallyoungleaders.Youngmenofexceptionalabilityrepeatedlydefyexpectationsoftheiryouthfulness.AratusofSicyonfreedhiscityoftyrannyatthetenderageof20.Eightyearslater,whenalreadygeneralforthesecondtime,heliberatedCorinthandbroughtMegaraintotheAchaeanLeaguetoo(2.43.3–5).ScipioAfricanusisanothergoodexample.17Whenheaskedhismother’spermissiontostandfortheaedileshipsheagreed,thinkinghewasjustjokingashewasveryyoung(καὶγὰρἠ̑νκομιδῃ̑νέος,10.4.8):hewas19.18In210/9BChewasjust27yearsoldandyethetookoverasituationinSpainthatmostpeopleregardedasdesperate,anddevisedacourseofactionthatneitherhisownsidenortheenemyexpected(10.8.10–11).HespentallwintermakingplansforthecaptureofNewCarthage,butinspiteofhisyouth,toldnooneexceptGaiusLaelius(10.9.1).In208afterthebattleofBaeculatheSpaniardswantedtocallhimking,butherefused,thusshowingagreatnessofmindeveninonesoyoung(κομιδῃ̑νέοςὤν,10.40.6).AndinaddressinghimbeforethebattleofZamain202,whenScipiowasnow34,HannibalsaidhewasafraidScipiowassoyoung

(διὰτὸνέονεἰν̑αικομιδῃ̑)andsuccessfulthathewouldnotlistentohim(15.7.1).Bythisstagethepraiseofhistenderyearsiswearingthin,andthesuspicionarisesthattriumphoveryouthfulnessisaqualityPolybiuslikestoattributetohisfavourites,evenwhentheyarenolongerveryyoung.The(p.187) sameseemstoapplytoScipioAemilianusattheendofthe150s(35.4).ThesenatewasfacingarecruitmentcrisisforthewarinSpainasnoonewantedtofightthere,butAemilianus,whowasayoungman(νέοςμὲνὤν),volunteered,muchtothesenate’ssurprise,givenScipio’syouthandcaution(καὶδιὰτὴνἡλικίανκαὶδιὰτὴνἄλληνεὐλάβειαν).Aemilianuswasabout33atthetime.SimilarlywithHieroofSyracuse.Inthebuild-uptotheFirstPunicWar,Hieroisdescribedasbeingjustayoungman(νέονμὲνὄντακομιδῃ̑,1.8.3),buthehadanaturaltalentforpoliticsandtheSyracusansunanimouslyappointedhimgeneral.Hewasbornin315BCandhiscouptookplaceeitherin270/69(inwhichcasehewasabout36or37),orin275/4(whenhewouldbe31or32).19Inneithercaseisthepraiseofhisyouthveryconvincing.ThegreatPhilopoemenalsobenefitsfromanattributionofscarcelyconvincingyouthfulness.AtthebattleofSellasiain222,whenhewas30,Philopoementriedtowarnhissuperiorsofdanger,butwasignoredashehadnotheldhighcommandyetandwasyoung(διὰτὸμήτ’ἐφ’ἡγεμονίαςτετάχθαιμηδεπώποτεκομιδῃ̑τενέονὑπάρχειναὐτόν,2.67.5).Withoutorders,heledanattackthathadanimportantinfluenceonthecourseofthebattle.WhenAntigonuslateraskedhiscavalrycommander,Alexander,whyhehadengagedtheenemybeforegettingthesignal,Alexanderrepliedthathehadnotdoneso,butthata‘youngsterfromMegalopolis’(μειράκιόντιΜεγαλοπολιτικόν)hadattackedprematurelywithoutpermission.Antigonussaidthattheyoungsterhadbehavedlikeagoodcommanderinspottinganopportunity,whilethecommanderhadactedlikeanuntriedyoungster(2.68.1–2).20EvenPolybiushimselfshowedprecociousabilitywhenhewasappointedalongwithhisfather,Lycortas,asanambassadortoEgypt,inspiteofthefactthathehadnotyetreachedthelegalageforthejob(24.6.5).

IIThecharacteristicsetofyouthfulfailingsthatIhavebeenillustratinghasimportantnarrativefunctionsforPolybius.Itisoneoftheconsiderationsthatleadindividualsinthenarrativetotakeaction.Sometimestheassumptionsaresafe:youthsbehavewithyouthfulincompetence,andthosearoundthemareenabledtotakeappropriateaction.Atothertimestheuncriticalassumptionofyouthfulfollyleads,ormisleads,theactorsinthestorytounderestimatecertainindividuals,particularlyoutstandingones,andtakethewrongaction.Notonlyaretheactorsofthestorymisled,however,butthereaderstoo:(p.188) Polybiuscanusethediscourseofyouthasamechanismtodirectorattimesconfuseandmisdirecthisaudience.21ThecareeroftheyoungPhilipVoffersaparticularlygoodexampleofthewayinwhichthecommonexpectationsofyouthfulnesscanhelptoshapethenarrative,challengingboththeactorsinthestoryandthereader.

Philip’sintroductionintoBook4isgradualandunobtrusive.Heismentionedfirstinchapters2,3,and5,withanemphasisonhisyouth:hewasonlyaboy(παις̑)whenhecametothethrone(4.2.5).Thisisimportantinformation,asitispresentedasanelementinthecausesoftheSocialWar:for,Polybiussays,aslongasAntigonusruledinMacedon,theAetolianswerecowedintoinactivity,butwhenhedied,leavingPhiliponlyaboy,they

thoughttheycouldignorehimandinterveneinthePeloponnese(4.3.2–3).22Theviewis‘focalized’throughtheAetolians:itistheirperceptionthatPhilipistooyoungtomanage,notthenarrator’s(thatis,insimpleterms,Polybius’).23ThisAetolianinterpretationofthesituationledtheviolentDorimachusintovariousactsofaggressioninthePeloponnese.Inlookingforanally,heurgesScopastojoinhiminattackingMessenia,astheywouldbequitesafefromMacedonia,Philipbeingonly17yearsold.24

Chapters22–9containthefirstcontinuousnarrativeofthekinginaction.HearrivesatCorinth,callsthealliestoaconference,andtakesofftodealwithinternaltroublesdevelopingatSparta.HerethreeoftheephorsweretakingtheAetolianside,convincedthatPhilipwastooyoungtocontrolPeloponnesianaffairs(4.22.5).25Thisisnowthethirddifferentfocalizationofthispoint.(p.189) Thereaderhasnotbeentoldanythingdefiniteyetaboutthevalidityorotherwiseofthisview:Polybiushasnot,sotospeak,takenresponsibilityforit—itissimplythewaycertainofthepartiesinvolvedseethesituation—andneitherthereadernortheparticipantsintheactionknowwhethertheassumptionofyouthfulinabilitywillprovecorrectinthiscase.

Forthemoment,thingsturnoutcontrarytoexpectation(4.22.6),assoofteninPolybius:26theAetolianswithdrawswiftly,andevenmoreswiftlyPhilipmakesanappearancefromMacedon.ThisisthefirstreferencetoPhilip’sspeed,athemePolybiusdevelopsandlinkswiththatoftheking’syouthfulness(seebelowpp.190–1,195–6).Thepro-MacedonianephorAdeimantusismurderedbythepro-Aetolianephors,whotrytokeepPhilipawayfromSparta.Helistens,butwillnotbeputoffandrequiresthattheSpartanssendadelegationwiththenecessaryauthoritytodiscussthesituation.Thisisafirmandmeasuredresponse:thereisnothingtoimplythatanyoneotherthanthekingisincompletecontrol.TheSpartansmaketheircaseattheking’scouncil,buttherewasdisagreementabouthowtoreact.SomeadvisedPhiliptomakeabrutalexampleoftheSpartans,inthewaythatAlexandertheGreattreatedThebesatthebeginningofhisreign;27othersurgedgreaterrestraintandpunishmentonlyfortheguiltyparties(4.22.11–4.23).

FinallyPhilipspoke(4.24).Polybiusimmediatelycastsdoubtontheabilityofa17-year-oldboytomakesuchweightydecisionsallonhisown.Writers,heargues,havetosimplifythedecision-makingprocessbyattributingallpolicytotheking,whileinfactitisamorecomplicatedprocessofadvicefrom,anddiscussionamong,theking’sassociates,particularlythoseclosesttohim.Inthepresentcase,Polybiussurmises,withoutexplainingwhy,thatAratuswasprobablytheonebehindthepolicythatemerged.28WenowappearforthefirsttimetohavePolybius’ownviewofPhilip’syouth:inalllikelihood,hesays,ayoungkinglikethisisnottheonegoingtobemakingthebigdecisions.Asadirectiontothereader—or,asitwillprove,amisdirection—heseemstobeimplyingthatthosewhoregardedthekingastooyoungtorulewereright:hewasnotreallyineffectivecharge,inthewayhewouldhavebeenifhewereolder.WearebeinginvitedtobelievethatDorimachus,theAetolians,andtheSpartanephorsarejustifiedintheassumptionstheyhavemadeaboutPhilip.ThisisthefirsttimePhilipiscalledontomakeamajordecision,soitisafittingplacetointroducethethemeofthecourtand(p.190)

courtiers,athemethatwilldominatetherestofthestoryofPhilip’searlyyears.29

Thisstatementaboutthedecision-makingprocessandtheroleofthecourtiersisimmediatelyunderminedbyPolybius’returntohisnarrativemode,inwhichhedescribestheactionsimplyintermsoftheking.EverythingPhilipdoesismarkedbyexcellence.HisresponsetotheSpartansituationismeasuredandrestrained:theSpartanbehaviourhadnotdamagedtheallianceasawhole,andsoharshpunishmentwasnotrequired.Thisdecisiontooverlooktheincident‘gavethealliesafineillustrationofhisprinciples’(καλὸνδειγ̑ματη̑ςἑαυτου̑προαιρέσεως,4.24.9).AshehasthealliesassembledatCorinth,hecallsforadebateonwhattodoabouttheAetolians.Thedecisionismadetodeclarewar,butPhilipwiselysendsthemaletterkeepingopenachannelofnegotiation(whichtheyreject).HethendepartsforMacedoniatoprepareforwar,having‘givennotjusttheallies,butallGreeks,goodreasontoexpecthisreigntobethatofamanwhowasnoteasilyruffled,butcouldmaintainakinglyobjectivity’(4.27.9–10).30Eveninwinterhecontinuestoactdecisively,fearlesslyputtinghimselfindangertowinoverScerdilaidastotheMacedonianside(4.29).Withthat,thestorytakesleaveofPhiliptofollowthewarpreparationsoftheotherstates,beforebreakingawayentirelyfromtheSocialWartoexaminethewarofRhodesandBithyniaagainstByzantium,andthesituationinCreteandSinope(4.38–56).

WhencoverageoftheSocialWarresumesinchapter57,afterabrieflookatPeloponnesianaffairs(4.57–60),PolybiusthenputsPhilipcentre-stage.Itisastoryofsustainedmilitarysuccess,withthekingcontinuingtodisplaycourageanddecisiveleadership.Hecapturesonetownafteranother,repeatedlydefeatingtheenemy,and,althoughPolybiusdoesnotsayit,repeatedlydefyingtheexpectationsofyouthfulinability.Inchapter66hehearstheDardaniareplanningtoinvadeMacedoniaandrushesback.IhavealreadyalludedtoPhilip’sspeed,andhisreturnfromMacedoniatothePeloponneseinchapters67–9bringsitoutfully,effectivelysetoffbyfocalization.ThesituationisfocalizedfirstthroughthePeloponnesians.Withtheonsetofwinter,everyonehadgivenuphopethatPhilipwouldcome,buthebroughtanarmytoCorinthwithsuchspeedandsecrecythatnooneinthePeloponnesewasawareofwhathadhappened.31Polybiusthenviewsthesituationthroughtheeyesofthemainplayers:Philip,theAetoliangeneralEuripidas,andtheEleanarmy,allstumblingaroundinignoranceofeachother’spresence.We,theaudience,(p.191) haveallthenecessaryinformation,butnottheprotagoniststhemselves.ThePeloponnesianswereastonishedatallthis:‘fortheyheardatthesametimeoftheking’sarrivalandofhisvictory’.32ThisepisodeisneatlyframedbythePeloponnesians’ignoranceatthebeginningandtheirastonishmentattheend.Akingdisplayingsuchabilitytomovefastinatheatreofwarandconfoundtheenemyisnotlikelytobeoneaffectedbytheusualweaknessesofyouth.

UptothispointPolybiushaspresentedPhilipintwoways.Throughtheeyesofcertainprotagonistsheisseenasayoungsterwhocansafelybeignored,aviewreinforcedbyPolybius’ownauthorialinterventionaboutyoungkingsandtheirdependenceonadvisers.ThisperceptionisoneofthemaingeneratorsoftheSocialWar.Ontheotherhand,theaccountofhisexploitspaintsaverydifferentpictureofthekingasadynamic

leaderandgeneral,fast-moving,brave,andmilitarilysuccessful,creatinghighhopesforthefuture.NosuggestionhasyetbeenmadeexplicitlythattheseachievementsunderminetheotherviewofPhilipasayoungweakling.FurtherunderminingitistheunclutteredfocusonPhiliphimself.InspiteofPolybius’statementonadvisers(in4.24),theonlyotherpersoninthecourtwhosenamehasevenbeenmentionedisAratus,andhefadedfromthepicturewhenPhiliptookcommandofthewaragainsttheAetolians.Inthenarrative,toallintentsandpurposesPhiliphassofarstoodalone.

Inchapter76,however,Apellesisintroduced.HeandhisfellowconspiratorsandtheirantagonismtowardsAratusaregoingtobethebigstorylinkingBooks4and5,whichruntogetherasasingleunit.33Hewas,Polybiustellsus,oneoftheguardiansoftheyoungPhilipleftbyAntigonus,andhenowenjoyedgreatinfluencewiththeking.34Thisis,innarratologicalterms,ananalepticdisplacement:itissomethingthathappenedbeforethestory-eventsnowbeingrecounted,butnotmentionedatthattime.WewereinformedofAntigonus’deathattheverybeginningofBook4.PolybiusobservedthenthatPhilipwasjustaboywhenhesucceededtothethrone,sohehadanexcellentopportunitytomentionApelles,ifhehadwantedto.WhennarratingthebeginningofthereignsofPtolemyIV(5.34–40)andAntiochusIII(5.40–57),Polybiusimmediatelyintroducesthecourtierstothescene.SothereisnothingunavoidableinthewayPolybiushaskeptsilentaboutApelles:hehasheldhimbackonpurposeandwemustaskwhy.35Isuggestatwofoldreason.First,itleavesthefieldclearforustoseePhilipentirelyashimself.Thishasthe(p.192) advantageofmaintainingdoubtinthemindofthereaderabouthisyouthfulness:arewetobelievethatDorimachus,theAetolians,andtheSpartanephorshavegotitright?OrhasthenarrativeofPhilip’sperformanceaskinggivenussufficientreasontothinkotherwise?Secondly,itisawayofemphasizingthegoodbeginningtoPhilip’sreign.Polybiusisabouttotellusthatitallwentwrong,andhehasavestedartisticinterestincreatingaclearcontrastbetweenthehopefulbeginningandwhathappenedlater.Onthewhole,courtiersintheHistoriesarepresentedbyPolybiusaswickedschemers.36AndtheirabsencefromPhilip’searlyreignleaveshim,atleastintheliterarypresentation,uncontaminatedbytheirbanefulpresence.

ImmediatelyfollowingtheintroductionofApelles,PolybiusoffershisfirstmajorassessmentofPhilip’sreign,inchapter77.Itisveryfavourable.Hisperformancewasgaininghimanexcellentreputation,notjustwiththoseunderhiscommandbutwithalltherestofthePeloponnesians.Intelligent,hehadagoodmemory,theauthorityofaking;hewascharming,andable,andbraveasageneral.Polybiusfoundit‘hardtothinkofakingwhowasmorerichlyendowedwiththetemperamentnecessaryforthepossessionofpower’(4.77.2).37Withallthispraise,PolybiusseemstohaveforgottentheissueofPhilip’syouthfulness.ButnowwegettheprolepticreferencetofuturedisasterIhavejustmentioned,asortofdramaticforeshadowing:whatwentwrong,heasks?WhatturnedPhilipfromanaturalkingintoasavagetyrant?Itisaquestionnoteasytoanswer,Polybiussays,andhewilldiscussitatamoresuitablemoment(4.77.4).ButperhapsthejuxtapositionofApelles’introductionandtheevaluationofPhilipsuggeststheanswerthatcourtintrigueisanelementinthechange.WhenPolybiusdoescometohisanswer(at7.11–14),whenattemptingtoexplainPhilip’smurderousattackonMessenein215/14BC,

whichmarkedthebeginningoftheking’schangefortheworse,courtiers’adviceiscrucial.EventhoughPhilipsucceededtothethroneatsuchayoungage(καίτοινέῳὄντιπαραλαβόντιτὴνΜακεδόνωνδυναστείαν,7.11.4),heattractedmoreloyaltythananyotherMacedonianking.Buthisabilitytotriumphoverhisyouthfunesswasdependentontwothings.First,hehadtopursuethesamepoliciesthathadbroughthimsuchsuccessuptothispoint.Secondly,inordertobeabletodothis,hehadtotaketherightadvice.AslongashefollowedAratus’advice,Polybiussays,everythingwasfineandthekingenjoyedtheaffectionofalltheGreeks.ButwhenheallowedthewickedDemetriustoleadhimastrayandreversepreviouspolicy,‘helostboththeaffectionofhisalliesandtheconfidenceoftheotherGreeks’:soimportantisitforyoungkingstochoose(p.193)wiselytheircourtiers(7.14.4–6).Atleastoneofthesecretsofbeingasuccessfulyoungkingwastheabilitytotaketherightadvice.InBook7welearnthatintheendPhilipinhisyouthfulnessfailedtolistentotherightadvice,butatthispointinBook5thereaderstilldoesnotknowthis.Wehavejustbeentoldthatheturnedbadintheend,butwedonotknowwhenthischangebegantoaffecttheoutcomeofevents.PolybiusissendingtoomanyconflctingsignalsforthereadertoknowwhetherPhilipwillbeabletomeetthechallengeofferedbyApellesatcourtandtheAetoliansonthebattlefield.Philipisthoughtbyhisenemiestobetooyoungtomanage,andweknowitallgoesbadintheend;yetheisperformingveryimpressively—althoughPolybiushascastdoubtonwhetheritishewhoisresponsibleforthatorhisadvisers.

Inthemilitarycontext,wehavealreadyseenenoughtosuggestthatPhilipwaswellabletomeetthechallenge,andfurthernarrativeofthecourseoftheSocialWarreinforcesthisimpression(78–82).Bychapter82thereappearsthefirstsignofachangeinthegeneralperceptionofPhilip’syouthfulness:heisinArgos,admiredforhisall-roundbehaviourandexploits‘beyondhisyears’(ὑπὲρτὴνἡλικίαν,4.82.1).IntheGreekwordfor‘admired’(τεθαυμασμένος)thereisanimpliedfocalizationofpublicopinion:thisishowpeoplewerenowseeingthesituation—Philipwasperforming‘beyondhisyears’.Withinashorttimewewillreceiveconfirmationthatincourtcircles,too,Philipwouldsoondispelanydoubtsabouthisyouthfulness.

AtthispointtheApellesstoryreturnsanddominatesthenarrative:thelastchaptersofthebookarealmostentirelyabouttheApelles–Aratusopposition.Thepaceofthenarrativeslowsrightdownasthestoryofthedisputebetweenthetwocourtiersisdevelopedindetail.Chapter87bringsthebooktoaclosebyopeningupthecourtanditsintriguestofullerinspection.ItisrepeatedthatApelleshadbeeninstalledasoneoftheking’sguardiansattheverybeginningofhisreign,butnowwegettherestofthecast,sotospeak.AntigonushadalsoleftinimportantpositionsLeontius,Megaleas,Taurion,andAlexander.Thiswholegrouphasbeenthereallalong,butheldback—forthesamereason,Iwouldsuggest,asApelles:Polybiusdoesnotwantthesceneclutteredwithcourtiers,distractingattentionfromPhilipandindeedcorruptinghim.Andherewehaveanotherprolepticdisplacementlookingtotheendoftheconspiracystory:‘beforelonghe[Apelles]paidforhisselfishnessandgreed:exactlywhathehadtriedtodotohisassociateswasdonetohim,verysoonafterwards’(4.87.10–11).Thiscomesattheveryendofthebook,addingweighttotheforwardreference.SonowweknowPhilipdestroys

Apelles,althoughwedonotknowhow.Thewholenotionoftheincapableyoungsterisbeginningtofallapart,andtheremainingreferencestoPhilip’syouthcompletethedemolition.

Beforehistriumph,however,Philipmakesamistake.ToavengetheAetoliandestructionofDiumandDodona,heordersthesacrilegious(p.194) destructionofthetownofThermum(5.9–12).PolybiusarguesatsomelengththatthisactionwasaseriouserrorbecauseitrepresentedareversalofallthepoliciesthathadmadeMacedongreat.38HeshouldhavefollowedtheexamplesetbyPhilipIIandAlexander,but‘sincehisbehaviourwastheoppositeoftheirs,ashegrewolderheearnedtheoppositereputationtoo’(5.10.11).ByfailingtotreattheAetolianswithrestraintandmagnanimity,helostagreatopportunitytowintheiradmirationandrespect.Interestingly,Polybiusispreparedtoexcusehimonthegroundofyouth;‘perhapsPhilipwastooyoungtobeheldentirelyresponsibleforwhathappened’andsomeblameshouldattachtohiscourtiers(5.12.5).39HismainadviserswereAratusandDemetrius,and,basedontheircharacterandtheadvicetheygaveonalateroccasion(PolybiusisreferringtothesituationatMessenein7.11–14),itiseasytoconcludewhoseadvicePhilipmusthavefollowedinthiscase.ThisrepeatswhatPolybiushadsaidaboutPhilipinSparta(4.24),thathewastooyoungtoexerteffectivecontrolandwasundertheinfluenceofhiscourt,exceptthattherehehadfollowedthegoodadviceofAratus,herethebadadviceofDemetrius.BothpassagesunderminethenarrativesurroundingthemwherePhilipexcels,butifthesceneatSpartahadservedtomisleadthereaderintothinkingthatperhapstheperceptionsofPhilip’syouthfulnesscurrentatthetimewerecorrect,atthisstageinBook5wenowknowthatPhilipwinsoutagainstApelles.WhathappensatThermum,andlaterMessene,isaforewarningofPhilip’sultimatedescentintotyranny:asayoungkingmeetingthechallengeofApellesandtheAetolians,heexhibitsqualitiesthatdefyhisagebutintheendhecannotovercomehisyouthfulfailuretolistentotherightadvice.

Thisisallinthefuture.Forthemomentthosewhodoubtedhimcometorealizethattheywerewrongabouthisyouth.Leontiusisthefirsttofacethereality.HehadcombinedwithApellesandMegaleastoformaconspiracyagainstPhilip,althoughitisfarfromclearwhattheirultimateaimwas(5.2.7–8).ApelleswenttoChalcistosabotagetheking’sauthoritythere,whileLeontiusandMegaleasweretostaywiththekinganddowhateverdamagetheycould.Inpursuitoftheseaims,LeontiusdeliberatelypreventedhistroopsfromcapturingPalus(5.4.10–13),andgaveadvicetoPhilipthatwouldholdhiminMesseniaallsummer(5.5.5–8)andslowhisadvancetoThermum(5.7.1–2).ThefocalizationoftheseincidentseffectivelypitsLeontiusinabattleofwitsagainsttheking.WeseeLeontius’motivesthroughhisowneyes,andPhilip’sreponsethroughhis.IfLeontiuscouldpersuadePhiliptosailtoMessenia,thekingwouldbestuckthereallsummer,asitwaseasytosail(p.195) therewhentheEtesianwindsblewbutimpossibletogetback.This,Leontiuscalculated,wouldallowtheAetolianstoplunderThessalyandEpirusunhindered.Philip,ontheotherhand,wasalreadysuspiciousofLeontiusforhisbehaviouratPalus,and,nowunderstandingthetreacheryofhisadvice,followedAratus’counseltoattackAetoliainstead.Similarly,inrelationtotheadvanceonThermum,Leontiustriestoslowitdown—interestinglyrecognizingthattheAetolianswill

beunpreparedforPhilip’senergyandspeed(an‘embedded’focalizationinwhichtheAetolianpositionisfocalizedthroughLeontius)—whilePhilipknowswhatisgoingonandfollowsAratus’counselagain.WhenCrinonandMegaleasarefinedandarrestedfortheirpartinadrunkenassaultonAratus,Leontiusattempts,unsuccessfully,tointimidatetheking(5.15–16).ThissceneisalsofocalizedthroughLeontiusandisthefirstspecificunravellingofPhilip’syouthfulness:Leontiustakessomeofhissoldierswithhim,‘expectingthatitwouldnottakehimlongtobullytheyoungkingintochanginghismind’(5.16.2).40ButPhilipstandsuptohim—clearevidencethatthe‘boy’isinfactnoboy.

TheSpartansarenext.IntheircaseitisPhilip’sspeedthatparticularlyleadsthemtoadjusttheirassessmentofhim.ItisentirelytheirfocalizationthatdramatizesPhilip’sspeed(5.18.4–6;10).FourdaysafterleavingCorinth,hemarchespastSpartaitself.WeseethescenethroughSpartaneyesas,astonished,theywatchtheMacedonianarmymarchpastthecity.Thelasttheyheard,PhilipwasinAetoliadestroyingThermum;theywereeventhinkingofsendingLycurgustoAetoliatohelp.Noonethoughtthatdangercouldcomefromsofarawaysoquickly.‘Theycouldnothelpbutbeastonishedatthisunexpectedturnofevents,becausetheywerestilltendingtoregardPhilipastooyoungtoposeathreat’(5.18.6).41Theword‘still’(ἀκμήν)isaninterestingpointertotheirincorrectjudgement:thereisastrongimplicationthattheyshouldnot‘still’bethinkinganythingofthesort.Andindeedwiththingsturningoutcontrarytotheirexpectations,theyweredismayedandforcedintoareappraisal:‘forPhiliphadshowndaringandenergyinhisinitiativesbeyondhisyearsandreducedallhisenemiestoastateofbewildermentandhelplessness’(5.18.7).42Theexplanatoryword‘for’(γάρ)indicatesthatthisisnowtheSpartanassessmentofthesituation.Byhisdaringandenergy,theyconcluded,Philiphadovercomehisyouthandlefthisenemieshelpless,forithadonlytakenhimsevendaystogetfromAetoliatoSparta.TheSpartanscouldnotbelievetheireyes.

(p.196) Asimilaremphasisonspeed,conveyedbyvaryingfocalizations,characterizesPolybius’descriptionofthemarchofHannibal(another‘young’commander,2.36.3,3.15.6)fromSpaintoItaly(3.35–61).43JustastheSpartanswereastonishedtoseePhilipinthePeloponnese,sotheRomanswereastonishedtoseeHannibalinItaly:theythoughthewasstillinSpain,havingjustsackedSaguntum,andhadsentaconsultofighthimthere(3.61.6–9).Idonotthinkitisfancifultoseeaparallelbetweenthespeedofthetwogenerals,whichwouldservetoemphasizePolybius’highopinionofPhilip’smilitaryprowessatthisearlystageinhiscareer.Anotherparallelcomestomind.WithayoungMacedoniankingdisplayinganimpressivespeedofmovement(evenmatchingthatofthegreatHannibal),itistemptingtothinkthatPolybiushasinmindacomparisonwithAlexandertheGreat.Suchacomparisonisnotunproblematic,giventhecontrastPolybiusdrawsinBook5betweenPhilip’sactionsatThermumandAlexander’smildness:‘eventhoughthroughouthislifehetriedhardtoprovethathewasrelatedtobothAlexanderandPhilip,henevermadetheslightestefforttoimitatethem’(5.10.10).44Thisis,however,anillustrationofwhatbegantogowrongforPhilip:helistenedtothewrongadviceandwasledtoreversepreviousMacedonianpolicy.Itstandsincontrasttohisearlybehaviour,whenhewasthedarlingoftheGreeks,andmightwellbethoughtto

rivalAlexander’sspeed.WesawhowatSpartasomeofhisadvisersmadethecomparisonwithAlexanderexplicit,referringtohisdramaticallyswiftdescentonThebesin335BC.Alexanderwasthe‘boy’parexcellence.‘Hewas’,Demosthenesscathingly,butunwisely,wrotetothePersianleaders(Plut.Dem.23.2),‘justaboyandafool’(παιδ̑ακαὶΜαργίτηνἀποκαλω̑ναὐτόν).Alexander’sresponseshouldhavesentashiverdownDemosthenes’spine:‘sinceDemostheneshadcalledhimaboywhilehewasamongtheIllyriansandTriballians,andastriplingwhenhehadreachedThessaly,hewishedtoshowhimthatbeforethewallsofAthenshewasaman’(Plut.Alex.11.6).45InthesuggestionofasimilaritytoAlexander,perhapsPolybiusisinvitingthereadertoseePhilip’stransitionfromboytoman.

AfterPhilip’scampaigninthePeloponnese(5.17–24),thescenechangesbacktothecourt.ItisnowApelles’turntorecognizehismistakenestimateoftheyoungPhilip.HehasbeenlordingitinChalcis,actingwithmoreauthoritythanhereallyhad,‘lettingitbeknownthatthekingwasstillyoung(νέονἔτι)andwasruledbyhiminmostthingsanddidnothingofhisownaccord’(5.26.3–4).TheMacedonianofficialsweredeferringtoApelles,andtheotherGreekswereignoringPhilip.ThereaderknowsthatPhiliphasthematterunder(p.197) control,butisholdinghispeaceandlayinghisplans.Apellesdoesnotknowthis.SummonedbyLeontius,whohadgivenuphopeofachievinganything,Apellesthoughthewouldbeabletoarrangeeverythingashewantedbybrow-beatingtheking,ifhecouldjustmeetwithhim—exactlywhatLeontiusthought,andequallywrong.ArrivingatCorinthwithgreatceremonytoagenerousreceptionbythetroops,Apellesisrefusedaccesstotheking,andhissupportbeginstomeltaway,untilheisfinallyleftonhisown.

Philipisnowcompletelyincontrol.HeordersthearrestofLeontiuswhenMegaleasfleestoAthens,andwhenthepeltastsbegthekingnottoputLeontiusontrialintheirabsence,PhilipismerelyexasperatedandorderstheexecutionofLeontiusearlierthanhehadintended(5.27).Thisistechnicallyanalepticinformation:wehavenotactuallybeentoldthatPhilipwasintendingtoexecuteLeontius,althoughthethreatwasintheair,asPhilipwatchedandkepthiscounseluntilhewasreadytostrike.LettersthencomeintoPhilip’spossessionincriminatingMegaleasandApelles,andtheyarebotharrested.Bothcommitsuicide,thusmeetingtheendtheydeserved(5.28.4–8).Thelastoftheconspirators,Ptolemaeus,isexecutedshortlyafter(5.29.6).

ThereisonelastgroupwhohaveyettorecognizetheirmistakeinunderestimatingPhilip—theAetolians.WenowhearthattheAetolianswantpeace,asthingswerenotturningoutastheyexpected(5.29.1–2):46

Hisyouthandinexperiencehadledthemtoexpectthat,indealingwithPhilip,theywouldbedealingwithafoolishchild,butinsteadtheyfoundhimtobeamatureman,intermsofbothhisplansandtheirexecution,whileitwastheywhoappearedincompetentandchildishinbothsmall-scaleandlarge-scaleoperations.

ThisneatlyreturnsustothebeginningoftheSocialWaratthestartofBook4,andtothebeginningofthethemeofPhilip’syouth:foritwastheAetolianswhofirstthoughtPhilip

wastooyoungtomanageandthereforestartedinterferinginthePeloponnese,thuscausingthewar.ThelanguageisreversedtoemphasizetheAetolianabout-turn:in4.3.3thechild(παις̑)wasPhilipandtheythoughttheycoulddespisehim(καταφρονήσαντες);nowtheyarethechildishones(παιδαριώδεις)andtobedespised(εὐκαταφρόνητοι).Withtherealizationoftheirmistakewehavecomefullcircle.

ThethemeofPhilip’syoungagehasbeenasortofsignpost,notalwayspointingintherightdirection,forboththereaderandtheprotagonistsintheaction.WithhistriumphoverApellesandtheotherconspirators,andhisvictoriesonthebattlefield,Philipseemstohaveovercomehisyouthfulness.(p.198) ButPolybiuspersistswiththethemewhenheturnsbackintimetocoverEgyptianhistory.HetellsusthatatthebeginningofhisreignPtolemyIVPhilopatorfeltthathewasfreefromdangerabroadbecausebothPhilipVandAntiochusIIIwereveryyoung,indeedallbutboys(παντάπασινέωνκαὶμόνονοὐπαίδωνὑπαρχόντων,5.34.2).Thiswas,ofcourse,justwhattheAetoliansthoughtaboutPhilipatthesametime.TheremovalofbothexternalanddomesticrivalsledPhilopatortoignoreallaspectsofgovernment.HisbehaviourasakingwassomanifestlyinadequatethathisassessmentofPhilipandAntiochusastooyoungtoworryaboutwasalmostirrelevant.Evenwithoutgettingthatwrong,hewasclearlyheadingfortrouble;and,indeed,‘asyouwouldexpect’(εἰκότως),Polybiussays(5.34.10),peoplebegantoconspireagainsthim.ThenegativeassessmentofPhilopator,however,isreinforcedforPolybius’audiencebythefactthatatthisstageinthenarrativetheyalreadyknowthatPhilopatoriscompletelywrongaboutPhilip,atleastwithregardtotheearlyyearsofhisreign.Aswehaveseen,thenarrativeofBook4andofthefirstchaptersofBook5hasdemolishedthemisconceptionthatPhilipwasanineffectiveyouth.ThisknowledgeservestoconfirmPhilopator’sincompetence.Ontheotherhand,theaudiencehasnotyetcometothestoryofAntiochus’firstyearsonthethrone.SothenatureofPolybius’directionconcerninghimisuncertain.WillPtolemyalsoprovetobewrongaboutAntiochus?

YouthfulhelplessnessmisidentifiedisoneofthemainthematicstrandsPolybiushasdevelopedtoportraythebeginningsofPhilip’sreign.Itisathemeworkedoutinthecomplexofrelationshipsbetweentheperceptionsofauthor,reader,andtheprotagonistsinthestory;focalizationplaysacentralrole.Thisisnotjustaboutnarrativepatterns,however.AlthoughPolybiusoffersnogeneraltheoryofcausation,itiscleartimeandagainthatinhisestimationperceptions,correctornot,arewhatmakethingshappen.47Aswehaveseen,youngleaderscausepeopletoact,orreact,incertainwaysbasedontheassumptionofyouthfulfailings.Generalsattackcitiesattheirstrongestpoint,orundertakedangerousenterprises,becausetheythinkthatiswheretheenemywillleastexpectthem.48Inordertodelaytheenemyandhavetimetoprepareforwar,ministersatthePtolemaiccourtplayonwhattheybelieveistheSeleucidconvictionthatPtolemyIVwillnotgotowar(5.63).EveninPolybius’mostfamousstatementoncausation,hisanalysisofthecausesofwars(3.6–7),whichappearstogivenoparticularhelpoutsidethespecificdomainofwar,itisperceptionsthatdrivetheaction.ThecausesofAlexandertheGreat’sinvasionofPersiawerethemarchoftheTenThousandunderXenophon’scommandandAgesilaus’campaignsintheeast.ThereasonwhytheseareidentifiedasthecausesisthattheyledPhilipIItobelievethatthe(p.199) Persianswouldbeno

matchfortheMacedonians.49Focalizationisacrucialmechanismforhelpingtoexplainwhythingshappen.

Thereistooanartisticpoint.Polybiuswasawriterwhoweknowthoughtverycarefullyindeedabouthowhecouldbesttelltheverycomplicatedstoryhewantedtocommunicate.Thisismostobviousintheclarityofhisoverallstructures.ButIwouldarguethatwhenitcomestotheexecutionofthedetails,thereisasubtletyofpresentationthatwecanmissifwebuytooeasilyintoDionysius’claimthatPolybiuswasanauthoryoucouldnotreadallthewaythrough.

Notes:

(1)Seee.g.Davidson1991:10,Marincola2001:113.

(2)AsBury1909:218pronounced,‘Toillustratehisdictionandvocabularywemustlooknottobelleslettresbuttothelanguageofofficialdom—decreesanddespatches—andtechnicaltreatisesonphilosophyandscience.’Bury’sanalysisofPolybiuswascharacteristicallyastute.SeeparticularlyMiltsios2009:481–2fordiscussionofhowPolybius’lackofstylisticqualityhasdistractedscholarsfromliteraryanalysis.

(3)Bury1909:211.

(4)Seee.g.Sacks1981:8.

(5)Walbank1938:55–68;seealsoDreyerinthisvolume.

(6)αὐτὸγὰρτὸπαράδοξοντω̑νπράξεων,ὑπὲρὡ̑νπροῃρήμεθαγράφειν,ἱκανόνἐστιπροκαλέσασθαικαὶπαρορμη̑σαιπάντακαὶνέονκαὶπρεσβύτερονπρὸςτὴνἔντευξιντη̑ςπραγματείας.ForpassagesfromBooks1–5,6and12,IhavemostlyusedRobinWaterfield’sexcellentnewtranslationforOxfordWorld’sClassics(2010).

(7)ἐγὼδὲπλείωπεποίημαιλόγονὑπὲρτη̑ςΣκιπίωνοςαἱρέσεωςἐκτη̑ςπρώτηςἡλικίας,ἡδεια̑νμὲνὑπολαμβάνωνεἰν̑αιτοις̑πρεσβυτέροις,ὠφέλιμονδὲτοις̑νέοιςτὴντοιαύτηνἱστορίαν…

(8)ATLGsearchshowsthatthewordἡλικία,usedinallbutoneortwocasesforyouthfulnessratherthanoldage,occurs83timesintheremainsofPoybius;παις̑initsvariousformsoccursover100times,νέος50times.DefiningexactlywhatPolybiusmeantbythetermsisnoteasy.Schmitt1964:8–9identifiesπαις̑asreferringtosomeoneuptoandincludingtheageof20,whileνέοςlastsfrom21toatleast30.SeealsoGolden1990:12–16(παις̑),107–8(νέος).Infact,asweshallseebelow,Polybiusappliesνέοςtopeoplewellintotheirthirties.

(9)ἅτεκαὶφιλανθρώπωςπρὸςαὐτὸνδιακειμένηκαὶθεωρου̑σανέονὄντακομιδῃ̑καὶπολὺτη̑ςτοιαύτηςσυστροφη̑ςκαὶποικιλίαςἀπολειπόμενον.Demetriuswasabout23yearsoldatthistime:seeWalbank,HCPii.601on18.39.5.

(10)SeeWalbank,HCPii.144on9.17.6.

(11)Βώστωρδὲπαιδικώτερονἢκατὰτὴνἡλικίανδόξαςἐγκεχειρικέναιτοὺςὁμήρουςτοις̑πολεμίοις,3.99.8.

(12)ἔτιδὲμα̑λλονεἰρήσθωκαὶτη̑ςτω̑νπλοϊζομένωνψευδολογίαςκαὶτερατείαςχάριν,ἵναμὴπαντὶτῳ̑λεγομένῳπροσκεχηνέναιπαιδικω̑ςἀναγκαζώμεθαδιὰτὴνἀπειρίαν.

(13)SeeWalbank,HCPii.473on15.20.2.

(14)SeeWalbank,HCPiii.465on31.2.1.

(15)ὑπιδομένητὴνἀκμὴντου̑Δημητρίου,μα̑λλονδὲκρίνασασυμφέρειντοις̑σφετέροιςπράγμασιτὴννεότητακαὶτὴνἀδυναμίαντου̑παιδὸςτου̑διαδεδεγμένουτὴνβασιλείαν,31.2.7.

(16)ἅτετου̑Δημητρίουσυμποτικου̑φυσικω̑ςκαὶνεωτέρουτελέωςὑπάρχοντος.

(17)Other‘young’leaders—notallofthemfavouritesofPolybius,buthighachievers—includeHannibal(3.15.6),hisbrotherMago(3.71.6),theAetolianDorimachus(4.3.5),SeleucusIII(4.48.7),AgathoclesofSyracuse(15.35.1),thePtolemaicadvisersTlepolemus(16.21.1),Sosibius(16.22.2),andPolycrates(18.55.5),Flamininus(18.12.5),theSpartansAgesipolis(23.6.1)andChaeron(24.7.1),FabiusMaximus(29.14.2),thefutureAttalusIII(33.18.1).

(18)ThereareinaccuraciesinPolybius’storyhere:seeWalbank,HCPii.199–200on10.4.1–5.Scipiowasaedilein213,not217,thedateimpliedinthestory(whenhewas19).

(19)SeeWalbank,HCPi.54–5on1.8.3.

(20)εἰπειν̑διότιτὸμὲνμειράκιονἡγεμόνοςἔργονἀγαθου̑ποιήσαι,συνθεασάμενοντὸνκαιρόν,ἐκειν̑οςδ’ἡγεμὼνὑπάρχωνμειρακίουτου̑τυχόντος.

(21)O’Gorman2000:13presentsasimilar,althoughmorecomplicated,networkofrelationshipsinTacitus:‘Tacitus’readerfollowsthecharacters(sometimesthenarrator)intheactofreading,notalwayscomingtothesameconclusion;thedifferencesaswellastheparallelsaresuggestive.Inparticular,Tacituscontinuallyrepresentshischaractersintheactofmisreading…’.Fordetailedanalysis,seeO’Gorman2000:81–97.SeetooMiltsios2009:492–8on‘illusoryexpectations’inPolybius.

(22)ἕωςἈντίγονοςἔζη,δεδιότεςΜακεδόναςἠ̑γονἡσυχίαν.ἐπειδὴδ’ἐκειν̑οςμετήλλαξετὸνβίον,παιδ̑ακαταλιπὼνΦίλιππον,καταφρονήσαντεςἐζήτουνἀφορμὰςκαὶπροφάσειςτη̑ςεἰςΠελοπόννησονἐπιπλοκη̑ς…

(23)Theterminologyofnarratologyisnowfamiliarinclassicalscholarship.Davidson’s(1991:10–11)choiceof‘gaze’asopposedto‘focalization’doesreflecthisconcernwithPolybius’visualpresentationofperspective,butdoesnotreallymakehisanalysisanylessnarratological;andmostnolongersharehisworryaboutapplyinganarratologicalapproachtoahistoricaltext:seee.g.S.Hornblower1994:131–66,Rood1998(whichisis

aparticularlygoodexampleofthefull-scaleapplicationofnarratologytohistoriography),Miltsios2009.OneofthemostinterestingandrevealingdiscussionsoffocalizationremainsFowler1990.ThebasicworkcitedonnarratologyisnowusuallyBal1997,butamuchmoreattractiveintroductionisGenette1980.

(24)Plb.4.5.3:προετρέπετοτὸνΣκόπανκοινωνη̑σαιτη̑ςἐπιβολη̑ςαὐτῳ̑τη̑ςκατὰτω̑νΜεσσηνίων,ὑποδεικνύωνμὲντὴνἀπὸΜακεδόνωνἀσφάλειανδιὰτὴνἡλικίαντου̑προεστω̑τος—οὐγὰρεἰχ̑επλειο̑νἐτω̑ντότεΦίλιπποςἑπτακαίδεκα…ThegeneralstatementaboutPhilip’syouthiscertainlyfocalizedthroughDorimachus,butitmaybethatthespecificinformationthathewas17yearsoldisanauthorialstatementbyPolybiustoexplainDorimachus’position.

(25)οἱδὲτρεις̑ἐκοινώνουντοις̑Αἰτωλοις̑τω̑νπραγμάτων,πεπεισμένοιδιὰτὴνἡλικίαντὸνΦίλιππονοὐδέπωδυνήσεσθαιτοις̑κατὰτὴνΠελοπόννησονπράγμασινἐπαρκειν̑.

(26)ATLGsearchgivesthirteeninstancesofthephrase‘contrarytoexpectation’(παρὰτὴνπροσδοκίαν)inPolybius.

(27)SeeDreyerinthisvolume(pp.204,206–9)fordiscussionoftheparallelsPolybiusdrawsbetweenthefamilyofPhilipIIandthatofPhilipV.

(28)Theresponsibilityforcourtiersinfluencingthedecisionofyoungkingsisamatterraisedontwofurtheroccasions:Philip’sattacksonThermum(5.9–12)andMessene(7.11–14).Seebelowfordiscussion.

(29)OnHellenisticcourtiers,seeparticularlyHerman1997:199–224.

(30)οὐμόνοντοις̑συμμάχοις,ἀλλὰπα̑σιτοις̑Ἕλλησιδιὰτου̑προειρημένουψηφίσματοςκαλὰςἐλπίδαςὑποδεικνύωνπρᾳότητοςκαὶμεγαλοψυχίαςβασιλικη̑ς.

(31)Plb.4.67.6–7:του̑δὲχειμω̑νοςἔτιπροβαίνοντος,καὶπάντωνἀπηλπικότωντὴνπαρουσίαντου̑Φιλίππουδιὰτὸνκαιρόν…ἡ̑κεδιὰτη̑ςΒοιωτίαςκαὶΜεγαρίδοςεἰςΚόρινθονπερὶτροπὰςχειμερινάς,ἐνεργὸνκαὶλαθραίανπεποιημένοςτὴνπαρουσίανοὕτωςὥστεμηδέναΠελοποννησίωνὑπονοη̑σαιτὸγεγονός.

(32)Plb.4.69.9:τοις̑δὲΠελοποννησίοιςπα̑σιπαράδοξονἐφάνητὸγεγονός·ἅμαγὰρἤκουοντὴνπαρουσίανκαὶτὴννίκηντου̑βασιλέως.

(33)ForanalysisofApelles’‘conspiracy’,seeErrington1967a:19–36.

(34)Ἀπελλη̑ςδ’,ὃςἠ̑νμὲνεἱς̑τω̑νὑπ’Ἀντιγόνουκαταλειφθέντωνἐπιτρόπωντου̑παιδός,πλεισ̑τονδ’ἐτύγχανετότεδυνάμενοςπαρὰτῳ̑βασιλει…̑

(35)OnmightcomparethewayTacitusholdsbackthecharactersketchofSejanusuntilthebeginningofAnnals4,eventhoughhehasbeenpresentbefore.JustasinTacitustheintroductionofSejanusmarksanewbeginning,‘whenfortunesuddenlystartedtoturndisruptive’(Ann.4.1—seeMartinandWoodman1989:77;80–1),soinPolybiusno

soonerisApellesmentionedthanwelearnofhowitallturnedbadforPhilip(4.77).

(36)SeePédech1964:231–5,McGing2010:28–9.

(37)βασιλέαγὰρπλείοσινἀφορμαις̑ἐκφύσεωςκεχορηγημένονπρὸςπραγμάτωνκατάκτησινοὐκεὐμαρὲςεὑρειν̑.

(38)OntheimportancePolybiusattachestoastatepursuing,afteritsrisetopower,thesamepoliciesthathadmadeitgreat,seeMcGing2010:159–63.

(39)ἴσωςμὲνοὐ̑νοὐκἄντιςαὐτῳ̑Φιλίππῳτω̑ντότεγενομένωνπα̑σανἐπιφέροιτὴναἰτίανδιὰτὴνἡλικίαν…

(40)ἡ̑κεπρὸςτὴνσκηνὴνμετάτινωνπελταστω̑ν,πεπεισμἑνοςκαταπλήξεσθαιδιὰτὴνἡλικίανκαὶταχέωςεἰςμετάνοιανἄξειντὸνβασιλέα.

(41)ἅτεκαὶτη̑ςἡλικίαςἐχούσηςἀκμὴνεὐκαταφρόνητόντιτη̑ςτου̑βασιλέως.

(42)ὁγὰρΦίλιπποςτολμηρότερονκαὶπρακτικώτερονἢκατὰτὴνἡλικίανχρώμενοςταις̑ἐπιβολαις̑εἰςἀπορίανκαὶδυσχρηστίανἅπανταςἠ̑γετοὺςπολεμίους.

(43)SeeMcGing2010:112–14.

(44)SeeDreyerinthisvolume,pp.204,206.

(45)παιδ̑αμὲναὐτὸνἕωςἠ̑νἐνἸλλυριοις̑καὶΤριβαλλοις̑ἀποκαλου̑ντι,μειράκιονδὲπερὶΘετταλίανγενόμενον,βούλεταιπρὸςτοις̑Ἀθηναίωντείχεσινἀνὴρφανη̑ναι.

(46)ἐλπίσαντεςγὰρὡςπαιδίῳνηπίῳχρήσασθαιτῳ̑Φιλίππῳδιάτετὴνἡλικίανκαὶτὴνἀπειρίαν,τὸνμὲνΦίλιππονεὑ̑ροντέλειονἄνδρακαὶκατὰτὰςἐπιβολὰςκαὶκατὰτὰςπράξεις,αὐτοὶδ’ἐφάνησανεὐκαταφρόνητοικαὶπαιδαριώδειςἔντετοις̑κατὰμέροςκαὶτοις̑καθόλουπράγμασιν.

(47)OncausationinPolybius,seeDerow1994,McGing2010:76–80.

(48)Seeesp.Davidson1991:11–12.

(49)OnemightcompareThuc.1.22.6,wherethe‘truestexplanation’(ἀληθεστάτηπρόφασις)forthePeloponnesianwarisboththegrowthofAthenianpowerandthefearthatthisinspiredintheSpartans,i.e.anemphasisonperception.SeealsothediscussioninGibson1998:124–6forasimilaremphasisonperceptionsinDio53.19.

Frank Walbank’s Philippos Tragoidoumenos: Polybius’ Account of Philip’s LastYears

FrankWalbank’sPhilipposTragoidoumenos:Polybius’AccountofPhilip’sLastYears

BorisDreyer

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0010

AbstractandKeywords

Polybius'highlydramaticportrayalofPhilipV'slastyearsaskingofMacedoniahasbeenseenasarisingfromadecisiontoconcentrateonthepersonaltragedyofPhilip'slastyears,especiallythedisputewithhissonDemetriusandthelatter'sdeath.ItisverylikelythatPolybiususedasourcewithcloseexperienceoftheMacedoniancourtforhisaccountoftheendofPhilip'sreign.Nevertheless,itisimportantnottoignorethefactthatPolybiusstillcontinuesmoreconventionalanalysisofissuessuchasthecausesoftheThirdMacedonianWar,whereemphasisisplacedinsteadonPhilip'scharacterflawofbeingunabletoactwhendecisiveactionwasdemanded,aflawwhichalsoappearsinhispresentationofPhilip'ssonandsuccessor,Perseus.

Keywords:Polybius,PhilipV,Macedonia,Perseus,'tragichistory',ThirdMacedonianWar,causation,sourcecriticism

Inthispaper,1IwouldliketopickupatopicthatwasaddressedbyFrankWalbankalreadyin1938,inananalysisofPhilipposTragoidoumenos.2Everyonewouldsurelywishhisorherownanalyseswereaslong-lastingandastopicalasthethemediscussedsolongagobyFrankWalbank,thisgreatscholartowhomwearerenderinghomageasareminderofwhatcanbeachievedbyhonestscholarship.

MygeneraltopichereisthehistoriographicalworkingmethodofPolybius,aspecificexampleofwhichrevealsakeyprincipleaboutthewayinwhichthehistorianworkedwithandselectedfromthesourceswhichhispredecessorshadmadeavailabletohim:hisprinciple,thatistosay,thatthesource-writerhadtobeaneyewitnessoratleastcontemporarytotheevents,3certainlyasfarasthemainpartofhisHistoriesisconcerned.ThespecificissueisconcernedwithPolybius’accountofthedownfalloftheMacedonianmonarchy.

ThemainfocusofthisanalysiswillthereforebethesourceontheMacedoniancourtemployedbyPolybiusinhisaccount—anargumentFrankWalbankbroughtupforthefirsttime.Additionally,IwanttoexaminewhetherPolybius’choiceofsourcefitshisowncriteria,orsupportshisthesisthatthereasonsforthefalloftheMacedoniankingdomcanbetracedbacktoPhilip’spolicyofrevengeagainstRomefromthemid-180s,andtoPhilip’scharacter—asPolybiusdepictedthatcharacterandconstructedthatcausalchaininhisœuvre.

AfterWalbank’streatmentofthistheme,onlyafewresearchersfocusedexclusivelyonit,nodoubtbecauseoftheauthorityofthefirstscholarto(p.202) addressit.ButthiscanprobablyalsobeexplainedbythefactthattheassumptionthatPolybiusreliedonsecondarysourcesforlargepartsofhisdescriptionofeventshasbeengainingground.4TheconclusionsarrivedatbyWalbank,andelaborateduponbyPédech,5withregardtothedemiseofMacedoniadonotfitsowellintothisperspective,becauseinthatcasethemultipletraditionswithinPolybius’workareelided.

EvenbeforeWalbank,historianshadbeenstruckbyPolybius’peculiarlygrimandmorbidaccountofthedownfallofDemetrius,theyoungersonofPhilip,andofthelastyearsofPhilipV,asfarasitispreserved,andbytheevendenseranddarkerversioninLivy,whichiscompletelypreserved,derivingoriginallyfromPolybius.InPolybiusthisdarkaccountofdoomappearstobeaconsequenceofthemaddenedPhilip’spreviousbaddeeds:6

(1)firstofallhetransportedpeopletoEmathiafromthecoastandviceversa,inpreparationforhiswarwithRome;(2)whenPhilipheardthecursesofthepeople,hebecamemorefierce,andheorderedtheimprisonmentofthechildrenofthosemenofhighbirthhehadkilled.Thusthekingandhischildrenwereopenlycursed;and(3)thesecurses—heardbythegodsaccordingtothegrimaccountinLivy(40.5.1)—impelledPhiliptoturnuponhisownhouse,andtheplotagainstDemetriusfollows.

Benecke7explainedthisaspectofthestoryasanartificiallyconstructedtragedythatPolybiusintegratedintohisdescriptionofevents.Walbank,incontrast,arguedpersuasivelythatitwaslessatragedythananover-dramatizedpresentationofhistoricalfact,quiteinkeepingwithfashionincontemporaryhistory-writingatthetimeofPolybius.

WeknowthatPolybiusfiercelycriticizedthosewritersofhistorywhorepresentedthe‘tragic’tendency.8Theirpurposewastoentertainviasensationalism,butnottoexplainthecausesunderlyinghistoricaloccurrences,asPolybiusdeclaredhisapproachtohistory-writingwoulddo.Polybiuswasthussettingoutwhathadbecomewidelyacceptedgoalsamonghistory-writers,goalswhichhadalsobeenexpressedbyThucydides(the‘didacticpurpose’ofhistory9),butwhichwereachievedveryrarely.

(p.203) However,thisbegsthequestionofwhetherPolybiusactuallyliveduptohisownstandards.WalbankanswersinthenegativeasfarasthedescriptionofPhilip’sdoomedfinalyears(182–179)areconcerned:

Polybius’mistake…wastointerpretPhilip’slastyearsasacareerofinfatuationinducedbyTyche,…Heisnotconvictedofstupidincompetenceinhischoiceofsources,oftreatingatragedyoranovelasapropermaterialforhistory.Ontheotherhand…hisexcessiveemphasisonthemoralissuesandhisuniqueandunfortunateuseofatragicschemeandtragicterminology…makePolybius’accountoftheselastyearsoneoftheleastsatisfyinginhiswholework.10

Polybius’narrative—accordingtoWalbank—evenobfuscatesthedeeperreasonsforthewarofPerseusagainsttheRomans,themaintopichewasactuallyaddressing,andshiftsthegeopoliticalcausesofthewartoalevelofpersonaltragedy,anapproachthatisinadequate.TheconclusionisthatalthoughPolybiusdidnotwrite‘tragichistory’inhisaccountofthefalloftheAntigonidhouse,hewasguiltyofoffencessimilartothosehecriticizedinhisfellowhistorians.11

However,Walbank’s1938analysisalsooutlinesanapproachthatgoesbeyondthisconclusion,anapproachthatwassubsequentlyadoptedbyPédech.AttheendofWalbank’sanalysis,heconsidersthepossibility—althoughhedoesnotelaborateonit—thataparticularsourceattheMacedoniancourt(fromthecircleofApellesandPhilocles)mayhavebeenresponsibleforPolybius’over-dramatizationofthemonarchy’sdownfall.12

PédechpursuedthisideafurtheranddidindeedtracethedarkmoodofPolybius’accounttoasourceattheMacedoniancourt,andsuggeststhatthissourcewasprobablyusedtothefullbyPolybiusduringhisexileinItaly,whereheenjoyedpreferentialtreatmentaswellasaccesstoalltheavailablematerial(includingoralaccounts).InthecaseofMacedonianhistoryPolybiusprofited,accordingtoPédech,fromasinglehomogeneoussourceasthebasisforhispictureofPhilipVfromaround213BConwards;PédechproposedthatPolybius’sourcewastheMacedoniancourtierOnesimus.13

(p.204) PolybiusneededtheMacedonianinformantinordertonarratetheoutbreakoftheRomanwaragainstPerseusaccordingtohistheoryofthecausalchain(aitiai,prophaseis,andarchai)14,whichleads—accordingtothehistorian—backtothepolicyofrevengeagainstRomewhichwasinitiatedbyPhilipinthe180s.Theinformationaboutthesecretdecisionwhichresultsinthisfatalpolicycanonlyhavebeenprovidedbyapersonneartotheking,whomPolybiuscouldinterrogateconcerningthecatastrophetothekingdom.Thissourceofferedthekindofexclusiveinformationthatwouldalwayssatisfyhisselectioncriterionforhissources—thepointwasnottoamusethereadernortoprovideathrillingsituation.

ThiscourtsourceelaboratedthecomparisonbetweentheAntigonidPhilipandhisArgeadpredecessorsontheMacedonianthrone,athemethatwaspopularattheMacedoniancourt(Plb.4.23.8and5.10).15AccordingtothissourceandwiththeperspectivethesourcenowpossessedafterthedefeatofPerseus,theriseofMacedonunderPhilipIIandAlexanderwasparalleledinthedownfallofMacedonunderPhilipVandPerseus.Thisopinion,asPédechalsoargued,fittedwellwithPolybius’aetiologyoftheThirdMacedonianWar,16wherePhilip’slong-termplanofwarwithRomefromthe180swasthedeeperreasonforPerseus’waragainsttheRomansinthelate170s(22.18).Philip’sintentionwasthatPerseusshouldbethepersontoenact(cheiristes)thepolicyofrevenge,justasPhilipIIplannedthathissonAlexandershouldcarryoutthepolicyofwaragainstthePersians.

Inwhatfollows,IshalltrytoestablishtowhatextenttheperspectiveoftheMacedoniansourceandPolybius’ownviewscanbebroughtintoagreement—buildingontheargumentofWalbankandPédech.Theissueofwhowastoblameforthewar,accordingtoresearch,17takessecondplaceinthiscontexttothehistoriographicalquestion,althoughthereareofcoursecloselinksbetweentheissues.

First,IexaminePolybius’viewsconcerningthedownfallofMacedonia,sothattheycanbecompared(inasecondstep)withtheperspectiveofthe‘over-dramatized’presentationoftheMacedoniansource.Inseveralpassages,PolybiusdescribesthecausesoftheRomanwarwithPerseusanddistances(p.205) himselffromthewayhispredecessorshadtreatedthematerial,especiallythroughhissearchforthedeeperrootsoftheconflictinPhilipandhisactions,aswehavenoted.18

Polybius’viewiscomplex:aconsiderablerolemustbegiventothemotivesofPhiliptheindividual,sincePhilipwasamajorchallengertoRome’srisetobecomeaworldpower.19Indiscussingthisquestion,Polybiusreferstomanydocumentsandother(oral)sources,probablybutnotnecessarilyincludingthesamesourceheusedespeciallyforthedownfallofDemetrius.Butitisclear—contrarytoawidespreadviewamongresearchers20—thatPolybius’sviewsonmonarchyingeneralandontheruleofPhilipinparticularwerenotone-sidedlynegative.21Quitetheopposite:Polybius’saccountoftheearlydaysofPhilip’sruleisoftencouchedinpositiveterms—apositionthatcannotbeexplainedmerelyonthegroundsthatPolybiuswasworkingwithapro-PhilipsourcefromPhilip’scourt.22ThisisbecausethereisapositiveassessmentnotonlyofPhilip’scharacterandtalentsbutalsoofhisactionsuptothepeaceofNaupactus,the

effectivenessofwhichwasobvioustoallobservers.Philip,accordingtoPolybius,wasfollowinginthefootstepsofAntigonusDosonandknewwellhowtoreconcilehisowninterestswiththoseoftheothermembersoftheHellenicLeague.TherespectheenjoyedamongtheGreekswasthereforegreat.23Polybiushadevidencetosupportthisview,includingthefactthattheCretancitieselectedhimtothepositionofprostatesintheyear217.24Polybius’positiveassessmentcoincidedwiththepositivereceptiongiventothedeedsoftheMacedoniankingbytheHellenicpublicinthatperiod,asclearlyevidencedbyepigramswepossessinhispraise.25

(p.206) TheAntigonidkingwasalsoendeavouringtocontinuetraditionsconnectedtotheArgeaddynastyandtheirpolicy.26Evidenceofsuchaimscanbefoundinmanyplaces,quiteindependentlyofPolybius.Forexample,PhilipfollowedtheArgeadcustominfoundingcitiesinhiskingdom.27ThePolybiantraditioncapturedtheseelementsinPhilip’spolicyalsowithPhilip’sreplicationofthepothosmotivehistoricallyascribedtoAlexanderhimself(e.g.Philip’sascentoftheHaemusmountain28),and,mostimportantly,withreferencetotheambitionsforuniversaldominionwhichheascribedtoPhilip.

TheseambitionsofPhilipforuniversaldominionareaddressedinPolybius’discussionofthereorientationofPhilip’sexpansionismfromGreecetowardsthewestfrom217onwards—acrucialstepofcourse,inthemoregeneralPolybianthemeofthesymploke,thegrowthofinterconnectednessbetweentheeasternandthewesternhalvesoftheMediterraneanworld.29Thus,Polybius(5.102.1)—likehiscontemporariesalsoinMacedonia30—isnotunsympathetictoPhilip:‘…theseambitionsweretobeexpectedinthecaseofakingsoyoung,whohadachievedsomuchsuccess,whohadsuchareputationfordaring,andaboveallwhocameofahousewhichwemaysayhadalwaysbeeninclinedmorethananyothertocovetuniversaldominion.’

ThegoalofuniversalrulethusdatedtotheperiodbeforethechangeinPhilip’sbehaviourthatPolybiusidentified(in215‐21331),andwhichhelpedtobringtheking’snegativetraits—deeplyrootedinhischaracter,asPolybiussays32—increasinglytotheforeastimeprogressed,tothedetrimentofhispositivequalities.AnditbelongstoatimeafterPhilipexecutedtheadvisersofDoson(219/218),aturning-pointthatwouldbedecisiveforthe(oral)sourceofPolybiusaboutthedownfallofDemetrius.

(p.207) Philipcontinuouslypursuedtheseambitionsofuniversaldominion,alsobyenteringintotheso-calledRaubvertragwithAntiochusIIItodestroythePtolemiesandtheirwholeempire(accordingtoPolybiusatleast).33Inmyview,however,thisiswherethecrucialdifferencecanbeseeninrelationtothesourcethatPolybiuschose,orhadavailable,forthegrimpresentationofDemetrius’downfallandthelastyearsofPhilip’sreign.

ForPolybius,itisbeyondquestionthatPhilipwaspursuingagoalofuniversaldominion.ToPolybius,moralissueswerepresentbutsecondaryinjudgingtheseaims;buttheirmethodofimplementationhadtobecondemnedfromthemoralpointofview.34ThisclassicexampleisPolybius15.20.4:‘WhocanlookintothistreatyasintoamirrorwithoutfancyingthatheseesreflectedinittheimageofallimpietytowardsGodandallsavagery

towardsmen,aswellasoftheunboundedcovetousnessofthesetwokings?’

Polybius,asarationalanalyst,drawsadistinctionbetweenamoralevaluationandhisanalysisoftheavailableopportunitiesandnecessarymeansforaccomplishingthatgoal.WecannotethepraisethatPolybiusheapsontheeffectivenessofPhilip’sactionsduringthewarwithPergamumandRhodespriortotheentryoftheRomansintothewarinautumn200,andhispraiseofPhilip’sloyaltytohisfriendsindestroyingtheircorrespondencewithhimafterhisfinaldefeatin197.But,despitePolybius’contrastingofPhilip’senergywiththelaxnessoffutureRomanalliessuchasAttalus,35hiscriticismoftheking’slackoffirmnessinpursuinghisgoalsofworlddominanceisallthesharper.ThusPolybiusisharshlycriticalwhen,inthehistorian’sopinion,auniqueopportunityaroseforanattackbyPhiliponEgypt,whichhadperhapsbeenallocatedtoPhilipinthepactwithAntiochusIII,i.e.duringthenarrowwindowoftimebetweenthevictoriousbattleatLadeandRome’sinterventioninthewarintheeast.Philip,however,failedtomakeuseofthechance(Plb.16.10):

(p.208) Afterthesea-fightatLadewasover…itwasevidentlyquitepossibleforPhiliptosailtoAlexandria.ThisisthebestproofthatPhiliphadbecomelikeamadmanwhenheactedthus.Whatwasitthenthatarrestedhisimpulse?Simplythenatureofthings.Foratadistancemanymenattimesstriveafterimpossibilitiesowingtothemagnitudeofthehopesbeforetheireyes,theirdesiresgettingthebetteroftheirreason:butwhenthehourofactionapproachestheyabandontheirprojectsagainwithoutanyexerciseofreason,theirfacultyofthoughtbeingconfusedandupsetbytheinsuperabledifficultiestheyencounter.

AlthoughthemoralaspectofPhilip’sbehaviourisimportantforPolybius,whatishistoricallymorecrucialinhisviewisthecharacterflawthatdeprivedPhilipoftheabilitytotakedecisiveactionattherightmomenttoachievehisambitiousaims,whichprobablyappearedfeasibletoPolybius.

This,inPolybius’view,isalsothekeyreasonforthedownfalloftheMacedonianmonarchyingeneral.InPolybius’account,theoccasionalinabilityofPhilipVtotakedecisiveactionatcrucialmomentswasalsoatraitofPhilip’sson,Perseus,buttoamuchgreaterdegree.OnemaynoteinthisrespectPerseus’refusaltokeeptotheobligationstowardsthehiredbarbariantribes(i.e.hischeatingofthem),hisspendthriftnature,aboveall,hislossofnerveinbattle,andthefactthathedidnotburnhisdocumentsafterdefeat.36Consequently,aconsistentthemeinthedescriptionofPerseus’actionsisthathewasunabletoimplementPhilip’splanswithanyforce.

Bycontrast,PolybiusnotesthedecisivenessofthosekingsofMacedoniawhoachievedthemonarchy’srisetoempire,namelyPhilipIIandhisson,Alexander.37Inthesecondproeminthethirdbookaswell,Polybiuscontraststheonepair,PhilipIIandthe‘executor’(cheiristes)Alexander(whosepowerfullyeffectiveandefficientactionstoenforcetheirplansledtothecreationofanempire),withPhilipVandPerseus,theverydifferentpairwhopresidedoverMacedonia’sdeclineandfall.Polybiusisreferringbacktothispassageinthesecondproemwhen,lateron,hediscussesthedeeperreasonsof

thefalloftheMacedoniankingdom,arguingthatitstartedwithPhilip(Plb.22.18.6–10):38

(p.209) Butmostwritersareguiltyofconfusioninthismatter,owingtotheirnotobservingthedifferencebetweenapretextandacause,andbetweenthebeginningofawarandthepretextforit.Iamtherefore,asthecircumstancesthemselvesrecalltomymindwhatIsaidonapreviousoccasion[Plb.3.7],compelledtorepeatmyself.ForoftheeventsIjustmentionedthefirstarepretexts,butthelast…constituteindeedevidentlytheactualbeginningofthewarbetweentheRomansandPerseusandtheconsequentfalloftheMacedonianpower,butnotasingleoneofthemwasitscause.ThiswillbeevidentfromwhatIamabouttosay.ForjustasIsaid[3.6]thatPhilip,sonofAmyntas,conceivedandmeanttocarryoutthewaragainstPersia,butthatitwasAlexanderwhoputhisdecisionintoexecution;sonowImaintainthatPhilip,sonofDemetrius,firstconceivedthenotionofenteringonthelastwaragainstRome,andhadpreparedeverythingforthepurpose,butonhisdeceasePerseuswastheexecutorofthedesign.

Contrarytothis,thesourcewhomPolybiusdrewuponwhendescribingPhilip’slastyearsandDemetrius’fallconcentratesonthe(royal)tragedyofthelastyearsofPhilip’sreignandhasanegativeassessmentofPerseus,whichheperhapsemphasizedbycontrasting(superficially)thesituationtothegloriouspastofthegreatArgeadkings.But,likeallthepredecessorsofPolybius,theMacedoniansourcefailedtolocatethereasonfortheThirdMacedonianWarandthedownfalloftheMacedoniankingdominPhilip’spolicyofrevenge.

AsWalbankhassaid,thedescriptionofthedownfallofDemetriusandthedeathofPhilipisover-dramatized.ThecorestatementbeingmadebyPolybiusisthatPhilipwasultimatelyovertakenbyhisownmoralmisdeedsandthatthesecompelledhimtoattackhisownchildren.39ThiscomesoutveryclearlyatPlb.23.10.12–13:

AndthethirdtragedywhichFortuneproducedatthesametimewasthatconcerninghissons.Theyoungmenwereplottingagainsteachother,andasthematterwasreferredtohim,anditfelltohimtodecideofwhichofthemhehadtobethemurdererandwhichofthemhehadtofearmostfortherestofhislife,lestheinhisoldageshouldsufferthesamefate,hewasdisturbednightanddaybythisthought.Whocanhelpthinking,that,hismindbeingthusafflictedandtroubled,itwasthewrathofheavenwhichhaddescendedonhisoldage,owingtothecrimesofhispastlife?Andthiswillbestillmoreevidentfromwhatfollows.40

(p.210) IncontrasttoPolybius’ownanalysisofthecausesofthedownfalloftheMacedonianmonarchy,herePhilip’smisfortunesareattributablenottoanintensifyinginabilitytoaccepttheunpleasantconsequencesofambitiousaims,butratherthemoralburdenofPhilip’satrocitiesduringthefinalyearsofhisreign,whichturnedthekingmoreandmoreintoaragingfury.

However—andthisissomethingthathasnotyetbeenrealizedbyscholars—whatmay

havefascinatedPolybius41somuchabouthisover-dramatizingsource,tothepointthathereliedonitextensively,isthefactthatPhilip,accordingtothissource,didnotdaretotakethefinalstepwhenfacedwiththealternativeofkillingonesonortheother(Plb.23.10.12–13,quotedabove).Thesource,whotookanegativeviewofPerseus,ascribesthemurderofDemetriustotheelderbrother,Perseus,whilePhiliphimselfissupposedtohaveattemptedshortlybeforehisdeathtoputAntigonus,thenephewofDoson,onthethroneratherthanPerseus—anothereffortthatwentnowhere.42Wedonotknowwhetherthesetwostoriesarehistorical,43andindeedtheyareunlikelytobeso(theyarecertainlynotverylogical),butitisunderstandablewhyPolybiuswouldfindthesource,hisMacedonianinformant,soattractive.WhatthesourcesaidfittedwithPolybius’ownconsideredandrationalopinionaboutPhilip,basedonhiscareer.

Polybius’sourcemayhavebeenoneofthemonarchy’sclosestadvisers,andcertainlyhadfirst-handinformationfromthecourt,buthewasclearlybiased(atleastafterthefact)againstPerseus.Thiscourtpersonagewasprobably(inretrospect?)anadvocateoftheDosonfamily,asweseeinthestorythatPhilipattheendwantedtoputthenephewofAntigonusDosononthethrone;hewishedhecouldturnbackthewheelofhistorybyusingthefamilyofAntigonusDosonandmakingtheirdescendantsthenewkings.44

Thepro-DosonpoliticalperspectiveofthecourtsourcewasprobablyirrelevanttoPolybiusbecausethatparticularissuewouldfailtoachievePolybius’ambitioushistoriographicalaimoflookingforthedeeperrootsofPhilip’sdownfallinhispolicyofrevengeandinhisspecificcharacter.Nevertheless,theexclusiveinformationwhichthissourcepossessedabouttheintensifyingconflictbetweenPhilip’ssons,withDemetriusperceivedasbecomingatooloftheRomansandincreasinglyanobstacletoPhilip’sagendaofawarofrevenge,movedPolybiustomakeuseofthissource,particularlysinceitshowsPhiliptohavebeenweakandinconsistentinhisfinalactionsshortlybeforehisdeath.

(p.211) PolybiusalsowoveexclusivedetailsobtainedfromcourtsourcesintohishistoryoftheSeleucidsandhishistoryofthePtolemaicdynasty,45evenwhentheseinvolvedsomedramatizeddescriptions(seehishistoryofthefallofAgathocles,totakejustoneexample46).Nonetheless,thedramatizedversionofthedownfallofDemetrius,providedbythesourcewithintheMacedoniancourt,camequiteclosetotheviewadoptedbythehistorianhimself,whoorganizedtheentirehistoryofMacedonia(fromtheriseofPhilipIIandAlexandertothedownfallofPhilipVandPerseus)aroundthequestionoftheabilityofthekingstoimplementrigorouslythegoalstheypropagated.

Wecansay,inconcluding,thatPolybiusdidnotbetrayhisownhistoriographicprinciplesbyusingcourtsources,evenwherethisconcernsthedemiseofDemetriusandthefinalyearsofPhilip’sreign,especiallysince(ascanbeprovedinthecaseofMacedonia)heavailedhimselfofthesourcethatwasclosestintimeandlocationforthesakeofgivingahistoricalaccountofeventsthatwasaspreciseaspossible.Indoingso,however,andinordernottodisruptthelineofnarrative,hereliedonhisMacedoniansourceextensively,asourcethatdidnotsparedramaticeffectswhendescribingthedemiseof

Demetrius.Butthisover-dramatizingsourcecouldbeintegratedquitewellintothecontextofPolybius’narrative.ThusthesourcedidnotpreventthehistorianfromproposinghisprimarycausesforthewaragainstPerseusandthedownfalloftheMacedonianmonarchy.Theseprimarycauses,forPolybius,wererooteddeeplyintherevengepolicyofPhilipV(adangerouspolicy,ofwhichPerseusturnedouttobeanineffectiveexecutor)andinPhilip’sunstablecharacter.WhatPolybiusunderlinedinthisrespectaboutPhilipwasnotsimplyhismorallyconditioned‘madness’(ashisMacedoniansourceemphasized)butalsohisinabilitytotakefirmactionatcrucialmoments(bothin200BCandafter182BC),andPolybiusstressedthatthiswasanegativecharacteristicofPhilip’ssonPerseusevenmore.InthisrespectPolybiusfelthimselfconfirmedinwhathispro-DosonsourcesaidaboutPhilip’sincreasingmadnessbetween182and179.Despitehisgreatintelligence,militarytalent,andoccasionallyimpressiveenergy,inwhichhesurpassedmostcontemporaryrulers,andhisfearlessnessinencounteringdangers,atcrucialmomentsPhilipbackedaway.PolybiusfoundthisafatalflawforsomeonewithPhilip’shighlyambitiousaims,asforanyruler,whowantedtofaceuptotheRomanchallenge.47

Notes:

(1)MyteacherProfessorGustavAdolfLehmannoriginallyurgedmetothinkaboutthistopic,andaccompaniedhisencouragementwithgoodadvice.Theresultspresentedherearepreliminary,andthelargerissueofsourcesdeservesathoroughexamination.LikewiseIamindebtedtoProfessorArthurEcksteinforimprovingmyEnglishandtheargument.

(2)Walbank1938:55–68;cf.Walbank,HCPiii.229.

(3)Seeexplicitlyonhimself:Plb.29.21.8,withDreyer2011:100–20.

(4)Cf.Dreyer2007:321–33.

(5)Pédech1964.

(6)Plb.23.9.6,23.10.1–17;Liv.40.3–16.3,40.20.5–24.8;cf.Plb.23.11;Liv.40.56–8.ShorteraccountsaboutthelastyearsofPhilipV,dependingmoreorlessonthePolybianrecord:Plut.Aem.7–8,Diod.29.25,Just.32.2.7–3.5.Date:Porph.FGrH260F3.9.

(7)Benecke1930:254.

(8)PolemicofPolybius:e.g.2.16.14;2.56–60(againstPhylarchus);3.48.8;7.7.2:exaggerations,inaccuracy,thrill,sensationalism,etc.OnPolybiusand‘tragichistory’,seenowMarincolainthisvolume.

(9)Thuc.1.22.4.

(10)Walbank1938:67n.2.

(11)ThesourceondevelopmentsinMacedoniaemphasizesthepersonaland‘tragic’

dimensionofDemetrius’fall,whichfitsintoPolybius’account:thesuspicionsofPhilipandespeciallyofPerseusagainstDemetriuswerecausedbythefavourablewaytheyoungersonofPhilipwastreatedbythesenateinRome.There,histaskwastodefendPhilip’spolicyofrearmament,which,accordingtoPolybius(22.18),wastheultimatereasonfortheThirdMacedonianWarandconsequentlyforthedownfalloftheMacedoniankingdom.ContrarytoWalbank,Polybius’conceptofalong-termpolicyofrevengeconceivedbyPhilipisplausible,includingthestrategyofadoublestrikeagainstRome,whichmodifiedHannibal’splansproposedtoAntiochusIIIin196BC:seeDreyer2007:223–8.AtthemomentwhenthewarwithPerseusstartedin171,Romewasnotready:seePédech1964:128nn.146and148withreferences.

(12)Walbank1938:65.

(13)Pédech1964:123–39.TheaccountoftheMacedoniansource,whichculminatedinthetragicdownfallofDemetrius,isofcoursenotpositivetowardsPerseus,andhasasimilarlynegativeviewofthebehaviourofPhilip,whichstartedthetragicdevelopment.Likewise,thenaivebehaviouroftheyoungDemetriusisnotalwaysratedveryhighly.ItwasarguedthatPolybius’informantwasamemberofa‘peace-party’oranadherentoftheroyallineofAntigonusDoson.Thus,theunhistoricalplansofPhilipjustbeforehisdeathinthisaccount,acccordingtowhichAntigonus,thenephewofDoson,shouldbecomesuccessor,canbeexplained(Liv.40.56.7),cf.Pédech1964:130–1and133–4.

(14)Derow1994:73–90.Cf.Walbank’sreviewdiscussion(1997:170–2).

(15)SeealsoMcGinginthisvolume.

(16)ThissourcewasnotlikelytoberesponsibleforPolybius’aetiology,becausethehistorianclaimstohavehadnopredecessorinhisviewontheoutbreakofthePerseuswar,22.18.

(17)e.g.Mommsen1902:i.754–65,Gruen1984:403–23,Will1982:255–70,Errington1971:212,Giovannini1969:853–61,Bickerman1953:479–506.

(18)Plb.22.18;cf.PerseusascheiristesofPhilip’splans:Liv.42.11.4(speechofEumenes172);39.21.4;39.23.5.TheofficialversionatthebeginningofthewaragainstPerseusin172(seeLiv.42.40,Syll.3643)refersonlytothedeedsofPerseus,leavingoutthepartofPhilip.

(19)Cf.Plut.Aem.8.

(20)SeethecritiqueofsuchviewsinWelwei1963.

(21)Seee.g.Dreyer2007:129–137(describingthechangeofPhilipin215‐213).Incontrasttocontemporaryopinionontheirreconcilabilityofmonarchyandthecity-freedom,notethenegotiationsof189:Dreyer2007:332–3.

(22)OnPhilip’searlyyears,seeMcGinginthisvolume.

(23)AlcaeusofMesseneAP9.518(cf.Geffcken1916,no.324);contrastthelaterepigramAP7.247(cf.Plut.Flam.9,Geffcken1916,no.325,cf.Walbank1942d,1943b,HCPiii.519–20).HonoursforPhilipVinEpidaurus:Moretti,ISE47:

῞Οσσονἔπ᾿ἀέλιοςτεμέγ[ανπόλονἄστρατ᾿ἀμ]είβει

αἰνετὸν῾Ελλάνωνἁγ[εμόν᾿ἐξενέπω],

εἰκαὶχάλκεόςεἰμι,κ[ράτειδορὸςοὕνεκα]νάσωι

᾿Απίδιτὰνὀλοὰνἄρκε[σεδουλοσύναν],

5 πολλὰμὲνΑἰτωλοισ̑ικ[αὶ᾿Αλείοιςκακὰῥ]έξας

μυρίαδ᾿εὐπώλωιλυγρὰ[Λακώνιδιγα̑ι]·

τω̑ικαὶνυ̑μμ᾿᾿Επίδαυρο[ςἀνέστασ᾿·ἀλ]λὰφύλασσε

Ζευ̑τὸνἀπὸΣπάρταςε[ὐρὺλαβόντα]κλέος.

(24)Plb.7.11.9(Trogus,Prol.29).

(25)SeeBohm1989,esp.73–80.

(26)Plb.5.10.In5.10.10–11thenegativetraitsinPhilip’sunstablecharactercanbealreadyrecognized.HethereforefailedtostayinthemouldofPhilipIIandAlexander,despitetheremindersofhisadvisers,4.23.8.EndeavoursofPhilipacceptedbycontemporaries:Walbank1993b:1721–30,esp.1729–30.

(27)OnEuromus-PhilippiinCaria,seeErrington1986:1–8.

(28)In181BC:Plb.24.4;Liv.40.21.2:cupido…ceperat(marchtoHaemus:40.21.1–22.14),seealsoLiv.39.35.4.ForAlexander,cf.Arrian,An.1.1.4–3(onthewaytoIstrus,tenmarchingdaysawayfromPhilippopolisonHebrus,seeSeibert1994:44).(Re-)Foundingcities:PhilippopolisandPerseis183BC:Liv.39.53.12–16.

(29)ProbablyderivingfromtheMacedonianinformant(thoughnotnecessarilyonlyfromhim).Plb.5.105.1:‘AgelausbythisspeechmadeallthealliesdisposedforpeaceandespeciallyPhilip,asthewordsinwhichheaddressedhimaccordedwellwithhispresentinclination,Demetriushavingpreviouslypreparedthegroundbyhisadvice.’Thishappenedin:Plb.5.102.1:‘Bysuchwordsasthesehe[sc.DemetriusofPharusafterheescapedtoPhilip]soonarousedPhilip’sambition,asIthinkwastobeexpectedinthecaseofakingsoyoung,…[seetherestofthesentenceinthequotationinthemaintext]’.Cf.Plb.5.101;5.108.ReceptionbyRomans:Liv.31.7.8(annalisticmaterial:speechofGalba).Onthesymploke,seefurtherQuinninthisvolume.

(30)Cf.Plut.Aem.8.4forPhilip’sviewofhimselfastheonlypossiblechallengerofRomandominion.

(31)Walbank1970a.

(32)Andthereforeinevidenceevenbeforetheturningpoint:5.10.9–11.

(33)Dreyer2007:259–71.

(34)Eckstein2006:86–7;cf.Eckstein1995.Cf.Plb.15.24.6(enslavementofallinhabitantsofThasos):‘Butwhowouldnotqualifyasperfectlyirrationalandinsanetheconductofaprince[sc.PhilipV],who,engaginginvastenterprisesandaspiringtouniversaldominion,withhischancesofsuccessinallhisprojectsstillunimpaired,yetinmattersofnomoment,intheveryfirstmattershewascalledupontodealwith,proclaimedtoallhisficklenessandfaithlessness?’;onexplicitlymoralcriteriaasbeingoflesservalue,seefurtherBohm1989:24.Cf.Plb.15.20.1–2:‘ItisverysurprisingthataslongasPtolemyinhislifetimecoulddispensewiththehelpofPhilipandAntiochus,theywerereadytoassisthim,butwhenhediedleavinganinfantsonwhomitwastheirnaturaldutytomaintaininpossessionofhisrealm,thenencouragingeachothertheyhastenedtodividethechild’skingdombetweenthemselvesandbetheruinoftheunhappyorphan.…’Tyche,however,ispunishingthem.

(35)Liv.31.15.8–16.8(behaviourmorelikeakingthanAttalus).BraveandprudentbehaviourafterthedefeatagainstRomans:Plb.18.33;Liv.33.11.1;33.13.4;33.19.1(burningofdocumentsandrecords,contrarytoPerseus,whichbecamethebasisforpursuitoftheadherentsofPerseusafterthewar,Plb.30.13.10).

(36)Perseus’failuretoprovidemoneyandprovisionspromisedbyPhiliptotheBastarnae:Plb.25.6;Liv.40.5.10,57–8;41.19.3–11;42.11.4.HismeannesstowardstheGalatoi,Genthius,andEumenes:Plb.29.5–9,cf.Liv.44.24.9–26.2,esp.26.1–2.Thefailuretousecavalryafteracavalryvictory:Liv.42.57.1–62.2.CowardiceduringandafterbattleofPydna:Liv.44.42.1–2;Plb.29.17;Plut.Aem.19.Recordsnotdestroyed:Plb.29.17;30.13.10(cf.n.35above).

(37)Cf.Pédech1964:131:‘LeparallélismeétaitparfaitentrePhilippeIIandPhilippeV,entreAlexandreetPersée.’

(38)Cf.Plb.3.6.12–14:‘Fromthesefacts[sc.aboutthemilitarystrengthofthePersians]PhilipperceivedandreckonedonthecowardiceandindolenceofthePersiansascomparedwiththemilitaryefficiencyofhimselfandtheMacedonians,andfurtherfixinghiseyesonthesplendourofthegreatprizewhichthewarpromised,helostnotime,oncehehadsecuredtheavowedgood-willoftheGreeks,butseizingonthepretextthatitwashisurgentdutytotakevengeanceonthePersiansfortheirinjurioustreatmentoftheGreeks,hebestirredhimselfanddecidedtogotowar,beginningtomakeeverypreparationforthispurpose.WemustthereforelookonthefirstconsiderationsIhavementionedasthecausesofthewaragainstPersia,thesecondasitspretextandAlexander’scrossingtoAsiaasitsbeginning.’SeealsothesummaryofMacedonianhistoryatPlb.29.21(cf.Plb.5.9–10;7.11–14),andthespeechofLyciscusatPlb.9.32–39;withWalbank1993b:1729–30,Lehmann1974:154–7.

(39)Walbank1938:60–1,Plb.23.10.1–16,Liv.40.3–5.ThequarrelbetweenDemetriusandPerseus:Liv.40.5–24,Plb.23.10.17,23.11.DeathofPhilipVin179:Liv.42.54.1–57.1and58.9.

(40)Ondivinemadness,seeWalbank,HCPiii.233onPlb.23.10.14,whocompares31.9.4(AntiochusIV),32.15.14(Prusias),36.17.15(theMacedonians).PolybiussometimesoffersreasonssuchasTychewhenrationalexplanationsseemtofail.TheseexamplesdonothaveanythingtodowiththegeneraloutlineofthesourceaboutthedeclineoftheMacedoniankingdom.

(41)AlsoemphasizingthatPhilipactedmoreandmorelikeamadman,notmorallythough:16.10(quotedabove).

(42)Liv.40.22.15–24.8;40.55.8–57.1.

(43)SeeBriscoe2008:555forbibliographyonthereliabilityofthispassage.

(44)Cf.Liv.40.56.3forpraiseofAntigonusandhisuncle.

(45)Schmitt1964:175–85,Dreyer2007:225–6,260–1withn.104.

(46)Plb.15.26;forpolemicagainstthissource,seePlb.15.34–5;seealsothefallofHermias(Plb.5.40–58,esp.56and58withthedecisiveroleofApollophanes,thephysiciantokingAntiochusIII,cf.Walbank,HCPi.584).

(47)Cf.Polybius’similarrepeatedcriticismofAntiochusforhisbehaviour:seee.g.15.37.

Polybius in Context: The Political Dimension of the Histories

PolybiusinContext:ThePoliticalDimensionoftheHistories

JohnThornton

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0011

AbstractandKeywords

ThischapterconsidersPolybius'workwithinthetermsofdiplomaticdiscourse.RatherthanexaminingPolybius'viewsofRome,muchcanbegainedbyconsideringPolybius'writingswithinthecontextofhislong-standingaimoffurtheringtheinterestsoftheAchaeanLeagueandtheGreekworldmoregenerally.JamesScott'sworkonpublicandhiddentranscriptscanusefullybeappliedtoPolybius'work,especiallyinpassagessuchashisdiscussionoftheAchaeanWarof146BCwherehispoliticalandhistoriographicalactivitiesseemtocollide.Polybius'recurringemphasisonFortune(Tyche)andtheneedtobehavemoderatelywhensuccessful(whichislinkedtohispraiseofexemplaryRomanssuchastheScipios)canalsobeseenaspartofawiderattemptatpersuasionaimedatRomanhegemonyinGreekaffairs,inwhatmaybetermedthe'diplomacyofthedefeated'.

Keywords:Polybius,Rome,JamesScott,AchaeanWar,Tyche,exemplarity,diplomacy,Achaeanleague

…nooneisabovethebattle,

becausethebattleisallthereis1

In2002,whenreviewingPolybianstudiesconductedduringthelasttwotothreedecadesofthetwentiethcentury,onthesubjectofPolybius’attitudetowardsRomeasadominantpower,FrankWalbankwasnotinapositiontorecordtheadoptionofnewapproaches.2Inordertocommemoratethe1957publicationofthefirstvolumeofWalbank’sCommentary,itisthereforenotoutofplacetoassessthepotentialofferedbyapplyinglinesofinterpretationthatarenowestablishedinthehistoryofmodernpoliticalthoughttothisclassicaltheme,ofgreatimportancealsointheactivityofProfessorWalbank.

ItwillthusbeattemptedtoconsiderPolybius’workasavoiceinthediplomaticdialoguebetweentheGreekworldandRomeinthemid‐secondcenturyBC.Inthisperspective,ourscrutinywillbearnotsomuchonPolybius’judgementofRomeasonthegoalshepursuedthroughtheHistories.IfitwerepossibletoconceiveofThomasHobbes’sLeviathan‘asaspeechinParliament’,3itmightbedeemednolesslegitimatetoconsiderPolybius’workasadiplomaticspeech.Inotherwords,itcouldinthefirstinstanceberepositionedinthecontextofthesimilarspeechesPolybiushadtodeliverbeforetheRomanauthorities,oftenindifficult,andevendramatic,circumstances,priorto,during,andafterhisenforcedstayinRome;andso,therefore,inthebroadercontextofdiplomaticrelationsbetweentheGreekworldandRomeduringthe(p.214) secondcenturyBCwhichcanberetrievedaboveall,althoughnotexclusively,throughtheHistories.

ComparedwiththeconventionalinvestigationaimedatdeterminingPolybius’viewsonRome,inmyopinion,thisapproachoffersseveraladvantages.Inthefirstinstance,asalreadymentioned,itresituatestheHistorieswithinthecontextoftheotheractivitiesoftheauthorandmoregenerallywithinitspropertime.Polybius’workshouldbeconsideredaresponsetothecentralproblemofthecontemporaryGreekworld—thatofitsrelationswithRome.TheimageofthetransformationofthepoliticianPolybiusintoahistorian,inwhatisvirtuallyanontologicalmutation,startingwithhisdeportationtoRome,willbesetasideinfavourofamorerealisticcontinuitybetweenthetwophasesandaconstantcontaminationbetweenthetwoaspectsofPolybius’activity.Throughouthispoliticallife,PolybiusseemstohavestriventogainfortheAchaeanLeague,andfortheGreekworldingeneral,themostfavourablepositionpossiblevis-à-visthehegemonicpowers,thatistosay,atleastfromacertainpointon,vis-à-visRome.AlsotheHistoriesareaimedatpursuingthisgoalandmustbeviewedagainstsuchabackground.

Inthesecondplace,analysingtheHistoriesasadiplomaticspeechwillmakeitpossible,orevennecessary,totakeintoaccounttheconstraintsimposedonitsauthorbytherealpowerrelations.IntherelationshipbetweenPolybius,andtheGreekworldingeneral,andRome,inthesecondcenturyBC,thesamedistinctionmayalsobemadebetweenthe

hiddenandthepublictranscriptselaboratedbyJamesScottwithreferencetoallrelationscharacterizedbyagreatdisparityinpowerbetweenthepartiesinvolved.Generallyspeaking,insuchconditions,thepublictranscriptimposedbythedominantgroup(inourcase,bythehegemonicpower)corroboratesitsbeneficialroleandevenitsgenerosity;inthepublicdiscourseitisadoptedbythesubordinategroup,aboveallbecausethepublicdomainiscontrolledbythedominantgroup,butthenalsoforstrategicpurposes.Theacceptanceofthepublictranscriptactuallyprovidesprotectionagainsttherepressionthatwouldotherwisesmashanyopenchallengetothelegitimacyoftheroleofthedominantgroup.Furthermore,atthediplomaticlevel,itrepresentsaweapon,aninstrument,bywhichtoendeavourtoconvincethepowerfultoapplytheprinciplesoftheirself-representation,soemphaticallydeclaimedonthemostsolemnofficialoccasions.However,thepublictranscriptdoesnotexhausttheattitudesandcannotreflectthedeepestbeliefsofthosehavingtosubscribetoit.Onunofficialoccasionsandwheneveritisreasonabletoassumeoneisoutsidetheearshotofpower-holders,adifferent,morerealistic,interpretationoftheirconditionsofoppressionemergesamongthesubordinates.Theresentment,theanger,andthedreamsofrevengehabituallyrepressedinthepublicsphereregularlyfindexpressioninthishiddentranscript.

TheattempttoapplytheworkofJamesScotttoPolybiusistosomeextentjustifiedbytheanalogydrawnbyScottfromthedialecticalrelationshipbetweenthepublicandhiddentranscripts,ontheonehand,andthevariability(p.215) ofadiplomat’sdiscourse‘dependingonwhetherheistalkinginformallywithhisownnegotiatingteamorformallywiththechiefnegotiatorofathreateningenemypower’.4InthecaseofPolybius,andthecontemporaryGreekworld,afurtheranalogywiththesituationsanalysedbyScottmayalsobefoundinthegreatdisparityofpowervis-à-visRome.

TheanalysismuststartfromtheacknowledgementofthepublicnatureoftheHistories.Insomecases,aswillbedemonstrated,itseemspossibletodiscerntraceshereandthereintheworkofthehiddentranscriptofPolybiusortheAchaeanrulingclassregardingRome.Asarule,however,theprinciplesandstatementscontainedinitmaybelinkedtothepublictranscript.TheycannotthereforebetakenatfacevalueinordertodrawimmediateconclusionsconcerningPolybius’‘conversion’toRome,orhis‘conviction’ofthe‘legitimacy’ofRomandomination.ItisinsteadnecessarytoexaminetheaimsunderlyingPolybius’statementsandtherhetoricalstrategiesadoptedinhisnegotiationswiththesenate.WhileitisimpossibleimmediatelytograspPolybius’judgementonRome,itispossible,andofinterest,toattempttograsphisdiplomaticobjectivesinthedialoguewithRome.

Inthefollowing,IwillendeavourfirsttoillustratetheformsofcontaminationbetweenhistoriographyandpoliticsinPolybiusinoneconcretecase;itwillthenbeshownhowtheprinciplessustainedbyPolybiuswerechosentosuitthevariouspoliticalobjectivespursued(§I).Inthelightoftheseresults,itwillthenbeattemptedtoinvestigatethesignificanceofseveralrecurrentthemesintheHistories:ananalysiswillbemadeoftheappealformoderation,inparticular,whenTychewasinfavour.Moregenerally,Polybius’

considerationsonthemostappropriatewaytomaintainone’shegemonicpositionafterithadbeenwon(§II)willbealsoexamined.Lastly,itwillbeattemptedtooutlinethestrategicfunctionoftheidealizationofseveralRomanfigures,suchasScipioAfricanus,AemiliusPaullus,andScipioAemilianus,andofthepositivejudgementpassedevenonLuciusMummius.ThelevelofPolybius’innermostconvictions,inaccessibleinthesepassages,conditionedbythepursuitofpoliticalobjectivesinpower-ladensituations,mustratherbesoughtintheoccasionalemergenceofdissonantindicationswhichenableustoglimpseforamomentthehiddentranscriptofPolybiusandthegrouphebelongedto.

IIn38.4,Polybiusseemstomakeaclear-cutdistinctionbetweenhispoliticalactivityandthatofhistorian.Thispassageis,however,morecomplexandambiguousthanmayappearatfirstsight.Withreferencetothehatedleadersof(p.216) theAchaeanWar,CritolausandDiaeus,Polybiusinitiallyseemspracticallytoadmithavingruncountertotheethosofthehistoricalaccountandtohaveadoptedastylemorebiased5andclosertothatofapodeicticoratory.However,wearenotupagainstanopenconfessionofcontaminationbetweenpoliticsandhistoriography.PolybiusindeedclaimsthathishostileattitudetowardsCritolausandDiaeuswasnottheresultofpoliticalprejudice,butofhishistorian’sfidelitytotruth.Thechargefromwhichhefeelshehastodefendhimself,asfarashiscondemnationoftheleadersoftherevoltisconcerned,isnotthatofbiasbutrathertheoppositechargeofnothavingdischargedhisduty‘tothrowaveilovertheoffencesoftheGreeks’.Heproudlyclaimedthathehadnotbaulked‘atthetimeoftheoccurrences’atthetaskofhelpinghisfellowcitizens‘ineveryway,byactivesupport,bycloakingfaultsandbytryingtoappeasetheangeroftherulingpower’(38.4.7);but,asahistorian,nothingoughttotakeprecedenceoverthetruthandhewasdutyboundtohandontoposterityanaccountuncontaminatedbyfalsehood(Plb.38.4.5–6).ThisappealtotruthisthusdeployedtolegitimizehisruthlesscondemnationofCritolausandDiaeus;itisonlyarhetoricaldeviceemployedtolendauthoritytowhatisasserted.Polybius’intentionistoequatehiscondemnationofCritolausandDiaeuswiththetruth;onlyforthispurposedoeshedeliberatelydenythatatthelevelofhistoricalreconstructionitwashisduty‘tothrowaveilovertheoffencesoftheGreeks’(περιστέλλειντὰςτω̑νἙλλήνωνἁμαρτίας,38.4.2).

Moreover,Polybiushadalreadypatentlyviolatedthenobleprincipleoftheclear-cutdistinctionbetweenpoliticalapologyandhistoriographyin27.9–10,apassagewhichwasexplicitlyaimedatdefendinghiscompatriotsfromtheaccusationofacharistia.6InthesetwochaptersrecountingthereactionofGreekpublicopiniontothevictoryofPerseus’cavalryinthebattleofCallicinus—thefirstclashintheThirdMacedonianWar—Polybiusadaptedhisoratoricalskillsandaimstohistoriography.7Thisresultsinamasterpiece—‘amasterpieceofhypocrisy’,accordingtoAdalbertoGiovannini;8butwhatismoreimportantthanpassingamoraljudgementistopointouthow,inactualfact,adiplomatic,oratleastpolitical,dimensionisindeedpresentintheHistories,9andthismustbetakenintoaccount.

Thecircumstancesarewellknown:theunexpectednewsoftheMacedonianvictorywasgreetedwithmanifestationsofjoythroughoutGreece.10PolybiusendeavouredtoexplainawaythejoyengenderedbyPerseus’victoryby(p.217) appealingtoanaturalimpulsetosidewiththeunderdog.11Inthisway,heattemptedtodenyGreekhostilitytoRome.12Thedeclaredaimofthedigressionwastopreventanyone,through‘ignoranceofwhatisinherentinhumannature’fromaccusingtheGreeksofacharistia(27.10.5).Inotherwords,apoliticalapologyhadseepedintotheHistories.InordertodenythattheplethosoftheGreekcitieswasstubbornlyanti-Roman,Polybiusincludedargumentsthatamoderatepoliticalleadermighthaveaddressedtothemassestobringthemtotheirsenses(27.10.2–3).Inthefirstinstance,heplayedupontheirresponsiblenature(ἀνυπεύθυνος)ofkinglypower,13somethingtheywouldallhavebeenobligedtoendureifPerseushadactuallywon(27.10.2).Butwhatwastoprovedecisivewasthecomparison‘ofallthehardshipsthatthehouseofMacedonhadinflictedonGreece,andofallthebenefitsshehadderivedfromRomanrule’(τω̑νγεγονότωνἐκμὲντη̑ςΜακεδόνωνοἰκίαςδυσκόλωντοις̑Ἕλλησιν,ἐκδὲτη̑ς῾Ρωμαίωνἀρχη̑ςσυμφερόντων,27.10.3).ComingfromacitizenofMegalopolis,suchanegativejudgementpassedontheroleoftheMacedoniansinGreekhistorymightappearalittlesurprising.14However,inapassagelikethis,itisidletotryandfindtracesofPolybius’‘conversion’,oftheadoptionof‘apointofviewmuchclosertoRomethanthatwhichPolybiushadheldduringhisdetention’,15orofa‘convictionthatRomanpowerwasadvantageous…withrespecttothemonarchicpowerofMacedoniaandoftheHellenistickingsthatwas‘‘innowayaccountable’’ ’.16

Polybius’statementsconcerningtheroleplayedbyMacedoniaorRomeinGreekhistoryarenotthereflectionofchangesinhisideas;rathertheyareattheserviceofthepoliticalobjectiveshepursued.In27.10,Polybius,whoonotheroccasionshadexpressedhisappreciationofPhilipII,AntigonusIII,ortheyoungPhilipV,condemnsMacedonia’sroleinordertoshowtheRomansthattheGreekpoliticalleaderswerecapableofgettingthemassestoacknowledgethebenefitsreceivedfromtherepublic,asopposedtotheharmcausedbyMacedoniandominion.SincetheapologywasaddressedtotheRomans,itsmackedmoreofadroitdiplomacyratherthanappearingasasincereopinion,thefruitofmaturereflection.AllthatcanbedemandedofthispassageisanindicationofthepoliticalaimspursuedthroughtheHistories—whichisalreadyquitealot.17

(p.218) ThewaveringofPolybius’judgementsparallelsthatintheofficialstanceoftheAchaeanLeaguebetweenMacedoniaandRome,andmustbeexplainedinthesameterms,asaresponsetothesameproblems.Towardstheendof198,duringthenegotiationswithFlamininusandhisGreekallies,PhilipV,afterlistingbenefactionsvis-à-vistheAchaeans,firstonthepartofAntigonusandthenofhimself,againevokedthegreathonoursgrantedtothembytheAchaeans.Heconcludedbyreadingoutthedecreebymeansofwhich,in198,theAchaeanshadwithdrawnfromthealliancewithMacedoniaandsidedwithRome,usingthisasanopportunitytoaccusethemofdisloyalty(athesia)andingratitude(acharistia)(18.6.5–7).Onlyafewmonthsearlier,Aristaenus,addressinghisfellow-citizensinanattempttoconvincethemtojoinforceswiththeRomans,hadexplainedawaytheirhesitationintermsoftheirfearofthecruelty

(crudelitas)ofPhilipV(Liv.32.21.25),andhadairedtheirhopesoffreedom,longcherishedinsecrecywithoutdaringtoexpressthemopenly.18TheRomanmilitarypresencenowprovidedtheoccasiontotranslateintopracticeahiddentranscriptthatbeliedtheofficiallanguageusedinthedecreesinhonouroftheMacedoniankings.

ThecontradictorynatureoftheofficialactscontemptuouslyevokedbytheMacedoniankingthusperhapsdoesnotjustifythejudgementofbetrayaluponwhichhisreproachesarebasedandwhichPolybiusattemptedtodeny.ThetroubledhistoryofAchaeo-Macedonianrelations19isthehistoryofapoliticalcommunitycompelledtocometotermswiththehegemonicambitionsofthemajorpowers.Whenforcedtosubmittoahegemony,theweakerallyadoptsthepublictranscriptofthesuperpower:itinterpretsitsinterventionsaseuergesiai,andreciprocateswiththegrantingofhonours,whichintheirturnaresupposedtoelicitfreshbenefits.20However,wheninternationalpoliticalcircumstancesofferachancetofreeoneselffromhegemony,ormakethisdecisionpracticallycompulsory,ashappenedtotheAchaeansin198,theoppositeinterpretationoftheroleofthehegemonicpoweremerges.Here,theharassmentsofsucharoleareclearlyapparent.InthecaseoftheAchaeans,whenfreedomfromhegemonyisachievedonlythroughsubmissiontoanotherpower,thehardshipscausedbytheMacedoniandynastyareoffsetbythebenefitsofRomandominion.Inthedramaticmomentsinwhichitisnecessarytochoosebetweentwoopposingsuperpowers,itiseasilyunderstandablethatthepoliticiansintheGreekcitiesshouldre-interpretthepastagainstthebackgroundoftheurgentneedsofthepresent—evenatthecostofexposingthemselvestorecriminationandaccusationsofbetrayalsuchasthosemadebyPhilipVagainstAristaenus.

(p.219) Asthecircumstancesandthepoliticalgoalschange,sodothehistoricalinterpretationsaimedatattainingthelatter.In174Archon,theAchaeanpoliticianclosesttoPolybiusintheyearsoftheThirdMacedonianWar,intervenedinfavouroftheabrogationofthebanthatfromthetimeofPhilipVhadpreventedtheMacedoniansfromenteringAchaeanLeagueterritory.Inthatcontext,Archonreferredto‘sogreatbenefitsconferreduponusbyformerkingsofMacedonia’(tantapriorumMacedoniaeregummeritaerganos);itwasbecauseofthe‘long-standingassociationwiththeMacedoniansandtheancientandgreatservicesrenderedusbytheirkings’(uetustaconiunctiocumMacedonibus,ueteraetmagnainnosregummerita,Liv.41.24.12–14)21thatin198thefactofsidingwithFlamininushadwarrantedalongandvigorousdebate.22Thepositionsdeclaredin174didnotpreventArchon,in170,fromrecognizingtheneed‘toactwiththeRomansandtheirfriends’(συμπράττειν῾Ρωμαίοιςκαὶτοις̑τούτωνφίλοις,28.7.1).InaveryfrankmeetingofLycortas’party,heldbehindcloseddoors,23Archonwasabletojustifyhisproposalforapro-RomanshiftinthepoliticsoftheLeagueonpurelytacticalgrounds:itwasnecessarytoadapttothecircumstancesinordernot‘togivetheirenemiesanypretextforaccusingthem’(28.6.7).Inanofficialmeetingheldbeforeamuchlargerandheterogeneousaudience,whenthecontentsoftheorationwereindangerofreachingtheearsoftheRomanauthorities,itwouldhavebeendifficulttoemploysucharguments;itwouldratherhavebeennecessarytomakeuseoftheargumentsthat,in27.10.2–3,PolybiusascribedtoahypotheticalGreekleader

addressingthemassesafterthebattleofCallicinus,comparingthebenefitsderivedfromRomanrulewiththehardshipsthattheMacedonianKingshadinflictedonGreece.

ThepointsthatPolybiusmakesintheHistoriesconcerningthedecisiveeventsintherelationshipbetweentheAchaeanLeagueandthepowerscontendingthehegemonyovertheMediterraneandonotappeartocarrymoreweightthanargumentsthatmighthavebeenusedatthetimetoorientorjustifytheAchaeanpoliticalline,andfluctuateaccordingly.TheythusdonotallowustoplumbthedeepestlevelsofPolybius’conviction;buttheyenableustodetectthepoliticalgoalspursuedandtherhetoricalstrategiesimplementedtoattainthem.

IISofar,usingaclearexample,wehaveseenhowPolybiusdidnothesitatetopursuepoliticalgoalsthroughhisHistories,andhavepointedouthowthispreventsusfromtakinghisassertionsatfacevalue.Asinpoliticalspeeches,it(p.220) isnotpossibletoreadintothemtheimmediatereflectionofhispersonalopinionsbutonlythechoiceoftheargumentsmostlikelytoconvincethepublicatlarge.Now,byshiftingourattentionfromasinglepassagetothegeneralstructureofhiswork,IwouldliketoofferatleastonemoreexampleofPolybius’pursuitofpoliticalobjectiveswhereformsandthemesofdiplomacyareappliedtohishistoricalwork.WeshallexaminethemainprincipleunderpinningPolybius’politicalthinking—orratherathemeessentialtohispoliticalmessage:thethesisthatthebestwaytowinandmaintainahegemonicpositionistotreatone’sdefeatedenemiesandsubjugatedpeopleswithgenerosity.

JohnMarincolaclaimedthat,intheoriginalthirty-volumeproject,thespeechbywhichAemiliusPaullusurgedthemembersofhisconsilium‘nevertoboastundulyofachievementsandneverbeoverbearing(hyperephanon)andmerciless(anekeston)intheirconducttoanyone,infactneverplaceanyrelianceonpresentprosperity’(Plb.29.20),‘usingPerseushimselfasanexampleofthetruthofthewords’,occurredtowardstheconclusionoftheworkandthustookonevengreaterprominence.24ItisworthnotingthatPolybiushaddweltontheseissuesrightfromBook1,takingadvantageofRegulus’Africancampaigntoimpartthelesson‘todistrustFortune,andespeciallywhenweareenjoyingsuccess’(διαπιστειν̑τῃ̑τύχῃ,καὶμάλιστακατὰτὰςεὐπραγίας,1.35.2):theRomancommander,‘whososhortatimepreviouslyhadrefusedtopityortakemercyonthoseindistresswasnow,almostimmediatelyafterwards,beingledcaptivetoimplorepityandmercyinordertosavehisownlife’(1.35.3).Theinsistenceontheadvisabilityoflearningnot‘throughtheirownmischances’,διὰτω̑νἰδίωνσυμπτωμάτων,but‘throughthoseofothers’,διὰτω̑νἀλλοτρίων(1.35.7),not‘bytheirownmisfortunes’,ἐνταις̑ἰδίαιςἀτυχίαις,but‘bythoseofothers’,ἐνταις̑τω̑νπέλας(29.20.4),makestheparallelbetweenthetwopassagesevenmorestriking.25ThesameLeitmotivisstressedatthebeginningandtheendoftheHistories;itactuallyalsorecursattheendofthefinalproject,infortyvolumes,intheconsiderationsattributedtoScipioAemilianuswithreferencetoHasdrubal(Plb.38.20.1–3)—awarningagainsthyperephania—aswellasinthewell-knownchaptersonAemilianus’reflectionsbeforetheflamesofburningCarthage(38.21–2).Then,inwhatseemstobethetrueepilogueofthe

work,thethemeoftheunpredictabilityofTyche,particularlysensitiveinmomentsofgreatsuccess,iscarriedoverfromthewell‐beingofthestatesto(p.221) thatoftheauthorhimself:PolybiuspraystotheGods,askingthatthestabilitybroughtaboutthroughhisultimatediplomaticmissiontoRomemightlast,‘seeingasIdohowaptFortuneistoenvymen,andhowsheespeciallyputsforthherpowerincaseswherewethinkthatourlifehasbeenmostblessedandmostsuccessful’(39.8.2).Itissignificantthatthesamethemeisfoundindiplomaticnegotiations;itrecursbothinHannibal’sspeechduringthenegotiationswithScipioAfricanuspriortothedecisivebattle(15.6.4–7.9),andinthepeaceproposalspresentedbyHeracleides,ambassadorofAntiochusIII,aftertheRomanslandedinAsia(21.14.4).26Again,afterthebattleofMagnesia,ZeuxisandAntipaterbeggedtheRomanstoexploit‘mildlyandmagnanimously’(praōsandmegalopsychōs)thesuccessesgrantedthembyTyche,claimingthatthiswouldbenefittheminthefirstinstance(21.16.7–8);andScipioAfricanushastenedtoreassurethem,denyingthatthevictoryhadmadetheRomans‘moreexacting’(βαρυτέρους,21.17.1).Priortohim,afterthebattleofCynoscephalae,FlamininuslecturedtotheAetoliansontheneed,afterthevictory,toshowthemselvestoberestrained,‘gentleandhumane’(μετρίουςκαὶπραεις̑καὶφιλανθρώπους,18.37.7).

Suchargumentswerecommonplacewhenimploringthevictor’sleniency;theyarefoundalreadyinThuc.4.17–20inthespeechproposingpeacedeliveredbytheSpartanambassadorsatAthenstosavetheprisonersofSphacteria.ItisinthisdiplomaticcontextthattheirpresenceintheHistoriesistobeinterpreted.

AsregardsthewordsattributedtoAemiliusPaullus,Diodorus30.23perhapsreflectsthePolybianoriginalbetterthantheexcerptummakingupchapter20ofBook29.27ButthereisnodoubtthatthispassagecontainingthepraiseofAemiliusPaullusforbeing‘considerateofadefeatedfoe’(πρὸςδὲτοὺςκρατηθένταςἐπιεικη̑)andtheobservationthat‘sincetherewereothersalsowhoaffectedasimilarattitude,Rome’sworldwiderulebroughthernoodiumsolongasshehadsuchmentodirectherempire’28areinharmonywithPolybius’aspirationstoproposemodelsofbehaviourbasedonclemency,epieikeia,forthehegemonicpowerstofollow.29Tomymind,Polybius’insistenceonthisthemeislinkedtoitsuseinthediplomaticfield,totheusemadeofthisargumentinpeacenegotiations,inanattempttoelicitepieikeiafromthosetowhomonewascompelledtosubmit.JustlikethekingofPergamum,EumenesII,inthesenate,afterthedefeatofAntiochusIII(Plb.(p.222) 21.18–21),Polybius‘reallyhopestoshowtheRomansthatacourseofactionisintheirinterestwhenofcourseitisalsoverymuchinhisown’.30

Epieikeia,praotes,metriotes,megalopsychiaarekeywordsusedinPolybius’reflectiononempireandonthebestwaytomaintainhegemonyaftergainingit.TheymaybefoundinseveralpointsintheHistories,wheneverPolybiusisgiventheopportunitytodwellonthebenefitsthatageneroustreatmentofthedefeatedfoeandthesubjugatedpeoplesaccruesalsotothehegemonicpower.Ofparticularsignificanceishisinsistenceonthegenerosity(διὰτη̑ςἐπιεικείαςκαὶφιλανθρωπίαςτω̑ντρόπων,‘bytheleniencyandhumanityofhischaracter’,5.10.1)displayedbyPhilipII,afterthevictoryatChaeronea,inordertowintheheartsandmindsofthedefeatedAthenians,releasingtheprisoners

withoutransomandrenderingfuneralhonourstothefallen.In5.10.1–5PhilipII’sconductiscontrastedwiththequitedifferentbehaviourofPhilipVatThermum,thefederalsanctuaryoftheAetoliansplunderedanddestroyedbythekingin218;inafewbrieflines,PolybiusattributestoPhilipIIthevirtuesofleniency(epieikeia),humanity(philanthropia),gentleness(eugnomosyne),moderation(metriotes),clemency(praotes),goodness(kalokagathia),andmagnanimity(megalopsychia).Theadoptionofthisstanceisalsodeemedtobethefruitofsagacity,anchinoia:inotherwords,Polybiusshowshisappreciationnotonlyatthemorallevelbutalsoatthatofpracticaleffectiveness,intheinterestofPhilipIIhimself.Polybiusreturnstothesametopicinthefirstpersonagainin18.14.13–14,inhispolemicagainstDemosthenes,reiteratingthemegalopsychiaandphilodoxia(‘loveofglory’)oftheMacedonianking;andagainin22.16.1–3,wherePhilipII’sconductafterChaeroneaisonceagainraisedtothestatusofaparagon,incontrastwithPtolemyV’scrueltreatmentoftheEgyptianrebels.ThiswasaninevitableissueinthepoliticaldebateconcerningthepoliticalroleofMacedoniaintheGreekworld,andwasstilltopicalinthelatethirdandtheearlydecadesofthesecondcenturiesBC:inthedebatebetweentheAetolianChlaeneasandtheAcarnanianLyciscus,atSparta,in210,evenChlaeneas,whowashostiletoMacedonia,couldnotdenythemagnanimityofPhilipII,andcouldonlygiveitamaliciousinterpretation(Plb.9.28.4).Polybiussignificantlyusesthisepisodetodemonstratetheadvantagespresentedbytheepieikeialine,andonseveraloccasionsproposesitasamodeltobeadopted.

Atthesametime,theoppositeapproach,thatofterror(kataplexis)andharshness,isrepeatedlyrejected—evenwhenitwasapparentlyfollowedbyPolybius’father,Lycortas.31Polybiusnevertiresofdescribingitsdevastatingeffectalsoforthehegemonicpower,asitattractstheresentmentandhatredoftheconqueredpeoples,whowouldlikenothingbetterthanachancetoridthemselvesofanoppressivedomination.Thesamelessonisdeliveredstarting(p.223) inBook1inreferencetotheCarthaginiandominationofLibya,andagain,repeatedly,almostobsessively,withreferencetoPhilipV’srelationswiththeGreekworld,rightfromthebeginningofhisreign.32Then,inBook10,boththeCarthaginiansandScipioAfricanusseektowintheloyaltyoftheindigenouspopulationsoftheIberianpeninsula.Afterthevictoriesin211,nowconvincedtheyareinanunassailableposition(aderitos),theCarthaginiansgivethemselvesovertohybrisandhyperephania,whereasScipioembracesthecontrarypolicyofbestowingbenefits.TheIberianpeoplesthusquicklyabandontheCarthaginiansandgoovertoScipio.Polybiusdwellsatlength,andwithsatisfaction,onthedifferenteffectsofthetwooppositepolicies.33

Inallthesepassages,itisnotaquestionofseekinganabstractPolybiantheoryofempire,whichmaturedafteranimplausibledetachedreflection.Onceagain,continuitywithapoliticaltraditioniswhatisobserved:thetraditionofAratusofSicyonandAgelausofNaupactusvis-à-visMacedonia,ofPhilopoemenandLycortasvis-à-visRome—thetraditionofsubjugatedpeoplesstrivingtopersuadethehegemonicpowerstotreatthemwithmoderation,torespecttreatiestotheletter,andtogainthefavouroflesseralliesthroughthebenefitsgranted.

TheprinciplesrepeatedlyreiteratedbyPolybiusthuspointusinthedirectionofthediplomaticconfrontationbetweenAratusandPhilipV,betweenPhilopoemenandthesenate;atamoregenerallevelwearedealingwithanamplificationoftraditionaldiplomaticpracticesdevelopedoverthecenturiesbytheGreekcitiesintheirrelationswithhegemony-seekingpowers.Thetwoopposingpoliciesavailabletoahegemonicpowerinordertogaintheobedienceofsubjugatedpeoples—thatofterror,appliedforinstancebyAlexanderinthedestructionofThebesin336BC,ontheonehand,andwhatmaybedefinedasepieikeia,ontheother—maybetracedbackatleasttothedebatebetweenCleonandDiodotusonthepunishmentofMytileneinThucydides’Book3.IntheirrequestforanalliancewithSparta,theMytileneanambassadorsjustifiedtheirdefectionbycomplainingthattheirrelationswithAthenswerenotcementedbyeunoiaandphilia,mutualfriendshipandgoodwill,butbyphobosanddeos,thatis,terror(Thuc.3.12.1).Therefore,inthedramaticdebateinwhichCleonproposesthattheMytileneansshouldbegivenanexemplarypunishment,andcitesepieikeiaasoneofthethreevicesmostdetrimentaltoanempire(Thuc.3.40.2),theoppositeoptionisactuallythemorefavourabletoMytilene’sinterests—eventhoughDiodotuscunninglyendeavourstosuggestthatasignofwillingnesstopardonwouldbeinAthens’interest.ItisnocoincidencethatthebulkofDiodotus’speechisdevotedtothe(p.224) attempttoshieldhimselffromthedefamatorysuspicionofcorruption;andtheMytileneanambassadorspresentatAthensplayedanactiveroleinthematter,34althoughofcourseitwasinDiodotus’interesttosoft‐pedalthis.Iftheyhadbeenallowedtoexpressthemselvesdirectly,itisprobablethat,likeDiodotus,theytoowouldhaveadoptedthepointofviewofthehegemonicpower’sutility.Likewise,theMelianswerealsoobligedtoadoptitintheotherwell-knownThucydideandebateonempire(Thuc.5.90,98);theywarnedtheAtheniansoftherisksinvolvedoffallingfoulalsoofneutralpopulationsbyfollowingapolicyofharshness;PolybiuswastoimpartthesamelessontoPhilipVafterthecaptureofCius.35

Polybiusseizeseveryavailableopportunitytodemonstratetheusefulnessforthehegemonicpoweroffollowingapolicyofepieikeia;atthesametime,hewarnsoftherisksderivingfromthetemptationtogiveintohybrisandhyperephania,whichisallthemorelikelythemoreunassailablethedominatingpositionattained.HisinsistencecannotbeaccountedformerelybyawistfulrestatementofAratus’orPhilopoemen’spolicies.Iwouldevendiscardany‘Polybiantheoryofempire’,thefruitofadetachedreasoningbyanarmchairscholar.Polybius’‘theory’wasnotconcoctedinalibrary;itisratheramatterofPolybiusbrandishinginthediplomaticarenawhatisprobablythemainweaponintherhetoricalarsenalavailabletopeoplessubjugatedbysuperpowers.Significantly,PolybiusinsistedatgreatlengthonthesuccessachievedinSpainbyScipioAfricanusbyfollowingapolicyofmoderation.TheCarthaginians,nowconvincedtheyhadanunassailablegrip(aderitos)onSpain,gavethemselvesovertohybrisandhyperephania;theylostfirstthesupportoftheiralliesandthenthewar.TotheRomans,who,startingin168,hadgainedunopposeddominion(aderitosexousia,31.25.6)overtheMediterraneanbasin,theGreekPolybiusindicatedratherthemodelofScipioAfricanus,whogainedvictorybyfollowingtheoppositepolicy,thatofepieikeiaandbenefitsaccordedtoensuretheloyaltyoftheallies.Thisbeingthesituation,itwouldseem

necessarytoreiterateforcefullythehypothesispreviouslyputforwardrathertimidly,andinsomecasesthendiscarded,byscholarssuchasDomenicoMusti,36JacquelinedeRomilly,37GustavLehmann,38ArthurEckstein,39AndrewErskine,40Jean-LouisFerrary,41andlatterlybyChristopherPelling:42whenPolybiusreflectsbitterlyonthehistoricalexperienceofPhilipV,orextolsthemagnanimityofPhilipII,orevenmore,whenheanalysesthemomentsofcrisisinthePunicdominionofAfricaandthenSpain,hismainpurposeistosendamessagetotheRomanpoliticalestablishment.

(p.225) IIIIthaslongbeenacceptedthattheidealizedportraitsofScipioAfricanus,AemiliusPaullus,andScipioAemilianushadthefunctionofexamples.However,IwouldnotsaythattheirdepictionintheHistoriesrepresentsastageintheprocessofjustifyingRomandominion‘fromadoctrinalstandpoint’.43ThereisnodoubtthatPolybiusaimedtodefuseanyattemptatananti-Romanrevolt,butIdonotbelievethatheintendedto‘justifyRome’shegemonyovertheGreeks’bypraisingthevirtuesofafewfigures.HisaimwasrathertocontributetoimprovingthepositionoftheGreekswithintheframeworkofRomanhegemony,toconvincetheRomanstoexerttheirdominionwithmoderation,takingthesemodelsasexamples.PolybiusaspiredtobeingamediatorbetweentheGreeksandtheRomans;ifhesangthelatter’spraisesitwasonlybecausehehadthissolepurposeinmind.44Asoftenhappensinrelationswiththepowerful,anencomiumalsoservesasavehicleforadvice;whenallotheravenuesseemtobeblocked,thestrategicpotentialinherentintheacceptanceofthepublictranscriptisexploitedtothefull.Sincepubliceulogiesofhegemonicpowercomposedbysubordinateshaveatacticalfunction,oneoughtnottotakethemallatfacevalue.45

Examinationofthedeepest-lyingconvictionsofPolybiusandoftheAchaeanpoliticalgrouptowhichhebelongedwithregardtoMacedoniaandRomemustbeconductedbymeansofananalysisofthepassagesthatenableustoperceivetheechooftheirconfidentialdiscussions.OneofthesepassagesistheaccountofthepartymeetingcalledbyLycortasin170todiscussthestancetoadoptafterthediplomaticmissionofGaiusPopilliusLaenasandGnaeusOctaviusin28.6.HereLycortasexpressedthehopeofmaintainingthebalanceofpowersoastoavoidtheneedtosubmittoasinglesuperpower.Polybiuswasmoreclearlyawareoftheseriousnessofthesituation,andacceptedArchon’sproposaltocollaboratewiththesenate(28.6.7–7.1).Neverthelessheclearlysharedtheprinciplesaffirmedbyhisfather.46

AtraceofwhatPolybiusreallythoughtdeepdowninsideasregardsRomecanalsobefoundinhisbittercriticismofthespeechdeliveredbytheRhodianambassador,Astymedes,tothesenateinthewinterof168/7.HerePolybius(p.226) seemsoncemoretoadopttheoldpan-Hellenicpolaritywithregardtothebarbarians,takingittoapurelydiplomaticlevel.Astymedes,clearlyveryproudoftheresultsobtainedinfavourofhiscountryduringoneofthemostdramaticepisodesinitsrelationswithRome,47hadnoscruplesaboutpublishingawrittenversionofhisspeech(30.4.11).ForPolybius,theambassadoroughttohavebeenashamedofhavingbasedhisdefenceuponacomparisonbetweenthemeritsandfaultsinpopulumRomanumoftheRhodiansandtheotherGreek

communities.Inevitably,suchacomparisonworsenedtheaccusationsagainsttheotherGreekstates,makingthemappearevenmoreguiltyinordertomakethewrongdoingsoftheRhodiansappear‘smallanddeservingofpardon’,μικρὰκαὶσυγγνώμηςἄξια(30.4.13–14).Polybiusseverelycondemnedthistypeofdikaiologia,‘sincesurelyinthecaseofmenwhohavetakenpartinsecretdesignswedonotpraisethosewhoeitherfromfearorformoney48turninformersandbetrayconfidences,butweapplaudandregardasbravementhosewhoenduretheextremityoftortureandpunishmentwithoutbeingthecauseofsimilarsufferingtotheiraccomplices.Howthencouldthosewhoheardofitfailtodisapprovetheconductofamanwhoforfearofanuncertaindangerrevealedtotherulingpowerandpublishedalltheerrorsofothers,errorswhichtimehadalreadyveiledfromtheeyesoftheirmasters?’(30.4.16–17).Thispassagewouldthusseemtobetraythepersistenceofaneedforapan-HellenicsolidarityinthefaceoftheimperiumRomanum.Thelatterwasseenasanexternalpowerwhich,likeatyrant,controlledandjudgedthemandagainstwhich—intheirdreams—theymighteventuallyuniteandconspire.49

Evenmoresignificantisthewell-knowncomparisonbetweenPhilopoemenandAristaenus,50inwhichWalbankperceived‘twofictitiousspeechescondensingtheargumentswhichtheyemployedonseveraloccasions’.51ThesincerityoftheopendebatethatPolybiusattributestothetwoleadersissuchastopointtothedebatewithintheAchaeanpoliticalgroupsintheplacesofthehiddentranscripttowhichtheRomanauthoritieswerenotallowedaccess.Nevertheless,Polybiusalsoplacessidebysidetheargumentsthatthetwoadoptedinpublicinordertosupporttheirdiversepoliticallines.Thetworivals,togetherprobablywithPolybius,sharedtheviewthatthegrowingandincreasinglyoppressiveRomaninterferenceintheinternalaffairsoftheAchaeanLeague(p.227) wasaprocessthatwas,intheend,inevitable.52Philopoemenclaimedthattheprocessmightbestbeheldup,whereverpossible,byopposingitwithalldiplomaticmeansavailable,while,ontheotherhand,Aristaenus’advicewastoplacatetheRomansbypromptlyobeyingallorderssoastoavoidneedlesslyirritatingthem.53ThemoderateAristaenuswentasfarastodeclare,asthoughitweresomethingobviousandacknowledgedbyall,thatiftheAchaeanshadhadthemilitarycapacity,itwouldhavebeentheirdutytostanduptotheRomansandnotyieldtotheirorders(24.12.1).However,theargumentwithwhichPhilopoemenwouldhavedefendedtothehilthistoughdiplomaticstance—aimingtodelaythemomentinwhichitwouldbenecessarytoobeyallRomancommands—doesnot,Ibelieve,belongtothedeeperlevelofconvictionofPhilopoemenorofPolybius.Philopoemenisaccreditedwiththeaffirmation—anaffirmationthatevenAristaenushimselfcouldnotdeny—that‘theRomans,uptonowatleast,setaveryhighvalueonfidelitytooaths,treaties,andcontractswithallies’(24.13.3).AsobservedbyFerrary,54Polybiushadhimselfsupportedasimilarthesisin24.10.12,whenhecommentedontheembassyofCallicratestothesenatein180BC.However,theaffirmationthattheRomanswereendowedwith‘unsensparticulièrementaigudelajusticeetdesdevoirsenversceuxquiontétédefidèlesalliés’55isonlyadiplomaticploy,anexhortationmorethanastatementoffact,andshouldbeinterpretedasanintegralpartofthestrategyofthepublictranscript.ThisclaimofRomanexceptionalityactuallyalsosurfaceselsewhereintheHistories;butitalwayssurfacesindiplomaticcontexts.

Beforethesenate,afterthedefeatofAntiochusIII,theRhodianambassadorsstrovetoinfluencethedecisiononthefateofthecitiesinnorth-westernAsiaMinorseizedfromtheSeleucidking.Intheirspeech,theyplacedtheRomansaboveallothermen;withgenerousdisinteresttheywouldprefertherenownduetohavingliberatedtheGreekstogain:‘formoneyisapossessioncommontoallmen,butwhatisgood,glorious,andpraiseworthybelongsonlytothegodsandthosemenwhoarebynaturenearesttothem’(Plb.21.23.2–12,particularly9).Itwouldbenaivetointerpretthisasasincereconviction:itisratheranattempt,usingdiplomaticmeans,toconvincetherepresentativesofthehegemonicpowertoputintopracticethegrandiloquentdeclarationsofprinciplecontainedintheirofficialspeechesanddocuments.(p.228) TheRhodiansrecalledFlamininus’solemndeclarationsattheIsthmiangamesin196inthehopeofconvincingthesenatetoimplementtheprinciplesthuspubliclystatedatthetime.Onanother,muchmoredramatic,occasionanotherRhodianambassador,theabove-mentionedAstymedes,beggingthesenatetoputanendtotheangeragainsthisnativecountry,lamentedthepersistenthatredoftheRomans,‘whoareconsideredtobemostlenientandmagnanimous(πρᾳότατοικαὶμεγαλοψυχότατοι)towardsallotherpeoples’(Plb.30.31.15).AstymedesappealedforanapplicationtotheRhodiansofvirtuesclaimedintheRomans’self-representation:ScipioAfricanusboastedofwantingtoextendthemeventothedefeatedCarthaginians,treatedπρᾴως…καὶμεγαλοψύχωςdespiterepeatedviolationsofpacts,inconsiderationofTyche(Plb.15.17.4).56ItisunlikelythatAstymedeswasconvinceddeepdownoftheexceptionalleniencyoftheRomans;whatisimportantistoacknowledgehowusefulthisargumentwasinthepursuitofconcretediplomaticobjectives.TheimageofthemselvesprojectedbytheRomansistakenupagaininthenegotiationsaimingtoinducethemtoputintopracticeallofthesenobledeclarations.57Aswehaveseen,suchargumentsalsoappearedinGreekinternalpoliticaldebateswheretheywereusedtoembarrassallthosewhowereinfavourofcompleteobediencetothesenate—asifAristaenusandCallicratesweretheonlyonesnottorecognizetheRomans’scrupulousrespectforfides.

AsArthurEcksteinhasrecentlyobserved,theveryfactthatancientdiplomacywasactuallypublicinnaturewasamajorstumbling-blockinitsabilitytofunctionandresolvedisputes.Concessionswereraresincetheywerealltoooftenconsideredasanadmissionofinferiorityandthusapreludetosubmission.58However,thepublicnatureofancientdiplomacycouldalsoleadtodifferentresults.Indeed,oncethedominantpowerhadsolemnlyproclaimedtheloftyprinciplesunderpinningitsactions,theverypublicnatureoftheprocesseffectivelytransformedsuchworthyproclamationsintoadiplomaticweaponthatcouldbetakenupbyitsweakerallies.Sincethedominantpowerdidnotwishtolosefaceontheinternationalscene,theweakerpartiescouldremindthepresidingpoweroftheneedtorespecttheengagementsithadundertaken.However,todothis,theweakerallieshadtorecallandreiteratethedominantpower’spublicdeclarationswithregardtotheireuergeticaims.

Weshouldconsequentlybeextremelywaryofattemptingtoextrapolateopinions,convictions,andpointsofviewfromspeecheswhoseprimaryfunctionwasfirstandforemostdiplomaticandpolitical.Polybianscholarsoughtrathertoabandonsuchan

approachinfavourofamorematureunderstandingofthestrategiccapabilitiesofapublictranscript,focusingon(p.229) theveritablepoliticalnatureoftheHistoriesandontheinfluencethatcontinuedtobeexertedonPolybiusbyanancientdiplomatictradition.

Inthisway,thepositivejudgementofRome’shandlingofMacedoniaafterPydna59shouldnotbeconsideredasaclearreflectionofthe‘convictions’ofPolybius,butratherameditatedadhesiontothepublictranscriptdrawnupbythevictors.EventheidealizationofthefigureofAemiliusPaullus,anexampleofmoderationintheexerciseofdominion,60shouldbeviewedintheperspectiveofaneedtoprovidetheRomanrulingclasswithanexampletofollow.61

Inmyopinion,notevenPolybius’positivejudgementofMummius62countervailstheideathat,ifthechoicehadbeenavailable,itwouldhavebeenbettertoavoidtheRomansgainingsuchanaderitosexousia,inaccordancewiththeprincipleclearlystatedbyLycortasinthepartymeetingmentionedbyPolybiusin28.6.TheattributiontoMummiusofself-control,purity,andmildness(ἐγκρατω̑ςκαὶκαθαρω̑ς…καὶπρᾴως)shouldbeplacedonthesameplaneasthehonoursgrantedtohimintheconqueredcities:63notanimmediatereflectionofdeep-setconvictionsandsinceregratitudenorproofofanykindofconversiontoRome,buttheacceptancebythedefeatedofthepublictranscriptproposedbythehegemonicpowerandanattempttoexploitthepoliticalresourcesemergingfromthepossibilityofconvincingtheRomanstokeepfaithwiththeself-imagetheyhaddisseminated.

InhisHistories,Polybiusenjoyedplayingthepartofteacher,64alsoofateacherofpolitics.Hisarenotdisinterestedlessons—oratleast,notalways.Polybius’historiographyisoccasionallytosomeextentmingledwiththediplomacyofthedefeated,whoseaimsheshares:toconvincetheRomansthroughacleveruseoftheinstrumentsrefinedduringthelongtusslebetweentheGreekcitiesandhegemonicpowersoftheutilityofanexerciseofauthoritybasedonepieikeia—thusensuringtheGreekscouldmaintainascomfortableapositionaspossibleundertheinevitableRomandomination.

Notes:

(1)Skinner2002:i.7.

(2)Walbank2002:26.

(3)QuentinSkinnerinterviewedbyAlanMacfarlane,10Jan.2008(http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/ancestors/skinner.htm);cf.Skinner2002:ii.209–37,264–86.

(4)Scott1990:27–8.

(5)Polybiususesφιλότιμοςinthissamesensein21.16.5.

(6)Cf.Deininger1971:160,withthebibliographyinn.8.

(7)SeeThornton2001:131–48;nowcf.alsoVirgilio2007:64–5.

(8)Giovannini1984:38.

(9)NolessthanintheworkofZenoofRhodes,analysedbyWiemer2001(cf.Thornton2004:516–17);seealsoWiemerinthisvolume.

(10)Cf.Deininger1971:159–61.

(11)Plb.27.9.3;5(καὶτῷκαταδεεστέρῳφύσειπροσμερίζοντεςτὴνἑαυτω̑νεὔνοιαν);10.4–5(τὰφύσειπαρεπόμενατοις̑ἀνθρώποις).

(12)Plb.27.9.5(οὐμισοῦντεςοὐδὲκαταγινώσκοντες).

(13)Onthisaspect,cf.Virgilio2007:49,51,72–3.FortheimportanceofaccountabilityandthecontrolofthemagistratesintheHellenisticcity,seeFröhlich2004.ForthepersistenttensionsbetweenHellenisticmonarchsandtheGreekcities,cf.Erskine2007:278.

(14)OntherelationsbetweenMegalopolisandMacedonia,seeEckstein1987b:145,andcf.Liv.32.22.8–12.

(15)Walbank,HCPiii.308on27.10.3.

(16)Virgilio2007:51;cf.64–5.

(17)Ferrary2003:30correctlyestablishestheneed‘toanalysethemessagePolybiuswishestotransmitthroughhisHistories’.ForThucydides,cf.Leppin1999:14n.5.

(18)Liv.32.21.36:liberareuosaPhilippoiamdiumagisuoltisquamaudetis(‘Foralongtimeyouhavewished,butnotdared,tofreeyourselvesfromPhilip’,trans.byE.T.Sage).

(19)SeeEckstein1987b.

(20)SeeScott1990;Ma1999.

(21)Trans.byE.T.Sage.

(22)Liv.32.19.1–23.3.

(23)SeePédech1964:281n.136,290,Lehmann1967:200,Deininger1971:162,Walbank,HCPiii.333on28.6.1(‘Lycortas’supportersinAchaea’),Eckstein1985:278.

(24)Marincola2001:147andn.145.

(25)ConcerningtheimportancethatPolybiusattributestotheusefulnessoflearningfromthemistakesofothers,somethingtowhichhealreadyrefersin1.1.1–2(cf.

Marincola2001:147),seealso3.62–3,andthewordsattributedtoAristaenusinLiv.32.21.29(satisexemplorumnobiscladesalienaepraebent:nequaeramusquemadmodumceterisexemplosimus).Significantly,thissamethemealsoappearsinDiod.1.1;foritsearlieroccurrencesinGreekliterature,seePani2001:74n.41.

(26)SeeWooten1974:244.

(27)SeeNissen1863:273(‘genauern’),withthesupportofWalbank,HCPiii.392on29.20.1–4.

(28)Diod.30.23.2(Englishtrans.byF.R.Walton),onwhichseeSacks1990:153.

(29)Forthecentralityofthetheory‘thatkindactionsinspireloyalty,harshonesdisaffection’inthereflectionsofDiodorus,seeSacks1990:39,42ff.,124,andpassim;Sacks1994:216–19,220(‘ThepervasiveuseoftheschemamayhavebeenintendedasasubtlewarningtoRome’).AsregardsthelevelofindependenceofDiodorusfromhissources,cf.Wiemer2001:13n.14.

(30)Kennedy1972:35.

(31)Plb.23.15withWalbank,HCPiii.247–8on23.15.1–3.

(32)Cf.atleastPlb.5.9–12;7.11,13–14;15.22–24a.

(33)Plb.10.6.3–4,35.6–36.7.AlreadyinThucydides,metriotesandpraotesassuretheSpartanBrasidasofthedefectionofAthens’allies:Thuc.4.81.2,108.2–3.

(34)Cf.e.g.Thuc.3.49.3.

(35)Thuc.5.98,andcf.Plb.15.23.6–7,24.4–6.

(36)Musti1978:135n.9,onPlb.10.36.

(37)DeRomilly1979:247.

(38)Lehmann1989/90:76–7.

(39)Eckstein1985:271–3.

(40)Erskine2003:235.

(41)Ferrary2003:30–1.

(42)Pelling2007:249.

(43)Gabba1974:638–9.FortheexceptionalnatureofAemiliusPaullusandScipioAemilianusincomparisontotheircontemporariesintheaccountsofPolybius,cf.alsoMusti1978:91,136n.21;Marincola2001:147–8.

(44)SeeThornton1998forthewayinwhichthepoliticalobjectivespursuedbyPolybiusattheendoftheAchaeanWararereflectedinthework.ForthegrowingawarenessoftheimportanceofPolybius’mediationinthemostrecentstudies,seeThornton2004:508–24,andseealsoFerrary2003:18.

(45)Scott1990.

(46)Cf.Liv.42.30.5–7andtheappreciationofHieroII’spoliciesinPlb.1.83.2–4.

(47)Hehelpedobtainfromthesenate‘ananswerwhichrelievedindeedtheirextremeapprehensionofwar’(Plb.30.4.7);moreover,thesenate’sreplyindicatedexplicitlythatitwasaboveallduetotheambassadors(μάλισταδι᾽αὐτούς,30.4.9)thatitwasdecidednottoinflictupontheRhodiansthepunishmenttheydeserved.

(48)Patontranslatesδιὰφόβονἢπόρον,butseeWalbank,HCPiii.421on30.4.16:‘itseemspreferabletoreadδιὰφόβονἢπόνον,“throughfearor(actual)suffering”(cf.Strachan-Davidson)’.

(49)Cf.Thornton2001:127–30,andnowThornton2010:72–6.

(50)Plb.24.11–13;forthemostrecentanalysis,seeDesideri,forthcoming.

(51)Walbank,HCPiii.265on24.11.1–13.10.

(52)Cf.15.24.4fortheinevitabledegenerationofthebasileis,whoattheveryoutsettendtotreattheirinferioralliesσυμμαχικω̑ς,andthenδεσποτικω̑ς;onthispassageseeVirgilio2007:60.In24.13.2Philopoementakestheframeworkofthebasileisandextendsittoallhegemonicpowers,Romeincluded;cf.also§6(‘Iknowtoowell’,hesaid,‘thatthetimewillcomewhentheGreekswillbeforcedtoyieldcompleteobediencetoRome’)andseeFerrary2003:25.

(53)Forthisinterpretation,cf.Thornton1995:265–72,withananalysisoftheprecedingbibliography,andseealsoMusti1978:76–7.Morerecently,Ferrary2003:23–4hasdefendedthedifferentthesisalreadyproposedinFerrary1988:296–7.

(54)Ferrary2003:26.

(55)Ferrary2003:26;cf.alsoWooten1974:246.

(56)ForthepeacenegotiationswiththeAetoliansin190,see21.4.10:PolybiusclaimsthatScipiowouldhavetreatedthemἔτιδὲπρᾳότερονκαὶφιλανθρωπότερον.

(57)SeeScott1990:18.

(58)Eckstein2006:61–5,97–9,121.

(59)Plb.36.17.13–14,withFerrary2003:27.

(60)Acomplexhistoriographicalprocessthatcannotbeanalysedhere;seehoweverReiter1988andFerrary1988:547–72.

(61)Thesethemes,alreadynotedsupra,willbetreatedmorecomprehensivelyelsewhere.

(62)Plb.39.6.2–5:‘Itwasonlynaturalindeedthatheshouldbetreatedwithhonourbothinpublicandinprivate.Forhisconducthadbeenunexactingandunsulliedandhehaddealtleniently(πρᾴως)withthewholesituation,thoughhehadsuchgreatopportunitiesandsuchabsolutepowerinGreece’.Onthispassage,seeThornton2005:212–13andn.87.OnPolybius’opinionofMummius,cf.Sacks1994:222–3(whocomparesittothemuchharsherjudgementofDiodorus).

(63)Plb.39.6.1–2.ForthehonoursreceivedbyMummiusinGreece,alongwiththeepigraphicattestationstothem,cf.Knoepfler1991.

(64)Cf.forexample3.32.10,withtheexplicitclaimofτὸμαθειν̑asabenefitofreadingtheHistories,andseeMarincola2001:125,134,140.

How to Rule the World: Polybius Book 6 Reconsidered1

HowtoRuletheWorld:PolybiusBook6Reconsidered1

AndrewErskine

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0012

AbstractandKeywords

MostscholarshaveapproachedBook6inpiece-mealfashion,exemplifiedbythetendencytotranslatethewordpoliteiaas'constitution',eventhoughPolybiusincludeselementswhichcouldnotbecalledconstitutionalsuchasfunerarypractices.ThischaptershowshowBook6explainsthesuccessofRome(andbyimplicationthefailureofGreekcommunities)holistically:elementsoftenignoredbyscholars,suchastheaccountofenrolmentfortheRomanarmyandtheRomancamp,areinfactpartofastrategyofemphasizingRomanefficiency.Likewise,theoverridingfocusonthestate'sinterestsoverthoseoftheindividualisreflectedinPolybius'accountsofmilitarydiscipline,andintheRomanresponsetothedispatchofprisonerstoRomebyHannibalafterCannaewhichendsthebook.

Keywords:Polybius,Rome,politeia,Romanarmy,constitutionaltheory,funerarypractices

IntroducingBook6ThequestionofrulingtheworldandhowitisachievedisacentraloneforPolybius.Atthebeginningofhishistoryhewritesthosemuch-quotedlines:‘Forwhoissoworthlessorsoindolentasnottowishtoknowbywhatmeansandbywhatsystemofgovernmentinlessthan53yearsalmostthewholeinhabitedworldwassubjugatedandbroughtunderonerule,thatoftheRomans,somethingthathadneverhappenedbefore?’(1.1.5).‘Bywhatmeans’(πω̑ς)isansweredbythenarrativeofthehistorybut‘bywhatsystemofgovernment’(τίνιγένειπολιτείας)istakenupinparticularinthesixthbook.2PolybiusisconcernedtoexplainRomansuccess,butmorethanthisheisexplainingtoGreeksandtohimselfwhytheGreeksfailed,whytheytoonowobeyRomanorders;howitwasthattheworldofthethirdcenturyhadgone,thephalanxyieldingtothelegion(seefurther18.28–32).Thiswas,hesaysintheprefatoryremarkstohishistory,anextraordinarytransformationandonethatdemandedattention.PermeatingPolybius’analysisinthesixthbookaretwothemes,whichwillbetreatedinturninsuccessivesectionsofthischapter:first,Romeasamodeloforderandefficiency,secondly,asasocietyinwhichallpartsservetheinterestsofthewhole.

TheimportancethatPolybiusplacedonthissixthbookisevidentfromthenumberandnatureofhisanticipatoryreferencestoit,whichgiveusasenseofhowheunderstoodthepurposeofthebookhimself.3Inthefirstbook,while(p.232) discussingtheRomannavy,helooksforwardtohisaccountofRome’ssystemofgovernment(politeia)inBook6,emphasizingitscentralityandadvisinghisreaderstopaycarefulattentiontoit.Thesubjectis,hecomments,anoblesight,yetonebarelyknownthankstothosewhohavewrittenaboutit.Somewereignorant;othersgaveanaccountthatwasobscureandwithoutprofit(1.64.2–4).Polybiushereistypicallydismissiveabouthisfellow-historians,whileatthesametimedrawingattentiontotheoriginalityandusefulnessofhisowncontribution.4

ThesignificanceofhisanalysisoftheRomanstatetohisworkasawholeandtotheunderstandingofRomanpowerisexpandeduponinthethirdbook.Hereinthepreface,whichintroducesthehistoryproper,hegivesanoutlineofwhatwillfollow.HeexplainsthatoncehehastreatedHannibal’ssuccessesinItalyandothercontemporaryevents,hewillpausethenarrativetoofferanaccountoftheRomansystemofgovernment.Hewillshowhowitssingularcharacter(ἰδιότης)‘madeamajorcontributionnotonlytothere-establishmentofRomanmasteryovertheItaliansandSiciliansandtheextensionoftheirruletotheSpaniardsandtheCelts,butalso,intheend,aftertheirvictoryovertheCarthaginians,totheformulationoftheideaofuniversaldominion’(3.2.6).ItisthisdistinctivepoliteiathatPolybiuspromisestoconsiderinBook6;herehewillbelookingatthoseaspectsthatenabledbothRome’srecoveryafterthedisastrousdefeatatCannae,anditsdriveforempire—inotherwordsthoseaspectsthatexplainedRomansuccess.BytheendofBook3,Rome’sdistinctivepoliteiaexplainsnotonlythedriveforempirebutalsoitsachievementofthatempire:‘bythesingularcharacteroftheirpoliteiaandbytheirownsoundjudgementtheRomansnotonlyregainedtheirmasteryoverItalyandsubsequentlydefeatedtheCarthaginiansbutinafewyearstheywereincontrolofthewholeinhabitedworld’(3.118.9).5Thus,bythetimethatBook6isreached,thereader

isawareoftheimportanceofitssubject-matterforthehistoryasawhole,apointreiteratedintheintroductiontothatbook.

WhereasthefirstfivebooksofPolybius’Historiessurvivecomplete,thesixthbookdoesnot.InsteadthemoderntextiscomposedofaseriesofsubstantialextractstobefoundintheExcerptaAntiqua,astheByzantinecollectionofexcerptsfromthefirsteighteenbooksofPolybiusisknown,acollectionthatappearstofollowtheorderoftheoriginaltextclosely.6Howmuchismissingisamatterofconjecture.Referencestothesixthbookin(p.233) Polybiushimselfandotherwritersrevealsomethingofwhathasbeenlost.Polybius,forexample,refersthereaderbacktoBook6foradiscussionofthepriesthoodoftheSalii;AthenaeuscitesitfortheRomanprohibitiononwine-drinkingbywomen;andStephanusofByzantiumcitesitforthefoundationofOstia—noneofwhichappearsintheextantportions.7Itisusuallyacceptedthatthebookincludedasummaryofthedevelopmentofthemaininstitutionsofthestateuntilthetimeofthedecemvirate,asectionthatscholarshavenamedthearchaeologia.8Thepresentchapter,however,isbasedonwhatsurvivesratherthanspeculationaboutwhatdoesnot.

Beforegoinganyfurther,IshouldownuptoacertainconfusionthatIfeelwhenconfrontingthismaterial.Myproblemistodowiththeterminologyusedinmodernscholarship,anditcomesdowntothis:howshouldyoutranslatepoliteia?Acommontranslationis‘constitution’,butthis,initsmodernusageatleast,seemstoorestrictive,toonarrow,andtoolegalistic.PolybiusseveraltimessaysthathewillinterrupthisnarrativetogiveanaccountofthepoliteiaoftheRomans,andwhenitdoescomehisaccountisimpressiveforitsrange:thepoliticalstructureofRome(howitisacombinationofkingship,aristocracy,anddemocracy),thefunctioningofthearmy(howitisenrolled,punishmentsandrewards,thelayoutoftheRomancamp),funeralcustoms,attitudestoreligion,comparisonswithotherstates,andinalostpartthereviewofearlyRomanhistory.9AlltheseoccurwithinabookwhichPolybiusprofessestobedevotingtotheRomanpoliteia.Togethertheygowellbeyondwhatwewouldnormallyexpecttobecapturedintheterm‘constitution’;onlythefirstpart,thepoliticalstructureofRome,theso-calledmixedconstitution,reallyfitsourmodernusageoftheterm.ButwhenPolybiuswritesaboutthepoliteiaoftheRomans,heclearlyhasinmindsomethingthatcanembracealltheseelements—theyarepartofthepubliclifeofthecitizen.10OnthishewouldbeinagreementwithotherGreekwriters,suchasXenophon,Aristotle,andPlato.11Politeiadoesrefertothenarrowpoliticalstructurethatwewouldcallaconstitution,forinstancean(p.234) aristocracyorademocracy,butintheancientcontextthatstructurecannotbeunderstoodseparatelyfromthepolisitself.IsocratesneatlyencapsulatesthisideainhisAreopagiticus:‘thesoulofthepolisisnothingotherthanitspoliteia’.12ConsequentlyIhavepreferredtheuseofpoliteiaorthephrase‘systemofgovernment’(cumbersomethoughitis)to‘constitution’whendescribingPolybius’themeinBook6,whilekeeping‘constitution’forthediscussionofRomanpoliticalstructuresinthenarrowsense,thatistosaytheinteractionbetweenthepeople,senate,andconsuls.

ThismaybeatrivialanxietyonmypartbutIhaveasuspicionthatithaswider

repercussions.Oneeffectofthemodernscholarlytendencytotranslatepoliteiaas‘constitution’andthenapplyitchieflytothe‘constitutional’sectionistofragmentfurtherwhatisalreadyafragmentedbook,totakeawaywhatholdstheremnantstogether.Thus,insteadofitbeingabookaboutthepoliteiaoftheRomans,itbecomesastudyoftheRomanconstitution,theRomanarmy,theRomanfuneral,andsoon.Byabandoningthepoliteiaasagoverningprinciple,andthereforethefullrangeofconceptsthatgowithit,wearelosingthecoherencythatPolybiushimselfsurelyfeltwasthere—andeveninitspresentfragmentedstateitispossibletoseethathebeganandendedthebookwithCannae.Yet,forallitsimportance,scholarsrarelytacklethebookasawhole.TitlesthatpromiseaninterpretationofBook6,theconstructionofBook6,orthesourcesofBook6turnout,inpractice,tobeaboutthenatureanddevelopmentofthemixedconstitution.13Inthesestudiesthetwenty-fourchaptersonthearmy(chapters19–42)maybedispensedwithinasinglesentence.InPaulPédech’ssizeablebookonPolybius’historicalmethoditisstrikingthat,fullasitis,theindexlocorumjumpsfromBook6chapter18tochapter42,thusalmostcompletelyeliminatingamajorpartofabookthatPolybiushimselfconceivedasfundamentaltohishistory.14ThisisnottosaythatscholarshipignoreswhatPolybiushastosayoftheRomanarmy,butitistreatedforthemostpartindiscussionsoftheRomanarmyratherthanofPolybiusandtherethePolybiancontexttendstogetneglected.Thesearegeneralizationsandthereare,ofcourse,exceptions,notablyCraigeChampion’sholistictreatmentinhisCulturalPoliticsinPolybius’sHistories.15WemaylackthePolybiantextthatlinksthesectiononthearmytotherestofthebook,butitisclearthatforPolybiushimselfthearmywasanintegralpartof(p.235) Rome’spoliteia.ThisisoneoftherespectsinwhichtheRomanpoliteiaissuperiortotheCarthaginian:for,insteadofusingforeignersandmercenariesastheCarthaginiansdo,theRomansusesoldierswhoarenativesoftheirowncountryandcitizens.Fightingisthusoneofthedutiesofcitizenshipandsoinseparablefromthepoliteiaitself.16

Polybius’choiceofthesixthbookforhisanalysisoftheRomanpoliteiawasverydeliberate.ChronologicallyitisplacedafterthetraumaticRomandefeatatCannaein216,inwhichover70,000menwerereportedtohavebeenkilledontheRomanside,allthemoredevastatingbecauseitwasthethirdsuccessivedefeatatHannibal’shands.17Observers,notleastPhilipVofMacedon,wrotetheRomansoffatthispoint.18Yettheyrecoverandgoontoachieveworlddomination.PolybiusseesatimeofcrisisastheidealopportunitytotestthevalidityofhisideasabouttheRomanstate.Justaswhatonesaysaboutaman,whetherheisgoodorbad,canbetestedbyhownoblyhecopeswhenhislifeisgoingexceptionallywellorexceptionallybadly,sotoowithwhatissaidaboutasystemofgovernment(6.2.5–7).InthiscaseCannaebecomesatestforthedistinctivequalitiesthatPolybiusattributestotheRomanpoliteiathatenableitssuccess.Polybius’bookonthepoliteiaisnot,however,placedimmediatelyaftertheaccountofCannae,whichoccursinBook3.InsteadtwoBooks,4and5,intervenetotellthestoryofGreekeventsinthe140thOlympiad,thusbringingtheGreekworlduptothetimeofCannae.Asaresult,theanalysisofthepoliteialeadsdirectlyintothesubsequentnarrativeandsoprecedestherecoveryasmuchasitfollowsthedisasterofCannae.

Polybiushasbeenfrequentlycriticizedfortheomissionsorinadequaciesofhisaccount;thereis,itispointedout,nomentionofthecomplexityofthearistocracy(patriciansandplebeians,nobilesandnouihomines),therangeofpopularassemblies,orpatronsandclients;19thereareanachronismsintheaccountofthearmy;20hetalksofRomanfinancialprobitywhenelsewherehecallsitintoquestion.21YetthesecriticismsfailtotakenoticeofPolybius’purpose;heisnotputtingforwardsomuchadescriptionoftheRoman(p.236) politeiaasanexplanationofitssuccess.Sothoseaspectsthatdonotcontributetothatsuccess,toRomanrecoveryandachievement,atleastinPolybius’viewofthings,donotneedtobementionedatthispoint.Whenthebookisexamined,itisfascinatingtoseethereissolittlethatisotiose;eventheelaboratedetailoftheRomanarmy’sactivitieshasafunction.IndeedPolybiusanticipatescriticism(orperhapshehadalreadyshownadrafttoaRomanacquaintance),whenhewrites:‘Thegoodcriticshouldnotjudgewritersbywhattheyleaveoutbutbywhattheyrelate,andifhediscoversanythingincorrectinwhattheywrite,hemayconcludethathemadetheomissionsasaresultofignorance;butifeverythingthatisrelatedistrue,heshouldacknowledgethatthesemattersarepassedoverinsilencedeliberatelyandnotfromignorance’(6.11.7–8).Similarly,totakeBook6asevidenceforaverypositiveviewofRomewouldalsobeunjustified.ThisisnotabookthatwaswrittentopointoutRomandeficiencies,thatwouldhardlyexplainRome’ssuccess,butratheritisintendedtohighlightRomanstrengthsand,intheprocess,Polybius’politeiabecomessomethingthatRomeitselfmayneverinpracticehaveachieved.ToappropriatePlatonicterminologywemaysaythatwhatwehavehereisnotRomebuttheformofRome.TheveryplacingofthepoliteiainthepastatthetimeofRome’sworstcrisiswhileusingthepresenttensetodescribeitgivesaqualityoftimelessnesswhilesimultaneouslyfrustratingscholars—doeshemeanthiswastruein216BCatthetimeofCannaeorinhisownday?22Onemightcomparethewayinwhichtheuseofthepresenttenseinethnographicwritingcanobjectifythesubjectandalmostdenychange.23

InBook6PolybiusexplainsRomansuccessbutheisalsowritingprimarilyforGreeks,andimplicitinthebook,therefore,isanexplanationofGreekfailure.24InwhatfollowsIexploretwothemesinparticularwhichrunthroughhiswholeaccountoftheRomanpoliteia.IntheprocessIaimtorehabilitatetheRomanarmytoshowthatitiscentraltoPolybius’conceptionoftheRomanstate,notmerelyatoolusedbyit.Thefirsttheme,whichwillbethesubjectofthenextsection,isthatofRomeasamodeloforderandefficiency.Greekreaderscould,nodoubt,lookattheirowncommunitiesandinthecontrastseereasonsfortheirpresentsituation.Thesecondimportanttheme,whichwillbeaddressedinthefinalsection,isthesubordinationoftheparttothewhole.InRometheinterestsofthestateturnouttobeparamount,overridingallelse.ThewayinwhichPolybiuspresentsthesetwothemesoffershisreaderssomethingbothterrifyingandseeminglyunstoppable.Ashe(p.237) putsitintheconclusiontohisdiscussionofRome’smixedconstitution:‘consequentlythisparticularformofstatepossessesanirresistiblepowertoachievewhateverithassetouttodo’(6.18.4).

RomeasaModelofOrderandEfficiencyEarlyinhisaccountoftheRomanarmyPolybiusdescribestheenrolmentofnewlegions.

Thedensityofdetailmayencouragethelesscommittedreadertopassoverithurriedly,butitisthedetailitselfthatisofinterest.Itisusefulheretoquoteitinfull:

Whentheconsulsareabouttoenrolsoldiers,theyannounceatameetingofthepopularassemblythedayonwhichallRomansofmilitaryagemustbepresent.Theydothiseachyear.WhenthedayarrivesandthoseliableformilitaryservicehavecometoRomeandgatheredtogetherontheCapitoline,thejuniormilitarytribunes,accordingtotheorderinwhichtheyhavebeenappointedbythepeopleortheconsuls,dividethemselvesintofourgroups,becausethemainandprimarydivisionoftheirforcesisintofourlegions.Thefourtribuneswhowereappointedfirsttheyassigntothelegioncalledthefirst,thenextthreetothesecond,thefourfollowingthemtothethird,andthefinalthreetothefourth.Oftheseniortribunestheyassignthefirsttwotothefirstlegion,thenextthreetothesecond,thenexttwotothethirdandthefinalthreetothefourth.Whenthedivisionandassignmentofthetribuneshavebeencompletedinsuchawaythateverylegionhasanequalnumberofofficers,thetribunes,thoseofeachlegion,takeupaseparateposition,drawlotsforthetribesonebyoneandsummonthetribewhichisselectedoneachoccasion.Fromthistribetheychoosefouryoungmenofroughlythesameageandphysique.Whentheyarebroughtforward,thefirsttotaketheirpickarethoseofthefirstlegion,secondarethoseofthesecondlegion,thirdthoseofthethirdandlastlythoseofthefourth.Whenthenextfourarebroughtforward,thefirsttomaketheirselectionarethoseofthesecondlegionandsooninturn,thelasttochoosebeingthoseofthefirstlegion.Afterthiswhenthenextfourarebroughtforward,thefirsttochoosearethoseofthethirdlegionandthelastthoseofthesecond.Sincetheycontinueinthiswaytogivethechoicetoeachalikeinsuccession,itturnsoutthatthementhateachlegiongetsareofaverysimilarstandard. (6.19.5–20.7)

Ifweimaginewhatisgoingon,itisquiteextraordinary.Firstthereisthedistributionofmilitarytribunesamongthelegionstoensurearoughbalanceofjuniorandseniortribunes.Thenanevenmorecomplexprocessbegins.Fourmensimilarinbuildandagearechosenfromeachtribe,thenthetribunesofeachlegioninturnpickoneofthesefourmen,aprocessthatcontinuesinanelaboraterotatingsysteminordertoensurethateachlegionisequallybalanced,eachthesamestrength.Thus,everysoldierischosen(p.238) individually,noinsignificantfeatwithfourlegionsmadeupofatleast4,200meneach,atotalofalmost17,000soldiers.25ThewholedescriptionconveysapowerfulimpressionofRomanorderandefficiency,allthemoresobecauseofthemeticulouswaythatPolybiusrecordseachstageoftheprocess.ThisdegreeofdetailisafeatureofthearmysectionofBook6andnotwithoutpurpose;Polybius’attentiontodetailisbutareflectionoftheRomans’ownattentiontoit,evidencedagainlaterinhisaccountofthelayoutofamilitarycampandtheorganizationofthenightwatch.26NothingtheRomansdoisbychance;thisisacarefullyorganizedandrationalsystem.Accumulatively,allthisdetailcomestorepresenttheoverwhelmingandrelentlessefficiencyoftheRomanarmy,apointsurelynotmissedbyPolybius’Greekreadership.27

NonethelessscholarshavenotbeenhappywithPolybius’account.Criticismsaremany.Hesaysthattheenrolmentiscarriedoutinthiswayeveryyear,butitmustinpracticehavechangedfromyeartoyeardependingonthestate’srequirements.Hesaysallcitizensofmilitaryageattended,butthatwouldmeanapotential100,000convergingonRomeforthisevent.HesaysittookplaceontheCapitoline,butthatlocationcanhardlyhavebeenlargeenoughtoaccommodatethisactivity.28AfurtherproblemisthesourceofPolybius’information.OnemightassumethathegaineditbypersonalobservationasaresidentofRome;certainlyhewasamanwhobelievedinthevalueofpersonalexperienceandautopsyinthewritingofhistory,scorningthebookishTimaeus(cf.12.26e–28).Buttheconsensusnowseemstobethathehadreaditsomewhere;influentialindevelopingthisconsensusweretheargumentsofPeterBruntandElizabethRawsonintheearly1970s.BruntthoughtitmostlikelytohaveitsrootsinanantiquariandescriptionbysomeRomanannalistandsobebettersuitedtoanolder,smallerRome,whileRawsonsawlessanachronismandsuggestedthatPolybiushadaccesstoahandbookformilitarytribunesofagenerationorsoback(andthusrepresentingatleastsomeformoforiginalresearch).29Theseareissuesthatarebeyondthescopeofthischapter,butIdothinkthatbeforetheyareaddressedsomeattemptmustbemadetounderstandwhatPolybiusisdoinginhisaccountofthearmyandinBook6morebroadly.Discussionhastendedtooverlookapointmadesomefiftyyearsagobythescholarwhosememoryisbeingcelebratedinthiscollection.Commentingonthetwochaptersontheenrolmentofthearmy,FrankWalbankwrote,‘P.’saccountisover-schematic,like(p.239) hisaccountoftheconstitution’.30This,Ithink,isthepoint.TheremayneverhavebeenanenrolmentexactlyasPolybiusdescribesit,butPolybiushereisprovidingitsessence,thePlatonicformImentionedearlier,andthesameappliestotherestofhisaccountoftheRomanmilitarysystem.Hisdetailed,meticulousdescriptionscanmisleadusintoseeingthispartasmuchmoreempiricallybasedthantherathertheoreticalsectiononthemixedconstitution.Polybius’remarksaboutomissionsareasrelevanthereastheyweretohisaccountofthemixedconstitution.Forinstance,heallbutpassesovertheenrolmentofthecavalry,perhapsbecauseitdidnothavetheimpactofthecarefullychoreographeddisplayofinfantryselection,whichvividlydisplayedthelengthsthattheRomanswouldgotoinordertoachievelegionsthatwereequalinphysicalstrength,notsimplyequalinnumbers.31WhatPolybiuscapturesveryeffectivelyisthewayinwhichthesemilitaryinstitutionscontributedtoRomansuccess—andthatiswhatthesixthbookisallabout.

ThissenseoforderisdisplayedevenmoreforcefullyintheaccountoftheRomanarmycamp.32Hierarchyisassertedfromtheverybeginning:thefirststepistodesignatethegeneral’squarters,whicharemarkedbyplantingamilitarystandardintheground,33thentherestofthecampisconstructedaroundthisaccordingtoasettemplate.ButPolybiusdoesnotmerelytellhisreadersthis,hegivesthemenoughinformationtobuildtheirowncamp:whereunitsaresituatedandtheirrelationtoeachother,thepositionofthetribunes’tents,dimensionsofallsorts,thenumberofcorridorsorstreetsthroughthecamp,andsoon.Orderlinessandregularityarestressedbuttheyarenotfortheirownsake;everythingherehasafunction.Justasthecomplexandorderlymethodofenrolmenthadasitsend-resultanequaldistributionoffightingstrengthacrossthefourlegions,sotheregularityofthecampmeansthatasoldieroncefamiliarwithonecampis

familiarwithall.Sostableisthisenvironmentthatevenbeforeitisconstructedasoldierwillbeabletolookatthegeneral’sstandardandthusdeterminewherehisowntentwillbepitched,justasifhewasreturningtohisowncityandfindinghishomethere(6.41.10–12).AgainPolybiuspresentssomuchdetailthatthereisnoescapingthe(p.240)rigouroftheRomanarmyandtheformidablecharacteroftheRomansthemselves.ThismightseemsufficienttodemoralizehisGreekreadership,butheconcludeswithabriefcomparisonbetweenGreekandRomanmethodsofencampment.EssentiallytheGreekcampchangesconstantlytosuittheland,whileitsRomancounterpartchangesthelandtosuitthecamp;Polybius’explanationforGreekpracticeshereliespartlyinGreeksuspicionofman-madedefencesbutalsoinabasiclaziness(6.42).34

Noristhispreoccupationwithorderconfinedtothearmy;itistheretoointheverypoliticalstructureofRome,itsconstitutionwhichcombinesdemocracy,aristocracy,andkingship,asetofconstitutionaltypesthatreflecttheGreekstandpointoftheobserver.35Again,justasinhisaccountofthearmy,Polybiuswasseekingtheessentialfeatures,sothisisamodeloftheRomanconstitution,anattempttoexplainhowitoperates.36Indeedhesaysatonepoint:‘IfanyofthesethingsorthosethatIamabouttodescribeundergochangeeitherinthepresentorthefuture,thatwouldbenoargumentagainsttheanalysisthatIamnowputtingforward’(6.12.10).TheRomanconstitutionisdistinguishedbyitsstabilityandthecleardivisionofresponsibilitiesbetweenthekeyelements,thepeople,thesenate,andtheconsuls;theresponsibilitiesandpowersofeacharecarefullylisted(6.12–17).Allthisisinmarkedcontrasttothechaoticcycleofconstitutionswhichleadsgoodformssuchasaristocracytodeteriorateintooligarchyandbadformstobeoverthrownbythenextgoodforminthecycle(6.7–9).InRome’smixedconstitutionallthreeparts(μέρη)worktogether,andifonepartshouldgetoutoflineitwillbeopposedbytheothers(6.18).Thegoodofthestateasawholepredominates.

TheGoodoftheWholeInthecaseofRome’smixedconstitutionthesubordinationoftheparttothewholecomesacrossinafairlybenignmanner;thisiswhatmaintainsthelong-termstabilityofthestateandpreventsthedeteriorationevidentinmostotherstates.37ButitisalsoafundamentalfeatureoftheRomanstate,aspresentedbyPolybius,onethatrecursthroughouthisaccountofthepoliteia.Whatmattersisthestate;everythingelse,whetheritbelife,friendship,orfamily,issubordinatetothestate,anditisfromthisthatRomederivesitsstrength.

(p.241) ThiscomesoutveryclearlytowardstheendofthebookintheaccountoftheRomanaristocraticfuneral.38Suchafuneralcelebratesthelifeandancestorsofthedeadmanthroughvisualspectacleandthroughwords.Itrecallsthegreatachievementsofthefamily,thenobledeedsperformedforthestate.Themostimportantconsequenceofthisfuneralceremony,saysPolybius,‘isthattheyoungmenareinspiredtoendureeverykindofsufferingforthesakeofthecommongood(ὑπὲρτω̑νκοινω̑νπραγμάτων39)inthehopeofwinningtheglorythatawaitsthebrave’(6.54.3).Ononelevel,thismightseemtobewhatwouldbeexpectedintheGreekworldaswell,wherethepolisis

regularlyrepresentedashavingpriorityoverboththehouseholdandthecitizen.40Polybius,however,believesthattheRomanstakeitratherfurtherthanmost.HenotesthattherehavebeenRomanmagistrates‘whohaveputtheirownsonstodeathcontrarytoeverycustomandlaw,valuingwhatisintheinterestoftheircountry(τὸτη̑ςπατρίδοςσυμφέρον)morehighlythantheirnaturaltiestotheirclosestrelatives’(6.54.5).HewouldhavehadinmindmensuchasL.IuniusBrutuswhoexecutedtwosonsforconspiracyagainstthenewrepublic,andT.ManliusTorquatuswhoasconsulin340hadhissonbeheadedfordisobeyingorders.41Heretheinterestsofthecountryoverrideallelse,notintheorybutinpractice.

PolybiusexpandsononestoryinparticularasanexampletoshowtheeagernessofRomanyoungmentoachieveglorythroughservicetotheircountry;curiouslyitisnotarecentstorybutonefromearlyRomanhistory,HoratiusCoclesguardingthebridgeacrosstheTiberasitwasdemolishedbehindhim(6.55).Polybius’treatmentofthisstoryservestodemonstratehowimportantthethemeofself-sacrificeonbehalfofthestatewasforhisconceptionofRome.Inhisversion,oncethebridgeisdemolishedHoratiusdivesinfullarmourintotheTiberanddrowns,anactofdeliberateself-sacrificedrivenbytwomotives—thesafetyofhiscountry,andfutureglory.Significantly,althoughthestorywaswellknown,allothersourceshaveHoratiusswimmingacrosstheTiberandsurviving.42EitherPolybiusdidnotknowaversioninwhichHoratiussurvived,oritsuitedhispurposestohaveHoratiussacrificehimselfforRome.

Wemightseehereanaristocraticethos,buttheideathatitisthegoodofthestatethatdriveseverythingforwardisnotlimitedtothearistocracy.Itis(p.242) evidentinmorebrutalformselsewhere.Inthearmydisciplineisenforcedaboveallbythedeathpenalty.Thisisthepunishmentforawholerangeofoffences,suchasstealinginthecamp,givingfalseevidence,falseclaimsofcourageousacts,andthrowingawayyourweaponinbattle(6.37.9–12).ButtheoffencethatpromptsPolybiustodescribe(at6.37.1–6)themannerofpunishmentindetailisfailingtokeepwatchinthecampsatisfactorily,forinstancebyleavingone’spost,inotherwordsthedeathpenaltyforjeopardizingthesafetyofthewholecamp.Thepunishmentinthiscontextisespeciallyrevealing—thetribunelightlytouchestheoffenderwithacudgel,thenallthesoldiers(πάντεςοἱτοῦστρατοπέδου,6.37.3)proceedtobatterhimtodeathwithclubsandstones.Inotherwords,itishiscomrades(cf.aristocraticfatherskillingtheirsons),thosewhoseliveswereatrisk,whotakeitintheirhandstokillhim.Evenifhesurvives,heisanoutcast,eventohisownfamily.Theinterestsofthewholeareparamount.Polybiusconcludesthat‘asaresultoftheextremeseverityandinevitabilityofthispenaltythenightwatchesoftheRomansarefaultlesslykept’(6.37.6).Thisisdisciplinebyterror.Romansoldiers,hesays,stayattheirpostwhenoutnumberedandfacingcertaindeathbecausetheyfearthepunishmenttheywillgetiftheyabandonit(6.37.12).43TheRomanarmynodoubtwasbrutal,butPolybiusmaywellhavechosentoemphasizethispunishmentbecauseithelpedtoconveyRome’sruthlesssingle-mindedness.44TheelderCato,writingatroughlythesametimeinanow-lostworkonmilitarymatters,apparentlygavenotdeathasthepunishmentforstealinginthecampbutlossoftherighthand.45Thisisstillharsh,butitlacksthecommunaloutrage.

ElizabethRawson,commentingonPolybius’accountofpunishmentinthearmy,notesthatthemilitarytribuneisheregivenresponsibilityforthepunishmentratherthantheconsul,eventhoughlegallyanypowertopunishcomesfromtheimperiumoftheconsul.Sheseesthis,togetherwiththeemphasisonthetribuneelsewhereinthesectiononthearmy,asevidencethatPolybiususedsomeformofmanualformilitarytribunes.46Theproblemofresponsibilitymaybemoreillusorythanreal.Polybiusimmediatelymakesclearthemilitaryhierarchy:‘thesoldiershavetobesubjecttothetribunes,andthetribunessubjecttotheconsuls’(6.37.7);thuspunishmentultimatelydependsontheconsul.Nonetheless,theemphasisonthetribunesisindeed(p.243) curiousandIwishtosuggesttentativelyanotherpossibleexplanation.Inthepassagejustquoted,Polybiusbreaksthearmydownintothreekeycomponents:thesoldiers,themilitarytribunes,andtheconsuls.47Coulditbethatheseeshereatripartitestructureroughlycomparablewiththepoliticalstructureofthemixedconstitution,eachparthavingsomeresponsibilityforthewhole?Theconsuls,ofcourse,appearinboththearmyandthemixedconstitution,butthetribunesandsoldiersmightbeseenastheequivalentsofthesenateandpeople,respectively.Therelationshipbetweensenateandconsulsmayberathermorenebulousthanthatbetweentribunesandconsulsinthearmy,butpeacetime(orthedomesticsphereatanyrate)allowsforchecksandbalancesinawayinwhichwardoesnot.48

ForPolybiustheRomanpoliticalandmilitarysystemisonewheretheinterestsofthewholeoverrideabsolutelyeverythingelse.49Eachpartofthemixedconstitutionisrestrainedbyitspartners.Aristocratsarebredtosacrificethemselvesinpursuitofgloryandthesafetyofthestate.Thesoldiersthemselves,asbefitsthemasses,aremotivatedbylessupliftinggoals—forthemitispunishmentsandrewardsthatcount,andRomehasmuchtoofferhere.50Fearasamotivatorisafeature,too,ofRomanreligion,wheredeisidaimonia,superstition,orexcessivefearofthegodskeepsthestatetogether,inparticularthroughthefearitinstilsinthemasses(6.56.6–11).51Itisthesystemthatisimportantnottheindividual,andthisisonereasonwhyPolybiusdoesnotmakeacomparisonbetweentheRomanpoliteiaandthoseofThebesandAthens.Anygreatnessthatthesestatesattainedwastheresultnotoftheirpoliteiaibutoftheabilitiesoftheirleadingmen,namelyEpaminondasandPelopidasinThebesandThemistoclesinAthens(6.43–4).Incontrast,individualRomansareforthemostpartabsentfromthesurvivingportionsofBook6,asilencethatfurtherservestoemphasizethecontributionoftheRomanpolitieiatoRomansuccess.52

Thethemethattheinterestsofthestateareparamountissummedupinthelastchapterofthebook(6.58),whichreturnsthereadertothenarrativeandsototheaftermathofCannae.HannibalsendstenRomanprisonersbacktoRomeasadelegationtoputforwardhisproposalthatthe8,000Roman(p.244) prisonersheholdswillbereleasedonpaymentofaransom.Hemakesthemsweartoreturn,butonepretendstoforgetsomethingsohecangobackintothecampandfreehimselfofhisoath.Thesenate,however,onhearingtheirappeal,calculatesthatitisintheinterestsofthestatetorejecttheoffer,evenifitmeansabandoningtheirownpeople.Theninedelegates,boundbytheiroath,returntoHannibaloftheirownfreewill,whilethetenthissentbackinchains.

Whatmakesitallthemorepotentasanexemplarystoryisthewaythatthedelegationofprisonerspleadthattheransombepaid,yetthesenateneverthelessdecidesagainstthis,thusmakingthereaderthatmuchmoreawareofthesacrificeinvolved.Polybiuschoosesthisstorydeliberatelytoillustratethecharacterofthepoliteiahehasspentthebookanalysing.

ConclusionBook6mayrepresentPolybius’mostpositivetakeonRome,butitisonethatisconstructedtoexplainsuccessandthereforenecessarilypositive.EveninthisbookPolybius’attitudeiscomplex.Hesuggeststhatthebookwillbeofvaluetothosesettinguporreformingconstitutions(3.118.12),yethowfarwouldhewantimitationtogo?Inhisremarksonfathersexecutingsons,heimpliesthattherewouldbelimitsonwhatonemightdoforone'sownstate.TheactionsofthoseRomanmagistrateswere‘contrarytoeverycustomandlaw’(παρὰπᾶνἔθοςἤνόμον,6.54.5),aphrasethatmighteasilyputthereaderinmindoftheterm,παράνομος(lawless),commonlyusedtodescribebarbarians.53Itissignificant,too,thatonlyafewchaptersearlier(6.47.1–5)hehadponderedontheroleofcustomandlawinmakingajudgementaboutastateanditssystemofgovernment,apassagewhichbegins‘Ithinktherearetwofundamentalcomponentsofeverypoliteia,bymeansofwhichwecandecidewhetheritstruequalityandformaretobepreferredoravoided.Theseareitscustomsanditslaws.’ElsewhereinhishistorytheverysameactionisoneofthesignsofthedegenerationoftheMacedoniankingPhilipV—thatheexecutedhisownsonDemetriusintheinterestsofthekingdom—anironythatitistheRomanophileDemetriuswhomeetssuchaRomanend.54

PolybiusiswritingforanaudiencewhohaveseenRomeoverturntheestablishedorderoftheeast,kingswhowereonalevelwithgodsandpowerfulconfederaciessuchashisownAchaeanLeague.HepresentsanimageofRomethatexplainsthis,highlyorganized,almostpathologicallyobsessedwithdetail,drivensolelybytheneedsofthestate,aswillingtoterrorizeitsowncitizensas(p.245) itsenemies,andatheartalien.55ToaGreekreadershipthismayallhavebeenconfirmationoftheirworstfearsabouttheRomans:whathopewasthereagainstmenwhobeattheirownsoldierstodeathandhavenoqualmsaboutsacrificingthemselves,yetareatthesametimehyper-efficientandrelentlesslylogical.PolybiushimselfbecameconvincedthatrevoltagainsttheRomanswasmadness,ashemadeclearwhencommentingontheAchaeanandMacedonianrevoltsofthe140s.56Ifanyoneneedsanexplanationforwhyhethoughtthis,itishereinBook6.

Notes:

(1)Thischapterhasbenefitedfromthediscussionatanespeciallystimulatingconference.IamgratefulinparticulartoBruceGibsonandRobinSeagerforhelpfulcommentsonanearlydraft.

(2)ThethemerecursatPlb.6.2.3,8.2.3,39.8.7.

(3)Anticipatory:1.1.5,1.64.2,3.2.6,3.118.11–12;perhapsalso3.87.7–9,referringtoalater(lost)discussionwhichdealssomehowwiththedictatorshipandrelatedoffices.

InthefragmentarylaterbookstherearealsoanumberofreferencesthatlookbacktoBook6:10.16.7,18.28.1,21.13.11(indicatingthathedescribedtheSaliiinalostpartofBook6),39.8.7.

(4)Forattitudetootherhistorians,seeWalbank1962,Walbank1972a:46–55,Lehmann1974,Schepens1990,McGing2010:65,83–4.

(5)Fortheroleofsoundjudgement,cf.6.51.7–8.

(6)Moore1965,esp.55–61,Walbank,HCPi.635–6.

(7)Salii:Plb.21.13.11;wine:Ath.10.55,440e( = Plb.6.11a.4);Ostia:Steph.Byz.s.v.Ὠστία( = Plb.6.11a.6).

(8)ThefragmentsattributedtothearchaeologiawerecollectedbyBüttner-WobstasPlb.6.11a,onwhichWalbank,HCPi.663–73on6.11aandWeilandNicolet1977:28–35(whoincludethepassagesintheirBudéedition).AttemptshavebeenmadetoreconstructitfromCicero’sDerepublica,notablyTaeger1922whoseapproachdidlittletoconvincethemorecautiousPöschl1936;cf.alsoPédech1964:313–17,Ferrary1984,Zetzel1995:22–3,Walbank1998b(withp.52ontheoriginsofthetermarchaeologia).Forasuccinctaccountoftheproblems,seeMcGing2010:178–80.

(9)Politicalstructure:6.11–18;army:6.19–42;comparison:6.43–56(whichincludesthefuneralat6.53–4andreligionat6.56.6–15);earlyhistory:seen.8above.

(10)ForthisbroaderconceptionofpoliteiainPolybius,seePédech1964:303,Derow1994:89,Champion2004a:75–84.NotealsoPlb.6.47.1–5,wherepoliteiaincludesbothcustomsandlaws,onwhichseeMartínezLacy1991.

(11)Bordes1982.

(12)Isoc.7.14,cf.12.138,onwhichHaskins2004:92–5,Balot2006:179.SimilarisAristotle’sstatementthat‘thepoliteiaisthewayoflife(βίος)ofthepolis’,Pol.1295a40–b1.

(13)e.g.‘InterpretationdessechstenBuches’(chaptertitleinEisen1966),‘TheconstructionoftheSixthBookofPolybius’(BrinkandWalbank1954),‘TheSourcesandCompositionofPolybiusVI’(Cole1964),‘DieNaturunddierömischePoliteiaim6.BuchdesPolybios’(Eisenberger1982).

(14)Pédech1964.

(15)Champion2004a,esp.91–9,emphasizingtheroleofreason(logos)inPolybius’account,cf.alsoNicolet1974:243forconcernwithunityofthebook.

(16)Plb.6.52.4–5,cf.Millar2002b:34onthissection:‘militaryservicewasoneofthefundamentalaspectsofcitizenship’.

(17)Ontheoutcomeofthebattle,Plb.3.117–18.

(18)Observersingeneral:Plb.3.118.3–5;Philip:Liv.23.33.4,Plb.7.9withWalbank,HCPii.42.

(19)Seager,ch.13inthisvolume,detailsmanyofPolybius’omissions(cf.alsoNicolet1974:215–22),althoughtheincompletenatureofthebookdoesmeanthatweshouldbewaryoftooreadilyassumingthatbecausesomethingisnottherehedidnotmentionit(cf.McGing2010:183–4);certainlyhedoesmakereferenceelsewheretotopicsthatmayhavebeentreatedinBook6butwhicharenowlost,seenn.3and7above.

(20)e.g.Brunt1971:624–8,anddeLigt2007:115onthelevy.

(21)Plb.6.56.4and56.13–15,contrastingwith18.35,usuallyexplainedashavingdifferentdatesinmind,Walbank,HCPi.741,MartínezLacy1991:90–1.OnRomanattitudestomoney,Erskine1996.

(22)Cf.thedistinctionbetween‘then’and‘now’at6.11.13withWalbank’snote,HCPi.675.

(23)Onthe‘ethnographicpresent’,Fabian1983:80–7.

(24)OnGreeksasPolybius’primaryaudience,seeWalbank1972a:3–4,whoissurelyrightinhisinterpretationofPlb.31.22.8–9,andisnotrefutedbyDubuisson1985:266–7,whereitisarguedthatPolybiusisaddressingaRomanaudienceasmuchas(orevenmorethan)aGreekone.

(25)LegionsizesasPlb.6.20.8,thoughnotedeLigt2007:115.

(26)Camp:6.26.10–6.32,6.41–2;nightwatch:6.34.7–37.6.

(27)Cf.Champion2004a:92–3;seePlb.10.16–17onthesackofNewCarthageforavividdepictionoftheruthlessefficiencyoftheRomanarmyinaction.

(28)Walbank,HCPi.698–9,Brunt1971:625–8,deLigt2007:115–16.

(29)Brunt1971:625–8,Rawson1991(firstpublished1971),thelattertakenup(partiallyatleast)byWeilandNicolet1977:153–4anddeLigt2007:115.

(30)Walbank,HCPi.699.

(31)At6.20.9Polybiusconcludesthedescriptionoftheinfantryenrolmentwitharemarkthatthecavalryusedtobeenrolledaftertheinfantrybutnowtheyareenrolledbefore.Rawson1991:35takesthisasevidencethatPolybiusisfollowingtheorderofadatedliterarysource,hencetheadditionofhiscorrection.Yet,clearly,theenrolmentofthecavalryisofsecondaryimportanceandtheverycursoryremarkcouldjustaseasilybetreatedastheequivalentofafootnote.

(32)Plb.6.26.10–6.32with6.41–2ontheprocessoflayingoutthecamp.ThefullestdiscussionoftheRomancampisnowDobson2008.

(33)Plb.6.27.2;σημαίαissometimestranslatedasa‘flag’ratherthan‘standard’(cf.Walbank,HCPi.712),butitismorelikelythathereandelsewhereinthecamptheyplantedstandardswhichtheydecoratedinsomewaywithcolours,perhapsflags,thusat6.41.7:καὶταύτας(sc.σημαίας)μὲνποιοῦσιφοινικιᾶς,τὴνδὲτοῦστρατηγοῦλευκήν(‘theymakethesestandardscrimsonandthatofthegeneralwhite’).At6.24.6Polybiususesσημαιαφόροςforthestandard-bearer,thesignifer.

(34)Cf.alsothecomparisonbetweenthephalanxandthelegion,18.28–32.

(35)OnPolybiusandthemixedconstitutionnoteinparticular,vonFritz1954,Nippel1980,Lintott1999:16–26,214–32,Millar2002b:23–36,Hahm2009,andSeager,ch.13inthisvolume.

(36)Itisstillverydifferent,however,fromtheimaginedpoliteiaiofthephilosophers,6.47.7–10.

(37)Plb.6.10,6.18,6.50;asthesepassagesshow,oneoftheotherstatesthatpossessesamixedconstitutionisSpartabut,unliketheRomanconstitution,theLycurganconstitutiontherecannotmaintaindominion(6.50.4–6).

(38)Plb.6.53–4,withH.I.Flower1996forafullstudyofthearistocraticfuneral.

(39)Aphrasethatmightbeintendedtocapturetheideaoftherespublica,cf.shortlyafterwards,χάριντὴςτω̑νκοινω̑νπραγμάτωνἀσφαλείας(6.54.4),althoughitisalsousedmoregenerally,e.g.4.62.4,5.93.4,and28.6.5.

(40)Wallace2009:171–3.TheclassicformulationofthepriorityofthepolisisowedtoAristotle,Pol.1.1253a1–5,cf.alsotheevidencefromclassicalAthens,astatethatPolybiusdiscardsinhisconstitutionalcomparison:Thuc.2.43.1(deathinwar),Xen.Hell.1.7.21(interestsofthepolisoverfamily),Plato,Crito51a–c(necessarytodoascountrycommands).

(41)Brutus:Livy2.5;Torquatus:Livy8.7;cf.alsoA.PostumiusatLivy4.29.

(42)Livy2.10,Plut.Publicola16,Dion.Hal.A.R.5.23–5,Devir.ill.11.1.

(43)Note,too,thedescriptionofdecimationinthefollowingchapter(6.38),apracticeespeciallyeffectiveatinspiringterror(κατάπληξις,6.38.4).

(44)ThesethemesofcollectiveinterestplayoutinpracticeinScipio’shandlingofthemutinyinSpain,whichculminatesintheexecutionofthemutinyleadersinfrontoftherestofthefrightenedsoldiers(11.25–30).

(45)Rawson1991:47,Fron.Str.4.1.16( = Cato,Deremilitari15).Cf.Phang2008on

punishmentintheRomanarmy,esp.120–9oncapitalpunishmentanddecimation,althoughthefocusisonthelaterepublicandempire.

(46)Rawson1991:46(seealsopp.238–9above).Punishmentfromtheconsul:Plb.6.12.7.

(47)ThatthisconceptionofthearmyisPolybius’ratherthanduetohispossessionofamanualissuggestedbythewaythesethreeelementsappearelsewhereinhishistory,cf.2.33,whereitisthetribuneswhoareresponsibleforthesuccessagainsttheGaulsratherthantheincompetentconsulFlaminius,or11.27wheretheyhavearoleinthehandlingofthemutiny.

(48)Forabroadercomparison,cf.McGing2010:183–4:‘Itisdifficultnottoseetheorder,thecalm,thediscipline,theclearstructures,andthelogicofthearmyasametaphorfortheRomanstateasawhole.’

(49)ContrastCarthage,whichdoesnothavethiskindoffocus,6.52.5–7.

(50)Punishments:6.37–8;rewards:6.39.1–11.

(51)Erskine2000:176–81.

(52)ApartfromHoratius(6.55)exceptionstothisarelikelytohavebeenfoundinthelostarchaeologia(6.11a).

(53)Erskine2000;theRomansareaccusedofπαρανομίαinaspeechatPlb.11.5.7,cf.1.65.7–8;foritsuseinPolybiusgenerally,Champion2004a:243–4.

(54)Plb.23.3.4–10,Livy40.7–28;cf.Dreyer,ch.10inthisvolume.

(55)Cf.Champion2004a:95–6,whosuggeststhatitis‘theverydegreeoftheirquasi-Hellenicvirtues’thatmakesthemsomethingalientoPolybius’Greekreadership.

(56)Plb.36.17.13–15,38.13.8,38.18.7–8,Erskine2003:242–3.

Polybius’ Distortions of the Roman ‘Constitution’: A Simpl(istic) Explanation1

Polybius’DistortionsoftheRoman‘Constitution’:ASimpl(istic)Explanation1

RobinSeager

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0013

AbstractandKeywords

Polybius'accountofthemixedconstitutionofRomeinBook6hasrecentlybeenviewedthroughthelensofdebateoverwhetheroligarchicordemocraticelementspredominate.Itisimportant,however,toseeBook6aswritteninthelightoftwoaxiomsofgreatimportance:Polybius'beliefthattheRomanconstitutionwasresponsibleforherrisetopower,andthatthemixedconstitutionwasthebestofallconstitutions.ThesedeterminingprinciplesarethereasonforthevariousdistortionswhichmakeupPolybius’accountofthemixedconstitution,suchastheexaggeratedaccountofthepowerofpopularassemblies:evenwithinPolybius'ownaccountthesenate'spredominanceemergesstrongly,inspiteofhisdesiretoemphasizethemixednatureofRome'sconstitution.

Keywords:Polybius,constitutionaltheory,senate,people,consuls

‘Abookaboutwhichtoomuchhasbeenwritten’:thusSymeonanotherworkabouttheRomanconstitution,Cicero’sDerepublica.2ButthesamemightwellbesaidwithevengreatertruthaboutPolybius’sixthbook.Thehistorian’saccountoftheRomanconstitutionandtheproblemsitpresentshaveledsomescholarstowriteworksofgreatlength,greatingenuity,andgreatoptimismintheattempttounderstandwhatPolybiusissayingandwhyhesaysit,andtoreconcilewhathesayswithstubbornlyrecalcitrantreality.ItisthecontentionofthisbriefpaperthatsuchdiligentinvestigationsdoPolybiustoomuchhonour.

ItispointlessheretobecomeinvolvedintheongoingdebateaboutthenatureoftheRomanconstitution:whetheritwas,asscholarscomfortablybelievedforgenerations,anaristocracy,orinfactsomeformofdemocracy.Imyselfhavenonewargumentstoadd.Thetraditionalviewstillseemstomecorrect.ItistomymindthenaturalconclusiontodrawfromareadingofPolybius’text,andinawidercontextIfindtheargumentsofthosewhobelieveinoligarchymoreconvincingthanthoseofthechampionsofdemocracy.3HereIendeavourtoconcentrateonPolybius’ownclaimsandtheirplausibility—orlackofit.

Polybius’accountisfoundedontwoaxioms.(1)ThepeculiarcharacteroftheRomanconstitutionwasanimportant,indeedthemostimportant,factorintherestorationofRomanpoweraftertheHannibalicWar,theconquestof(p.248) SpainandGaul,andRome’seventualrisetoworlddominationafterthefinaldefeatofCarthage(3.2.6;3.118.9;6.2.9;39.8.7).4(2)Themixedconstitutionwasthebestformofconstitution(6.3.7).

Withreferencetothefirstofthesepropositions,aninnocentorcynicalobservermightsuspectthatthepragmatichistorianactuallyknewbetter.WhyelseshouldhedevoteamereeightpagesofBook6aswehaveittotheRomanconstitution,butthirtypagestotheRomanarmy?5ThatquestionconjuresupthepossibilitythatinfactPolybiuswroteaperhapsmuchlongeraccountoftheconstitution,nowlost.6Ihavenoopiniononthatmattereither,saveonlythatitisofnogreatimportancehere.EvenifPolybiusdidwritemore,hisfundamentalpointthattheRomanconstitutionwasthesupremeexampleofthemixedconstitutionisunlikelytohavebeenaffected,andthatisallthatmatters.7

ThusfarthenPolybius’twopreliminaryaxioms:theRomanconstitutionwasthemajorfactorinRome’srisetomasteryoftheuniverse;themixedconstitutionisthebestformofconstitution.WiththesepointsstatedhegoestogreatlengthstotrytodemonstratethattheRomanconstitutionwasthemostperfectexampleofthemixedconstitutioneverachieved.Thequestiontobeaskedisthereforesimplythis.WasthereintheRomanconstitutionasufficientdegreeofbalancebetweenthethreeelementsofmonarchy,aristocracy,anddemocracy(whichneednotofcoursemeananexactlyevenbalance)8tojustifyapplyingtoitthelabel‘mixedconstitution’?9Inpursuitofhisclaimthattherewas,PolybiussystematicallymisrepresentstheRomansystemwithadoctrinaireruthlessnesswhichisstrikingbutperhapsnotsurprising.ThisisafterallthemanwhodismissestheAthenianandThebanconstitutionsasunworthyofattentionbecausetheydonotconformtothepatternofdevelopmentthat,accordingtohim,allconstitutionsmustfollow(6.43.

Polybius’distortionsarealmostallofasinglebasicnature:theyaresinsofomission,whetheromissionsoffactoromissionsofthe(true)interpretationand/orsignificanceofstatedfacts.10Theseomissionsarenottheaccidentalconsequencesofcarelessness,ignorance,orinadequateresearch.Theyaredeliberate.Polybiusknewexactlywhathewasdoingandexactlywhyhewasdoingit.Hehimselfmakesnobonesaboutitwhenhepre-emptspossible(p.249) criticismbyRomanreaders(6.11.3–8).Theywill,heremarks,findhisaccountdefective,andsowillcarpaboutwhatheleavesoutinsteadofappreciatingwhathedoessay,assumingthathisomissionsaretheresultofignorance,notcalculation.Infacttheyshouldrealizethat,sinceeverythinghedoessayistrue,hisomissionsaredeliberate.11Thislastassertionisstrikinglyillogical,butthatneednotconcernus.AllthatmattersisthatPolybiusadmits,orratherboasts,thathisomissionsaredeliberate.

Polybius’earlieraccountofthevarioustypesofconstitutiondescribesthemixedconstitutionascombiningcharacteristicsdrawnfromkingship,aristocracy,anddemocracy(6.3.5–7),withtheSpartanconstitutionasdevisedbyLycurguscitedasanexample(6.3.8).Lycurgusconsciouslycombinedthemeritsandcharacteristicfeaturesofthebestconstitutions,sc.thethreeuncorruptedforms(6.10.6).Butwhereashereachedhisconclusionsbyratiocination,theRomanslearnedfrompracticalexperience(6.10.12–14).IntheRomanconstitutiontheelementsofthethreegoodconstitutionsweresowellblendedthateventheRomansthemselveswereunabletosaywithcertaintywhethertheirconstitutionwasaristocratic,democratic,ormonarchic:thepoweroftheconsulspointedtomonarchy,thatofthesenatetoaristocracy,thatofthemanytodemocracy(6.11.11–12).

Thecatalogueofthepowersoftheconsulsin6.12issaidtosuggestmonarchy(6.12.9).Theyintroduceforeignembassiestothesenate,submitquestionsforthesenatetodiscuss,andareresponsibleforputtingitsdecreesintopractice(6.12.2–4).12Similarly,theyareresponsibleforsummoningtheassemblies,introducinglegislativeproposals,andsupervisingtheexecutionofmajoritydecisions(6.12.4).Onthestrengthofthis,wemightsaythat,iftheconsulsaremonarchs,theyareconstitutionalmonarchs,withlessfreedomofactionthantheEuripideanDemophonorTheseus,andaveryfarcryfromAgamemnonorAlexander.13Onlyinthefieldistheirpowerclosetoabsolute(6.12.5–7).AndwhatPolybius,ofcourse,doesnotsayisthattheconsulswererestrictedbycollegiality14andtheirlimitedtermofoffice,andthat,oncethattermhadelapsed,theyhadtocoexistwiththeirfellow-senators,andinparticularwiththeirfellow-consularsfortherestoftheircareers,perhapsa(p.250) strongerdisincentivetoindependentorprovocativeactionwhileinofficethananyformaldefinitionofpowers.15

Thesenateexercisedanalmostcompletecontroloverdisbursementsfromthetreasury(6.13.1–3,cf.14.2)andovertheprincipalpracticalaspectsofRome’sdominationofItaly(6.13.4–5).Withoutinterferencefromthepeople,itmadearrangementsforanyembassiesthathadtobesentabroad,andreceivedandansweredallforeignenvoysto

Rome(6.13.6–7).Inshort,itwasmoreorlesssolelyresponsibleforfinanceandforeignaffairs.Intheserespects,saysPolybius,theconstitutionappearedaristocratic,especiallywhentheconsulswereabsentfromthecity(6.13.8–9).16

Sowhatpartisleftforthedemos(6.14.1)?Thereisone,andaveryweightyone.Thedemosisthesolesourceofhonourandpunishment,anditalonehascapitaljurisdiction(6.14.4–6).Itbestowsmagistraciesonthedeserving;itpassesorrejectslegislativeproposals;and,mostimportant,itdecidesissuesofpeaceandwar,acceptingorrefusingalliances,truces,andtreaties(6.14.9–11).Allthisissuggestiveofdemocracy(6.14.12).17Asstatedhere,perhapsitis,andofcoursenothingthatisstatedhereisfalse.Butunderthisrubricthelistofomissionsislongandgrave.18Whenwethinkofthetimocraticstructuringoftheassemblies,ofthefactthatassembliesmetonlywhensummonedbyaqualifiedmagistrateandcouldconsideronlytheproposalshebroughtbeforeit,whichtheycouldneitheramendnorevendebate,andoftheinstitutionofclientelaanditsconsequences,theimportanceofthisdemocraticelementrapidlybeginstodwindle.19Recentscholarshiphasrightlyprotestedagainsttheoncewidespreadbeliefthatclientelawasall-pervasiveandall-powerful.20Ithasalso,againrightly,insistedontheimportanceoftheinstitutionofthecontioandofcontionaloratory.21Butnoneofthisvouchsafestodemocracyalargersliceoftheconstitutionalcake.22

Thusfar,then,Polybiushasnotpresentedaveryconvincingportrayaloftheperfectmixedconstitution.23Hehasslightlyexaggeratedthepowersof(p.251) theconsulsinrelationtothesenate,givenarelativelyfairpictureofthedegreeofcontrolexercisedbythesenate,andseriouslymisrepresentedtheindependenceofthepopularassemblies.24Itishardlysurprisingthathefelttheneedtosayquitealotmoreontherelationshipsbetweenthethreeelementsoftheconstitution.Thethemeofthenextfourchaptersisthepossibilitiesforobstructionandco-operationaffordedbythesystem(6.15.1).Theultimateoutcomeoftheinvestigationisthatthethreeelementscoexistinallegedperfectharmony,sothatnobetterformofconstitutioncouldpossiblybefound(6.18.1).

Polybiusdealsfirstwiththeconsuls’needforthegoodwillofbothsenateandpeople(6.15.11).Thedependenceoftheconsulsonthesenateisveryreal.Despitetheirpowerinthefield,theirfreedomofactionascommanderscanbeparalysedifthesenatechoosestobeobstructivebyfailingtoprovidesupplies,uniforms,andpayforthelegions.Prorogationisinthesenate’sgiftand,whenthecampaignisover,sotooistheawardorrefusalofatriumph(6.15.4–8).Thepeopleisrelevantinonlytworespects(6.15.9–10).Itcontrols,asalreadyremarked,trucesandtreaties,and,attheendoftheirtermofoffice,theconsulsmustrendertheiraccountstoit.Ofthesetwoassertionsthelatterisfalse,oratbestseriouslymisleading.25Sothischapterreinforcestheimpressionthatthesenateenjoyedadominantposition,whilethecompetenceofthepeoplewasverylimited.

Thepeople’ssupposedcontroloverthesenateisequallyunimpressive.Thesenatecannotconductenquiriesifthesehavenotbeenauthorizedbythepeople(6.16.2),whilethepeoplecanpassorrejectlawsthataffectthepowersandprivilegesofthesenateitself(6.16.2–3).Thustheseinstancesofpopularsovereigntyarelimitedtospecialoccasions,andareinanycasemuchunderminedbythesocio-economicstructuringandprocedural

rulesofthepopularassemblies,aboutwhich,asalreadyobserved,Polybiussaysnothing.Hisonlyotherpointisthepowerofthetribunes,whomust,hesays,alwaysdowhatseemsgoodtothepeople(6.16.5).Whetherthatwasevertrueevenintheoryisdebatable,buttherecanbenodoubtthatevenatthetimeofCannae,letaloneinPolybius’ownday,itwasnottrueinpractice.26Fromthischaptertoo,thepredominanceofthesenateemergesasessentiallyuntrammelled.

Thenextchapterpurportstoshowtheothersideofthecoinbydemonstratingthatthepeopleneedsthesupportofthesenate.Buttheevidenceofferedisconcernedwiththesenate’scapacityforpositiveandnegativeinterferenceinthegrantingofpubliccontracts,andthefactthatjudgesareappointedfromthesenate(6.17.2–7).Hencenobodyrisksaconfrontationwiththesenate,justasmenareafraidtoprovoketheconsulsforfearofreprisalsoncampaign(6.17.(p.252) 8–9).Asisnotorious,allthishasnothingwhatevertodowiththepeople,butisconcernedwithrelationsbetweenthesenateandtheasyetembryonicequestrianorderinakindofpragmaticprototypeofconcordiaordinum.27

Itshouldthereforebynowbeclearthat,evenifweweretoconfineourattentiontowhatPolybiussays,hisattempttopresenttheRomansystemasamixedconstitutionisafailure.28Whenwealsoconsiderthevariouspointsheomits,thetruth—thatRomewasanoligarchycontrolledbythesenate—becomesevenplainer.Theomissionshaveacommonpurpose,totrytoconceal,oratleastminimize,thepredominanceofthesenateovermagistratesandpeople,andtherelativeinsignificanceofthepopularassemblies.29Inotherwords,Polybius’distortionsandomissionsalikeserveasingleend,togivesomesemblanceofplausibilitytotheclaimthattheRomanconstitutionwasmixed.

Theoverridingimportanceofthatobjectiveprovidestheanswertoaquestionthatmightarise:whydidPolybiusnotpraisetheRomansforthoseundemocraticfeaturesoftheirsystemwhichhechoosesinsteadtopassoverinsilence?Afterall,Polybiushadnoloveofdemocracy.Hisdefinitionoftruedemocracy(6.4.4–5)isrevealing.Itisnotwherethemassofthepeoplehastherighttodowhateveritlikes(adefiningcriterionofdemocracyinclassicalAthens),30butwheremajorityruleexistsinanenvironmentofpietytowardsthegods,respectforparentsandelders,andobediencetothelaws(allofwhich,beitsaid,arealsocoveredbydefiningcriteriaofdemocracyinclassicalAthens).31ThesamemindsetisapparentinhiscontemptuousdismissalsofAthensandThebes,wherethemobcontrolseverythingaccordingtoitswhim(6.44.9),andCarthage,whichbythetimeoftheHannibalicWarhadsofardeclinedthatthedemosenjoyedthegreatestpowerindeliberations,whereasatRomepolicywasdeterminednotbythemanybutbythebestmen(6.51.5,7).So,too,hisdefinitionofochlocracy,wherethedemosisnolongerwillingtoobeyauthorityandhaveanequalsharewithitsleaders,butwantstocontroleverythingitself(6.57.8).Whenthingsreachthatpass,theconstitutionmaycallitselfbythefairestofnames,freedomanddemocracy,butinfactitdeservestheworst,ochlocracy(6.57.9).

(p.253) PolybiusmustthenhaveapprovedwholeheartedlyofthosefeaturesoftheRomanconstitutionthatwerecalculatedtolimittheinitiativesofthepeopleandensurethecontinuingsupremacyofthebettermostclasses.Buttolistandpraisethemwould

haverenderedevenharderthealreadydifficulttaskhehadsethimselfoftryingtoshowthatRomeenjoyedamixedconstitution.Instead,hehadtorisktheirritationofhisRomanreaders,whoknewperfectlywellthattheylivedinanoligarchy,notamixedconstitution,andwerenodoubtjustlyproudoftheelaboratearrangementstheyhadmadetoensurethatitremainedso.

SowhydidPolybiusdoit?Theansweris,Ibelieve,verysimple.ItisderivedfromthetwoaxiomaticpropositionstowhichIalludedearlier.PolybiusbelievedthattheRomanconstitutionwasthebestconstitution,becauseithadenabledtheRomanstomakethemselvesmastersoftheuniverseindoublequicktime.Healsobelievedthatthemixedconstitutionwasthebestformofconstitution,becauseitcombinedthemostcommendablefeaturesofthethreetypesofconstitution.Itistemptingtothinkofthesetwobeliefsasrespectivelypracticalandtheoretical,butthatwould,Ithink,bemisleading,sincePolybius’reasonsforpreferringthemixedconstitutionwerethemselvesatleastinpartpractical:itpromotedinternalstabilityandexternalsecurity(6.18.2–6;contrast6.50onthedefectiveSpartanconstitution).Itmightthereforeperhapsbebettertodistinguishthemasspecificandgeneral.

Bethatasitmay,Polybiusthenfounditnecessarytoreconcilethesetwopropositions.Inotherwords,ifthemixedconstitutionwerethebestingeneraltermsandtheRomanconstitutionwerethebestintermsofspecificpoliticalandmilitaryachievementinagivenhistoricalcontext,thentheRomanconstitutionhadforPolybiustobenotmerelyanexamplebutthesupremeexampleofthemixedconstitution.32Hiscompulsiontotrytoprovethisis,asfarasIcansee,thesoleandsufficientexplanationofallthedistortionsandomissionsthatmakehisaccountoftheRomanconstitutionsobizarre,andthatisreallyallthatneedstobesaidaboutit.

Soletmesayjustalittlemore,aboutanaspectofPolybius’analysisthatIhavenotsofarmentioned.ThemajorproblemsthattheGreekshadencounteredintheirdealingswiththeRomansstemmedlargelyfromtheirverydifferentattitudestowrittenrules,especiallyinthematteroftreaties.TheGreekshadbecomeaccustomedtoelaboratetreatiesthatdefinedineverincreasingdetailtherightsandobligations,thepermissionsandprohibitions,thatboundthecontractingparties.33Sotheyhadcometobelievethatifatreatysaidyouwereallowedtodosomething,thatmeantyouwerefreetogo(p.254)aheadanddoit,and,morebalefullystillfortheirdealingswithRome,thatifatreatydidnotsayyouwerenotallowedtodosomething,youwerelikewisefreetogoaheadanddoit.ThestoryofGraeco-RomanrelationsisthestoryoftheGreekslearningthehardwaythatthatwasnotwhattheRomansmeantbytheonethingonwhichtheyinsisted,respectformaiestaspopuliRomani.34

NowoneofthemajoraimsofPolybius’workwasclearlytoexplaintheRomanstotheGreeks,tohelptheGreekstounderstandthesavagelyunfathomablemonsterthathadcomeoutofthewestandturnedtheirworldupsidedown,tomakeiteasierforthemtocopewithRomeinthefuture,andsavethemfromrepeatingthesamedisastrousmistakes.35YetinhisaccountoftheRomanconstitution,howevermuchhe

misrepresentstheirnature,purpose,andconsequences,whatPolybiusistalkingaboutisalmostexclusivelythewrittenrules.Inthat,heremainsessentiallyGreek.Heisofcourseawarethatotherfactorsexisted.Hemakesatokenreferencetohabitsandcustoms(6.11.4),anddiscussestheimportanceofreligion(6.56.6–11)andfuneralpractices(6.53–5,cf.52.10).36ButheneverallowsfullimportancetothefactthatatRome,inconstitutionalasinothermatters,whatwaswrittendownmatteredfarlessthanwhatwasnotwrittendownbutuniversallyunderstoodandaccepted.37Inthatregard,forallhislongresidenceatRome,hisacquaintancewithRomanluminaries,andhiscopiousresearches,perhapsevenhehadnotfullyplumbedthetruenatureofthebeast.

Notes:

(1)IamgratefultoBruceGibsonandJeffTatumfortheircommentsonadraftofthispaper,toAndrewErskineforsomehelpfulsuggestions,andtoallwhocontributedtothediscussionattheconference.Sourcereferenceswithoutauthor’snamearetoPolybius.

(2)Syme1939:144n.1.

(3)Infavourofdemocracy,cf.aboveallMillar2002a:110–42,165–6,alsoLintott1999:198–207,and,morecautiously,Tatum2009:214–28.Against,cf.e.g.North1990b:3–21;Hölkeskamp2004b:257–80.

(4)ThatisnottodenythatPolybiusdiscernedamoraldimensioninRome’ssurvivalinadversity,asforcefullyarguedbyEckstein1995:65–8.

(5)OntheimportanceofthissectiontotheoverallpurposeofBook6asawhole,cf.e.g.vonFritz1954:123,Walbank1998b:48,Champion2004a:92–4,Erskine,ch.12inthisvolume.

(6)Cf.Walbank,HCPi.635–6.

(7)That‘constitution’isanunsatisfactoryrenditionofpoliteiaisstressedbyErskineinthisvolume,pp.233–5.Butitwillserveforthepurposesofthispaper,provideditisrememberedthatthe‘constitution’wasbynomeanslimitedtolegallydefinedwrittenrules.

(8)DespitevonFritz1954:328,Pédech1964:306.

(9)Cf.Walbank1998b:49–51,refutingNicolet1983.

(10)OnPolybius’omissions,cf.ingeneralNicolet1974:219–22.

(11)Erskineinthisvolume(pp.235–6)justifiesPolybius’omissionsonthegroundthatmatterswhichdidnotcontributetoRome’ssuccessdidnotneedtobementioned.Thisistrue,butitwouldhavebeennotmerelyunnecessarybutdamagingforPolybiustomentionaspectsthatcalledintoquestionhisclaimthattheRomansenjoyedamixedconstitution.

(12)Polybiuscouldhaveputhiscasemorestronglyhere,sincehedoesnotmakeclearthatthepresidingconsulsettheagendaformeetingsofthesenate.(Thiswas,however,mitigatedbytheregularpracticeofincludingontheagendatheitemderepublica.)

(13)Cf.vonFritz1954:204–5,217,withtheconclusionthattherewasnotrulymonarchicelementintheRomanrepublic;Brunt1988:15–17;Mouritsen2001:6;Millar2002a:113–14.

(14)ThatPolybiuswaswellawareoftheproblemsofcollegialityisimpliedby3.87.7–8,wherehecontraststhepositionoftheconsulswiththatofadictator.Foraspecificexampleinhisnarrative,cf.3.70.1–8.

(15)Cf.vonFritz1954:218,Meier1966:49,Hölkeskamp2004b:265–8.

(16)Cf.Brunt1988:13–14andinparticularvonFritz1954:158onthestrangeimportanceofthepresenceorabsenceoftheconsulstothequestionofwhethertheconstitutionappearedtobeamonarchyoranaristocracy.

(17)Cf.Brunt1988:19–23,butnotealsoMeier1966:52–3.

(18)AsadmittedbyMillar2002a:138–42,withtheconclusionthatthecrowd‘symbolizedandrepresentedthesovereigntyofthepeople’;preciselyso:itdidnotexerciseit.Cf.alsoMouritsen2001:13–17.

(19)Cf.Walbank,HCPi.689–90on6.15.9–10;alsovonFritz1954:234–41,Finley1983:70–96,esp.84–96,North1990b:5,15onthedifferencesbetweenAthensandRome.

(20)Cf.Brunt1988:27–32,424–31;alsoYakobson1992ontheeffectsofcompetitionatelections.

(21)Cf.Brunt1988:45–9;Millar2002a:135–6;Hölkeskamp2004b:233–7;Morstein-Marx2004:4–12,119–59.

(22)Cf.North1990b:12–13,16–18;Hölkeskamp2004b:238–42;Morstein-Marx2004:12–32,160–203,257,283–7.

(23)Foramuchmorecharitableview,cf.Lintott1999:16–26.

(24)DespiteMillar2002a:115–24.

(25)Cf.Walbank,HCPi.689–90on6.15.9–10.

(26)Cf.vonFritz1954:160,330–2;Walbank,HCPi.691–2on6.16.4–5;contra:Nicolet1974:234–6.

(27)Cf.Walbank,HCPi.692–7on6.17;Brunt1988:25,388.

(28)Cf.vonFritz1954:345:‘apicturewhichbearsbutlittlerelationtoreality’,thoughhe

opts(218,342)foramixtureofoligarchyanddemocracy.

(29)VonFritz1954:159notesthatPolybiususesmuchweakerlanguagetodescribethepowersofthesenatethanhedoesofthoseoftheconsulsorpeople.Heoffersnoexplanation,butanobviousonewouldbethatPolybiuswasdeliberatelytryingtoplaydownthesenate’spredominance.

(30)Cf.e.g.Xen.Hell.7.1.12,26;Dem.20.120,148;Ps.-Dem.59.88.

(31)Forpiety,cf.Ar.Nub.1506–9;Ps.-Lys.6passim;Ps.-Dem.26.27,59.12,andofcoursethefateofSocrates.Forrespectforone’selders,cf.Ar.Plut.1044;Xen.Mem.1.2.9–10;Isoc.7.37;Ps.-Dem.25.24,66.Forobediencetothelaws,cf.Ar.Eccl.944–5;Xen.Hell.1.7.29;Pl.Crito50b;Isoc.4.39;Dem.21.150,24.5;Ps-Dem.26.10;Aeschin.1.179,3.169.Ingeneral,cf.themorefavourablejudgementofEckstein1995:140.

(32)Inotherwords,thesecondofthepossibilitiesadumbratedbyNorth1990b:8.Fortheoppositeview,cf.Pédech1964:316–17.

(33)ThemostobviousexamplescanbefoundinthesuccessiverenewalsoftheKing’sPeaceduringthefourthcentury,withtheirprogressivelymoreelaborateattemptstodefinethespecificcontentoffreedomandautonomy;cf.StaatsverträgeII242,265,269,270,282,285,292.

(34)Itshouldalwaysberememberedthattheliteralmeaningofmaiestasis‘greaterness’,afactthatgoesalongwaytowardsexplainingtheattitudeofRometotheoutsideworld.PolybiusandsomeotherGreekswereatleastawareoftheproblem,ashisnarrativeofhisowntimeshows;cf.inparticularthespeechofCallicratestothesenate(24.9.1–4)andtheconflictofprinciplebetweenAristaenusandPhilopoemen(24.11.4–8).

(35)Cf.Erskine,ch.12inthisvolume.

(36)Cf.Nicolet1974:216,Walbank1998b:46,Champion2004a:94–6,Erskineinthisvolume,pp.241,243.ItmustofcoursebeadmittedthatsomeatleastofthesematterswouldhavebeenmorefullydealtwithifBook6hadsurvivedcomplete.

(37)Cf.vonFritz1954:307onPolybius’failuretodistinguishbetweenlegalcompetencesandactualpowers;Meier1966:54–7;Brunt1988:13,51;Hölkeskamp2004b:247–53,276.

Polybius and Josephus on Rome1

PolybiusandJosephusonRome1

ErichS.Gruen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0014

AbstractandKeywords

PolybiusandJosephussharemorethanacontemptforarm-chairhistorianswithnoexperienceofeventsoroftopography.Parallelscanalsobedrawnbetweentheirpersonalcareers,whichincludedlengthystaysinRome,andtheirsenseofpowershiftingtowardsRome,withbothhistoriansusingthewordTyche(chanceorevendivinefate)inthiscontext.Thischaptersshowsthattheseconnectionsextendfurther:neitherwriterisanapologistforRome,andtheiremphasisremainsdisconcertinglyontheinevitabilityofRomanpower,notonthebenefitsthatitconferred.TheiranalysismoreoverextendstodiscussionofRomanfailingsandtransgressionsafterachievingdominion,andtherearelikewiseparallelsinthehintsofafutureendtoRome'sworldpower.

Keywords:Polybius,Rome,Judaea,Tyche,Romandecline,empire

ThegreatGreekhistorianPolybiussethighstandardsforhistoricalwriting.Hisscorn(or

atleastprofessedscorn)formostofhispredecessorswasdeep.Polybiusdeliveredsharpcriticismofarmchairhistorianswhositintheirstudies,collectandexaminedocuments,andwritewithauthorityaboutmattersofwhichtheylackallexperience.Thosewhohaveneverengagedpersonallyinpoliticsandwar,heasserted,havenobusinesswritinghistorybecausetheydon’tknowwhattheyaretalkingabout(12.25g.1–2,28a.7–10).

Josephus,theindispensablehistorianoftheJews,echoedthosesentiments.IntheopeningoftheJewishWar,hisfirstcomposition,heblaststhosehistorianswhohavewrittenonthesubjectbutdidnottakepartintheactions(1.1).Muchlater,inhisfinalwork,theContraApionem,hestillhammeredatthattheme.HerippedGreekhistorianswhowriteabouteventsinwhichtheyplayednorole.AndhereiteratedhiscontemptforthosewhopublishedaccountsoftheJewishWarbutneversetfootintheplacesaboutwhichtheywrote(1.45–6).ItisworthnotingthatJosephusattacksthosewhocriticizedhishistoryasifitwerenothingbutaschoolboyexerciseenteredinaprizecompetition(1.53).Thatappears,asmostscholarsrecognize,tobebasedonThucydides’famouscommentthathishistoryisapossessionforalltime,notaprizeessaycomposedforthemomentandthenforgotten(Thuc.1.22).Whatmanyhavefailedtonotice,however,isthatthisstatementalsocloselyresemblesapassageinPolybius,whomaintainsthatthepurposeofwritinghistoryisnottopublishacleveressaybuttodeliveralessonthatwillendurefortheindefinitefuture(3.31.12–13).

Theparallelsinthelives,careers,andattitudesofthesetwohistorians,infact,arequiteremarkable.Bothreachedpositionsofprominenceinthepoliticalandmilitaryspheresoftheirrespectivestates,Polybiusasaleader(p.256) oftheAchaeanLeague,amajorregionalpowerinGreece,andJosephusasmemberofadistinguishedfamilyandhimselfaJudaeangeneral.BothheldcriticalpostsintheirnationsatatimewhentheycameintoconflictwiththemightofRome.Polybiuswasamongthoseimplicatedinpurportedanti-RomanactivitiesduringtheThirdMacedonianWarandwassummarilyremovedtoRome,wherehelivedasasemi-hostageforclosetotwentyyears.JosephusservedascommanderofJewishforcesinGalileeduringthegreatJewishrebellion,surrenderedtotheRomans,wasreleased,and,likePolybius,landedinRome,wherehestayedformorethantwodecades.BothwrotethebulkoftheirworkinRome,underthepatronageofRome’smostpowerfulandinfluentialfigures,thehouseofAemiliusPaullusinthecaseofPolybius,theimperialfamilyinthecaseofJosephus.And,mostimportantly,eachwrotehistoriesdirected,atleastinlargepart,totheirfellow-countrymen,defeatedandcrushedbyRome,historiesthatsoughttoelucidateRomanbehaviourandexplainRomansuccessasalessontoGreeksandJews,respectively.

AcompellingmotiveinspiredPolybius’wholeenterprise:adesiretotracetheriseofRometoapositionofpre-eminencethroughwhichthecitybroughtthewholeMediterraneanworldunderitssway(1.2.7–8,1.3.7–10,3.1.4).Resistancetothisjuggernautcould—anddid—leadtodisaster.PolybiusrepeatedlybrandstheenemiesofRomeasirrational,irresponsible,andevenmad(2.21.2,5.102.1,7.2–7,8.24.10).ThatjudgementculminatesinhisbitterandfuriouscommentsaboutGreekleaderswhose

recklessactionspropelledhisownhomelandintoaninsaneconflictwithRome,theAchaeanWar,theupshotofwhichwastocastdestructionandcalamityuponGreece,apitiablefatethatthefollyoftheGreeksbroughtuponthemselves.2Allofthis,ofcourse,strikesfamiliarchordsforreadersofJosephus.TheJewishhistorianfastenedblameforthedisastrousJewishWarwithRomeuponheedlessleaders,afflictedwithirrationality,lunaticschemes,andunreasonablepassionthatamountedtoinsanity.3

Therashandheadlongdestructivenessascribedbybothauthorstotheirownfellow-citizensstemmed,sotheyargued,fromafailureofunderstanding—afailuretoseethattheRomanacquisitionofworldsupremacywasguidedbyaninvisiblehandthatledtoapredeterminedoutcome.Polybiuscharacterizedtheprocessasτύχη,anambiguousandtorturedterm.Thehistorianemploysitinmorethanonesenseinhishistory.Itoftencarriestheconnotationofchanceorrandomness,evenhappenstance.Atothertimes,itcomesclosertofateorprovidence.Polybiushadnorigorousconsistencyonthisscore.4Hedoes,onoccasion,evenconstruethewordasanalternativeor(p.257) paralleltothegods.5Mostsignificantly,herendersτύχηasaformofdivinefatethatguaranteedthesuccessofRomeinbringingtheentireworldunderasingleruleanddominion,somethingneverheretoforeaccomplished.6Thatstrikingphraseologyexpressedhisconsideredjudgementandthesummationofhisagenda.

ThesimilaritieswithJosephusherecannotbemissed.TheJewishhistorianalsoemploysthetermτύχηinthecontextoftransferringworlddominiontotheRomans.ThespeechsetinAgrippa’smouthtodissuadetheJewsfromtakinguparmsagainstRomemakesthepointmorethanonce.7HeretooGodandτύχηseemalmostinterchangeable.AgrippaassertsthatGodhasmovedtothesideofRome,therolethathehadalsoassignedtoτύχη.8Theoverlappingbetweentheconceptsmakesastrikingconjunction.InJosephus’formulation,τύχηadvancedtheaimsofVespasian,afeaturethattheRomanascribedtodivinepronoia(BJ4.622).WhenJosephusseekstojustifyhissurrender,heciteshisprayertoGodaffirmingthatthedivinewillaccordedwiththepassageofτύχηtotheRomans.9ThepointemergesmostforcefullyinJosephus’ownspeechoutsidethewallsofthecity,attheinstigationofTitus,urgingtheJewstoyieldtotheimperialpower.Thereisnouse,hesays,indefyingthemastersoftheuniverse:τύχηhaspassedfromeverywhereovertotheRomans,andGodwhohasbroughtimperialpowerfromnationtonationhasnowsetitinItaly.10

Thecorrespondencesbetweenthesetwohistoriansarenumerousandundeniable.JosephusalsocitesPolybiusthreetimesonothermatters.11HeplainlyknewandevidentlyreadtheworkoftheAchaeanhistorian.Thatisnowgenerallyacknowledgedandneednotbere-argued.12HowfarJosephus’ownattitudesandopinionsontherelationsofJewstothepowerofRomeowetheirformulationstothecloselycomparableviewsofPolybiusontheGreeks’experiencewithRomanmightandauthoritycanonlybeamatterofspeculation.Theissuerequiresnoinvestigationhere.Bothhistorians,inanycase,(p.258) writinginRomeinanalogouscircumstances,andanalysingthereasons(orabsenceofreasons)thatimpelledtheirnationstoclashwiththemastersoftheuniverseonlytosufferbalefulconsequences,reachedsimilarconclusions.Themarchofhistory,

whetheridentifiedwithτύχηorwithYahweh,nowsideswithRome,justifiesRome’striumphoverrecklessandself-destructiverebels,andproclaimsthehandofdestinyinRomanrule.ItbehovesGreekandJewaliketoswimwiththetideofthefuture.Allofthisiswidelyacknowledgedinthescholarship.

Yetthereisanotheraspectofthestorythathasreceivedlittleattention.PolybiusandJosephusarenomereapologistsforRomanpower.Theyrecognizethefollyofovertresistancetothegreatbehemoth.Andtheylamenttheirrationalexcessesoftheirownpeoplesthatbroughtcatastropheupontheirnations,alessontobelearned,andmistakesnevertoberepeated.ButthatisnotthesameaswelcomingtheruleofRomeandenjoyingthepeace,prosperity,andsecurityoflivingintheembraceoftheempire.NeitherPolybiusnorJosephuspraisesthebenefitsthatRomebroughttotheworld.Nothingintheirtextshailstheestablishmentofstability,theblessingsofcivilization,orthebenefactionsofRometothefar-flungregionsoftheworld.13ThepowerofRomeanditsinvincibility—notitsbenevolence—constitutetherecurringmotif.

Andonecangofurther.AcloserlookatthewritingsofPolybiusandJosephusshowsanotablenumberofcriticismsofRome,somesubtleandveiled,othersmoredirectandundisguised,thatgiveadifferentimpressionofthehistorians’outlookandanalysis.Theymightnotquitequalifyas‘speakingtruthtopower’.Buttheydosuggestaslylysubversiveandcautiouslycynicalperspectivethatputtheminacategoryverydifferentfromtheapologistsforempire.

Polybius,tobesure,admiredRomanprinciplesandRomaninstitutions.Asiswellknown,hegivesmuchcredittothestrengthandbalanceofRome’sconstitutionforitsimperialsuccess.14PolybiusreckonstheunbrokenexpansionofRomanterritoryintothewesternandeasternMediterraneanasafeatofincomparablemagnitude.15ButhisunderstandingofRomanbehaviourwasrudelyshakenbytheupheavalsofthelate150sandearly140sBC,culminatinginthesubjugationofhisnativeland.ThisshockinducedPolybiustoreconsiderhisperspectiveandtoattachawholenewportiontohishistory.HegivesashisreasonadesiretoassessthecharacterofRomanruleandtodeterminewhetheritmeritspraiseorblame.16Thatheshouldposesuchanissueatall(p.259) constitutesapowerfulstatement.ThehistorianhereinviteshisreaderstoconsidertheconsequencesanddesirabilityoftheentireRomanenterprise.Itwouldcertainlystopanyreadershort.Polybius’motivationherehasbeenthesubjectofmuchspeculationandcontroversy.Thisisnottheplacetosettlethatmatter.Thecomplexblendofmoralismandpragmatismdefiesaconfidentconclusion.ButtheideathatPolybiusconsideredRomansuccessassufficienttoestablishtheproprietyofempireandthathisfinalbooksrepresentedadefenceofRomanpolicyfallswellshortofpersuasion.SuchaverdictcannotadequatelyaccountfortheseriesofscornfulobservationsthatPolybiusdeliversinthosebooks.Thereismoregoingonhere.Thehistorian,mostprobably,soughttoleavehisreadersinnodoubtaboutthenatureofRomanbehaviour,thustowarnhiscountrymenbyimplicationagainstanyfurthersuicidalupheaval.17Onelooksinvainforanexplicitoverallevaluation.Perhapsitprovedtooproblematic—orhazardous.Butanotablemessagecomesthrough.Thehistorianindulgesinastrikingsequenceofremarksscattered

throughthelastbooksofhishistorythatshinealessthanflatteringlightuponRomanactions.

PolybiusrepeatedlydrawsattentiontoRomancynicismandself-interest,totheencouragementofservilityamongeasternprinces,todeliberateeffortstoundermineotherstates,todeviousdiplomacy,andtospeciouspretextsfortheinflictionofterror.Anumberofinstancescanillustratethepoint.TheRomansenatepromptedkingPrusiasofBithyniatoappearbeforetheminanoutfitnormallywornbymanumittedslavesandtogrovelbeforetheminhumiliatingandcontemptiblefashion(30.18).InthecaseofDalmatia,soPolybiusclaims,Romelackedanexcuseformakingwarbutinventedonefornootherreasonthantogiveitstroopssomeworktodo,lesttheybecometoolazyandidlefrominactivity(32.13.4–9).TokeeptheSeleucidrulersofSyriainline,aRomanenvoytookituponhimselftoburntheirwarships,hamstringtheirelephants,andgenerallydegradetheroyalpower(31.2.9–11).And,inaseriesofarbitrationdecisionsthatadjudicatedrivalclaimsbetweenCarthaginiansandNumidians,RomanarbitersalwaysdecidedagainsttheCarthaginians,accordingtoPolybius,notbecauseofthemeritsofthecasebutbecauseitwasintheinterestsofRome(31.21.5–6).Indeed,soPolybiusobserveselsewhere,theRomanshadlongsincedeterminedtomakewaronCarthage,andweresimplylookingforapretextthatmightappearjustifiableintheeyesofothers(36.2.1–4).AsPolybiusputsitmoregenerally,Romansadapttheirpolicyforcapitalizingonthefaultsofneighboursinordertoaugmenttheirowndominance(31.10.7).Andtheywereindignantifallaffairswerenotbroughttothemanddoneinaccordancewiththeirwishes(23.17.4).

(p.260) Thesepassagesconstitutearemarkableassemblageofcomments—andmuchofPolybius’textintheselastbooksismissing.Theremayhavebeenalotmoreofthesame.ItmisreadsPolybiustointerprettheseremarkssimplyasdetachedobservations,evenindeedasapositiveevaluationofRomanpragmatism.Theydonotamounttoamererecordofeventsbuttoaclearjudgement.18TheGreekhistorian,livingandwritinginRome,andacquaintedwithacircleofRomanaristocratsandintellectuals,deliveredasharpassessment.HedidnotshrinkfromexposingwhathesawasadulterationandimpairmentofRomancharacter.Romansofanearlierday,hestated,wouldnotcompromiseprincipleforcash—buthecouldnolongermakesuchaconfidentassertionaboutRomansofhisownday(18.34.6–18.35.2).Indeed,thearrivalofgreatwealthinthewakeofRome’smilitarytriumphoverPerseusdeeplyaffectedthedeportmentofRomanyouths.Theyindulgedinextravagantexpendituresand(inPolybius’view)disgracefulsexualadventures.19Expansionacrosstheseahaderodedsensitivitytomoralbehaviour.RomanshadonceconfiscatedworksofartfromSyracuse,atleastexhibitingsomeaestheticinterest;nowtheyusedpricelessCorinthianpaintingsasdiceboardsforthesportofsoldiers(9.10,39.2).Evenmoretelling,Polybiussetsthissombreevaluationatabroaderlevel,beyondtheparticularcaseofRome.Asheputsit,thestatethatattainsunchallengedempirewillenjoyprosperitybutyieldtoextravagance,itscitizensabsorbedinmutualrivalries;thestruggleforoffice,wealth,andboastfulostentationwillsignalthebeginningsofachangefortheworse(6.57.5–6).TheinstitutionsandcharacterofRome’scitizenryhadgainedthemanempire.Butoncethey

hadacquiredthatempire,theveryqualitiesthathadmadeitpossiblebegantounravelandwouldeventuallyplaceitinjeopardy.PolybiusstoodinaweoftheRomanachievement,butsuffereddisappointmentandexpresseddisillusionment.Thedarkerportraitcastsitsspell.

ThedarkerportraitlurksinJosephus’visionaswell.RuthlessnessandterrorappearagainandagainintheactionsofRomanmilitarymen.Nosurprisehere,onemightargue:warandthecrushingofrebellionnaturallycallforthsuchactions;Romanmilitarymentalityengenderedthem,andthehistoriansimplyrecordedthem.Onecanleaveasidesuchactionsasdemandedbytheexigenciesofbattleandtheferocityofconflict.ButRomanbehaviourofthissortwithregardtoJewsoccursrepeatedlyinJosephus’narrativeofeventswellbeforetheoutbreakofopenrebellion.Itappearsfromthestart,whenPompeycapturedtheTempleandhistroopsbutcheredJewishpriestsinthecourseof(p.261) pouringlibationsandconductingtheirrituals(BJ1.150;AJ14.66–7).AdecadelaterCrassusstrippedtheTempleofallitsgold,takingeverythingthatPompeyhadleft(BJ1.179;AJ14.105–9).Anothertenyearspassed,andCassiuswasintheeast,reducingJudaeancitiestoservitude,soJosephusputsit.20IntheupheavalsafterthedeathofHerod,in4BC,soldiersoftheRomanprocuratorSabinusburnedtheporticoesoftheTempleandplunderedthetreasury.WhateverremainedwassimplyconfiscatedbySabinus(BJ2.49–50;AJ17.261–4).OnceJudaeabecameaRomanprovince,Josephusdoesnothesitatetosetoutthetransgressionscommittedbyasequenceofgovernorsappointedbythecrown.OneneedstolookonlyathisaccountofPontiusPilate’sactionsunderTiberiusthatincludednotoriousprovocationsoftheJewsandthebeatingtodeathofJewishprotesters(BJ2.169–77;AJ18.55–62).InthereignofClaudius,theRomangovernorVentidiusCumanusquelledturmoilbykillingsubstantialnumbersofJews.21Hissuccessor,Felix,alsoengagedinwidespreadexecutionsofJewsandeven,accordingtoJosephus,engineeredthemurderofahighpriest.22

Worsewasstilltocome.JosephusdescribestheprocuratorAlbinus,anappointeeofNero,asonewhoomittednotasingleknownactofvillainy.23ButevenAlbinus’wickednesswasfarexceededbythatofhissuccessor,GessiusFlorus,who,Josephussays,madeAlbinusseembycomparisonamanofexemplaryvirtue.24ThereisnoneedtocataloguetheactsofiniquityandcriminalitythatJosephusascribestotheseRomanofficialsandthatledtotheoutbreakoftheGreatRevolt.TheJewishhistoriancertainlydidnotholdbackindetailingtheatrocitiesoftheRomanleadershipandthemilitary.ItistellingthatinhisVitaJosephusassertsthatJewstookuparmsagainstRomenotbychoicebutoutofnecessity(Vit.27).

Thisextendedtotheemperorsthemselves.JosephusisquicktorecitethefailingsoftheJulio-Claudianrulers.HeoutlinesthegrimandsuspiciouscharacterofTiberius,themurderousmegalomaniaofGaiusCaligula,andtheexcessesandcrueltyofNero.25Ofcourse,ineachofthesecases,JosephusmerelyfollowstheconsensusofRomanhistoriansandtheportraitsthatprevailedintheageoftheFlavians.ButitisnoteworthythathedwellsinconsiderabledetailontheaccessionofClaudius,followingthedeathofCaligula.JosephusprovidesagraphicpresentationofClaudius’panickedeffortstohidein

acloset,andtheneedofthePraetorianGuardtodraghim(p.262) outandthrusthimintopoweragainsthiswill,inpartthroughtheinterventionoftheJewishkingAgrippa.26ThenarrativeexposesnotonlythefearfulnessandspinelessnessofClaudiusbuttheimpotenceoftheRomansenate,theemptinessofaristocraticrhetoricinthefaceofthetroops,andtherawmilitarypowerandruthlessnessthatlayattheheartofRomanrule.JosephusdoesnotspareVespasian.Hecallsattentiontothefutureemperor’sruthlessness,theslaughterofcaptives,themercilesstreatmentofyoungandold,thedemolitionofvillagesandtowns,andtheenslavementofsurvivors.27

NordoesTitushimselfescapethestricturesofthehistorian.Josephus,soitisusuallyassumed,presentsarosyportraitofthemanwholedRomanforcesatthetimeofthedestructionoftheTemple.28Afterall,Titusbecamehispatronandprotector.AndJosephusnotoriouslystrainstoexculpateTitusfromthedastardlydeed:thecommandersoughttosparethecityanditsgreatshrine.IfJosephusbebelieved,theburningoftheTemplecameagainstTitus’wishesandmuchtohissorrow.29Whateverthecredibilityofthatjudgement,itdoesnotformpartofaconsistentlypositiveimageoftheRoman.JosephusmorethanoncecallsattentiontoatrocitiesorderedbyTitus—evenwhenheattemptstoofferexplanationsforthem.AftertakingaGalileancity,forinstance,Titusorderedthemassacreofeverymale,oldandyoung,inthattown,andthesaleofallwomenandchildrenintoslavery(BJ3.298–305).HeshowedequalunscrupulousnessatJotapata,whereheconductedwholesaleslaughter,evenhavingsoldiersshovehelplessdefendersdownasteepinclinewheretheywerecrushedinageneralmêlée(BJ3.329–31).HehadnoqualmsaboutthetortureandcrucifixionofJewishprisoners(BJ5.289,5.449–51).And,forrelaxation,afterthetakingofJerusalem,heenjoyedthespectaclesatCaesareaPhilippiandBeirutinwhichcaptivesinthethousandsweretornapartbywildbeasts,perishedthroughgladiatorialcombat,orwereconsumedbyflames(BJ7.23,7.37–9).30Allperhapsisfairinwar.ButtheseepisodeshardlypresentanedifyingpictureofTitus.Onecanpressthepointfurther.Josephus’presentationofTitus’generalshipimpliesmoresubtlythatthecommanderdidnotalwaysmatchRomanexpectationsoflookingtothesafetyofhismen,enforcingadequatediscipline,andexercisinggoodjudgement.31And,ifthedestructionoftheTempledidindeedoccuragainstTitus’wishes,thissurelyreflectsilluponthegeneral’sowncontrolofthatmostcriticalepisode,aninferencethatJosephus’readerscouldreadilydraw—withouthis(p.263) havingtospellitout.32Indeed,despitethelabouredexculpationofTitus,Josephuselsewhereacknowledgesthat,afterthefallofJerusalemandthefire,theRomancommanderorderedthedestructionofthecityanditsTemple—anotablesignaltohisreadership(BJ7.1;AJ20.250).

ThattheRomanempirewasadespoticentityemergeswithoutambiguityfromJosephus’work.HistextmakesthatpointmostconspicuouslyinthefamousspeechthatheputsintothemouthofAgrippainattemptingtodissuadetheJewsfromtakinguparmsagainstRome.AgrippaexpoundsatlengthupontheirresistibleandinvinciblemightofRomethatextendsoveralltheknownpeoplesoftheworldandagainstwhichnooppositionstandsachance.AnditistellingthatAgripparepeatedlyrepresentsthestatusofthosewhodwellunderRomansovereigntyas‘servitude’.Heemploysthetermsδουλεία,δουλεύειν,and

δου̑λοςagainandagaininthatspeech.33HecharacterizesRomanofficialsasunbearablyharsh.34AndhereferstotheRomansunabashedlyas‘despots’.35Reductionofthepeoplesoftheworldtotheconditionofslaveryisthemainmessage.ThebestthatAgrippacandoistoadvisetheJewstosubmittoitratherthanresistit(BJ2.361).ThathardlyconstitutesanadvertisementfortheblessingsofRomanrule.

Romanrule,however,mightnotendureforever.ThatprospectemergesinthepagesofbothPolybiusandJosephus.TheysuggestafuturewithoutRome—anotunwelcomefuture.PolybiusdrawsamemorableportraitsetintheimmediateaftermathofRome’sdestructionofCarthage.TheRomangeneralScipioAemilianus,whoheadedtheforcesthatdefeatedCarthageandordereditsannihilation,wasafriendandformerpupilofPolybius.AndthehistorianwaspresentasflamesroseoverthecityofCarthage.Scipio,sohetellsus,burstintotears,andthenexplainedthereasontoPolybius.HeweptbecausehecouldforeseeanotherconquerorsomedayissuingsimilarordersforthedestructionofRome—andpunctuatedtheprophecybyquotingHomericversesonthefateofTroy.ThesceneleftapotentimpactuponPolybius,whoredrafteditlaterinmovingfashionforhisreaders.36Themelancholycharacterofthispassageasareminderofthecapriciousnessoffortuneisnot(p.264) uncharacteristicofPolybius.37WhetherornotScipiomeanthiswordsasalugubriousreflectionuponRomanpolicy,Polybius’decisiontoreproducethemandthustoreaffirmthereversalsthatτύχηcanbringleftanominouscloudoverRomansuccess—asthehistorianclearlyintended.

AllusiontothefuturefateofRomeappearslessdramatically,butmostrevealingly,inJosephus’writingsaswell.HislengthybutselectiveparaphraseoftheBookofDanielcontainsasignificantpassage.DanielwasaskedtodecipherthedreamofNebuchadnezzarregardingthehugeimagemadeofvariousparts(gold,silver,bronze,iron,andamixtureofironandclay),thensmashedtobitsbyastonethatgrewtobeagreatmountainfillingtheearth(Dan.2:31–5).Theprophetinterpreteditasasequenceofkingdoms,thelastofwhichwouldbeshatteredbythekingdomofGodthatwillendureforever.38IntheperiodwhentheBookofDanielwascomposedorcompleted,inthe160sBC,thelastearthlykingdomcanonlyhavebeenthatoftheHellenisticmonarchies.But,byJosephus’day,thatkingdomwaswidelyunderstoodtobeRome.JosephushimselfassertsthatDanielhadpredictedthecomingoftheRomanempire(AJ10.276).InparaphrasingDaniel’sinterpretationofNebuchadnezzar’sdream,however,Josephusstopsshortofrecountinghisexplanationofthegreatstone,referringthereadertoDaniel’stextitself.39AnoutrightstatementaboutthekingdomofGodeventuallypulverizingtheRomanempiremighthavebeenimpolitic.ButJosephushadalreadysaidenoughforanyknowledgeablereader—atleastanyknowledgeableJewishreader.Hehadnoneedtobetooexplicitaboutit.Theeschatologicalfuturewasplainenough.Rome’sdemisehadalreadybeenpredestined,andJosephusmadeapointofcallingattentiontoit.40

Josephusdidnotlacksubtlety.InadditiontotheremarksonDanielintheAntiquities,JosephustwicemoremakesveiledallusionstotheeventualfateoftheRomanempire:oneinhisfirstwork,theJewishWar;andoneinhislast,theContraApionem.IntheWar

herecountshisownspeechtothebesiegedJews,urgingthemtosurrendertotheoverwhelmingforceofRomanmight.Thereisnopointinresistingthedespots,hesays,towhomallaresubject.41HeaddsfurtherthatτύχηhaspassedtotheRomansandthatGod,havinggrantedsupremeruletovariousnationsinturn,nowrestsinItaly.42The‘now’isnotable,andpossiblypregnantwithsignificance.TheideathatRometoowillhaveitsendisunexpressed,butlurksnottoofarbeneaththesurface.IntheContraApionemJosephusremarks,almostinpassing,thatonlyafewnations(p.265) havehadtheopportunitytogainempire(ἡγεμονία)andeventheyhavesufferedchangesinfortune(μεταβολαί)thatreducedthemagaintoservitude.43Hedoesnotelaborateonthis.Thatwouldhavebeensuperfluous.Theimplicationcouldhardlybemissed.

Inshort,PolybiusandJosephusdidindeedsharecommonground.NotonlyintheirlifeexperiencesasintellectualsandleadersoftheirnationswhowroteaboutthesubjugationofthosenationstoRome,whilebeingsponsoredandsubsidizedinthelandoftheconqueror,butalsointheircomplexandequivocaloutlookontherulingpower.TheyrespectedthesuccessofRomanimperialismandtheycastigatedthecalamitousfoolishnessofcontestingitsoverwhelmingmight.Atthesametime,however,theyexposed,inmorenuancedfashion,theoppressionanddespoticcharacteroftheconqueror,andcouldlookaheadtoatimewhenthatconquerorwouldmeetitsownfate.HowmanyRomanreaderswouldpickuponthesesubversivesentiments—orwouldcare—wecannotknow.ButacuteGreekreadersofPolybiuswouldunderstandandappreciate—aswouldthediscerningJewishaudiencesofJosephus.

Notes:

(1)Thegenerous(ifnotalwaysconcurring)commentsofJonathanPricehaveproducedanumberofimprovementsinthispaper.

(2)Plb.38.1.1–9,38.10.6–13,38.11.6–11,38.12.4–11,38.13.8,38.16.1–9,38.18.7–8.

(3)e.g.Jos.BJ2.346,2.395,2.412,5.364–5,5.376,5.406,6.378,6.409.

(4)Seee.g.Plb.1.2.2–4,18.28.5,29.21.3–5(ascapriciousfortune);36.17.2(inthesenseofchanceortheunexpected);15.20.4–6,38.7.11,38.8.8;39.8.1–2(inthesenseofwatchfulspiritwiththepowerofpunishment).ForPolybius’variedusagesofτύχη,seethecarefulstudiesofWalbank,HCPi.16–26;1972a:60–5;Pedech1964:331–54;and,morerecently,Sterling2000:138–9;Walbank2007:349–55.

(5)Plb.10.5.8,10.9.2:εἰςδὲτοὺςθεοὺςκαὶτὴντύχην.

(6)Plb.1.4.1–5,8.2.3–6,21.16.8:ἡτύχηπαρέδωκεναὐτοις̑τὴντη̑ςοἰκουμένηςἀρχὴνκαὶδυναστείαν.

(7)Jos.BJ2.360,2.373.

(8)Jos.BJ2.390;cf.2.360.

(9)Jos.BJ3.351–4:μετέβηδὲπρὸςῬωμαίουςἡτύχηπα̑σα.

(10)Jos.BJ5.367–8;5.412;esp.5.367:μεταβη̑ναιγὰρπρὸςαὐτοὺςπάντοθεντὴντύχην,καὶκατὰἔθνοςτὸνθεὸνἐμπεριάγοντατὴνἀρχὴννυ̑νἐπὶτη̑ςἸταλίαςεἰν̑αι;Vit.17.Cf.Price2005:116–17.

(11)Jos.AJ12.135–7,12.358–9;Ap.2.84;cf.AJ12.402.

(12)ThecasewasadumbratedbyCohen1982:366–81.AndthecompellingargumentsofEckstein1990:175–208puttheconnectionbeyonddoubt.SeenowalsoHadas-Lebel1999:159–65,Mader2000:40–3,46,52,Sterling2000:135–51,Walbank1995.

(13)SeeStern1987:74–8onJosephus,withregardtothispoint.Cf.Eckstein1990:203–4.

(14)Seee.g.Plb.6.11–18(ontheRomanconstitution);24.8.2–5,24.10.11–12,24.13.13(onRomancharacter).SeefurtherthechaptersofErskineandSeager,chs.12–13,inthisvolume.

(15)Plb.1.2.1–7,3.59.3,29.21.1–9.

(16)Plb.3.4.7:πότεραφευκτὴνἢτοὐναντίοναἱρετὴνεἰν̑αισυμβαίνειτὴνῬωμαίωνδυναστείαν…πότερονἐπαινετὴνκαὶζηλωτὴνἢψεκτὴνγεγονέναινομιστέοντὴνἀρχὴναὐτω̑ν.

(17)Cf.Gruen1976:74–5;1984:346–8,withadditionalbibliography.FortheviewthatPolybiusbecameaspokesmanfortheRomanpointofview,seeWalbank1965:2–11,1972a:166–81,1977:139–62.ThatinterpretationiscogentlycontestedbyShimron1979–80:94–117.

(18)TheideathatPolybius’analysiswasessentiallyhard-headed,realistic,andnon-judgementalgainsexpressioninseveralofWalbank’sworks;seepreviousnote.Petzold1969:53–64,however,rightlyrecognizedthemoralpostureofPolybiusinthelastbooks.Eckstein1995showsindetailthemoraldimensionthatinheresinmuchofPolybius’historyandtheintensityofhiscommitmenttoanevaluationofbehaviouronmoralgrounds;see,esp.96–117,225–36.

(19)Plb.31.25.2–7.

(20)Jos.BJ1.221–2:ἐξανδραποδισάμενος;AJ14.275.

(21)Jos.BJ2.236;AJ20.110–12,20.122.

(22)Jos.BJ2.260,2.270;AJ20.160–5,20.177.

(23)Jos.BJ2.272:οὐκἔστινδὲἥντινακακουργίαςἰδέανπαρέλειπεν.

(24)Jos.BJ2.277:ἀπέδειξενὁμετ'αὐτὸνἐλθὼνΓέσσιοςΦλω̑ροςἀγαθώτατονκατὰ

σύγκρισιν;AJ20.252–3.

(25)Tiberius:Jos.AJ18.168–78,18.225–6;Caligula:BJ2.184–203;AJ18.257–303,19.1–27,19.201–11;Nero:BJ2.250–1;AJ20.154.

(26)Jos.AJ19.212–73.

(27)Jos.BJ3.132–4,3.336–8,3.532–42,4.447–8.

(28)Seee.g.Yavetz1975:411–32,Paul1993:56–66.

(29)Jos.BJ1.28,5.334,6.124–8,6.214–43,6.254–66,7.112–13.Cf.alsotheoccasionalreferencetoTitus’pityforthevictimsofRomancruelty—whichhehadhimselfallowed;e.g.BJ5.449–51.

(30)Cf.Yavetz1975:415.

(31)SeeonthisthecogentcommentsofMcLaren2005:282–7.

(32)Cf.thediscussionofParente2005:61–9.

(33)Jos.BJ2.349,2.355–6,2.361,2.365,2.379.

(34)Jos.BJ2.352.

(35)Jos.BJ2.397:Ῥωμαίουςδεσπότας.

(36)Plb.38.21–2:ἀλλ'οἶκοἰδ̑'ὅπωςἐγὼδέδιακαὶπροορω̑μαιμήποτέτιςἄλλοςτου̑τοτὸπαράγγελμαδώσειπερὶτη̑ςἡμετέραςπατρίδος.Scipio’scitationofHomerappearsinDiodorus,32.24andAppian,Pun.132,notintheextantfragmentofPolybius.ButbothauthorsmakereferencetoPolybius’conversationwithScipio,andthereisnoreasontodoubtthattheyfounditinhistext;seeWalbankHCP,iii.722–5.AppianalsoascribestoScipioareferencetothesuccessionofworldempires,includingmostrecentlyMacedonia,allofwhichhadmettheirdoom,thuspresagingRome’sown.ItisnotaltogetherclearthatthisderivesfromPolybius.SeeMendels1981a:333–4.

(37)Cf.Eckstein1995:268–70.

(38)Dan.2:36–45.SeethecommentaryofCollins1993:165–71.

(39)Jos.AJ10.210:καὶπερὶτῶ̑νἀδήλωντίγενήσεταιβούλεσθαιμαθειν̑,σπουδασάτωτὸβιβλίονἀναγνω̑ναιτὸΔανιήλου.

(40)So,rightly,Mason1994:165–76,Spilsbury2003:10–17,2005:224–5.

(41)Jos.BJ5.366:δειν̑μέντοικαὶδεσπόταςἀδοξειν̑ταπεινοτέρους,οὐχοἱς̑ὑποχείριατὰπάντα.

(42)Jos.BJ5.367:τὴνἀρχὴννυ̑νἐπὶτη̑ςἸταλίας.Cf.Barclay2005:329–30.

(43)Jos.Ap.2.127:καὶτούτουςαἱμεταβολαὶπάλινἄλλοιςδουλεύεινὑπέζευξαν;Barclay2005:329,2007:235.

The Rise and Fall of the Boeotians: Polybius 20. 4–7 as a Literary Topos

TheRiseandFalloftheBoeotians:Polybius20.4–7asaLiteraryTopos

ChristelMüller

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0015

AbstractandKeywords

Polybius'accountofthehistoryofdecadenceinBoeotiainBook20hasoftenbeentakenatfacevalue,butshould,however,beseenasaliteraryconstruct,likelytohavebeenaddedtothenarrativeofthe190safter146BC,andwithlittlerelationtoanytangiblereality.Polybius'treatment,moreover,caststhepro-MacedoniantendenciesoftheThebansasareflectionofMedisminthefifthcentury,whilethegreedandrusticityascribedtoThebesdrawsonthetraditionofPindar's'Boeotianpig'.Boeotia'sdecadencemoreovercanbeseeninthelightofwidertrajectoriesofmoraldeclinewithinPolybius'narrative,includingthatofRome.ThedigressiononBoeotianfailingsisanimportantreminderoftheneedtoconsiderallpossibleintertextualities,notmerelythosethatlinkPolybiuswithearlierhistorianswhowerehissources.

Keywords:Polybius,Boeotia,decadence,Romandecline,Greekdecline,medism,intertextuality,Pindar

IntroductionM.Feyel’sworkonBoeotia,Polybeetl’histoiredeBéotieauIIIesiècleavantnotreère,publishedin1942,wasbasedaboveall,asitstitlesuggests,onananalysisofPolybius’work,andinparticularonthepartofBook201wheretheAchaeanhistorianoffershisreaderatableauofthesituationinBoeotiabetweenc.250and200BC.Book20,whichhassurvivedonlyinfragments,wasdevotedtothearrivalinGreeceofkingAntiochusIII.Thesectionsthatconcernusappearinthefirstyearofthe147thOlympiad,192/91BC,2attheverymomentwhenAntiochusreachesthegatesofThebesafterstayingatChalcis.Tosummarize,wecansaythatPolybiusoffers,inanespeciallyunfavourablelight,anaccountofaseriesofeventsfrom245BC(theBoeotarchyofAbaeocritus)to192(theallianceoftheBoeotianswithAntiochus).TheprimaryfunctionofthispassageinPolybius’accountisclear:tolookbacktoBoeotia’spastforanexplanationforsuchaninexplicableaction.3ThispassagefromBook20is,however,almostunique:fewGreekstatesinPolybiusaregivensuchacompleteanddetailedaccountoftheirdecadence.Moderncommentatorshaveneverreallyconsideredittotallytrustworthy,decadenceofcoursebeingarathersuspectconcept;butthishasnotstoppedthemfromtakingsomeelementsliterally,whilethinkingthatPolybiushassimply(p.268) exaggerated.Withsomedegreeofdistrust,commentatorshaveaccordinglyadoptedthispassageintheirownway,fittingitintotheirpreoccupationsconcerningtheperiod.Onlythechronologyofthisaccountofdecadencehasbeensubjecttodebate.

Acoupleofspecificexamplesareworthrevisiting.ThefirstisFeyel,who,althoughhemakesaneffortto‘control’(inhisterms)Polybius’viewpoint,failstoeliminatetheideaofdecadence.NotwantingtogivetoomuchcredittoPolybius’assessment,FeyeldatesthestartofBoeotia’sdeclineonlytothe220s,4andnotfrom245,whenAbaeocrituswasaleader.Butafter220hefallsinlinewiththePolybianideologyonwhichhisanalysisdepends,especiallyintermsofBoeotia’sinternalpolitics.Intheconclusiontohischapteronpoliticallife,FeyeloffersapessimisticviewofBoeotiabasedonPolybius.AtthesametimehedenouncesboththeinternalsituationinFranceandGermanyattheendofthe1930sandPhilipV,theMacedonianking,is‘acomplicatedsoulcapableofcruelty’who‘forthepleasureofinflictingharm’comesand‘destroysthesocialorderofhisneighbours’.Feyel’stargetisasmuchHitlerasitisPhilipV.5Thesecondexample,M.Rostovtzeff,isevenmoreofacaricature.6Forhim,thethemeofdecadenceevokesallthepoliticalproblemsofRussiaatthestartofthetwentiethcentury:heusesavocabularythatischaracteristicallyMarxistandbourgeoisatthesametime.OnefragmentofPolybiusthereforeshowshow‘theclassstrugglereachesitsculminationinBoeotiaatthistime.Themobruled.Theywererepresentedbygeneralswhosedecisionsweredeterminedbytheirdesiretopleasetheproletariat.’

Mypaperoffersacompletelydifferentangleonthispassagefromthoseofpreviouscommentators.Ishalldemonstratethatthepassage,insofarasitisadigressionondecadence,ismorealiteraryconstructthananythingelse.ItsdifferentelementscanbefoundinwhatIshallrefertoasthe‘verticalintertext’,namelythewholeofGreekliteraturebeforePolybius;andthe‘horizontalintertext’,orthe‘intratext’,7namelythetextofPolybius’Histories,(p.269) whichitselfofferskeystounderstanding,through

thereadingofsimilardigressions.Mythesisisasfollows:

(a)First,thatthepassageisnothingbutamotif,intherhetoricaloraestheticsenseoftheterm,aLeitmotiv,andisunderstoodbetterinnarrativeratherthanhistoricalterms.(b)Secondly,that,contrarytoPolybius’assertionontheimportationofGreekdecadenceintoRomeaftertheThirdMacedonianWar,thematrixonwhichtheLeitmotivisconstructedisRomanandnotGreek.

Mypaperwillconsiderthreeelements:thetext,thecontext,andtheintertext.Or,inmoreelaborateterms,aninternalcritiquetoshowthepassage’sincoherences,anexternalcritique,i.e.ahistoricalanalysistodemonstratetheinappropriateassessmentofferedbythepassage;andfinallyananalysisoftheintertextorthedifferentlayersoftheintertext.

InternalCritiqueandtheProblemsoftheText’sPositionintheNarrativeIfPolybius’aimisclear,toexplaintheabsurdbehaviouroftheBoeotians,thentheinclusionofthepassageinthenarrativetrainislessobvious.Feyelhadalreadyraisedthequestionswithoutbeingabletoofferananswer:‘whyhasPolybiusinsertedthislengthydispositionatthemomentwhenhedescribesthearrivalofAntiochusatThebes,aneventoflittleconsequenceforBoeotia,ashehimselfrecognizesattheendofthedigression(20.7),insteadofholdingitbackforthebookwherehehastonarratethecatastrophesof172orthoseof146?’8Infactthedigressionfindsnonaturalplaceeitherinthecourseoftheeventsorinthenarrative.Thedisjunctionisclearbetweenparagraphs3and4:PolybiusmakesnotransitionbetweenthesupportgivenbyAntiochustotheEpirotesandtheEleansandthedecadenceofBoeotia,thedescriptionofwhichbeginsabruptlywith‘TheBoeotians,alreadyforalongtime…’.Onecould,ofcourse,fallbackonthefragmentarynatureofBook20andsuggestthatthepassagehasnotsurvivedintact.However,theorderfollowedbyLivy,9whocondensesPolybius,showsthatnogapbetween20.3and20.4ispossible.Livy,interestedexclusivelyinthenarrative,passesoverPolybius’digressionwithoutanyacknowledgement.10Thesameobservationcanbemadeatthe(p.270) endofthepassage,wherethereturntothenarrativeisawkwardlysignalledbyaκαὶγάρ(20.7.5),which,contrarytoitsnormalsense,introducesneitheranexplanationnoranexample.11Ontheotherhand,thepassagecontainsatleasttwoallusionstoBoeotianeventsmentionedinotherbooks.FirstthereisthepunishmentinflictedbyFortuneonBoeotiaafter192,probablyin171whentheBoeotianConfederacywasdissolvedbytheRomans,ὑπὲρὧνἡμεις̑ἐντοις̑ἑξη̑ςποιησόμεθαμνήμην,‘towhichwewillreferlater’,asPolybiusunderlinesattheendofthepassage(20.7.2).CertainlyPolybiusisfollowinganestablishedplaninhiswritingoftheHistoryandknowswithoutdoubtinwhatorderheisestablishinghisnarrative.Butonemightalsohypothesizethathehasalreadywrittenthesectiontowhichherefersinanticipationandisdippingintotherhetorician’stoolboxsoastofixmorefirmlythedigressionintothenarrative.

Secondly,PolybiusplacestheargumentfoundinBook20againinBook22,statingthattheBoeotiancourtshadstoppedworkingforalmosttwenty-fiveyears,σχεδὸνεἴκοσικαὶ

πέντ’ἐτω̑ν(20.6.1and22.4.2),repeatingverbatimhisearliertext.Feyel,12likeallthecommentators,isembarrassedbythisrepetitionandthinksthatthesecondinstancewas‘thistimesincere’,whilegivinglittlecredittothefirst.Independentfromthecontentofthispassage,itshouldbenotedthatFeyel’sjudgementisbasedlargelyonthefactthatthesecondinstanceofthementionoftheBoeotianlawcourtsappearslessartificialthanthefirst.Inotherwords,itissuggestedthatPolybiuswasmerelyrepeatinginthefirstinstancehisownargumentwithmoreemphasis.

ExternalcritiqueortheanalysisofthehistoricalvalidityofthepassageWenowturntoconsiderthehistorical‘reality’ofthedecadencedescribedbyPolybius.Onceweremovethediplomatic/militarybasisofthenarrative,theconcreteelementsonwhichPolybiusconstructshisargumentaboutBoeotiandecadencearerevealedtobefewandfarbetween.Polybius’mainconcernhereismoraljudgementandtheonlypointonwhichanyargumentcanrestisindeedtheinterruptiontojudiciallifefortwenty-fiveyears.Forthisis(p.271) seeminglyonepieceofpreciseinformation,potentiallyverifiable,onwhichPolybiusstakeshisclaim.

Weshouldrememberthatthereturnofthisargumenttakesplaceintwopassageswhosedatesofreference,orterminusantequem,differ,onebeing192,theother188.Thisdifferencethereforepreventsanyattemptatcalculatingpreciselywhentheinterruptiontookplace.Togiveanexample,FeyelandWalbankagreeonthedateof188asthepointfromwhichthisretrospectivejudgementismade,andconsiderthatthetwenty-five-yearperioddatesbackto213,countingbackfromthePeaceofApameain188.ButthevaguecontextinwhichthisdeceptivelypreciseobservationisofferedbyPolybiusinBook20givestheimpressionthatthewholecenturyitselfisconcerned,asistherhetoricalaimoftheauthor.

Whateverthestartingdateofthetwenty-fiveyears,weneedtoidentifythebreakdowninjudiciallifeinordertoverifyPolybius’observationandsoconfrontothercontemporarysources,bothliteraryandepigraphic.AsFeyelhasalreadypointedout,13fortheHellenisticperiodwecanturntothelively,perhapssatirical,descriptionoftheBoeotiancitiesofferedbyHeraclidesCriticus—orCreticus.14InHeraclides’account,Thebes,andinparticularjudiciallifethere,functionswithsomedifficultyand‘trialslastmorethanthirtyyears’,αἱδίκαιπαρ’αὐτοις̑δι’ἐτῶ̑ντοὐλάχιστονεἰσάγονταιτριάκοντα.Thementionofapreciselengthoftime,andarathersimilaronetothatfoundinPolybius,demandssomecomparisonofthetwotexts.ThedifficultyisthattheHeraclidespassageposesjustasmanyproblemsasthatofPolybius.Heraclides’descriptionmayappeartoustobefirst-handimpressionandsotoofferaneffetderéel,butinfactitisinitselfonlyanassemblageofclichésandsketchesabouttheBoeotians.Nevertheless,itisthoughtthatPolybiushadbeenawareofHeraclides’descriptionandindeeddrewsomeinspirationfromit,aboveandbeyondanyquestionofGlaubwürdigkeit,asG.A.Lehmannmightsay.15However,asWalbankhasshown,16Heraclides’descriptionconcernsonlyThebes,whilePolybius’observationappliestothewholeofBoeotia.Infacttheinformationgivenbythetwowritersisnotthesame:forHeraclides,thethirtyyearsappliestothetrialsthemselveswhichdragonforever;while

forPolybiusitistheinterruptioninjudicialactivitywhichlastsfortwenty-fiveyears.InthiscasePolybiuswouldhavebeenseverelymisrepresentinghissource,oratleasthaveinjectedhisownchronologicalcalculationifhehadbeenfollowingHeraclides.

Thereisalsoaquestionaboutthedateofauthorship.TheworkofHeraclidesisusuallydatedtothethirdcentury.Feyelraisedsomedoubtaboutthe(p.272) dateofHeraclideswithoutbeingabletoofferanyprecisionapartfromlookingfordifficultiesinjudicialprocedureinThebes.17Inotherwords,PolybiusallowsustodateHeraclides,who,inturn,confirmsPolybius.Walbankwasrighttopointoutthecircularnatureofthisargument,18whichleadsusnowhere.AfinalpossibilityisthatbothPolybiusandHeraclidessharedacommonsourcewhomeachinterpretedinhisownway.This,however,willnotresolvetheproblem.

Forthehistorian,theonlywayoutofthisliterarydilemmaistoconsiderPolybiusalongsidetheepigraphicalevidence.ThisiswhatFeyelattemptedtodo,butmyowninterpretationdiffersfromhis.19FeyelseekstoshowhowPolybius’observationisvalidfrom220andnot245:hewantstohavehiscakeandeatit.ForFeyelisunabletoofferanyBoeotiantextthatindicatesthepresenceofforeignjudgesinthecitiesoftheBoeotianConfederacyattheendofthethirdcentury.Accordingtohim,thepresenceofsuchjudgeswouldtendtosuggestsomekindofparalysisinthelocalcourts.Allthetextsheofferscomefromparallelexampleselsewhere,suchasDelphiorcitiesinnorthernGreece.Infact,asPaulRoeschhasdemonstrated,noBoeotiandecreehonouringforeignjudgescanbefoundbeforethemiddleofthesecondcentury.Afterthispoint,atleastsixdecreesareknown.20Elsewhere,foreignjudgesappearattheendofthethirdcenturyoratthebeginningofthesecondcentury.IsthesituationinBoeotiapeculiartothisregion?RoescharguesthatalltheBoeotiandecreesforforeignjudgesdatefromafterthedissolutionoftheBoeotianConfederacy,in171BC,concludingthatthe‘institutionalframeworkoftheConfederacy…providedallnecessaryjurisdiction’forthecities.21After171theConfederacyceasedtoexistandwithitsdisappearancethisjuridicalinfrastructurewaslost.Atsomepoint,tocompensateforthisloss,Boeotiancitiesbegantoturntoforeignjudges.Insum,thecatastrophicimpressionofferedbyPolybiusisrelevantneitherto245norto220,norevento192nor188!Infact,itmaysimplyrepresentaninterpretation,perhapsnotatotallyobjectiveone,ofthesituationinBoeotiaduringthemiddleofthesecondcentury.Theclearlyanachronisticnatureofthepassageallowsustohighlightanimportantcontradiction:Polybius(20.7.1)hastoconcedethatduringthe(p.273) difficultperiodofthereignsofPhilipVandAntiochusIII‘inspiteoftheirconstitutionbeinginadeplorablestate,andbyIdonotknowwhatkindoffortune,theBoeotiansavoidedthecatastrophesthatcameaboutatthetimeofthewarsagainstPhilipandAntiochus’,τοιαύτηνδ’ἔχοντεςοἱΒοιωτοὶτὴνδιάθεσιντη̑ςπολιτείας,εὐτυχω̑ςπωςδιώλισθονκαὶτοὺςκατὰΦίλιππονκαὶτοὺςκατ’Ἀντίοχονκαιρούς.Theauthor’sembarrassmentismadeclearbytheuseoftheparticleπως.Thispassagemustthereforebeunderstoodintermsotherthanitsdescriptionofahistoricalreality.

PolybiusandtheintertextInowchangecompletelythetoneofmypaperinthis,thethird,sectiondealingwith

Polybiusandintertext.IfirstexplainwhatIunderstandbyintertextualityandespeciallythewayinwhichIamgoingtousethisheuristictool.

TheconceptofintertextualityhasbeenrevisitedrecentlyinrelationtoPolybiusinacolloquiumatLeuvenpublishedin2005asTheShadowofPolybius:IntertextualityasaResearchToolinGreekHistoriography.22Inthisvolume,researchintointertextualityislimitedtothosepassageswherethehistoriancitesandevaluateshispredecessorsinapolemicalframework.Hereweareanalysingtheintertextbywayofcitation,andmorepreciselyinwhatiscalledthe‘cover-textmethod’,the‘cover-text’beingthereceivingtext,textB.Ofcourse,thisishardlythefirstoccasiononwhichintertextualityhasbeenusedtoanalyseancienthistoriography.Itisnowaroundtwentyyearssincethisapproachhasenteredthemainstream:wemaythinkofSimonHornblower’sintroductiontothe1994volumeGreekHistoriography,23inwhichthecentralissueisthereceptionofearlierauthorsofGreekhistorybylaterones.24Somemaythinkthattherewasnoneedtowaitformodernliterarycriticismtobeinterestedinreception,andthatintertextualityamountstolittlemorethanjargon,inthesamewaythatMonsieurJourdainonedaymadethediscoverythathewasspeakinginprose.ButIdonotholdtothisviewfor,ifnonewtheoreticaltechniquesareappliedtohistoriography,wecanneverbeveryfarfromtheoldformofsourcecriticismwhichisalwaysmoreinterestedinthetextoforiginratherthanthereceivingtext,thereceptor;thistechniquegivespreferencetotextAratherthantextB,andconsidersthelatterlargelyinterms(p.274) offlawsintransmission.Intertextuality,ontheotherhand,offersusthechanceofconsideringtransformation,textBbeingnolesscreativethantextA.Infact,wecanconsiderintertextualityinamuchmoreopenway,asmodernliterarycriticismhasdonesincethetermwasdefinedbyJ.Kristevain1966andinthelightofsubsequentdevelopments.25Ofcourse,IthinkofG.Genette,26whose1982workPalimpsesteshastoalargeextentservedtocodifyourunderstandingoftheconceptandoffereda‘PeriodicTable’ofallthecategoriesthattheconceptcoversgoingbeyondapurelystructuralanalysisoftext.

ToadoptthisapproachrequiresustoconsiderPolybiusoutsideofhisgenre,outsideofthehistoriographicalstatusofthetext,andtoenvisagetheworkaspuretext,adifficultstepforthehistorianbutausefulone,especiallyifahistoricalsenseisaddedtowhatmightotherwisebepurelyformal.Theaimhereis,therefore,nottolimitanalysistoreceptionalone,ortoexternalorverticalintertextuality,buttoexplorewhatsomehavetermed‘intratextuality’.27Intratextualityisnotonlythesearchforpointsofcomparison,somethingthathasbeendoneforalongtime.Itplaysmoreontheideathatthetext,throughrepeatingideas,motifs,inlinguisticterms‘isotopies’,stopsbeingreferential(e.g.‘justiceinBoeotia’)butisitselfself-generating.Intratextualityofferskeystothetextthatarenolongeroutsidebutfoundwithin.Kaigar…SoletusreturntoPolybiusandBoeotiandecadence.ThefirstappearanceofκαχεξίαamongtheBoeotiansinBook20(20.4.1)comesinitsaberrantforeignpolicy.Polybius’visionofBoeotianforeignpolicyisonesuggestingapermanentdisaster.VictoryatLeuctra(20.4.2)wasakindofpositivemistake,largelytheresultoftheexceptionalpersonalityofitstwoleaders.28Thispeaksitsbetweentwolongtroughs,periodsofdegradationthatservetoechoeachotherinthenarrative.Hereonecanseethefirstinterventionofintertextuality,atoncebothinternal

andexternal.The‘Macedonianism’ofthethirdcentury,ifonecanforgivetheneologism,balancestheMedismofthefifthcentury;ThebansinPolybiusareonlyeverspokenofintermsoftheirbetrayal.29ItisnotPolybius’judgementthatisinterestinghere,whichiseasytodeconstructinhistoricalterms,justasEricPerrinhasdemonstratedconcerningPolybius’judgementofAthensbetween229and168.30RatherwehaveherethefirstmotifinthisembroideryoftheBoeotians;hereistheoriginalsinthatformspartofthehistoriographicalinheritance,theculturalbaggageofthesecondcentury,withouttherebeinganeedtosearch(p.275) fordirectallusionstopredecessors.PolybiusisincapableofinterpretingBoeotianpolicytowardsMacedoniawithoutreferringtothismotifofbetrayal.Thismotifproducesthesenseofthepassageandimposesontheauthorhisinterpretationofthethirdcentury.

ThereforePolybiusinBook6(6.43)hasaproblem.ForhedoesnotknowhowtotreattheThebanconstitution.Itshouldberememberedherethat,evenifitisnotalwaysthecase,theThebansinPolybiusareoftentheBoeotiansasawhole,andthatitisdifficulttosaywhethertheThebanconstitutioniscivicorfederal,justasEpaminondasandPelopidasareatthesametimeThebansandBoeotians.TheBoeotiansarenotaloneinthedifficultiestheirconstitutionpresentstoPolybius.Anotherconstitution,theAthenian,isalsodroppedbecauseitdoesnotfitinwiththecriteriathatPolybiushasestablishedforanacyclosis.WhenwefittheBoeotianconstitutionontoPolybius’scale,thenitisidentifiedasanochlocracywithoutanyhopeofawayout.ForPolybiushimselfsays(6.44.9),‘itisuselesstoturntotheinstitutionsofAthensandThebes,citiesinwhichtheimpulsesofthemobdriveeverything’.EachtimethatPolybiusreferstothebehaviouroftheBoeotians,itisintheseterms.Thisisaseverecaseofdenyingreality,sincePolybiusrefusestoconsiderhissubject(theThebanconstitution).Weseeherehowthedisconnectionbetweenthetextandthereferentworks.

Oursecondexampleofintertextuality:moraldecadenceproducedbypoliticaldecadence,and,tostartwith,theBoeotianpig(Βοιωτίαὑ̑ς).Thisisafascinatingdevice,amotifthatcanbetracedalongwaybackandthatisre-insertedintothePolybianconstruction.The‘Boeotianpig’isalinguisticisotopiethatcanbetracedthroughGreekliteraturefromPindarthroughatleasttoPlutarch.31ItisinPindar’ssixthOlympian(l.87–90)thatwefindtheappearanceofthisideathataBoeotiancanbeassimilatedtoapig,anotionthatPindaralreadyunderstandstobeanancientone.WethenfindthesatiricaltraditionsofAtheniancomedyinthefifthandfourthcenturieswhichcrystallizethetopos,asapassagefromAlexisdemonstrates.32Attheotherendofthischronologicalchain,Plutarch33referstotheBoeotians’ἀδηφαγία,theirgreed.WhatconcernsushereisnotsomuchthatPolybiususesamotiftypicallyvoicedbytheAthenians,whomhehates,buthowthisoperationtakesplace.Theoriginal‘Boeotianpig’containsatleasttworepresentations,asoutlinedbyPlutarch.Oneisofthecrassignoramus,thethickcountry-bumpkin,andthesecondishispathologicaladdictiontoeatinganddrinking,εὐωχίακαὶμέθη,anexpressionthatPolybiususestwiceinthe(p.276) passageinBook20.Polybiusfocusesinparticularonthesecondaspectbecausehecaninsertitintohisownparadigm:theassociationbetweendrunkennessandmoraldecline,individualorcollective,asalreadyshowninEckstein’swork.34

ThisparadigmallowsPolybiustoshowthattheBoeotiansarenottheonlyGreekstoexperiencedecadence.Amongthemostwell-developedparallels,Walbankhadalreadyisolatedtwootherexamplesofdeclinethatareparticularlysignificant:35thesavageryofthepeopleofCynaethainArcadia(4.21.2–12);andtheὀλιγανθρωπία(‘scarcityofpeople’)affectingGreece(36.17.5–10).IntheCynaethaepisode,supposedtobetakingplaceinthe220s,thecrucialwordis‘savagery’,ἀγριότηςforthenounandbetterstilltheverbἀποθηριόωinthepassive.Thissavageryleadsustotwofurtherpoints:theBoeotianpig,evenifitisusuallyadomesticanimal,representsbestiality,asdothosewhofallintoochlocracy(6.9.9,ἀποτεθηριωμένον,appliedtotheπλη̑θος).Theprocessofἀποθηρίωσιςisatypicalnarrativemotifthatbelongstotheparadigmofthebarbarian.36TheCynaetheanstoryconfirms,thoughinaninvertedmanner,thetoposofthecivilizingpowerofmusic.Thereasonwhytheyhavebecomesosavageis,incontrasttotherestoftheArcadians,thattheyhavenotpractisedmusic,aclichéonthesamescaleasthosethattheAthenianscreatedwithregardtotheBoeotians!ItisalsoworthnotingthatthedigressionontheCynaetheansisasbadlyinsertedintothenarrativeasthepassageontheBoeotians,thusshowingitsownparticularstatusinthestory:whiletheCynaetheansarethevictimsofAetolianbrutality,itistheCynaetheanswhoarepresentedassavageapparentlybecauseofanearlierepisode.

Nowtoὀλιγανθρωπία.Moraldeclineisoneofthereasonsforὀλιγανθρωπίαandthismotifisplayedoutdifferentlydependingoncontext.Boeotianswhodiechildlessdrinkawaytheirwealthwithoutleavinganinheritancetotheiragnatedescendants(20.6.5).InBook36(36.17.7),PolybiuschargestheGreekswithloveofmoney(φιλοχρημοσύνη),whichdistractsthemfrommarryingandfromhavingchildren(fromwhichresultsἀπαιδία,childlessness);instead,theyprefertospendtheirmoneyelsewhereortofritterawaytheirpatrimony.Hereisavariationonthesamethemethat,likefoodanddrink,leadsustothebody.Therewouldprobablybemuchtosayonthistheme,inhistoricalterms,echoingasitdoesAristotleontheconcentrationofwealthinSparta.Butfromapurelynarrativeperspective,wecanseeclearlyhowBoeotiandecadenceiswovenwithseveralthreads.

HeretheRomansentertheframe.Theyhaveclearlynotbeensparedfrommoraldecadence,asPolybiusexplainsinBook18(18.35)andespeciallyin(p.277) Book31(31.25.2–7),withtheinfluxofwealthinItalyfollowingthecollapseoftheMacedonianKingdom.PolybiusoffershereaportraitofhisfriendScipio,aeulogythatdisplaysScipio’svirtueinthemidstofwidespreaddepravity.ThesocialchangesthattakeplacebetweentheendofthelastMacedonianwarandthedestructionofCarthageareinterpretedbyPolybius,aneye-witnessofthe‘Romancrisis’37intermsthatareessentiallymoral.From‘musicalspectacles’totheabuseofbanquets,viacourtesansanddemagogicpractices,allstrandscometogethertopresentRomeafter167asasortofparagonofdecadence.ClaudeNicolet,followingPolybius’reasoningveryclosely,consideredthat,whenhedescribeddemagogicpracticesatRome,‘theimpressioncorrespondstoocloselytothedescriptionsofextremedemocracyinPolybius,forhimnottohavethoughtinparticularofGreekstates’.38However,itseemstomethatthemodel,whetheridealordecadentbuteverywhereimplicit,isthatofRepublicanRome.Itisamodelallthemoreimmediate

becausetheauthormakesittheobjectofhisHistoriesandbecausehehasbeeninpartaneye-witnessofit,whilesomeoftheexamplesof‘extremedemocracy’inGreecedatetothethirdcentury.ItistemptingtoseethenthatthisschemeunderliesthedescriptionthatPolybiusoffersofBoeotiandecadenceinBook20andcertainlyothercasesofGreekdecadence.AlltheknowningredientsofRomandeclinearefoundinBoeotia:anidealera—theBoeotiaofEpaminondas—isfollowedbyamiserableperiodinwhichpoliticaldecadence,thedemagogyofgenerals,interruptionofjudiciallifedoublesupwithaperversionofcustoms,‘goodfoodanddrunkenness’,mentionedontwooccasions.

Conclusion:PolybiusandthetheoryofdecadenceToconclude,threepoints.Intermsofitscomposition,thepassagefromBook20onBoeotiashowsallthesignsofhavingbeengraftedaposterioriontothecentraltheme,atadatethatobviouslywecannotknow,butwhichmaybeafter146.Thisiswhattheabsenceofinternallogic,theexternalcritique,andtheanalysisofthestructuralelementsofthedigressionindicate.ThissuggestionconformstowhatweknowabouthowPolybiuscomposedhiswork.AsPédechnotes,afterhisreturntoGreece,Polybiuswasnothappytoadda‘supplementtohisearlierwork;herevisesit;heenrichesitwithadditions’.39Amongthoseadditions,someareonly‘datedbyaprecisedetailandidentified(p.278)distinctlybyaremarkableunity’.Itisverylikelythatwith20.4–7wehaveanexampleofthiskind.Theinterruptionofjudiciallife,evenifPolybiusgiveshisownversionofit,isalsomucheasiertounderstandifthesituationtowhichherefersisthatofthemiddleofthesecondcentury.Next,decadence.IhavealreadymentionedthearticleinwhichWalbanksuggestedthat,‘asthehistorianofRome’srisetoworldpower,Polybiuswasnotparticularlyinterestedintheconceptofdecline’.40HefollowedthisobservationwithalistofpassagesthatrefertodeclineinGreece.Thisconclusionclearlyowesmuchtooptimism,theproductofWalbank’ssympathyforhissubject.ButinfactdecadenceiseverywhereintheHistories.Onecanevensee,asCraigeChampion41hasshown,howPolybiusdrewanevolvingcurveofit,inGreeceasinRome,inspiteofthefragmentarystateofthebookswhereitstracesarethemostobvious.

Finally,method.TheanalysisofthePolybiannarrative,takenbeyondtheframeworkofitsprecisegenre,allowsustorevealanumberofmotifs,oftenancientandtraversingtheboundariesofpreviousworksandfromwhichtheauthordrawstoproducevariations.SothePolybianintertextisnottobefoundonlyintheearlierhistorians,butinarangeoftexts,andeveninrepresentationsandculturalcodesthateitherprecedehimorarecontemporarywithhim.Polybiannarrativemustthereforebestudiedasanobjectinitself,andnotonlyasamarvellousreferentialcanvasthatallowsuspartiallytofillthe‘historiographichole’thatisthethirdcentury.InthissenseIecho,albeitonadifferentplane,theanalysispresentedbyCraigeChampion,forwhomPolybiusisafaitculturelinhimself,tousethetermonceemployedbyClairePréaux.42Thistypeofanalysisallowsustodeconstructthenarrative,toavoidgivingittoomuchcredit.AnditallowsustogofurtherthanamorestraightforwardstudyofPolybianprejudices.Itallowsustoshowhowthenarrativeisproduced,bywayofintratextuality,andwhatremainsofitonceonehaspatientlyunwoundthethreads.Thisiswhereweseehowtheuseoftopoinourishesthewritingofhistory.

Notes:

(1)Plb.20.4–7.Thispassagehasbeencommenteduponbyvariousscholars:Feyel1942;Cloché1952:240–9;Aymard1946(inareviewofFeyel1942);Roesch1965:112–21(onthefederalStrategos);Roussel1970,ad.loc.;Mendels1977:161–5(onPhilipVasdemagogue);Mendels1978:29–30(onAntiochusIIIasdemagogue);ÉtienneandKnoepfler1976:331–7(theentryofOpusintheBoeotianConfederacyandtheincidentatLarymna);Walbank,HCPiii.66–74;Roesch1982:404–11(justiceinBoeotiaandinparticularforeignjudges).

(2)ForthecountingbyOlympiads,cf.Walbank,HCPiii.56.

(3)Feyel1942:13–14.

(4)ThedateisnotsupportedbyAymard1946,whoconsidersthatthereisvirtuallynodifferencebetweenthesituationbeforeandafterwhatheregardsasafalsewatershed:onthegroundthattheinscriptionsofferfewtangibleindicationsofchange,Aymard1946:313arguesthat‘lecontrasteentrelesannéesquiprécèdentetcellesquisuivent220demeureinsuffisammentétabli.Bienplutôt,leschosesnedevaientpasallertrèsbrillammentavant220etellesn’ontpastournébrusquementàlacatastrophe’.SowhatinfluencedFeyelinhischoiceof220asthispivotaldate?IsitnotinfactPolybius’owntextthatsuggestedit?ForthisistheyearwhenBook3starts,thefirstrealyearofhisHistories:theprevioustwobooksserveinfactasprolegomenatotheworkasawhole(cf.Beck,ch.6inthisvolume).OnthebeginningoftheHistories,cf.Walbank1972a:16.

(5)ThesupposeddemagogicinterventionincentralGreecehasbeendismissedbyMendels1977:163:‘ItisratherdifficulttofindevidenceforanactivedemagogicroleplayedbyPhilipinBoeotia.’

(6)Rostovtzeff1941:611–12.

(7)Onintratextuality,seee.g.SharrockandMorales2000.Asageneralpoint,itisnotablethatconceptssuchasintertextualityarelesstheorizedontheGreeksidethanontheRomanone(seee.g.Riggsby2006onCaesar).TheopportunitytoraisetheseissueswasmissedbySchepensandBollansée2005(forwhichseebelow).

(8)Feyel1942:14n.1.

(9)Livy36.5–6.

(10)ThoughLivy36.6.2doescloselyechoPlb.20.4.1.

(11)Livy,almostcertainlyembarrassedbyhissource,wantedtopresentmorecontinuityinhisownaccount:aftertheEpirusepisode,herunsonwithsomeelegance,InBoeotiamipse(Antiochus)profectusest(36.6.1)andsumsup,infairlybrutalfashion,hisdiscussionofBoeotiandecadence,explainingitbythefactthatreuerapermultaiamsaeculapublicepriuatimquelabanteegregiaquondamdisciplinagentisetmultorumeostatu,quidiuturnusessesinemutationererumnonposset(36.6.2).Thislastsentenceis,

infact,avariationonPolybius’ownstatementτῃ̑δ’ἀληθείᾳκαχεκτου̑ντες(ἠ̑σαν)ταις̑ψυχαις̑διὰτὰςπροειρημέναςαἰτίας(20.7.4).

(12)Feyel1942:275.

(13)Feyel1942:275–6.

(14)GGM,258,§12–16.SeePfister1951:44and,morerecently,Arenz2006.

(15)Lehmann1967.

(16)Walbank,HCPiii.72.

(17)Feyel1942:276.Feyelendsbysuggesting‘unedatevoisinede180’(n.1),whichmeanswecannotseehowtheperiodthatPolybiushasinmindcanpossiblybe213–188.

(18)Walbank,HCPiii.72:‘ItmaybenotedthatmanyattemptstodateHeraclidesusetheconditionsdescribedinPolybiusasapointofreference;hencethedangerofcircularargument.’

(19)Feyel1942:276–7.

(20)Roesch1982:407–11.

(21)Ibid.407–8.Roeschofferssevenexamplesfromwhichweshouldinfactremovethetwodecreesof‘ThebesforthejudgesofOropus’thatwerepublishedlateronthebasisoftheRoescharchivesin1993.Gauthier1993hasdemonstratedthattheseinscriptionsnotonlybelongtooneinscriptionbutarealsopartofanEretriandecreehonouringOropianjudgeswhohavecometoThebestoruleonpendingtrialsbetweentheBoeotianandEuboeancitieswhoarelinkedbyasymbolon,i.e.ajudicialagreement.

(22)SchepensandBollansée2005.

(23)S.Hornblower1994:54–72,whoseentirechapteriscalled‘IntertextualityandtheGreekHistorians’.

(24)SeealsoWoodman1988,wheretheemphasisoninuentioandliteraryconventionsmightalsobefelttoencourageintertextualapproachestosetpieceslikedescriptionsofthefallofacityandthelike,orLaird1999foraninterestingtreatmentofbothintertextualityandhistoriography.

(25)Onthehistoryofthisidea,seetheexcellentintroductioninLimat-Letellier1998,esp.18–19and36–46.

(26)Genette1982.

(27)Limat-Letellier1998:26–7andn.18.

(28)Thispointisseenat20.4,butisparticularlyevidentearlierat6.43.

(29)Forexample,4.31and9.39.

(30)Perrin-Saminadayar1999:445–53.

(31)Foranearlycompletesurvey,seeGuillon1948,esp.79–92,inanexasperatedattempttorehabilitateBoeotianvalues:nevertheless,oneshouldrememberhisanalysisofHeracles,themythicalherowhohasbecomethetargetofmuchhumour.

(32)AlexisF239K-A.

(33)Mor.995e,Deesucarnium.

(34)Eckstein1995:285–9.

(35)InanarticledevotedtodeclineinPolybius,Walbank1980.

(36)Forthelinksbetweentheruleofthemobandbarbarism,cf.Champion2004a:89.

(37)ThetermusedbyPédech1973.

(38)Nicolet1974:214n.2.

(39)Pédech1964:563–4.

(40)Walbank1980:41.

(41)Champion2004a:144–69.

(42)Préaux1978:i.83:‘Polyben’estpasseulementpournousunhistorien.Ilestunfaitculturelensoi.’

Zeno of Rhodes and the Rhodian View of the Past1

ZenoofRhodesandtheRhodianViewofthePast1

Hans-UlrichWiemer

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0016

AbstractandKeywords

ThoughPolybiusisonoccasioncriticaloftheRhodianhistorianZeno,hisdetailedknowledgeofRhodianactivitiesinLycia,andherdealingswithPhilipVandAntiochusIII,andwithRome,pointstoPolybiusmakingsignificantuseofZeno'shistoricalwork.Diodorus'writingsonthelegendaryRhodianpastarealsolikelytoreflectZeno'streatmentofthisearlyperiod,especiallyinrelationtothecultofLindianAthena,reflectingtheimportanceoflocaltraditionsandmythsinmuchHellenistichistoriography.Diodorus'accountofDemetriusPoliorcetes'siegeofRhodesmaylikewiseusefullybereadasreflectingalivelyandpatrioticaccountofthesiegeinZeno,inkeepingwithPolybius'critiqueofZenoandAntisthenesashistorianswhoweretoopartialwhenwritingaboutRhodianhistory.

Keywords:Polybius,ZenoofRhodes,Rhodes,mythography,localhistory,LindianAthena,DiodorusSiculus,DemetriusPoliorcetes

HistoriographyintheHellenisticWorldIntheHellenisticworld,historiographywasonlyoneofthemeansbywhichimagesofthepastwerecreatedanddisseminated,anditwassurelynotthemostimportant.2Giventhatthegenerallevelofliteracywasrelativelylow,thecirculationofbooksonhistoricaltopicswasnecessarilyrestrictedtoasmallgroupofpeoplewhohadboththeleisureandtheeducationnecessarytoreadandappreciatedetailedandhighlystylizedaccountsofthepast.3Forordinarycitizensandtheirfamiliestherewereotherwaystolearnhowthepresenthadbeenshapedbytheeventsandfiguresofthepast.Theylistenedtostoriestoldwithintheirfamiliesandtohistoricalexamplesadducedbyspeakersinthepoliticalassemblies.4Butmoreformaleducationalsocontributed,despitethefactthathistoryasweunderstandthattermwasnotamongthesubjectsGreekpupilsweretaughtatschool.InHellenisticpoleis,asizeableifvaryingnumberoffuturecitizensreceivedinstructionandphysicaltraininginapublicinstitution,commonlyknownasephebeia,thatfamiliarizedfuturegenerationswiththetraditionsbelievedtobeoftimelessvalueandwiththesiteswhere(p.280) theirmemorywaslocated.5Andonmanyoccasionsthecitizensandtheirfamiliesassembledtocelebratefestivalsinhonourofthegodsthatprovidedaframeworkforcommemorativepracticesfocusedonwhatwasconsideredtobeoflastingimportanceforthecommunityasawhole.Thesefestivalsimpressedimagesofthepastonpeopledrawnfromallgroupsofthecitizenbody,andtheydiditwithanemotionalintensitythatsolitaryreadinghardlyeverachieves.6

Nevertheless,theperiodafterAlexanderundoubtedlywitnessedanenormousupsurgeinhistoriographicalactivitywhencomparedtothefifth,oreventhefourth,century.7ManyGreekcitiesnowhadtheirhistorywrittendownfortheveryfirsttimesincetheirfoundation.Thisrisinggenreofso-calledlocalhistoriographywascloselyconnectedtoanintensifiedconcernfordefiningcollectiveidentities,andforupholdingwhatwasregardedasthebasisoflivingtogetherinapolis:theheritageoftheforefathers.Competitionbetweencitieshad,ofcourse,alwaysbeenadrivingforceinGreekculture,butitgainedfurthermomentumwhenGreekcitiescametoformaculturalnetworkthatstretchedfromasfarwestasSicilytoasfareastasIranandAfghanistan.BeingacceptedasafullmemberofthiscommunitydependedonbeingabletodemonstrateGreekoriginsandarecordofservicesrenderedtofellow-Greeks.Fromthisresultedanendlessprocessofnegotiationbetweenthepowersinvolved,inwhichhistoriographyfulfilledaverypracticalfunction:toshowthattheclaimstostatusandprestigestakedbyone’sownpoliswerewellfounded.8

Inthischapter,Ishallexamineonlyonesmallaspectofthisvastsubject:therichandversatilehistoriographyofHellenisticRhodes.Inonewayoranother,thetitlesofmorethantwentyworksdealingwiththehistoryandantiquitiesofthisislandhavecomedowntous.9Noneoftheseworks,however,ispreserved(p.281) intheoriginal,andmanyaremeretitleswithnotevenasinglequotationorexcerptpreserved.Itismycontentionthat,despitethisdeplorablestateofpreservation,itisstillpossibletoreconstruct,atleastinoutline,oneofthesehistoriographicalworks—thatofZeno—andIshallarguethispropositioninthreesteps.First,IshalllookatwhatPolybiushastosayaboutZenoandsupplementthisinformationbywhatcanbeinferredfromportionsofPolybius’workthat

arelikelytoderivefromZeno.Secondly,IshallpresentandanalysetheaccountofRhodianprehistorythatwefindinDiodorusandthatcan,Ibelieve,confidentlyberegardedasgoingbacktoZeno,too.Thirdly,IshallturntotheaccountofthefamoussiegeofRhodosbythediadochDemetrius,alsotobefoundinDiodorus,toseewhetherthiscanhelpustogetamorecomplexpictureofZenoasawriterandahistorian.Finally,Iwillsummarizetheresultsandtrytoputthemintothebroadercontextoutlinedatthebeginning.

ZenoinPolybius:Rhodes,theHellenisticMonarchiesandRomePolybiusisnotusuallyundersuspicionforbeingovergenerouswithpraiseforthosewhopractisedhisart;onthecontrary,heisknownasasevereandsometimesunfaircriticoftheirrealorsupposedfaultsanderrors.10ItthereforeamountstohighpraisethathesinglesouttwoRhodians,ZenoandAntisthenes,asauthorsofhistoricalmonographsthatdeservedetailedexamination;infact,theyaretheonlywritersontheperiodthatPolybiushimselfdealtwithtobetreatedwithsuchrespect.BothZenoandAntistheneswere,accordingtoPolybius,contemporariesoftheeventstheydescribed;bothhadgainedthepracticalexperiencenecessaryfortheserioushistorianthroughactiveparticipationinpolitics;andbothwrotenotforthesakeofgainbuttowinfameandoutofpatrioticduty.Polybiusisatpains,however,towarnhisreadersthat,despitethesevirtues,theyshouldnotbebelievedwherevertheydifferfromhisownaccount;outofexcessivepartialityfortheirowncountrytheyhad,heasserts,drawnadistortedpictureofeventsinwhichtheRhodianswereinvolved.11

(p.282) IthaslongbeenrecognizedthatthiscritiqueisdirectedmainlyagainstZeno.12ThoughAntisthenesisincludedinthegeneralaccusationofRhodianbias,hevanishesfromsightquicklywhenPolybiusgoesintodetails.TheAchaeanhistoriographeradducesthreeexamplesfromZeno’sworkinordertodemonstratethatitwasinferiortohisown:thesea-battletheRhodianshadfoughtagainsttheMacedoniankingPhilipVin201attheislandofLade,theSpartankingNabis’expeditionagainstMessene,andthebattlebetweentheSeleucidkingAntiochusIIIandthegeneralsofPtolemyIVfoughtin198neartheshrineofPanatthespringsoftheRiverJordan.Zeno’saccountofthesea-battleofLadeisexaminedtosubstantiatethechargeofexcessivepartialityfortheRhodians.Thisfaultwasobvious,soPolybiusclaims,fromZeno’soverallaccount,butespeciallyfromaletterbythecommandingRhodianadmiralthatZenohimselfhadquoted.AccordingtoPolybius,thisletterinfactdisprovedratherthansupportedtheinterpretationthatZenohadputontheevents.13Zeno’saccountofNabis’expeditionagainstMesseneiscriticizedforbetrayingaseriouslackofgeographicalexpertise.14WhilePolybiusconcedesthaterrorsofthiskindadmitofsomeexplanationandexcuse,intheaccountofthebattleatthePaneionhefindsZenoguiltyofavicethat,inhisview,wassimplyunforgivable:beingmoreconcernedaboutstylethangettingone’sfactsright.AccordingtoPolybius,Zenowroteinthesensationalmannerofauthorsofdeclamatorypieces.15Thisverdict,however,clearlyhastobetakenwithapinchofsalt,asPolybiushadgoodreasontofearthatreadersmightpreferawell-writtenmonographoverhisownmulti-volume,dry,andpedanticaccountofRome’srisetoworldpower.16

FromPolybius’critique,ZenoemergesasanexperiencedpoliticianwhosetouttowritethehistoryofhisowncountrywithinaverywideframeworkthatencompassedeventsasfarawayfromRhodesasthePeloponneseinthewestandPalestineintheeast.HesawtheworldfromaRhodianperspective,andwaseagertoshowhiscountryinafavourablelight.Hedidnot,however,suppressRhodianfailuresentirelyorinventvictoriestheyhadneverwon.(p.283) FromPolybius’critiquewearealsoentitledtoinferthatZenodescribednavalwarfarewithexpertise,andthathemadeuseofRhodiandocumentstowhich,asaRhodianpolitician,hehadeasyaccess.17Andhewasclearlyanartfulwriter,whoseornatestylemettheexpectationsofareadingpublicversedinrhetoricalprose.

ButthereismoretobelearnedaboutZenofromtheremnantsofPolybius’history.Morethanahundredyearsago,HermannUllrich,inaLatindissertation,arguedconvincinglythatPolybiusmadeextensiveuseoftheRhodian’sworkindealingwitheventsintheeasternMediterraneanthatlayoutsidethereachofhispersonalexperience,andsincethenfurtherargumentshavebeenadducedtoconfirmthishypothesis.18ThatPolybiuswaspronetoputhistrustinZeno’sworkseemsaplausibleassumptionnotonlybecauseherankedZenoamongthebesthistoriographersofhisage.Zeno’spoliticaloutlookisalsolikelytohaveappealedtoPolybius.Since198atthelatest,RhodesandtheAchaeanLeaguehadadoptedverysimilarpoliciesandoftenco-operatedclosely.TheyhadfoughttogetheragainstPhilipV,againstNabis,andagainstAntiochusIII;lateron,theywerebothreluctanttofightPerseus.Whenin154/3theRhodiansneededhelpforthewaragainsttheCretanLeague,theyturnedtotheAchaeans.19

IfoneexaminescloselywhatispreservedofPolybiusandthosepartsofLivythatarederivedfromhim,onefindscleartracesofhisdependenceonaRhodiansourceofinformationthatwashistoriographicalincharacter.PassagesderivedfromitstandoutfortheirintimateknowledgeofRhodianaffairsandinstitutions,astrikinginclinationandabilitytorefertodocumentsthatwereavailableinRhodes(and,insomecases,onlythere),20adisproportionateinterestinthefortunesoftheRhodians,andablatanttendencytoglorifytheirsuccessesandtodownplayorexcusetheirfailures.Whenallthosecluesaretakentogether,itishardtoescapetheconclusionthatZenohasexertedastronginfluenceonPolybius’representationofsomemajorwarsofthelatethirdandearlysecondcenturies.Apartfromthefamousaccountoftheearthquakeof228/7,whichshowsRhodescourtedbyallthegreatpowersof(p.284) theHellenisticworld,21hisworkleftitsmarkinthefollowingpassages:(i)theeventsleadinguptothewaroftheRhodiansagainstPhilipVandthewaritself;22(ii)thewaratseaagainstAntiochusIII;23(iii)RhodianruleinLycia;24and(iv)therelationsbetweenRhodesandRomefromthetreatyofApameadowntothetreatywithRomestruckaftertheThirdMacedonianWar.25

ThesepassagesshowZenoasapatriotichistoriographerwhotoldtalesofRhodiangloryandhonour.HedepictedhiscompatriotsasthevictimsoftheunprovokedaggressionofPhilipV,asvaliantwarriorsandseamen,andasunselfishfightersforthewelfareandlibertyofalltheGreeks.ButhealsoneededtocometotermswiththedisastrousresultofRhodianforeignpolicyduringthewartheRomanshadwagedagainsttheMacedonian

kingPerseus.HavingactivelytriedtopreventthedefeatofPerseus,theRhodiansfelloutoffavourwiththeRomansenateassoonasthekingwasvanquished,inJuly168,andtheyfearedtheworst.Severalyearsoftrepidationandhumiliationfollowed.ManyRhodianembassieswenttoRome,beforethesenatein164finallydeignedtoofferthematreatyofalliance,albeitonunequalterms.RelationsbetweenRomeandRhodeswerethusaverysensitiveissuewhenZenowrote.Heofferedanapologiaforthesetraumaticevents,stressingthelonghistoryofRhodianneutralityandexcusingtheirwaveringstanceduringthewaragainstPerseusasthemachinationsofasmallpro-MacedoniancliquethatwasdulypunishedassoonastheRhodianscametotheirsenses.

ZenoinDiodorusI:RhodianhistorybeforetheTrojanWarWehavesofarcometoknowZenoasachroniclerofrecenteventsandasapoliticalhistoriandescribingwarsandfeuds,battlesandnegotiations.Thischoiceofsubject-matterclearlyendearedhimtoPolybius,forwhomtheaffairsofpeoples,cities,anddynastsformedthethemeofthemostinteresting(p.285) andmostusefulgenreofhistoricalwriting.26Therewas,however,anothersidetoZenotowhichPolybiusdoesnotevenallude.ThoughZenodescribedeventsofhisowntimeingreatdetailandwithanalmostecumenicalbreadthofvision,hisworkwasnotahistoryoftheworldastheGreeksconceivedit,butamonographcentredonRhodes.Likesomanyotherwritersoflocalhistories,hestartednotatsomedefinitepointintherecentpastbutsomewhereinthemistsoftime.EveniftheprecisestructureofZeno’shistoryisirrecoverable,27wecanbesurethathedealtwiththeverybeginningsofRhodianhistoryintheformofan‘archaeology’,anarrationaboutaprimevalworldsupposedtohaveexistedbeforetheTrojanWar.

IfwearestillabletoformarelativelyclearpictureofhowZenodepictedtheearliesthistoryofRhodes,weowethistoDiodorusSiculus,whoincludedanexcerptfromZeno’shistoryinhismonumentalcompendiumofworldhistory.28Butforthisexcerpt,ourknowledgeofhowHellenisticRhodiansconceivedtheverybeginningsoftheirhistorywouldbereducedtoafewtinyanddisjointedbitsofinformationpreservedinwritersoftheimperialperiod,andtowhatcanbeinferredfromthefamouslistofdedicationsandepiphaniesknownasthe‘LindianChronicle’,andpublishedasaninscriptionin99BC.Thisfascinatingtextis,however,entirelyfocusedonthehistoryofonesinglesanctuary,notontheislandasawhole.29Fortunately,Diodorusisawriter(p.286) whofollowshissourcesclosely.Tobesure,forhispurposeofwritingauniversalhistoryinfortybooksrangingfromthebeginningsofhumanlifeonearthtoJuliusCaesar,hehadtoreadwidely.Butincomposingeachoneofthesefortybooks,Diodorususuallystucktoasingleauthorityandtransformedthisnarrativeintohisown,uniformstyle,thoughheoftenskippedwholepassagesthathethoughtwerenotsufficientlyinterestingtobeincluded,andfromtimetotimesupplementedhismainauthoritybymaterialdrawnfromasecondarysource.30NowZenoistheonlyauthorityonRhodianhistorythatDiodorussinglesoutbyname(Diod.5.56.7).Wecan,therefore,bequiteconfidentthatwhatDiodoruswritesaboutRhodianoriginsisafaithfulmirrorofhowZenonarratedthebeginningsofRhodianhistory.31InwhatfollowsIshallsummarizehisaccount,tryingtobringouthowitrelatestoothersourcesandmediaofcollectivememory.

Zeno’sstoryopenedinaverydistantpastindeed,inatimewhentheislandwasnotyetinhabitedbyhumanbeingsandwasnotyetcalledRhodeseither;eventheOlympiangodshadyettobeborn.HiselaborateaccountofRhodianoriginsshowedastrikingcontrastwiththemuchsimplergenealogyusedbyPindarinhisfamousodeontheRhodianaristocratDiagoras.32AccordingtoZenotheislandofRhodeshadalreadyexperiencedfoursuccessiveagesbeforetheTrojanWarevenstarted:firstcametheAgeoftheso-calledTelchines,childrenofThalatta;secondlytheAgeoftheHeliadae,childrenofthesun-godHelios;thirdlytheAgeoftheArchegetae,thefoundersofthethreeoldcitiesontheislandofRhodes:Ialysus,Camirus,andLindus;andfourthlyandlast,theAgeoftheHeroes,stretchingdowntotheTrojanWar.

FortheTelchines,Zenowasfollowingatraditionthathehimselfcalledlegendary.33Althoughconceivedofasakindofdemon,theywereatthesame(p.287)

Fig.1. Period1:TheAgeoftheTelchines

(p.288) timeregardedasculturalheroeswhohaddiscoveredcertainartsandmadeinventionsusefultomankind.34Inparticular,theTelchineshadbeenthefirsttocraftstatuesofthegods.Thiswasthereasonwhy,Zenoexplained,inallthreeoldcitiesofRhodescertainstatuesofgodswerestillcalledafterthem.35InZeno’saccount,thenymphRhodos—knowntoeveryRhodianfromdepictionsonlocalbronzecoins36—wasnotadaughterofAphrodite,asPindar(Ol.7.13)hadasserted,butoneofthesevenchildrenPoseidonhadfromHalia,asisteroftheTelchines.Hersixbrothers,bycontrast,wererathersinisterfigures:whentheyrapedtheirownmother,Poseidonhadnochoicebuttoburyhiswaywardsonsbeneaththeearth.Thesignificanceofthisstoryforunderstandingthepresentwasagainspelledoutexplicitly:thesonsofPoseidonhadaftertheirburialbeencalled‘EasternDemons’,andtheirmother,Halia,wasreveredasLeucotheabecauseaftertherapeshehadleaptintotheseaoutofshame.37

TheAgeoftheTelchineswasterminatedbyagreatflood.TheTelchines,though,hadlefttheislandinadvanceandwerescattered:oneofthem,namedLycus,wenttoLyciaonthesoutherncoastofAsiaMinor,wherehededicatedatempleofApollo.38Mostoftheinhabitants,however,perishedinthedisaster,withonlythesonsofZeusfindingrescueintheupperregionsoftheisland.Thisisthelastwehearofthesemysteriousbeings;Zenoobviouslyfeltboundtomentionthem,butfoundnosatisfactorywayofintegratingtheminhisoverallscheme.39Theaccountofthenextage,thatoftheHeliadae,openedwithadiscussionabouthowtheislandbecameinhabitableagain.HereagainZeno

showedhimselftobearationalist:inhisopinion,thestorythatHelios,havingfalleninlovewiththenymphRhodos,hadpersonallycausedthewatertodisappearwasmerelyalegend.Hepreferredanaturalexplanation:thesunhadquitesimplydriedtheearthfromitswetnessandtherebycausedlivingcreaturestospringup.40

Despitethisreservation,however,Zenodidnotcallintodoubttheexistenceofthose‘sonsofthesun’celebratedbyPindar,andheevengavethemasister(p.289)

Fig.2. Period2:TheAgeoftheHeliadae(sonsof‘Helios’)

(p.290) thatwasunknowntothepoet:Alectrona.ZenoaffirmedthattheislandhadinconsequenceoftheseeventscometobeconsideredsacredtoHelios,andthattheRhodiansoflatertimeshadperseveredinhonouringHeliosmorethananyothergod,regardinghimastheancestorfromwhomtheyultimatelydescended;41healsomentionedthatAlectronawastherecipientofaheroiccultwhichhappenstobeattestedepigraphically,too.42Alectrona,however,wasofminorimportancewhencomparedtoHelios,whoseportraitadornedthecity’ssilvercoins.43ThemostmagnificentfestivalofHellenisticRhodeswascelebratedinhishonour,44andhispriesthoodwasmoreprestigiousthananyotherintheRhodianstate.45Theneedtohavehiscultanchoredintheverydistantpastwasthereforefeltverystrongly—notwithstandingthefactthatitcannothavebeenofpan-Rhodiansignificancebeforethesynoecismof407/8.

ToexplainthefirelesssacrificesofferedtoAthenaLindia—whosesanctuarywasoneofthegloriesofHellenisticRhodes46—ZenorefinedastorythatinoutlinewasalreadyfamiliarfromPindar(Ol.7.39–51).InPindar,theHeliadaesimplyforgettobringfirewhentheyclimbuptheacropolistooffersacrifice.InZeno,thestoryismorecomplexandmoredramatic.Accordingtohim,HeliosstagedacontestbetweentheinhabitantsofRhodosandthoseofAttica,promisingtograntthecontinualpresenceofAthenatowhoeverwouldbethefirsttooffersacrificetothegoddess.Hissons,theHeliadae,performedthesacrificeonthespot,butintheirhasteforgottoputfirebeneaththevictims.TheAtheniankingCecrops,ontheotherhand,performedthesacrificeoverfire,aswasusualintheGreekworld,butlaterthanhisRhodianrivals.47OnceagainZenodidnotleaveittohisreaderstodrawtheconclusions,obviousthoughtheywere:hecommentedthatthisstoryexplainedbothwhytheRhodians(inLindus)tohisdaysacrificedtoAthenainthispeculiarway,andhowthegoddesshadcometotakeherabodeontheisland.TheLindiancultofAthenawasthusshowntobeolderthanany

otherinthewholeGreekworld,andthusmorevenerableeventhanthecultofAthenahousedintheErechtheumontheacropolisofAthens.

NotonlyweretheHeliadaethefirsttooffersacrificetoAthena;accordingtoZeno,theyalsosurpassedallothermeninlearning,andespeciallyinastrology.(p.291) Theyintroducedmanyimprovementsinseamanshipandestablishedthedivisionofthedayintohours.ZenothusextendedtheclaimofRhodianprioritytofieldsofknowledgethatmanyGreeksregardedasadoptedfromEgypt.48ZenoevenwentsofarastoclaimthattheEgyptians—farfromhavingtaughtthelawsofastrologytotheGreeks—hadthemselveslearnedthemfromRhodians.Tobuttressthisclaim,heenlargedonastorywhichhadseveralsonsofHeliosfleeingtheislandaftertheyhadslaintheirbrotherTenages:oneofthemurdererssailedofftoEgypt,wherehefoundedthecityofHeliopolis,thecityofthesun,andtaughtastrologytoEgyptians.IftheGreekshadlostallmemoryofthisRhodianachievement,Zenocontended,itwasbecauseadisastrousfloodamongGreekshaddestroyedalldocumentsthatcouldhavefurnishedproofofthepriorityofRhodianastrology,andhadevenextinguishedtheartofwritingfromtheGreekworldentirely.SincethistheorypresupposedtheuseofwritingbyGreekslongbeforetheTrojanWar,hewentonimmediatelytodemonstratethatthewidespreadbeliefinthePhoenicianoriginsofGreekscriptwasalsomistaken.Zenoalsocameupwithanexplanationastohowthismisconception,sharedbymanyGreekauthorsfromHerodotusonwards,49couldhavetakenrootamongtheGreeksthemselves:bythetimeCadmusbroughtthePhoenicianalphabettoGreece,allmemoryoftheearlierGreekscripthadvanishedcompletelyasaresultoftheflood.50

WhilefouroftheHeliadaefledRhodesafterthemurderoftheirbrotherTenages,51two,whohadnottakenpartinthecrime,CercaphusandOchimus,stayedontheislandandtogetherfoundedthecityofAchaïa,whichconfusinglywasalsocalledCyrbe.AlthoughDiodorus’excerptisatthispointsocondensedastobealmostincomprehensible,52thereislittledoubtthatZeno(p.292)

Fig.3. Period3:TheAgeoftheArchegetae(‘Founders’)

(p.293) regardedthisfirstcitytobefoundedonRhodiansoilasaforerunnerofIalysus,theacropolisofwhichwascalledAchaïainhisowntime.53ThecityofAchaïadidnot,however,surviveforverylong.Itsfirstking,Ochimus,wassucceededbyhis

brotherCercaphus,whointurnhadthreesons,Ialysus,Camirus,andLindus.TheywerelatertobecomethefoundersofthehomonymouscitiesonRhodesafteraseconddelugehadsubmergedthecitytheirfatherhadruled.Thiswas,accordingtoZeno,theendoftheAgeoftheHeliadae.54

TheAgeoftheArchegetaesawthefoundationofthreeoldcitiesofRhodes.55AlthoughtheireponymousfoundersarebarelymentionedinDiodorus’excerpt,theydemonstrablyheldaprominentplaceinthecollectivememoryofHellenisticRhodians.NotonlywereCamirus,Ialysus,andLindusamongthedeitiestowhomtheassemblyofRhodiancitizensprayedwhensolemnlyratifyingtreaties,56buteachofthethreereceivedcultichonoursinthecityhewassupposedtohavefounded.57InthisperiodZenoplacedtwofurtherepisodesrelatingtotheoriginsofRhodiansanctuaries.BycreditingtheEgyptianDanauswiththefoundationofboththetempleandthestatueofLindianAthena,heclearlyplacedpanhellenicknowledgeabovelocaltradition,eventhoughthelatter,too,hadbyhistimepresumablybeentransformedintoliterature,albeitofanantiquariancharacter.58ReadersofHerodotusknewthatAthena’stempleinLindushadbeenfoundedbyDanaus’daughters,andconnoisseursofpoetryprobablyrememberedthatCallimachushadascribedherwoodencultimagetoDanaushimself.59Zeno,however,wentforaversion(p.294) inwhichDanaus—miraculouslydriventoRhodesbyastormatsea—alonegetscreditforbothachievements.60ThisversioncannotreflectwhattheLindiansthemselvesconsideredtobethetrueoriginsoftheirsanctuary,becauseDanausisnevermentionedinthenumerousinscriptionspreservedfromthissanctuaryoratleastinthe‘LindianChronicle’.Zeno’spreferenceforinformationvouchedforbyliterarysourceswithawidercirculationalsoexplainshisinclusionofadedicationtoLindianAthenasupposedlymadebythePhoenicianCadmus,sincethedetaileddescriptionZenogivesisinallprobabilitydrawnfromawrittensource;itdemonstrablyfeaturedinotherworksofRhodianhistoriographyalso,butisveryunlikelytohavebeenondisplayinHellenisticLindus.61

ButCadmus’primaryfunctioninZeno’saccountwastoactasfounderofthetempleofPoseidoninIalysus.Inthiscase,Zenoclearlyfollowedlocaltradition,ashehimselfiseagertoemphasizethatthepriestswhoservedthissanctuaryinhisdayweredescendantsofthemenCadmushadleftbehind.Itlooks,though,asifZenomadearadicalselectionfromthematerialthatwasavailabletohim,sinceweknowthatotherRhodianhistoriographersindulgedindramatictalesabouthowthePhoenicianshadbeenbesiegedontheacropolisofIalysusandwerefinallyforcedtoleavetheisland.62ZenoseemstohavebeencontentwithconstructinganarrationthattestifiedtothevenerableantiquityofaRhodiansanctuarybylinkingittoafigureofthedistantpast,who,tomanyGreeks,wasacommonpointofreference.63

TheAgeoftheFounderscametoanendwhenaplagueofserpentsbrokeoutthatcausedthedeathofmanyoftheinhabitants.64Thistime,however,notallwaslostthathadbeenachievedbefore.Thethreecitiesandsomeoftheirinhabitantssurvivedintothenewage,theAgeoftheHeroes.InthisperiodseveraltribesfromtheGreekmainlandimmigrated,whoseleadershelda(p.295)

Fig.4. Period4:TheAgeoftheHeroes

(p.296) prominentplaceinthecollectivememoryoftheHellenisticRhodians.ThefirsttocomewereThessalians,whoseleader,Phorbas,hadbeenrecommendedtotheRhodiansbytheoracleofApolloonDelos.65AccordingtoZeno,Phorbaswasaccordedheroichonoursbecausehedestroyedtheserpentsandprovedhimselftobeavirtuousmaninmanyotherrespects.66SometimelatertheCretanAlthaemenesarrivedonRhodeswishingtocircumventanoraclethatpredictedhewouldslayhisownfather.Inevitablyhedidnotsucceedinescapingfromhisfate.Hedid,however,foundatempleofZeusonMountAtabyrus,whereinZeno’sdayrepresentativesofthethreeoldRhodiancitiesmettocelebratethecultofZeusAtabyrius.67ZenodidnotneedtospellouttheconclusionthattheheroichonoursAlthaemenesreceivedinHellenisticCamiruswerewelldeserved.68ThethirdandlastoftheheroestoarriveonRhodeshailedfromArgosinthePeloponnese.ShortlybeforetheTrojanWarTlepolemus,asonofHeracles,havingslainhisownfather,immigratedtoRhodes.Hequicklybecamekingofthewholeisland,carriedoutanequaldistributionoftheland,andruledequitablyineveryotherrespect,too.Beingaresponsibleruler,TlepolemusleftbehindaregenttomakesurethattherewouldbenopowervacuuminhisabsencebeforehefinallysetouttofighttheTrojans.TheexcerptendswiththeremarkthatintheTrojanWarTlepolemusgainedgreatfameforhimselfandmethisdeathintheTroad.ThisissurelyduetoDiodorusratherthanZeno;theRhodianhistoriographercannothavewishedtogivetheimpressionthattherewasagapbetweenthedistantandthemorerecentpastofRhodes.

TlepolemuswasaheroknownallovertheGreekworldashismemorywasenshrinedinHomer’sIliad.69FortheRhodians,however,hewasspecial.The‘LindianChronicle’listsadedicationsupposedlymadebeforehewentto(p.297) Troy,andanothermadebyhiscompanionsfromthebootytheyhadtakenfromtheTrojans;forbothnolessthanthreeRhodianauthoritiesaregiven.70InRhodos,Tlepolemusreceivedsacrificeinasanctuaryofhisown,wherehisgravewasshown,andwashonouredbyafestivalwithathleticconteststhatborehisname.71ThereasonwhyHellenisticRhodiansconsideredhismemorytobesoimportantisnothardtofind:sinceTlepolemushadbeentheleaderofastrongandunitedisland,hisreignfurnisheddecisiveproofthatwhatHellenisticRhodians,especiallythoseofthepoliticalelite,wereproudof—aunitarystate,wellgoverned,andcapableofleadinganindependentforeignpolicy—hadalreadybeenachievedbeforetheTrojanWar.HisstorythusstrengthenedtheconvictionthattheHellenisticpresentwasthefulfilmentofwhatRhodianshadalwaysstrivenfor.Theverydistantpastwasshowntobeinaccordancewithpresentidealsandaspirations,andthus

confirmedthebeliefinacollectiveidentityinheritedfromtheisland’sforefathers;insubstance,sothemessageran,wearewhatwe’vealwaysbeen.

Forus,Zeno’s‘Archaeology’isaninstructiveexampleofhowthedistantpastcouldbeputtouseinHellenisticRhodes.Hisliterarymethodistypicalforwritersofmonographsonpeoplesandcities.Zenotriedtosystematizewidelydiffering,oftenflatlycontradictory,traditionsabouttheearliesthistoryofhishometownbybringingthemintoagenealogicalorder.Notcontent,however,withworkingoutachronologicalschemeforRhodianprehistorybasedongenealogy,hedividedhistimeframeintofoursuccessivestagesthatwereseparatedbynaturalcatastrophes.Thissomewhatartificialconstructpresumablyappealedtohisreaders,astheideathatinthedistantpastwholecivilizationshadbeenwipedoutbyrecurrentcataclysmswascurrentamongeducatedHellenisticGreeks.72Intellinghisstory,Zenomadeuseofestablishednarrativepatternslikesea-storms,oracles,killingsofrelatives,orloveaffairsof(p.298) allsorts,fromincesttorape.73Sea-stormswereastockdeviceformovingpeopletoplaceswheretheyhadnoobviousrationaletobe;oracles,crimes,andloveaffairsconvenientlysuppliedmotivesforactsthatcouldotherwisenoteasilybeaccountedfor,andprovidedampleopportunityfordramatization.Zenowaseagertobringouttherelevancethateventsandfiguresofthedistantpastheldforhisowntime,andoftenassertedanunbrokenchainofcontinuitybetweenthepresentandtheverybeginningsofRhodianhistory.HepushedRhodianclaimsofbeingaGreekpoliswithanunimpeachablepedigreeandanoutstandingrecordofachievementsbyascribingvenerableantiquitytomanyRhodiancultsandinstitutions,andbyclaimingRhodianpriorityinmanyaccomplishmentsintheartsandsciences.AsaneducatedHellenisticGreek,heshowedapredilectionfornaturalcausesasexplanationsofculturaldevelopments,andtendedtorejectstoriesbasedonananthropomorphicalconceptionofthedivine.Hisscepticism,however,waslimitedtotheearliestphaseofRhodianprehistory,anddidnotleadtohisdenyingthehistoricityofmythicaleventsandfiguresinprinciple.Tobesure,thisattitudetothedistantpasthadbeencharacteristicofGreekhistoricalwritingsinceitsbeginnings;evenThucydidesbelievedthattherewasakerneloftruthinthetalestoldbyepicpoets.74Polybiusregardedmonographsongenealogies,foundations,andkinshiptiesbetweencitiesasinferiortohisownwork,notbecausehebelievedthatthesetypesofhistory-writingbelongedtotherealmoffictionbutbecause,inhisopinion,theywereboundtobeeitherderivativeordisingenuousandhadnopracticalvalueformasteringcontemporaryproblems.75Inthisrespect,ZenodivergessharplyfromPolybius:forZenothedistantpastwasheavilyloadedwithsocialmeaning,servingtoexplainhowtheinstitutionsandidealsofthepresentweredeeplyrootedinthepastandweretofurnishmodelsofbehaviourforthefuture.

ZenoinDiodorusII:thegloriousdefenceagainstDemetriusTheargumentsofardevelopedcanbecarriedonestagefurther,ifitiscorrectthatDiodorustookhisaccountofthefamoussiegeofRhodosbyDemetriusfromZenoalso.76Onthishypothesis,whichcannotbearguedherebutmay(p.299) gainsomeconfirmationfromtheanalysisthatfollows,itispossibletoreconstructyetanotherfacetofhiswork:thewayhedealtwitheventsthatfirmlybelongtotherealmofhistoryaswe

understandthatterm,butwhichalso,inthecollectivememoryofHellenisticRhodians,servedasapatrioticmyth.Forthem,thevictoriousdefenceagainstDemetriusPoliorcetesnotonlymarkedaturning-pointintheirrecenthistory.77Itwasaboveallasymbolofthosepoliticalvirtuestheyconsideredmostimportant.SoonaftertheeventstheyhaderectedthegiganticColossustoserveasamemorialtotheirvictory;anepigramincisedonitsbasedepictedtheRhodiansasvaliantandvictoriousdescendantsofHeracleswithanancestralclaimtoleadershiponbothlandandsea.78ThoughtheColossusfelldowninconsequenceoftheearthquakeof228/7,itsimpressiveruinsremainedvisibleallthroughtheHellenisticperiod.79Anothermemorialtothesiegehasonlyrecentlybeenuncoveredbyarchaeologists:inasanctuarybelowtheacropolisofRhodosmorethan1,000largebulletsleftbehindbytheMacedonianartillerywerecarefullypileduptoremindposterityofhowtheRhodianshaddefeatedanenemywhoseresourceswereseeminglyinexhaustible.80Admittedly,weknownothingaboutthecommemorativepracticesassociatedwiththesesitesofmemory.Wedo,however,haveexplicitevidencethattherewasaninstitutionalizedframeworkensuringthatthesiegewasdulyrememberedeachandeveryyear,sinceafestivalinhonourofPtolemyI—whohadbeeninstrumentalinwardingofftheAntigonidattack—isknowntohavebeencelebratedintothesecondcenturyBC.Therecanbenodoubt,therefore,thatthesemomentouseventswererememberedbymeansofpublicritual.81

(p.300) ReadingDiodorus’accountasanadaptationofZeno’s,weseethatafterRhodianpolicyduringtheThirdMacedonianWarhadendedindisaster,thememoryofthegreatsiegebyDemetriustookonadditionallayersofmeaning.Ofcourse,itwasstillconceivedasprovidingshiningexamplesoftimelessvirtuessuchasvalourorpublicspirit.ForZeno,however,thestoryalsoservedanapologeticaim:hewantedtodemonstratefromhistorythatRhodianpolicyhadalwaysbeenguidedbyfirmprinciplesanddirectedtowardsthecommongoodofallGreeks.Consequently,heprefacedhisnarrativeofthesiegewithaprogrammaticdeclarationastotheprinciplesofRhodianpolicy:beingstronginsea-powerandhavingthebestgovernmentamongalltheGreeks,thecityoftheRhodianshadthrivedbecauseithadalways,accordingtoZeno,preservedanindependentstanceamongthegreatpowers,andatthesametimeundertakenarelentlesswaragainstpiracyonbehalfofalltheGreeks.Outofrespectforsuchnoblespiritanddependability,AlexanderhadpromotedtheRhodianstoacommandingposition,andhonouredthemaboveallothercitiesbydepositinghistestamentontheisland.82ForZeno,Alexander’stestament,whichweknow(andmanycontemporariespresumablysuspected)tohavebeenforgedonRhodes,83constituteddocumentaryproofoftheesteeminwhichtheRhodianshadbeenheldbythegreatestofallkings.AfterAlexander’sdeath,Zenoadded,theRhodianswerefriendswithallkingsanddynasts,thoughforeconomicreasonstheyhadaspecialrelationshipwithPtolemyofEgypt.84

ThestorythatZenowentontotellabouttheoriginsofthewarbetweenAntigonusandDemetriusontheonehand,andhiscountryontheother,wasdesignedtoconfirmtheprogrammaticstatementsmadeintheintroduction.Needlesstosay,forZenoasforhiscompatriots,theRhodianshadbeenthevictimsofunprovokedaggression.ZenolaidtheguiltforthewarsquarelyatAntigonus’door:thekinghadtriedtocompeltheRhodians

tobetraytheirprinciplesbyparticipatinginhiswaragainstPtolemyofEgypt.Evenso,theRhodianshadtriedtoreachacompromisewiththekingrightuptothelastminute,onlytofindthathewasincreasinghisdemandsassoonastheyaccededtohisoriginalrequest.Intheend,theRhodianshadnochoicebuttofightthehugearmyAntigonus’sonDemetriusledagainsttheisland.85

(p.301) Thereisneitherspacenorneedtore-tellherethestoryofthesiegeasitwasnarratedbyZeno.InsteadIshouldliketocommentonthewaythenarrativeisconstructedandthemessagesitconveys.ThemostconspicuousfeatureofZeno’snarrativeisdramatizationbymeansofcreatingempathywiththebesiegedandbuildingupsuspense.NotonlywasthestorytoldfromthepointofviewoftheRhodians,buttimeandagainthereaderwasmadetofeeltheanxietythattheonslaughtofasuperiorenemycausedamongthem.Togivebutoneexample,inasortofHomericteichoscopy,ZenorelatedhowthesightofDemetrius’hugearmadacrossingoverfromCariatoRhodesstruckfearandpanicintothosewatchingfromthecity,withsoldiersawaitingtheenemyonthewallsandwomenandoldmenlookingonfromtheirhomes.86

Zenowasawriterwhoknewfullwellthateventhemostpatrioticoftalescannotholdthesamelevelofsuspenseforlongwithoutbecomingmonotonousanddull.Tomakethenarrationmorevaried,hedividedhisplotintothreemajorblocksclearlyseparatedfromeachother:thebattleintheharbour,thefightagainstthefamoussiegeengineknownasHelepolis,andthesubsequentattackonthewalls.87ThefirstsectionisdividedfromthesecondbyanelaboratedescriptionoftheHelepolisinthemannerofanekphrasis,andbyacomplexportraitofDemetriusasacharacter,88whilealivelydescriptionofanassemblyoftheRhodiansisplacedbetweenthesecondandthethirdsection.Eachofthethreenarrationsisthusself-containedinthesensethatithasitsownbeginningandend,andrisesfromalowlevelofsuspensetoaclimax.ItwaswithinthesethreenarrationsthatZenodeployedhisarttothefull.Thenarrativeiscarefullystructuredsoastogivethereadertheimpressionheishimselflivingthroughtheevents.Dramaticreversalsoffortunelethimexperiencethefullrangeofemotions,fromanxietyandfeartoreliefandjoy.Cleverretardationspreventthestoryfromreachingitsclimaxprematurelyandallowthereadertogainamoment’srespitebeforethefinaldenouementisreached.Allthiswasartfulstory-tellingintheserviceofpatriotichistoriography.

AnotherfeaturethatleapstotheeyeisthefrequencywithwhichthemainnarrativeisinterspersedwithshortepisodesoftheheroicdeedsofRhodianwarriors.WhereasthesoldiersofDemetriusarerarelymentionedbynameand,ifso,onlytorecordtheirbeingkilledortakenprisoner,manyRhodian(p.302) warriorsareimmortalizedwithbriefnarrativesoftheirheroismandcourage.TheRhodiangeneralAmyntas,forexample,waspraisedforhavingseizedmanyfreighterscarryingordnanceforDemetriusandhavingcapturedelevenengineersfamousfortheirskillinmakingmissilesandcatapults.89Lateron,hefoughtabattleagainstthreeshipsmannedbypeoplewhomZenoregardedaspirates,andcapturedallthreewiththeircrews.90TheloyaltyofAthenagoras,amercenaryfromMiletuswhoservedascommanderoftheRhodianguard,wasdepictedwithlovingdetail:whensomeofDemetrius’mentriedtobribehimintobetrayingthe

Rhodians,hepretendedtoconsent,onlytohandovertotheRhodianauthoritiestheemissarysentbyDemetriustosignthefinalagreement.ZenowascarefultorecordthatAthenagoraswasdulyhonouredwithagoldencrownandthegiftof5talents.91Itseemsunnecessarytomultiplyexamples92astheoverallimpressionisclear:Zenolaidoutbeforehisreadersawholegalleryofportraitsdevotedtothemenwho,bytheirvalour,hadsavedRhodosfromfallingintoslaveryandtherebyenabledfuturegenerationstoenjoyalifeinfreedom.

TheassertionthatZenowasapatriotichistorianandanartfulwritershouldnot,however,betakentomeanthathedidnotbotherwithevidence.Onthecontrary,innarratingthesiegehedisplaysknowledgeofseveraldocumentsthatpresumablywereeitheronpublicdisplayinthecityofRhodosoravailableinRhodianarchives(orboth).ZenoreferredtospoilstheRhodianshaddedicatedtotheirgodsandtostatuestheyhaderectedinhonourofCassanderandLysimachus,summarizedRhodiandecreespassedasemergencymeasureswhenthesiegebegan,paraphrasedhonorificdecreesawardedtofighterswhohadshownexceptionalbravery,andquotedfromanoracletheRhodianshadreceivedfromAmmonatSiwaandfromthetreatytheyhadconcludedwithDemetrius.93Zenoclearlysharedtheconcernfor(p.303) documentaryevidencethatistypicalofHellenisticrepresentationsofthepast.ThisfeatureofhisworkclearlysatisfiedPolybius,whoappreciatedtheevidentialvalueofdocumentsandhimselfreferredtolettersandtreatiesseveraltimes—eventakingthetroubletohavetreatiesbetweenRomeandCarthagetranslatedintoGreek.94

Unsurprisingly,idealizationofRhodes’politicalorderandforeignpolicyisanotherpeculiarityofZeno’sprofileasahistoriographerthatpervadesDiodorus’accountofthegreatsiege.TheRhodianclaimtoleadanuncompromisingfightagainstpiracyiscorroboratedbyseveralepisodesinwhichcombatantsfightingonthesideofDemetriusarecalledpirates.ThedecisionoftheRhodianassemblynottopulldownthestatuesofAntigonusandDemetriusisinterpretedbyZenoasanexpressionofRhodianmagnanimityandconstancy.95ZenodescribedthecityofRhodosasbeingblessedbysocialharmonyandpublicspiritinallclasses:therichcontributedmoney,thecraftsmengavetheirservicesforthemanufactureofarms,andeveryonestroveinaspiritofrivalrytosurpasstheothers.96HeexplicitlycalledtheRhodianconstitutionademocracy,97butalsostressedtheleadingroleofthePrytaneis,aboardofofficialselectedforsixmonths,byshowingthemkeepingacoolheadwheneverthefortunesoftheircountrywereonaknife-edge.98

HistoriographyandtheCultureofMemoryinHellenisticRhodesItistimetopulltogetherthethreadsthathavesofarbeenspun.ThroughthelensofPolybiusweseeZenoastheauthorofahistoricalmonographdealingwithpoliticalandmilitaryeventsoftherecentpast.Hiswork—thoughfocusedonRhodes—includedeventsthathappenedfarawayfromtheislandandwithoutthedirectparticipationoftheRhodians.Hedid,however,viewtheeventshenarratedfromaRhodianperspective,andtendedtostressthevirtuesofhiscompatriots.TojudgefromtheRhodiantraditionsusedbyPolybius,ZenopublishedhisworkaftertheThirdMacedonianWar.99Polybius

(p.304) regardedhimasacompetenthistorianandaseriousthreattohisownreputation,becauseZeno’swritingsappealedtothereadingpublicbutwere,fromthepointofviewoftheAchaeanhistorian,meresensationalism.AsPolybiuswasconcernedincriticizingZenotodefendhisownwayofwritinghistoryandnottogiveabalancedassessmentofZeno’smethod,100itisnosurprisethatinDiodoruswefindthattherewasanothersidetotheRhodianhistorianthatPolybiusentirelypassesoverinsilence.Zenoadheredtotheconventionsofthegenreoflocalhistorybygivingadetailedaccountoftheoriginsofhiscountry.HedesignedacarefullystructurednarrationthatdepictedtheearliesthistoryofRhodesasasuccessionoffouragesprecedingtheTrojanWar.Despitethefactthatthesestoriesweresituatedinaverydistantpast,theyclearlywereimportanttoZenoandhisreaders,andhewaseagertobringouttheirsignificanceforunderstandingandmasteringthepresent.Asstoriesaboutoriginsdemonstratedthepresenttobefirmlyrootedinthepastandfurnishedexamplesoftimelessvirtues,theywereanintegralpartofthecultureofmemoryinHellenisticRhodesandcouldnotbedispensedwith.

Whilethe‘archaeology’ofRhodesthatwereadinDiodorushasverylittleincommonwithwhatwelearnaboutZenofromPolybius,theaccountofthegreatsiegeofRhodosbyDemetriusdoes,Ibelieve,intworespectscorroborateandsubstantiatewhattheAchaeanhistoriantellsusabouthisRhodiancolleagueandrival.Polybius’contentionthatZenotendedtoexalttheRhodiansisamplyconfirmedbyDiodorus,asthegreatsiegeisnarratedasapatriotictaleglorifyingthedeadinordertoinstructandalsotoexoneratetheliving.TheliterarytechniquesthatmakethistalesovividanddramaticenableustoseemoreclearlywhatPolybiusmeantwhenheaccusedZenooftaking‘somanypainsabouthisstylethathissensationalismcouldnotbeexcelledbyanyofthosedeclamatoryworkswrittentoimpressthevulgarmasses’.101

IfwetrytoputZenointothebroadercontextofHellenisticmemoryculture,wemustfacethethornyproblemofwhetherhisaccountofRhodianhistory—ifmyreconstructionisaccepted—caninanywayberegardedasrepresentativeforthecollectivememoryoftheRhodiansasapolitical(p.305) community.SinceZenowasonlyoneamongmanyRhodianhistoriographers,albeitthemostwidelyknown,thisquestionhastwocloselyinterrelatedaspects:first,whetherZeno’saccountsubstantiallyagreedwiththatofearlierwritersonthesubject;and,secondly,howthedepictionoftheRhodianpastinhistoriographyrelatedtowidelyheldbeliefscreatedanddisseminatedinothercommemorativemedia.ThatRhodianhistoriographydidnotdrawauniformpictureoftheisland’sremotepastseemsclearifonlybecauseitswriterscompetedagainsteachother,butthedegreetowhichtheydifferedisdifficultforustogaugeaswelacktheevidencetoundertakeadetailedcomparison.Tobesure,thelittleweknowofRhodianwritersotherthanZenoissufficienttoshowthattheydisagreedonmanydetails.Polyzelus,forexample,gaveacompletelydifferentgeneaologyofPhorbas,makinghimthesonofTriopas,whoinZenoisasonofHelios.HealsotoldamelodramatictaleaboutPhoeniciansbesiegedinIalysusthatZenoapparentlyignored.102Fromthe‘LindianChronicle’welearnaboutanepiphanyofLindianAthenaduringthegreatsiegebyDemetriusthatmusthavebeenprominentinRhodianwritersbutisconspicuousbyits

absenceinDiodorus’excerptingofZeno.103AndinafragmentarypapyrusinColognewefindanaccountofPtolemy’sproclamationaskingthat,whileprobablycomingfromaRhodianauthor,differsinseveralpointsfromwhatDiodoruscopiedfromZeno.104ButthequestionastowhetherintheearlysecondcenturytherewassomethinglikeavulgateversionoftheRhodianpastis,onpresentevidence,betterleftopen.

WemayfeelmoreconfidentinconsideringtherelationbetweenhistoriographyandpopularconceptionsabouttheRhodianpast.Ontheonehand,Zeno’sviewofRhodianprehistorybearsallthehallmarksofbeinganartificialcreationdesignedtointegrateasmanytraditionsaspossibleintoacoherentandintelligiblepictureofthepast.Asweknowfromindependentsources,thereweretraditionsthatcouldnotbyanymeansbemadetofithistidyscheme,105andeveninZeno’sownaccountsomelooseendsremained.IhavealreadypointedoutthathewasobviouslyuncertainaboutwhattomakeofthesonsofZeusmentionedabove.HealsoreferredinpassingtoamysteriouspeoplethatinDiodorus’manuscriptsisnamed‘theso-calledGigantes’andmaybeidenticalwiththeequallypuzzlingIgnetesknownfromlexicographical(p.306) texts.106Andheknewstillothersthatarehiddenundertheenigmaticlabelof‘otherautochthonouspeoples’.107Therecan,ofcourse,benocertaintyastowhetherthisartificialconstructwasdesignedbyZenohimselfratherthanoneofhisforerunners.Itseemsclear,however,thatitisfartoocomplexandcoherenttohavesprungupasareflectionofwidespreadbeliefs,ortoreplacesimplervisionsofthepastthatwerecreatedanddisseminatedinothermedia.

Ontheotherhand,theveryfactthatZenodidincludeanextendedaccountofRhodianoriginsinhishistoricalmonographisnotatallidiosyncratic.ThereisnodoubtthatHellenisticRhodiansbelievedthattheirpastbeganlongbeforetheTrojanWar,andthattheirislandwasconnectedbypersonalbondscreatedinthisperiodwithawiderangeofcitiesandpeoplesallovertheeasternMediterranean.Decisiveproofofthisisagaintobefoundinthe‘LindianChronicle’becauseitexpressesavisionoftheRhodianpastthatinstructureisanexactmatchtowhatwefindinZeno:itbeginslongbeforetheTrojanWar,bringstogethermanyHomericheroes,andthenglidesimperceptiblyintowhatweregardashistoryproper.The‘LindianChronicle’,however,wascomposedin99BContheorderofthecitizensofLindus,andinscribedonastelethatwastobeputupinoneofthemostvenerablesanctuariesofRhodes.ThistextsurelycomesasclosetoanofficiallyapprovedaccountofRhodianhistoryasonecanpossiblygetintheworldofGreekcity-states.

Ifthisdiscussionallowsageneralconclusion,Iwouldformulateitonthefollowinglines.WorksoflocalhistoriographylikethatofZeno,whilereflectingpatternsofthoughtcharacteristicofthecultureofmemoryoftheirage,shouldnotberegardedaspassivereflectionsofoneunifiedandgenerallyacceptedviewofthepast,evenwithintheboundsofasinglepolis.Therewerebasicpointsofcommonground,buttherewasalsomuchspaceforconstantreinterpretationandcreativeelaboration.Hellenistichistoriographersdidnotarticulateaviewofthepastthatwasregardedorintendedtobefinalandbindingonothers.Theyinteractedwithothermediaofcollectivememorythatproducedotherversionsofthepast,andinlargecity‐stateslikeRhodestheyalsocompetedwithother

practitionersoftheirownart.ThecollectivememoryofHellenisticcitieswaspolyphonic,andhistoriographywasonlyoneofseveralvoicesthatcouldbeheard.

Notes:

(1)Inthisarticle,RhodosisusedasthenameofthecitywhereasRhodesmeanstheisland.MostotherGreeknameshavebeenlatinized,withexceptionssuchasHelios.IshouldliketothankCharlesFornara,BruceGibson,TomHarrison,andDavidKonstanfortheirperceptiveandhelpfulcommentsonthispaper.

(2)Tolisttheenormoustheoreticalandempiricalliteratureoncollectivememoryandassortedtopicswouldherebeoutofplace.Forencyclopedicintroductions,seenowPethesandRuchatz2001andErllandNünning2008.Along,thoughbynomeanscomprehensive,bibliographyistobefoundinBeckandWiemer2009.

(3)OnliteracyanditslimitsinClassicalandHellenisticGreece,seeHarris1989:65–146.

(4)Ontheuseofhistoricalexamplesinpoliticaloratory,seethefundamentalstudyofNouhaud1982onwhichClarke2008:245–303isheavilydependent.

(5)ThereisnocomprehensivestudyofthisinstitutiontoreplacetheoutdatedaccountofNilsson1955;Kennell2006merelyprovidesacatalogueofinscriptions.OntheephebeiaofAthensPélékidis1962hasnowbeenpartlysupersededbyPerrin-Saminadayar2007,whocoversonlytheperiodfrom229–88BC,however.

(6)TheseminalstudyonGreekfestivalsasaframeworkformnemonicpracticeswasChaniotis1991;seenowalsoGehrke2001,Beck2009,Wiemer2009a,Wiemer2009b.

(7)AcomprehensivesurveyofHellenistichistoriographyisadesideratum.ArecentbibliographicalsurveyistobefoundinMarincola2001:105–49.ThetextshavebeeneditedbyFelixJacobyinFGrHist,manyofthemwithapenetratingcommentary.InscriptionsrelevanttohistoryandhistoriographershavebeenstudiedbyChaniotis1988,whilethecareersofearlyHellenistichistoriographershavebeendealtwithbyMeissner1992.SomeaspectsoflocalhistoriographyarenowtreatedbyClarke2008:304–69,whodoes,however,seemtoequateRhodianhistoriographywiththe‘LindianChronicle’(onwhichseebelown.29).

(8)AfamousexamplefortheuseofhistoricalargumentsinHellenisticinterstatediplomacyisthearbitrationbetweenPrieneandMiletosinwhichthejurywascomposedofRhodians:I.Priene37=Syll.3599,discussedbyCurty1989.AninvaluablecollectionofepigraphicalsourcesonwhatmightbecalledkinshipdiplomacyisprovidedbyCurty1995.

(9)ThefundamentalaccountisbyFelixJacobyinFGrHistIIIb(Text):432–55withnotesinFGrHistIIIb(Noten):255–66.TheauthorsofmonographsonRhodianhistoryandantiquitiesarelistedasnos.508–33.ItisapitythatJustinsawfittocutouttheaccountofRhodianoriginsPompeiusTrogusgaveinhisfifteenthbook.

(10)OnPolybiusasacriticofearlierandcontemporaryhistoriographers,seeamongothers,Walbank1962,Walbank1972a:48–55,Lehmann1974:145–200,Meister1975,Schepens1990:39–61,Marincola1997:222–3,229–32,andthecontributionsassembledinSchepensandBollansée2005.Polybius’critiqueofZenoandAntisthenesisanalysedindetailbyMeister1975:173–8,Wiemer2001:19–32,and,mostrecently,Lenfant2005.

(11)Plb.16.14.1–4=FGrHist523T3.

(12)Bye.g.Ullrich1898:16,Lehmann1974:201,Meister1975:173,Wiemer2001:20,Lenfant2005:191–2.

(13)Plb.16.14.5–15.8=FGrHist523F4.In16.15.8PolybiusexplicitlystatesthattheletterwasextantintheRhodianPrytaneion.Infact,Zeno’saccountmighthavebeenlessone-sidedthanPolybiuswouldhaveusbelieve:seeWiemer2001:21–5andLenfant2005:193–5.

(14)Plb.16.16.1–17.7=FGrHist523F5.Polybius(16.20.6–7)prideshimselfonhavingpointedoutthesegeographicalerrorsinalettertoZenohimself,whorespondedbysayingthatheacceptedthecriticismbutwasnowunabletocorrecthiserrorssincehisworkwasalreadypublished.NotallofPolybius’pointsseemvalidandeveniftheyweretheywouldnotjustifytheconclusionthatZeno’sknowledgeofgeographywasdeficientingeneral:seeMeister1975:175–6andLenfant2005:195–7.

(15)Plb.16.17.8–19.11=FGrHist523F6.ForamorebalancedassessmentofZeno’saccount,seeMeister1975:177andLenfant2005:198–200.

(16)Plb.9.1–2,esp.1.2:οὐκἀγνοω̑δὲδιότισυμβαίνειτὴνπραγματείανἡμω̑νἔχειναὐστηρόντικαὶπρὸςἕνγένοςἀκροατω̑νοἰκειου̑σθαικαὶκρίνεσθαιδιὰτὸμονοειδὲςτη̑ςσυντάξεως.

(17)ItseemsunlikelythatPolybiushadconsultedtheletterofthecommandingRhodianadmiral(cf.n.13)himself,ashehadneithermotivenoropportunitytodoso;Polybiusdidnotdeemitnecessarytobasehispolemicagainstotherhistoriographersonindependentevidence,andthenotionthataforeignerhadaccesstotheRhodianPrytaneionishardtosquarewithwhatweknowaboutHellenisticarchives:seeWiemer2001:22–4.

(18)Ullrich1898;recentlyelaboratedbyWiemer2001andendorsedbyWalbank2005a.

(19)ForarevisionistaccountofRhodianforeignpolicy,seeWiemer2002.ThetraditionalviewispresentedinBerthold1984.

(20)ApartfromtheRhodianadmiral’sreportreferredtoabove,adocumentarysourceofRhodianprovenanceorpertinenceseemsindicatedinPlb.4.56.2(RhodiandecreeonhelpingSinopeagainstMithridates);5.88–90(listofdonationsmadeaftertheearthquakeof227,analysedbyWiemer2001:33–9);25.4.5(S.C.deLyciis);28.17.1–2(MarciusPhilippus’lettertotheRhodians);30.23.2–4(S.C.deStratonicensibusetCauniis);31.5(S.C.deCalyndiis).

(21)Plb.5.88–90withWalbank,HCPi.616–22andWiemer2001:33–9.

(22)Polybius’accountislargelylost,butcanpartlyberecoveredfromscatteredfragmentsandallusions(esp.Plb.13.4–5;15.23.2–6;16.9.1–5;18.54.7–11)andfromadaptionsinDiodorus(27.3;28.1),inLivy(33.18),andinPolyaenus(4.18.2;5.17.2).Foradetaileddiscussion,seeWiemer2001:59–106.

(23)Antiochus’marchalongthesoutherncoastofAsiaMinor:Liv.33.20(P);RhodiandefeatatPanormus:Polyaen.5.27(P);Liv.37.8–17(P);App.Syr.114–21;RhodianvictoryatSide:Plb.21.10;Liv.37.18.9–25.3(P);victoryofthealliesatMyonnesus:Plb.21.12;Liv.37.26–32(P);App.Syr.132–6.

(24)Plb.22.5;25.4–5(cf.Liv.42.14.8);thecaseforaRhodiansourceisarguedbyWiemer2001:151–8.

(25)SeethereferencesandargumentsgiveninWiemer2001:151–206.

(26)ThelocusclassicusisPlb.9.1–2,buttherearemanyotherrelevantpassages,citedanddiscussedinPédech1964:21–32andinWalbank1972a:55–8,66–96.

(27)ThetitleΧρονικὴσύνταξιςpointstoanannalisticframework(thus,rightly,Jacoby,FGrHistIIIb[Text]:425;IIIb[Noten]:253n.5;cf.FGrHist240F1and22;Diod.13.103.5;App.Celt.1.8;Dion.Hal.A.R.1.8.3).Inthe‘LindianChronicle’thesecondbookofZeno’shistoryiscitedasanauthorityforadedicationofkingPyrrhustoLindianAthena(I.Lindos2,C,XL,ll.114–21).This,however,canhardlymeanthatZeno’s‘archaeology’occupiedonlythefirstbook,ifD.L.7.35=FGrHist523T1hasbeencorrectlyemendedtoyieldthenumberof15booksforZeno’sworkasawhole(suggestedbyUllrich1898:13–4,readingἐντόπιονγεγραφὼςἱστορίανἐνιε,endorsedwithsomehesitationbyJacoby,FGrHistIIIb[Text]:435andbyWiemer2001:250–1,whopointsout,however,thatthenumeralἐνια[eleven]isjustaslikely).OnewayoutoftheproblemistoassumethatindiscussingdedicationsmadebyfamousrulersZenoanticipatedeventsthatlayfaraheadinrelationtotheperiodhewasdealingwith,anothertopositanerroreitherbytheauthorsofthe‘LindianChronicle’orthemasonwhoinscribeditonthestone.

(28)Diod.5.55–59=FGrHist523F1.

(29)Theeditioprinceps(Blinkenberg1912)includesaveryfullcommentarywhichstillrepaysconsultation;theeditiominor,publishedafewyearslater(Blinkenberg1915b),hasashortenendcommentary,butincorporatesimprovementssubsequentlymadetothetextandcontainsusefultableslistingallthesourcescitedinthe‘Chronicle’.Thefinaledition,publishedin1942asI.Lindos2,hasnocommentary,butacomprehensivebibliographyofliteraturebearingonthetext;thistextwasreprintedbyJacobyasFGrHist532.Higbie2003providestranslationintoEnglish,awealthofmythologicalparallelsandperceptiveobservationsonnarrativepatterns;herinterpretationsdo,however,sufferfrominsufficientknowledgeofRhodianhistoryandinstitutions:seethe

rightlycriticalreviewsbyGabrielsen2005andBresson2006.ThenotionthatthetextwascommissionedasameansofimpressingRomanvisitorstoLinduswithasenseofthevenerableantiquityofitsmostimportantsanctuaryisimplausiblefortworeasons:theinscriptionis,andalwayswas,verydifficulttoread;andthereisnoevidenceforRomansvisitingLindusinanynumbersatthisearlydate.ThisobjectionalsoappliestothemuchmorenuancedinterpretationofShaya2005,whofailstoconvincemethattheconceptofmuseumisausefultoolinanalysingthefunctionofatextthatwasinscribedonstoneanddisplayedinaGreeksanctuary.

(30)Theresultsachievedbynineteenth-centuryQuellenforschung,assummarizedinEduardSchwartz’smagisterialPauly-Wissowaarticle(Schwartz1903),havenotbeeninvalidatedsince.ThatDiodoruscopiedhissourceswithoutmakingsubstantialchangestotheirnarrativestructureorthevaluejudgementstheyexpressisconcededevenbySacks1994,whoclaimsoriginalityonlyforDiodorus’prefaces.Eventhisisdebatable,Ibelieve,butneednotbearguedhere.

(31)ThusJacoby,FGrHistIIIb(Text):435withIIIb(Noten):257nn.13and14;Wiemer2001:207.Lenfant2005:201–3opinesthatintheRhodian‘archaeology’Diodoruscombinedseveralsourcestocreateanoriginalpieceofwriting,butthishypothesisdoesnotaccountforhisusualmethodofworking.AstrongcaseforbelievingthateventheswitchfromdirecttoindirectreportingthatissoconspicuousafeatureofDiodorus’firstfivebooksismoreareflectionofthesourcesDiodorususedthanofhisownjudgementonthetraditionsherelateswasmadebyVolkmann1955.

(32)Pind.Ol.7.InPindar,RhodosandHelioshavesevensons,andfromoneofthemtheeponymsofthethreeoldRhodiancitiesdescend:ll.71–5.AccordingtoGorgonFGrHist515F18,thepoemhadbeeninscribedwithgoldenlettersanddedicatedinthesanctuaryofLindianAthena.TheconclusionthatthededicationwasstillondisplaywhenZenowrotewouldbeunsafe,however,asitisnotmentionedinthe‘LindianChronicle’.

(33)Diod.5.55.1:ὡςὁμυ̑θοςπαρέδωκε.

(34)TheTelchinesasdemons:Diod.5.55.3.ZenocomparedthemtotheMagiofPersia.OntheconceptofculturalherointheGreekworld,seetheexcellentoverviewinThraede1962,whichreachesfarbeyondtheclassicalperiodcoveredinthestudyofKleingünther1933.

(35)Diod.5.55.2:anApolloTelchiniusinLindus,aHeraTelchiniaandNymphaeTelchiniaeinIalysus,andaHeraTelchiniainCamirus.

(36)Diod.5.55.4.ZenoimplicitlyrefutedPindar’sversionbyassertingthattheTelchineshadpreventedAphroditefromlandingonRhodianshores.OnthenymphRhodos,seeRobert1967:7–14.

(37)Diod.5.55.6–7,esp.7.

(38)Diod.5.56.1–2.ItisnotclearwhetherthisisareferencetothetempleofApolloat

Patara(onwhichseeFrei1990:1757–60)ortheevenmorefamousLetoonatXanthus(ibid.1747–53).

(39)InDiod.5.55.5thesearesaidtohavebeensonsofthenymphHimaliaandcalledbythenamesofSpartacus,Cronius,andCytus.

(40)Diod.5.56.2–3.

(41)Ibid.4.

(42)Ibid.5.Weknowfromthe‘sacredlaw’Syll.3338=LSS145thatthecultwaslocatedinIalysus.

(43)Onthesecoinswhichweremintedinlargequantities,seeAshton2001.

(44)TheevidenceiscollectedinMorelli1959:15–20.

(45)Thefundamentalstudy,basedonthelonglistsofpriestsdiscoveredin1944(SEG12,360),isstillMorricone1953;seenowalsoHabicht2003.

(46)Onthesanctuary,seeDyggve1960andLippolis1993.

(47)Diod.5.56.5–7,esp.7.FromSchol.Pind.Ol.7.86a,welearnthatApolloniusRhodius—whoisknowntohavewrittenaκτίσιςῬόδου—hadgivenacompletelydifferentexplanationforthispeculiarityofLindiancult—Athena’shatredofHephaestusbecauseofhismarriagetoAphrodite—whichZenodiscardedinfavourofPindar’s.

(48)OnEgyptinArchaicandClassicalGreekliterature,seeFroidefond1971.AstronomywassaidtobeanEgyptianinventionbyHecataeusofAbderaFGrHist264F25.

(49)Hdt.5.58–9.ArivaltheorythatcreditedDanauswithgivingscripttotheGreeksoriginatedwithHecataeusFGrHist1F20.ForGreekviewsontheinventionofGreekscript,seethestudyofJeffery1967.GreektraditionsaboutCadmusaresurveyedinEdwards1979:17–44.

(50)Diod.5.57.2–5.ZenoaddedthatSaïs,anAtheniancolonyinEgypt,waslaterforgottenforthesamereason.

(51)Zenogavetheirnamesandmighthavetoldtheirstories:ApartfromActis,whosailedofftoEgypt,hementionedMacarcomingtoLesbosandCandalusgoingtoCos;healsorelatedthatTriopastookpossessionofaCarianpromontoryandtherebybecametheeponymoftheTriopium,thecommonsanctuaryoftheDoriancitiesofCaria.Macar’sstoryalsoseemstohaveapoliticalpoint:sinceallcitiesofLesbostracedtheiroriginbacktothismythicking,theversionthathashimoriginatingfromRhodesmighthavebeenbroughtupwhenweknowtheLesbiankoinonwasalliedtoRhodes:seeIGXIISuppl.120(onwhichseeLabarre1996:69–88,Wiemer2002:290).

(52)InDiodorus’account(5.57.6–8)kingOchimusmarriesthenymphHegetoriafrom

whomhehasadaugthercalledCydippe,whoislaterrenamedCyrbia.InasecondmarriagesheiswifetoCercaphusandbearshimthreesons:Ialysus,Camirus,andLindus.WearethentoldthatacitycalledCyrbewasburiedbeneathafloodwithoutanyexplanationbeinggivenastohowithadcomeintobeingorhowitwasrelatedtoAchaïa,whichhasvanishedfromsightcompletely.ItisclearfromPlut.Mor.297cthattherewasanelaboratemythologyaroundCyrbe(andCercaphus),andthetemptationtoconnectherinsomewaytothegodswhoonRhodeswerecalledCyrbanteswassurelytoostrongtoberesistedsincetheyhadpubliccultsinbothCamirus(T.Cam.90,I,l.34)andinthecityofRhodositself(IGXII8,6;Segre1949:73).

(53)ForAchaïaasanoldnameofIalysus,seetheevidencecitedinPuglieseCarratelli1981,evenifhisattempttorestoreitinthe‘Periplus’ofScylax(§99)isdubious.ThenamewasalsousedbyErgiasFGrHist513F1=Ath.8.61,360d‐einhis‘HistoryofRhodes’.

(54)Diod.5.57.6–8.ExcessivecompressionmightbethereasonwhyDiodorussayssolittleaboutCercaphusandhissons.AcultofCercaphusisnowattestedbytwoolpaifromthelatesixthcenturywithgraffitithatwerefoundinthedepositofasanctuaryatIalysus(SEG46,989).

(55)ItseemscharacteristicofDiodorus’methodofworkingthatin4.58.8,wherehedoesnotfollowZeno,hegivesacompletelydifferentaccount,namingTlepolemusasfounderofthethreeRhodiancities.

(56)StaatsverträgeIII551,ll.1–4(treatybetweenRhodesandHierapytna).

(57)TheevidenceforthecultofLindushasbeencollectedbyMorelli1959:59–69;thecultofCamirusisattestedbyT.Cam.81b,l.1.ZenodoesnotseemtohavementionedCamirus’daughterAlce,whointheimperialperiodreceivedthededicationT.Cam.147.EpigraphicalevidenceforthecultofIalysushasnotsofarturnedup,butweknowthatthefamouspainterProtogenesdrewaportraitofhim:seeIşıkandMarek1997:65–74.

(58)The‘LindianChronicle’referstoaspeechonLindus(Λινδιακός)byacertainEudemus(FGrHist524F1–4)andabook‘OnRhodes’byanauthorcalledPhaennus(FGrHist525F1).

(59)Hdt.2.182.2;likewiseMarmorParium(FGrHist239)A8;Strab.14.2.11.ForthewoodenimageofLindianAthena,seeCallim.fr.100.4PfeifferandfurthertestimoniesdiscussedbyBlinkenberg1917,towhichapapyrusdatingfromaround100BC(P.Schubart34,col.II)cannowbeadded,ifinline1thenameofDanaushasbeensupplementedcorrectlybyPuglieseCarratelli1955.InDiogenesLaertius(1.89)thefoundationofthetempleisascribedtoDanaushimself.

(60)AsZenohasthreeoftheDanaidsdyingonLindiansoil,onemightspeculatethattheirgraveswereshownonthespot,butthishypothesisdoesnotaccountforthenon-Lindianprovenanceofthestory.

(61)Diod.5.58.3;I.Lindos2,B,no.III,ll.15–17=PolyzelusFGrHist521F1.Cadmus’dedicationislistedamongtheitemsthataredescribedinthepasttense.

(62)Ath.8.61,360d–361c=ErgiasFGrHist513F1andPolyzelusFGrHist521F6.AsErgiasmentionedtreasuresthePhoenicianshadburiedwhentheyleftonewonderswhetherobjectsthatweresaidtocomefromthemmayhavebeenondisplayinHellenisticIalysus.PolyzelusaddedanerotictouchtothestoryofthesiegebyhavingthedaughterofthePhoeniciancommanderfallinlovewithIphiclus,theleaderoftheIalysians.WhetherPolyzelususedthismotiftoexplainthesupposedPhoenicianextractionofIalysianfamiliesinwhichthepriesthoodofZeuswashereditary(seenextnote)isforusimpossibletotell.

(63)Diod.5.58.2–3,esp.3.

(64)HereagainitisprobablethatDiodorushassuppressedmuchofwhatZenowrote.WeknowfromothersourcesthatὈφίουσσαwasanepithetappliedtoRhodos,andstillfindtracesofaetiologiesforthis:Heracl.Pont.FHGII,222FXXXIII;PolyzelusFGrHist521F7=Hyg.Astron.2.14;Strab.14.2.7;Plin.Nat.5.132;Steph.Byz.s.v.Ῥόδος.SeefurtherBlinkenberg1915a:289–303,Jacoby,FGrHistIIIb(Text):433.

(65)Againthechoiceofapresidinggoddessreflectscontemporaryconcerns:onHellenisticRhodes,DelianApollohaditsownpriest—atCamirus(T.Cam.50,l.25;T.Cam.90,I,l.28)—andDeloswasthereligiouscentreoftheCycladesoverwhichtheRhodianshadduringtheearlysecondcenturyexertedakindofprotectorateuntiltheNesioticLeaguedissolvedintheaftermathoftheThirdMacedonianWar:onthis,seeWiemer2002:271–6,wheretheearlierliteratureiscited.

(66)Diod.5.58.4–5.TheRhodiancultofPhorbasisnotasyetepigraphicallyattested,buttheRhodianauthorPolyzelusFGrHist521F7=Hyg.Astron.2.14relatedthatRhodiansusedtosacrificetohimwhenevertheywentonajourneybythesea.Polyzelus,likeZeno,connectedPhorbastotheserpentplague,butusedadifferentgenealogyashecalledhimasonofTriopas,whileinZeno’saccountPhorbasisasonofHelios.DieuchidasofMegaraFGrHist485F7=Ath.6.82,262e–263btoldastorythatexplainedwhyinIalysusslaveswerenotallowedtoparticipateinPhorbas’cult.

(67)Alistoftheoroihasbeenpreserved:T.Cam.App.19and20withSEG49,1070.Thesanctuarywasexcavatedinthe1920s,buttheresultswereneverproperlypublished:Jacopich1928:88–91.

(68)Diod.5.59.1–4.ApriesthoodofAlthaemenesinCamirusisknownfromtwoinscriptionsdatingtothefirsthalfofthesecondcenturyBC:T.Cam.50,l.36;T.Cam.90,II,l.20.

(69)Hom.Il.2.653–70.Ontheearlydevelopmentofthislegend,seetheexcellentaccountinPrinz1979:78–95.

(70)I.Lindos2,B,VI,ll.37–41;B,IX,ll.54–61.TheauthoritiescitedareGorgon’smonograph‘OnRhodes’FGrHist515F5and7andlettersbytheLindianpriestsGorgosthenesFGrHist529F5and7andHierobulusFGrHist530Faddressedtothelocalboardofofficialscalledμαστροί.

(71)Pind.Ol.7.77–82;Schol.Pind.Ol.7.36c;141c.Kowalzig2007:247–9canvassestheideathatthisfestivalinhonourofTlepolemuswaslatertransformedintoonethatinHellenisticinscriptions(SER18,l.9;NS18,l.15;I.Lindos222,l.6;707,l.4)iscalled᾿Ἐπιτάφιαandmighthavebeencelebratedinmemoryofthewar-dead.ThisisimplausibleinviewofthefactthatanagonisticinscriptionfromCedreaeintheRhodianPeraiadatingtotheearlysecondcenturyBClistsΤλαπολέμεια:Syll.31067=IAG50=I.Peraia555=I.Pérée5,l.8.

(72)TheideathatwholecivilizationshadinthepastbeensweptawaywithouttracebyrecurrentcataclysmswasrootedinthemythsofDeucalionandPhaethon,andhadinthefourthcenturybeenespousedbybothPlato(Tim.22b–23c;Crit.104d–e;109d–e;Laws677a)andAristotle(Meteor.352a–353a;Metaph.1074b).Polybius(6.5.4–6)tookitforgranted:seefurtherGuthrie1957:25–6,63–9.TheearlyStoics,ontheotherhand,believedinperiodicdestructionsofthecosmosbroughtaboutbyuniversalconflagrations;seee.g.Mansfeld1979.

(73)ThesepatternsareanalysedindetailbyHigbie2003:204–42.

(74)Thuc.1.2–12(‘archaeology’);cf.2.68.3(Amphilochus);2.102.5–6(Alcmeon,sonofAmphiaraus).

(75)Plb.9.2.1–3;34.4.1–4(historyinHomer);cf.2.41.3–5(Tisamenus,sonofOrestes);4.33.1–6(theAristomeneanwar);34.2–4(Odysseus).Polybiusisnon-commital,however,astoJason(4.39.6)andopenlyscepticalastoIo(4.43.6).

(76)Diod.20.81–8,91.1–100.4.ThefragmentaryaccountofthesiegeintheBerlinÄgyptischesMuseumPapyrusno.11632,editedwithacommentarybyHillervonGaertringen1918andreprintedbyJacobyasFGrHist533no.2,goesbacktothesamesource,butpreservesdetailsDiodoruscutout.ThatthecommonsourceofDiodorusandtheBerlinpapyruswasanauthorfromRhodesseemsclearandisgenerallyacknowledged.ThehypothesisthatthisauthorwasZenohasthemeritofbeingeconomicalgiventhatheistheonlyRhodianhistoriographertobecitedbyDiodorus.Jacoby,FGrHistIIIb(Noten):256entertainedthepossibilitythatknowledgeoftheRhodiansourcebehindDiodoruswasmediatedbyAgatharchidesofCnidus,butonthatassumptionitishardtoexplainwhyDiodoruspreservessomuchdetailofpurelylocalsignificanceasthatkindofmaterialtendstobereducedintheprocessofadaptingasourcetoanewcontext.ThequestionisdiscussedatlengthinWiemer2001:222–50.

(77)Onthecourseofeventsseee.g.Berthold1984:66–80orWiemer2002:78–94.

(78)AP.6.171(onwhichseeWiemer2011:131–3).

(79)TothetextualsourcescollectedinHebert1989:16–45no.Q28–103cannowbeaddedanepigrambythepoetPosidippusthathasrecentlybeendecipheredonapapyrusinMilan(P.Mil.Vogl.VIII309)andisnowconvenientlyaccessibleinAustinandBastianini2002;itshistoricalsignificanceisdiscussedinWiemer2011:129–30.

(80)Kantzia1999.TheenginesofwarandthehugeamountofordnanceatDemetrius’disposalarestronglyemphasizedintheliterarytradition,andseemtohavebeenatoposofRhodianmemoryculture:Diod.20.82.4,83.1,85–8,91.1–92.1,5;FGrHist533no.2,ll.2–12;Diod.20.93.5(engineers),95.1–3,96.3–97.4,6–7.InDiod.20.97.1–2DemetriushasthemissileshurledbytheRhodianscollectedandcounted;theirnumberisgivenasmorethan800firemissilesandmorethan1,500catapultbolts.

(81)Diod.20.100.3–4;GorgonFGrHist519F9=Ath.15.52,696f.ApriestofPtolemyappearsinalistofmagistratesdatingtotheearlysecondcenturyBC,editedbySegre1941:30l.16–17.

(82)Diod.20.81.1–4,onwhichseeWiemer2001:222–31.

(83)OnthetestamentofAlexander,Merkelbach1977:121–51isstillfundamental.

(84)ApapyrusinCologne(P.KölnVI247)preservesremnantsofanaccountofhowPtolemywasproclaimedkingthatstressesthespecialrelationshipbetweenhimandtheRhodiansandwould,therefore,seemtocomefromaRhodianhistoriographer.Lehmann1988hasidentifiedthisauthorwithZeno,butastheColognepapyrusdivergesfromDiodorus’accountinseveralpointsitseemsmorelikelythatitderivesfromanotherRhodianauthor,e.g.Antisthenes,whodepictedtheeventsinabroadlysimilarbutnotidenticalway(thusWiemer2001:231–8).

(85)Diod.20.82.1–4.

(86)Diod.20.83.2;cf.88.8.

(87)Diod.20.82.4–84.6,85–8,91.1–100.4.

(88)Diod.20.91.1–8(Helepolis),92.1–5(Demetrius).AsboththedescriptionoftheHelepolisandtheportrayalofDemetrius’characterhavecloseparallelsinPlutarch’slifeofDemetrius(2.3;19.6;21.1–2)whichisbasedonHieronymusofCardia,itseemslikelythatZenodrewonHieronymus,too(thusS.Hornblower1981:57–9,Wiemer2001:248–50).HieronymusalsomentionedtheroyalrobessentoffbyPhilatoDemetriusthattheRhodiansinterceptedandpassedontoPtolemy:cf.Diod.20.93.4withPlut.Demetr.21.1.

(89)Diod.20.93.5.

(90)Diod.20.97.5.

(91)FGrHist533no.2,ll.12–48;Diod.20.94.4–5.TheBerlinpapyrusismoredetailed

thanDiodorus.

(92)Diod.20.88.3–7(theRhodiannauarchosExacestus);93.2(Demophilus);93.3–4(Menedemus).Inothercases,Diodorusseemstohavecompressedsuchanaristeiaintoonesingle,laudatorysentenceonaRhodianmagistratewhogavehislifefightingforhiscountrymen:Diod.20.97.7(thestrategosAmeinias);20.98.9(theprytanisDamoteles).InDiod.20.84.5–6,ontheotherhand,thenameofthecommandingRhodianofficermighthavefallenout.

(93)Diod.20.84.2(censusofmencapableofbearingarms),84.3–4(decreeordecreesonemancipatingandenfranchisingslaveswhoexcelledasfighters;cf.100.1,onburyingatpubliccostcitizenswhofellinbattleandonprovidingmaintenancefortheirparentsandchildren),87.4;cf.AeliusAristides,Or.25.4(dedicationsinRhodiansanctuariesmadeoutofthebootytakenfromDemetrius’troops);FGrHist533no.2,ll.40–4;Diod.20.94.5(decreeinhonouroftheMilesianAthenagoras),99.2(letterfromDemetriustotheRhodians),99.3(treatybetweenDemetriusandtheRhodians),100.2(statuesofCassanderandLysimachus),100.3–4(responseoftheoracleofSiwatotheRhodians).TheprecisefiguresgivenfortheamountofgrainsenttotheRhodiansbyPtolemy,Lysimachus,andCassander(Diod.20.96.3,98.1)alsoseemultimatelytoderivefromaliststoredinRhodianarchives.AndwecanbesurethatforZenoAlexander’stestamentwasanauthenticdocument,too.

(94)OntheuseofdocumentsinGreek(andRoman)historiography,seeHigbie1999andthemanycontributionsassembledinBiraschietal.2003.ForPolybius,seeWalbank,HCPi.31–3,Pédech1964:377–88,Prandi2003,Schettino2003,Zecchini2003.HisfamousdiscussionofthetreatieswithCarthageisin3.22–7.

(95)Diod.20.93.6–7.

(96)Diod.20.84.4.

(97)Diod.20.93.7.ThisterminologyaccordswithofficialRhodianparlance:StaatsverträgeIII551,ll.13–14;III552,l.29.

(98)Diod.20.88.3,8,98.4.

(99)ThedatewhenZeno’shistorywaspublishedcanonlybeinferredfromtheusePolybiusmadeofit.ThelasttracesofhisbeingdependentonRhodiantraditionaretobefoundinhisaccountofhowin163theRhodiansgotpossessionofCalynda;referencestolatereventsareeitherindifferentoropenlyhostiletotheRhodiansandcannot,therefore,derivefromaRhodiansourceofinformation.TheconclusionthatZenopublishedhisworkaround160oralittlelateriscompatiblewiththefewindicationsPolybiusgivesaboutZeno’slife:whenthetwocorrespondedPolybiuswasstillatwork,butZeno’shistoryhadalreadybeenpublished(Plb.16.20.5).AsPolybiusstartedwritingafter168,thiswouldseemtopointtoadatearoundthemiddleofthesecondcentury.

(100)RightlystressedbyLenfant2005:187.

(101)Plb.16.18.2:περὶμὲντὴντη̑ςλέξεωςκατασκευὴνδη̑λόςἐστινἐπὶτοσου̑τονἐσπουδακὼςὡςὑπερβολὴντερατείαςμὴκαταλιπειν̑τοις̑τὰςἐπιδεικτικὰςκαὶπρὸςἔκπληξιντω̑νπολλω̑νσύνταξειςποιουμένοις.

(102)Seeaboven.62.

(103)I.Lindos2,D,III,ll.94–115.Thereare13morelinesonthestonewhichtodayareillegible;inthesewecannotnowrecoverreferencesthatweregiventothesourcesused.

(104)Seeaboven.84.

(105)Forexample,Strab.14.2.5relatesthat,accordingtosome,TlepolemusnamedthethreeoldcitiesofRhodesafterthreeoftheDanaids;themythographerCononhas(FGrHist26F1§47)auniqueversionofRhodianprehistoryinwhichtheHeliadaearekingsoveran‘autochthonous’peoplethatisthenexpelledbythePhoenicianswhointurnaredrivenoutbyCarians.OnlythendotheDoriansarriveandfoundthethreeoldcitiesofRhodes.

(106)Diod.5.55.5.Onthe῎Ιγνητες,seeBlinkenberg1915a:274–6,whoproposedemendingγίγανταςtoἼγνητας.Againstthisproposal,Jacoby,FGrHistIIIb(Text):438pointedoutthattheawkwardexpressionmightbeduetoexcessivecompressionbyDiodorus.

(107)Diod.5.56.3.TheRhodianwriterGorgonFGrHist515F13knewofaφυλὴΑὐτοχθόνων.

Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius, and the Quest for Friendship in Second-Century Rome1

ScipioAemilianus,Polybius,andtheQuestforFriendshipinSecond-CenturyRome1

MichaelSommer

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0017

AbstractandKeywords

Polybius'accountofhisfriendshipwithScipioAemilianushasgeneratedfiercecontroversyconcerningwhetherornottherewasa'Scipioniccircle'.Insteadoftheextremepositionswhichhavecharacterizedeithersideofthisdebate,ScipioisbetterseenastheproductofamilieuwhereinvestmentintheculturalcapitalofferedbyGreekpaideiawasanimportantmeansforgeneratingprestige,thoughhisfriendshipwithPolybiusshouldbeseenintermsofGreekphiliaratherthanRomanamicitiabetweenequals.Nevertheless,Polybius'contactwithScipiodoesnotappeartohavegivenhimaclearerunderstandingofhowfriendshipworkedamongtheRomannobility,whichmayaccountforsomeoftheshortcomingsofhisunderstandingoftheRomanconstitution.

Keywords:Polybius,ScipioAemilianus,friendship,culturalcapital,paideia,philia,amicitia,constitutionaltheory

Nowthattheprogressofmynarrativeandthedatecallourspecialattentiontothisfamily,Iwishinordertosatisfythereader’scuriositytoexecuteapromiseImadeinthepreviousbookandleftunfulfilled,andthiswasthatIwouldtellhowandwhythefameofScipioinRomeadvancedsofarandbecamesobrilliantmorequicklythanitshould,andtotellalsohowhisfriendshipandintimacywiththeauthorgrewsogreatthatthisreportaboutthemnotonlyspreadtoItalyandGreece,butthatevenfurtherafieldtheirlikingandintercoursewereamatterofcommonknowledge.2

Withthesewords,PolybiussetsoutthestoryofhisfriendshipwiththemanwhowaslatertobecomeCarthage’snemesisand,atleastformanymodernscholars,theleadingfigureoftheso-calledScipionicCircle,agroupofintellectualsthatfeaturesinsomeofCicero’sworksandhasbeensubjecttoconsiderablespeculationmorerecently.Itisthepresentpaper’sobjectivetorevisitPolybius’roleinScipioAemilianus’lifeand,morebroadly,bothmen’simportancefortheintellectualclimateofsecond-centuryBCRome.Inaddition,itwilldiscusstheinfluenceofGreekphilosophicalthoughtontheRomannobility,and,viceversa,therepercussionsthatPolybius’movinginthesecirclesmayhavehadonhisconceptionsoftheRomansenatorialclass.3

(p.308) The‘ScipionicCircle’—factorfiction?Whatdothesourcestellusaboutthetwomen’srelationship?AccordingtoPolybius’ownaccount,theauthorbefriendstheyoungman,whoisupsetthattheGreekhistorianseemstopreferhiselderbrother,FabiusMaximusAemilianus,duringtabletalkinthehouseofL.AemiliusPaullus,Scipio’srealfather.WhenPolybiusrepliesthathesimplypresumedthatScipiosharedhisbrother’sopinions,theyoungmanreplied:‘WouldIcouldseethedayonwhichyou,regardingnothingelseasofhigherimportance,woulddevoteyourattentiontomeandjoinyourlifewithmine;forthenIshallatoncefeelmyselftobeworthyofmyhouseandmyforefathers.’4Soithappened:Polybius,whobecameScipio’smentorandamemberofhisentourage,accompaniedtheaspiringaristocratatsomeofthekeymomentsofhiscareer,mostnotablyatCarthage.

Notsurprisingly,Polybius’portrayalofScipioisthoroughlyidealized.HepraiseshimasanexampleofhumanityandGreekπαιδεία.AfterhavingerasedCarthagefromthemap,Polybius’Scipio,withtheauthorbeingeyewitness,citesHomer:

AdaywillcomewhensacredTroyshallperish,AndPriamandhispeopleshallbeslain.5

Polybiusthenexpresseshisownconvictionthat‘atthemomentofourgreatesttriumphandofdisastertoourenemiestoreflectonourownsituationandonthepossiblereversalofcircumstances,andgenerallytobearinmindattheseasonofsuccessthemutabilityofFortune,islikeagreatandperfectman,amaninshortworthytoberemembered’.6

Polybius’ScipioisnotonlycapableofGreek-stylecompassionwithadefeatedenemy,healsoembodiestheentirecanonofRomanvirtues,beingfirm,courageous,modest,

generous,andliberal.7ThisimageofaRoman(p.309) gentlemanwhounitesthefortuneofasuccessfulgeneralwiththerefinedtasteandmannersofaGreekintellectual,combinedwiththeroleScipioAemilianusassumedinCicero’sdialoguesDeamicitiaandDerepublica,seems,atfirstglanceatleast,tojustifyhisreputationastheheartofanintellectualcirclethatcontributedsubstantiallytoestablishingGreekwaysofthinkingintheparvenucapitalofanexpandingempire,withimmediateconsequencesforRomanpolitics.

Scholarshiponthe‘ScipionicCircle’usedtooscillatebetweenunthinkingacceptanceandscepticism.RuthMartinBrown,who,inthe1930s,wrotetheonlymonographdedicatedtotheScipionicCirclesofar,wasstraightforwardyoverwhelmedbythegroup’simportance:‘WemustbelievethattheScipionicgroupheldaleadingplaceinpoliticsalmostuninterruptedlyfromthebeginningofthesecondcenturyuntilthedeathofTiberiusGracchus.’ForBrown,thecircle’sintellectualhegemonywasshakenonlyoccasionallybyoppositionwhich‘needcausebutlittleworrytothepowerfulScipionicCircle,whichfounditspositionsecurebothbecauseofthetraditionalfameofitsfounder,AfricanusMaior,andthehighqualityofleadershipdisplayedbyhissuccessor,ScipioAemilianus’.8

Thisis,tobesure,afairlyextremestatement.Butthepoliticallyandintellectuallyomnipotentthink-tankoftheliberalcurrentofRome’ssenatorialaristocracyisaspectrethatstillhauntstextbooks9—achimerawhichcannotstanduptothefacts.Consequently,thepresentorthodoxyhasadoptedacontraryposition.ForHermannStrasburger,the‘ScipionicCircle’wasnomorethanaliterarytrick,adevicethatprovidedahistoricalframeandsettingforthedialogues’philosophicalcontents,modelledonthecirclesurroundingtheScaevolaeandtheoratorsAntoniusandCrassus,whichCiceroclaimedtohaveformedpartofinhisyouth.10Similarly,A.E.AstinrejectedtheideaofanintellectualcircleofPhilhellenesthatcouldhavediffusedtheblessingsofGreekthoughtinRomansociety.11JamesZetzelwentevenfurther,viewingtheframesofthehistoricalsettings,amongthemthe‘ScipionicCircle’,assheer‘vehiclesforthedialoguesinwhichtheyareused,notindependent(p.310) entities’.12Asaresult,thedialogues’philosophicalcontentswere‘distinctlyremovedfromtheunpleasantcontemporaryscene’.13Finally,GaryForsythearguedthatthewordgrexinDeAmicitia69doesnotrefertothe‘ScipionicCircle’(asmostscholarsbelieved)buttothe‘commonherd[…]ofRomanpoliticians’.14HisattackwasintendedasthefinalblowtotheideaofanintellectualroundtableconveningatregularintervalsinScipio’shouseanddeterminingthecourseofRomanpolitics.15

ΠΑιΔΕιΑandtheeconomyofsymboliccapitalOnacloserlook,however,theseeminglycogentconclusionofanon-existent‘ScipionicCircle’isnomoresatisfactorythanthepositionheldbytheoldorthodoxy.TheideathatthegroupwasinventedbyCiceroformereliterarypurposesisapseudo-solutiontothepuzzlethatleavesagreatmanyquestionsunanswered.First,whatexactlywasthenatureofScipio’sinterestinGreekπαιδεία?Strasburgerarguesthatamanwhowasnotonlyresponsibleforthe‘VollstreckungderStaatsraisonanKarthagoundNumantia’16,

butwentaboutitwithenthusiasm,couldhardlybesusceptibletotheenlighteningideasofculturalHellenism.Theargumenthaslittlesubstance.Thegrimrealitiesofwarfareandthesublimeidealsofphilosophywereasurprisinglygoodmatchatalltimes.17Scipio’sgenuinededicationtoGreekart,literature,andphilosophyisindisputable,andPolybius’portrayalofanexemplaryaristocratofoutstandingvirtue,idealizedthoughitmaybe,doesnotappeartolacksomesolidfoundation.18DespitetherebeingasubstantialnumberofRomanswhoindulgedtheirphilosophicalandliterarypassions,19ScipiostoodoutasaPhilhelleneofdistinction.Scipio,unquestionably,feltthe‘appealofHellas’inaparticularlystrongway.20

Thisbringsustoasecondcomplexofquestions:whydidHellashavesuchanappealthatpeoplelikeScipioandhisfatherAemiliusPaullusinvestedtheir(p.311) timeinπαιδεία?WhydidScipioseekPolybius’friendshipatall?WhydoesayoungRomannoblemansurroundhimselfwithGreeks?AndwhatexactlywasPolybius’positioninthehouseoftheAemiliiandlaterinScipio’sentourage?

Greekcultureandπαιδείαwerehardlyuncontroversialinsecond-centuryBCRome.WhenCarneadesofCyrene,headoftheNewAcademyandamemberoftheAthenianphilosophicembassyof155BC,gavetwopubliclecturesinRome,oneonjusticeandoneoninjustice,thusshowingoffhisoratoricalskills,itwasnothisintentiontoundermineorevencriticizeRomanmorality.Nonetheless,Catowasdisconcertedbysomuchethicalrelativism.ConvincedthatRome’syouthneededprotectionfromtheGreekwordmongersandtheirideas,whichheperceivedtobethreateningtraditionalRomanvalues,hecouldnotwaitfortheAthenianphilosophers’returntoGreece.ForpeoplelikeCato,whoclungtoEnnius’maximthatRomereliedonancientmoresandmen,Carneades’andhisfellow-philosophers’ideashadenoughsubversivepotentialtoshaketheRomanstatetoitsfoundations.21

ButCatorepresentedaminorityofRomanaristocrats.HisconcernsmakesenseonlyifweconsiderhowpopulartheperformancesofCarneadesandtheotherGreekswere.AccordingtoPlutarch,youngRomanscametotheirlecturesindroves.22TheepisodeshedslightonarapidlychangingintellectualclimateinRome.ThecityontheTiberwasabouttobecomeacosmopolitanhubofeducationanderuditioninitsownright,whererhetoric,philosophy,andknowledgethatwentbeyondthepracticalthingsoflifewereheldinhighesteem.

ThisisthemilieuinwhichScipioAemilianuswasbroughtup.HehadembracedGreekcultureandtheprestigeitcarriedfromearlychildhood.AemilianusisthelivingproofthatCato’sconcernswereunfounded:versatilityinGreekπαιδείαdidnotaltertheattitudeofRomanofficialstowardstheirGreek,letalonebarbarian,opponents.IfCatohadfrettedthatculturalHellenismwouldturntheoffspringoftheshe-wolfintounprincipled,effeminateweaklings,hewaswrong.NoshiftinpoliticalprinciplesandprioritiesaccompaniedtheriseofGreekculturalinfluence.23

OneaspectofpoliticallifeinRomedidchange,however,andquiteprofoundly:theavailabilityofanewresourceofcapitalsymbolique—παιδεία—addedanentirelynew

battlegroundtothecenturies-oldstrugglefordignitasthatconcernedmembersoftheRomannobilitymorethananything.Along(p.312) withotherfactors—therepercussionsofempire,theconcentrationofenormouswealthinthehandsofthenobiles,andlooseningsocialtiesbetweenthefewandthemany24—theintroductionofπαιδείαcontributedtoRome’saristocraticcompetitionbecomingfiercerthanever.Soon,philosophical,oratorical,artistic,andliteraryconnoisseurshipbecamehardcashonthearistocraticvanityfairand,whenamassed,thehallmarkofasenator’sdignity.Theultimatearbiterinthisraceforthissymboliccapital,thatcouldthenbeconvertedintosocialcapitaland,finally,power,wastheRomanpeople.25

WhenScipioAemilianusfirstmetPolybiusinhisfather’shouse,hewasanxiousoverrumoursthathewasthedegenerateoffspringofaonceillustriousfamily,incapableofleadingtheCorneliiScipiones.26ItwasthearchetypicalfearforaRomannoblemantobeincapableofmatchinghisgloriousancestors.ThesocialcapitalofaRomanaristocratcomprisedtwocomponents:‘Ahnenkapital’,orthesocialprestigeaccumulatedbythepreviousrepresentativesofthegens,andindividualachievements.Inordertoequalthemaiores,hehadtoperformwellwhenholdinghighmagistraciesandtoaccomplishmemorabledeeds.Onlybydoingsocouldheenterthecollectivememoryofhisgensasanexemplum—thelicenceforbeingcarriedaroundasawaxmaskonthepompaefunebresofhisdescendants.27

AsthesonofL.AemiliusPaullusandtheadoptivegrandsonofScipioAfricanus,Scipiowasunderadualpressure.Hecouldhardlydrawlevelwithsuchancestorsthroughperformancesofdiplomaticshrewdnessandmilitaryleadership.However,inaworldwhereGreekπαιδείαincreasinglymattered,itsostentatiousdisplaywasalsoregardedasasourceofaristocraticdignitas:FabiusPictorexplicitlyaddressedaGreek-speakingaudienceinhishistoricalwork;L.AemiliusPaullus,afterhisvictoryoverPerseusatPydna(168BC),heldagonesintheGreektradition;28ScipioAfricanusmaiorwenttoSyracuse,dressedasaGreek,andvisitedthegymnasium;T.QuinctiusFlamininusboastedofhisknowledgeofGreekliteratureandlearning;andevenCatowasasoundconnoisseurofGreekculture.

(p.313) ByestablishingahubofGreekπαιδείαintheheartofRome,ScipioAemilianussurpassedthemall.HeensuredthathewouldberememberedasatruechampionofGreekeruditioninthecapitalofayoungandgrowingempire.Hisstrategypaidoff:throughPolybius’historicalwork,heassuredhimselfamostprominentplaceinthecollectivememoryoftheRomanaristocracy,and,bysponsoringthephilosopherPanaetius,hebecametheincarnationofaristocraticotiumcumdignitate,amodelforpeoplesuchasCicerowhoreferredtohimwhenvindicatingthemorecontemplativepartsoftheirpubliclives.29NolongerwashistoriographytheonlyintellectualdisciplineinwhichaRomannobiliswasallowedtoexcel.ScipioAemilianusprovedthatversatilityinanumberoffieldsaddedtoanaristocrat’sdecorum.Bycombiningformidableπαιδείαwithimpressivemilitaryachievements,Scipioevenmanagedtooutdohisfather,thevictorofPydnaandconquerorofMacedonia,andadoptivegrandfather,thevictoroverHannibal.30

TheroleofPolybiusinScipio’slifebeginstotakeshapenow.ThekeytoitsunderstandingisthechangingimportanceofπαιδείαinRomanaristocraticcompetition,whichmadethecompanyofaGreekintellectualaninvaluableasset.Thisexplainswhythemightysoughtthefriendshipofthesage.Buthowcanwedefinetheir‘friendship’?Whatwasthenatureoftherelationshipbetweenthetwomen,which,accordingtoPolybius,wasdistinguishedbyφιλίαandσυνήθεια?31

ThesocialsemanticsoffriendshipInordertoappreciatefullythefuzzinessandcomplexityofthisproblem,ashortdigressiononthesocialsemanticsoffriendship—φιλίαandamicitia,respectively—inGreeceandRomeisindispensable.FortheGreeks,friendshipwasasocialbond,generallybetweenequals,ofparamountimportance—arguablymoreimportantthanevenkinship.Apowerfulsourceoffriendshipwasaffection,butfriendshipwasfartooserioustobeonlyamatterofemotion;absoluteloyaltyandthedesiretohelpfriendsunderallcircumstances,inpersonal,economic,andpoliticalaffairs,wereessentialconstituentsofφιλία,too.Friendship,whichcouldbehandeddownoverseveralgenerations,wasguidedbytwobehaviouralnormsconstitutiveforGreeksociety:reciprocity,and‘agonal’competition.Inpolitics,friendshipcouldeasilylead(p.314) toupheaval,στάσις,whengroupsoffriends(ἑταιρίαι)turnedintopoliticalfactions.32

Inpoliticalsystemsbasedonmonarchicrule,socialtiesgainedevenmorepoliticalsignificance.Intheabsenceoftheconceptofa‘court’proper,theGreeksused‘friendship’toindicateaperson’sassociationwiththeruler.Hierarchieswereinformalandoftencovert.Greektyrantssurroundedthemselveswithloyalsupportersandcelebrities,mostnotablyintellectualsandartists,whoseskillscameinhandywhentheruler’sachievementsweretobecelebratedpublicly.Again,thedegreeofformalizationofsuchbondsofpatronagewaslow,thetransitionfromsymposiasticto‘courtly’companyrathersmooth.33OnefamousexampleisAnacreonofTeos,whofirst‘befriended’Polycrates,thetyrantofSamos,andafterPolycrates’death,in522BC,movedtoAthens,whereheworkedforHipparchus.HieroIofSyracusewasthepatronofBacchylidesofCeosandPindar,thefamouspoets.34

Lateron,circlesof‘friends’,φίλοι,ashubsofpoliticalleadershipbecameastandardfeatureinHellenisticcapitals.ThemoststrikingexampleisAlexandria,wherethePtolemaickingscreatedafunctionaleliteofMacedonianandGreekimmigrantswhosepositiondependedentirelyontheirpersonalrelationshipwiththeking.Themuseion,establishedbyPtolemyI,wastheHellenisticworld’sunrivalledcentreofscholarlyandliteraryactivity.Itoperatednotasanacademic‘institution’withmeritocraticproceduresofentry,butratheronthebasisofaconceptofextendedφιλία:thescholarsandpoetskeptcompanywiththekingas‘friends’,ideallyequals,whohad,ofcourse,toaccepttheking’ssuperiorityintherealworld.ThisparadoxofφιλίαgaveHellenistic‘court’relationshipsingeneral,andtherelationshipsbetweenrulersandintellectualsinparticular,theirpeculiarflair.Thearrangementwas,asbefitsarelationshipbetweenfriends,ofmutualbenefit:thescholars,philosophers,andwritersmadetheirliving—lavishly—whereasthekingexcelledasapromoterofwisdomandbeauty.35

AswithGreekφιλία,Romanamicitiaentailedreciprocityandtheusefulnessoffriendstooneanother.Likeφιλία,amicitiahadastrongemotionalcomponentofaffectionandintimacy.Butthetwoconceptsarenotsynonymous.Stillmorethanφιλία,Romanamicitiawasanelusive,evencontradictory,concept,(p.315) spanningthespheresofpersonal,social,andpoliticalidentity.Butinwhatrespectsexactlydidamicitiadifferfromφιλία?First,afriendlyrelationshipinRomewasmorestrictly‘utilitarian’thanφιλία,althoughtherewascertainlyspaceforpersonalfeelings,too.36Secondly,theurgetoobservetherulesofreciprocitywasstrongerthaninGreeceandtheexchangeofbeneficiaandofficiawasanessentialrequirementoffides,which,inturn,wasthebasisofanysocialrelationship,nomatterwhethersymmetricorasymmetric.37Thirdly,andmostimportantly,amicitia,farmorethanφιλία,wasarelationshipbetweenequals.Falsesymmetry,whichhadbeenatthecoreoffriendshipbetweenindividualsofprofoundlyunequalsocialstandinginGreece,wasunknowntoRomansintherepublic.38

Tobesure,senatorscouldjoininaristocraticamicitiawithmembersoftheequestrianorder;buttheinclusionofa(slightly)inferiorsocialgrouponlyhighlightsthefundamentalegalitéwhichwasbothexpressedandcreatedbyamicitia.Thereweresomeborderlinecases:intheAugustanperiod,poetslikeHoraceoccasionallyavoidedthetermpatronusandaddressedMaecenasandotherpatronsasmagnusorpotensamicus.39Buttheywerepeopleofsomesocialstanding,andRomans,too;theyworkedatatimewhenGreekideashadfirmlytakenrootontheTiberandwhenAugustuswasalreadybeginningtoblurtheboundariesbetweensymmetricandasymmetricsocialrelationships.Bycontrast,‘friendship’betweenasecond-centuryBCRomansenatorandanindividualfromtherank-and-fileofRomansociety,letaloneaforeigner,wasstraightforwardlyunthinkable,eveniftheysharedcommoninterestsandwere(p.316) connectedthroughfidesandgratia.Suchtiesinvariablyrequiredthebondsofanasymmetricrelationship,andtheasymmetricrelationshipparexcellenceinRomewaspatrocinium.40

ThenatureoftherelationshipbetweenScipioAemilianusandPolybiusemergesmoreclearlyasaconsequence.Undeniably,thereexistedbetweenthetwomenastrongbondofφιλία,buttheywerenoamiciintheRomansense.Polybius,whendescribingtherelationshiptheyoungRomanwasseekingtoestablishwithhim,theGreekexile,usesthetermφιλία—andquiterightlyso.FromaRomanperspective,PolybiuswasdeepinScipio’sdebt,asScipioandhisbrother,throughtheiradvocacy,hadachievedforPoybiusthemanyprivilegesheenjoyed.InsteadofbeingretainedinoneoftheEtruscancities,41PolybiuscouldstayinRomeandbecomepartofAemiliusPaullus’household.Thisestablished,inRomanterms,areciprocalrelationshipofmutualsolidarity(fides),butonewhichwasasymmetric,apatrocinium.AsaforeignerwithnosocialstandingwhatsoeverinRome,whodidnotevenholdRomancitizenship,PolybiuscouldnotbetheamicusofaRomansenator:hewashisclient.Assuch,itwashisroletoenhancehispatronus’standingasapromoterofscholarshipandasanintellectualofsomecalibre.Thesameholdstrue,mutatismutandis,forPanaetius,whodidnotcometoRomeasahostagebutofhisownvolition.ThisStoic,whosefatherhadbeeninRomeasanenvoyofhishomepolisofRhodes,cametoRomeshortlyafter144BC.HeveryquicklybecameanassociateofScipioAemilianusandaccompaniedhimonhisfamousdiplomaticmissionto

theNearEast,visitingsuchexoticplacesasEcbatanaandBabylon.42DidheserveasScipio’sadviserindiplomaticaffairs?Thediplomaticexperienceofhisfathernotwithstanding,thisseemshardtobelieve.Panaetiuswasaphilosopherandnotadiplomatbytraining.Fromaprofessionalpointofview,hewasdispensableforthemissionandthusnotrequiredinScipio’sentourage.Fidesratherthananyprofessionalqualification,eruditionratherthanmorepracticalskillslooklikelytobetheexplanationforPanaetius’accompanyingScipiototheNearEast.43

ItisremarkablethatinPolybius’accountofhisrelationshipwithScipioAemilianusonlytheGreeksidefeatures,whiletheRomansideismute.Romanpatternsofinterpretationareconspicuouslyabsentfromthepassage:noreferenceismadetofidesanditsimplicationsofmutualofficiaandbeneficia,theasymmetryinsocialstatusbetweenthetwo‘friends’isomitted,andtherelationshipappearsmoreinformalthaneventhetiesbetween(p.317) Maecenasandthepoetsofhis‘circle’150yearslater.AllthatweseeistheGreeknotionoffriendship,φιλία,includingtheappearanceofsymmetrybetweenthepartners.44

WasPolybiusright?Whileitshouldbeclearbynowwhatthemightyandthesagehadtogainfromtheirmutualrelationship,itisadifferentquestionhowthisaffectedtheirviewsontheconditiohumanaingeneral,andonRomanpoliticsinparticular.ItisevidentthatmenlikePanaetiusandPolybius,forScipio,providedagatewayintothecolossalinventoryofGreekwisdom;theyservedasguidesintothe(forRomans)sofarunchartedterritoriesofphilosophyandscience.Buthowdidhis‘friendship’withScipioshapePolybius’viewsonRome’spoliticallandscape?HowdidheusetheintimateknowledgeofRomanpoliticalpracticeheacquiredowingtohiscapacityasoneofRome’spowerfulmen’sφίλοι?

ThemostmanifestresultofPolybius’studyofRome’spoliticalsystemis,ofcourse,histheoryofthe‘mixedconstitution’inBook6.Thegroundbreakingoriginalityofthispassage,essentiallyatreatiseinitsownright,liesinitsapplicationofGreekpoliticaltheoryinanattempttodecodethepoliticalgrammarofanaliensociety,theRomanrepublic,andexplainittoits—GreekandRoman—audience.45ToPolybius,theRomanstate’sbalancebetweenthethreeidealformsofgovernmentestablishedbyPlatoandAristotlewasthekeytounderstandingitstriumphovertheotherpolitiesintheMediterraneanworld.ThecommunisopinioofmodernscholarshiprejectedtheideaofademocraticcomponentintheRomanpoliticalsystem,claiminginsteadthatpoliticalpowerintheRomanrepublicwasmonopolizedbyitsall-powerfulnobility—until,nearlythirtyyearsago,FergusMillaremphaticallydeclared:‘Polybiuswasrightandhismoderncriticsarewrong’.46Washe?Thisisnottheplacetorecapitulateindetailadebate,originallytriggeredbyKarl-Joachim(p.318) Hölkeskamp’sdoctoralthesis,47andwhichisstillsimmering.ThequestionsMillarasked—orratherreopened—werevalidonesandstimulatedfurtherinvestigation.But,onbalance,hiscriticsseemtohavegottheupperhandwiththeirpainstakingargumentationindefenceoftheRomannobilityasaheuristicconcept,anidealtype:thestatic‘constitutionalmachinery’.48Millar’sreplacementforMatthiasGelzer’sNobilitätsherrschaftisaratherbloodlessfictionalconstruct,whereastheeffectivenessof

theinformal,asitwere‘sub-constitutional’,sourcesofpoweroriginallydescribedbyGelzercanhardlybedisputed.Ineffect,Millar’srevisionmarkedastepbackwards,behindGelzer’ssociologicalapproachandbacktoMommsen’sformalistconstitutionalism.49

ButifpopularpowerandtheconstituentsofPolybius’‘mixedconstitution’wereindeedamerefaçadeandthenobilitywasanexclusiverulingclasseffectivelymonopolizingaccesstopoliticaldecision-making,oneenigmaremainstobesolved:whywasPolybius‘wrong’,giventhathewassoclosetotherepublic’sinnercircleofpower?Whydidheignorethestructuresunderlyingtheconstitutionalsurface?IsitpossiblethathedidnotunderstandhowScipioAemilianusandhisfellow-nobilesactedonRome’spoliticalstage—andbehindthescenes?

PolybiusmayhaveignoredthesocialbondsthatcreatedthenobilityandguaranteeditspoliticaldominanceforpreciselythesamereasonsthatherefusedtoacknowledgetheRomandimensionofhisrelationshipwithScipioAemilianus.HemayhavewrittenhishistoryforaGreekandRomanaudience,buthisperspectivewasentirelyGreek.HisquestionswereGreek,andsowasthespecificanglefromwhichheapproachedhissubject:Polybius’purposewasnottodeliveranaccuratedescriptionofthepoliticalfunctioningoftheRomanrepublic,theproceduresandprocessesthatkepttheRomanstaterunning,butatheoretical—ideal–typicalintheWeberiansense—explanationforitssuperiorityovertheotherMediterraneanpolities.Hence,hisanalysiswasnotguidedbyanyautopsybutbythecategoriesofPlato’sandAristotle’spoliticalutopianism.Polybius’constitutionoftheRomanrepublic,likeMommsen’sRömischesStaatsrecht,didnotexistintherealworldbutonlyintheacademicmindofitscreator.

Notes:

(1)ThisisasubstantiallyrevisedversionofmypapergivenatthePolybiusconferencein2007.Itakethisopportunitytothanktheorganizersofthisevent,andinparticularBruceGibsonforhiscommentsonthischapter.AllquotationsfromPolybiusaretakenfromtheLoebeditionofPaton.

(2)Plb.31.23.1–3.

(3)OnScipioAemilianusingeneral,Kaerst1929,Bilz1935,Astin1967,Abel1971,Elvers1997,Zahrnt2000.OnScipio’smysteriousdeath,Worthington1989,Beness2005.

(4)Plb.31.24.9–10.

(5)Plb.38.22.2;Hom.Il.6.448.Theepisode,whichisalsopasseddownbyDiod.32.24andApp.Pun.132(bothreferringtoPolybiusbutgivingdifferentversions),hasbeenwidelydiscussedinrecentscholarship:accordingtoMommsen1902–4:ii.37–8,ScipiofearedretributionforthedestructionofCarthage.ThisviewisstillfollowedbyMiles2010:346–7.Gehrke1996:536–7,followingWalbank,HCPi.722–5on38.21.1–3,viewsScipio’squotingHomeras‘eineSensibilitätfürdiemenschlichenWechselfälle’owingtotheinfluenceofGreekphilosophicalthinkingand,inthecaseofScipioAemilianus,

mediatedthroughPolybius.Gehrke(p.537)seeshereatleastrudimentsofapolicyofthoughtfulness(‘denAnsatzgebenzueinerPolitikderNachdenklichkeit’).Othersaremoresceptical:Zahrnt2002:94suspectsthatScipio’stearsmaywellhaveflowedfromPolybius’penandpointstoPlb.8.20.9–10,whereanothervictoriousleader(AntiochusIII)shedstearsinthefaceofadefeatedenemy(Achaius).OnweepingandtearsastopoiinHellenistichistoriography,nowLateiner2009:122(withreferencetoScipioandPolybius).

(6)Plb.38.21.2–3.

(7)PolybiuslistsnumerousexamplesofScipio’stemperance(31.25.2–8),generosity(31.25.9–28.9),andcourage(31.29).

(8)MartinBrown1934:79.

(9)e.g.Christ1984:92–102,Dreyer2006:81–3,Ferrary1988:589–602,Gruen1968:17,Heuss1998:128(‘InjenerBegegnunglagenüberhauptdieKeimeeinerhöherenrömischenGeistigkeitvoneigenemFühlenundEmpfindenundwurdediePrägungeinerbesonderen,durchdasGriechischebefruchtetenGesittungvollzogen.’).Gruen,however,hassubsequentlyjoinedthesceptics(Gruen1992:252:‘Theideaofa“ScipionicCircle”,thecentreofRomanHellenism,encompassingthenation’scultivatedeliteandthesourceofintellectualactivityinthecity,nolongercarriesconviction’).

(10)Strasburger1966:72:‘DasgeistigeLebenundFluidumdes“Scipionenkreises”fingiertCiceronachdemkonstituierendengesellschaftlichenundzugleichBildungserlebnisseinerJugendim“Kreise”derScaevolaeundderRednerCrassusundAntonius.’

(11)Astin1967:294–306.

(12)Zetzel1972:176.

(13)Ibid.177.

(14)Forsythe1991:363.

(15)ForaconvincingphilologicalrefutationofForsythe’sargument,see,however,Wilson1994.

(16)Strasburger1966:70.

(17)Gruen1984:268–9listsnumerousRomancommanders,fromL.AemiliusPaullustoC.SulpiciusGalus,fromCn.OctaviustoL.LiciniusCrassus,withwhomGreekπαιδείαandprofounderuditiondidnottranslateintophilhellenisminpoliticis.

(18)Onart,Coarelli1990:644,Gruen1992:119;onHellenicphilosophyandScipio’sattitudestowardsRomantradition,Christ1984:99–100,Gruen1992:128.

(19)Gruen1992:251listsL.MarciusCensorinus,Q.LutatiusCatulus,Q.AeliusTubero,M.AemiliusLepidus,Q.MuciusScaevola,Q.MetellusNumidicus,andM.ClaudiusMarcellusas‘RomanaristocratswithsincereinterestinHellenismandnotableaccomplishmentinthatsphere’.

(20)Gruen1992:223.

(21)Plut.Cato22.4–5;Plin.Nat.7.112.SeealsoCic.Rep.3.21.OnCarneades,thephilosophicembassy,andCato’sreaction,seeKienast1954:105,Fuchs1964:2–5,Gruen1984:341–2,Gruen1996:174–7,Jehne1999,Drecoll2004,Vössing2006:137–8.GruenhasshownthatitwasnotCarneades’purposetocriticizeorevenchallengeRome(asargued,forinstance,byFuchs).

(22)Plut.Cato22.2–3.TheirpopularityhasbeenemphasizedbyGruen1996:176.

(23)Ironicallyitwas,accordingtoPolybius(30.6.5–6),Catowho,withhisfamousdefenceoftheRhodiansin167BC,broughtanewelementintoRomanforeignpolitics.Onthefamous‘turn’of167,seeKienast1954:120–1,Calboli1978,Gabba1990:208–10,Gabba1993:68–70.

(24)AconcisesummaryofthestructuralchangesaffectingRomansocietyinthesecondcenturyBCisprovidedbyAlföldy1985:42–64.TherulesofaristocraticcompetitionareexplainedbyHölkeskamp2004a:85–92,basedonSimmel1992(chapter‘DerStreit’).AccordingtoHölkeskamp,aristocraticcompetitioninRomewasarace‘umdenErfolgihrerLeistungenbeieinerdrittenInstanz’(Simmel:340):theRomanpopulace.Competetionwas‘KonkurrenzumdenMenschen,einRingenumBeifallundAufwendung,umEinräumungenundHingebungenjederArt’(Simmel:328).

(25)Ontheeconomyofsocialdistinctionandtheconvertibilityofsymboliccapital,seeBourdieu1979.

(26)Plb.31.23.10–13.

(27)Ontheaccumulationofsocialcapitalthroughindividualachievementandgenealogicalmemory—anditsdisplayinthepompafunebris—H.I.Flower1996:211–16,Hölkeskamp1999,Flaig2003:49–98,Walter2003,Walter200484–130.

(28)TheagonesofAmphipoliswere,however,clearlyframedbyelementsoftheRomanludicritual,thussendingaclearmessagetotheGreeksastowhowasnowinpower(Flaig2000:139–40).

(29)Habicht1990:116.

(30)OntheGreekperspectiveonrhetoric,history,andπαιδεία,seeOliver2006:123–8.

(31)Plb.31.23.3.

(32)OnconceptsofφιλίαinclassicalandHellenisticGreece,seeFraisse1974,Gehrke1985:333–4,Gehrke1987:129–30,Gehrke1990:53–4,Konstan1997:53–120,Gehrke1998.

(33)Goldhill1991:128–36.

(34)OnartisticpatronageunderthearchaicGreektyrants,Barceló1993:159n.570,DeLibero1996:286–7.OnAnacreonAlexisofSamos,FGrHist539F2,Strab.14.1.16,Paus.1.2.3,Ath.13.72,599c,[Arist.]Ath.Pol.18.1.ManyotherscommittedthemselvestoPolycrates,amongthemthepoetIbycus,DemocedesofCroton,thefamousphysician,andthearchitectsEupalinusofMegaraandRhoicusofSamos.ForSyracuseunderHieroI,seeWeber1993:38–44.

(35)Weber1993:23–5,Gehrke1995:90–1,Meissner2007:98–100,Murray2008.OnthecareersofindividualφίλοιintheperiodofPtolemyIV,Huss2001:458–64.Thepeculiar‘charismatic’componentofHellenistickingshiphasbeenexposedbyGehrke1982.

(36)Brunt1988:351–3hasrightlyemphasizedtheemotionalcomponentoffriendshipanddisposedoftheaxiomthatamicitiawasapurelypoliticalinstitution,buthehasalso—wronglytomymind—rejectedthenotionthatfeelingsand‘utilitybalance’couldwellgohandinhand.Bruntiscorrectwhenstatingthatpersonalfriendsarenotalwaysandnecessarilypoliticalfriends,butasarulebothgroupsoffriendswillhavebeenrathercongruentthandivergent.Likepatrocinium,amicitiawasnogenuinelypoliticalinstitution,butitcertainlyplayeditspartinpolitics(Gotter1996:346:‘AmicitiawareinerseitsderallgemeineRahmen,indemsichdiearistokratischePolitikabspielte,amicitiaewarenaberauchdiemehroderwenigerstabilenGefolgschafteninnerhalbdiesesRahmens,diesichaufganzunterschiedlicheIntensitätgründeten’).Forthepositionoftheoldorthodoxy,seeMünzer1920,Gelzer1962:102–10,Bleicken1975:123–4.

(37)Spielvogel1993:14–15.Again,therequirementsoffidesandtheironrulesofreciprocitydidnotimplythatamicitiawasprimarilyasocialadhesivetyingtogetheraristocraticfactions.Theamiciofpoliticalfoescouldstillbeamici;occasionalandevenpersistentpoliticaldissensiondidnotleadtofriendshipsbeingrevoked(Gotter1996:343–4).

(38)ItwasdevelopedonlyfromAugustusonwards,andthereasonwastomaintainthefictionofsocialbalancebetweentheprincepsandtheordosenatorius(Winterling1999,Winterling2001:5andpassim,andesp.Winterling2003:28:‘Augustusschaffteesauchhier,paradoxeSachverhaltemiteinanderinVerbindungzusetzen,indemerdasneue,durchkaiserlicheGunststrukturiertehierarchischeBeziehungssystemindenFormeneineralten,aufEgalitätundpersönlicherNähebasierendenFreundschaftpraktizierte’).

(39)Hor.Ep.1.18.44;butseeibid.1.7.Onpatronage,theAugustanpoetsasclientsandtheuseofthelanguageofamicitia,seeWhite1978,Gold1982:16and94,Bowditch2001:19–29,Bowditch2010:55.Onpatronageingeneral,Saller1982,Wallace-Hadrill

1989,Deniaux2007.

(40)Hutter1978:141–5,Brunt1988:382–442,Spielvogel1993:14–15,Gotter1996:344,Flaig2003:17–20.

(41)Paus.7.10.11.

(42)Cic.Luc.5;onthedatingofthemissionandtheevidenceoftheConstantinianexcerptafromDiodorusSiculus,seeAstin1959,Mattingly1986.

(43)OnPanaetius,hislife,andphilosophicalthought,seePohlenz1948:1.191–207,Abel1971,Kraus1997.

(44)Actually,sinceScipioisseekingPolybius’friendship,andsincehisportrayalisthatofaself-conscious,ratherunassertive,youngman—ascomparedtothematureGreekwhoconversesconfidentlyinAemiliusPaullus’house—thesocialasymmetryevenseemsreversed,makingPolybiusthestrongerandScipiotheweakerpartner.

(45)Plb.6.3–9.See,amongothers,Nicolet1974,Nicolet1980:208–9,Schubert1995,Nippel1980,Lintott1999:16–26,andnowPolverini2005:86:‘Polibiomutuadalpensierogrecoquestaconcezionepolitico-costituzionale,ma(storicoenonfilosofo)nefastrumentodiinterpretazionediunaconcretarealtàstorica,infunzionediunprecisoproblema,delproblemachehaispiratolasuaopera….’Forasummaryofthediscussion,seeWalbank2002:16.Ontheintendedandactualreadership(‘thepoliticaleliteinGreeceandRome’)ofPolybius’work,Champion2004a:7.

(46)Millar1984:2.OnthefurtherelaborationofMillar’sthesisseeMillar1986,Millar1989,North1990a,North1990b,Millar1995,Millar1998,Millar2002a,North2007,Yakobson2007.

(47)Hölkeskamp1987andlaterHölkeskamp1996,Hölkeskamp2004aandthepaperscollectedinHölkeskamp2004b.Hölkeskamp’sideashavebeenabsorbedandfurtherdevelopedbynumerousscholars.Largelyinsupportofhisideas,seethefollowing:Jehne1995,Kloft1998,Jehne2000,Jehne2001,Bleckmann2002,Goldmann2002,Walter2003,Beck2008.

(48)Millar1998:15.

(49)AspointedoutbyHölkeskamp2004a:19.

Mediterranean Economies through the Text of Polybius

MediterraneanEconomiesthroughtheTextofPolybius

J.K.Davies

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0018

AbstractandKeywords

ThelivelystateofworkonancienteconomiesinvitesasystematicstudyoftherichesofeconomicevidencecontainedinPolybius,whichincludesinformationonlandscapes,humansettlements,themovementsofhumansandmaterials(includingbullion),populations,andagrarianproductionandprices.Hisanalysisofbehavioursincludesdiscussionofpredation,andmechanismstakentoensureitsprevention,aswellastheimplicitlyeconomicmotivationswhichinformedthepoliciesandactionsoftheSuccessorkingdoms.AlthoughPolybiushasrarelybeencitedinrecenteconomictreatmentsoftheHellenisticperiod,theveryfactthatPolybiusisnotan'economichistorian'meansthathistextisofincomparableusetothemoderneconomichistorianoftheancientworld,bothforitsprovisionofraweconomicdataindependentofanyinterpretiveframework,andthroughtheveryambitionandsweepofPolybius'visioninbringingoutthetypicalbehavioursofstatesandcommunitiesacrosstheMediterranean.

Keywords:Polybius,ancienteconomies,predation,economicdata,landscapes,humanmovement,theMediterranean

UsingPolybiusassourceofeconomicinformationInherpresentationtoa2007colloquiumatNottinghamhostedbytheCentreforSpartanandPeloponnesianStudies,CatherineGrandjeancommentedthat‘Polybiusstandsoutamongtheancientsasoneofthosemostinterestedintheeconomicfactorsinhistory’.1HerobservationwaspromptedbyhiscommentthatSpartaneededtobeabletodeploy‘acommoncurrencyinuniversalcirculationandsuppliesdrawnfromabroad’inordertobeabletoextendherpowerbeyondthePeloponneseafter404(6.49.7–10),butithasafarwiderapplication.True,noonewillcallPolybiusaneconomichistorian,andnotjustbecausethephraseisintrinsicallyinappropriateforanyhistorianwritingbeforethelaternineteenthcentury,buthistextissoloadedwitheconomicallysignificantinformationthatitseemedworthwhiletoembarkuponasystematictrawlandseewhatemerged.Theoutcomeisquiteremarkable,forthematerialisoverwhelming,farmoreindeedthancanpossiblybepresentedindetailhere.Thisispartlybecausehisowninterests,hishistoriographicalagenda,andhisowntravelscombine(howevercasuallyandincidentally)toofferaseriesofinvaluablesnapshotsoflifeintheMediterraneanregionsandtheirhinterlandsinthethirdandsecondcenturiesBC,andpartlybecausehedescribesthebehaviourofpowerfulindividualsandpolitiesinsuchawayastooffertherawmaterialforarealtheoreticalanalysis.InconsequenceIexpresshereveryopenlymywarmgratitudetoCatherineGrandjean,bothviaherinitialcommentand(p.320) viasubsequentfruitfulconversation,forengenderingtheexplorationwhichfollowshere.2

Itscontexthastwoothercomponents.Oneisdoublypersonal.Latein1977,inhiscapacityasoneoftheeditorsofthenewCAHVII2,thehonorandofthisvolumeinvitedmetocontributewhatbecamea63-pagechapter(Davies1984)onthe‘Cultural,Social,andEconomicFeaturesoftheHellenisticWorld’.Theprolongedengagementwhichthatinvolved,bothwiththeprimaryevidenceandwithRostovtzeff,leftalastingandcompleximpression,3whichthepresentvolumeoffersanopportunitytotakefurther.Thesecondcomponentisthelivelystateofcurrentscholarlystudyoftheeconomiesofclassicalantiquity,bothgenerallyandforthethreepost-Alexandercenturiesinparticular.Notonlyarefourbriefrecentsketchesof‘Hellenisticeconomies’currentlyavailable4butalsotheissuesinvolvedhavealreadystimulatedfourconferencesdevotedtotheeconomiesoftheperiod.5Since(perhapsratherstrangely)nocontributiontothemhasyetfocusedontheeconomicallyrelevantevidenceprovidedbyoneliterarysource,insuchawayastocorrespondwith(ortocontrastwith)thatofferedbyonesiteoronegenreofartefact,thereisalacunatobefilled.

Onetheonehand,therefore,givenhisprimordialcontributiontoourknowledgeofthosecenturies,Polybius’textistheobviousfirstsourcewithwhichtofillthatlacuna.Ontheotherhand,that‘primordial’statuspresentstheproblemofdecidinghowtopresentandusetheinformationwhichheoffers.Here,threescholarlyactivitieshavetobedistinguished.Thefirstisthatofassemblingandpresentingthe‘economic’informationwhichheprovides.Thatisitselfacomplexbusiness,forhisinformationfallsintoanumberofdistinctgenres.Onecomprisestheexplicitdescriptionsofregionsandpeoples,

especiallybutnotonlyinthecentralandwesternMediterraneanareas,whichheknewwouldbelargelyunfamiliartohisGreek-languagereaders.Asecondcompriseshistoriographicalcritiques,whiletheincidentaldetailsaboutthisorthateconomicaspectoflifewhichemergefromhisnarrativesofcampaignsandeventsconstituteathird.Ihavenotfounditeasyeithertodecidewhich‘genres’itwasappropriatetodistinguish,orwhatcountsas‘economicallyrelevant’information.Whatfollowsinmysecondsection(‘TheDescriptiveRawMaterial’)mustthereforebeseenasafirstandprovisionalframework,devisedwithsomesensethatitreflectsthemoresalientclustersofdatainhis(p.321) text,butwithnopretencethatitreflectsanyawarenessofeconomicdiscourseassuchonhispart.

Thesecondactivityisthatofidentifyingthestructuresofbehaviourwhichcanbedetectedfromthenarrativesanddescriptionsgiveninhistext.Again,suchananalysiscanlegitimatelybecompiledirrespectiveofwhetherPolybiusexplicitlyoffersanyrelevantformulation.ThatisnotbecauseforPolybius‘thenewscolumns’canbeseparatedfrom‘editorialmatter’,anymorethantheycanforThucydides.Rather,itisbecausesuchstructurescanbeidentifiedasbeingexemplifiedbyrepeatedpatternsofbehaviour.Thosepatternscutacrosstheregion-by-regiongridofreferenceforsimultaneousbutgeographicallydistinctactivity,whichbecomeshispreferredformatfromBook7onwards,andarethereforegenericallydistinctfromtheanimadversionsonthebehaviourofthisorthatruler,politician,orcommunitywhichPolybiusdeliberatelychoosestomake.Mythirdsection(‘ThreeTypesofEconomicBehaviour’)attemptstoidentifysomeofthemoresalientpatternsofcollectiveorindividualbehaviourwhichrecurinhistext.

Thethirdactivityisthatoftryingtoassesshowfarhiswitnessshouldbekeptonitsownorevenprivileged,insteadofbeingmerged(orindeedsubmerged)inthegeneralandever-growingmountainofprimaryevidencewhichistransformingourinterpretationofthosecenturies.Thatisamatterofcomparingwhatemergesfrommythirdsectionwithcurrentlyavailableanalyses,andofattemptingtoassesstheirrelativeexplanatoryvalue.Thatfinaltaskisattemptedinconclusion(‘PolybiustheUnconsciousInformant’).Throughoutallthreesections,thetitleofthiscontributionispertinent.ItisnotastudyofPolybiusasaneconomichistorian,orofHellenisticeconomies‘throughthe(interpretative)eyesofPolybius’.Itisastudyofthoseeconomiespurelyandsimply‘throughthetextofPolybius’,i.e.ofthepatternsofbehaviourofthepeoplesandindividualswhoarepresentedinhisextanttext.Inordertominimizetherisksofanachronismandofinsecureattribution,thesesectionswillreferonlytohistransmittedtextualwords,withoutusingtheindirecttraditioninLivy,Diodorus,Plutarch,orAppian.Likewise,forpresentpurposesthetaskofidentifyinghissourcesisofsecondaryimportance,forwhatmattersarethechoiceswhichhehimselfhasmadeofwhattorecord,emphasize,oromit.

ThedescriptiverawmaterialHistextofferstwokindsofrawmaterial,thefirstbeingevidencewhichcontributestoadescriptivesurvey,thesecondanalyticandinterpretative.Thelatter,whichwillbe

reviewedinthefollowingsection,hasitsowninternallogic,andisthereforeeasiertopresent;theformerdoesnot.Perforce,(p.322) therefore,thedescriptivematerialwillbepresentedviaeightarbitrarilyorderedsetsofheadings,eachwithareview(whichwillhavenoclaimtocompleteness)ofrelevantpassages.Iamwellawarethateachset,orclusterofdata,deservesapapertoitself,withafarmoredetailedevaluationandcontextualizationthanthelimitsofacontributiontoaDenkschriftpermit.Ithasnonethelessseemedmorehelpful,aliketothestudentofPolybiusandtotheeconomichistorian,ifasummaryoverviewofthetopicanditsmaterialisassembledandmadeavailable,forindividualcomponentscanalwaysberevisitedonalargerscale.

Commentsonlandscapes,especiallyfertilelandscapesandtheirproducts.Itispropertobeginthus,sincesuchcommentsexemplifythesecondpartofPolybius’tripartitedivisionofπραγματικὴἱστορία,that‘concernedwiththeaspectofcities,places,rivers,andharbours,andingeneralthespecialfeaturesoflandandsea,anddistances’(12.25e.1).Remarkably,heinterpretsthisportionofhistaskveryliberally,extendingwellbeyondmilitarilyrelevanttopographysensustrictoinordertoreportproductiveeconomicactivities.Suchcommentsareinvaluable,forvariousreasons.First,theyreflectbothhisowneyeforthelandandhisawarenessofthegrowthofgeographicalknowledgesinceAlexander(3.59.3–5).Secondly,sincehiswitnesspredatesthatofStrabobyatleast150years,thecontrastbetweenthem,notleastinthecaseofCisalpina,canbeinformative.Thirdly,theshapeofhisnarrativecauseshimtoembraceandeventooversteptheentire‘classical’world.Indeed,thoughtosomedegreeHecataeushadalreadysetthemould,itisaboveallPolybius’text,eveninitssurvivingfragmentaryform,whichdefinesthegeographicalandhumanscopeofthatworld.Intermsofgeographicalextent,itrangesfromLusitania(34.8)toByzantium(4.45.7–8)andMedia(5.44;10.27.1–2),andthenceacrosstheentireIranianplateautoBactria(10.48).Intermsofeconomicinformation,theharvestisperhapsatitsrichestwithCisalpina,6butisvaluableforotherregionsaswell.OnemayciteCorsicaandEtruriawiththeirherdsofgoatsandswinerespectively(12.3–4),thefertilityofSamnium(3.90.7),ofCampaniawithCapua(2.17.1;3.91),orofEchinusinMalis,7ortheirrigationsystemsontheIranianplateau(10.28).Modesoftransportrateoccasionalmention,aswhentheOxusandTanaisarereportedasnavigable(10.48.1),whilehisreferencestothesilverminesnearNewCarthage(34.9.8–11)andtogoldminesnearAquileia(34.10.10)areoffundamentalimportance.

Secondly,humanlandscapesandpatternsofsettlement,wherehiseye-witnessinformationthankfullysubvertsclichéaftercliché.Thatappliesnotsomuch,indeed,innotingGaulishsettlementκατὰκώμας(‘invillages’)inthePovalley(2.17.8–12)orinnotingRomanandCarthaginianactsofimposing(p.323) colonialisturbansettlementsonexpropriatedland,8asinemphasizingthattheAlpswereperfectlypermeableandsupportedaconsiderablepopulation(3.48.7)orinidentifying,notablyforuncolonizedterritoriessuchasHispaniainthe230sand220sbutalsoelsewhere,9nucleatedsettlements10whichhecheerfullycallspoleisinhappyignoranceofrecentterminologicaldebates.11Non-nucleatedsettlementsalsoappearoccasionally,aswiththeforts(φρούρια)andruralmasserie(συνοικίας)inthearearoundPrinassusinCaria(16.11.1).Moreover,ifweextendthesenseoftheterm‘humanlandscapes’whileremaining

withintheeconomichistorian’spurview,wemayincludewiderdemographicorbehaviouralobservationsunderthisheading.ExamplesarehiscommentonthebucolicopulenceofElis(4.73.6–10),hisaspersionsonthestateofBoeotia(20.6.1–6),orhisendlesslydebatedparagraphonthedepopulationofGreeceinhisowntime(36.17.5–11),nottomentionhiscommentsontheostentationofAemilia(31.26.3–9)withitswaspishstinginthetail(31.26.9).12Ofcourse,suchcommentsdepictdivagationsfromhisideaofthenorm,reflecthisprejudicesasmuchastheyreportrealbehaviour,andarenottobetrustedwithoutscrutiny,butareallthemorerevealingforthat.

Thirdly,thescaleofhumanmovement,forcedorwilling,throughtheselandscapes.Forcedmovementdidnotonlyinvolveslaves,forwehearoftwoenforcedmigrationsonthenorthernfrontierofMacedonafter188,13whileslaves,rarelyappearingintheirownrightexceptwhenbeingofferedfreedominacityundersiegeinordertoretaintheirloyalty,14occupyamajorindirectplaceinthepictureviaallusionstotheslave-trade,15tocapturedpopulations(p.324) beingsoldoff,16andtothenumbersinvolvedinsilvermining.FreemoversincludeRomansthemselves,suchasthosepresentinsignificantnumbersatTarasinwinter213/12(8.25.2)ortheemporoibothItalicandother.17EvenmorepervasiveweretheGreeks,who,withtheoccasionalGaul,providedthemilitaryandcivilianApparatofmostmajorpowers,evenincludingCarthageonoccasion,andaboveallthemercenarieswhopermeatethetext.18Especiallyiftosuchapictureonethereforeaddsthemovementsofarmies,nottomentioninvasionsandmigrations,oneplainlyhastopopulatethelandscapes,andespeciallytheseascapes,ofPolybius’worldwithaperpetualandnumericallyverysignificantBrownianmotionofhumanparticles,whowereoftenbeingimpelledlongdistancesbyneed,compulsion,orambition.

Menwerenottheonlyentitiesinmotion,forthemovementsofmaterialsandbullionwereequallyconspicuous.Theyareclassifiedbelowunderthreeseparateheadingsinordertobeabletodistinguish,alikefortheirmechanismsandtheireffects,supplies,booty,andmonetarytransfers.Ofcourse,theseareallpartofthepolitico-militarydomain,butPolybius’textshowsthemashavingenormouseconomiceffectsandascarryingahighlevelofstructuralcentralitywithinthesumtotalofalleconomicallysignificantactionsperformedthroughouttheareaandperiod.

Onemaybeginwithsupplies,whosestructuralcentralitytotheconductofwarfareneedsnoemphasisorproof.Whatmattershere,therefore,ishowthethemepresentsitself.Ahandfulofcasesmustsuffice.If,forexample,wefollowHannibaleastwardsfromtheRhonein218,theavailabilityorotherwiseofsuppliesfeaturesrepeatedly.19Likewise,ifwefollowhisnarrativeofAntiochusIII’scampaignagainstMolon,hemakesapointofreportingZeuxis’advicethatthemostimportantconsiderationwastodenyMolonhissupplyroutefromMedia,whilegivingroyalforcesaccesstothefertilearearoundApollonia-in-Sittacene,20justasthefollow-upcampaignagainstArtabazaneswasintendedtodenysuppliestootherpotentialrebels(5.55.1).ThesamemotifsurfacesseveraltimesduringtheRaphiacampaign(5.68.2,70.2and5,75.1),while(p.325)Polybius’narrativeofconcurrenthostilitiesinPisidia,withitsnotethatthemenofSelgewhowerebesiegingPednelissuswenthomefortheharvest(5.72.7),remindsusyet

againthattheagrariancalendardominatedlife,justasitdidinearlyJuly219whenPhilipV,remarkably,senthisMacedoniansbackhomefromPellatogathertheharvest(4.66.7).EvenmoredoesthemotiffigureinPhilip’searlycampaigns,withitsdisconcertinghintsthathiscommissariatwasaperilouslyhand-to-mouthaffairandthatseveraltimesin218theneedforacornsupplydrovehiscampaignasmuchas,ifnotmorethan,theambitiontosecurespecificstrategicobjectives.21

Next,booty.ThemotifisascentralinPolybius’warnarrativesasistherolewhichtheresourcesthusobtainedplayedinpubliclife.EvenifAetolianbehaviouristemporarilyleftononeside(seethefollowingsection),itrunsrightthroughhisnarrativeoftheFirstPunicWar,ontheRomanandontheCarthaginiansidesalike,andcharacterizesthebehaviourofvirtuallyallbelligerentsinallthewarshereports(even,onoccasion,theAchaeans).Significantinthiscontextisthedetailwithwhich,inthecontextofScipio’scaptureofNewCarthage,PolybiusrecordsthesystematicwayinwhichRomanssoldoffbooty,incontrasttowhathecallsthegeneralrulethateachman‘keepswhathegrabs’.22So,too,throughouthisworkhereportsquantitiesandvalues(suchasthe600talentsfromNewCarthage,10.19.1–2)insuchawayastorevealboththescaleofplunderingandthefactthatrecordsofthetakewerekept.Equally,heallowsustocomplementPhylarchus-stylehorror-journalismbypopulatingbattlefields,sieges,andcapitulationswithahoveringcrowdofhard-nosedslave-traders.23

Next,large-scalemonetarytransfers.Polybius’extanttextreportsaremarkablenumberofsuchtransfers.Itissimplesttobeginbysettingthelistout,asfollows:

Reference Date Details1.63.1–3 241 Anindemnityof3200TtobepaidbyCarthagetoRome1.88.11–12

238 Anextraindemnityof1,200TtobepaidbyCarthage

5.54.10–12

221 Fineof150T(initialdemandbyHermiasfor1,000T)fromSeleuciatoAntiochusIII

5.76.9–10

218 Anindemnityof400Tatonce,300Tmorelater,tobepaidbySelgetoAchaeus

5.88–90 220s GiftstoRhodesaftertheearthquake,mostlyinmaterielbutincluding500Tinsilver

7.5.6–7 215 HieronymusattemptstoextractfromRomethereturnofgiftsmadebyHieroII:amountsareunspecified

8.23 214 Giftof300T+fromAntiochusIIItoXerxesofArmosata,aswellastheremissionoftribute

(21.4.12–14

190 Indemnityof1,000TinitiallydemandedfromAetoliansasthepriceofpeace)

21.30.1–5

189 Indemnityof200TpayablebytheAetolianstoRomeatonce,withafurther300Tinlaterinstalments,asthepriceofpeace.Crownof150TpresentedtoFulviusbyAmbracia

21.34 188 Cibyrapays15Tcrown+100TtobuyManliusoff

21.35.4 188 Termessuspays50TtoManliusforanalliance21.36 188 CyrmasaandSagalassuspayManlius50Tandspecifiedquantities

ofgrain21.40.6 188 AriarathesistoldbyManliustopay200Tforpeace(but300Tin

21.44forthesametransaction)

21.42.19ff.

188 AntiochusIIItopayasindemnities12,000TandaspecifiedquantityofgraintotheRomans,and350TtoEumenesplusanother127Tinlieuofgrain

(22.7.3 185 Anofferof120TfromEumenestotheAchaeanLeagueisrefused)(22.8.10 207 Back-referencetothesaleofAeginabyAetolianstoAttalusfor30

T)25.2 179? Indemnities,tobepaidbyPharnaces,of900TtoAriarathesand

300TtoEumenes,andof300TbyMithradates(ofArmenia)toAriarathes

28.22 169 GiftsofAntiochusIV,onwithdrawingfromEgypt,of50TtotheRomansandof100TtocertainunidentifiedGreekcities

(33.5.1–3 155 Anofferof500TbyDemetriusIofSyriaforthepossessionofCyprusfails)

33.13.8 154 PrusiasofBithyniatopay500Tover20yearstoAttalusIIandtopay100TinreparationstofourGreekcities

(p.326) SucharetherawdatafromPolybius’text.Theyareamixedbag,somebeingindemnitiesimposedbytreaty,somebeinggiftsfrompolityXtopolityY,andsomebeingbribesandextortions,whiletheylargelyexcludeongoingorindefinitesubsidiessuchasthosebeingpaidbyEgypttoCleomenesofSpartainthe220s(2.63.2–5).Further,theyexcludebooty,andofcoursetheyalsoexcludethecapillarycirculationofmoniespaidduringoraftermilitarycampaignstomercenaryorcitizensoldiersandseamen.Allthesame,threeimpressionsfromthesedatastriketheeyeatonce.Thefirstistheirsheer(p.327) scale,ofawholeorderofmagnitudegreaterthanthosewhichahistorianofthepre-AlexanderfourthcenturyBCwouldencounter:therebytheyexposethesizeoftheresourceswhichevenminorHellenisticmonarchiescouldamassanddisburse.ThesecondistheoverwhelmingextenttowhichRomans,whethercollectivelyorindividually,werethebeneficiaries.Togetherwithmuchotherevidence,nowmostusefullygatheredtogetherbydeCallataÿ2006:70–4,theybegintorevealjusthowmuchbullioncametobestrippedfromtheeasternbasinoftheMediterranean.SinceitsimpactontheRomanstateandsocietyiswellenoughknown(andishighlightedbyPolybiushimself),24thisisnottheplacetoreiteratetheobvious.Equallyobvious,however,isathirdimpression,thatoftheconsequencesforthedebtorparties.Forexample,notonlywerepublicandprivateaccumulationsmilkedruthlesslybutalsothemoneysupplywassqueezedinregionswhichmayhavestillbeenonlyhalf-monetizedandhadlittledirectaccesstofreshbullionresources.Theconsequencesforregionalliquidityandforthegrowingincidenceofdebtcannotbepursuedindetailhere,anymorethantheproblemofhowsuch‘internationaltransferpayments’canbetheorizedwithinanynormaleconomic

framework.25

Eventhislightningsketchmusttouchonthatholygrailoftheeconomichistorian,quantification.Besidesthosealludedtoabove,InternationalTransferPaymentsandproceedsfrombooty,itisperhapsmostobviousandmostusefulinhisfiguresofthesizesofcontingentsforthemajorbattles,26whichpromptreflectionsonmodesofrecruitmentandonthe(sometimesveryexplicitlyflagged)scale,logistics,anddifficultiesofsupply.Equallyvaluable,butequallyproblematic,arehisrarefiguresforpopulations,forwhateveronedoeswithhisfiguresforRomanmilitarymanpowerin225isparalleledonamuchsmallerscalebyhisfigureofonly6,000forthefreepopulationofSeleucia-in-Pieriain219,27orbytheimplicationsofacceptingthatin218SelgeinthemiddleEurymedonvalleyinPamphyliacouldlose‘notlessthan10,000’oftheirownforcesandstillresistthePednelissianssuccessfully.28EquallyinvaluableasreportsoffiguresandquantitiesarehisdetaileddescriptionsofthegiftsmadebyHellenisticrulerstoRhodesafterthe227earthquake,29andoftheconstituentpartsofAntiochus’ostentatiouslyspectacularπομπήatDaphnein166or165,30orhisreport,presumablybasedinpartonhisvisittoSpainin151,thatthesilver(p.328) minesnearNewCarthagethenhad40,000minersandyielded25,000drachmasperday(24.9.8–11).Whatevertheproblemsinvolved,suchfiguresarecentraltoanyassessmentofpublicandprivatemoneysupply,andofitsroutesofaccumulationanddistribution.

Finally,sincesomuchoftheforegoinghasremainedperforcewithinthemilitarydomain,itisvaluabletoberemindedofhiseyefortheworldofagrarianproductionandprices,allthemoresosinceoutsideEgyptandBabylonwehavesolittlepost-Alexanderevidenceforthem.31Twovignettesmustsuffice,bothprobablystemmingfromautopsyinthe150s,andbothusingthesamethreecommodities(wheat,barley,andwine)ascomparators.32Thefirstisapassageinthe‘minormasterpiece’whichishissketchofCisalpina,withitsfertility,itspigs,itsacorns,andtheopen-handednessofitsinn-keepers(2.15.1).Thesecond,ifwecantrustthetranscription,vergesonthelyrical:

PolybiusofMegalopolis.…describingtheprosperityofLusitania(thisistheregionofIberia,whichtheRomansnowcallSpain)inhis34thbook,saysthatthere,owingtothepleasantblendingoftheair,bothanimalsandhumansareveryprolific,andthecropsintheregionneverfail.Roses,whiteviolets,asparagusandplantssimilartotheseceasefloweringfornomorethanthreemonths,whileinrespectaliketoquantity,toexcellence,andbeautythesea-fishshowagreatdifferencewhencomparedwiththoseofourownsea.TheSicilianmedimnusofbarleycostsadrachma,thatofwheat9obolsofAlexandria,themetretesofwinecostsadrachma,andareasonablekidorhareanobol.Thepriceoflambsis3or4obols.Afatpigweighing100minaecosts5drachmas,asheep2.Atalentoffigscosts3obols,acalf5drachmasandaploughingox10.Themeatofwildanimalsisscarcelyconsideredworthpricing,buttheyexchangethesefreelywitheachotheraspresentsandmarksoffavour.33

Yet,Herodoteanthoughthegenremaybe,theplethoraoffiguresreadsmorelikean

EconomicSurvey:historiographyhasmovedon.

ThreetypesofeconomicbehaviourSomuch,inthespaceavailable,bywayofillustratingsomeofthewaysinwhichPolybius’textisaninvaluable—andseriouslyunder-exploited—quarryofmaterialforeconomichistoriansoftheHellenisticMediterranean.34Iturn(p.329) nowtothesecondkindofmaterialwhichheoffers,theanalyticandinterpretative,forimplicitthroughouthisextanttextisacontinuous,attimesbrutallyviolent,three-waytug-of-waramongthreedifferenttypesofeconomicbehaviouronthepartofpolities.

Thefirstcomprisespredatorybehaviour,whetherbyprivateindividualsorbyformallyconstitutedstateforces,outwithapolity’sownboundariesanddirectedtowardstheacquisitionbyforceofmovablegoods,theobjectivebeingeithertotakethosegoodsbackhomeortosellthemoffandtherebytocapitalizetheirvalue.AsportrayedinPolybius’text,themainpractitionersofthismodewereIllyrians,Cretans,andAetolians,butthekingswerequitecapableofjoininginonoccasion,asweretheRomans,35whileitwouldbefoolishtoassumethatnocomparablebehaviourwasexhibitedelsewherewithintheworldwhichcamewithinhispurview.Thereasonsareobvious,forsuchbehaviourhaddeeprootswithineventheGreekworld:onemayrecallHomericportraitsofNestor-stylecattle-raidingortheendlessallusionsinGreekmythsandlegends.Indeed,itcanbeseenasareflectionoftheuniversalassumptionthat,indefaultofanyspecificmechanismofprotection,anyothercommunityexceptone’sownisanenemywithnorightsandisfairgameifonecangetawaywithit.Moreover,suchbehaviourhaditsownrationale,foritworkedbestwhenfiveconditionswerefulfilled:

•asignificantable-bodiedmalepopulationavailableinslackperiodsoftheagrarianorpastoralyear;•accessto,andcommandof,aneffectivehit-and-runtechnology(forexample,forAetoliansandIllyrians,theViking‐long-boat-styleλέμβος);•anaccessibleandattractivesetofpotentialtargets,suchastheshipsoftheItaliantraders(2.8.2–3)ortherurallandscapeofMesseniawhichhadescapedtheeffectsoftheCleomeneanWar(4.5.4–5);•inadequatesystemsofprotectionofthosetargetsonthepartofthecommunityconcerned;and•collusion(atleast)ormoreusuallyactivecollaborationonthepartofthepolitiesofthepredatorycommunity.

Thismodewaseffective,widespread,andhadsignificanteconomicimpact.Onemay,forexample,thinkoftheextensivesphereofinfluencewhichtheAetoliansbuiltupinthethirdcenturyBCviatheirnetworkofasylia-treaties,36(p.330) orofthemode’stwoprincipalformalencapsulations.ThefirstwasqueenTeuta’sreplytotheCoruncaniiin230(2.4.8),thesecondtheprovisionsaboutbootywhichwerewrittenintotheRomano-Aetoliantreatyof212or211—notindeeddirectlypreservedinPolybius,butreflectedwellenoughintheferociouscommentswhichhereportsofThrasycratesofRhodesinJune207.37Iamnot,however,hereconcernedtoexploreethicalormoraljudgementsonthismodeofbehaviour,whetherPolybius’orourown,eachwithitsoscillationsandits

ambivalences;38whatmattersisthatitwasrationalbecauseitwasprofitable,39andthatitwasthereforewidelypractisedinregionswherethefiveconditionsidentifiedaboveconvergedwithsufficientforce.Itwasnotjustapatternofwidespreadindividualfreebooting,ofthekindwhichallowedScerdilaidasoffCapeMaleaandtownsinPelagoniainsummer217to‘treatallmerchantsasenemies’(5.101.1,108.1–2),forjustasatNicaeainNovember198PhilipVcouldcitetoFlamininustheAetolianlawofsylē,40socorrespondinglytheAetolianscouldcomplainafter217thatthePeaceofNaupactushad‘cutoffalltheirsourcesofbootybymakingpeacewithalltheGreeks’.41Thismodehastocountasastructuralcomponentofthesocietiesofitsleadingpractitioners,andhencealsooftheeconomicbehavioursofPolybius’world.

Asecondmodeisthecomplementofthefirst,namelythebehaviourofpolitiesinprovidingasafeenvironmentfornon-belligerenteconomicandsociallife.Thisallowedgainfulprocessesofproduction,distribution,andconsumptiontoproceed,andprotectedpersonsandpropertywithinandbetweencivilsocietiesatthecostofimposingandenforcingsystemsofpublicorderandtaxation.ThereisnotmuchaboutthismodeinPolybius,understandablyinsofarasheisconcernednotwithinfrastructuresbutwithevents.However,enoughsurvivesnotmerelytoconfirmwhatonewouldinanycaseassume,thatallthepolitieswhichenteredhisnarrativehadacivilorderofsorts,butalsotorevealthatforatleastsomepolitiestheprotectionofasupra-nationalcivilorderwasimportantenoughtojustifyactiveandcollaborativeintervention.

(p.331) ThemostexplicitexampleishissketchofthecrystallizationandconsolidationoftheAchaean‘federalstate’,thoughinterestinglyeventherehisemphasisisoncommonlaws,weights,andmeasures(2.37.10–11);taxationassuchfeaturedonlywheninsummer217theLeaguevotedtosetupasmallpermanentarmyandnavy,triggeringedginessinArgosaboutwhowouldpayforit(5.91.4and93.6).Otherinformationislargelyincidental42andtends(understandably)tofocusondeviationsfromthenorm,suchashiscommentsontheweightoftaxationfeltonbothsidesduringtheFirstPunicWar,43orhisreportsofPerseus’cancellationofdebtstothestateonhisaccession(25.3)andoftheRhodianlossofrevenuesafter167(30.31).

Likewise,lightshedontherealeconomy,asdistinctfromthefiscaleconomyorthepredatoryeconomy,isindeedscatteredandscrappybutfarfromabsent.Predictably,wehaveevidenceforproduction,withcraftsmenreportedasactiveintownsasfarapartasSaguntum,NewCarthage,andAntioch;44andforconsumption,whetherbyAemiliaandtheRomanjeunessedoréeofthe160s(31.25.5;31.26)orbytheM.Livius(Macatus?),whosedrunkenbanquetlosttheRomanstheircontrolofmostofTarasinwinter213–12.45Lesspredictably,wealsohaverealevidencefordistribution,whetherintheformofhisreportofthecommoditieswhichmovedintoandoutofPontus(4.38)andhisassociatedcomparisonbetweentheamountofthattrafficandthatwhichpassedthroughoracrossthestraitsofGibraltar(16.29.11–12),orinhiscommentthat,atleastbeforetheRomancolonyatBrundisiumwasfounded,Tarasastheonlyeast-coastharbourwastheunavoidableentrepôtforallwhotravelledfromGreeceorItalytoApulia(10.1.5).

Allthesame,thosearevignetteswhichyieldlittleontheirown.Muchmoresignificant,asreflectingaregularityandanapparentcommonalityofinterest,arehisreferencestothestateswhichthrewtheirdiplomaticinfluencebehindmovestoendmajorwars.Askeletonlist,compiledbytherulesofthispaperfromPolybius’textonly,wouldneedtoinclude,fortheSocialWar,theRhodiansandChiansin218(5.24.11,28.1)andtheChians,Rhodians,Byzantines,andPtolemyIVin217(5.100.9);fortheFourthSyrianWarin217,firsttheRhodians,Byzantines,Cyzicenes,andAetolians(5.63.5)andthentheChians,Rhodians,andByzantines(5.100.9);andfortheFirstMacedonianWarin207,PtolemyIV,theRhodians,Byzantines,Chians,andMytilenians.46(p.332) Boththerecurrencesofnamesandtheirgeographicalconcentrationarestriking,allthemorewhenterritorialinterestsarenotsaidtobedirectlyinvolvedandwhen(aswiththeSocialWar)thetheatresofconflictlaymostlywellawayfromtheAegean.Obviously,anyinterpretativeframeworkforthisactivitymustincorporatehisreportofthehelpgiventoRhodesaftertheearthquake(5.88–90),hisnarrativeoftheRhodes–Byzantiumwar(4.38–52)withitsexplicitemphasisonByzantineactiontoprotectthePontictrade(4.50.1–3)andontheroleoftradersinarousingRhodianstoaction(4.47.1),andhisreportofRhodianfiscallossesafter167(30.31).47Evenaminimalistinterpretationhastoacceptthattheseinterventionscannothavebeendrivenpurelybyfiscalinterestorbytheneedtoensuretheimportofessentialfoodstuffs,importantthoughsuchmotivesmaywellhavebeen;theyhavetoreflectacommoninterest,whichwemayaswellcallcommercial,inprotectingtheviabilityandsecurityofmovementofgoodsbysea—i.e.thetotaloppositeofthepredatorymode.48

Inevitably,thethirdmodeofeconomicbehaviourtobesingledouthereisthatshownprincipally,butnotonly,bythepost-Alexandermonarchies.Hereitisnecessarytoberadicalandtoassertthateventhough—alikeforPolybius,forotherancientliterarysources,andformodernhistoriography—theirbehaviourisseentoattestitselfinpolitical,diplomatic,andmilitaryactivity,ithasfundamentallytobeseenaseconomic.Thatisnotasrevolutionaryasitappears,foritstartsfromtheelementaryfactthat(ifwecouchitinrealistterms)theunipolarsystemoftheAchaemenidPersianempirehadgivenwaytoamultipolarsystem.Orrather,ithadrevertedtoaverylongueduréeregularity,notsomuchbecausemuchcompetitivemultipolaractivityamongsatrapsanddynastswentonwithintheAchaemenidempire(thoughthatistrue)asbecausewhatemergedafterIpsuswithinex-Achaemenidterritorieswasgrossomodothere-emergenceofadeep-rootedpolymorphiccompetitivesystem.ThatsystemhadhadmuchthesamegeographicalconfigurationsincetheLateBronzeAge,intensifiedparipassuwiththespreadofGreeklanguage,culture,andinstitutions(Davies2002),andisstillperfectlyvisibleinaverysimilarconfigurationatthepresentday.49

(p.333) Perforce,therefore,theSuccessorkingdomswereincompetitionforsurvivalandpower.However,survivalandpowerarenotprimary‘goods’;theyaretheproductofwhatisprimary,namelyproductiveland,fightingmen,taxrevenues,aviableandwell-staffedadministrativestructure,andstoredwealth.ItwillbeotiosetopickoutfromPolybius’texttheendlessexamplesofthebehaviourofeachandeveryroyalpolityinseekingtoprotect,andifpossibletoincrease,itscommandofthosefivecommodities.50

Rather,Iwanttoemphasizethatthoughthatcompulsioncouldanddidgeneratepredatorybehaviour,vitriolicallydescribedbyPolybiusonoccasion,itwasstructurallydifferentfromtheAetolianandotherbehaviourwhichIhavecalledmyfirstmode.Itdifferedbothbecauseitwasessentiallyterritorialanddirectedtowardstaxrevenues,notlootandbooty,51andbecauseitaimedtomaximizestoredwealthforre-use:inthatsense,itwasbehaviourdirectedtowardsproductivere-investment.Whatismore,suchbehaviourwasnotamonarchs’monopoly,fortheRhodiansbehavedinmuchthesamewayafter188intheircoldwarwithPergamumoverinfluenceandrevenuesfromwesternAsiaMinor.Oneistemptedtousethephrase‘marketshare’,butthatwouldbeagraveerror:thesepolitieswerenotsomuchlikecompetitivesupermarketchains,concernedtosell,aslikeoilcompanies,seekingtoseizeandcontrolaslargeashareoftheavailableprimarygoodastheycanacquire,byfairmeansorfoul.

PolybiustheunconsciousinformantThe‘economicreading’ofPolybiussketchedabovemaynowbejuxtaposed,andcompared,withrecentgeneralizedpicturesoftheperiod.Sixsuchpicturescomeintoquestion,whicharereviewedinchronologicalorderofpublication.52Threeofthemmaysuitablybeviewedthroughtheirsubheadings:

(p.334) Reger2003

1Introduction.2Physicalpreconditions.3Humanresources.4Formsofmovement.5Institutionsoftheeconomy(pricesettings;banks,financing,credit;thepolis;formsofinter-stateco-operation;Hellenistickingdoms;money).6Howmonetarizedwastheeconomy?7Didstateshave‘economicpolicies’?8TheimpactofRome.

Chankowski–Sablé2004

1Thesourcesandtheirlimitations.2TheeconomicsystemsofthekingdomsoftheeasternMediterranean:frompatternstopractices(therangeofinfluences;economicsystemsandpragmatism);royalwealth;from‘king’sfinances’to‘economiesofkingdoms’(thePtolemaicsystem,theSeleucidsystem,theAttalidsystem);fromHellenistickingdomstoRomanprovinces.3Economicagents:landuse(royallandsanddōrea;royallandandprivateproperty;civicterritoriesandtempledomains);thecitiesandtheireconomicactivities(economicpolicies;urbancentresandmarkets;largeandsmallcities);theworldofthemerchants.4Areasofprosperityandperiodsofcrisis:exchangenetworks;systemimpairmentsandbreakdowns;Aunifiedeconomicarea?

Davies2006

1Preliminariesandproblems.2Environmentandstabilities:landscapeandenvironment;useofcomplementaryhabitatsandresources;communications;landandlandownership.3Themainprocessesofchange.Monetization;royaleconomies;theriseandfallofEgyptasa‘royaleconomy’;populationmovements;seabornetransport;newinstitutionsandinstallations;knowledgetransfer;luxuriesandlifestyles;thepolarizationofwealth;westcentralItalyasaneconomicactor.4Thedrifttowardsintegratedeconomies.

Thoughtherearedifferences,thesethreechaptersshowastrongfamilyresemblance.Theyallknowthediversityoftheregionandperiodinquestion,theyallremainwithinthediscourseoforthodoxeconomichistorians,andtheyalluseepigraphic,papyrological,environmental,andartefactevidenceratherthanthenarrativetextsofthehistoriansorthebiographers.Thesameistruefortheremainingthreepictures,plannedandpublishedasatriointheCambridgeEconomicHistoryoftheGreekandRomanWorldof2007.Steeredbytheireditorsandbytheuse,asstandardcategories,ofthetwotriads‘production,distribution,andconsumption’and‘land,labour,andcapital’,allthree(VanderSpek2007,Manning2007,andReger2007)useacommonframeworkofheadsofexposition,whichfocusesonagriculturalandotherproductionandconsumption,monetizationandprices,urbanization,taxationandrevenues,stateandprivateinstitutions,theeffectsofwarfare,andtheextenttowhichadvancesinknowledgeallowedrealeconomicgrowth.TheytoohavelittlecausetocitePolybiusdirectly.53

(p.335) Allinall,thedifferencesbetweentheshapesofthesesixsurveysandthepictureofferedbyPolybiusaresobering:healmostseemstobedescribingadifferentworld.Manyfactorscontribute.Tobeginwith,atleastafterthestartofBook3,hismainfocusisnotontheGreekorGreek-stylepoleiswhich—partlybecausetheyaredisproportionatelywelldocumented—haveattractedsomuch(perhapstoomuch)attentionincurrentscholarship:noreven(Achaeaapart)doeshedwellmuchonthe‘federalstates’.Hisattentionisfocusedaboveallontheroyalregimeswhosegigantictaxingandpurchasingpowersandnear-monopolycontrolofprimaryresourcespermittedlarge-scaleandfar-reachingroyalactivityinwarandpeace.Book6conspicuouslyexcepted,heisfarlessinterestedininstitutionsthaninpeoplesandpersonalities.Heisnotconcerned,exceptincidentally,withthestaticorslow-changingrhythmsofproduction,distribution,andconsumption,butaboveallwithpolitics,diplomacy,andwarfare,togetherwiththeirconductandeffects.Heisnot,afterall,an‘economichistorian’,eveninposse,letaloneinesse—andyetthatveryfactmakeshistextrevealviaitsdetailsutterlyinvaluableeconomicinformationwhichisallthemorereliablyusableforbeingverylargelyraw,54i.e.fornothavingbeenprocessedwithinaninterpretativeframeworkofhisown.Inconsequence,andespeciallywhenchroniclingthemovementsofPhilipVandAntiochusIII,hisgeographicalpurviewtakeshimacrosscountlessecologicalboundariesinawaywhich(expertocredite)authorsofsmallerscalesketchesofeconomiclifefinditveryhardtoencompass.Furthermore,andcrucially,hisfocusontheactionsofthegreatpowersallowshistexttoprovidethematerialsforconstructingadiachronicdynamicmodelfortheHellenisticMediterraneanasawhole,andtoprovidetheevidencethatitsscaleandimpetusweresetbythebehavioursofrulersandofpolities,notofindividualsorofgroups.Aboveall,astheprecedingsectionhasattemptedtoshow,hisnarrativebringsoutthecrucialfactsthatconflictswerenotjustbetweenpowersandpolitiesbutalsobetweenthreeopposedformsofcollectivebehaviour,eachofwhichcarriedmajorconsequencesfortheeconomicshapeofthepost-Alexanderworld.Polybiustellsusmoreaboutthatworldofcompetitiveandincompatiblemodesthananyoneelse,andmorethanheknewhimself.

Notes:

(1)Grandjean2009:5.

(2)MythanksarealsoduetoBruceGibsonaseditor,andtothePress’sreferee,forexceptionallydetailedandhelpfulcomments.Throughoutwhatfollows,allnakedreferencesoftheform‘6.49.7–10’aretothetextofPolybius,and‘T’denotes‘talents’.

(3)BrieflyadumbratedinDavies2004b.

(4)Alcock1994,Reger2003,Chankowski-Sablé2004,Davies2006.VanderSpek,Manning,andRegerinScheideletal.2007:409–83provideamorelengthydelineation.

(5)Archibaldetal.2001,Archibaldetal.2005,Descat2006,Archibaldetal.2011.Konuk2012isineffectafifth:andcf.alsoAmbaglio2004.

(6)2.14–15;3.34.1–2,44.8,48.11.

(7)9.41.11,withHCPii.183forlocation.

(8)e.g.theexpropriationoflandforthesakeofitsresources(3.10.5,HamilcarinSpain)andthecolonialistimpositionofurbancentres,bothbyRomans(asatSenaGallica,2.19.11–13,PlacentiaandCremonain218,3.40.5,andMutina,3.40.8)andbyCarthaginians(2.13.1–2).

(9)Althaea/Cartala,3.13.5–7;Hermandica,3.14.1;Arbocala3.14.1;NorthernSpainingeneralin218,3.35.3.Mediolanum,too,isrepresented,thoughwithoutalabel,asasignificantsettlementinthe220s(2.34.10–11and15),allthemoreifthetempleofAthenewasthere(2.32.6,withHCPi.208).

(10)e.g.3.50.6and67.4(Cisalpina),76.5(CissainSpain);5.97.1(Bulazora‘thelargestpolisinPaeonia’);10.7.5(Spain,amongtheCarpetani);10.38.7(BaeculainTurdetania);15.4.1inthechoraofCarthage.

(11)TheLexhafniensis(forwhich,seeHansenandNielsen2004:34,withreferences),isnottherebyinfringed,sinceitisdeemedtoapplyonlybefore300BCandonlytoGreekcities.

(12)‘Forabsolutelynoonethereevergivesawayanythingtoanyoneifhecanhelpit’,withWalbank’sdrycommentadloc.(HCPiii.505).Ofthesamekidney,butreflectinganevenmoreheroicdegreeofover-simplification,arePolybius’characterizationsofRomansasintrinsicallyhonest,ofGreekoffice-holdersasinherentlydishonest,andofCarthaginiansthat‘atCarthagenothingwhichresultsinprofitisregardedasdisgraceful’(6.56).

(13)(a)‘DesertIllyria’,evacuatedinordertocreateacordonsanitaireagainstDardanianinvasion(28.8.3,withHCPiii.338foritsuncertainlocation),and(b)thetransferofpopulationsbetweenThraceandMacedon(23.10.4–7,withHCPiii.230–1forexplanatorydetail).

(14)InSelge(5.76.5)andinAbydos(16.31.2).Incontrast,themassmanumissionsof146inAchaea(38.15.3–5)weredrivenbyaneedformilitarymanpower.

(15)4.50.3(Byzantium)andperhaps14.7.1–3(Utica).

(16)Citednumbersrangefromlessthan100,capturedinanAchaeanraidonAetolia(5.94.7),throughunquantifiedgroups(9.42.5–8(Aegina);15.4.1(Tunisia))tothe150,000capturedandsoldbyPaullusinEpirus(30.15).

(17)Mostconspicuouslythosewhowereill-treatedatPhoenice(2.8.2),orconverselythosewhomCavarusthekingoftheGaulsinThraceprotectedinPontus(8.22).

(18)Onecaseamongmany:theGaulsemployedsuccessivelyinthe240sand230sbytheCarthaginians,theRomans,andtheEpirots(2.5.4and7.5–11).

(19)In218atthe‘island’betweentheRhoneandtheIsère,πολύοχλονκαὶσιτοφόρον(3.49.5and11),intheunidentifiedpolishalfwayupthevalley(3.51.12,52.5),athiscampsouthofPiacenza(3.68.8),andatClastidium(3.69.1);in217duringthetraverseoftheArnomarshes(3.79.1–2),nearAnconaafterTrasimene(3.87),inSamniumroundBeneventumandTelesia(3.90.7–8),intheCapuanplain(3.91),andwhilewinteringinApulia(3.100.1–2,101.8–11);andnotmovingfromGeruniuminspring216untilthecornharvestwasavailable(3.107.1).

(20)5.51.7–11,with(pendingtheappearanceofCohen’sVol.III)Tscherikower1927:97and168foritsapproximatelocation.

(21)5.1.6and10–12(formalagreementformaterieltobeprovidedbytheAchaeanLeague);5.3.5(opportunisticraidonCephallenia);5.28.4(Philipallegedtobeinmajordifficultiesforlackofsupplies);but4.63.10and4.65.2areneutralearlierreferences.

(22)10.16–17,withHCPii.217butalsowiththewarningsofZiolkowski1993thatmuchofPolybius’descriptionofprocedureatNewCarthagecompriseseulogyratherthanfirst-handreportage.

(23)Forotherreverberationsoftragichistory,cf.Marincolainthisvolume.

(24)e.g.9.10(editorialcommentonthetransfertoRomeofthespoilsofSyracuse),withHCPii.134–6;31.25(linkingthegrowthofextravagancewiththedefeatofPerseus).

(25)Forapossiblealternativeframework,cf.Davies2009.

(26)e.g.hisfiguresforbothRomanandCarthaginianfleetmanpoweratthebattleofEcnomus(1.26.5–8).

(27)5.61.1,withHCPi.585and587.

(28)5.73.16(losses);5.76.11(eventualoutcome).

(29)5.88–90,withHCPi.616.

(30)30.25–6,withAth.5.22–4,194c–195fanddeCallataÿ2006:40–1.

(31)HiscommentthattheCarthaginianswereaccustomed‘tosupporttheirprivatelivelihoodsfromtheproduceofthecountryside,assemblingtheirpublicpreparationsandsuppliesfromtherevenuesofLibya’(1.71.1)isallthemorefrustratinglybriefonthataccount.

(32)TheparallelswerenotedbyWalbank(HCPi.173andiii.602).

(33)34.8.4–10,fromStrabo3.2.7andAth.8.1,330c–331b.Walbank(HCPiii.601)canvassedaconfusionbyAthenaeuswithTurdetania(sc.theGuadalquivirvalley),aninterpretationresistedbyÉtienne1996:396=2006:556.

(34)IknowofnomonographonPolybiuswhichaddressesthethemeofthepresentchapter:noneiscitedinWalbank2000:1–27.

(35)e.g.therefugeesfromAgathurnalicensedbyM.ValeriusLaevinustoplunderBruttium(9.27.10).

(36)ReferencesinRigsby1996.Itisnoaccidentthatthephrase‘Thepoliticsofplunder’(Scholten2000)hasalsobeenappliedtothepiracyof1550–1650(Jowitt2006)aswellastocertainmodernmisgovernments,realoralleged.

(37)11.5.2–8;cf.alsothoseofLyciscusofAcarnaniaat9.39.1–3.ThevariousversionsoftheWortlautofthetreatyarebestsetoutinStaatsverträgeIII536,withAustin2006:no.77fortranslationsandreferencestomorerecentbibliography.

(38)AsvariouslyexploredbySacks1975,Garlan1978,Davies1984:285–90,andGrainger1999.

(39)HavingcapturedagroupofAetolianenvoystoRomein189,theEpirotsdemandedaransomof5Tforeach,andaccepted3TaheadforallexceptAlexandertheIsian,whoserefusaltopaywasprovidentiallyvindicated(21.26.7–19).Ifthesefiguresrepresentedanythinglikethegoingratesforhigh-statuscaptives,itisnowonderthatpiratesproliferated.Onemayfitlycomparethefigureof$500,000,reportedinJune2007asthegoingrateforransomingoilworkersintheNigerDeltaareaandasapparentlypaidbyoilcompaniesasaroutinecost.

(40)18.4.8–5.3.Incontrast,PhilopoemengrantedtheAchaeansstrictlylimitedῥύσιαagainsttheBoiotians(22.4.13–17,withHCPiii.181).

(41)5.107.5–7,ifhonestlyreportedbyPolybius.

(42)e.g.(a)1.71.1onCarthaginianresources;(b)apassingreferencetoTlepolemusadministeringthepragmataandthechremataofEgypt(16.22.7);(c)ablandnoteofthe

PtolemaicviceroyinCyprusapplyinghimselfdiligentlytothecollectionofrevenue(27.13.2:thepapyriallowustoenvisagealltooclearlywhatthatmeantinpractice).

(43)1.58.9;1.72.2(doubledfrom25percent?,Walbank,HCPi.137).

(44)Respectively,3.17.2;10.8.5and17.9;26.1.2.

(45)8.25.11;27.1–2;27.4ff.;30.5–6,withWalbank,HCPii.102,andMRRi.262n.7forhiscognomen.

(46)11.4–6,withWalbank,HCPii.274–5fortheevidenceofAppianthatAmynanderofAthamaniawasalsopartytothemediation.

(47)However,RomaninterventionintheSixthSyrianWardoesnotbelonginthislist,becausePopilliusLaenas’peremptorybehaviouratEleusis(29.27)showstheRomanstatebehavingasapower-wielder,notasmediatororpower-broker.

(48)TheRomaninterventionagainstIllyria(2.8–12)thereforeexemplifiesthemode(Davies2004a).Amaximalistinterestwill,ofcourse,lookoutsidePolybius’text,bothforwardsintimetotheAegeanresponsetoMithradates’controloftheHellespontandbackwardsintime,e.g.tothecollaborationof(largelythesamegroupof)AegeanstatesoveracenturyearlierintheFirstSocialWarof350s,inthesecondAegeanLeague,intheΣϒν-coinageallianceofthe390s,intheoriginalDelianLeague,andevenintothesixthcenturyBC.

(49)Exceptthat,ofthethreeintrinsicpower-resourcenuclei(Egypt,Anatolia,andSyria-Mesopotamia),thethirdiscurrentlydivided.

(50)e.g.theactionofPerseusinexpellingAbrupolisfromhisprincipalityinordertorecovercontrolofthePangaeummines(22.18.2–3).IthankJoeManningforpreliminarysightofhisinterpretationofEgyptunderthePtolemiesasa‘banditstate’,inasensewhichisfullycompatiblewithwhatissetoutinthetextabove.

(51)e.g.theactionofMasinissaincovetingandeventuallygettingholdofLesserSyrtisbecauseofitsfertilityandabundantrevenue(31.21).

(52)Withapologiestotheauthor,IhavetranslatedtheheadingsinChankowski-Sablé2004.IexcludehereanyreviewofDavies1984,bothbecauseitspurviewwasnotexclusivelyeconomicandbecause,basicallydraftedby1981,itisalreadythirtyyearsoutofdate.Likewise,thoughinitselfinvaluable,Alcock1994isbestreferencedhereratherthaninthetextbecausesheusesonlyonemaintypeofevidence,twelvesurfacesurveysofregionswithintheeasternMediterraneanzone.Thatdoesindeedofferamoredirectaccesstotheexperienceofitspopulations,byspottingtrendssuchasurbanization,demographicfluctuation,agrarianintensification,andtherealityorotherwiseofculturaldiscontinuities.

(53)Theydosomainlyforhissectionsonpopulationdeclineandonthewarbetween

RhodesandByzantium.

(54)Thereareexceptions,suchashissaccharineportrayaloftheeconomicunificationofAchaea(2.37.9–11)andmostconspicuouslyhisoutrageouscaricatureofBoeotia(20.6),onwhichseeMüllerinthisvolume,butitisrelativelyeasytoplantwarningflagsroundthem.

Imagining the Imperial Mediterranean1

ImaginingtheImperialMediterranean1

JosephineCrawleyQuinn

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0019

AbstractandKeywords

Polybius'interweaving(symploke)ofthehistoryofdifferentregionsfromhisstartingpointin220BCisanideologicalaswellasaliterarystrategy.BenedictAnderson'sworkonhowconceptsofsimultaneityacrosstheprogressofemptyorhomogeneoustimecanshapenationalidentity,itselfdrawingontheworkofWalterBenjamin,offersvaluableinsightintosimultaneityinPolybius,whosesymplokedrawstheMediterraneanworldintoahistoricalcommunityofGreeksandRomans:theuseofsynchronisms,andthechronologicalstructureofOlympiadsplayakeyroleinthisprocess.WhiletheprogressoftheHistorychartsRome'sincreasingpower,thestructuringoftimeaccordingtoGreekpracticemaybeseenasasmallmodeofresistancetoRome'ssway,withherachievementsbeingcastwithinanoverallstructurethatwasGreek.ThoughPolybiusmapsRome'srisetopowerovertime,healsochartsalternativeconceptionsofspaceandtimewithinhiswork.

Keywords:Polybius,time,symploke,BenedictAnderson,WalterBenjamin,synchronisms,Olympiads,Rome,theMediterranean

Polybiusinventedanewwayofwritinghistory,inresponse,hesays,totheσυμπλοκήor‘interweaving’ofhistoryitselfinthe140thOlympiad:

Previously[before220–216]thedoingsoftheinhabitedworld(οἰκουμένη)hadbeen,sotosay,dispersed,astheywereheldtogetherbynounityofinitiative,resultsorlocality;buteversincethisdate2historyhasbecomeasiforganic(οἱο̑νεἰσωματοειδη̑),andtheaffairsofItalyandofAfricahavebeeninterweaved(συμπλέκεσθαί)withthoseofAsiaandGreece,allleadinguptooneend(τέλος)…JustasFortunehassteeredalmostalltheaffairsoftheinhabitedworldinonedirectionandhasforcedthemtoinclinetowardsoneandthesameend,soitisthetaskofthehistoriantobringbeforehisreadersunderonesynopticalview(ὑπὸμίανσύνοψιν)theoperationsbywhichshehasaccomplishedhergeneralpurpose. (1.3.3–4.1)

ItisthissynopticapproachthatIshallexplorehere,andwhatitmeansforPolybius’presentationoftheMediterranean,notintermsofgeographybutintermsofhumanexperience.FrankWalbank’sclassic1975articleontheσυμπλοκήcomprehensivelycoversthepracticalaspectsofthistopic;3whatIwanttodohereistoexamineitsideology.IamgoingtoarguethatPolybius’structureisinitselfaconstruction—oftheMediterraneanasaunitybetweeneastandwest,GreeceandRome—andthatthiscanbeunderstoodasapoliticalaswellasaliterarystrategy.Atthesametime,however,alternativeconstructionsoftheMediterraneancanbetracedthroughPolybius’account(p.338) andothersources.First,though,aglanceatapairofmorerecentstudiesofthehistoricaltreatmentoftimewillsetthescenefortherestofthediscussion,notbecauseIthinktheyexplainPolybius’strategybutbecauseIthinktheydon’t,quite.

Empty,HomogeneousTimeInhis1983bookImaginedCommunities,BenedictAndersonfamouslypointedtotheimportanceofaconceptionofsimultaneous,emptytimeacrossalimitedgeographicalspacefortheriseofnationalismintheearlymodernperiod:

Beneaththedeclineofsacredcommunities,languagesandlineages,afundamentalchangewastakingplaceinmodesofapprehendingtheworld,which,morethananythingelse,madeitpossibleto'think'thenation…[T]hemediaevalChristianmindhadnoconceptionofhistoryasanendlesschainofcauseandeffectorofradicalseparationsbetweenpastandpresent…itviewstimeas…asimultaneityofpastandfutureinaninstantaneouspresent.Insuchaviewofthings,theword‘meanwhile’cannotbeofrealsignificance…Whathascometotaketheplaceofthemediaevalconceptionofsimultaneity-along-timeis…anideaof‘homogeneous,emptytime’,inwhichsimultaneityis,asitwere,transverse,cross-time,markednotbyprefiguringandfulfilment,butbytemporalcoincidence,andmeasuredbyclockandcalendar.4

Asaresult,timeisunderstoodasanexperiencesharedbyallmembersofthenational

community,andAndersonshowshowthestructuresofnovelsandnewspapersinemergingnationsreinforcedthismodernideaofsimultaneityacrosshomogeneous,emptytime.Novelsofthissortpresenttheircharactersasdoingdifferentthingsatthesametime,linkedtoobecausetheyareembeddedinthesamesocietyandinthemindsofthecommonreadership;andtheyoftencontaincopiousreferencestothereaders’ownexperienceof,andeveninvolvementin,theeventsandplacesdiscussed.Inthecaseofthenewspaper,eventsandreadersarelinkedthroughthesimultaneous,large-scaleconsumptionofthatnewspaperaswellas‘calendricalcoincidence’—whichistosaythatthepaperprintsthedateatthetopofpage1,meaningthatthereisasingledateforthefirsttime,sharedbyprotagonistsandconsumersofevents.

MuchoftheinspirationforAnderson’saccountcomesfromWalterBenjamin’slastessay,the‘ThesesontheConceptofHistory’,anattackonwhathecallsthe‘historicist’formofhistory-writing,inwhichthehistoricalprogressofmankind

(p.339) wasregardedasirresistible,somethingthatautomaticallypursuedastraightorspiralcourse…theconceptofthehistoricalprogressofmankindcannotbesunderedfromtheconceptofitsprogressionthroughahomogeneous,emptytime…5

ForBenjamin,this‘historicism’alwaysempathizeswithhistory’svictors,whomitseesasinevitablysuccessful.6Hecontrastswiththe‘historicist’the‘historicalmaterialist’forwhomtimeisnotprogressive,‘empty’and‘homogeneous’,butis‘filledbythepresenceofthenow’;7thisisAnderson’scontrastbetweensimultaneity-across-timeandsimultaneity-along-time.Andhistoricalmaterialism,inthissense,wasapoliticalactofseriouscontemporaryrelevance:

Toarticulatethepasthistoricallydoesnotmeantorecognizeit‘thewayitreallywas’(Ranke).Itmeanstoseizeholdofamemoryasitflashesupatamomentofdanger8…OnereasonwhyFascismhasachanceisthatinthenameofprogressitsopponentstreatitasahistoricalnorm.9

AccordingtoBenjamin,revolutionariescan‘makethecontinuumofhistoryexplode’,andsometimesdothisliterallybyintroducinganewcalendar,ashappenedaftertheFrenchandSovietrevolutions,or,moredramatically,bygunningdownclocktowers.10

Iwanttosuggestinwhatfollowsthatthisconceptionofsimultaneity-across-timeisnotconfinedtothemodernperiod,asAndersonsuggests,11butiscentraltothesynopticapproachPolybiusadopts,whichinvokesasenseofsimultaneous,sharedtimeandhistorybetweenthepeoplesoftheMediterranean.Inparticular,hepresentstheRomansandtheGreeksasparticipatinginonehistoricalcommunityasbothcharactersandreaders,buildingnotanationbutanempire.12Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatPolybius’historyis(p.340) astraightforwardexampleofBenjamin’shistoricism;itdoesnotempathizesolelywiththeRoman‘victors’,butsuggestsalternativewaysofunderstandinghistoricalevents,andrecognizesalternativeconceptionsoftheMediterraneanworld.First,IshalldiscusshowPolybiusestablishessimultaneityacross

theMediterranean,andwhatthismighthavetodowithRomanimperialism,andthenIshalllookbrieflyatacoupleofslightlyearlierandratherdifferentversions,orvisions,ofthewaytheMediterraneanworks;beforereturningtoPolybius,toshowthathistext,too,containsalternativestothehegemonicmessageofunitybetweeneastandwest,thathetoodealsinsimultaneityalongaswellasacrosstime.

ThePolybianMediterraneanFirst,then,howdoesPolybius’structure,andinparticularhisσυμπλοκή,constructspace?Afterthetwointroductorybookscoveringsketchilytheyears264–221,andthethreebookswhichtreatthewarswhichtookplaceinthe140thOlympiad

Iundertooktomakeafreshbeginning…andhenceforthtodealwiththesharedexperiences13oftheoikoumene(τὰςκοινὰςτη̑ςοἰκουμένηςπράξεις),classingitunderOlympiadsanddividingthoseintoyearsandplacingcontemporaryexperiencessidebysideforcomparison(συγκρίνοντεςἐκπαραβολη̑ςτὰςκαταλλήλους)untilthecaptureofCarthage,thebattleoftheAchaeansandRomansattheIsthmusandtheconsequentsettlementofGreece[i.e.146]. (39.8.6)

SoPolybiustellshisstoryyearbyyear,andwithineachyearheworkshiswayacrosstheworldinafigure-of-eightpattern,startingwitheventsinItaly,Sicily,Spain,andAfrica,movingontoGreeceandMacedonia,thencetoAsia,andfinallyreachingEgypt.14Noteveryareafeatureseveryyear,noteveryyearinthenarrativeconformsstrictlytothechronologicalpattern,andsomebooksaredigressionsbeyondthenarrativehistory,butthatisthebasicsynopticstructure,the‘sharedhistory’(κοινήἱστορία)bywhichPolybiusorganizes(p.341) horizontalspaceinverticaltimeinacompletelynewwaytodescribe‘sharedexperiences’.15

Whatarethecontoursofthisspace?Aswehaveseen,Polybiusclaimsattheendofthework(39.8.6,quotedabove)thathishistoryhasdealtcomparativelywiththesharedexperiencesoftheinhabitedworld,orοἰκουμένη,16suggestingthatforhimthisοἰκουμένηismadeupoftheareashissynopticstructurecyclesthrough:Italy,Sicily,Spain,Africa,Greece,Macedonia,AsiaMinor(withoccasionalforaysfurthertotheSeleucideast),andEgypt.Butatothertimeshesaysheisdealingwiththeknownpartsoftheοἰκουμένη(2.37.4),oralmostalltheaffairsoftheοἰκουμένη(1.4.1);andwhenhedefinestheοἰκουμένηgeographically(3.37),itisasAsia,Africa,andEurope,withboundariesattheriverDon,theNile,andthePillarsofHercules.AsiaandAfricaliesouthoftheMediterranean;Europeliesnorth.Polybiusisveryvagueabouttheextensionnorthandsouthofthesezones,explainingthattheseouterareasarenotyetknown(3.38.1–3).Itisclearthatheconceptualizestheseregionsintermsoftheircentre,theMediterranean,ratherthantheirfar-offandbarbarousperipheries,butitisalsoclearthatwhenheistechnicallydefiningtheconceptoftheοἰκουμένη,heincludesthewholeworldknowntohim,certainlyafarlargerareathanthatcoveredbythesynopticstructure.17Thecommunityunitedbythatstructure,however,‘almost’theοἰκουμένη,mapsfairlycloselyontothelandssurroundingtheMediterranean.Andthiscommunityisnotimaginedinavacuum:outsideit,definingandthreateningit,liethebarbarians,notincludedintheregularcycleofeventsunlesstheyareonthereceivingendofawar.The

Persians(3.6.10)areatraditionalchoice,butPolybiusisalsoandparticularlyconcernedbytheGauls(2.35),commonenemytotheRomansandtheGreeks,asweshallseefurtherbelow.WhileRomeissubsumedintoGreekOlympiadichistory,thesetribesandpeoplesremainoutsidetime.

TheMediterraneanpeoples,bycontrast,arenowtiedtogetherthroughtime:Polybius’structurereliesonandreinforcesaconceptionofchronologicalsimultaneityacrossthisspace.Aftertheσυμπλοκή,Polybiusandhisreaders(p.342) enterBenjamin’s‘empty,homogeneoustime’asmembersofahistoricalcommunitythatstretchesfromSpaintoEgypt.Theconcurrentnarrativesthatheemploysfromthispointarethestructuralexploitationandconstantreassertionofthemeaningfulnessof‘meanwhile’withintheMediterraneanworld:κατὰτουςαὐτούςκαιρούς,aphrasewhichrecursconstantlythroughouttheHistories.18AndthesynopticstructureisbynomeanstheonlywaythatPolybiusproducesthiscommunityintimebetweentheeasternandwesternMediterranean,andinparticularbetweenGreeceandRome:anotheristheprovisionofsynchronisms;thealignmentofdifferentdatingsystemsisathird.

Synchronismsorientthereaderwithrespecttoeventsinotherareas,19andbringtheMediterraneantogetherbeforethefullsynopticstructurestartsinBook7,synchronismsystematized.20ThisisnotjustaboutpullingtogetherRomeandGreece:sixoftheninesynchronismsfoundinBooks4–5involvenotjustPhilipVofMacedonandtheGreekstatesbutalsoRome,eightincludeCarthage,andfiveeitherPtolemyorAntiochus.21

SynchronismsbetweenwestandeastarenotofcourseunheardofbythetimethatPolybiusiswriting,buthetakesthistechniqueunusuallyfarbackintimeforaGreekhistorian.DenisFeeneydrawsattention,forinstance,tothewaythatEratosthenesandApollodorus(writinginthelaterthirdandmid-secondcenturies,respectively)only‘starttotakenoticeofRomaneventsatallwhentheyarrivedattheinvasionofItalybytheGreekkingPyrrhus[in(p.343) 280]…Bythisapproach,theRomansaredeniedthe“likeness”ofsynchronicity,notbeingallowedtobepartofcivilizedtimeuntilthelatestpossiblemoment.’TheRomansaremadeallochronic,inJohannesFabian’sterms.22ButPolybiussynchronizesRomanandGreekhistorymuchearlier,inhisfamouslycomplexevocationinBook1ofwhatwecall387/6:

Itwas,therefore,thenineteenthyearafterthebattleofAegospotamiandthesixteenthbeforethatofLeuctra,theyearinwhichtheSpartansratifiedthepeaceknownasthatofAntalcidaswiththeKingofPersia,thatinwhichalsoDionysiustheElder,afterdefeatingtheItaliotGreeksinthebattleattheriverElleporos,wasbesiegingRhegium,andthatinwhichtheGauls,aftertakingRomeitselfbyassault,occupiedthewholeofthatcityexcepttheCapitol.TheRomans,aftermakingatruceonconditionssatisfactorytotheGaulsandbeingthuscontrarytotheirexpectationreinstatedintheirhomeandasitwerenowstartedontheroadofaggrandizement,continuedinthefollowingyearstowagewarontheirneighbours. (1.6.1–3)

ForPolybius,theRomansstartontheirhistoricaljourneymorethanacenturybefore

PyrrhusturnsupinItaly;23itisidentifiedhereasanimperialjourney,24anditisidentifiedwiththehistoryoftheHellenisticeast.25At3.22.1–2Polybiusgoesbackevenfurther,datingthefirsttreatywithCarthagein509/8by‘thefirstconsulsofRomeaftertheexpulsionofthekingsandthefoundersofthetempleofJupiterCapitolinus’andbytheyearsbeforeXerxes’invasion.PolybiusmaybefollowingTimaeusforthe387/6synchronism,26andFabiusPictorfor509/8,27inwhichcaseitisinterestingthathechosetorepeatthem.CertainlylaterRomanauthorsfillinpre-PyrrhicparallelsbetweenGreeceandRome—inanattempt,Feeneysuggests,toestablishlikenessbetweenthetwopeopleswheretheGreekshadmadeRomedifferent28—butPolybiusgottherebeforehand,andperhapsevenfirst.

(p.344) Aswellasthesynchronisms,thereisthedatingsystemitself:theuseoftheOlympiadsasthebackboneofthetextfromBook3onwardscreatesanimpressionofonecalendar,onekindoftime,acrosstheMediterranean,quiteremovedfromthelocalwaysofreckoningtimethatpeople,includingmanyhistorians,actuallyused.29PolybiusreliesontheuniversalityoftheOlympiadscheme,andthusoftimeitselfwithinthecommunityhecreates.HeisnotthefirsttouseOlympiads:forthatweshouldprobablylookagaintoTimaeus,thoughhemaynothaveusedthemconsistently.30Again,theycertainlyweren’ttheonlychoiceavailable:theywerenot,forinstance,thechoicemadebyPhilinus,whoseemstouseyearsofthe(FirstPunic)War.31And,asWalbankpointsout,arigidOlympiadschemewhichrunsmidsummertomidsummerdoesn’tsitwellwithahistorythatisprincipallyconcernedwiththecampaigningseason,runningspringtoautumn,andwherePolybiusisoftenalsofollowinglocaltime-markers,suchasRomanconsularyearsrunningMarchtoMarch.32Hesuggests,followingDeSanctis,thatPolybiusthereforeuses‘manipulated’andsomewhatflexibleOlympiads,normallyclosingwiththereturntowinterquartersintheautumn.33Theschemeheadoptsnecessitatesthealignmentofdifferentdatingsystemsasiftheyweresimultaneous:animaginarycalendarunitestheimaginedMediterraneancommunity.34

AfinalPolybianparallelbetweeneastandwest,GreeksandRomans,istheinvolvementofthereaderinthestory.ItseemsquiteclearthatPolybius’(p.345) intendedandexpectedaudiencewaslargelyGreek,35buttherearetextualreferencestoRomanreadersaswell.36Polybius’claimat31.22.8thatheis‘perfectlyawarethatthisworkwillbeperusedbyRomansaboveallpeople,containingasitdoesanaccountoftheirmostsplendidachievements’isespeciallystriking.Iwouldpropose,however,thattheunityimpliedbythesynopticstructurehelpstoexplainthisstatementandotherslikeit,bysuggestinganimplicitparallelclaimtoGreekreadersthattheyweresharingtheculturalandhistoricalexperienceofreadingPolybiuswithaRomanaudience;thattheyandtheRomanswereprogressingtogetherthroughhomogeneous,emptytime,bothinthetextandinreadingthetext.

ThestorysofarthenisthatPolybiusconstructsforhisreadersapan-Mediterraneancommunity,indeedconstructsofhisreadersapan-Mediterraneancommunity,crossingtheboundariesofeastandwest,andexperiencingthesameprocessesinthesamechronologicalframework.Isthisimaginedcommunityimaginedasimperial,one

MediterraneanunderRome?Insomewaysitseemsso:thespacewhichistreatedbythesynopticstructureandinwhichhistory—‘almostalltheaffairsoftheοἰκουμένη’—organically(soinevitably?)comestogether(1.4.1,above)isclearlysupposedtomapontothespace,‘almosttheοἰκουμένη’,whichhesaysissubjectedtoRomeoverlessthanfifty-threeyears(1.1.5).37AndinpracticetheareasregularlytreatedinthesynopticcycleareinfactalmostthosecontrolledbytheRomansby167,atleastaccordingtoPolybius’ownaccount:38heisorderingandhomogenizingtimeacrossthespaceofthenascentRomanempire.39Andonemightsaythatthisimperialspaceispre-writtenintimeontotheMediterraneanlandscape:theseareasmaybeforthemostpartunderRomanswaybythemid-secondcentury,buttheywerenotinthelatethirdcenturyatthetimeoftheσυμπλοκή.Bymanufacturingasharedhistoricalspaceandtimefromthe140thOlympiad,whichfitssocloselythepracticalandpoliticalcommunityexperiencedbytheauthorandreadersunderRomanhegemony,thestructureoftheHistoriesseemstowritetheRomanhistoricalspherebackseveraldecades,andinthiswayreinforcetheinevitabilityandinviolabilityofRomanempire.(The(p.346) barbarianswithoutwereinlittledanger,asitseemedatthetime,ofbeingsubsumed.)SoPolybius’imaginedMediterraneancommunityisinextricablylinkedtoRomanempire.Buttheyarenotthesamething:despitehisuseofastructurebasedonsimultaneousprogressthroughhomogeneous,emptytime,Polybiusdoesnotnecessarilyempathizewiththevictors.40TheriseofRomeisforPolybiusaprocessthatisnotsupposedtobecompleteuntil167,whereasthe‘interweaving’happensmorethanfiftyyearsearlier.Polybius’synopticstructuremayforeshadowtheempire,butitisnot,ornotyet,entirelyRoman.Instead,theimpliedchronologicalequalityandsharedcommunityherecouldaseasilybereadasPolybiusredefiningthevictorstoincludetheGreeks.Indeed,theprimarychronologicalfocalizationoftheworkisGreek,panhelleniceven,structuredaroundOlympiads,andemployingsynchronismstotiethenarrativeofeventsinotherplacesintothoseinGreeceandMacedonia,41eventhoughthegeographicalfocalpointcouldbeseenasRoman,sinceeachyearstartsinthewest.42Thisuseoftimecould,infact,beseenasatechniqueofresistance,anattempttoimposeadifferentcalendarandadifferentunderstandingoftheMediterranean:analliancewithRomeinGreektime,ratherthansubjectiontoRomeonRomanterms.Thiswouldnotthenbethecreationofanationbythehegemonicclasses,buttheredefinitionofanempirebyitssubjects.43

AlternativestoPolybiusAndPolybiuswouldn’tbetheonlyonedoingsomethinglikethis.SofarIhavearguedthathecreatesatextualunityfortheMediterraneaninthelightof,andinreactionto,Romanimperialismofthemid-secondcentury.Bywayofcomparisonandcontextualization,Inowwanttolookattwoearlierattemptstodosomethingsimilar,oneartistic,oneepigraphic.Polybius’synopticMediterraneanisarewritingoftheseearlierversions,andthatispartofitspower.

(p.347) AsimilarlybroadconceptionofMediterraneancommunityidentity,definedbythepresenceofexternalbarbarians,canbefoundintheLesserAttalidDedicationontheAthenianacropolis(theLittleBarbarians,orSmallGauls).WenowpossessonlyinRomancopiesthisseriesofbattle-scenesinvolvingstatuesofdefeatedanddyingbarbarians,a

littlelessthan1metrehigh,inhighbaroquestyle.44ThesewereagifttotheAtheniansfromAttalusIofPergamum(r.241–197),whoowedhisroyaltitletohisdefeatoftheGauls,‘thenthemostformidableandwarlikepeopleinAsia’.45Althoughnodateisgivenbyoursourcesforthededication,AttaluscametoAthensinthespringof200BCandsuccessfullypersuadedtheAthenianstojoinhisallianceagainstPhilipofMacedonafteralongperiodofneutrality;thisvisit,orperhapsthebrutalseasonofcampaigningthatfollowedforAthens,providesanidealcontextforthegift.46Romewasinvolvedinthisalliance,too:Attalushadappealedtothemthepreviousyear,theRomansenatehadalreadydecidedtorenewhostilitieswithMacedon,andinfactRomanambassadorswerealsoinAthensatthetimewithadeclarationofwaragainstPhilip.47

Pausaniasdescribesthegroup:

Bythesouthwall[oftheacropolisatAthens]AttalusdedicatedthelegendarybattleoftheGiants,whooncelivedaroundThraceandtheIsthmusofPallene,thebattleoftheAtheniansagainsttheAmazons,theaffairagainstthePersiansatMarathon,andthedestructionoftheGaulsinMysia. (1.25.2)

TheAtheniansdefeatedtheAmazonsandthePersians,thePergamenesdefeatedtheGaulsinMysia,attheCaïcusBattleofc.237,andnowtheywilljointogethertorepeatthedivinedefeatofthegiants,whosegeographiclocationsuggestsidentificationwiththeMacedoniansandtheneighbouringbarbarians;itisstrikingthatimmediatelyafterthispassagePausaniaslaunchesintoanattackonMacedon,callingthebattleofChaeronea‘thebeginningofmisfortuneforalltheGreeks’(1.25.3),anddiscussingitsunhappyaftermathatlength.ThisidentificationbetweengiantsandMacedoniansisnotjustaconceitthatcanbereadintoPausanias,butanongoingthemeofPergamenesculpture:ontheGreatAltarofthe160sorso,oneofthehumanoidgiantshasaMacedonianstarburstonhisshield.48SowiththisgiftAttalusispropagandizingonbehalfofaPergamene–Athenianallianceagainst(p.348) Macedon,bydefiningahistoricalcommunitywhichexcludesGauls,Persians,andMacedonians,andemphasizesAthenianandPergamenebattlesagainstthem.InreallifeRome,too,waspartofthisalliance,asnotedabove,andthisismentionedinaletterthatAttaluswrotetotheEcclesiain200,underliningthebenefitsfortheAtheniansofanalliancewithhim,theRhodians,andtheRomans,49butitisstrikingthatRomeisleftoutofthepictureontheacropolis:theterms,andsymbolism,ofthesculptureareentirelyeasternMediterranean.50

Polybiusthenrepeatsthisoverallschemeandtechniquehalfacenturylater,butwithmodifications:Attalus’GaulsandPersiansdomapontoPolybius’barbarians,butbythetimeheiswritingtheMacedoniansarefirmlyunderRomancontrol,andsohenolongerneedstodefinethemasbarbarians.Instead,theyareincludedinhissynopticMediterraneancommunity,asaretheRomans,nowveryvisibleindeed.TheAttaliddedicationcan,however,beseenasachallengetoanotherdiscourseofGreco-Macedonianunity,emanatingfromthealliesofMacedoniainGreece,whichwasfloweringjustafewyearsearlierinafamoussetofinscriptionsfoundatMagnesia-on-the-Maeander.51Thestoryiswellknown.TheMagnesiansdecidedtofoundafestivalfor

theirgoddess,ArtemisLeukophryene,afteranoraclegivenin221/0.Accordingtoaninscriptiontheyerectedinthemarketplace,theyappealedtotherestoftheGreeksinAsiatoparticipateinthefestival,whoseemtohavecompletelyignoredthem.52Buttheyrenewedtheappealin207,inthelaststagesoftheFirstMacedonianWar:

InthestephanephorateofMoiragoras(son)ofStephanos[208/7],they[established]acrowned[contest],Pythianinrank,offeringasprizeacrownmadefromfiftygoldpieces,andwhenthekingsaccepted,and[all]theotherstowhomtheysentenvoysbyleaguesandbycities[voted],tohonourArtemisLeukophryeneandthatthecityandlandoftheMagnesiansshouldbe[inviolable],becauseofthebiddingofthegodandthe[friendshipsand]relationshipsobtainingfromancestraltimesbetweenthemallandtheMagnesians. (Syll.3557,tr.BagnallandDerow2004,no.153)

(p.349) InresponsetherewasanavalancheofletterstotheMagnesiansrecognizingtheirfestivalandinsomecasesthecity’sinviolability;theletterfromEpidamnusrecordsthattheenvoysfromMagnesiarequestedthesehonoursonthebasisthatthoseaskedwere‘kinsmenandfriends’.53TheletterscomefromGreekcitiesinAsiaandonthemainland,fromPtolemyIV,AntiochusIII,andAttalusI,and,almostcertainly,fromPhilipVhimself.54NotablebytheirabsenceinthemarketplacearetheRomans.PeterDerowdrewattentiontothisdossierasapanhellenicphenomenon,55butitispanhellenicinaratherparticular,whichistosaybroad,sense:thestatesandmonarchsthatdoaccepttheMagnesians’invitationformaneasternMediterraneancommunity(stretchingasfarwestasSicily)thatdoesnotrequire,orrequest,Romanvalidation.ThisisclosertothetraditionaleasternGreekviewofaMediterraneandividedbetweeneastandwest,withRomeoutofthe(ir)picture.56

AlternativesinPolybiusThisis,ofcourse,aquitedifferentimaginedcommunityfromtheoneIhaveclaimedthatPolybiussynopticallyconstructs,butitisnonethelessvisibleevenwithintheHistories,anditiswithsomeexamplesofthisthatIwanttofinish.Again,theysuggestthatweshouldnotreadPolybiusstraightforwardlyasaBenjaminianhistoricist:histextopensupmultiplepossibilitiesforunderstandingthegeographyandhistoryoftheRomanempire.57AtthepeaceconferenceatNaupactusin217betweenPhilipVofMacedonia,hisHellenicconfederation,andtheAetolians,theveryeventwhichPolybiussawasusheringintheσυμπλοκή,thereisanappealfromtheAetolianambassadortopanhellenicsentiment,withawarningofdangerstocomefromthewest,whetherRomeorCarthage.AddressingPhilip,hesays

ItwouldbebestofalliftheGreeksnevermadewaroneachother,butregardeditasthehighestfavourinthegiftofthegodscouldtheyeverspeakwithoneheartandonevoice,andmarchingarminarmlikemenfordingariver,repelbarbarianinvadersanduniteinpreservingthemselvesandtheircities…ForifonceyouwaitforthesecloudsthatloominthewesttosettleonGreece,Iverymuchfear(p.350) lestwemayallofusfindthesetrucesandwarsandgamesatwhichweplayrudelyinterrupted… (5.104.1–10)

ThenthereisthespeechmadebyaRhodianambassadortotheAetolianstenyearslater,inordertopersuadethemtomakepeace(again)withPhilip,accusingthemofmakingatreatywiththebarbarians—i.e.theRomans—fortheenslavementandruinofGreece:

YousaythatyouarefightingwithPhilipforthesakeoftheGreeks,thattheymaybedeliveredandmayrefusetoobeyhiscommands;butasafactyouarefightingfortheenslavementandruinofGreece.ThisisthestoryyourtreatywiththeRomanstells…youhavemadeatreatybywhichyouhavegivenuptothebarbarianstherestoftheGreekstobeexposedtoatrociousoutrageandviolence. (11.5.1–7)

At3.7.3PolybiusdescribestheAetoliansgoingroundwithAntiochusIIIinthe190s,announcingtheliberationoftheGreeks.58TheseGreeksdonotseeRomanruleasinevitable,noralliancebetweeneastandwest,butinsteadrepresentthepointofviewthatdividedtheMediterranean.Thispointofviewcontinuestofeatureinhisaccountofthesecondcentury,withresistancetoRomeandattachmenttoMacedononthepartof,inparticular,thelowerclassesinGreece;inAchaeaofthe180s,forinstance,partisansofRomefacedviolenceandcontemptfromthemob;59inthenextdecadewhenPerseusofMacedonwonacavalrybattleagainstRome,‘theattachmentofthepeopletoPerseusburstforthlikefire’.60

ThisdisjunctiveversionoftheMediterraneanisfoundnotonlyinothervoicesinPolybiusbutalso,despitewhatIhavearguedabove,inthetext’sowntimeandstructure.Intermsoftime,IhavealreadynotedthatPolybiuschoosestousenotonlyaGreekcoredatingsystem,butonewhichisspecificallypanhellenic;not,forinstance,AthenianarchonshipsorAchaeanstrategoi.61Inaddition,hesometimesuseshissynchronismstoexcluderatherthanincludeRome(andlessoftenCarthage)inhistoricaltime.62Andfinally,to(p.351) comefullcircle,in3.2–3,theproekthesis(preliminarysummary)oftheaccountoftheyears220–168,thereistheshadowofanalternativestructuretothewholework.

Polybiusintroducesthissummarybysayingthatheisgoingtouse‘thefollowingmethodofprocedureinmyexposition(ἐξήγησις)’(3.1.11),butthesummaryofBooks7–39thatfollowsisnotinfactafairreflectionofwhatheactuallydoesinBooks7–39:ratheritignores,contradictseven,theannualsynopticstructurewhichmightbereasonablysaidtobehis‘methodofprocedure’,andinsteademphasizesprogressalongtimeratherthanthroughspace,dividingtheMediterraneanintodifferenthistoricalplaces:

Interruptingmynarrativeatthispoint,IshalldrawupmyaccountoftheRomanconstitution,asasequeltowhichIshallpointouthowthepeculiarqualitiesoftheconstitutionconducedverylargelynotonlytotheirreconquestoftheItaliansandSicilians,andsubsequentlyoftheSpaniardsandCelts,butfinallytotheirvictoryoverCarthage,andtheirconceivingtheprojectofuniversalempire.SimultaneouslyinadigressionIshallnarratehowthedominionofHieroofSyracusefellandafterthisIshalldealwiththetroublesinEgypt,andtellhow,onthedeathofPtolemy,AntiochusandPhilip,conspiringtopartitionthedominionsofhisson,ahelpless

infant,begantobeguiltyofactsofunjustaggression…Next,aftersummingupthedoingsoftheRomansandCarthaginiansinSpain,Africa,andSicilyIshallshiftthesceneofmystorydefinitely,asthesceneoftheactionshifted,toGreeceanditsneighbourhood.IshalldescribetheseabattlesinwhichAttalusandtheRhodiansmetPhilip,andafterthisdealwiththewarbetweentheRomansandPhilip,itscourse,thepersonsengagedinit,anditsresult.FollowingonthisIshallmakementionoftheangryspiritoftheAetoliansyieldingtowhichtheyinvitedAntiochusover,andthussetablazethewarfromAsiaagainsttheAchaeansandRomans.Afternarratingthecausesofthiswar,andhowAntiochuscrossedtoEurope,IshalldescribefirsthowhefledfromGreece;secondlyhowonhisdefeatafterthisheabandonedallAsiauptotheTaurus… (3.2.6–3.4)

AfterBook6,hesays,hewilldealwithRomanvictoriesinthewestuptothedefeatofHannibalandRome’sconceptionofauniversalaim,withadigressiononHieroandabriefdiversiontoEgyptforthecivilwarandplottodismemberthecountrybeforeroundingofftheeventsoftheSecondPunicWar;thisdoesdescribeBooks7–15.20,thoughthereisalsomuchontheeastinthosebooks.63Then‘Iwillshiftthesceneofmystorydefinitely,asthesceneoftheactionshifted,toGreeceanditsneighbourhood.’Asaresult,theeventsof15.21andthereafter(whichinfactcontainplentyofactivityinthewestaswell)arepresentedhereashappeningovertheirowntime,notatthesametimeasthoseinthewest:thisisadenialoftheimportanceofmeanwhile.Theemphasisinthispassage,firstonRomeandthewestupto200,andthenon(p.352) Greeceandtheeastafter200,illustratesthecounter-conceptionofthehistoricaldivisionratherthanunificationoftheMediterranean,withdifferentthingshappeningindifferentplacesatdifferenttimes.

Thishistoricaldivisionisdrawnmoresuccinctlyat3.32.2–3,wherePolybiusisdiscussinghoweasyitis‘toacquireandperusefortybooks,allasitwerewoventogetherinanunbrokenseries,andthustofollowclearlyeventsinItaly,Sicily,andLibyafromthetimeofPyrrhustothecaptureofCarthage,andthoseintherestoftheworldfromtheflightofCleomenesofSpartaontillthebattleoftheRomansandAchaeansattheIsthmus…’:heretheMediterraneanisagaindividedintoeastandwest,identifiedashavingquitedifferenthistoricalnarratives.

Polybius’MediterraneancommunitymapsontoRomanhegemony,butitdoesnotsimplyreproducethathegemony;instead,thetextreinterprets,andatpointssubvertsit,reproducinginsteadrecentandcontemporaryfrictionsbetweenwiderculturalconceptionsofmutualidentity.InthissensetheaccountoftheriseofRomeisnotatallhistoricistinBenjamin’stermsbutisinstead‘filledwiththepresenceofthenow’,whichwas,ofcourse,forPolybiusadisturbedandtroubledtime.64

Notes:

(1)IwouldliketothankKarlBritto,ChristopherBrooke,CraigeChampion,TimCornell,BruceGibson,ErichGruen,KieranHendrick,IradMalkin,GuyMétraux,JonathanPrag,andAndrewStewartforusefuldiscussionofdraftsofthisessay.Translationsaretaken

(oftenwithamendments)fromtheLoebedition;IhavetakenadvantageoftheWalbankandHabichtrevisionnowavailableforBooks1–4.

(2)Polybiusspecificallylocatesthis‘interweaving’atthepeaceconferenceatNaupactusin217thatendedtheSocialWarbetweenPhilipVofMacedoniaandhisHellenicconfederation,ontheoneside,andtheAetoliansontheother(5.105.4–5).

(3)Walbank1975.

(4)Anderson2006(1983):22–4.

(5)Benjamin1968:Thesis13.

(6)Ibid.Thesis7:‘…ifoneaskswithwhomtheadherentsofhistoricismactuallyempathize[t]heanswerisinevitable:withthevictor.Andallrulersaretheheirsofthosewhoconqueredbeforethem.Hence,empathywiththevictorinvariablybenefitstherulers…’.

(7)Ibid.Thesis14:‘[Materialist]Historyisthesubjectofastructurewhosesiteisnothomogeneous,emptytime,buttimefilledbythepresenceofthenow[Jetztzeit].Thus,toRobespierreancientRomewasapastchargedwiththetimeofthenowwhichheblastedoutofthecontinuumofhistory.TheFrenchrevolutionvieweditselfasRomereincarnate.’

(8)Ibid.Thesis6.

(9)Ibid.Thesis8.

(10)Ibid.Thesis15:‘Theawarenessthattheyareabouttomakethecontinuumofhistoryexplodeischaracteristicoftherevolutionaryclassesatthemomentoftheiraction.Thegreatrevolutionintroducedanewcalendar…IntheJulyrevolutionanincidentoccurredwhichshowedthisconsciousnessstillalive.OnthefirsteveningoffightingitturnedoutthattheclocksintowerswerebeingfiredonsimultaneouslyandindependentlyfromseveralplacesinParis.’ForexamplesofthemanipulationoftimeintheGreekworld,seeClarke2008:41–5.

(11)ImpliedatAnderson2006:37andelsewhere;cf.Momigliano1966on,interalia,thedifficultiesofpinpointingtheinventionoftime.

(12)DenisFeeneyhasmadethesamegeneralpointabouttheapplicationofAnderson’s‘senseofsimultaneityinasharedtimeandparticipationinaparallelspace’touniversal,synchronistichistories,althoughhediscussesthisinthecontextoftheearlyempire,anddoesnotrelateittospecificstructuralmodels(2007:66–7).Foracomparableapproachtospace,seenowPurves2010onthecompetitionofsynoptic(‘protocartographic’)andhodological(‘countercartographic’)approachestospaceinarchaicandclassicalGreeknarrative.Purvesnoteswithreferencetotheformermodelhowamap’s‘abilitytolieanddistort’allowsit‘toengageseamlesslyinfictionsofpower’(pp.21–2).

(13)IamgratefultoErichGruenforsuggestingthistranslationofτὰςκοινὰςπράξεις.

(14)Seeinparticular28.16.11.

(15)Cf.DerowinOCD3(s.v.‘Polybius’)forthehorizontal/verticalimage.Forκοινήἱστορίαafterthe140thOlympiad,see4.28.3–4;8.2.11(καθολικήκαὶκοινήἱστορία:combininguniversalandsynopticapproaches);1.4.11fortheimportanceofseeingtheinterconnectionandcomparisonofevents,andcf.5.31.7and32.11.2(notingadeparturefromthestandardpattern).KatherineClarkehasdiscussedatlengththevariousattemptsofhistoriansfromThucydidesonwardstodrawdifferentcommunitieswithdifferentwaysofreckoningtimeintoasinglehistoricalnarrative(2008:90–168);onPolybius’tacticsinparticular,see112–21.Shepointsoutthat,becauseofthefragmentarysurvivalofBooks6andfollowing,‘wearemorereliantonPolybius’explicitstatementsofintentthanontheextensiveexemplificationoftheOlympiadicstructure’(p.112).

(16)5.31.6isarathervaguestatementalongthesamelines.

(17)Thismeansthathisworkcannotdescribe,asWalbankputsit,theunificationoftheοἰκουμένηunderRome(1972a:68).

(18)Withsomevariation,andusuallymarkingageographicalmovesidewayswithinthesynopticstructure,orsynchronismsbeforethatstructurestarts;e.g.,beforetheσυμπλοκή:2.37.1referringto220;3.2.3on220–16;4.27.1on220;4.37.4,8on219;4.68.1on219/18;5.1.3on218;5.29.7on218;5.101.3on217;5.109.5on216;5.111.1on216.Aftertheσυμπλοκή,fromarandomsampleofBooks23–7:23.6.1;24.5.2;27.1.1;27.3.1.

(19)DenisFeeneynowremindsusthattherelativeratherthanabsolutenatureofancienttime-keepingmadesynchronismsapeculiarlypowerfulideologicaltool:‘correlatingGreekandRomandatesmeanscorrelatingGreekandRomanevents…ancientwritersarenotconnectingnumbers;theyareconnectingsignificanteventsandpeople’(2007:15).

(20)Synchronismsdooccasionallyoccurlater:seeWalbank,HCPi.229on2.41.1,HCPiii.235–9forthesynchronismofthedeathsofScipio,Hannibal,andPhilopoemeninthesameyear(Livy39.50.10,51.1(fromPolybius) ),althoughthismightbeanexampleofthetraditionalGreekrespectforstrikingcoincidences(seeFeeney2007:44)ratherthanagenuineattempttoanchoreventsintime;bythispointthesynopticstructurerendersthelatterunnecessary.

(21)SynchronismsinBooks4–5(afterWalbank1972a:5n.20):4.26.7–28.1(preparationsfortheSocialWarbyPhilipandtheAchaeanswiththeelectionsoftheAetolianstrategoiandtheattackofHannibalonSaguntum);4.37(Achaea,Aetolia,Carthage/Spain,Rome,Syria,Egypt,SpartaandMacedon,andRhodesandByzantium);4.66.7–67.1(Philip’sprosecutionofSocialWarwithRome,Carthage/Spain,andAetolia);

5.1.1–4(AetoliaandAchaea,Carthage/Spain,Rome,Antiochus,andPtolemy);5.29.5–8(Philip/SocialWarwithactivitiesofCarthaginianandRomanforces,Antiochus,andLycurgusofSparta);5.101.3(Philip’ssiegeofThebeswithRomeandCarthageatTrasimene);5.105.3(Naupactus,Trasimene,andAntiochus’battleinCoele-Syria);5.108.9–10(Philip,Hannibal,andRome);5.109.4–6(Philip,Antiochus,andtheRomanfleetoperatingoffSicily).

(22)Feeney2007:24–5,discussingFabian1983.ThesamecouldbesaidofPolybius’PersiansandGauls(discussedabove,p.341).TimaeushastheevenearliersynchronismofthefoundationofCarthageandRome(Dion.Hal.A.R.1.74.1 = FGrHist566F60),thoughnotexamplesthatcrosseastandwest,andthereareofcoursementionsofRomaneventsinfifth-andfourth-centuryGreekhistorians:seethefifth-centuryreferencetoAeneasfoundingRome(Dion.Hal.A.R.1.72.1 = FGrHist4(Hellanicus)F84)andthefourth-centuryversioninvolvingLavinium(FGrHist560(Alcimus)F4).

(23)Whichheadmittedlydoesinthetextonlyafewsentenceslater,at1.6.5–7.

(24)Itisnonethelessstrikingthatthisjourneybeginswithasetback,andamorecomprehensiveoneinPolybius’versionthanthelaterRomantraditionontheSackofRomesuggests(Williams2001:143).BruceGibsonpointsouttomethatthereisacomparable‘narrativesynchronism’intheuseofCannaeasthedateatwhichtointerruptthehistoricalnarrativeforthediscussionoftheexcellenceoftheRomanconstitution(5.111.8–10;cf.6.58fortheRomanexploitationoftheirowndefeatthere).

(25)Cf.Feeney2007:47.

(26)SoWalbank,HCPi.48on1.6.2:‘probably’.

(27)Walbank,HCPi.340on3.22.2foradiscussionofearlieropinionsonthispoint.

(28)Feeney2007:25.

(29)SeeErrington1967bforthewayinwhichPolybiushasnoconsistentmethodofreckoningtimeinthefirsttwobooks,buttendstofollowhissources.Onlocaltime,seeClarke2008.

(30)OlympiadsarenotTimaeus’onlytime-keepingsystem:heputsthefoundingofCorcyra600yearsaftertheTrojanwar(F80),andthatofMassilia120yearsbeforeSalamis(F71).SeeClarke1999:11n.20ontheclaimsbysomescholarsthatEratosthenes,thoughlaterthanTimaeus,shouldbegiventhe‘honourofhavingfirstdevelopedtheuseofOlympiadsasasystemofreckoning’with2008:110ontherelativecontributionsofeachtothedevelopingscheme.

(31)Walbank1945a:1–5,notingthepossibilitythathealsousesconsularyears.FeeneypointsoutthatJeromeandEusebiusmakealltheirdifferentsystemsartificiallystartonthesameday(2007:225n.77).

(32)ClarkepointsoutthatwhilePolybius’useofRomanconsulsasdating-markerscontinuessporadicallyafterthe140thOlympiad(2008:116),‘itisinterestingandsignificantthatPolybiusrefersbothtotheelectionandtotheaccessionofconsuls,twoeventswhichoccurredatdifferenttimesofyear’(p.117).

(33)Walbank1972a:101–2.

(34)ComparethewayinwhichPolybiusmisleadinglyinvolvesAsiainhisσυμπλοκή:whenheclaimsthateventsinItaly,Greece,andAsiacometogetherforthefirsttimeafterNaupactus,heisfacedwiththeproblemthatthereisnoplausiblewaytoincludeAsiainthisstoryatthistime:ithadnothingtodowitheithertheSocialWarortheHannibalicWar.Nonetheless,wearetoldthatwhenalleyesinGreeceturnedtoItaly‘verysoonthesamethinghappenedtotheislandersandthoselivingincoastalAsia’,andthatafterthisembassiesweresentfromthosewithgrievancesagainstPhilipandAttalustoRomeinfuture,ratherthantothekingsofAsiaandEgypt,andviceversa(5.105.6–8),though‘infact,manyyearsweretopassbeforeanyislandersorAsianGreekssentembassiestoRome;andnoRomanembassycrossedtheAegeanbefore200’(Walbank1972a:69;cf.Feeney2007:59).TheallianceofAttalusIofPergamumwithRomeintheFirstMacedonianWarmighthaveprovidedPolybiuswithabetterexampleofAsianeyesturningwestrelativelysoonaftertheσυμπλοκή.

(35)Therearevariousreferencesto,orassumptionsof,aGreekaudience(e.g.1.42.1–7;2.35.9;3.59.8),thehistoriesofRomeandCarthagearenotwellknownto‘us’Greeks(1.3.7–8),thereismuchexplanationofthetechnicalitiesofRomanmilitaryandpoliticallife(3.72.12,87.7,107.10–14;10.16–17;14.3.6;21.2.2,13.11)(adaptedfromWalbank1972a:3–4).SeeSeagerinthisvolumeonBook6asanattempttoexplainRometotheGreeks.

(36)3.21.9;6.11.3

(37)Cf.3.1.4(theknownpartsoftheοἰκουμένη).SeeClarke1999:119forthesuggestionthataftertheσυμπλοκήspacewassubordinatedtotimeinPolybius’account,and114–28forPolybius’universalizingstrategies,includingtheσυμπλοκή,moregenerally.

(38)OnwhichaccountRomancontrolis,ofcourse,hegemonicratherthanterritorial:fortheclassicstatement,see3.4.3,withtheclassicdiscussionofDerow1979.

(39)TimeandspacenonethelessremainseparateconceptsforPolybius,asdiscussedatClarke1999:80–1.

(40)Sometimeshecertainlydoes:Dubuisson,forinstance,discusseshisfrequentuseofthephraseἡκαθ’ἡμα̑ςθάλαττα,i.e.theLatinmarenostrum,whichinthatperiod‘n’aguèredesensdanslabouched’unGrec’(1985:172).ThankstoCraigeChampionforpointingthisouttome.

(41)Walbank1972a:105;Plb.5.31.3fortheGreekbasisofthesynchronismtechniqueinthe140thOlympiad,‘inwhichIstateinwhatyearofthisOlympiadandcontemporaneouslywithwhateventsinGreeceeachepisodeelsewherebeganandended’.

(42)Cf.Clarke1999ontheGreekfocalpointofPolybius’historyandideology,incontrasttothebroaderfocalizationofhisgeography(98–101).

(43)ThepanhellenicnatureofOlympiaddatingisemphasizedatClarke2008:66.

(44)ForacomprehensivestudyofthesesculpturesfromtheHellenisticperiodtothepresent,seeStewart2004.

(45)Plb.18.41.7–8;cf.Strab.13.4.2.Itisunlikelythatthe‘Attalus’referredtohereisAttalusII(r.158–138),orAttalusIII(r.138–133)sincenobattleagainsttheGaulstookplaceduringtheirreigns.

(46)SeeStewart2004:218–36,esp.218–23,onthedatingproblems,andtheweightofevidenceinfavourofadateinorshortlyafter200.

(47)Plb.16.25.

(48)Stewart2000:40forthisandother‘anti-Macedonianallusions’ontheAltar.

(49)Plb.16.26.5–6.

(50)Cf.Gruen2000:18:‘Attalos’successisconjoinedwiththoseofthegreathistoricalandlegendarytriumphsofHellenismoverbarbarism.’GruenalsodrawsattentiontoAttalus’latethird-centurybuildingprojectsatDelphi,suggestingthatthelocation‘deliberatelyassociated’hisowndefeatoftheGaulswiththeAetolianvictoryoverthemin279(25).TheimplicitshadowofRome,allyofAetoliaandAttalusintheFirstMacedonianWar,mayfallovertheDelphicmonumentsaswell.

(51)Foracomprehensiveandthought-provokingaccountofHellenisticGreekapproachestotheMediterraneanthatdifferentiatedeastfromwest,includingtheMagnesia-on-the-Maeanderdossier,seeErskineforthcoming;Iwanttoacknowledgeamajordebtbothhereandinthenextsectiontothisdetailedsurveyofthevarietiesofconceptualgulfbetweeneastandwestinthisperiod.

(52)I.Magnesia16.

(53)Syll.3560,l.22,transBagnallandDerow2004,no.155.SeeRigsby1996:179–279forthefulldossier.

(54)Welles1934,letters31–4;Philip’sletterisnotpreservedbutseemsassuredbySyll.3561,ll.1–5,whereChalcisrecognizesthefestivalathisrequest.

(55)Derow2003:57.

(56)e.g.Purcell1995:139,andErskineforthcoming.

(57)SeeDavidson1991forthesimilarpointthatPolybiusoftensurveysdifferentviewsofthesameepisode‘overlayingoneanotherandcompetingwitheachother’(p.13);Isuggestherethatthesameistrueoflargerphenomena.

(58)Aphrasewithalonghistory:seee.g.Seager1981.

(59)24.10–13(Callicrates’speech).

(60)27.9.1;seealso28.4.12;39.3.8.

(61)Cf.Thucydides’useofArgivepriestesses,Spartanephors,andAthenianarchonstodatethebeginningoftheArchidamianwar(2.2.1).TheMarmorParium(FGrHist239)usesAtheniankingsandarchons.Feeneynotesthatwhile‘[w]emaytalkcasuallyaboutsynchronismsbetweenGreeceandRome…thereisnoGreektimeagainstwhichtoplotRomantime.Romantimeisunified,asthetimeofonecity,butGreektimeisnot…ItisalwaysvitaltoaskwhichperspectiveonGreektimeisbeingadoptedatanymoment,throughwhichcalendricalorhistoricaltraditiontheideaofGreektimeisbeingfocalized,andwhatmotivatesthechoiceofdatesthataregoingtobeusedashooksoneitherside’(2007:23).Itshouldbenotedthatforatrulypan-Mediterraneansystemofsynchronisms,wehavetowaitforCastorofRhodeswritinghisChronicainthemid-firstcenturyBC,aworkwhichbringstogetherthetimesofAsia,Greece,andRome(Feeney2007:63–4).

(62)e.g.2.41on284/80withGreekandEgyptiandates.4.27.9–28.1and5.29.7–9includeCarthagebutnot(directly)Rome.

(63)ThedismembermentofEgyptisactuallydiscussedat15.20,afterthediscussionofthesettlementafterZamain15.19.

(64)3.4.12–13ontheperiodafter167asatimeofταραχὴκαὶκίνησις.AsIsaidinLiverpool,thisapproachhasalsobeencharacteristicofmuchworkonPolybius,includingthatofFrankWalbankandofotherabsentfriends.

Growing up with Polybius: A Daughter’s Memoir

GrowingupwithPolybius:ADaughter’sMemoir

MitziWalbank

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608409.003.0020

AbstractandKeywords

Thischapterbeginswiththeauthor'sexperienceofchildhoodintheWalbankhousehold,andtheswaywhichWalbank'sacademicworkheldovertheentirefamily.TheonsetofMaryWalbank'sill-healthhadfar-reachingeffectsonthechildren,andmadethediligentstudyofPolybiusarefugeforWalbankhimself.ThecompletionofthethirdvolumeofWalbank'scommentaryonPolybiusin1979allowedhimgreateropportunitiesforenjoyingthecompanyofhisdescendantsinhisfinalyears.

Keywords:F.W.Walbank,Polybius,liverpool,Birkenhead,MaryWalbank,DorothyWalbank,MitziWalbank,ChristoWalbank

In1942,theyearIwasborn,FrankwaswritinganarticleonPolybius’discussionoftheRomanconstitution.Thefollowingyearitwouldseemnaturaltoturntothehistorianwithwhomhehadalreadybeenworkingforhischoiceofsubjectforabiggerwork.Heand

Maryhadmovedtotheirfirsthouse,a1930ssemiinStAnnes,fromwhichhecommutedtoLiverpoolandatenuredpost.Thesameyearmayhaveseenhisbesteffortasahands-ondad.ToavoidanyrecurrenceofthepostnataldepressionandpsychosisthathadfollowedDorothy’sbirth,hedidmynightfeedsandnappychanging.Iwasbottle-fed.Thereafterinvolvementwithhischildrenwaned.Wesawhimatmealtimes,hecarrieduswhenwewhinedtobepiggy-backedonfamilywalks,andhedriedourhairinfrontofthefirewhenithadbeenwashed.Thatwasit.Thatwasnormalforthetimes,andalsoitwasundeniablethatwedidn’tyethaveanythingveryinterestingtosay.

AtthecentreofFrank’slifewasMaryandtheprogressionofherlifeiscrucialtoanypictureofFrank’s,andtothehistoryofthewritingoftheCommentary.Ourparentsbelongedtotheirtimes,andtheirliveswereboundbyaspecificsetofsocialmores.Iamsurethatattheoutsettheythoughtoftheirmarriageasanequalpartnership.Herswasthedominantpersonality.Shewasbeautiful,intelligent,headstrong,vivid,andhadbeenmuchcourted.HermotherhadpressedFrank’ssuit,regardinghimasagoodcatch,andsoitproved,fortheirlovelastedthroughsomebadtimes.Theyreadthesamebooks,sharedideas,grappledwiththepoliticalissuesofthetime.Theyengagedwiththeoutsideworld,hadfriendswithsimilaraspirations.Theywantedtomouldthefuture,theytookresponsibilityforit.Buttheirliveswouldinevitablygrowlessequal.FrankhadtheUniversityofLiverpoolforhisarena;hehadadiscoursewithPolybiustoengagewith.Maryhadus,andthehouse.AsFrank’slifeexpanded,hersgrewmoreconstricted.

(p.354) Ontheirmarriage,in1935,Mary’ssomewhatmenialpostasherfather’sfactotuminhisofficehadhadtoberelinquished.Thecountryinthethirtieswasineconomicdepressionanditwasthoughtthatmarriedwomenshouldnotoccupyanyjobthatamanandbreadwinnermightfillinstead.Women’sjobswereforpin-money.Frankwaslatertoregretthis,andtowishthathehadencouragedhertostudythenandcompletehereducation.Inlateryearshewasalsotorealizethathehadmissedsomethingbynotbeingthekindoffatherthathewouldseeyoungercolleaguesbecoming.Onceheaskedme:‘Whatwasthatgameyouplayedontheswingwhenyoujumpedoffandshouted,“Abird,abird!”andsometimesyoushouted,“Abirdofparadise!”?’Itoldhim:‘Thatwasit,thatwasthegame.Thebirdofparadisewaswhenthejumpsoaredbeautifully.’Iliketothinkthatsometimeshelookedupfromhisdeskandsawhischildrenplaying.

In1944mybrotherChristowasborn;twoyearslaterFrankgainedtheChairofLatin.SubsequentlywemovedtoBirkenhead.Mary’sself-appointedjobwastokeepusquietsohecouldwork.Coffeewouldbeprovidedat11.00andhewouldtellherwhathehadbeenwriting.Shewoulddosomethingshecalled‘makingtherightnoises’.Itwouldbeafuturejoytohaveproducedadaughterwhocouldreflectbacksomethingmorefruitfulthantherightnoises,andeven(laterinCambridge)tolivenextdoortohim.Thatwasnotyet;Dorothywasstillsmall.InBirkenheadtheneedtokeepusquiet,togetherwiththepost-warlackoftraffic,wouldmakeforanunfetteredchildhood.Wehadtobebackformeals.Wehadastreetlife;wehadaterritory.Itwascircumscribedsomewhatafterweallcaughtnitsandscabiesfromtheevacuatedslumchildrenopposite.Marywasa

creativeparentandwetdayswerefilledwithpainting,craftwork,stampalbums,reading,makingadenintheairingcupboard.

Polybiuswastheenemy,abalefulpresenceinourlives:‘Bequiet,yourfather’sworking.’Lunchwasat1.00andthatwaswhenFrankwouldputdownhispenandcomedowntoeat.Ifitwasn’tready,hewouldplaythepianotofillthetimepleasantly.Marywoulderuptanddragoonusallintohelpingsetthetable.‘He’splayingthepiano’,shewouldhissangrily.Musicwasregardedbyheraswarfare.LunchtimesattheWalbanks’were,myfriendLindasaid,shakingherhead,likefeedingtimeatthezoo.Wetalkedwithourmouthsfull;itwasnoisy.Wetookitforgrantedthatinterestingissuesmightbediscussed,thatdictionarieswouldbefetched,andtheencyclopaediaconsulted.Thepursuitoftruthwaspartofdailylife.Soitwas‘qualitytime’afterall,althoughitwasMarythatFranktalkedto.Ifwewantedattentionwehadtointerrupt,demandit.OccasionallyweallscrubbedupforavisitorandwouldunderstandexactlywhymeetingMichaelVentriswassignificant—IknewaboutLinearB.Wewerealsopoliticizedinaleft-leaningdirection,andI’dtakeontheentireclassatschooloverSuezin1956.

Mary’sattitudetoFrank’sactivitieswasoneoffierceprideandofbittercontempt.Shecouldalwaysbecomfortablewithholdinglogicallyconflicting(p.355) positions.Wemadeprofessorpuppetswithbignoses.TheywhackedeachotherlikePunch,nodoubtdefendingacademicterritory.SometimesFrankdressedupinhis‘penguinsuit’andtookhertoauniversityfunction.Shewasbeautifulinaturquoiseeveninggownandfurstole(everyonewantedonethen).Theyhaddinnerparties;theyentertainedstudents;friendscametostay.Frankworked.FromtimetotimeMaryhatchedsomeschemewhichwasdesignedtohelpFranktogettoknowus.Readingatbedtime:hechose‘TheOdyssey’andwehadnightmaresabouttheblindingofPolyphemus.ButIknowmyHomer.Goingoneatatimeforwalkswithhim:IrememberawalkinDelamereForestasateenager;hetoldmeaboutresinandItoldhimaboutschool.Helistenedpolitely.Itwasastrugglebutwebothtried.WeweresentonweekendstotheLakeDistrictwithhim,outofseasonbecauseofthecost.OnseparateoccasionsbothDorothyandIweredraggedupBowfellinblizzardswearinghighlyunsuitableshoes.Outdoorgearhadn’treallybeeninventedyet.

Aswehadapproachedadolescence,we’dmovedtoabiggerhousewithalargegarden.ItwascalledHopeLodgeandwewerenottoknowthenhowshortacommodityhopewastobethere.Therewerefruittrees,vegetablegardens,chickensandducks,bushestoplayin,andtreestoclimb.ForMaryitwasadreamrealized,butthenwhat?Itwasalsoisolatingandrequiredcontinualwork.Itrequiredagardener,acleaner,andasewinglady.Itdrankmoney;andavailablecashforanythingelsebecameeventighter.Ithaditsownproblems.Itwascold.Franksatinhisstudywrappedinlayersofclothingandworeremainderedairforcebootswithfurliningstotryandsaveonheatingbills.Partialcentralheatingwaslaterinstalledbutnotinthebedrooms;Irememberthatmyalarmclockrusteduponewinter.Thenwetrotwasfoundinmybedroom.Alsowoodworm.

Frank’sstudyhadalwaysremainedthesameandsurvivedmanychangesofroomsandmovingofhomes.Ithaditsownsmell,ofbooks,ofpeace.Hesatatitscentreandknew

whereeachbookwas,likeaspiderinitsweb’scentrefeelingdownthestrandsforsomevibration,hismindextendedoutontotheshelves.Wheninhislateninetieshewasunabletoclimbthestairs,hewouldsendusofftofetchdownabookwithpreciseandaccurateinstructions.HisgrandsonJamesWalbankwaslatertowriteofthatstudy:

ThisplaceSmellsofoldpaperandwords,ofthedeskAndchairandoftimeandwonder.Franksatheretowork.

SometimesIcreptsecretlyinanddrankinitsatmosphere,orreadthewordsonthespinesofbooks.WhatmightaPaulyWissowabe?InitslastincarnationinBirkenhead,thestudywasupstairsandhadamagnificentviewoutoverBirkenheadandacrosstherivertoLiverpool,wheretheboatspliedtheirtrade(p.356) toAmericastill,wherethePierheadbuildingsandAnglicanCathedral,beingbuiltveryslowlywithitssolitarycraneononeend,wereclearlyvisible.

Aswegrewolderourterritorygainedinscope.Werangedbetweenthehousesoffriends.Wemadeturfhutsinrun-downgardensandsleptoutintents,walkingbarefootandcookingourmeals.Afterkeepingthecountryrunningduringthewar,womenhadbeensentbackintotheirhomestoprovidejobsforreturningsoldiers.Themediasupportedthegovernmentinthiswithalongcampaignagainst‘latch-keykids’.Itwasnotunusualinourtravelstofindsomeone’smothersittinggloomilyinthekitchen,contemplatinghergrizzlingbaby,orjustsitting.ButMary’sillness,whichreturnedin1954,wasmorethanthat.Itwasafull-blownbi-polardisorderinvolvingswingsbetweenthesinging-in-streets-spending-sprees-and-angry-scenes-in-shopskindofbehaviourandthelying-in-bed-all-the-time-weeping-and-accusatory-rowskindofbehaviour.Itwasintenselyupsettingforallofus,notleastMary.PerhapsitwasworstforChristo,myyoungerbrother,whohadbeensentawaytoschoolandmusthaveneverknownwhathewascomingbackto.Frankescapedintowork.Mary’sillness,herstaysinmentalhospitals,musthaveclarifiedhislackofoptions.

Hehadsometimesponderedanextmove.Hewasanexcellentadministratorandloveduniversitycommitteework,itspolitics,manœuvring,thejokesandwitticisms.ThelatestsalliesofSeaborneDavieswereoftenrecountedatmealtimes.Frankmayhavebeentemptedtofollowhismentor,SirJamesMountford,intothehigherechelonsofuniversitygovernance.HeflirtedwithAllSoulsandfoundhimselfallergic.Theselectionprocessreactivatedhisnortherngrammar-schoolinsecuritiesamongtheOxbridgetoffsandhisstomachrevolted.Hecamehomesickened,sick,andnotalittlebruised.Mary’sillnessremovedsuchpossibilities,andnootherchangecouldbecopedwithwhenlifewasallaboutfire-fighting(again,forhe’dwatchedforfiresinthewar).Marywouldhavebeenanembarrassmenttohiminotherroles;she’dneverbeequaltoplayingtherequiredspouse.Itwasalltoomuch.FrankstayedputandworkonPolybiusgainedfromit.

Volume1waspublishedwhenIwas15andwewerethreeyearsintoMary’sillness.Therewouldbeperiodsinbetweentheswingswhenanuneasyequilibriumwouldbe

maintainedforawhile,butthetribulationsufferedwouldgoonandon.Thedisorderwouldonlyreallybegintoloosenitsgripwhenshehadareasontoco-operateintakingcontrolofit,somethingofherownatlast;whentheincentivetoperseverewithmedicationhadcoincidedwithanimprovementinitseffectiveness.MaryenrolledasanundergraduateatLiverpoolUniversityattheageof54andreadEconomics.Sheraisedastandingovationfromthesenatewhenshetookherdegree.

Untilthenitsravagesaffectedusall.IntheworstperiodsofillnessFrankwouldlooktenyearsolder.Ithinkweallworriedabouteachother.Ididnotunderstandwhatwashappening.Talkingaboutmentalillnessdidn’thappen(p.357) inthefifties.ItwasreferredtoobliquelyinaVictorianmanner.‘How’sMother?’,‘Muchthesame.’Wekeptabravefacetoeachotherandcriedinourseparatebedrooms.ForFrankhisworkonPolybiuswasarefuge,andacertainty,theonlycertainty.Itwassecuritywhenthesolidoutlinesthathaddefinedhislifeuntilthattimehadlosttheirnormalshape.HecouldcontinueallalonetowatchoverandunpickPolybius,engagewithandassesshim,havearelationshipthatwasnotavailableanywhereelse,notintimeandnotinspace.Whenallotherthingsfailed,Franklovedhisworkandhewastoseethisinhislastyearsasthegreatestgoodfortuneofhislife,tolovewhathedid.Thatdidnotmeanthatthesheergraftofthishugeendeavourmadeforthehappiestyears,eventhoughitdefinedhimsocompletely.Hewasonlyhuman.ThehappiestyearswerebeforeandafterthewritingoftheCommentary,whenMarywaswell,whenworkwasnotsohard,whentherewerenochildren.

Nineteensixty-sevenwasagoodyear.FionaAlexander,hisfirstgrandchild,hadbeenborntheyearbefore.Marygainedherdegree;Volume2oftheCommentarywaspublished.Finally,twoyearsafterheretiredtoCambridgein1977,thethirdvolumecameout.Wehadaparty.AndDorothybreathedagain.LikehernamesakeDorotheainMiddlemarch,shehadbeenhauntedbythefearthatshemighthavetofinishthe‘greatwork’ifthe‘greatman’diedbeforehehaddonesohimself.Theretheanalogyends.Frankafterallwasakindofanti-Casaubon;hewastherealthing,acompetentandaccomplishedscholar.Casaubonhadn’tevenlearnedGermanandTheKeytoallMythologieswasnevergoingtotakeoff.Frank’scommentaryonPolybiuswasalreadyairborne.Nowithadlandedsafelyandthedestinationhadbeenreached,Idecideditwastimetogettoknowtheenemy.Iboughtacopyofthepaperbacktranslationandwasamazed,gratified,delightedtodiscoverwhatagoodreadhewas.Therehewas(thisisalayperson’sapproach),beforeTolstoy,beforeBrecht,askingalltherightquestions.HewasfitforFrank,theyfittedeachother.

ThegatekeeperandpreserverofFrank’speaceandquiethadbeenMary.Shewasthewarmpersonwithwhomthegrandchildrenlovedtostayathalfterm;hewastheshadowycharacterinthestudy.Aftershedied,in1987,weallgottoknowhimbetter.WehadanIndiansummerinourrelationshipswithhim.Hewasgoodcompany.ChristoandIbothhadmanyseparateholidayswithhim.PerhapssomethinginhimcouldrelaxalittlewithPolybiusunderhisbelt.HediscoveredthatteachingLatintohisrecentlygraduatedgrandson,GavinAlexander,wasacompletedelight.Intime,inthenext

century,AlexandertheGreat-grandsonwouldcomealong,tobefollowedswiftlybyTom,Hamish,andSophie.Hewasproudofhisfamily.InturnIwasproudofthewayhelearnedtocookforthefirsttimeandtomakenewfriends,tomakeanewlifeafterhishugeloss.Hefoundhomestooinhisoldcollege,Peterhouse,andintheCambridgeClassicsFaculty.

OnceinCrete,onholidaywithFrankandMary,IwasswimmingintheseawhenFrankwassubmergedbyagreatwave.Hecameupspluttering,‘Whata(p.358) horridwavethatwas!’Iwassurfingitanddisagreed.‘Ithoughtitwasalovelywave’,andthenIadded,‘Thereyouhaveit,theproblemoftheeyewitnessaccountforHistory’.Andwelaughed.Andthereyouhaveit,thatwashislife.Heservedachameleonbeast,History,inthralltothepast,orinlovewiththelatestcontemporaryfashion,nowaspotlight,nowawideillumination,withitsrigours,anditschallenges,andalwaysexertingitsconstantfascination.Frankserveditwellandlearnedtogrowandchangewithit.AfterallI’mratherproudthatPolybiuswasacharacterinmylife,andI’mveryproudofmydad.

Bibliography

(p.359) BibliographyBibliographyreferences:

Abel,K.(1971),‘DiekulturelleMissiondesPanaitios’,AntikeundAbendland,17:119–43.

Adams,J.N.(2003),BilingualismandtheLatinLanguage(Cambridge).

Alcock,S.(1994),‘BreakinguptheHellenisticWorld:SurveyandSociety’,inI.Morris(ed.),ClassicalGreece:AncientHistoriesandModernArchaeologies(Cambridge),171–90.

Alföldy,G.(1985),TheSocialHistoryofRome(London).

Ambaglio,D.(2004),‘Spuntiperunlessicodell'economiatraPolibioeDiodoro’,MediterraneoAntico7:541–55.

——(2005),‘FabioeFilino:Polibiosuglistoricidellaprimaguerrapunica’,inG.SchepensandJ.Bollansée(eds.),TheShadowofPolybius:IntertextualityasaResearchToolinGreekHistoriography(Leuven),205–22.

Bibliography

Anderson,B.(2006),ImaginedCommunities,rev.edn.(LondonandNewYork).

Archibald,Z.H.,Davies,J.K.,andGabrielsen,V.(eds.)(2005),Making,MovingandManaging.TheNewWorldofAncientEconomies,323–31B.C.(Oxford).

——(2011),TheEconomiesofHellenisticSocieties(Oxford).

Archibald,Z.H.,Davies,J.K.,Gabrielsen,V.,andOliverG.J.(eds.)(2001),HellenisticEconomies(London).

Arenz,A.(2006),HeraclidesKritikos«ÜberdieStädteinHellas».EinePeriegeseGriechenlandsamVorabenddesChremonideischenKrieges(Munich).

Ashton,R.H.J.(2001),‘TheCoinageofRhodes408—c.190B.C.’,inA.MeadowsandK.Shipton(eds.),MoneyanditsUsesintheAncientGreekWorld(Oxford),79–115.

Assmann,J.,andGladigow,B.(eds.)(1995),TextundKommentar.ArchäologiederliterarischenKommunikationIV(Munich).

Astin,A.E.(1959),‘DiodorusandtheDateoftheEmbassytotheEastofScipioAemilianus’,ClassicalPhilology,54:221–7.

—— (1967),ScipioAemilianus(Oxford).

Austin,C.,andBastianini,G.(2002),PosidippiPellaeiquaesupersuntomnia(Milan).

Austin,M.M.(2006,2ndedn.),TheHellenisticWorldfromAlexandertotheRomanConquest.ASelectionofAncientSourcesinTranslation(Cambridge).

Avery,H.C.(1973),‘ThemesinThucydides’AccountoftheSicilianExpedition’,Hermes,101:1–13.

Aymard,A.(1938),LesassembléesdelaConfédérationachaienne.Étudecritiqued’institutionsetd’histoire(Bordeaux).

—— (1946),‘LaGrècecentraleauIIIesiècleavantJ.-C.’,Revuehistorique,196:310–16.

Azoulay,V.(2004),‘ExchangeasEntrapment:MercenaryXenophon?’,inR.J.LaneFox(ed.),TheLongMarch:XenophonandtheTenThousand(NewHavenandLondon),288–304.

Badian,E.(1993),‘LivyandAugustus’,inW.Schuller(ed.),Livius:AspekteseinesWerkes(Constance),9–38.

—— (2004),‘XenophontheAthenian’,inC.J.Tuplin(ed.),XenophonandhisWorld:PapersfromaConferenceHeldinLiverpoolinJuly1999,HistoriaEinzelschriften,172(Stuttgart),33–53.

Bibliography

Bagnall,R.,andDerow,P.S.(2004),TheHellenisticPeriod.HistoricalSourcesinTranslation(Oxford).

Bal,M.(1997,2ndedn.),Narratology.IntroductiontotheTheoryofNarrative(Toronto).

Balot,R.(2006),GreekPoliticalThought(Oxford).

Barceló,P.A.(1993),Basileia,monarchia,tyrannis.UntersuchungenzuEntwicklungundBeurteilungvonAlleinherrschaftimvorhellenistischenGriechenland,HistoriaEinzelschriften,79(Stuttgart).

Barclay,J.M.G.(2005),‘TheEmpireWritesBack:JosephanRhetoricinFlavianRome’,inJ.Edmondson,S.Mason,andJ.Rives(eds.),FlaviusJosephusandFlavianRome(Oxford),315–32.

—— (2007),AgainstApion.TranslationandCommentary(Leiden).

Barnes,C.H.L.(2005),‘Livy33.8.13and35.35.18Revisited’,ClassicalJournal,100:349–63.

Baronowski,D.W.(2011),PolybiusandRomanImperialism(London).

Beck,H.(2003),‘DenRuhmnichtteilenwollen.FabiusPictorunddieAnfängedesrömischenNobilitätsdiskurses’,inU.Eigler,U.Gotter,N.Luraghi,andU.Walter(eds.),FormenrömischerGeschichtsschreibungvondenAnfängenbisLivius(Darmstadt),73–92.

—— (2005),KarriereundHierarchie.DierömischeAristokratieunddieAnfängedescursushonorumindermittlerenRepublik(Berlin).

—— (2008),‘ProminenzundaristokratischeHerrschaftinderrömischenRepublik’,inH.Beck,P.Scholz,andU.Walter(eds.),DieMachtderWenigen.AristokratischeHerrschaftspraxis,Kommunikationund‘edler’LebensstilinAntikeundFrüherNeuzeit(Munich),101–23.

—— andWiemer,H.-U.(2009),‘FeiernundErinnernindergriechisch-römischenWelt—eineEinleitung’,inH.BeckandH.-U.Wiemer(eds.),FeiernundErinnern.GeschichtsbilderimSpiegelantikerFeste,StudienzurAltenGeschichte,12(FrankfurtamMain),9–54.

Benecke,P.V.M.(1930),‘TheFalloftheMacedonianMonarchy’,CambridgeAncientHistory,8(1stedn.),241–78.

Beness,J.L.(2005),‘ScipioAemilianusandtheCrisisof129B.C.’,Historia,54:37–48.

Benjamin,W.(1968),‘ThesesonthePhilosophyofHistory’,inW.Benjamin,Illuminations(NewYork),253–64.

Bibliography

Berthold,R.M.(1984),RhodesintheHellenisticAge(Ithaca,NYandLondon).

Berti.N.(1988),LaguerradiCesarecontroPompeo.CommentostoricoaCassioDione,libriXLI–XLII(Milan).

Bickerman,E.(1933),EinleitungindieAltertumswissenschaft:III.Band,5.Heft.Chronologie(Leipzig).

—— (1953),‘NotessurPolybeIII.InitiaBelliMacedonici’,Revuedesétudesgrecques,66:479–506,repr.inReligionandPoliticsintheHellenisticandRomanPeriods(Como,1985),185–212.

Bilz,K.(1935),DiePolitikdesP.CorneliusScipioAemilianus,WürzburgerStudienzurAltertumswissenschaft,7(Stuttgart).

Biraschi,A.-M.,Desideri,P.,Roda,S.,andZecchini,G.(eds.)(2003),L’usodeidocumentinellastoriografiaantica,IncontriPeruginidiStoriadellaStoriografia,12(Naples).

Bleckmann,B.(2002),DierömischeNobilitätimErstenPunischenKrieg.UntersuchungenzuraristokratischenKonkurrenzinderRepublik(Berlin).

Bleicken,J.(1975),DieVerfassungderrömischenRepublik.GrundlagenundEntwicklung(Paderborn).

Blinkenberg,C.(1912),‘Lachroniquedutemplelindien’,OversigtoverdetKongeligeDanskeVidenskabernesSelskabsForhandlinger,5–6:317–457.

—— (1913),‘ρoΔoϒΚΤιΣΤΑι’,Hermes,48:236–49.

—— (1915a),‘RhodischeUrvölker’,Hermes,50:271–303.

—— (1915b),DielindischeTempelchronik,KleineTextefürVorlesungenundÜbungen,131(Bonn).

—— (1917),LindiakaI.L’imaged’AthènaLindia,DetKongelikeDanskeVidenskabernesSelskab.Historisk-filologiskeMeddeleser,I2(Copenhagen).

Bohm,C.(1989),ImitatioAlexandriimHellenismus.UntersuchungenzumpolitischenNachwirkenAlexandersdesGroßeninhoch-undspäthellenistischenMonarchien(Munich).

Bordes,J.(1982),Politeiadanslapenséegrecquejusqu’àAristote(Paris).

Bourdieu,P.(1979),Ladistinction.Critiquesocialedujugement(Paris).

Bowditch,P.L.(2001),HoraceandtheGiftEconomyofPatronage,TheJoanPalevskyImprintinClassicalLiterature,7(Berkeley).

Bibliography

—— (2010),‘HoraceandImperialPatronage’,inG.Davis(ed.),ACompaniontoHorace(Oxford),53–74.

Brash,I.F.,andWalbank,F.W.(1946),‘LesétudesclassiquesenGrande-BretagnependantlaGuerre’,Bulletindel’AssociationGuillaumeBudé,n.s.1:73–105.

Bresson,A.(2006),ReviewofHigbie(2003),Topoi,14:527–51.

Briant,P.(2002),FromCyrustoAlexander:AHistoryofthePersianEmpire,trans.byP.T.Daniels(WinonaLake,Ind.).

Brink,C.O.,andWalbank,F.W.(1954),‘TheConstructionoftheSixthBookofPolybius’,ClassicalQuarterly,48:77–122.

Briscoe,J.(1973),ACommentaryonLivy,BooksXXXI–XXXIII(Oxford).

—— (1981),ACommentaryonLivy,BooksXXXIV–XXXVII(Oxford).

—— (1993),‘LivyandPolybius’,inW.Schuller(ed.),Livius:AspekteseinesWerkes(Constance),39–52.

—— (2003),ReviewofBeckandWalter,FRH,Vol.1,JournalofRomanStudies,93:355.

—— (2008),ACommentaryonLivy,Books38–40(Oxford).

—— (2009),‘Livy’sSourcesandMethodsofCompositioninBooks31–33’,inJ.D.ChaplinandC.S.Kraus(eds.),Livy(Oxford),461–75.

Brown,T.S.(1958),TimaeusofTauromenium(Berkeley).

Brunt,P.A.(1971),ItalianManpower(Oxford).

—— (1988),TheFalloftheRomanRepublicandRelatedEssays(Oxford).

Bung,P.(1950),Q.FabiusPictor,derersterömischeAnnalist,diss.(Cologne).

Burckhardt,J.(1982),WeltgeschichtlicheBetrachtungen,originallypublished1905,rev.edn.byP.Ganz(Munich).

Bury,J.B.(1909),TheAncientGreekHistorians(NewYork).

Calboli,G.(1978),MarciPorciCatonisOratioproRhodiensibus.Catone,l’Orientegrecoegliimprenditoriromani,Edizioniesaggiuniversitaridifilologiaclassica,18(Bologna).

Calderone,S.(1977),‘Diunanticoproblemadiesegesipolibiana,1,11,1–3,’ActaAntiquaAcademicaeScientiarumHungaricae,25:383–7.

Calderone,S.,Bitto,I.,Salvo,L.de,andPinzone,A.(1981),‘Polibio1,11,1sq.’,QuaderniUrbinatidiCulturaClassica,36:7–78.

Bibliography

Callataÿ,F.de(2006),‘Reflexionsquantitativessurl’oretl’argentnonmonnayésàl’époquehellénistique’,inR.Descat(ed.),Approchesdel’économiehellénistique,Entretiensd’archéologieetd’histoire,7(St-Bertrand-de-Comminges),37–84.

Canfora,L.(1999),‘Pathosestoriografia“drammatica”’,inL.Canfora,Lastoriografiaantica(Milan),44–60.

Champion,C.B.(2004a),CulturalPoliticsinPolybius’s‘Histories’,HellenisticCultureandSociety,41(Berkeley).

—— (2004b),‘PolybianDemagoguesinPoliticalContext’,HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology,102:199–212.

—— (2010),‘Philinos(174)’,Brill’sNewJacoby,availableonlineat

Chaniotis,A.(1988),HistorieundHistorikerindengriechischenInschriften.EpigraphischeBeiträgezurgriechischenHistoriographie,HeidelbergerAlthistorischeBeiträgeundEpigraphischeStudien,4(Wiesbaden).

—— (1991),‘GedenktagederGriechen.IhreBedeutungfürdasGeschichtsbewußtseingriechischerPoleis’,inJ.Assmann(ed.),DasFestunddasHeilige.ReligiöseKontrapunktezurAlltagswelt(Gütersloh),123–45.

—— (2005),WarintheHellenisticWorld(Oxford).

Chankowski-Sablé,V.(2004),‘Lesstructureséconomiquesdel’orientméditerranéen’,inM.-F.Baslez(ed.),L’Orienthellénistique(Paris),67–98.

Christ,K.(1984),KriseundUntergangderrömischenRepublik(Darmstadt).

Clarke,K.(1999),BetweenGeographyandHistory:HellenisticConstructionsoftheRomanWorld(Oxford).

—— (2008),MakingTimeforthePast:LocalHistoryandthePolis(Oxford).

Cloché,P.(1952),ThèbesdeBéotie,desoriginesàlaconquêteromaine(Paris).

Coarelli,F.(1990),‘Laculturafigurativa’,inG.Clemente,F.Coarelli,andE.Gabba(eds.),L’imperomediterraneo.1:Larepubblicaimperiale,StoriadiRoma,2(Turin),631–70.

Cohen,S.J.D.(1982),‘Josephus,Jeremiah,andPolybius’,HistoryandTheory,21:366–81.

Collins,J.J.(1993),Daniel(Minneapolis).

Curty,O.(1989),‘L’historiographiehellénistiqueetl’inscriptionn°37desInschriftenvonPriene’,inM.PiérartandO.Curty(eds.),Historiatestis.Mélangesd’épigraphie,d’histoireancienneetdephilologieoffertsàT.Zawadzki(Fribourg),21–35.

Bibliography

—— (1995),Lesparentéslégendairesentrecitésgrecques,Centrederecherchesd’histoireetdephilologiedelaIVeSectiondel’ÉcolePratiquedesHautesÉtudes,III.HautesÉtudesdumondegréco-romain,20(Geneva).

Davidson,J.(1991),‘TheGazeinPolybius’Histories’,JournalofRomanStudies,81:10–24.

Davies,J.K.(1984),‘Cultural,Social,andEconomicFeaturesoftheHellenisticWorld’,CambridgeAncientHistory,VII.1(2ndedn.):257–320.

—— (2001),‘HellenisticEconomiesinthepost-FinleyEra’,inZ.H.Archibald,J.K.Davies,V.Gabrielsen,andG.J.Oliver(eds.),HellenisticEconomies(London),11–62.

—— (2002),‘TheInterpenetrationofHellenisticSovereignties’,inD.Ogden(ed.),TheHellenisticWorld.NewPerspectives(London),1–21.

—— (2004a),‘DemetriodiFaro,lapirateria,eleeconomieellenistiche’,inL.Braccesi(ed.),Lapiraterianell’Adriaticoantico,Hesperìa19:StudisullaGrecitàd’Occidente(Rome),119–27.

—— (2004b),‘AfterRostovtzeff’,MediterraneoAntico,7:1–14.

—— (2004c),‘AthenianFiscalExpertiseanditsInfluence’,MediterraneoAntico,7:491–512.

—— (2005),‘TheEconomicConsequencesofHellenisticPalaces’,inZ.H.Archibald,J.K.Davies,andV.Gabrielsen(eds.),Making,MovingandManaging.TheNewWorldofAncientEconomies,323–31B.C.(Oxford),117–35.

—— (2006),‘HellenisticEconomies’,inG.Bugh(ed.),TheCambridgeCompaniontotheHellenisticWorld(NewYork),73–92.

—— (2009),‘AncientEconomies’,inA.Erskine(ed.),ACompaniontoAncientHistory(Oxford),436–46.

—— (2011),‘FrankWilliamWalbank1909–2008’,ProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy,172:325–51.

Deininger,J.(1971),DerpolitischeWiderstandgegenRominGriechenland217–86v.Chr.(BerlinandNewYork).

DeLibero,L.(1996),DiearchaischeTyrannis(Stuttgart).

DeMartino,F.(1951),Storiadellacostituzioneromana,2.2(Naples).

Deniaux,E.(2007),‘Patronage’,inN.RosensteinandR.Morstein-Marx(eds.),ACompaniontotheRomanRepublic(OxfordandMalden,Mass.),401–20.

Bibliography

Derow,P.S.(1976),‘TheRomanCalendar218–191B.C.’,Phoenix,30:265–81.

—— (1979),‘Polybius,RomeandtheEast’,JournalofRomanStudies,69:1–15.

—— (1994),‘HistoricalExplanation:Polybiusandhispredecessors’,inS.Hornblower(ed.),GreekHistoriography(Oxford),73–90.

—— (2003),‘TheArrivalofRome:FromtheIllyrianWarstotheFallofMacedon’,inA.Erskine(ed.),ACompaniontotheHellenisticWorld(Oxford),51–70.

Descat,R.(ed.)(2006),Approchesdel’économiehellénistique,Entretiensd’archéologieetd’histoire,7(St-Bertrand-de-Comminges).

Desideri,P.(forthcoming),‘Filopemeneelasuaereditàpolitica:studiosulrapportofraPolibioeLivio’,inC.MolèVenturaandC.Giuffrida(eds.),StudiinonorediMarioMazza(Acireale).

Develin,R.(1973),MosMaiorumMutatus:TraditionandtheBasisofChangeintheRomanConstitution,287–201B.C.,diss.(AnnArbor,Mich.).

Dillery,J.(2004),‘Xenophon,theMilitaryReviewandHellenisticPompai’,inC.J.Tuplin(ed.),XenophonandhisWorld:PapersfromaConferenceheldinLiverpoolinJuly1999,HistoriaEinzelschriften,172(Stuttgart),259–76.

Dobson,M.(2008),TheArmyoftheRomanRepublic:TheSecondCenturyBC,PolybiusandtheCampsatNumantia,Spain(Oxford).

Drakenborch,A.(1741),TitiLiuihistoriarumaburbeconditalibriquisupersuntomnes,iv(LeidenandAmsterdam).

Drecoll,C.(2004),‘DieKarneadesgesandtschaftundihreAuswirkungeninRom’,Hermes,132:82–91.

Dreyer,B.(2006),DieInnenpolitikderRömischenRepublik.264–133v.Chr.(Darmstadt).

—— (2007),DierömischeNobilitätsherrschaftundAntiochosIII.205–188v.Chr.,FrankfurterAlthistorischeBeiträge,11(FrankfurtamMain).

—— (2011),Polybios—LebenundWerkimBanneRoms(Hildesheim).

Dubuisson,M.(1982),‘Remarquessurlevocabulairegrecdel’acculturation’,Revuebelgedephilologieetd’histoire,60:5–32.

—— (1985),LelatindePolybe.Lesimplicationshistoriquesd’uncasdebilingualisme(Paris).

Dutt,R.P.(1934),FascismandSocialRevolution.AStudyoftheEconomicsandPolitics

Bibliography

oftheExtremeStagesofCapitalisminDecay(London).

Dyggve,E.(1960),Lasanctuaired’AthanaLindiaetl’architecturelindienneavecunecataloguedessculpturestrouvéessurl’acropoleparVagnPoulsen,Lindos—Fouillesdel’acropole1902–1914et1952,Vol.III(BerlinandCopenhagen).

Easterling,P.E.(1993),‘TheEndofanEra?TragedyintheEarlyFourthCentury’,inA.Sommerstein(ed.),Tragedy,ComedyandthePolis(Bari),559–69.

—— (1997),‘FromRepertoiretoCanon’,inP.E.Easterling(ed.),CambridgeCompaniontoGreekTragedy(Cambridge),211–27.

Eckstein,A.M.(1980),‘PolybiusontheRôleoftheSenateintheCrisisof264B.C.’,Greek,RomanandByzantineStudies,21:175–90.

—— (1985),‘Polybius,SyracuseandthePoliticsofAccommodation’,Greek,RomanandByzantineStudies,26:265–82.

—— (1987a),SenateandGeneral:IndividualDecision-makingandRomanForeignRelations,264–194B.C.(Berkeley).

—— (1987b),‘Polybius,Aristaenus,andtheFragment“OnTraitors”’,ClassicalQuarterly,37:140–62.

—— (1990),‘JosephusandPolybius:AReconsideration’,ClassicalAntiquity,9:175–208.

—— (1995),MoralVisionintheHistoriesofPolybius(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

—— (2003),‘Thucydides,theOutbreakofthePeloponnesianWar,andtheFoundationofInternationalSystemsTheory’,InternationalHistoryReview,25:757–74.

—— (2006),MediterraneanAnarchy,InterstateWar,andtheRiseofRome(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

—— (2008),RomeEnterstheGreekEast:FromAnarchytoHierarchyintheHellenisticMediterranean,230–170B.C.(OxfordandMalden,Mass.).

Edwards,R.B.(1979),KadmosthePhoenician.AStudyinGreekLegendsandtheMycenaeanAge(Amsterdam).

Eisen,K.F.(1966),Polybiosinterpretationen:BeobachtungenzuPrinzipiengriechischerundrömischerHistoriographiebeiPolybios(Heidelberg).

Eisenberger,H.(1982),‘DieNaturunddierömischePoliteiaim6.BuchdesPolybios’,Philologus,126:269–97.

Elvers,K.-L.(1997),‘P.CorneliusScipioAemilianusAfricanus’,DerNeuePauly,3:178–82.

Bibliography

Erll,A.,andNünning,A.(eds.)(2008),CulturalMemoryStudies:AnInternationalandInterdisciplinaryHandbook(Berlin).

Errington,R.M.(1967a),‘Philip,Aratosandthe“ConspiracyofApelles”’,Historia,16:19–36.

—— (1967b),‘TheChronologyofPolybius’Histories,BooksIandII’,JournalofRomanStudies,57:96–108.

—— (1971),TheDawnofEmpire:Rome’sRisetoWorldPower(London).

—— (1986),‘AntiochosIII.,ZeuxisundEuromos’,EpigraphicaAnatolica,8:1–8.

Erskine,A.(1996),‘Money-lovingRomans’,PapersoftheLeedsInternationalLatinSeminar,9:1–11.

—— (2000),‘PolybiosandBarbarianRome’,MediterraneoAntico,3:165–82.

—— (2001),TroybetweenGreeceandRome(Oxford).

—— (2003),‘SpanishLessons:PolybiusandtheMaintenanceofImperialPower’,inJ.SantosYanguasandE.TorregarayPagola(eds.),PolibioylaPenínsulaIbérica,RevisionesdeHistoriaAntigua,4(Vitoria),229–43.

—— (2007),‘RhetoricandPersuasionintheHellenisticWorld:SpeakingupforthePolis’,inI.Worthington(ed.),ACompaniontoGreekRhetoric(Oxford),272–85.

—— (2010),RomanImperialism(Edinburgh).

—— (forthcoming),‘TheViewfromtheEast’,inJ.R.W.PragandJ.C.Quinn(eds.),TheHellenisticWest:RethinkingtheAncientMediterranean(Cambridge).

Étienne,R.(1996/2006),‘Polybeetlevinlusitanien’,inDesvignoblesetdesvinsàtraverslemonde.HommageàA.HuetzdeLemps(Bordeaux),395–400,repr.inF.Mayet(ed.),ItinerariaHispanica.Recueild’articlesdeRobertÉtienne,ScriptaAntiqua,15(Bordeaux),555–60.

Étienne,R.,andKnoepfler,D.(1976),HyettosdeBéotieetlachronologiedesarchontesfédérauxentre250et171avantJ.-C.,BulletindeCorrespondanceHéllenique,Suppl.3(ParisandAthens).

Fabian,J.(1983),TimeandtheOther:HowAnthropologyMakesitsObject(NewYork),repr.withnewforewordbyM.Bunzl(2002).

Fantuzzi,M.,andHunter,R.(2004),TraditionandInnovationinHellenisticPoetry(Cambridge).

Fechner,D.(1986),UntersuchungenzuCassiusDiosSichtderrömischenPolitik

Bibliography

(Hildesheim).

Feeney,D.(2007),Caesar’sCalendar:AncientTimeandtheBeginningsofHistory(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

FeigVishnia,R.(1996),State,Society,andPopularLeadersinMid-RepublicanRome,241–167B.C.(LondonandNewYork).

Ferrary,J.-L.(1984),‘L’archéologieduDerepublica(2,2,4–37,63):CicéronentrePolybeetPlaton’,JournalofRomanStudies,74:87–98.

—— (1988),Philhellénismeetimpérialisme.Aspectsidéologiquesdelaconquêteromainedumondehellénistique,delasecondeguerredeMacédoineàlaguerrecontreMithridate(ParisandRome).

—— (2003),‘LejugementdePolybesurladominationromaine:étatdelaquestion’,inJ.SantosYanguasandE.TorregarayPagola(eds.),Polibioylapenínsulaibérica,RevisionesdeHistoriaAntigua,4(Vitoria),15–32.

Feyel,M.(1942),Polybeetl’histoiredeBéotieauIIIesiècleavantnotreère(Paris).

Finley,M.I.(1983),PoliticsintheAncientWorld(Cambridge).

Flaig,E.(2000),‘LuciusAemiliusPaullus—militärischerRuhmundfamiliäreGlücklosigkeit’,inK.-J.HölkeskampandE.Stein-Hölkeskamp(ed.),VonRomuluszuAugustus.GroßeGestaltenderrömischenRepublik(Munich),131–46.

Flaig,E.(2003),RitualisiertePolitik.Zeichen,GestenundHerrschaftimAltenRom(Göttingen).

Fliess,P.J.(1966),ThucydidesandthePoliticsofBipolarity(Nashville).

Flower,H.I.(1996),AncestorMasksandAristocraticPowerinRomanCulture(Oxford).

Flower,M.A.(1994),TheopompusofChios:HistoryandRhetoricintheFourthCenturyBC(Oxford).

Fornara,C.W.(1983),TheNatureofHistoryinAncientGreeceandRome(Berkeley,LosAngeles,andLondon).

Forsythe,G.(1991),‘APhilologicalNoteontheScipionicCircle’,AmericanJournalofPhilology,112:363–4.

—— (1994),TheHistorianL.CalpurniusPisoFrugiandtheRomanAnnalisticTradition(Lanham,Md.).

Foucault,J.de,Foulon,É.,andMolin,M.(eds.)(2004),Polybe:Histoires,Tome3,Livre3(Paris).

Bibliography

Fowler,D.(1990),‘DeviantFocalisationinVergil’sAeneid’,ProceedingsoftheCambridgePhilologicalSociety,36:42–63.

Fraisse,J.-C.(1974),Philia.Lanotiond’amitiédanslaphilosophieantique,Bibliothèqued’histoiredelaphilosophie(Paris).

Frei,P.(1990),‘DieGötterkulteLykiensinderKaiserzeit’,AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt,II.18.3:1729–1864.

Frier,B.W.(1999,2ndedn.),LibriAnnalesPontificumMaximorum.TheOriginsoftheAnnalisticTradition(AnnArbor,Mich.).

Fritz,K.von(1954),TheTheoryoftheMixedConstitutioninAntiquity(NewYork).

Fröhlich,P.(2004),Lescitésgrecquesetlecontrôledesmagistrats(IVe–IersiècleavantJ.-C.)(Geneva).

Froidefond,C.(1971),Lemirageégyptiendanslalittératuregrecqued’HomèreàAristote(Paris).

Fromentin,V.(2001),‘L’histoiretragiquea-t-elleexisté?’,inA.BillaultandC.Mauduit(eds.),Lecturesantiquesdelatragédiegrecque(Lyon),77–92.

Fuchs,H.(1964),DergeistigeWiderstandgegenRominderantikenWelt(Berlin).

Gabba,E.(1974),‘Storiografiagrecaeimperialismoromano(III-Isec.a.C.)’,Rivistastoricaitaliana,86:625–42.

—— (1990),‘L’imperialismoromano’,inG.Clemente,F.Coarelli,andE.Gabba(eds.),L’imperomediterraneo.1:Larepubblicaimperiale,StoriadiRoma,2(Turin),189–233.

—— (1993),Aspetticulturalidell’imperialismoromano(Florence).

Gabrielsen,V.(2005),ReviewofHigbie(2003),ClassicalReview,n.s.55:319–22.

Garlan,Y.(1978),‘Significationhistoriquedelapirateriegrecque’,Dialoguesd’histoireancienne,4:1–16.

Gauthier,P.(1993),‘Décretsd’Erétrie.II.DécrettrouvéàOropos’,Revuedesétudesgrecques,106:592–8.

Geffcken,J.(1916),GriechischeEpigramme(Heidelberg).

Gehrke,H.-J.(1982),‘DersiegreicheKönig.ÜberlegungenzurhellenistischenMonarchie’,ArchivfürKulturgeschichte,64:247–77.

—— (1985),Stasis.UntersuchungenzudeninnerenKriegenindengriechischenStaatendes5.und4.Jahrhundertsv.Chr.,Vestigia,35(Munich).

Bibliography

—— (1987),‘DieGriechenunddieRache.EinVersuchinhistorischerPsychologie’,Saeculum,38:121–49.

—— (1990),‘ZwischenFreundschaftundProgramm.PolitischeParteiungimAthendes5.Jh.sv.Chr.’,HistorischeZeitschrift,239:1984.

—— (1995),GeschichtedesHellenismus(Munich).

—— (1996),‘RömischeNobilitätundHellenismus’,inB.Funck(ed.),Hellenismus.BeiträgezurErforschungvonAkkulturationundpolitischerOrdnungindenStaatendeshellenistischenZeitalters.AktendesinternationalenHellenismus-Kolloquiums,9.–14.MärzinBerlin(Tübingen),525–42.

—— (1998),‘FreundschaftI.SozialgeschichtlichA.Griechenland’,DerNeuePauly,4:669–71.

—— (2001),‘Myth,History,andCollectiveIdentity:UsesofthePastinAncientGreeceandBeyond’,inN.Luraghi(ed.),TheHistorian’sCraftintheAgeofHerodotus(Oxford),286–313.

Gelzer,M.(1933),‘RömischePolitikbeiFabiusPictor’,Hermes,68:129–66,repr.inM.Gelzer,KleineSchriften,Vol.3(Wiesbaden),51–92.

—— (1934),‘DerAnfangrömischerGeschichtsschreibung’,Hermes,9:46–55,repr.inM.Gelzer,KleineSchriften,Vol.3(Wiesbaden),93–103.

—— (1940a),‘DiehellenischeprokataskeueimzweitenBuchedesPolybios’,Hermes,75:27–37,repr.inM.Gelzer,KleineSchriften,Vol.3(Wiesbaden),111–22.

—— (1940b),‘DieAchaicaimGeschichtswerkdesPolybios’,AbhandlungenderdeutschenAkademiederWissenschaftenzuBerlin,3–32,repr.inM.Gelzer,KleineSchriften,Vol.3(Wiesbaden),123–54.

—— (1962),‘DieNobilitätderrömischenRepublik’,inM.Gelzer,KleineSchriften,Vol.1(Wiesbaden),17–135.

Genette,G.(1980),NarrativeDiscourse,trans.byJ.E.Lewin(Ithaca,NY).

—— (1982),Palimpsestes.Lalittératureauseconddegré(Paris).

Gibbon,E.(2004,firstpublished1776–88),TheHistoryoftheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,ed.byJ.B.Bury,7vols.(Rockville,Md.).

Gibson,B.J.(1998),‘RumoursasCausesofEventsinTacitus’,Materialiediscussioni,40:111–29.

—— (2010),‘SiliusItalicus:AConsularHistorian?’,inA.Augoustakis(ed.),Brill’sCompaniontoSiliusItalicus(Leiden),47–72.

Bibliography

Gibson,R.K.,andKraus,C.S.(eds.)(2002),TheClassicalCommmentary:Histories,Practices,Theory,MnemosyneSupplement,232(Leiden).

Giovannini,A.(1969),‘Lesoriginesdela3eguerredeMacédoine’,Bulletindecorrespondancehéllenique93:853–61.

—— (1984),‘Review-Discussion:RomanEasternPolicyintheLateRepublic’,AmericanJournalofAncientHistory,9:33–42.

Gold,B.K.(1982),LiteraryandArtisticPatronageinAncientRome(Austin,Tex.).

Golden,M.(1990),ChildrenandChildhoodinClassicalAthens(Baltimore,Md.).

Goldhill,S.(1991),ThePoet’sVoice.EssaysonPoeticsandGreekLiterature(Cambridge).

Goldmann,F.(2002),‘NobilitasalsStatusundGruppe.ÜberlegungenzumNobilitätsbegriffderrömischenRepublik’,inJ.Spielvogel(ed.),Respublicareperta.ZurVerfassungundGesellschaftderrömischenRepublikunddesfrühenPrinzipats.FestschriftfürJochenBleickenzum75.Geburtstag(Stuttgart),45–66.

Gomme,A.W.(1945,correctededn.1959),AHistoricalCommentaryonThucydides,VolumeI:IntroductionandCommentaryonBookI(Oxford).

Gotter,U.(1996),‘CicerounddieFreundschaft.DieKonstruktionsozialerNormenzwischenrömischerPolitikundgriechischerPhilosophie’,inH.-J.GehrkeandA.Möller(eds.),VergangenheitundLebenswelt.SozialeKommunikation,TraditionsbildungundhistorischesBewußtsein(Tübingen),339–60.

Grainger,J.D.(1999),TheLeagueoftheAitolians,MnemosyneSupplement200(Leiden).

Grandjean,C.(2006),‘HistoireéconomiqueetmonétarisationdelaGrèceàl’époquehellénistique’,inR.Descat(ed.),Approchesdel’économiehellénistique,Entretiensd’archéologieetd’histoire,7(St-Bertrand-de-Comminges),195–214.

—— (2009),‘PolybiusandAchaiancoinage’,inBeingPeloponnesian.ProceedingsfromtheConferenceheldattheUniversityofNottingham31stMarch–1stApril2007,publishedonlinebytheCentreforSpartanandPeloponnesianStudies(Nottingham),

Gray,V.J.(1987),‘MimesisinGreekHistoricalWriting’,AmericanJournalofPhilology,108:467–86.

—— (2011),‘Thucydides’sourcecitations:“itissaid”’,ClassicalQuarterly,61:75–90.

Griffith,G.T.(1935),TheMercenariesoftheHellenisticWorld(Cambridge).

Gruen,E.S.(1968),RomanPoliticsandtheCriminalCourts,149–78B.C.(Cambridge).

Bibliography

—— (1976),‘RomeandtheSeleucidsintheAftermathofPydna’,Chiron,6:73–95.

—— (1984),TheHellenisticWorldandtheComingofRome(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

—— (1992),CultureandNationalIdentityinRepublicanRome(Ithaca,NY).

—— (1996),StudiesinGreekCultureandRomanPolicy(Berkeley).

—— (2000),‘CultureasPolicy:TheAttalidsofPergamon’,inN.T.deGrummondandB.S.Ridgway(eds.),FromPergamontoSperlonga:SculptureandContext(BerkeleyandLosAngeles),17–31.

Guillon,P.(1948),LaBéotieantique(Paris).

Guthrie,W.K.C.(1957),IntheBeginning:SomeGreekViewsontheOriginsofLifeandtheEarlyStateofMan(London).

Habicht,C.(1990),CiceroderPolitiker(Munich).

—— (2003),‘RhodianAmphoraStampsandRhodianEponyms’,Revuedesétudesanciennes,105:541–78.

Hadas-Lebel,M.(1999),‘FlaviusJosèpheentrePolybeetJérémie’,Ktema,24:159–65.

Hahm,D.(2009),‘TheMixedConstitutioninGreekThought’,inR.K.Balot(ed.),ACompaniontoGreekandRomanPoliticalThought(OxfordandMalden,Mass.),178–98.

Halliwell,S.(2002),TheAestheticsofMimesis(Princeton).

Hammond,N.G.L.,andWalbank,F.W.(1988),AHistoryofMacedoniaIII.336–167B.C.(Oxford).

Hampl,F.(1972),‘ZurVorgeschichtedeserstenundzweitenPunischenKrieges’,AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt,I.1:412–41.

Hansen,M.H.,andNielsen,T.H.(eds.)(2004),AnInventoryofArchaicandClassicalPoleis(Oxford).

Harris,W.V.(1979),WarandImperialisminRepublicanRome,327–70B.C.(Oxford).

—— (1989),AncientLiteracy(Cambridge,Mass.).

Harrison,T.(1998),‘Herodotus’ConceptionofForeignLanguages’,Histos,2,availableonlineat(consulted1June2011).

Haskins,E.(2004),LogosandPowerinIsocratesandAristotle(Columbia,SC).

Hebert,B.(1989),SchriftquellenzurhellenistischenKunst.Plastik,MalereiundKunsthandwerkderGriechenvomviertenbiszumzweitenJahrhundert,GrazerBeiträge

Bibliography

Suppl.4(Graz).

Henderson,J.(1998),Juvenal’sMayor:TheProfessorwhoLivedon2D.aDay,ProceedingsoftheCambridgePhilologicalSociety,Suppl.20(Cambridge).

—— (2001a),‘Polybius/Walbank’,inS.J.Harrison(ed.),Texts,Ideas,andtheClassics.Scholarship,Theory,andClassicalLiterature(Oxford),220–41.

—— (2001b),‘FromMegalopolistoCosmopolis:Polybius,orThereandBackAgain’,inS.Goldhill(ed.),BeingGreekunderRome:CulturalIdentity,theSecondSophisticandtheDevelopmentofEmpire(Cambridge),29–49.

—— (2001c),‘Farnell’sCults:TheMakingandBreakingofPausaniasinVictorianArchaeologyandAnthropology’,inS.E.Alcock,J.F.Cherry,andJ.Elsner(eds.),Pausanias:TravelandMemoryinRomanGreece(Oxford),207–23,302–10.

—— (2002),‘TheWayWeWere:R.G.Austin,InCaelianam’,inR.K.GibsonandC.S.Kraus(eds.),TheClassicalCommentary.Histories,Practices,Theory,MnemosyneSupplement,232(Leiden),205–34.

—— (2003),‘Paroperisedes:MrsArthurStrongandFlavianstyle:TheArchofTitusandtheCancelleriaReliefs’,inA.J.BoyleandW.J.Dominik(eds.),FlavianRome:Culture,Image,Text(Leiden),229–54.

—— (2006),‘OxfordReds’:ClassicCommentariesonLatinClassics:R.G.AustinonCiceroandVirgil,C.J.FordyceonCatullus,R.G.andR.G.M.NisbetonCicero(London).

—— (2007a),J.E.B.Mayor,Juvenal,repr.withanintro.(Bristol).

—— (2007b),‘The“EuripidesReds”Series:TheBestLaidPlansatOUP’,inC.Stray(ed.),ClassicalBooks.Scholarship&PublishinginBritainsince1800,BulletinoftheInstituteofClassicalStudies,Suppl.101(London),143–75.

—— (2010),‘A1-ZYTHUM:DOMIMINANUSTIOILLUMEA,oroutwiththeO.L.D.(1931–82)’,inC.Stray(ed.),ClassicalDictionaries(London),138–75.

Herkommer,E.(1968),DieTopoiindenProömienderrömischenGeschichtswerke,diss.(Tübingen).

Herman,G.(1997),‘TheCourtSocietyoftheHellenisticAge’,inP.Cartledge,P.Garnsey,andE.Gruen(eds.),HellenisticConstructs:EssaysinCulture,HistoryandHistoriography(London),199–224.

Heuss,A.(1998),RömischeGeschichte(Paderborn).

Higbie,C.(1999),‘CraterusandtheUseofInscriptionsinAncientScholarship’,TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation,129:279–308.

Bibliography

—— (2003),TheLindianChronicleandtheGreekCreationofthePast(Oxford).

HillervonGaertringen,F.(1918),‘AusderBelagerungvonRhodos304v.Chr.’,SitzungsberichtederPreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften,phil.-hist.Klasseno24–6:752–62.

Hoffmann,W.(1969),‘DasHilfegesuchderMamertineramVorabenddeserstenpunischenKrieges’,Historia,18:153–80.

Hölkeskamp,K.-J.(1987),DieEntstehungderNobilität.StudienzursozialenundpolitischenGeschichtederRömischenRepublikim4.Jhdt.v.Chr.(Stuttgart).

—— (1996),‘Exemplaundmosmaiorum.ÜberlegungenzumkollektivenGedächtnisderNobilität’,inH.-J.GehrkeandA.Möller(eds.),VergangenheitundLebenswelt.SozialeKommunikation,TraditionsbildungundhistorischesBewußtsein(Tübingen),301–38.

—— (1999),‘RömischegentesundgriechischeGenealogien’,inG.Vogt-SpiraandB.Rommel(eds.),RezeptionundIdentität.DiekulturelleAuseinandersetzungRomsmitGriechenlandalseuropäischesParadigma(Stuttgart),199–217.

—— (2004a),RekonstruktioneneinerRepublik.DiepolitischeKulturdesantikenRomunddieForschungderletztenJahrzehnte(Munich).

—— (2004b),SenatusPopulusqueRomanus.DiepolitischeKulturderRepublik—DimensionenundDeutungen(Stuttgart).

Holleaux,M.(1905),‘SurlesassembléesordinairesdelaligueAitolienne’,Bulletindecorrespondancehéllenique,29:362–72.

—— (1938–68),Étudesd’épigraphieetd’histoiregrecque,6vols.,ed.byL.Robert(Paris).

Hornblower,J.(1981),HieronymusofCardia(Oxford).

Hornblower,S.(1987),Thucydides(LondonandBaltimore).

—— (1991),ACommentaryonThucydides.Vol.I:BooksI–III(Oxford).

—— (1994),‘NarratologyandNarrativeTechniquesinThucydides’,inS.Hornblower(ed.),GreekHistoriography(Oxford),131–66.

—— (2004),‘“Thiswasdecided”(edoxetauta):TheArmyaspolisinXenophon’sAnabasisandElsewhere’,inR.J.LaneFox(ed.),TheLongMarch:XenophonandtheTenThousand(NewHavenandLondon),243–63.

Hoyos,B.D.(1984),‘Polybius’Romanοἱπολλοίin264B.C.’,LiverpoolClassicalMonthly,9:88–93.

Bibliography

—— (1985a),‘Polybiusmendax?’,LiverpoolClassicalMonthly,10:135–9and153–6.

—— (1985b),‘TreatiesTrueandFalse:TheErrorofPhilinusofAgrigentum’,ClassicalQuarterly,35:92–109.

—— (1998),UnplannedWars:TheOriginsoftheFirstandSecondPunicWars(BerlinandNewYork).

—— (2007),TrucelessWar:Carthage’sFightforSurvival(Leiden).

Huss,W.(1985),GeschichtederKarthager(Munich).

—— (2001),ÄgypteninhellenistischerZeit.332–30v.Chr.(Munich).

Hutter,H.(1978),PoliticsasFriendship.TheOriginsofClassNotionsofPoliticsintheTheoryandPracticeofFriendship(Waterloo,Ontario).

Işık,C.,andMarek,C.(1997),DasMonumentdesProtogenesinKaunos,AsiaMinorStudien,26(Bonn).

Itgenshorst,T.(2005),Totaillapompa.DerTriumphinderrömischenPolitik(Göttingen).

Jacopich,G.(1928),‘Scaviedesplorazioninell’isoladiRodi’,ClaraRhodos,1:83–91.

Jeffery,L.H.(1967),‘Archaiagrammata:SomeAncientGreekViews’,inW.C.Brice(ed.),Europa.StudienzurGeschichteundEpigraphikderfrühenÄgäis.FestschriftE.Grumach(Berlin),152–66.

Jehne,M.(1995),‘Einführung.ZurDebatteumdieRolledesVolkesinderrömischenRepublik’,inM.Jehne(ed.),DemokratieinRom?DieRolledesVolkesinderPolitikderrömischenRepublik(Stuttgart),1–9.

—— (1999),‘CatounddieBewahrungdertraditionellenrespublica’,inG.Vogt-SpiraandB.Rommel(eds.),RezeptionundIdentität.DiekulturelleAuseinandersetzungRomsmitGriechenlandalseuropäischesParadigma(Stuttgart),115–34.

—— (2000),‘JovialitätundFreiheit.ZurInstitutionalisierungderBeziehungenzwischenOber-undUnterschichteninderrömischenRepublik’,inB.LinkeandM.Stemmler(eds.),Mosmaiorum.UntersuchungenzudenFormenderIdentitätsstiftungundStabilisierunginderrömischenRepublik(Stuttgart),207–35.

—— (2001),‘IntegrationsritualeinderrömischenRepublik.ZureinbindendenWirkungderVolksversammlungen’,inG.Urso(ed.),Integrazione,mescolanza,rifiuto.Incontridipopoli,lingueecultureinEuropadall’antichitàall’umanesimo(Rome),89–114.

Jones,C.P.(1999),KinshipDiplomacyintheAncientWorld(Cambridge,Mass.).

Jowitt,C.(ed.)(2006),Pirates?ThePoliticsofPlunder,1550–1650(Basingstoke).

Bibliography

Kaerst,J.(1929),‘ScipioAemilianus,dieStoaundderPrincipat’,inH.Kloft(ed.),IdeologieundHerrschaftinderAntike,WegederForschung,528(Darmstadt),205–37.

Kallet,L.(2006),‘Thucydides’WorkshopofHistoryandUtilityOutsidetheText’,inA.RengakosandA.Tsakmakis(eds.),Brill’sCompaniontoThucydides(Leiden),335–68.

Kallet-Marx,R.M.(1995),HegemonytoEmpire.TheDevelopmentoftheRomanImperiumintheEastfrom148to62B.C.(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

Kantzia,C.(1999),‘ΕναασυνήθιστοπολεμικόανάθημαστοιεροτηςοδούΔιαγόριδωνστηΡόδο’,inΡόδος2400χρόνια.ΗπόλητηςΡόδουαπότηνίδρυσήτηςμέχριτηνκατάληψηαπότουςΤούρκους(1532),24–9Οκτωβρίου,1993.Praktika(Athens),Vol.1,75–82.

Kennedy,G.(1972),TheArtofRhetoricintheRomanWorld300B.C.–A.D.300(Princeton).

Kennell,N.M.(2006),Ephebeia:ARegisterofGreekCitieswithCitizenTrainingSystemsintheHellenisticandRomanPeriods(Hildesheim).

Kienast,D.(1954),CatoderZensor.SeinePersönlichkeitundseineZeit(Darmstadt).

Kleingünther,A.(1933),ΠΡΩΤΟΣΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ.UntersuchungenzurGeschichteeinerFragestellung,PhilologusSuppl.,26(Leipzig).

Kloft,H.(1998),‘RealitätundImagination.ÜberlegungenzurHerrschaftstheorieinderrömischenRepublik’,inW.Schuller(ed.),PolitischeTheorieundPraxisimAltertum(Darmstadt),134–48.

Knoepfler,D.(1991),‘L.MummiusAchaicusetlescitésdugolfeeuboïque:àproposd’unenouvelleinscriptiond’Erétrie’,MuseumHelveticum,48:252–80.

Kondratieff,E.(2004),‘TheColumnandCoinageofC.Duillius:InnovationsinIconographyinLargeandSmallMediaintheMiddleRepublic’,ScriptaClassicaIsraelica,23:1–39.

Konstan,D.(1997),FriendshipintheClassicalWorld(Cambridge).

Konuk,K.(ed.)(2012),Stephanèphoros.Del'économieantiqueàl'Asiemineure,HommagesàRaymondDescat.Ausonius,Mémoireés,28(Bordeaux).

Koon,S.(2010),InfantryCombatinLivy’sBattleNarratives,BARInternationalSeries,2071(Oxford).

Kowalzig,B.(2007),SingingfortheGods.PerformancesofMythandRitualinArchaicandClassicalGreece(Oxford).

Kraus,M.(1997),‘Panaitios’,inO.Schütze(ed.),LexikonantikerAutoren(Darmstadt),497–9.

Bibliography

Kühner,R.,andStegmann,C.(1955,3rdedn.),AusführlicheGrammatikderlateinischenSprache:Satzlehre,rev.byA.Thierfelder(Leverkusen).

Labarre,G.(1996),LescitésdeLesbosauxépoqueshellénistiqueetimpériale,Collectiondel’Institutd’Archéologieetd’Histoiredel’Antiquité,UniversitéLumièreLyon2,Vol.1(Paris).

LaBua,V.(1981),‘CassioDione-Zonaraedaltretradizionisugliinizidellaprimaguerrapunica’,inL.Gasperini(ed.),ScrittisulmondoanticoinmemoriadiFulvioGrosso(Rome),241–71.

Laird,A.(1999),PowersofExpression,ExpressionsofPower(Oxford).

Laqueur,R.(1913),Polybius(Leipzig).

—— (1938),‘Philinos’(8),RealencyclopädiederclassischenAltertumswissenschaft,Vol.19(Stuttgart),cols.2180–93.

Larsen,J.A.O.(1952),‘TheAssemblyoftheAetolianLeague’,TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation,83:1–33.

—— (1955),RepresentativeGovernmentinGreekandRomanHistory(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

Lateiner,D.(2009),‘TearsandCryinginHellenisticHistoriography.DacryologyfromHerodotustoPolybius’,inT.Fögen(ed.),TearsintheGraeco-RomanWorld(Berlin),105–34.

Lazenby,J.F.(1978),Hannibal’sWar(Warminster).

—— (1996),TheFirstPunicWar.AMilitaryHistory(LondonandPaloAlto,Calif.).

Lehmann,G.A.(1967),UntersuchungenzurhistorischenGlaubwürdigkeitdesPolybios(Münster).

—— (1974),‘PolybiosunddieältereundzeitgenössischegriechischeGeschichtsschreibung:EinigeBemerkungen’,inE.Gabba(ed.),Polybe,EntretiensHardt,20(Geneva),147–205.

—— (1988),‘DasneueKölnerHistoriker-Fragment(P.KölnNr.247)unddieχρονικὴσύνταξιςdesZenonvonRhodos’,ZPE72:1–17.

—— (1989/90),‘The‘‘Ancient’’GreekHistoryinPolybios’Historiae:TendenciesandPoliticalObjectives’,ScriptaClassicaIsraelica,10:67–77.

Leigh,M.(1997),Lucan:SpectacleandEngagement(Oxford).

Lenfant,D.(2005),‘Polybeetles‘‘fragments’’deshistoriensdeRhodesZénonet

Bibliography

Antisthène(XVI14–20)’,inG.SchepensandJ.Bollansée(eds.),TheShadowofPolybius:IntertextualityasaResearchToolinGreekHistoriography(Leuven),183–204.

Leppin,H.(1999),ThukydidesunddieVerfassungderPolis.EinBeitragzurpolitischenIdeengeschichtedes5.Jahrhundertsv.Chr.,Klio-Beihefte,N.F.1(Berlin).

Levene,D.S.(2010),LivyontheHannibalicWar(Oxford).

Ligt,L.de(2007),‘RomanManpowerandRecruitmentduringtheMiddleRepublic’,inP.Erdkamp(ed.),ACompaniontotheRomanArmy(Oxford),114–31.

Limat-Letellier,N.(1998),‘Historiqueduconceptd’intertextualité’,inN.Limat-LetellierandM.Miguet-Ollagnier(eds.),L’intertextualité(BesançonandParis),17–64.

Lintott,A.W.(1997),‘CassiusDioandtheHistoryoftheLateRepublic’,AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWeltII.34.3:2497–2523.

—— (1999),TheConstitutionoftheRomanRepublic(Oxford).

Lippolis,E.(1993),‘IlsantuariodiAthanaaLindo’,AnnuariodellascuolaarcheologicadiAtene,n.s.66/67(1988/89):97–157.

Lorenz,K.(1931),UntersuchungenzumGeschichtswerkdesPolybios(Stuttgart).

Loreto,L.(2001),‘Laconvenienzadiperdereunaguerra.Lacontinuitàdellagrandestrategiacartaginese’,inY.LeBohec(ed.),Lapremièreguerrepunique(Lyon),39–105.

Luce,T.J.(1977),Livy.TheCompositionofHisHistory(Princeton).

Luraghi,N.(2000),‘AuthorandAudienceinThucydides’Archaeology.SomeReflections’,HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology,100:227–39.

Ma,J.(1999),AntiochosIIIandtheCitiesofWesternAsiaMinor(Oxford).

—— (2004/2010),‘YouCan’tGoHomeAgain:DisplacementandIdentityinXenophon’sAnabasis’,inR.J.LaneFox(ed.),TheLongMarch:XenophonandtheTenThousand(NewHavenandLondon),330–45,repr.inV.Gray(ed.),Xenophon(Oxford,2010),502–19.

Mader,G.(2000),JosephusandthePoliticsofHistoriography(Leiden).

Manning,J.G.(2007),‘HellenisticEgypt’,inW.Scheidel,I.Morris,andR.Saller(eds.),TheCambridgeEconomicHistoryoftheGreco-RomanWorld(NewYork),434–59.

Mansfeld,J.(1979),‘ProvidenceandtheDestructionoftheUniverseinEarlyStoicThought’,inM.J.Vermaseren(ed.),StudiesinHellenisticReligions,Étudespréliminairesauxreligionsorientalesdansl’empireromain,78(Leiden),129–88,repr.inJ.Mansfeld,StudiesinLaterGreekPhilosophyandGnosticism(London,1989),No.1[original

Bibliography

paginationretained].

Manuwald,B.(1979),CassiusDioundAugustus(Wiesbaden).

Marincola,J.(1997),AuthorityandTraditioninAncientHistoriography(Cambridge).

—— (2001),GreekHistorians,Greece&RomeNewSurveysintheClassics,31(Oxford).

—— (2003),‘BeyondPityandFear:TheEmotionsofHistory’,AncientSociety,33:285–315.

—— (2009),‘Aristotle’sPoeticsand‘‘TragicHistory’’’,inD.IakovandS.Tsitsiridis(eds.),ΠΑΡΑΧΟΡΗΓΗΜΑ:StudiesinHonourofGregorySifakis(Heraklion),445–60.

—— (forthcoming),‘ManlyMatters:Gender,Emotion,andtheWritingofHistory’.

Martin,R.H.,andWoodman,A.J.(1989),TacitusAnnalsIV(Cambridge).

MartinBrown,R.(1934),AStudyoftheScipionicCircle,IowaStudiesinClassicalPhilology,1(IowaCity).

MartínezLacy,J.R.F.(1991),Ἔθηκαὶνόμιμα.PolybiusandhisConceptofCulture’,Klio,73:83–92.

Mason,S.(1994),‘Josephus,Daniel,andtheFlavianHouse’,inF.ParenteandJ.Sievers(eds.),JosephusandtheHistoryoftheGreco-RomanPeriod.EssaysinMemoryofMortonSmith(Leiden),161–91.

Mattingly,H.B.(1986),‘ScipioAemilianus’EasternEmbassy’,ClassicalQuarterly,36:491–5.

McDonald,A.H.(1958),ReviewofWalbank,HCPI,JournalofRomanStudies,48:179–83.

—— (1968),ReviewofWalbank,HCPII,JournalofRomanStudies,58:232–5.

McDonald,A.H.,andWalbank,F.W.(1937),‘TheOriginsoftheSecondMacedonianWar’,JournalofRomanStudies,27:180–207.

McGing,B.C.(2010),Polybius’Histories(NewYorkandOxford).

McLaren,J.S.(2005),‘JosephusonTitus:TheVanquishedWritingabouttheVictor’,inJ.SieversandG.Lembi(eds.),JosephusandJewishHistoryinFlavianRomeandBeyond(Leiden),279–95.

Meier,C.(1966),Respublicaamissa(Wiesbaden).

Meissner,B.(1992),HistorikerzwischenPolisundKönigshof:StudienzurStellungderGeschichtsschreiberindergriechischenGesellschaftinspätklassischerund

Bibliography

frühhellenistischerZeit,Hypomnemata.UntersuchungenzurAntikeundzuihremNachleben,99(Göttingen).

—— (2007),Hellenismus(Darmstadt).

Meister,K.(1975),HistorischeKritikbeiPolybios(Wiesbaden).

—— (1990),DiegriechischeGeschichtsschreibung(Wiesbaden).

Mendels,D.(1977),‘Polybius,PhilipVandtheSocio-economicQuestioninGreece’,AncientSociety,8:155–74.

—— (1978),‘TheAttitudesofAntiochusIIItowardstheClassStruggleinGreece(192–191B.C.)’,RivistaStorica,8:27–38.

—— (1979),‘Polybius,Nabis,andEquality’,Athenaeum,57:311–33.

—— (1981a),‘TheFiveEmpires:ANoteonaPropagandisticTopos’,AmericanJournalofPhilology,102:330–7.

—— (1981b),‘PolybiusandtheSocio-economicReformsofCleomenesIII,Reexamined’,GrazerBeiträge,10:95–104.

—— (1982),‘PolybiusandtheSocio-economicRevolutioninGreece(227–146B.C.)’,L’Antiquitéclassique,51:86–110.

Merkelbach,R.(1977,2ndedn.),DieQuellendesgriechischenAlexanderromans,Zetemata.MonographienzurklassischenAltertumswissenschaft,9(Munich).

Miles,R.(2010),CarthageMustbeDestroyed.TheRiseandFallofanAncientMediterraneanCivilization(London).

Millar.F.(1964),AStudyofCassiusDio(Oxford).

—— (1984),‘ThePoliticalCharacteroftheClassicalRomanRepublic,200–151B.C.’,JournalofRomanStudies,74:1–19.

—— (1986),‘Politics,Persuasion,andthePeoplebeforetheSocialWar(150–90B.C.)’,JournalofRomanStudies,76:1–11.

—— (1989),‘PoliticalPowerinMid-RepublicanRome.CuriaorComitium?’,JournalofRomanStudies,79:138–50.

—— (1995),‘PopularPoliticsatRomeintheLateRepublic’,inI.MalkinandW.Z.Rubinsohn(eds.),LeadersandMassesintheRomanWorld.StudiesinHonourofZviYavetz(Leiden),91–113.

—— (1998),TheCrowdinRomeintheLateRepublic(AnnArbor,Mich.).

Bibliography

—— (2002a),TheRomanRepublicandtheAugustanRevolution(ChapelHill,NCandLondon).

—— (2002b),TheRomanRepublicinPoliticalThought(Hanover,NHandLondon).

Miltsios,N.(2009),‘ThePerilsofExpectation:Perceptions,SuspenseandSurpriseinPolybius’Histories’,inJ.GrethleinandA.Rengakos(eds.),NarratologyandInterpretation(Berlin),481–506.

Moles,J.L.(2001),‘AFalseDichotomy:Thucydides’HistoryandHistoricism’,inS.J.Harrison(ed.),Texts,IdeasandtheClassics:Scholarship,Theory,andClassicalLiterature(Oxford),195–219.

Momigliano,A.(1966),‘TimeinAncientHistoriography’,HistoryandTheory,6:1–23.

—— (1971),TheDevelopmentofGreekBiography:FourLectures(Cambridge,Mass.).

—— (1984),‘F.W.Walbank’,JournalofRomanStudies,74[notpaginated],repr.inA.Momigliano,OttavoContributoallastoriadeglistudiclassici(Rome,1987),424–6.

Mommsen,T.(1902–4,9thedn.),RömischeGeschichte,5vols.(Berlin).

—— (1913),GesammelteSchriften,Vol.VIII(Berlin).

Moore,J.M.(1965),TheManuscriptTraditionofPolybius(Cambridge).

Morelli,D.(1959),IcultiinRodi,Studiclassicieorientali,8(Pisa).

Morley,N.(1999),WritingAncientHistory(Ithaca,NYandLondon).

Morricone,L.(1953),‘IsacerdotidiHalios.FrammentodicatalogorinvenutoaRodi’,AnnuariodellascuolaarcheologicadiAtene,n.s.11–13(1949–51),351–80.

Morstein-Marx,R.(2004),MassOratoryandPoliticalPowerintheLateRomanRepublic(Cambridge).

Most,G.(1999),Commentaries—Kommentare,Aporemata:KritischeStudienzurPhilologiegeschichte,4(Göttingen).

Mouritsen,H.(2001),PlebsandPoliticsintheLateRomanRepublic(Cambridge).

Münscher,K.(1920),Xenophonindergriechisch-römischenLiteratur,PhilologusSuppl.,13/2(Leipzig).

Münzer,F.(1899),‘Claudius’(220),RealencyclopädiederclassischenAltertumswissenschaft,Vol.3(Stuttgart),cols.2738–55.

—— (1920),RömischeAdelsparteienundAdelsfamilien(Stuttgart).

Bibliography

Murray,O.(2008),‘PtolemaicRoyalPatronage’,inP.McKechnieandP.Guillaume(eds.),PtolemyIIPhiladelphusandhisWorld(Leiden),9–24.

Musti,D.(1978),Polibioel’imperialismoromano(Naples).

Newman,S.(2002),‘Aristotle’sNotionof‘‘Bringing-Before-the-Eyes’’:ItsContributionstoAristotelianandContemporaryConceptualizationsofMetaphor,Style,andAudience’,Rhetorica,20:1–23.

Nicolet,C.(1974),‘Polybeetlesinstitutionsromaines’,inE.Gabba(ed.),Polybe,EntretiensHardt,20(Geneva),209–65.

—— (1980),TheWorldoftheCitizeninRepublicanRome(London).

—— (1983),‘Polybeetla‘‘constitution’’deRome:aristocratieetdémocratie’,inC.Nicolet(ed.),Demokratiaetaristokratia(Paris),15–35.

Nilsson,M.P.(1955),DiehellenistischeSchule(Munich).

Nippel,W.(1980),MischverfassungstheorieundVerfassungsrealitätinAntikeundfrüherNeuzeit(Stuttgart).

Nissen,H.(1863),KritischeUntersuchungenüberdieQuellenderviertenundfünftenDekadedesLivius(Berlin).

North,J.A.(1990a),‘PoliticsandAristocracyintheRomanRepublic’,ClassicalPhilology,85:277–87.

—— (1990b),‘DemocraticPoliticsinRepublicanRome’,PastandPresent,126:3–21.

—— (2007),‘TheConstitutionoftheRomanRepublic’,inN.RosensteinandR.Morstein-Marx(ed.),ACompaniontotheRomanRepublic(OxfordandMalden,Mass.),256–77.

Nouhaud,M.(1982),L’utilisationdel’histoireparlesorateursattiques(Paris).

Oakley,S.P.(1995),ACommentaryonLivyBooksVI–X,Vol.1(Oxford).

—— (1998),ACommentaryonLivyBooksVI–X,Vol.2(Oxford).

Ogilvie,R.M.(1965),ACommentaryonLivyBooks1–5(Oxford).

—— andRichmond,I.A.(1967),CorneliiTacitiDeVitaAgricolae(Oxford).

O’Gorman,E.(2000),IronyandMisreadingintheAnnalsofTacitus(Cambridge).

Oliver,G.J.(2006),‘HistoryandRhetoric’,inG.R.Bugh(ed.),TheCambridgeCompaniontotheHellenisticWorld(Cambridge),113–35.

Olson,S.D.(2007),BrokenLaughter.SelectFragmentsofGreekComedy(Oxford).

Bibliography

Pani,M.(2001),LeragionidellastoriografiainGreciaeaRoma.Unaintroduzione(Bari).

Parente,F.(2005),‘TheImpotenceofTitus,orFlaviusJosephus’sBellumJudaicumasanExampleof‘‘Pathetic’’Historiography’,inJ.SieversandG.Lembi(eds.),JosephusandJewishHistoryinFlavianRomeandBeyond(Leiden),45–69.

Paton,W.R.,Walbank,F.W.,andHabicht,C.(2010),Polybios:TheHistories.Vol.2,Books3–4(Cambridge,Mass.).

Paul,G.M.(1993),‘ThePresentationofTitusintheJewishWarofJosephus:TwoAspects’,Phoenix,47:56–66.

Pauw,D.A.(1986),Diedramatieseelementindieantiekegeskiedskrywing(Johannesburg).

Pearson,L.(1987),TheGreekHistoriansoftheWest.TimaeusandHisPredecessors(Atlanta,Ga.).

Pédech,P.(1955),‘LaméthodechronologiquedePolybe,d’aprèslerécitdesinvasionsgauloises’,Comptesrendusdel’Académiedesinscriptionsetbelles-lettres,99:367–74.

—— (1964),LaméthodehistoriquedePolybe(Paris).

—— (1973),‘Polybefaceàlacriseromainedesontemps’,IXecongrèsinternationaldel’associationG.Budé:195–201.

—— (1977),Polybe.Histoires:Livre5(Paris).

—— (1989),Troishistoriensméconnus:Théopompe–Duris–Phylarque(Paris).

Pélékidis,C.(1962),Histoiredel’Ephébieattique,desoriginesà31av.J.-C.(Paris).

Pelling,C.(2007),‘TheGreekHistoriansofRome’,inJ.Marincola(ed.),ACompaniontoGreekandRomanHistoriography,Vol.1(Oxford),244–58.

Perrin-Saminadayar,É.(1999),‘Lessuccèsdeladiplomatieathéniennede229à168av.J.-C.’,Revuedesétudesgrecques,112:444–62.

—— (2007),‘Lepersonneld’encadrementdel’éphébieathénienne(229–88)’,inJ.-C.CouvenhesandS.Milanezi(eds.),Individus,groupesetpolitiqueàAthènesdeSolonàMithridate(Tours),385–419.

Pethes,N.,andRuchatz,J.(eds.)(2001),GedächtnisundErinnerung.EininterdisziplinäresLexikon(Reinbek).

Petzold,K.-E.(1969),StudienzurMethodedesPolybiosundzuihrerhistorischenAuswertung(Munich).

Bibliography

Pfister,F.(1951),DieReisebilderdesHeraclides.Einleitung,Text,ÜbersetzungundKommentarmiteinerÜbersichtüberdieGeschichtedergriechischenVolkskunde,SitzungsberichtederÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaftinWien,227/2.

Phang,S.E.(2008),RomanMilitaryService:IdeologiesofDisciplineintheLateRepublicandEarlyPrincipate(Cambridge).

Pianezzola,E.(1969),Traduzioneeideologia:LiviointerpretediPolibio(Bologna).

Pohlenz,M.(1948),DieStoa:GeschichteeinergeistigenBewegung(Göttingen).

Polverini,L.(2005),‘DemocraziaaRoma?LacostituzionerepubblicanasecondoPolibio’,inG.Urso(ed.),Popoloepoterenelmondoantico.ConcezioniLinguaggioImmagini.AttidelconvegnointernazionaleCividaledelFriuli,23–25settembre2004(Pisa),85–96.

Porter,W.H.(1937),LifeofAratus,withIntroduction,NotesandAppendix(Dublin).

Pöschl,V.(1936),RömischerStaatundgriechischesStaatsdenkenbeiCicero(Berlin).

Poznanski,L.(1979),‘Encorelecoruus:delaterreàlamer’,Latomus,38:652–61.

Prandi,L.(2003),‘Treriflessionisull’usodeidocumentiscrittiinPolibio’,inA.-M.Biraschi,P.Desideri,S.Roda,andG.Zecchini(eds.)(2003),L’usodeidocumentinellastoriografiaantica,IncontriPeruginidiStoriadellaStoriografia,12(Naples),373–90.

—— (2005),‘PolibioeCallistene’,inG.SchepensandJ.Bollansée(eds.),TheShadowofPolybius:IntertextualityasaResearchToolinGreekHistoriography(Leuven),73–87.

Préaux,C.(1978),Lemondehellénistique,laGrèceetl’Orient(323–146av.J.-C.),2vols.(Paris).

Price,J.(2005),‘TheProvincialHistorianinRome’,inJ.SieversandG.Lembi(eds.),JosephusandJewishHistoryinFlavianRomeandBeyond(Leiden),101–18.

Prinz,F.(1979),GründungsmythenundSagenchronologie,Zetemata.MonographienzurKlassischenAltertumswissenschaft,72(Munich).

Pritchett,W.K.(1969),StudiesinAncientGreekTopography:Part2(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

PuglieseCarratelli,G.(1955),‘CultianiconicidiRodieLesbo.ApropositodelledivinitàdiAhhijavaeLazpa’,StudiClassiciedOrientali,3:5–8.

—— (1981),‘AXAIAPOLISnelPeriplodiSkylax’,Paroladelpassato,36:391–2.

Purcell,N.(1995),‘OntheSackingofCarthageandCorinth’,inD.C.Innes,H.Hine,andC.B.R.Pelling(eds.),EthicsandRhetoric.ClassicalStudiesforDonaldRussellonhisSeventy-fifthBirthday(Oxford),133–48.

Bibliography

Purves,A.(2010),SpaceandTimeinAncientGreekNarrative(Cambridge).

Rawson,E.(1991),‘TheLiterarySourcesforthePre-MarianArmy’,ProceedingsoftheBritishSchoolatRome,39[1971]:13–31,repr.inE.Rawson,RomanCultureandSociety.CollectedPapers(Oxford),34–57.

Rebenich,S.(1997),‘HistoricalProse’,inS.E.Porter(ed.),HandbookofClassicalRhetoricintheHellenisticPeriod330BC–AD400(Leiden),265–337.

Reger,G.(2003),‘TheEconomy’,inA.Erskine(ed.),ACompaniontotheHellenisticWorld(OxfordandMalden,Mass.),331–53.

——(2007),‘HellenisticGreeceandWesternAsiaMinor’,inW.Scheidel,I.Morris,andR.Saller(eds.),TheCambridgeEconomicHistoryoftheGreco-RomanWorld(NewYork),460–83.

Reiske,J.J.(1763),AnimaduersionesadGraecosauctores,Vol.IV(Leipzig).

Reiter,W.(1988),AemiliusPaullus.ConquerorofGreece(London,NewYork,andSydney).

Rich,J.(1976),DeclaringWarintheRomanRepublicinthePeriodofTransmarineExpansion(Brussels).

—— (1996),‘TheOriginsoftheSecondPunicWar’,inT.Cornell,B.Rankov,andP.Sabin(eds.),TheSecondPunicWar.AReappraisal(London),1–37.

Riggsby,A.M.(2006),CaesarinGaulandRome.WarinWords(Austin,Tex.).

Rigsby,K.(1996),Asylia.TerritorialInviolabilityintheHellenisticWorld(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

Robert,L.(1967),Monnaiesgrecques.Types,légendes,magistratsmonétairesetgéographie,Centrederecherchesd’histoireetdephilologiedelaIVeSectiondel’ÉcolePratiquedesHautesÉtudes.I.HautesÉtudesnumismatiques,2(GenevaandParis).

Roesch,P.(1965),Thespiesetlaconfédérationbéotienne(Paris).

—— (1982),Étudesbéotiennes(Paris).

Romilly,J.de(1979),Ladouceurdanslapenséegrecque(Paris).

Rood,T.(1998),Thucydides.NarrativeandExplanation(Oxford).

—— (1999),‘Thucydides’PersianWars’,inC.S.Kraus(ed.),TheLimitsofHistoriography.GenreandNarrativeinAncientHistoricalTexts(Leiden),141–68.

—— (2004a),‘PanhellenismandSelf-Presentation:Xenophon’sSpeeches’,inR.J.LaneFox

Bibliography

(ed.),TheLongMarch:XenophonandtheTenThousand(NewHavenandLondon),305–29.

—— (2004b),‘XenophonandDiodorus:ContinuingThucydides’,inC.J.Tuplin(ed.),XenophonandhisWorld.PapersfromaConferenceheldinLiverpoolinJuly1999,HistoriaEinzelschriften,172(Stuttgart),341–95.

—— (2004c),‘Polybius’,inI.J.F.deJong,R.Nünlist,andA.M.Bowie(eds.),Narrators,Narratees,andNarrativesinAncientGreekLiterature(Leiden),147–64.

—— (2012),‘Polybius,Thucydides,andtheFirstPunicWar’,inC.J.SmithandL.M.Yarrow(eds.),Imperialism,CulturalPolitics,andPolybius(Oxford),50–67.

Rosenstein,N.(1990),ImperatoresVicti:MilitaryDefeatandAristocraticCompetitionintheMiddleandLateRepublic(Berkeley).

Rostovtzeff,M.(1926),TheSocialandEconomicHistoryoftheRomanEmpire(Oxford).

—— (1941),TheSocialandEconomicHistoryoftheHellenisticWorld(Oxford).

Roussel,D.(1970),Polybe,Histoire(Paris).

Roy,J.(2004),‘TheAmbitionsofaMercenary’,inR.J.LaneFox(ed.),TheLongMarch:XenophonandtheTenThousand(NewHavenandLondon),264–88.

Sacks,K.S.(1975),‘Polybius’OtherViewofAetolia’,JournalofHellenicStudies,95:92–106.

—— (1981),PolybiusontheWritingofHistory(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

—— (1990),DiodorusSiculusandtheFirstCentury(Princeton).

—— (1994),‘DiodorusandhisSources:ConformityandCreativity’,inS.Hornblower(ed.),GreekHistoriography(Oxford),213–32.

SainteCroix,G.E.M.de(1981),TheClassStruggleintheAncientGreekWorld(London).

Saller,R.P.(1982),PersonalPatronageundertheEarlyEmpire(Cambridge).

Salmon,E.T.(1967),SamniumandtheSamnites(Cambridge).

Scheidel,W.,Morris,I.,andSaller,R.(eds.)(2007),TheCambridgeEconomicHistoryoftheGreco-RomanWorld(NewYork).

Schepens,G.(1975),‘ἜμφασιςundἐνάργειαinPolybios’Geschichtstheorie’,Rivistastoricadell’antichità,5:185–200.

—— (1980),L’‘autopsie’danslaméthodedeshistoriensgrecsduVesiècleavantJ.-C.

Bibliography

(Brussels).

—— (1990),‘PolemicandMethodologyinPolybius’BookXII’,inH.Verdin,G.Schepens,andE.deKeyser(eds.),PurposesofHistory:StudiesinGreekHistoriographyfromthe4thtothe2ndCenturyB.C.ProceedingsoftheInternationalColloquiumLeuven,24–26May1988,Studiahellenistica,30(Leuven),39–61.

—— andBollansée,J.(eds.)(2005),TheShadowofPolybius:IntertextualityasaResearchToolinGreekHistoriography,ProceedingsoftheInternationalColloquium,Leuven,21–22September2001,StudiaHellenistica,42(Leuven).

Schettino,M.T.(2003),‘DocumentidiplomaticiscrittiedocumentimilitarinonscrittinelPolibio‘‘romano’’’,inA.-M.Biraschi,P.Desideri,S.Roda,andG.Zecchini(eds.),L’usodeidocumentinellastoriografiaantica,IncontriPeruginidiStoriadellaStoriografia,12(Naples),391–412.

Schmitt,H.H.(1964),UntersuchungenzurGeschichteAntiochos’desGrossenundseinerZeit,HistoriaEinzelschriften,6(Wiesbaden).

Scholten,J.B.(2000),Thepoliticsofplunder.AitoliansandtheirkoinonintheearlyHellenisticera,279–217B.C.(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

Schramm,F.(1929),TragicorumGraecorumhellenisticaequaedicituraetatisfragmenta,diss.(Münster).

Schubert,C.(1995),‘MischverfassungundGleichgewichtssystem.PolybiosundseineVorläufer’,inC.SchubertandK.Brodersen(eds.),RomunddergriechischeOsten.FestschriftfürHattoH.Schmittzum65.Geburtstag(Stuttgart),225–35.

Schuller,W.(ed.)(1993),Livius:AspekteseinesWerkes(Constance).

Schulz,R.(2000),‘ZwischenKooperationundKonfrontation.DierömischeWeltreichsbildungunddiePiraterie’,Klio,82:409–25.

Schwartz,E.(1903/1957),‘Diodoros38’,RealencyclopädiederclassischenAltertumswissenschaft,Vol.1(Stuttgart),cols.663–704,repr.inhisGriechischeGeschichtsschreiber(Leipzig),35–97.

Scott,J.C.(1990),DominationandtheArtsofResistance.HiddenTranscripts(NewHaven).

Scullard,H.H.(1989),‘CarthageandRome’,CambridgeAncientHistory,VII.2(2ndedn.),486–569.

Seager,R.(1981),‘TheFreedomoftheGreeksofAsia:FromAlexandertoAntiochus’,ClassicalQuarterly,31:106–12.

Segre,M.(1941),‘IlcultorodiodiAlessandroedeiTolomei’,BulletindelaSociété

Bibliography

Royaled’Archéologied’Alexandrie,34:29–39.

——(1949),‘IlcultodiApolloPythaeusaRodi’,Paroladelpassato,4:72–82.

Seibert,J.(1994,4thedn.),AlexanderderGrosse(Darmstadt).

Serrati,J.(2006),‘Neptune’sAltars:TheTreatiesBetweenRomeandCarthage(509–226B.C.)’,ClassicalQuarterly,56:113–34.

Sharrock,A.,andMorales,H.(eds.)(2000),Intratextuality.GreekandRomanTextualTraditions(Oxford).

Shaya,J.(2005),‘TheGreekTempleasMuseum:TheCaseoftheLegendaryTreasureofAthenafromLindos’,AmericanJournalofArchaeology,109:423–42.

Shimron,B.(1979/80),‘PolybiusonRome:AReexaminationoftheEvidence’,ScriptaClassicaIsraelica,5:94–117.

Shrimpton,G.S.(1991),TheopompustheHistorian(Montreal).

Shurlock,B.(1986),TheWinchesterStory(Waterlooville).

Simmel,G.(1992),Soziologie.UntersuchungenüberdieFormderVergesellschaftung(FrankfurtamMain).

Skinner,Q.(2002),VisionsofPolitics,3vols.(Cambridge).

Smith,C.J.,andYarrow,L.M.(eds.)(2012),Imperialism,CulturalPolitics,andPolybius(Oxford).

Sordi,M.(1967/2002),‘IcorvidiDuilioelagiustificazionecartaginesedellabattagliadiMilazzo’,Rivistadifilologiaediistruzioneclassica,95:260–8,repr.inM.Sordi,ScrittidiStoriaRomana(Milan),193–201.

Spielvogel,J.(1993),Amicitiaundrespublica.CicerosMaximewährendderinnenpolitischenAuseinandersetzungenderJahre59–50v.Chr.(Stuttgart).

Spilsbury,P.(2003),‘FlaviusJosephusontheRiseandFalloftheRomanEmpire’,JournalofTheologicalStudies,54:1–24.

—— (2005),‘ReadingtheBibleinRome:JosephusandtheConstraintsofEmpire’,inJ.SieversandG.Lembi(eds.),JosephusandJewishHistoryinFlavianRomeandBeyond(Leiden),209–27.

Steinby,C.(2007),TheRomanRepublicanNavy:FromtheSixthCenturyto167BC(Helsinki)[e-thesis:.

Sterling,G.E.(2000),‘ExplainingDefeat:PolybiusandJosephusontheWarswithRome’,

Bibliography

inJ.U.Kalms(ed.),InternationalesJosephus-Kolloquium,Aarhus,1999(Münster),135–51.

Stern,M.(1987),‘JosephusandtheRomanEmpireasReflectedinTheJewishWar’,inL.H.FeldmanandG.Hata(eds.),Josephus,Judaism,andChristianity(Detroit),71–80.

Stewart,A.(2000),‘OntheDate,ReconstructionandFunctionsoftheGreatAltarofPergamon’,inN.T.deGrummondandB.S.Ridgway(eds.),FromPergamontoSperlonga:SculptureandContext(BerkeleyandLosAngeles),32–57.

—— (2004),Attalos,AthensandtheAkropolis.ThePergamene‘LittleBarbarians’andtheirRomanandRenaissanceLegacy(Cambridge).

Stier,H.E.(1957),RomsAufstiegzurWeltmachtunddiegriechischeWelt(Cologne).

Strasburger,H.(1966),‘Der“Scipionenkreis” ’,Hermes,94:60–72.

Strauss,B.,andLebow,R.(1991),HegemonicRivalry.FromThucydidestotheNuclearAge(Boulder,Col.).

Stray,C.(2007),GilbertMurrayReassessed.Hellenism,TheatreandInternationalPolitics(Oxford).

—— (forthcoming),‘ReadingSilence(booksthatneverwere)’,inS.Eliot(ed.),AHistoryofOxfordUniversityPress(Oxford).

Syme,R.(1939),TheRomanRevolution(Oxford).

—— (1955),ReviewofT.R.S.Broughton,MRR(vols.1–2),ClassicalPhilology,50:127–38.

—— (1979),RomanPapers,vol.i(Oxford).

Taeger,F.(1922),DieArchäologiedesPolybios(Stuttgart).

Tarn,W.W.(1938),TheGreeksinBactriaandIndia(Cambridge).

Tatum,W.J.(2009),‘RomanDemocracy?’,inR.Balot(ed.),ACompaniontoAncientPoliticalThought(Oxford),214–28.

Thiel,J.(1954),AHistoryofRomanSea-PowerbeforetheSecondPunicWar(Amsterdam).

Thornton,J.(1995),‘IlsilenziodiAristeno:notaaPolibio22,10e24,11–13’,Rivistadiculturaclassicaemedioevale,37:261–72.

—— (1998),‘Trapoliticaestoria:Polibioelaguerraacaica’,MediterraneoAntico,1:585–634.

Bibliography

—— (2001),Lostoricoilgrammaticoilbandito.Momentidellaresistenzagrecaall’imperiumRomanum(Catania).

—— (2004),‘PolibioeRoma.Tendenzeneglistudidegliultimianni’,StudiRomani,52:108–39;508–25.

—— (2005),‘Pausaniaelaguerraacaica’,inL.TroianiandG.Zecchini(eds.),Laculturastoricaneiprimiduesecolidell’imperoromano,Alleradicidellacasacomuneeuropea,5(Rome),199–215.

—— (2010),‘Barbari,RomanieGreci.VersatilitàdiunmotivopolemiconelleStoriediPolibio’,inE.Migliario,L.Troiani,andG.Zecchini(eds.),Societàindigeneeculturagreco-romana,Trento7-8giugno2007(Rome),45–76.

Thraede,K.(1962),‘ErfinderII’,Rivistadiarcheologiacristiana,2:1191–1278.

Timpe,D.(1972),‘FabiusPictorunddieAnfängederrömischenHistoriographie’,AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWeltI.2:928–69,repr.inD.Timpe,AntikeGeschichtsschreibung.StudienzurHistoriographie(FrankfurtamMain,2007),132–81.

Toynbee,A.J.(1965),Hannibal’sLegacy,2vols.(London,NewYork,andToronto).

Tränkle,H.(1977),LiviusundPolybios(Basel).

Trundle,M.(2004),GreekMercenariesfromtheLateArchaicPeriodtoAlexander(AbingdonandNewYork).

Tsamakis,A.(1995),ThukydidesüberdieVergangenheit(Tübingen).

Tscherikower,V.(1927),DiehellenistischenStädtegründungenvonAlexanderdemGrossenbisaufdieRömerzeit,PhilologusSuppl.,19(Leipzig).

Tuplin,C.J.(2004),XenophonandhisWorld:PapersfromaConferenceheldinLiverpoolinJuly1999,HistoriaEinzelschriften,172(Stuttgart).

Ullrich,H.(1898),DePolybiifontibusRhodiis,diss.(Leipzig).

Urso,G.(2005),CassioDioneeimagistrati.LeoriginidellarepubblicaneiframmentidellaStoriaromana(Milan).

VanderSpek,R.J.(2007),‘TheHellenisticNearEast’,inW.Scheidel,I.Morris,andR.Saller(eds.),TheCambridgeEconomicHistoryoftheGreco-RomanWorld(NewYork),409–33.

Vasunia,P.(2011),‘TheComparativeStudyofEmpires’,JournalofRomanStudies,101:222–37.

Bibliography

Vegetti,M.(1989),‘LospettacolodellastoriainPolibio:Genealogiadiunequivoco’,inD.LanzaandO.Longo(eds.),Ilmeravigliosoeilverosimiletraantichitàemedioevo(Florence),121–8.

Virgilio,B.(2007),‘Polibio,ilmondoellenisticoeRoma’,Athenaeum,95:49–73.

Volkmann,H.(1955),‘DieindirekteErzählungbeiDiodor’,RheinischesMuseum,98:354–67.

vonFritz,K.(1954),TheTheoryoftheMixedConstitutioninAntiquity:ACriticalAnalysisofPolybius’PoliticalIdeas(NewYork).

—— (1958),‘DieBedeutungdesAristotelesfürdieGeschichtsschreibung’,inHistoireethistoriensdansl’Antiquité,EntretiensHardt,4(Geneva),85–145.

Vössing,K.(2006),‘Rom–RepublikundKaiserzeit’,inJ.Christes,R.Klein,andC.Lüth(eds.),HandbuchderErziehungundBildunginderAntike(Darmstadt),136–45.

Walbank,F.W.(1933),AratosofSicyon(Cambridge).

—— (1935),‘SocialRevolutionatSparta’(unpublishedpaper),SCAD1037/2/3/21/5.

—— (1936),‘Aratos’AttackonCynaetha(PolybiosIX,17)’,JournalofHellenicStudies,56:64–71.

—— (1937),ReviewofPorter(1937),ClassicalReview,51:223–5.

—— (1938),‘ΦΙΛΛΙΠΠΟΣΤΡΑΓΩΙΔΟΥΜΕΝΟΣ.APolybianExperiment’,JournalofHellenicStudies,58:55–68.

—— (1939/40),ReviewofCambridgeAncientHistory,vol.XII(1939),GreeceandRome,9:54–5.

—— (1940a),PhilipVofMacedon(Cambridge).

—— (1940b),‘Liciatelaeaddere(Virgil,Georg.I.284-6)’,ClassicalQuarterly,34:93–104.

—— (1942a),‘OlympichusofAlindaandtheCarianExpeditionofAntigonusDoson’,JournalofHellenicStudies,62:8–13.

—— (1942b),ReviewofJ.Göhler,RomundItalien(Breslau,1939),ClassicalReview,56:86–8.

—— (1942c),ReviewofRostovtzeff(1941),ClassicalReview,56:81–4.

——(1942d),‘AlcaeusofMessene,PhilipV,andRome’,ClassicalQuarterly,36:134–45.

—— (1943a),‘IsOurRomanHistoryTeachingReactionary?’,GreeceandRome,12:57–

Bibliography

61[publishedunderthename‘Examiner’].

—— (1943b),‘AlcaeusofMessene,PhilipV,andRome’,ClassicalQuarterly,37:1–13.

—— (1943c),‘PolybiusontheRomanConstitution’,ClassicalQuarterly,37:73–89.

—— (1943d),ReviewofJ.Day,AnEconomicHistoryofAthensunderRomanDomination(NewYork,1942),GreeceandRome,12:91–3.

—— (1944),‘TheCausesofGreekDecline’,JournalofHellenicStudies,64:10–20.

—— (1945a),‘Polybius,PhilinusandtheFirstPunicWar’,ClassicalQuarterly,39:1–18,repr.inWalbank(1985),77–98.

—— (1945b),ReviewofR.Taubenschlag,TheLawofGreco-RomanEgyptintheLightofthePapyri332B.C.–640A.D.(NewYork,1944),GreeceandRome,14:93.

—— (1946a),TheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest(London).

—— (1946b),ReviewofJ.L.Myres,MediterraneanCulture(Cambridge,1943),GreeceandRome,15:31.

—— (1946c),ReviewofFeyel(1942),GreeceandRome,15:41–3.

—— (1946d),Resuméof‘PolybiusandtheGrowthofRome’,ProceedingsoftheClassicalAssociation,43:11–12(fulltextatSCAD1037/2/3/21/3).

—— (1947a),ReviewofJ.Vallejo,TitoLivio,LibroXXI(Madrid,1946),ClassicalReview,61:107–9.

—— (1947b),ReviewofJ.H.Thiel,StudiesontheHistoryofRomanSea-PowerinRepublicanTimes(Amsterdam,1946),Erasmus,1:655–8.

—— (1948a),‘TheGeographyofPolybius’,ClassicaetMedievalia,9:155–82,repr.inWalbank(2002),31–52.

—— (1948b),ReviewofH.Stier,GrundlagenundSinndergriechischenGeschichte(Stuttgart),JournalofHellenicStudies,68:160–1.

—— (1949a),ReviewofM.Cary,TheGeographicBackgroundofGreekandRomanGeography(Oxford,1949),JournalofHellenicStudies,69:101.

—— (1949b),ReviewofJ.O.Thomson,HistoryofAncientGeography(Cambridge,1948),EnglishHistoricalReview,64:360–1.

—— (1950a),ReviewofR.Paribeni,LaMacedoniasinoadAlessandroMagno(Milan,1947),JournalofHellenicStudies,70:81.

—— (1950b),ReviewofE.Mioni,Polibio(Padua,1949),Erasmus,3:273–6.

Bibliography

—— (1950c),ReviewofF.Schachermeyr,AlexanderderGrosse.IngeniumundMacht(Graz,Salzburg,andVienna,1949),Gnomon,22:188.

—— (1950d),‘TheClassicsinEngland:SomeProblemsoftheLastDecade’,SodalitasErasmiana.1.Ilvaloreuniversaledell’umanesimo.AttidellaRiunionecostitutiva,Roma,20–23settembre1949(Naples),112–17.

—— (1951),‘TheProblemofGreekNationality’,Phoenix,5:41–60,repr.inWalbank(1985),1–19.

—— (1952),‘TradeandIndustryundertheLaterRomanEmpireintheWest’,inM.PostanandE.E.Rich(eds.),TheCambridgeEconomicHistoryofEurope,Vol.II.TradeandIndustryintheMiddleAges(Cambridge),33–85.

—— (1953a),ReviewofS.Davis,Race-relationsinAncientEgypt:Greek,Egyptian,Hebrew,Roman(London,1951),JournalofHellenicStudies,73:174.

—— (1953b),ReviewofW.Hartke,RömischeKinderkaiser(Berlin,1951),ClassicalReview,n.s.3:47–9.

—— (1954a),ReviewofW.H.Porter,PlutarchLifeofDion(Dublin,1952),ClassicalReview,n.s.4:18–20.

—— (1954b),ReviewofM.Holleaux,Étudesd’épigraphieetd’histoiregrecque,Vol.4(Paris,1952),Erasmus,7:51–4.

—— (1954c),ReviewofM.Grant,AncientHistory(London,1952),History,39:102.

—— (1955a),‘TragicHistory:AReconsideration’,BulletinoftheInstituteofClassicalStudies,2:4–14.

—— (1955b),ReviewofvonFritz(1954),JournalofRomanStudies,45:150–5.

—— (1956a),‘SomeReflectionsonHannibal’sPass’,JournalofRomanStudies,46:37–45,repr.inWalbank(1985),107–19.

—— (1956b),ReviewofS.Katz,TheDeclineofRomeandtheRiseofMedievalEurope(Ithaca,NY,1955),ClassicalReview,n.s.6:291–3.

—— (1958a),ReviewofH.Berve,Dion(Wiesbaden,1957),ClassicalReview,n.s.8:269–71.

—— (1958b),ReviewofP.Cloché,Unfondateurd’empire:PhilippeII,roideMacédoine(383/2-336/5)(St.Étienne,1955),ClassicalReview,n.s.8:156–8.

—— (1959a),ReviewofR.Syme,ColonialElites:Rome,SpainandtheAmericas(London,1958),JournalofRomanStudies,49:217.

Bibliography

—— (1959b),ReviewofA.Toynbee,Hellenism.TheHistoryofaCivilization(Oxford,1959),History,44:244–5.

—— (1960a),‘HistoryandTragedy’,Historia,9:216–34,repr.inWalbank(1985),224–41.

—— (1960b),ReviewofN.G.L.Hammond,AHistoryofGreeceto322B.C.(Oxford,1959),History,45:131–3.

Walbank,F.W.(1962),‘PolemicinPolybius’,JournalofRomanStudies,52:1–12;repr.inWalbank(1985),262–79.

—— (1963a),‘PolybiusandRome’sEasternPolicy’,JournalofRomanStudies,53:1–13,repr.inWalbank(1985),138–56.

—— (1963b),ReviewofC.Mossé,Lafindeladémocratieathénienne(Paris,1962),ClassicalReview,n.s.13:317–19.

—— (1964a),‘PolybiusandtheRomanState’,Greek,RomanandByzantineStudies,5:239–60.

—— (1964b),ReviewofA.W.Gomme,MoreEssaysinGreekHistoryandLiterature(Oxford,1962),JournalofHellenicStudies,84:201–2.

—— (1965),‘PoliticalMoralityandtheFriendsofScipio’,JournalofRomanStudies,55:1–16,repr.inWalbank(1985),157–80.

—— (1966a),‘TheSpartanAncestralConstitutioninPolybius’,inE.Badian(ed.),AncientSocietyandInstitutions.StudiesPresentedtoVictorEhrenbergonhis75thBirthday(Oxford,1966),303–12.

—— (1966b),ReviewofToynbee(1965),ClassicalReview,n.s.16:384–8.

—— (1966c),ReviewofL.Pareti,P.Brezzi,andL.Petech,TheAncientWorld,1200B.C.toA.D.500.Part2.Fromabout500B.C.totheChristianEra(London,1965),History,51:197–8.

—— (1967),ReviewofR.H.Barrow,PlutarchandhisTimes(London,1967),Listener,77:692–3.

—— (1968),ReviewofLehmann(1967),JournalofRomanStudies,58:253–4.

—— (1969),TheAwfulRevolution.TheDeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest(Liverpool).

—— (1970a),‘PolybiusandMacedonia’,AncientMacedonia,1:291–307,repr.inWalbank(2002),91–106.

—— (1970b),‘AnExperimentinGreekUnion’,ProceedingsoftheClassicalAssociation,

Bibliography

67:13–27.

—— (1972a),Polybius,SatherClassicalLectures,42(BerkeleyandLosAngeles).

—— (1972b),‘NationalityasaFactorinRomanHistory’,HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology,76:145–68,repr.inWalbank(1985),57–76.

—— (1974a),‘SynchronismsinPolybius,BooksIVandV’,inJ.A.S.Evans(ed.),PolisandImperium:StudiesinHonourofEdwardTogoSalmon(Toronto),59–80,repr.inWalbank(1985),298–312.

—— (1974b),‘PolybiusBetweenGreeceandRome’,inE.Gabba(ed.),Polybe,EntretiensHardt,20(Geneva),1–31,repr.inWalbank(1985),280–97.

—— (1975),‘Symploke:ItsRoleinPolybius’Histories’,YaleClassicalStudies,24:197–212,repr.inWalbank(1985),313–24.

—— (1976/7),‘WerethereGreekFederalStates?’,ScriptaClassicaIsraelica,3:27–51,repr.inWalbank(1985),20–37.

—— (1977a),‘Polybius’LastTenBooks’,HistoriographiaAntiqua:CommentationesLovaniensesinhonoremW.Peremansseptuagenariieditae(Leuven),139–62,repr.inWalbank(1985),325–43.

—— (1977b),‘TheCausesoftheThirdMacedonianWar:RecentViews’,AncientMacedoniaII.PapersReadattheSecondInternationalSymposiumheldinThessaloniki,19–24August1973(Thessaloniki),81–94.

—— (1977c),‘TheOriginalExtentoftheViaEgnatia’,LiverpoolClassicalMonthly,2:73–4.

—— (1980),‘TheIdeaofDeclineinPolybius’,inS.KoselleckandP.Widmer(eds.),Niedergang.StudienzueinemgeschichtlichenThema,SpracheundGeschichte,2(Stuttgart),41–58,repr.inWalbank(2002),193–211.

—— (1983a),‘Viaillanostramilitaris:SomeThoughtsontheViaEgnatia’,inH.Heinen,K.Stroheker,andG.Walser(eds.),AlthistorischeStudien:HermannBengtsonzum70.GeburtstagdargebrachtvonKollegenundSchülern,HistoriaEinzelschriften,40(Wiesbaden),131–47,repr.inWalbank(1985)193–209.

—— (1983b),ReviewofdeSte.Croix(1981),JournalofHellenicStudies,103:199–200.

—— (1983c),ReviewofJ.Hornblower(1981),AntiquariesJournal,63:162–3.

—— (1983d),‘WhatMadeaHellenisticKing?’,ProceedingsoftheClassicalAssociation,80:19–20.

—— (1984a),‘MonarchiesandMonarchicIdeas’,CambridgeAncientHistory,VII.1(2nd

Bibliography

edn.):62–100.

—— (1984b),‘MacedoniaandGreece’,CambridgeAncientHistory,VII.1(2ndedn.):221–56.

—— (1984c),ReviewofE.E.Rice,TheGrandProcessionofPtolemyPhiladelphus(Oxford,1983),LiverpoolClassicalMonthly,9:52–4.

—— (1985),SelectedPapers:StudiesinGreekandRomanHistoryandHistoriography(Cambridge).

—— (1986),‘TheViaEgnatia:SomeOutstandingProblems’,inAncientMacedoniaIV.PapersReadattheFourthInternationalSymposiumHeldinThessaloniki,September21–25,1983(Thessaloniki),673–80.

—— (1989/90),‘Timaeus’ViewsonthePast’,ScriptaClassicaIsraelica,10:41–54.

—— (1990),‘ProfitorAmusement:SomeThoughtsontheMotivesofHellenisticHistorians’,inH.Verdin,G.Schepens,andE.deKeyser(eds.),PurposesofHistory:StudiesinGreekHistoriographyfromthe4thtothe2ndCenturiesB.C.,StudiaHellenistica,30(Leuven),253–66,repr.inWalbank(2002),231–41.

—— (1991/2),‘TheHellenisticWorld:NewTrendsandDirections’,ScriptaClassicaIsraelica,11:90–113.

—— (1992a),Hypomnemata(Cambridge,privatelyprinted,reformatted2007),SCAD1037/2/3/11/7.

—— (1992b,2ndedn.),TheHellenisticWorld(London).

—— (1993a),‘PolybiusandthePast’,inH.D.Jocelyn(ed.),TriaLustra.EssaysandNotesPresentedtoJohnPinsent,LiverpoolClassicalPapers,3(Liverpool),15–23,repr.inWalbank(2002),178–92.

—— (1993b),‘ΗΤΩΝΟΛΩΝΕΛΠΙΣandtheAntigonids’,AncientMacedonia,3:1721–30,repr.inWalbank(2002),127–36.

—— (1994),‘SupernaturalParaphernaliainPolybius’Histories’,inI.Worthington(ed.),VenturesintoGreekHistory(Oxford),28–42,repr.inWalbank(2002),245–57.

—— (1995),‘“Treason”andRomanDomination:TwoCase-studies,PolybiusandJosephus’,inC.SchubertandK.Brodersen(eds.),RomunddergriechischeOsten:FestschriftfürHattoH.Schmittzum65.Geburtstag(Stuttgart),273–85,repr.inWalbank(2002),258–76.

Walbank,F.W.(1996),‘1940s-1980s’,inP.E.H.Hair(ed.),Arts.Letters.Society.AMiscellanyCommemoratingtheCentenaryoftheFacultyofArtsattheUniversityofLiverpool(Liverpool),101–5.

Bibliography

—— (1997),ReviewofS.Hornblower(ed.),GreekHistoriography(Oxford1994),Histos,1,availableonlineat

—— (1998a),TheUniversityofLiverpoolFacultyofArtsCentenaryLecture.ArtsatLiverpool:TheFirstHundredYears(Liverpool).

—— (1998b),‘AGreekLooksatRome:PolybiusVIRevisited’,ScriptaClassicaIsraelica,17:45–59,repr.inWalbank(2002),277–92.

—— (2000),‘HellenesandAchaeans:“GreekNationality”Revisited’,inP.Flensted-Jensen(ed.),FurtherStudiesintheAncientGreekPolis,HistoriaEinzelschriften,138(Stuttgart),19–33,repr.inWalbank(2002),137–52.

—— (2002),Polybius,RomeandtheHellenisticWorld:EssaysandReflections(Cambridge).

—— (2005a),‘TheTwo-wayShadow:PolybiusamongtheFragments’,inG.SchepensandJ.Bollansée(eds.),TheShadowofPolybius:IntertextualityasaResearchToolinGreekHistoriography(Leuven),1–18.

—— (2005b),ReviewofWiemer(2001),Gnomon,76:77–8.

—— (2007),‘Fortune(tyche)inPolybius’,inJ.Marincola(ed.),ACompaniontoGreekandRomanHistoriography,Vol.2(OxfordandMalden,Mass.),349–55.

Walker,A.D.(1993),‘EnargeiaandtheSpectatorinGreekHistoriography’,TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation,123:353–77.

Wallace,R.(2009),‘PersonalFreedominGreekDemocracies,RepublicanRomeandModernLiberalStates’,inR.K.Balot(ed.),ACompaniontoGreekandRomanPoliticalThought(OxfordandMalden,Mass.),164–77.

Wallace-Hadrill,A.(1989),PatronageinAncientSociety(London).

Walsh,P.G.(1958),‘TheNegligentHistorian:“Howlers”inLivy’,GreeceandRome,5:83–8.

—— (1994),LivyBookXXXIX(Warminster).

Walter,U.(2003),‘AhnMachtSinn.FamilientraditionundFamilienprofilimrepublikanischenRom’,inK.-J.Hölkeskamp(ed.),Sinn(in)derAntike.Orientierungssysteme,LeitbilderundWertkonzepteimAltertum(Mainz),255–78.

—— (2004),Memoriaundrespublica.ZurGeschichtskulturimrepublikanischenRom(FrankfurtamMain).

Waterfield,R.(2010),Polybius.TheHistories(Oxford).

Bibliography

Weber,G.(1993),DichtungundhöfischeGesellschaft.DieRezeptionvonZeitgeschichteamHofdererstendreiPtolemäer,HermesEinzelschriften,62(Stuttgart).

Weil,R.,andNicolet,C.(1977),PolybeHistoireslivreVI(Paris).

Weissenborn,W.,andMüller,H.J.(1883),TitiLiuiaburbeconditalibri,Vol.VII.2(Berlin).

—— (1909),TitiLiuiaburbeconditalibri,Vol.IX.1(Berlin).

Welles,C.B.(1934),RoyalCorrespondenceintheHellenisticPeriod:AStudyinGreekEpigraphy(NewHavenandLondon).

Welwei,K.W.(1963),KönigeundKönigtumimUrteildesPolybios(Herbede).

—— (1966),‘DemokratieundMassebeiPolybios’,Historia,15:282–301.

White,P.(1978),‘AmicitiaandtheProfessionofPoetryinEarlyImperialRome’,JournalofRomanStudies,68:74–92.

Wiedemann,T.(1990),‘RhetoricinPolybius’,inH.Verdin,G.Schepens,andE.deKeyser(eds.),PurposesofHistory:StudiesinGreekHistoriographyfromthe4thtothe2ndCenturyB.C.ProceedingsoftheInternationalColloquiumLeuven,24–26May1988,Studiahellenistica,30(Leuven),288–300.

Wiemer,H.-U.(2001),RhodischeTraditioneninderhellenistischenHistoriographie,FrankfurterAlthistorischeBeiträge,7(FrankfurtamMain).

—— (2002),Krieg,HandelundPiraterie.UntersuchungenzurGeschichtedeshellenistischenRhodos,Klio.BeiträgezurAltenGeschichte,NeueFolge,6(Berlin).

—— (2009a),‘NeueFeste–neueGeschichtsbilder?ZurErinnerungsfunktiongriechischerFesteimHellenismus’,inH.BeckandH.-U.Wiemer(eds.),FeiernundErinnern.GeschichtsbilderimSpiegelantikerFeste,StudienzurAltenGeschichte,12(Berlin),83–108.

—— (2009b),‘BilddesKönigsoderBildderStadt?ZurRepräsentationsfunktionstädtischerFesteimHellenismus’,inM.Zimmermann(ed.),StadtbilderimHellenismus(Berlin),122–37.

—— (2010),‘StructureandDevelopmentoftheRhodianPeraia:EvidenceandModels’,inR.vanBremenandJ.-M.Carbon(eds.),HellenisticCaria(BordeauxandParis),415–34.

—— (2011),‘EarlyHellenisticRhodes:TheStruggleforIndependenceandtheDreamofHegemony’,inA.Erskine(ed.),CreatingaHellenisticWorld(Swansea),123–46.

Will,E.(1979–82,2ndedn.),Histoirepolitiquedumondehellénistique(323–30av.J.-C.),2vols.(Nancy).

Bibliography

Williams,J.H.C.(2001),BeyondtheRubicon.RomansandGaulsinRepublicanItaly(Oxford).

Wilson,J.P.(1994),‘GrexScipionisinDeAmicitia.AReplytoGaryForsythe’,AmericanJournalofPhilology,115:269–71.

Winterling,A.(1999),AulaCaesaris.StudienzurInstitutionalisierungdesrömischenKaiserhofesinderZeitvonAugustusbisCommodus(31v.Chr.–192n.Chr.)(Munich).

—— (2001),‘“Staat”,“Gesellschaft”undpolitischeIntegrationinderrömischenKaiserzeit’,Klio,83:93–112.

—— (2003),Caligula.EineBiographie(Munich).

Witte,K.(1910),‘ÜberdieFormderDarstellunginLivius’Geschichtswerk’,RheinischesMuseum,65:270–305,359–419.

Woodman,A.J.(1983),VelleiusPaterculus.TheCaesarianandAugustanNarrative(2.41–93)(Cambridge).

—— (1988),RhetoricinClassicalHistoriography(LondonandSydney).

—— (2004),Tacitus,TheAnnals.Translation,withIntroductionandNotes(Indianapolis).

Wooten,C.(1974),‘TheSpeechesinPolybius:AnInsightintotheNatureofHellenisticOratory’,AmericanJournalofPhilology,95:235–51.

Worthington,I.(1989),‘TheDeathofScipioAemilianus’,Hermes,117:253–6.

Yakobson,A.(1992),‘Petitioetlargitio:PopularParticipationintheCenturiateAssemblyoftheLateRepublic’,JournalofRomanStudies,82:32–52.

—— (2007),‘PopularPowerintheRomanRepublic’,inN.RosensteinandR.Morstein-Marx(eds.),ACompaniontotheRomanRepublic(OxfordandMalden,Mass.),383–400.

Yarrow,L.M.(2006),HistoriographyattheEndoftheRepublic:ProvincialPerspectivesonRomanRule(Oxford).

Yavetz,Z.(1975),‘ReflectionsonTitusandJosephus’,Greek,RomanandByzantineStudies,16:411–32.

Zahrnt,M.(2000),‘PubliusCorneliusScipioAemilianus—derintriganteEnkel’,inK.-J.HölkeskampandE.Stein-Hölkeskamp(eds.),GroßeGestaltenderrömischenRepublik(Munich),159–71.

—— (2002),‘Anpassung—Widerstand—Integration.PolybiosunddierömischePolitik’,inN.EhrhardtandL.-M.Günther(eds.),Widerstand—Anpassung—Integration.DiegriechischeStaatenweltundRom(Stuttgart),77–102.

Bibliography

Zangara,A.(2007),Voirl’histoire:Théoriesanciennesdurécithistorique,IIesiècleavantJ.-C.–IIesiècleaprèsJ.-C.(Paris).

Zanker,G.(1981),‘EnargeiaintheAncientCriticismofPoetry’,RheinischesMuseum,124:297–311.

Zecchini,G.(1978),CassioDioneelaguerragallicadiCesare(Milan).

—— (2003),‘LeletterecomedocumentiinPolibio’,inA.-M.Biraschi,P.Desideri,S.Roda,andG.Zecchini(eds.)(2003),L’usodeidocumentinellastoriografiaantica,IncontriPeruginidiStoriadellaStoriografia,12(Naples),413–22.

Zegers,N.(1959),WesenundUrsprungdertragischenGeschichtsschreibung,diss.(Cologne).

Zetzel,J.E.G.(1972),‘CiceroandtheScipionicCircle’,HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology,76:173–9.

—— (1995),Cicero,DeRePublica:Selections(Cambridge).

Ziolkowski,A.(1993),‘Urbsdirepta,orHowtheRomansSackedCities’,inJ.Rich,andG.Shipley(eds.),WarandSocietyintheRomanWorld(LondonandNewYork),69–91.

Zucchelli,B.(1985),‘EchidellaPoeticadiAristoteleinPolibio?Apropositodistoriografiaetragedia’,inSapienzaantica:studiinonorediDomenicoPesce(Milan),297–309.

Index Locorum

(p.389) IndexLocorumForepigraphicandotherabbreviationsusedhereseepp.ix–xabove.Squarebracketsdenotepseudonymousauthors,e.g.[Lysias]=Ps.-Lysias

AeliusAristidesOr.25.4: 302

Aeschines1.179: 2523.169: 252

AlcaeusofMessene Sees.v.PalatineAnthology9.518Alexis(comicpoet)

F239K–A: 275AlexisofSamos(FGrHist539)

F2: 314Alcimus(FGrHist560)

F4: 343Antiphanes

F189K-A: 88–9Apollodorus(FGrHist240)

Index Locorum

F1: 285F22: 285

AppianCelt.1.8: 285Ib.11: 156Pun.132: 263,308Syr.114–21: 284Syr.132–36: 284

AristophanesEccl.944–5: 252Nub.1506–9: 252Plut.1044: 252

[Aristotle],AthenaionPoliteia18.1: 314

AristotleInsomn.461a24–5: 164Metaph.1074b: 297Meteor.352a–353a: 297Poet.9,1451a38–b5: 73Ph.248a1–2: 164Pol.1253a1–5: 241

ArrianAnab.1.12.3: 162

Athenaeus5.22–24,194c–195f: 3276.82,262e–263b: 2968.61,360d–361c: 2948.61,360d–e: 2938.1,330c–331b: 32813.72,599c: 31415.52,696f: 299

Callimachusfr.100.4Pfeiffer: 293

CassiusDiofr.55B: 156fr.40.7–12: 149fr.43: 150fr.43.16–18: 13353.19: 198SeealsoZonaras

Catofr.84: 151

Deremilitari15: 242[Cicero]

Rhet.Her.1.13: 88Cicero

Index Locorum

Amic.69: 310Div.1.43: 151Fam.4.5.4: 8Luc.5: 316Rep.3.7: 154Rep.3.21: 3112Verr.2.4: 1462Verr.2.8: 146

Conon(FGrHist26)F1§47: 305

Daniel,Bookof2:31–5: 2642:36–45: 264

[Demosthenes]25.24: 25225.66: 25226.10: 25226.27: 25259.88: 252

Demosthenes1.5: 17920.120: 25220.148: 25221.150: 252(p.390) 24.5: 252

DeVirisIllustribus11.1: 24137.2: 15038.1: 133

DieuchidasofMegara(FGrHist485)F7: 296

DiodorusSiculus1.1: 2201.1.1: 87–84.58.8: 2935.55–9: 2855.55.1: 2865.55.2: 2885.55.4: 2885.55.5: 288,3065.55.6–7: 2885.56.1–2: 2885.56.2–3: 2885.56.3: 3035.56.5–7: 290

Index Locorum

5.56.7: 2865.57.2–5: 2915.57.6–8: 291,2935.58.2–3: 2945.58.3: 2945.58.4–5: 2965.59.1–4: 2967.5.4: 15213.103.5: 28520.81–8: 29820.81.1–4: 30020.82.1–4: 30020.82.4–84.6: 30120.82.4: 29920.83.1: 29920.83.2: 30120.84.2: 30220.84.3–4: 30220.84.4: 30320.84.5–6: 30220.85–8: 299,30120.87.4: 30220.88.3–7: 30220.88.3: 30320.88.8: 301,30320.91–100.4: 298,30120.91–92.1: 29920.91: 30120.92: 30120.93.2: 30220.93.3–4: 30220.93.4: 30120.93.5: 299,30220.93.6–7: 30320.94.4–5: 30220.95.1–3: 29920.96.3–97.4: 29920.96.3: 30220.97.1–2: 29920.97.5: 30220.97.6–7: 29920.97.7: 30220.98.1: 30220.98.4: 30320.98.9: 302

Index Locorum

20.99.2: 30220.99.3: 30220.100.1: 30220.100.2: 30220.100.3–4: 299,30222.1.2–3: 14922.13.1: 14822.13.9–23.3: 15023.1.4: 148,150,15223.17: 15223.21: 17323.8.1: 15224.11: 13924.11.1: 15227.3: 28430.23: 22132.24: 263,308

DiogenesLaertius1.89: 2937.35: 285

DionysiusofHalicarnassusA.R.1.6.2: 151A.R.1.8.3: 285A.R.1.72.1: 343A.R.1.74.1: 343A.R.5.23–5: 241A.R.20.4.1–5.5: 149Decompositioneverborum4.110: 181

DiphilusF29.4–5K–A: 89

Ergias(FGrHist513)F1: 293,294

Eutropius2.20: 1333.2: 1613.6: 145

FabiusPictor(FRHI21)F28: 137

FGrHist533F2,ll.2–12: 298–9F2,ll.12–48: 302F2,ll.40–4: 302

FlorusEpit.1.8.3–6: 150(p.391) Epit.1.18.3: 151

Index Locorum

Epit.1.18.9–11: 133Frontinus

Str.1.4.11: 152Str.1.5.6: 138Str.4.1.16: 242

Gorgon(FGrHist515)F5: 297F9: 299F13: 306F18: 286

Gorgosthenes(FGrHist529)F5: 297F7: 297

HecataeusofAbdera(FGrHist264)F25: 291

HecataeusofMiletus(FGrHist1)F20: 291

HellanicusofLesbos(FGrHist4)F84: 343

HeraclidesCriticusGGM258§12–16: 271

HermogenesProgymn.4.16: 88

Herodotus1.5.4: 83–42.182.2: 2935.58–9: 2915.97: 1667.20.2: 1797.44–53: 168

HierobulusofRhodes(FGrHist530)F: 297

HomerIl.2.653–70: 296Il.4.437–8: 170Il.6.448–9: 176Il.11.604: 166Il.22.395: 176Il.23.175–6: 176

HoraceEp.1.7: 315Ep.1.18.44: 315

HyginusAstron.2.14: 294,296

Index Locorum

XII8,6: 293XIISuppl.120: 291

I.Lindos2,B,III,ll.15–17: 2942,B,VI,ll.37–41: 2972,B,IX,ll.54–61: 2972,C,XL,ll.114–21: 2852,D,III,ll.94–115: 305222,l.6: 297707,l.4: 297

I.Magnesia16: 348

Ined.Vat.(FGrHist839)F4: 135

Inscr.It.13.1.77: 13713.3.69(DuiliusInscription=ILS65=CILI225andVI,8,31300Add.): 133,134

I.Peraia555: 297

ISE47: 205

Isocrates4.39(Paneg.): 2524.145–9(Paneg.): 1635.90–101(Phil.): 1637.14(Areopag.): 2347.37(Areopag.): 25212.138(Panath.): 234

JosephusAJ10.210: 264AJ10.276: 264AJ12.135–7: 257AJ12.358–9: 257AJ12.402: 257AJ14.66–7: 261AJ14.105–9: 261AJ14.275: 261AJ17.261: 261AJ18.55–62: 261AJ18.168–78: 261AJ18.225–6: 261AJ18.257–303: 261AJ19.1–27: 261AJ19.201–11: 261

Index Locorum

AJ19.212–73: 262AJ20.110–12: 261AJ20.122: 261AJ20.154: 261AJ20.160–5: 261AJ20.177: 261AJ20.250: 263Ap.1.45–6: 255Ap.1.53: 255Ap.2.84: 257Ap.2.217: 265BJ1.1: 255(p.392) BJ1.28: 262BJ1.150: 261BJ1.179: 261BJ1.221–2: 261BJ2.49–50: 261BJ2.169–77: 261BJ2.184–203: 261BJ2.236: 261BJ2.250–1: 261BJ2.260: 261BJ2.270: 261BJ2.272: 261BJ2.277: 261BJ2.346: 256BJ2.349: 263BJ2.352: 263BJ2.355–6: 263BJ2.360: 257BJ2.361: 263BJ2.365: 263BJ2.373: 257BJ2.379: 263BJ2.390: 257BJ2.395: 256BJ2.397: 263BJ2.412: 256BJ3.132–4: 262BJ3.298–305: 262BJ3.329–31: 262BJ3.336–8: 262BJ3.351–4: 257BJ3.532–42: 262BJ4.447–8: 262

Index Locorum

BJ4.622: 257BJ5.289: 262BJ5.334: 262BJ5.364–5: 256BJ5.366: 264BJ5.367–8: 257BJ5.367: 264BJ5.376: 256BJ5.406: 256BJ5.412: 257BJ5.449–51: 262BJ6.124–8: 262BJ6.214–43: 262BJ6.254–66: 262BJ6.378: 256BJ6.409: 256BJ7.1: 263BJ7.23: 262BJ7.37–9: 262BJ7.112–13: 262Vit.17: 257Vit.27: 261

Livy2.5: 2412.10: 2412.14.1: 1234.29: 2416.12.8: 1198.7: 2419.43.26: 15121.1.1–2: 17921.1.2: 17421.6.6–7.1: 15621.10.8: 15123.33.4: 23524.19.9–11: 14624.30.6: 14624.35.2: 14624.39.1–10: 14626.30.4–5: 14626.51.7–8: 16328.12.2–5: 17028.28.2–4: 14930.31.4: 15130.34.1: 170

Index Locorum

30.43.4: 14031.7.8: 20631.15.8–16.8: 20732.19.1–23.3: 21932.21.25: 21832.21.29: 22032.21.36: 21832.22.8–12: 21733.8.13: 118–19,12033.11.1: 20733.13.4: 20733.17.5–8: 12233.18: 28433.19.1: 20733.20: 28434.51.5: 12335.5–6: 26935.35.18: 119–2035.38.3: 12336.6.1–2: 27036.6.2: 26937.8–17: 28437.18.9–25.3: 28437.26–32: 28438.7.10: 12138.7.11–13: 12239.49–50: 12339.50.3: 12339.50.10: 34239.51.1: 34239.53.12–16: 20640.3–16.3: 20240.3–5: 209(p.393) 40.3.3: 12340.4.9: 12440.5.1: 20240.5.10: 20840.7–28: 24440.20.5–24: 20240.21.1–22.14: 20640.21.2: 20640.22.15–24.8: 21040.55.8–57.1: 21040.56–8: 20240.56.3: 210

Index Locorum

40.56.7: 20440.57–8: 20841.19.3–11: 20841.24.12–14: 21942.11.4: 205,20842.14.8: 28442.30.5–7: 22542.40: 20542.46.7: 12142.46.8: 12142.55.3: 12442.57.1–62.2: 20844.24.9–26.2: 20844.42.1–2: 208

Per.12: 149Per.14: 151Per.16: 150,152Per.17: 133,135

[Lysias]6: 252

MarmorParium(FGrHist239)A8: 293

Moschion(TGrF97)PheraioiF3: 88ThemistoclesF1: 88

Naeviusfr.32: 136

NS18,l.15: 297

Orosius4.7.1: 1504.7.7–9: 133,1354.8.5: 1364.13,15: 145

PalatineAnthology(AP)6.171: 2997.247: 2059.518: 205

Pausanias1.2.3: 3141.25.2–3: 3477.10.11: 3168.13.4–5: 1078.15.2: 1078.16.1–17.5: 107

Index Locorum

PindarOl.6.87–90: 275Ol.7: 286Ol.7.13: 288Ol.7.39–51: 290Ol.7.77–82: 297

Piso(FRHI27)F32: 135

P.KölnVI247: 300

P.Schubart34,col.II: 293

PhilodemusOnPoemsV,col.xiii(xvi),9–14: 86

PlatoCrito50b: 252Crito51a–c: 241Crito104d–e: 297Crito109d–e: 297Leg.677a: 297Tim.22b–23c: 297

PlinytheElderNat.5.132: 294Nat.7.112: 311Nat.8.169: 135

PlutarchAem.8: 205Aem.8.4: 206Aem.19: 208Alex.11.6: 196Arat.3.3: 93Arat.29.7: 94Cato22.2–3: 311Dem.23.2: 196Demetr.2.3: 301Demetr.19.6: 301Demetr.21.1–2: 301Flam.9: 205Marc.6.5–7.1: 145Marc.21.3: 163Mor.995e(Deesucarnium): 275–6Mor.297c(Quaest.Graec.): 291Mor.347a(Deglor.Ath.): 81–2Mor.345e(Deglor.Ath.): 163Public.16: 241

Index Locorum

Pyrrh.23.1: 148Pyrrh.23.5: 148P.Mil.Vogl.

VIII309: 299(p.394) Polyaenus

Strat.4.18.2: 284Strat.5.17.2: 284Strat.5.27: 284

Polybius1.1.1–2: 2201.1.1: 381.1.2: 841.1.4–5: 1821.1.5: 2,145,231,3451.2.1–7: 2581.2.7–8: 2561.3–4: 3451.3.1–2: 91–2,94,95,128,1651.3.3–4.1: 3371.3.7–10: 128,2561.3.7–9: 1271.3.7–8: 3451.3.10: 1271.4.1–5: 2571.4.1: 3411.4.11: 3411.5–9: 1601.5.1–4: 1301.5.1: 1651.5.4: 129,1301.5.5: 1311.6.1–4: 1301.6.1–3: 3431.6.5–9.8: 1301.6.5–7: 3431.7–12.4: 1311.7–10: 1491.7: 1731.7.6–13: 1491.7.6–7: 1491.8.1–2: 1481.8.3–9.8: 149,1511.8.3: 1871.9.3: 1731.9.4–6: 173

Index Locorum

1.10–63: 1301.10–11: 1571.10: 1601.10.1: 1491.10.9: 1531.11.1: 148,152,1531.11.2: 148,153,155,1561.11.3: 1531.11.4–9: 1501.13.1: 1271.13.5: 1281.13.7: 1291.13.12: 174,1771.14.1–3: 134,1511.14.1: 151,152,1591.14.6–9: 1471.15.1–12: 1511.15.12: 1511.17.4: 1731.20.1–2: 1481.20.1: 132,153,1571.20.9–10: 1321.20.9: 1351.20.13–16: 1501.21.1–8: 1331.21.5: 1351.22.1–24.2: 1331.22.3: 1331.23.1: 1351.23.6: 1331.24.1: 1351.24.7: 1601.25.2: 3471.25.3: 3471.25.6: 1361.26.1–28.14: 1361.26.5–8: 3271.30.4: 1361.31.2–3: 1721.32.1: 1691.35: 1361.35.2–3: 2201.35.7: 2201.37.7: 1561.42.1–7: 345

Index Locorum

1.43: 1731.48.3: 1691.49.6–51.12: 1361.55–9: 1371.55.2: 1371.58.2: 1371.58.3: 1371.58.4–6: 1371.58.5: 1511.58.7–59.6: 1381.58.9: 3311.59.6: 1421.59.9: 136,1381.59.11–12: 1391.61.5: 1371.62.7: 1391.63.1–9: 1501.63.1–3: 139,3251.63.4: 1791.64–88: 1301.64: 1601.64.2–4: 2321.64.2: 145,2311.64.5–6: 1771.64.5: 1741.65–88: 159–79(p.395) 1.65: 1591.65.1–3: 1771.65.2: 166,1761.65.3: 1661.65.4: 172,1791.65.5–9: 1621.65.6: 1751.65.7–8: 2441.65.7: 168,1751.65.8: 161,1771.66–70: 1661.66.7: 1651.66.12: 1671.67.4: 1701.67.5: 1701.67.7: 169,1731.67.8–13: 1701.68.7: 1771.69.4: 170

Index Locorum

1.69.12–13: 1701.69.14: 1711.70.4–6: 1711.70.7: 1661.71.1: 167,328,3311.71.4: 1791.71.5–6: 1791.71.5: 177,1791.72: 1741.72.2: 3311.72.6: 1671.73.1: 1741.75: 165–61.77.5: 173,1771.78.13–15: 1751.79: 1611.79.1–7: 1551.79.6–7: 1611.80.4–13: 1711.80.5–11: 1701.80.10: 1711.81: 1751.81.2–3: 1751.81.4: 1751.82.2: 1751.82.6: 1671.82.7: 1611.82.8: 1771.82.11: 168,1721.83.2–4: 2251.83.3–4: 154,1771.83.5–11: 155,1771.83.6–8: 1781.83.11: 161,1771.84.1–2: 1671.84.9–85.2: 1671.85.2: 1671.85.3–5: 1751.86.5: 1681.86.6: 1761.86.7: 176,1771.88.5: 1601.88.6–7: 1761.88.7–8: 1591.88.7: 159,179

Index Locorum

1.88.8–12: 155,160,1771.88.11–12: 3252.1–36: 1302.1: 1602.1.2: 1322.1.4: 1292.2–12: 1602.4.8: 3302.5.4: 3242.8–12: 3322.8: 1782.8.1–3: 1772.8.2–3: 3292.8.2: 3242.8.3: 1532.8.9: 1832.13: 1602.13.1–2: 3232.14–35: 1602.14–15: 3222.15.1: 3282.16.13–14: 772.16.14: 2022.17.1: 3222.17.8–12: 3222.19.11–13: 3232.21.2: 2562.21.8: 1462.32.6: 3232.33: 146,2432.33.8–9: 1462.34.1–35.1: 1452.34.10–11: 3232.34.15: 3232.35: 3412.35.2: 1602.35.8: 822.35.9: 3452.36: 1602.36.3: 1962.37: 1302.37.2–3: 1292.37.3–70.8: 1282.37.3: 1282.37.4: 341

Index Locorum

2.37.6: 1292.37.9–11: 3352.37.10–11: 331(p.396) 2.38.4: 1282.39.1: 1532.40.4: 932.41: 3502.41.3–5: 2982.42.2–6: 1282.43.3–5: 1862.47.9–11: 932.47.11: 932.56–63: 1292.56–60: 2022.56.2: 762.56.3: 74–72.56.6–13: 74–72.56.13: 80,862.58: 76–72.62.4: 1282.63.2–5: 3262.67.5: 1872.68.1–2: 1872.71.2: 1293.1.4: 256,3453.1.11: 3513.2–3: 3513.2.2: 1723.2.6–3.4: 3513.2.6: 145,231,232,2483.4.3: 3453.4.6–8: 1543.4.7: 2583.4.12–13: 164,3523.6–7: 100,2093.6.10: 163,3413.6.11: 1633.6.12–14: 2083.6.12–13: 1633.7.3: 3503.8.1–9.5: 1513.9–10: 1603.10.1–4: 1603.10.3–4: 1553.10.5: 323

Index Locorum

3.13.5–7: 3233.14.1: 3233.15.6: 1963.15.10: 1563.17.2: 3313.20.1–9: 1563.21.9: 3453.22.1–2: 3433.22.2: 3433.26: 1513.26.2–7: 1513.26.6–7: 1493.26.6: 148,150,1543.27.2–8: 1553.28.1–2: 1553.28.3: 1553.30.3–4: 1553.31.12–13: 2553.32.2–3: 3523.32.5: 3423.32.8: 3423.32.10: 2293.34.1–2: 3223.35–61: 1963.35.3: 3233.37: 3413.38.1–3: 3413.40.5: 3233.40.8: 3233.44.8: 3223.48.7: 3233.48.8–9: 77–83.48.8: 2023.48.11: 3223.49.5: 3243.49.11: 3243.50.6: 3233.51.12: 3243.52.5: 3243.59.2: 23.59.3–5: 3223.59.3: 2583.59.8: 3453.67: 1983.67.4: 323

Index Locorum

3.68.8: 3243.69.1: 3243.70.1–8: 2493.72.12: 3453.76.5: 3233.79.1–2: 3243.80.3: 1463.84.4–5: 1463.87: 3243.87.7–9: 2313.87.7–8: 2493.87.7: 3453.90.7–8: 3243.90.7: 3223.91: 322,3243.98–9: 1843.99.8: 1843.100.1–2: 3243.101.8–11: 3243.107.1: 3243.107.10–14: 3453.117–18: 2353.118.3–5: 2353.118.5–9: 156(p.397) 3.118.5: 1723.118.8–9: 1453.118.9: 232,2483.118.11–12: 2313.118.12: 2444.1.9–2.5: 92–3,944.1.9: 93,95,1274.2.1: 1654.2.2: 1134.2.5–11: 954.2.5: 1884.2.10–11: 1474.2.11: 1004.3–37: 100–1104.3.1–13.7: 100,1064.3.2–3: 1884.3.3: 1974.4.1–5: 1014.5.3: 1884.5.4–5: 3294.5.8: 103

Index Locorum

4.7.10: 1014.8: 1474.8.6: 944.9.1: 1084.9.5: 1084.9.6: 1084.9.10: 1014.10.1: 1014.10.8: 107,1084.10.10: 1104.11.5: 1074.13.5: 106,1084.13.6: 100,1024.14.1–25.8: 1004.14.1: 1014.14.8: 1014.14.9: 103,1054.15: 105,1064.15.1–4: 1034.15.2–7: 1054.15.4: 1084.15.5–6: 1084.15.6–7: 105–64.15.8–11: 1054.15.8: 1054.16.1–3: 1034.16.6–19.12: 1064.16.6: 1064.16.10: 1064.16.11: 1064.17.2: 1844.17.3: 107,1084.18.9–12: 1084.19.1: 106,1084.19.2–4: 1084.19.6: 1084.19.11–12: 106,1094.19.13–21.12: 1064.21.2–12: 2764.22.2: 1034.22.5: 1884.22.6: 1894.22.11–4.23: 1894.23.8: 2044.23.9: 182

Index Locorum

4.24: 189,191,1944.24.1–3: 1094.24.3: 103,110,1114.24.9: 1904.25: 102,1104.25.6: 1104.26.1–37.7: 1004.26.1–4: 1024.26.1: 1024.26.7–27.2: 1054.26.7–8: 1024.26.7: 1024.27.1–3: 102,1054.27.9–29.7: 1024.27.9–28.1: 3504.27.9–10: 1904.28.1: 1024.28.2–6: 111–124.28.3–4: 3414.28.3: 1124.28.5: 1114.29: 1904.30.1–5: 1024.30.6–8: 1024.31: 2744.31.1–2: 1024.33.1–6: 2984.34.1–36.6: 1024.34.8–9: 1824.37.1: 1024.37.2: 1054.38–56: 1904.38–52: 3324.38: 3314.39.6: 2984.42.7–8: 1844.43.6: 2984.45.7–8: 3224.47.1: 3324.50.1–3: 3324.50.3: 3234.56.2: 2834.57–87: 97–94.57–60: 1904.57.2–58.12: 109

Index Locorum

4.62.4: 241(p.398) 4.63.10: 3254.65.2: 3254.66.7: 3254.67–87: 113–154.67–9: 1904.67.6–7: 1904.67.7: 994.67.8: 994.69.9: 1914.73.6–10: 3234.76: 98,1914.76.8–9: 994.76.9: 1014.77: 1924.77.2: 1924.77.4: 1924.78–82: 1934.82.1: 1934.82.2–3: 984.84.8: 994.86.8: 984.87: 1934.87.10–11: 1934.87.13: 995.1–30: 115–165.1–30.7: 98–1005.1.1: 995.1.6: 3255.1.9–10: 985.1.10–12: 3255.2.7–8: 1945.2.11–5.24.1: 995.3.4: 1985.3.5: 3255.4.10–13: 1945.5.5–8: 1945.5.8: 1005.5.9 1005.5.10: 98,1015.7.1–2: 1945.7.4–5: 985.7.4: 1005.9–12: 189,194,2235.10: 204,206

Index Locorum

5.10.1–5: 2225.10.1: 2225.10.9–11: 2065.10.10–11: 2065.10.10: 1965.10.11: 1945.12.5: 100,1945.15–16: 1955.15: 1005.16.2: 1955.16.9–10: 985.17–24: 1965.18.4–6: 1955.18.6: 1955.18.7: 1955.18.10: 1955.23.6: 1005.24.11: 3315.26.3–4: 1965.26.6: 995.26.9: 795.27: 1975.27.3: 1005.28.1: 3315.28.4–8: 1975.28.4: 3255.29.1–2: 1975.29.6: 1975.29.7–9: 3505.31.3: 3465.31.4–5: 1125.31.6: 3415.31.7: 3415.34–40: 1915.34.10: 1985.40–58: 2115.40–57: 1915.41.1: 1855.44: 3225.45.7: 1855.48.9: 805.51.7–11: 3245.54.10–12: 3255.55.1: 3245.55.10: 183

Index Locorum

5.61.1: 3275.63: 1985.63.5: 3315.68.2: 3245.70.2: 3245.72.7: 3255.73.16: 3275.75.1: 3245.76.5: 3235.76.9–10: 3255.76.11: 3275.85.9: 1215.85.11–12: 1845.88–90: 283,284,326,327,3325.91–101.3: 95–75.91–5: 965.91–2: 975.91.4: 3315.91.6–8: 1035.93.4: 2415.93.6: 3315.93.10: 96(p.399) 5.94.7: 3245.95–6: 965.95.5: 975.97–101: 96–75.97.1: 3235.97.3–5: 975.98: 975.100.1: 975.100.4: 975.100.9: 3315.101: 2065.101.1: 3305.101.6: 965.102.1: 206,2565.102.2–4: 975.104.1–10: 3505.105.1: 2065.105.4–6: 1115.105.4–5: 3375.105.6–8: 3445.107.5–7: 3305.108: 2065.108.1–2: 330

Index Locorum

5.111.8–10: 3435.111.10: 1276.2.2–3: 1456.2.5–7: 2356.2.5–6: 145,1466.2.9: 2486.3–9: 3176.3.5–7: 2496.3.7: 2486.3.8: 2496.4.4–5: 2526.5.4–6: 2976.7–9: 2406.9.9: 2766.10: 2406.10.6: 2496.10.12–14: 2496.11–18: 233,2586.11.1: 143,145,1466.11.3–8: 154,2496.11.3: 3456.11.4: 2546.11.7–8: 2366.11.11–12: 2496.11.13: 2366.11a: 2436.11a.4: 2336.11a.6: 2336.12–17: 2406.12: 2496.12.4: 1546.12.7: 2426.12.10: 2406.13: 2506.14.1: 2506.14.2: 2506.14.4–6: 2506.14.9–11: 2506.14.12: 2506.15.1: 2516.15.4–11: 2516.15.7: 796.15.8: 1766.15.9–10: 2506.16.2–3: 251

Index Locorum

6.16.4–5: 2516.17: 2526.17.2–7: 2516.17.8–9: 251–26.18: 234,2406.18.1: 2516.18.2–6: 2536.18.4–5: 1456.18.4: 2376.19–42: 233,2346.19.5–20.7: 2376.20.8: 2386.20.9: 2396.24.6: 2396.26.10–6.32: 238,2396.27.2: 2396.34.7–37.6: 2386.37–8: 2436.37.1–6: 2426.37.3: 2426.37.7: 2426.37.9–12: 2426.38: 2426.39.1–11: 2436.41–2: 238,2396.41.7: 2396.41.10–12: 2396.42: 2406.43–56: 2336.43–4: 2436.43: 274,2756.43.2: 2486.44: 2756.44.9: 2526.45–47.6: 1626.45.1: 1626.47.1–5: 233,2446.47.3–5: 1476.47.7–10: 2406.50: 240,2536.50.4–6: 2406.51.3–8: 1436.51.3: 1746.51.5–8: 145(p.400) 6.51.5: 252

Index Locorum

6.51.7–8: 2326.52.4–5: 2356.52.5–7: 172,2436.52.7: 1426.52.10: 2546.53–5: 2546.53–4: 2416.53.2–3: 80–16.54.3: 2416.54.4: 2416.54.5: 241,2446.55: 241,2436.55.7: 2526.56: 3236.56.4: 2356.56.6–11: 243,2546.56.8–11: 796.56.13–15: 2356.57.5–9: 1456.57.5–6: 2606.57.8–9: 2526.58: 156,3437.2–7: 2567.3: 1847.5–11: 3247.5.6–7: 3267.7: 1857.7.1–6: 787.7.2: 2027.9: 2357.11–14: 189,192,1947.11: 2237.11.4: 1927.11.9: 2057.13–14: 2237.14.4–6: 1938.2.3–11: 1458.2.3–6: 2578.2.11: 3418.7.8–9: 1838.11.3: 162,1658.22: 3248.23: 3268.24.10: 2568.25.2: 324

Index Locorum

8.25.11: 3318.35.9: 1359.1–2: 282,2859.2.1–3: 2989.8–9.10: 1649.9.9–10: 829.10: 146,260,3279.17: 1849.17.6: 1849.20.5–6: 289.23.8–9: 1479.27.10: 3299.28.4: 2229.32–9: 2099.39: 2749.39.1–3: 3309.39.2–3: 1469.41.11: 3229.42.5–8: 32410.1.5: 33110.4.1–5: 18610.4.8: 18610.5.8: 25710.6.3–4: 22310.7.5: 32310.8.5: 33110.8.10–11: 18610.9.1: 18610.9.2: 25710.16–17: 238,325,34510.16.7: 23210.17.9: 33110.19.1–2: 32510.20.7: 16210.27.1–2: 32210.28: 32210.32.1–33.7: 14610.32.7–8: 14610.35.6–36.7: 22310.36: 22410.38.7: 32310.40.6: 18610.48: 32210.48.1: 32211.4–6: 331

Index Locorum

11.5.1–7: 35011.5.2–8: 33011.5.7: 24411.15.6: 12111.16.1: 12111.19.3–5: 17011.25–30: 24211.27: 24312.3–4: 32212.3.2: 18412.4b.2: 18412.25e: 32212.25e.5–7: 93–412.25g.1–2: 25512.25k.6–7: 15512.25k.9: 18412.26e-28: 23812.28a.7–10: 25513.3.6–8: 14513.4–5: 284(p.401) 13.6.4: 16914.3.6: 34514.7.1–3: 32315.4.1: 323,32415.6.4–7.9: 22115.6.6: 17215.7.1: 18615.12.8–9: 17015.17.4: 22815.19: 35115.20: 185,35115.20.1–2: 20715.20.2: 18515.20.4: 20715.21: 35115.22–24a: 22315.23.2–6: 28415.23.6–7: 22415.24.4: 22715.34–5: 21115.36.1–7: 80,84–515.37: 21116.9.1–5: 28416.10: 20716.11.1: 323

Index Locorum

16.14.1–4: 28116.14.5–15.8: 28216.16.1–17.7: 28216.17.8–19.11: 28216.17.9–11: 18116.18.2: 30416.20.5: 30416.20.6–7: 28216.22.7: 33116.25: 34716.26.5–6: 34816.28–32: 23116.29.11–12: 33116.31.2: 32316.34.6: 18318.4.8–5.3: 33018.6.5–7: 21818.14.13–14: 22218.24.9: 11818.28–32: 24018.28.1: 23218.30.2: 11918.33: 20718.34.6–35.2: 26018.35: 276–718.35.1–2: 14518.37.7: 22118.39.5: 18318.41.7–8: 34718.53.4: 18518.54.7–11: 28420.3–4: 26920.4–7: 26720.4.1–2: 27420.4.7: 27820.6: 33520.6.1–6: 32320.6.1: 27020.6.5: 27620.7: 26920.7.1: 272–320.7.2: 27020.7.4: 27020.7.5: 27020.12.8: 83

Index Locorum

21.2.2: 34521.4.10: 22821.4.12–14: 32621.10: 28421.12: 28421.13.1: 23221.13.11: 233,34521.14.4: 22121.16.5: 21621.16.7–8: 22121.16.8: 25721.17.1: 22121.18–21: 221–221.23.2–12: 22721.26.7–19: 33021.26.14: 18321.28.4: 12221.28.11: 12121.28.12–16: 12221.30.1–5: 32621.34: 32621.35.4: 32621.36: 32621.40.6: 32621.42.19: 32622.4.2: 27022.4.13–17: 33022.5: 28422.7.3: 32622.8.10: 32622.16.1–3: 22222.18: 203,20422.18.2–3: 33322.18.6–10: 20823.2–3: 18323.3.4–10: 24423.9.6: 20223.10: 20223.10.1–16: 20923.10.4–7: 32323.10.4: 12423.10.12–13: 209,210(p.402) 23.10.14: 20923.11: 20223.12.1: 183

Index Locorum

23.15.1–3: 22223.17.4: 25924.4–6: 22424.4: 20624.6.5: 18724.8.2–5: 25824.9.1–4: 25424.9.8–11: 32824.10–13: 35024.10.11–12: 25824.10.12: 22724.11–13: 22624.11.4–8: 25424.12.1: 22724.13.2: 22724.13.3: 22724.13.13: 25825.2: 32625.3: 33125.4.5: 283,28425.6: 20826.1.2: 33127.1–2: 33127.4: 33127.5.3–4: 12127.5.3: 12127.9.1: 35027.9.3: 21727.9.5: 21727.9–10: 21627.10: 21727.10.2–3: 217,21927.10.5: 21727.13.2: 33128.4.12: 35028.6: 225,22928.6.1: 21928.6.5: 24128.6.7–7.1: 22528.6.7: 21928.7.1: 21928.8.3: 32328.16.11: 34028.17.1–2: 28328.22: 326

Index Locorum

29.5–9: 20829.12.8: 18129.17: 20829.20: 22029.20.4: 22029.21: 209,25829.21.4–6: 3029.21.8: 20129.27: 33230.4.7: 22630.4.11: 22630.4.13–14: 22630.4.16–17: 22630.5–6: 33130.6.5–6: 31130.13.10: 207,20830.15: 32430.18: 25930.23.2–4: 28330.25–6: 32730.31: 331,33230.31.15: 22831.2: 18531.2.1: 18531.2.7: 18631.2.9–11: 25931.5: 28331.10.7: 25931.11: 18631.13.8: 18631.21: 33331.21.5–6: 25931.22.8–9: 23631.22.8: 15431.23.1–3: 30731.23.3: 31331.23.10–13: 31231.24.9–10: 30831.25: 32731.25.2–8: 30831.25.2–7: 260,276–731.25.5: 33131.25.6: 22431.25.9–28.9: 30831.26: 331

Index Locorum

31.26.3–9: 32331.29: 30831.30.1: 18232.2.1–3: 17832.3.10–13: 17832.5–6: 18532.11.2: 34132.13.4–9: 25933.2.10: 15433.5.1–3: 32633.13.8: 32633.18.10–11: 15334.2–4: 29834.4.1–4: 29834.8: 32234.8.4–10: 32834.9.8–11: 32234.10.10: 322(p.403) 35.4: 18736.17.5–11: 32336.17.5–10: 27636.17.13–15: 24536.17.13–14: 22936.2.1–4: 25936.9–10: 2936.9.1–10.1: 15436.17.7: 27638.1: 25638.4: 21538.4.2: 21638.4.5–6: 21638.4.7: 21638.8.6: 7938.10.6–13: 25638.11.6–11: 25638.12.4–11: 25638.12.5: 16938.13.8: 245,25638.15.3–5: 32338.16.1–9: 25638.18.7–8: 245,25638.20.1–3: 22038.21–2: 81,220,26338.21.1–3: 30838.22: 176

Index Locorum

38.22.2: 30839.2: 26039.3.8: 35039.6.1–2: 22939.6.2–5: 22939.8.2: 22139.8.6: 340–139.8.7–8: 14539.8.7: 232,248

Polyzelus(FGrHist521)F1: 294F6: 294F7: 294,296

QuintilianInst.12.1.35: 154

ScholiaDion.Thraxp.173.3–4: 88Dion.Thraxp.746.1: 87Pind.Ol.7.36c: 297Pind.Ol.7.141c: 297Pind.Ol.7.86a: 290

SEG12,360: 29046,989: 29349,1070: 296

SER18,l.9: 297

ServiusA.1.108: 151A.4.628: 151

SiliusItalicus1.675–94: 156

Strabo1.2.3: 863.2.7: 32813.4.2: 34714.1.16: 31414.2.5: 30514.2.7: 29414.2.11: 293

Syll.3338: 290557: 348560: 349561: 349

Index Locorum

599: 280643: 2051067: 297

TacitusAg.26.2: 179Ann.4.1: 191–2

T.Cam50,l.25: 29650,l.36: 29681b,l.1: 29390,I,l.28: 29690,I,l.34: 29390,II,l.20: 296147: 293App.19and20: 296

Thucydides1.1.1: 1741.1.2–3: 1791.2–22: 1281.2–12: 2981.10.3: 1791.22: 2551.22.2: 771.22.4: 83,2021.22.6: 1991.23.1–3: 1791.89–117: 1312.2.1: 3502.43.1: 2412.68.3: 2982.102.5–6: 2983.12.1: 2233.40.2: 2233.49.3: 2244.17–20: 2214.59–64: 155(p.404) 4.81.2: 2234.108.2–3: 2235.90: 2245.98: 224

Timaeus(FGrHist566)F60: 343F71: 344F80: 344

Timocles

Index Locorum

F6K–A: 86–7ValeriusMaximus

2.7.15: 149VelleiusPaterculus

2.71.1: 179Xenophon

Ages.1.26: 163Anab.1.2.11: 167Anab.1.2.14–18: 168Anab.1.2.18: 168Anab.1.3: 167Anab.1.3.2: 171Anab.1.4.8: 172Anab.1.5.9: 174Anab.1.7.3: 168Anab.2.5: 175Anab.3.1.47–2.1: 171Anab.3.2.24: 171Anab.3.3.5: 175Anab.4.3: 166Anab.5.4: 168Anab.5.5: 170Anab.5.6: 172Anab.5.7.21: 171Anab.5.7.28: 171Anab.5.7.32: 171Anab.6.1–3: 170Anab.6.1.16: 167Anab.6.4.13–19: 167Anab.6.6.5–7: 171Anab.7.1: 170Anab.7.1.7: 165Anab.7.5–7: 167Anab.7.6.10: 171Hell.1.1.1: 165Hell.1.7.21: 241Hell.1.7.29: 252Hell.3.1.2: 163Hell.3.4.17: 163Hell.7.1.12: 252Hell.7.1.26: 252Hell.7.5.8–14: 164Hell.7.5.27: 164–5Mem.1.2.9–10: 252

ZenoofRhodes(FGrHist523)

Index Locorum

F1: 285F4: 282F5: 282F6: 282SeealsoFGrHist 533

Zonaras8.8: 149,150,1528.10: 1348.11: 133–48.12: 1368.16: 137,1388.17: 139,140,1558.20: 145,1468.22: 156

General Index

(p.405) GeneralIndexAlldatesareBCunlessotherwiseindicated.Datesgivenforconsulshipsreferonlytotheyearofanindividual’sfirstconsulship.Longsyllablesareonlymarkedinplaceswherethepronunciationmightotherwisebeunclear.

Abaeocritus,Boeotarch 267,268Abilyx,Iberianprince 184Abydos 168,183,323Acarnania(ns) 102,122,222Achaea(ns) 16,23,28,74–5,96,97,98,99,101,105,106,107,123,128,144,169,170,184,214,215,218,219,225,226,227,283,304,325,331,335,350,352AchaeanLeague 17,23,28,42,96,100,102,103,104,108,123,186,218,219,226,244,245,256,283,331AchaeanWar 148n.16,169,216,225n.44,245,256,269,340AchaemenidPersia seePersianEmpireAchaïa,Rhodianheroandcity 289,291,293Achelous,river 98,100Acropolis,Athenian 290,347Acropolis,Rhodian 299

General Index

Adcock,F.E. 23,55Adeimantus,Spartanephor 189AegatesIslands 139,160Aegeira 109AeliusTubero,Q.(tr.pl.130) 311n.19Aemilia 323,331AemiliusLepidus,M.(cos.187) 183,311n.19AemiliusPaullus,L.(cos.182) 215,220,221,225,229,256,308,310,312,316,317n.44Aenea 124Aeneas 124Aetolia(ns) 92,96,97,101,102,104,106,107,108,109,182,184,186n.17,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,197,198,276,325,329,330,331,333,349,350AetolianLeague 105,120–1Afghanistan 280seealsoBactriaAfrica 46,96,111,136,138,140,159,161,162,174,178,184,220,224,337,340,341,351Agamemnon 249Agathocles,courtierofPtolemyIVPhilopator 84–5Agathocles,tyrantofSicily 84,173,211AgelausofNaupactus 223Agesilaus,Spartanking 163,198Agetas,Aetoliangeneral 97agrarianproduction 328AgrippaII,KingofJudaea 257,262,263Albinus,procuratorofJudaea 261Alectrona 289–90Alexamenus 120AlexandertheGreat,ofMacedon 163,189,194,196,198,204,206,208,211,223,249,300,322AlexandertheIsian 183Alexander,Macedoniancavalrycommander 187Alexander,Macedoniancourtier 193Alexander,Seleucidrebel 185Alexandria 86,208,314,328AllSoulsCollege,Oxford,F.W.Walbank’sallergicreactionto 356Alps 323AlthaemenesofCrete 296ambassadors 25,45,102,108,110,139,149,152,154,171,175,178,183,184,186,187,221,223–4,225,226,227,228,249,250,259,284,302,311,316,330n.39,344n.34,347,348,349,350seealsodiplomacyAmbracia,Ambraciots 121–2amicitia 313–16seealsofriendship,philiaAmilus 107AmmonatSiwa 302Amphipolis 312n.28

General Index

Amyntas,Rhodiangeneral 302AnacreonofTeos 314anacyclosis 275Anderson,B. 338–9Antigonidkings 203,204,299AntigonusI 300,303AntigonusIIIDoson 93,95,182,187,188,191,193,205,206,210,211,217,218Antigonus,nephewofAntigonusIIIDoson 210Antioch 331AntiochusIII,Seleucidking 121,182,184,185,191,198,207,221,227,267,269,273,282,283,284,324,335,342,350,351(p.406) AntiochusIV,Seleucidking 209n.40,326AntiochusV,Seleucidking 186Antipater,ambassadorofAntiochusIII 221Antiphanes 88–9antiquarianism 237Antisthenes,Rhodianhistorian 281AntoniusM.(cos.99) 309Apamea,treatyof 271,284Apelles,Macedoniancourtier 79,97,99,191,192,193,194,196,197,203Aphrodite 288Apollo 288,296Apollodorus 342Apollonia-in-Sittacene 324Apollonius,Seleucidcourtier 186Appian 321Aquileia 322AratusofSicyon(theelder) 2,34,42,74–5,91–116,129n.14,147n.14,184,186,189,191,192,193,194,195,223,224;

Ephemerides,dailyjournals 111;Hypomnemata 30n.148,38n.2,74,91–116;HypomnemataasSyntaxis 93,95;personality 94;seealsoWalbank,F.W.,AratosofSicyon

AratustheYounger,sonofAratusofSicyon 97,115Arcadia 104,170,276Archaeologia,historicalaccountofprehistory 128,233,243n.52,284–98,304Archegetae,FoundersofRhodes 286,292,293Archimedes 183Archo 124Archon,Achaeanpolitician 219,225ArgeadkingsofMacedonia 204,206,209Argos,Argives 97,193,295,296Aristaenus 218,220n.25,226–7,228aristocracy 139,144,147,233,234,235,240,241–3,247,248–50,260,262,286,308–18

General Index

Ariston,Aetoliangeneral 184Aristotle 233,317–18;

Poetics 73–4,83,85–6,90army,Roman 234–6,237–40,242–3Artabazanes,ofAtropatene 182–3,324ArtemisLeukophryene 348Asia,AsiaMinor 112,221,227assemblies,

Achaean 101,103,104,108,109,110;Aetolian 105,106;amongTenThousand 171;Roman 137,138,139,148–56,235,237,249,250–2;Rhodian 293,301,303

Astin,A.E. 309astrology 290–1Astymedes,Rhodianambassador 225–6,228asylia 329Atabyrus,Mt. 296Athamania 124AthenaLindia 290,292,293,305Athenaeus 233,328n.33Athenagoras,Milesianmercenary 302Athens,Athenians 196,197,199n.49,221,222,223,224,248,252,274,311,314,347,350;

empire 8,21;politeia 243

AtiliusRegulus,M.(cos.267) 136,137,220AttalusI,ofPergamum 183,207,347,348,349,350Attica 290audienceforhistory 125–6,151,279,283seealsoFabiusPictor,Q.,Josephus,Polybius,ZenoAugustus,emperor 8,315Autaritus 170Babylon 316,328BacchylidesofCeos 314Bactria 322Baecula,battleof 186Balearicislands 169banquets 277barbarism 168,170n.50,175battles 327seealsoBaecula,Callicinus,Cannae,Chaeronea,Cynoscephalae,Drepana,Issus,Caïcus,Lade,Leuctra,Magnesia,Pydna,Raphia,Sellasia,Telamon,Trasimene,ZamaBaynes,N. 55Beirut 262

General Index

Benecke,P.V.M. 202beneficium 315–16Benjamin,Walter 340,342,349,352Bithynia 190BlackSea 172,184,331,332Bleckmann,B. 136,140–1Boeotia(ns) 35,267–78,323;

confederacy 270,272;courts 270,271;decadence 147n.14,267–78,323,335;pig 275

Bonner,S.F. 43,55–6booty 324,325,326Bostar,Carthaginiangeneral 184Bowra,C.M. 56BradfordGrammarSchool seeWalbank,F.W.,schoolingatBradfordGrammarSchoolBrunt,P.A. 238(p.407) Burckhardt,Jacob 126Bury,J.B. 181Byzantium,Byzantines 190,322,331,332Cadmus 291,294CaeciliusMetellusNumidicus,Q.(cos.109) 310n.19Caesar,JuliusseeJuliusCaesarCaesareaPhilippi 262Caïcus,battleof 347Calderone,S. 153Caligula,Gaius,emperor 261Callataÿ,F.de 327Callicinus,battleof 216,219Callicrates,Achaeanambassador 227,228Callimachus 293Callisthenes 162Camirus 286,292,293,296camp,military 239–40,242Campania 148,149,173,322seealsoMamertiniCannae,battleof 143,146,156,172n.59,174,178,232,234–6,243,251,343n.24cannibalism 167Caphyae 101,103,104,106,107,108,109capital,social 312capital,symbolic 311–12Capitolinehill,Rome 237–8Capua 322Caria 300,323CarneadesofCyrene,philosopher 154,311Cartagena seeNewCarthage

General Index

Carthage,Carthaginians 82,127,128,132,134,135,136,137,140,145,148,149,151,152,153,155,159–79,184,220,223,224,228,248,252,259,263,277,303,307–8,324,325,342–3,349,352;

affinitieswithRome 174,177;declineandfall 81,174–5,178,232;politeia 235

Carystus 123Cassander 302CassiusDio 133,134,136,138,139,140,141CassiusLonginus,C.(pr.44) 261CassiusVecellinus,Sp.(cos.502) 146cataclysms 297–8seealsoserpents,floodsCatotheElder seePorciusCato,M.cavalry,enrolmentof, 239Cecrops,Athenianking 290Celts 17,169,173,232,351Cephallenia 98,100Cercaphus,sonofHelios 289,291,292,293Chaeronea,battleof 222,347Chalcis 194,196,267Champion,C. 234,278Chankowski-Sablé,V. 334Charlesworth,M. 7n.32,46–7CharopsofEpirus 185Chios 331Chlaeneas,Aetolianambassador 222Cicero seeTulliusCicero,M.Cisalpina 322,328Cius 224clarity,inhistory-writing 19,82,199ClassicalAssociationofEnglandandWales 22–5,54,55Clastidium 145Claudius,emperor 261–2ClaudiusCaudex,Ap.(cos.264) 149–50,152ClaudiusMarcellus,M.(aed.cur.91) 310n.19ClaudiusMarcellus,M.(cos.222) 143,145,146,147,156ClaudiusQuadrigarius,Q.,historian 118Clearchus 163,167,171n.54,175Cleitor 104,106,108,109Cleomeneanwar 74,94,329CleomenesIIIofSparta 10,31,128n.14,326,352Cleon,Athenianpolitician 223clientela 250collectivememory 279–80comedy,itsdifficultiescontrastedwithtragedy 88–9

General Index

comitia seeassembliescommentariesonClassicaltexts 35,126–7seealsoGomme,A.W.,How,W.W.,andWells,J.,Walbank,F.W.,HistoricalCommentaryonPolybiusconcordiaordinum 252constitution,mixed, 233,237,239,240,243,248,250,252–3constitution seepoliteia,PolybiusBook6consuls,roleof 240,242–3,249,251continuators,historiographical 92,164–5,165n.30Corinth 99,103,110,186,188,190,195,197,260CorneliiScipiones 146,147,157,312CorneliusScipioAfricanusAemilianus,P.(cos.147) 81,182,187,215,220,225,263–4,277,307,308n.5,309,311–13,316,318CorneliusScipioAfricanus,P.(cos.205) 162,186,215,221,223,224,225,228,309,312CorneliusScipioAsina,Cn.(cos.260) 132–3,135CorneliusScipioCalvus,Cn.(cos.222) 145–6Corsica 322Coruncanii 330Coruncanius,Lucius 183(p.408) courts,law 270,272courts,royal 84,98,182,185,186,189–94,196,198,201,203–5,210,211,314Cratippus 92n.3CretanLeague 283Crete,Cretans 190,205,295,296,329Crinon,Macedoniancourtier 195Critolaus,Achaeanleader 216curia seesenate,Romancursushonorum 308,314n.34Cynaetha,Cynaetheans 104,106,107,108,109,111,184,276Cynoscephalae,battleof 118,221Cypselus,Corinthiantyrant 122Cyrbe seeAchaïaCyrene 311CyrustheYounger 162,163,167,168,171,172Cyzicus,Cyzicenes 331Dalmatia 259Danaus 293,294Daniel,Bookof 264Daphne 327Davies,J.K. 2,334decadence 267,268,269,277–8seealsodegenerationdecline seedecadence,degenerationDecius,Campanianmercenary 14,173degeneration 143,146,207;

Achaean 144;Boeotian 147n.14,267–78,323,335;

General Index

Carthaginian 174,178;ofPhilipV, 201–11;Roman 144,156,157,260seealsoRome,declineandfall

deisidaimonia,superstition 243seealsoreligionDelos 296Delphi 272Delphicoracle 19n.100,42DemetriusofPharus 97DemetriusI,Seleucidking 178,185–6DemetriusPoliorcetes 281,298,300,301,302,304Demetrius,Macedoniancourtier 192,194Demetrius,sonofPhilipV 183–84,202,205,206,209,210,211DemocedesofCroton 314n.34democracy 8,10,12,14,26,32n.161,233–4,240,247–50,252,277,303seealsoochlocracyDemophon 249Demosthenes,Athenianstatesman 196,222depopulation 276,323Derow,P.S. 349,352n.64DeSanctis,Gaetano 26–30,32,344Diaeus,Achaeanstrategos 216Diagoras,Rhodianaristocrat 286Diana(Artemis)ofAmarynthus 123dignitas 311–12DioCassius seeCassiusDioDiodorusSiculus 87,150,152,281,284–98,304,305,316n.42,321Diodotus,Athenianpolitician 223,224DionysiusThrax 87DionysiusofHalicarnassus 181,182,199Diphilus 89diplomacy 43,49,102,109,110,149–50,151,152,154,161n.14,183,217,220,221,223–9,259,270,280n.8,312,316,331,332,335seealsoambassadors,Polybius’Historiesasdiplomacydiscipline,military 242Dium 193divine seegod(s)documentaryevidence 300,302–3Dodona 193Dorimachus,Aetoliancommander 101,104,107–8,186n.17,188,189,192dramaasmetaphorforhistory 28,78Drepana,battleof 136,139Duilius,C.(cos.260) 132–3,134,135Dyme 98earthquakeof228/7 283,299,327Ecbatana 316

General Index

Echinus 322Eckstein,A. 149,150,152,153,224,228,276Ecnomus,Cape 136economy,Hellenistic 35,319–35Egypt,Egyptians 24,31,187,198,207,222,291,293,300,326,328Elis,Eleans 99,269Emathia 124,202embassies seeambassadorsemotions

inhistory 11,14,28,33,73,74,76,80–1,82,83,86,90,301;ofbarbarians 144,175n.73;infriendship 313–15;ofreader 73–5,86

enargeia seevividnessEnnius 311envoys seeambassadorsEpaminondasofThebes 243,275,277Eperatus 98ephebeia 279EphorusofCyme 162epieikeia,fairness,leniency 221,222,223,224,229Epirus,Epirotes 102,103,183,195,269equestrianorder 252(p.409) Eratosthenes 86,342Eretria(ns) 123,124,272n.21Errington,R.M. 94,97,98,100Eryx,Mt. 137ethnography 236Etruria 322EumenesIIofPergamum 221EupalinusofMegara 314n.34Euripidas,Aetoliangeneral 190Eurymedonvalley 327exemplum 312experience,ofthehistorian 83,113Fabian,J. 342FabiusMaximusAemilianus,Q.(cos.145) 308FabiusPictor,Q.,historian 131,132,134,135,137,140,142,148,151,152,312,343;

audience 151fable seemythFalisci 166n.35,176,177family,Roman 240–1Farrington,B. 16,45,53fascism 9–11,12n.61,13–14,15,18,21,24,26–7,339federalism 4,5,16–17,25,18n.138,32,35,41,42,222,275,331,335seealsoAchaean,

General Index

Aetolian,Boeotian,CretanLeagues,LeagueofNations,Walbank,F.W.,AchaeanLeagueFeeney,D. 342,343Felix,procuratorofJudaea 261Ferrary,J.-L. 224,227festivals 97,280,290,327Feyel,M. 267,268,269,270,271fiction,tragedydefinedas 88fides 152,153,228,315–16Flaminius,C.(tr.pl.232,cos.223) 143,145,146,147,156floods 288,291focalization 188,190,193,194,195,196,198,199judges,foreign 272seealsocourtslanguages,foreign 170Forsythe,G. 310fortune,reversalsof 17,43,74,76–7,81,83–5,135–6,137,209,220–1,256,263–5,301,308seealsotyche,Walbank,F.W.,roleoffortuneinlifeoffreedom 8–10,18,22,98,218,252,284,302,323friendship 223,307,311,313–15,317seealsoamicitia,philiaFulviusNobilior,M.(cos.189) 121funerals,Roman, 80–1,82,233,234,241,254,312GallicWar 130,146Gaul(s) 130,145–6,160,170,173,243n.47,248,322,323,324,341,343,347–8gaze,the 82,188n.23Gelzer,M. 128,132,151,318gens 314geography seeimperialism,Roman,Mediterranean,Polybiusandgeography,Walbank,F.W.,importanceofgeographyGermany,modern 10,17,21Gesco,Carthaginiangeneral 166,171,175GessiusFlorus,procuratorofJudaea 261Getty,R.andM. 45,55–6Gibbon,Edward 21–2Gibraltar 331Giovannini,A. 216glory, 241,243god(s) 202,207,209n.40,221,243,244,252,256–7,264,280,286,287,288,290,293,295,302,348Goddard(néGropius),E.H.(Ned) xvi,1,7n.33,40Gomme,A.W.,ThucydidesCommentaryasmodelforHCP 3,50,57–62,64Grandjean,C. 319–20‘greatestconflict’motif 179Greek

art 146,260,310,312,314;culturalinfluenceonRome 307–318;literature 310,312;

General Index

philosophy 307,308n.5,310,311–14,317;science 317

Greeks,characterof 240Hallward,B. 41–2HamilcarBarca 139,160,166,167,174–5,177Hammond,N.G.L. 71Hannibal,Carthaginiancommanderduring2ndPunicWar 77,146,160,186,196,221,232,235,243–4,313,324,351Hannibal,CarthaginiancommanderduringMercenaryWar 176Hannibalicwar, seePunicWar,2ndHanno,CarthaginiancommanderinSardiniaduringMercenaryWar 161,170Hasdrubal,CarthaginiancommanderinSpain(229–221) 160Hasdrubal,Carthaginiancommanderin3rdPunicwar 79,220HecataeusofMiletus 322(p.410) Helepolis,siegeengine 301Heliadae,childrenofHelios 286,288–93,305Heliopolis 291Helios,sun 286,288–90Hellenization 332Hellenism 307–18,esp.309–10Henderson,J. 3,15,26,30,35Heracleides,ambassadorofAntiochusIII 221Heracles 299HeraclidesCriticus/Creticus 271–2Hermias,Seleucidcourtier 185HerodtheGreat 261Herodotus 33,83–4,291,293HieroIofSyracuse 314HieroIIofSyracuse 148,149,152,173,177,184–5,187,225,351HieronymusofSyracuse 78,184–85Hipparchus,Athenian‘tyrant’ 314Hippo 138Hispania 322,323,328seealsoSpainhistory

andtragedy 74–6,88;inrelationshiptopoetry 73;andnarrativeofrealevents 90

Hobbes,Thomas 213Hölkeskamp,K.-J. 318Holleaux,M. 29,105Homer 176,295,296,301,306,308,329Horace(Q.HoratiusFlaccus) 315HoratiusCocles 241Hornblower,S. 273How,W.W.,andWells,J.,HerodotusCommentaryasmodelforHCP 3,47–50,59

General Index

Hoyos,B.D. 153hybris 223,224hydrography,ofBlackSea 184Hypomnemata,Memoirs 91,93–4seealsoAratusofSicyon,Walbank,F.W.Ialysus 286,292,293,294,305Iberia(ns) 169,173,184,223,328seealsoHispania,SpainIbycus 314IllyrianWar,1st 160,177,178Illyria(ns) 96,106,108,160,177,178,196,329,330imperialism,Roman 27,29,33,34,148,154,253,256,257,258,259,265,340,345;

culturaleffectsonRome 309,312,313;andtheMediterranean 340–6;resistanceto 221,222–4,232,255–65

indemnities 155,160,325–6Insubres 145intertextuality 34,162–72,268,273–4intratextuality 268–9,274Ipsus,battleof 332Iran 280,322Isocrates 163,234Isthmiangames 228Italy 112,130,250IuniusBrutus,L.(cos.509) 241Jacoby,F. 94Jerusalem 262–3seealsoTempleJews 255–65Jones,A.H.M. 2,21Josephus 34,255–65;

audience 256,259,264–5;comparedtoPolybius 255–65;criticismsofRome 260–3

Jotapata 262Judaea(ns) 256,261seealsoJewsjudiciallife,Boeotia 270,271JuliusCaesar,C.(cos.59) 286JupiterCapitolinus 343kalokagathia 222Koestler,Arthur 15n.78Lade,battleof 208,282Laelius,C. 186landscapes,economic 322landscapes,human 322–3Laqueur,R. 128Last,H. 55Lazenby,J.F. 161

General Index

LeagueofNations 5n.30,16–17seealsofederalismLeavis,F.R. 9n.42legati seeambassadorslegions,enrolmentof 237–9Leontius,Macedoniancourtier 97,98,193,194,195,197LesserAttalidDedication 347–8Leucas 122Leucothea 288Leuctra,battleof 274Libya(ns) 91,128,162,166–7,169,179,223,352LiciniusCrassus,L.(cos.95) 309–10LiciniusCrassus,M.(cos.70) 261LiciniusCrassus,P.(cos.171) 124Liguria(ns) 169,173Lilybaeum 169,173Limnaea 100,115,116‘Lindianchronicle’ 285,294,305,306Lindus 286,290,292,293,294seealsoAthenaLindiaLipara 132,134,136literacy 279Liverpool xvi,1,353,355–6;

University 15,30,38,43–6,54–6,356(p.411) Livy 34,146,152,202,269,321;

militaryservice 119;useofPolybius 117–24

logismos,reason 144Lusi 104Lusitania 322,323,328LutatiusCatulus,C.(cos.242) 138,139LutatiusCatulus,Q.(cos.102) 310n.19Lycia 284,288Lyciscus,Acarnanianambassador 222Lycortas,fatherofPolybius 187,219,222,223,225,229Lycurgus,Spartanlawgiver 249Lycurgus,Achaeancommander 195Lycus,hero 288Lysimachus 302Macedonia(ns) 30,96,97,99,103,108,117,120,128,182,184,188,189,190,192,194,195,196,201,203,208,210,211,216,217n.14,218,219,222,223,225,229,245,275,277,313–14,323,325,346,347,348,350;

court 201,203MacedonianWar,

1st 331,348;2nd 118;3rd 117,124,204,209,216–17,219,256,269,284,300,303

General Index

MacNeice,Louisv, 14–15Maecenas 315,317Maelius,Sp. 146Magnesia,battleof 221Magnesia-on-the-Maeander 348–9maiestaspopuliRomani 254maiores 314Malea,Cape 330Malis 322Malta 136,137Mamertini 34,140,143,148–57,160,173ManliusCapitolinus,M.(cos.392) 146ManliusTorquatus,T.(cos.347) 241manpower,military 327Mantinea(ns) 74–6,81MarciusCensorinus,L.(cos.149) 310n.19Marincola,J. 220MarmorParium 293n.59,350n.61MartinBrown,R, 309Mathos,leaderofmercenaries 168n.43,170–2,176McDonald,A.H. 44,63,66Media 322,324Mediolanum 145Mediteranean 141,206,219,224,283,317–18,337,340,341,342,345,348,349,350,352;

economy 319–35Megaleas,Macedoniancourtier 97,193,194,197Megalopolis 96,110,187,217megalopsychia 222,228Megara 186,314n.34Melos,Melians 224Memoirs seeAratusofSicyon,Hypomnemata,Walbank,F.W.,Hypomnematamercenaries 148,162,302,324,326;

asacommunity 171–2;ethnicity 168–70;families 172;lackofunity 168–70;languageusedtodescribe 166;leadership 169,171;notusedbyRome 172–3;pay 165,167,172;unreliability 173seealsoMamertini

MercenaryWar 130,159–79;conductofCarthaginianalliesinAfrica 159,166,167,169,174,179;Carthaginian'triumph'aftervictory 176;

General Index

causation 166;moralequivalenceofbelligerents 176–7;roleofRome 177–8;savagery 170–1,175–6,179;‘trucelesswar’ 159,171,175;uncertaindate 159seealsoPolybius,Sardinia,supplies

Messana 130,143,148,149,150,152,157,173Messene,Messenia 101,102,104,105,108,123,188,189n.28,192,194,282,329Millar,F. 317–318mob-rule seeochlocracyMolon,Seleucidrebel 80,185,324Momigliano,A. 2,7n.33,21,24n.119,48–9Mommsen,T. 139,318monarchy 95,117,201,203,205,208,210,211,217,248–9,264,314,332–3Moore,J.M.,possibleeditorofPolybiusOxfordText 63Moschion, 88Mossynoeci 168motivationforwar

Greek 256;Jewish 256,261

Mountford,J.F. 19,43–4,46,54–6movement,human 323–4MuciusScaevola,Q.,augur(cos.117) 309–10MuciusScaevola,Q.,pontifex(cos.95) 309Mummius,L.(cos.146) 215,229Münzer,F. 145–6,147MuseionofAlexandria 314Mylae 135(p.412) Mysia 347myth 77,280,286–98,304,329;

tragedydefinedas 88mythicalagesofRhodianprehistory 286–98,304Mytilene,Mytileneans 223,224,331Nabis,rulerofSparta 120,282,283narratology 188n.23seealsofocalizationNationalSocialism 18,21seealsofascism,Walbank,F.W.,fascismNaupactus,peaceof 95,205,330,349navalpower 283;

Achaean 331;Carthaginian 149;Roman 132–8,232

Nebuchadnezzar 264NemeanGames 97NeoptolemusofParium, 86Nero,emperor 261

General Index

NewAcademy 311NewCarthage 162,186,322,325,328,331Nicolet,C. 277nightwatch,Roman 242nobiles, 235nobility,Roman 307,311–13,317–18nouihomines 235Numidia(ns) 259Ochimus,sonofHelios 289,291,293ochlocracy 144,252,275seealsodemocracyOctavius,Cn.(cos.165) 177,186,225,310n.17OctoberHorse,Romanfestival 184Odysseus 33officium 315–16oikoumene,inhabitedworld 111,337,340–1,345seealsoPolybius,geographicalrangeofHistoriesoligarchy 252–3Olygyrtus 107Olympia 104Olympiads 95,341,344,345;

140th 91–116,337,340,345Onesimus,Macedoniancourtier 204Onians,R.B. 43oracles 296,297,298,302,348seealsoDelphicoracleOrchomenus 104,107Ormerod,H.A. 56Oropus 272n.21Ostia 133,233otiumcumdignitate 313OxfordUniversity 47,49,56n.12,60;

Press 3,37–9,46–72;Oxus,river 322Paeonia 124paideia 307–18Palus 194,195Pamphylia 327Pan 282Panaetius 313,316,317Patrae 104patricians 235patrocinium 314–16patronage 235Pausanias 347Pédech,P. 103,202,203,204,234Pednelissus 325,327

General Index

Pelagonia 330Pella 325Pellene 104,107,108Pelopidas 243,275Peloponnese 91,104,107,188,190,191,192,196,197,296,319people,Roman,roleof, 240,243,250–3seealsomaiestaspopuliromaniPergameneAltar 447Pergamum 207,221,333,347,348peripeteiai seefortune,reversalsofPerrin-Saminadayar,E. 274Perseus,kingofMacedon 183,203,204,208,210,211,216–17,220,283,284,314,331,350PersianEmpire 163–4,168,171,174,178,332Persians 341,347–8PerusineWar 119Peterhouse,Cambridge xvi,4seealsoWalbank,F.W.,Cambridgestudentphalanx 118–19Pharae 104Pheneus 107,108Phigaleia 101,104Philhellenism 309–10philia 223,313–17seealsoamicitia,friendshipPhilinusofAgrigentum 131,132,134,135,142,148,151,152,159,344Philinustreaty 151PhilipIIofMacedon 163,189n.27,194,196,198,204,208,209,211,217,222,224PhilipVofMacedon 35,94,97,98,99,100,102,103,106,109,111,118,123–4,181–199,201–11,217,218,219,222,223,224,235,244,268,273,282,283,284,325,330,335,342,347,349,350;

andAlexandertheGreat 196;alliancewithAntiochusIII 185;attackonMessene 189n.28,192,194;attackonThermum 189n.28,194,195,196;andsonDemetrius 183–4;andPhilipII 194,204,206,208,222;(p.413) speedasmilitaryleader 189,190,195,196;tragicfigure 182,201–11treatmentofSparta 182;asyouthfulfigure 188–98seealsoWalbank,F.W.,PhilipV

Philocles,Macedoniancourtier 203Philodemus, 86Philopoemen 123,183,187,223,224,226–7Phocia 100Phoenicians 291,294,305Phorbas 295,296n.66,305Phylarchus 34,73–90,325

General Index

Pindar 275,286,288,290,314piracy 103,138,177,178,300,302,303,329n.36,330Pisidia 325Plato 9,233,317plebeians 235Plutarch 32n.163,81–2,311,313,321Povalley 322poetry,distinguishedfromhistory, 86politeia 144–5,156;

meaningof 233–4;Rhodian 300,303;Roman 231–54seealsoPolybiusBook 6

Polybius140thOlympiad 91–116;

andAratusofSicyon 91–116;audience 147,150,154,157,236–7,245,247–54,256,259,263,265,320,345;onautopsy 113,201,238,255,281;Boeotia 35,267–78;Book6 3,34,41,156,167,170,172–6,178,231–54,275,317–18,335,351;captivityinItaly 154,203,256,316;causation 160–2,163,166,198;continuationofHistoriesafter167164–5;criticismsofRome 236,244–5,258–60;DeSanctis,Gaetano,on 26–7;ethnicity,approachesto 168–9;

genesisofHistories 30–1;geographicalrange 93,95,112,322,337–58;geography 35,77,122,176n.79,282,322,335;Historiesasdiplomacy 213–29;andHomer 176;onindividualinrelationtohissociety 147;andJosephus 255–65;literarystyle 181–2;andLivy 117–24;modernstudyof 25–6,33–5;onmonarchy 205;

onoldage 182–3;omissions 235–6,247–54;patternsinhisHistories 144,148;andPlato 162;polemic 33,128n.14,155n.44,184,202,232,255,281,282;prokataskeuē 92,125–42,150,152n.27,165n.30;receptionof 35;religion 33,35,79;andScipioniccircle 307–18;

General Index

sourcesfor 91–116,148,159,238,343;asasourceofeconomicdata 319–35;survivalof 232–3;symploke 93,96,111,112,206,337–52;andThucydides 162;onTimaeus 80,83,343;ontime 339–52;tragichistory 73–90;ontruthinhistory 147n.15,216;andXenophon 162–72;onyouthfulleaders 183–8;andZenoofRhodes 281–3,298,304seealsoWalbank,F.W.

PolycratesofSamos 314PolyzelusofRhodes 296n.66,305pompafunebris seefunerals,RomanPompeiusMagnus,Cn.(cos.70) 260–1PontiusPilate 261PopilliusLaenas,C.(cos.172) 225popularsovereignty 251populations,evidencefor 327PorciusCato,M.(cos.195) 126,242,311–12portaCapena 146Poseidon 287,288,294Posidonius 92n.3praiseasvehicleforadvice 225Préaux,C. 278presenttense,anachronisticuseof 122–4Prinassus 323propheciesofRome’send 264–5PrusiasIofBithynia 96PrusiasIIofBithynia 209,259,326Ptolemaeus,Macedoniancourtier 197Ptolemies 198,207,211seealsoindividualPtolemiesbelowPtolemyI 299,300,305,314PtolemyIIIEuergetes 93,95PtolemyIVPhilopator 84,191,198,282,314n.35,331,342,349,350PtolemyV 185,222PunicWar

1st 130,131,132,134,137,140,149,150,152,154,155,156,160–1,169,177,187,325,331,344;2nd 82,92,112,117,128,129,130,132,145,146,160–2,163,183–4,247,252,351;3rd 154,178

punishment 242Pydna,battleof 119,129,229,312–13

General Index

(p.414) Pylos 110Pyrrhus 130,149,150,285n.17,342–3,352quantificationinancienteconomichistory 327QuinctiusFlamininus,T.(cos.198) 118,183–4,218,219,221,228,312,330Raphia,battleof 184,324Rawson,E. 238,242readershipforhistory seeaudienceReger,G. 334religion 9,11,24,35,146,193–4;

Roman 79,233,243,252,254seealsotyche,god(s)revolutions 339Rhegium 130,149,152Rhium 104,106,107,108Rhodes,Rhodian(s) 190,207,225–6,227,228,279–306,327,331,332,333,348,350;

Colossus 299;mythicalprehistory 280,284–98;asoriginofEgyptianwisdom 291

Rhodos,city 281,290,294n.64,297;siegeof 281,298–303,304

Rhodos,nymph 286n.32,287,288,289Rhone,river 324Roesch,P. 272Rome,Romans 127,130,132,136,218,219,223,225,226,227,228,229,307,309,311,312,313,315–17,318;

army 234–40,242–3,248;asbarbarians 244;constitution 145,231–54seealsoPolybiusBook6benefitstosubjectpeoples 258;declineandfall 7n.34,9–11,21,22,24;asdemocracy 247,317–8;successof 231,235–6,244–5seealsofunerals,imperialism,maiestaspopuliRomani,navalpower,people,religion,senate

Rostovtzeff,M. 5n.36,7n.32,11n.55,14,17–18,25n.129,54,268,320Sabinus,procuratorofJudaea 261Saguntum 196,331SainteCroix,G.E.M.de 7n.34,22Salii 233Samnium 322Samos 314Sardinia 155;

duringtheMercenaryWar 161;takenbyRomansfromCarthageafterMercenaryWar 160,161,177,178

Scerdilaidas,Illyrianking 106,190,330Schachermeyr,W. 18Schweighauser,I. 25

General Index

Scipio seeCorneliusScipioScipionicCircle 307,309,310Scopas,Aetolianleader 104,105,188Scopas,Ptolemaiccourtier 185Scott,J. 214Segesta 133,134Seleucia-in-Pieria 327Seleucids 185,186,198,211,227,259,282seealsoAntiochusIII,AntiochusIV,AntiochusV,DemetriusI,SeleucusIIISeleucusIIICeraunus 93,95Selge 325,327Sellasia,battleof 94,187SemproniusGracchus,Ti.(tr.pl.133) 309senate,Roman 148,153,154–7,249–52,284,347;

rejectsransomdemand 244;roleof, 240,243

serpents,plagueof 292,294,296settlementpatterns 322Sicily,Sicilians 128,130,133,136,138,143,151,154,156,157,169,232,328Sicyon 100,104,107,108Sinope 190Sisenna,historian 122Siwa 302slavetrade 323SocialWar 91–2,94,95,100,102,110,111,112,188,190,191,193,197,331,332sons,executionof 241,242,244Spain 44,92–3,160,162,184,186–7,196,224,232,242n.44,248,327,328,340–2,351seealsoHispaniaSparta,Spartans 7,9–10,15,23,102,103,108,109,169,182,186n.17,188,189,190,192,194,195,196,221,222,223,249,253,282,319,352speechesinhistory 73Spendius,leaderofmercenaries 168n.43,170–2,173,175–6Spengler,Oswald 7n.33,40Sphacteria 221starvation 167seealsocannibalism,suppliesstasis 314statues 288,293,302–3,347StephanusofByzantium 233Stier,H. 18,28Stoa 316stoning 170–1Strabo 322Strasburger,H. 309–10Stymphalus 107(p.415) SulpiciusGalus,C.(cos.166) 310n.17SulpiciusRufus,Ser.(cos.51) 8

General Index

supplies 167Syme,R. 2,20,21,33,47,49–51,56n.12,61,247symploke 96,111–12,206,337–52seealsoPolybius,symploke,Walbank,F.W.,‘Symploke’synchronisms 95,102,342–3,350Syracuse 146,148,150,152,183,312,314Syria(ns) 112,259Syrianwar,4th 92,331Tacitus 188n.21,191–2n.35;

HistoriesaspossibletopicforF.W.Walbank 19–20,46–7,50–2,56n.12Tanais,river 322Taras 324,331Tarentinewar 130Taurion,Macedoniancourtier 193Telamon,battleof 145Telchines,childrenofThalatta 286,287,288TempleinJerusalem 260–1,262,263Tenages 289,290Teuta,queenofIllyria 183,330Thebes,Thebans 189,196,223,248,252,267,269,271,274;

constitution 243,275Themistocles 243TheopompusofChios 92n.3Theoxena 124Thermum 98,100,104,189n.28,194,195,196,222Theseus 249Thessaly,Thessalians 97,118,123–4,195,295,296Thompson,Dorothy 353–4,357Thrace,Thracians 123ThrasycratesofRhodes 330Thucydides 77,81–4,92n.3,94,126,128,131,142,162,165,202,223,224,255,298,321Tiber,river 311,315Tiberius,emperor 261TimaeusofTauromenium 80,83,343,130,155n.44,184,238,343,344time,conceptionsofinhistory 338–52Timocles,comicpoet 86–7Titus,emperor 257,262–3Tlepolemus,sonofHeracles 295,296,297topography 4–5,77–8tragedy 86–7,88seealsodramatragichistory 44,73–90,202–3Tränkle,H. 118,121–2transcript,hiddenorpublic 214–15,218,225–6,228–9Trasimene,battleof 97

General Index

treaties 25,44,95,139,140,150,151,155,175,177,184,205,207,227,250,251,253,254,271,284,293,302,303,326,329,330,343,349,350Treves,P. 16Triballians 196tribunes,military 237–8,242–3tribunesofthepeople 251seealsopeople,RomanTriopas 305Tritaea 104triumph 137,176,251TrojanWar 176,184,285,296,297,304,306Troy 297,307truthinhistory 74,76–8TulliusCicero,M.(cos.63) 8,12,247,307,309,310,313tyche 30–1,93,95,144,203,207n.34,209,215,220,221,228,256–7,258,264,270,337seealsoWalbank,F.W.,roleoffortuneinlifeofTyndaris 136Ullrich,H. 283Utica 155,177Uxellodunum 27ValeriusAntias,historian 117VentidiusCumanus,procuratorofJudaea 261Ventris,Michael 354Venusia 146Vespasian,emperor 257,262Virgil,Georgics 30,43–4virtus 308,310vividness 81–3Walbank,Dorothy seeThompson,DorothyWalbank,F.W. 1–72,182,271,320,353–8;

AchaeanLeague 16,23,28;BritishCommunistParty 5n.30,37,45,53–4;Cambridgestudent: xvi,4,26,41–3;DeSanctis,Gaetano 26–30,32;fascism 9–11,17–18,21,24,26;federalism 4,5,16–17,25,32,41;geography,importanceof 4–5;Liverpoolcareer 37–8,43–6,54–6,353,355,356;natureofhistory 5,7,11–12,18–19,25–33,358;politicalcommitment 5,9n.44,12–33,44–5,353–4;relationshipoflifeandwork 3,5–7,12–13,16,35,71–2,353–8;(p.416) relationshipwithPolybius xvi,1–5,15,19–21,28–30,32–3;retirementtoCambridge 70,357;roleoffortuneinlifeof 19–20,29–31,40,43;schoolingatBradfordGrammarSchool xvi,7n.33,12n.48,30,39–40,42,47;SecondWorldWar 8,15,23,45–6,54;

General Index

Tacitus,Histories: 19–20,46–7,50–2,56n.12;travels 4,16n.85,33n.169,41–2;UnitedStates 21,29;AratosofSicyon 1,2,4,15–16,18–19,27n.137,29,31,42–4,47,91;AwfulRevolution 21–2,54n.8;CambridgeAncientHistory 2,13,17–18;‘ThecausesofGreekdecline’ 7,8,10,14,20,23,26,28,54;DeclineoftheRomanEmpireintheWest 7,11,12–13,15–16,20,21–2,25,45,53–4;HellenisticWorld 2,23–5;HistoricalCommentaryonPolybius 1,2,15,17–18,37–72,91,94,121,127–9,140,159,161–2,213,226,238–9,344,353,356–7;‘Historyandtragedy’ 88,90;HistoryofMacedonia 71;Hypomnemata 1,4–5,7–8,9,12,15–16,19–21,26,30–31,37–48,52–6;‘Theideaofdecline’ 276,278;‘IsourRomanhistoryteachingreactionary?’ 7,11–12,14,54;‘OlympichusofAlinda’ 19;‘PhilipposTragoidoumenos’ 182,201–11;PhilipV 2,31,44–6,47;‘Polybius,Philinus,andtheFirstPunicWar’ 132,135,142;‘TheProblemofGreeknationality’ 27,29–30,32;‘SocialrevolutionatSparta’ 7,9–10,15,23;‘SupernaturalPhenomena’ 144;‘Symploke’ 337;

Walbank,Mary 5n.30,9n.44,16,44,55n.99,353–7Walsh,P.G. 117–19,123Weber,Max 318Williams,Philip,unpublishedPolybiusedition 49n.7writing,originsof 291Xanthippus 136,169Xanthusvalley 287Xenoetas 80Xenophon 34,92n.3,94,198,233;

Nachleben 162;andPolybius 162–72;'ThemistogenestheSyracusan' 163

Xerxes,atAbydos 168Yahweh 258seealsogodsZama,battleof 186ZenoofRhodes 34,216n.9,279–306;

audience 283;andPolybius 281–3,298,304

Zetzel,J. 309Zeus 305;

General Index

Atabyrius 295,296Zeuxis,Seleucidofficialandambassador 221,324Zonaras 133,134,136,138,139,140,141

Notes:

(2)These‘memoirs’willhavebeensotitledafterAratus’ownwork,whereintheauthorplayedeyewitnessandparticipant,providingPolybiuswithhisown‘starting-point’bothchronotopicallyandgenerically,andprovidingFWWwithhisfirstbookand,inthesememoirs,hisown‘starting-points’inandonautobiography:thisishowcomePolybiusattheoutsetdubshisownworkhupomnemata(1.1.1,etc:seen.adloc.,withMarincola1997:180).OnPolybiusandAratus,seefurtherMeadows,ch.4,inthisvolume.

(3)Walbank,HCPi.43on1.3.2:‘InmakinghimselfAratus’continuatorP.followedanestablishedtradition.AmongThucydides’continuatorswereXenophon(Hell.i.1),Theopompos(P.viii.11.3),andCratippus(Dion.Hal.Thuc.16);andXenophonanticipatesacontinuator(Hell.vii.5.27).’Polybius,too,wouldbecontinuedbyPosidonius:FGrHist91T2(ἰστέονὅτιδιαδέχεταιτὴνΠολυβίουἱστορίανΠοσειδώνιος)withClarke1999:144–5,thoughnotethecautionofYarrow2006:161–2.

(5)Plb.38.22.2;Hom.Il.6.448.Theepisode,whichisalsopasseddownbyDiod.32.24andApp.Pun.132(bothreferringtoPolybiusbutgivingdifferentversions),hasbeenwidelydiscussedinrecentscholarship:accordingtoMommsen1902–4:ii.37–8,ScipiofearedretributionforthedestructionofCarthage.ThisviewisstillfollowedbyMiles2010:346–7.Gehrke1996:536–7,followingWalbank,HCPi.722–5on38.21.1–3,viewsScipio’squotingHomeras‘eineSensibilitätfürdiemenschlichenWechselfälle’owingtotheinfluenceofGreekphilosophicalthinkingand,inthecaseofScipioAemilianus,mediatedthroughPolybius.Gehrke(p.537)seeshereatleastrudimentsofapolicyofthoughtfulness(‘denAnsatzgebenzueinerPolitikderNachdenklichkeit’).Othersaremoresceptical:Zahrnt2002:94suspectsthatScipio’stearsmaywellhaveflowedfromPolybius’penandpointstoPlb.8.20.9–10,whereanothervictoriousleader(AntiochusIII)shedstearsinthefaceofadefeatedenemy(Achaius).OnweepingandtearsastopoiinHellenistichistoriography,nowLateiner2009:122(withreferencetoScipioandPolybius).

(7)AtthisthesolepointofcontextualizationoftheproposalfortheCommentarywithinthehistoryofPolybiusscholarship,Ishouldmention(asthePressdidnot)thecuriosityofthegrandeditionwithErnesti’stextplusparallelLatintranslation,apparatus,andcriticalannotationes,bytheRevd.PhilipWilliams(1742–1830)whichwasprintedbutneverpublishedbyOUP’spredecessor:pp.1–642,BooksI–XVII;645–8,Prooemium;649–808,EPolybiihistoriisexcerptaelegationes;809–888,ExcerptaexPolybiodevirtutibusetvitiis;889–998,Polybiifragmenta;989–1008,HistoriaeUniversaePolybiisynopsischronologica.ThecopyinWinchesterCollege,broughttooureditors’attentionbyBarryShurlock(cf.his1986)aseditorof‘TheWilliamsPapers’,isbeingstudiedbyStray(forthcoming),fromwhomIbutgarblethisnote.WilliamshadbeenatworkonhisfolioPolybius(originallyusingCasaubon’stext)sincewellbefore1772whenthePress

General Index

enquiredintohisprogresssofar,withnegotiationsatOUPhottingupthrough1783,butascompletionnearedin1798(whenWilliamswasthenewprebendaryofWinchesterandhisfirst-bornjustupatNewCollege),withdiscussionfocusingonsingleormultiplevolumeformattingandthelike,thepublicationofSchweighäuser’sIndexin700+pages(1795;volume1:1789)intervened:despiterepeatoutlaytowardsafarmed-outindextheDelegatespulledtheplugon2April1804.

(8)AfamousexamplefortheuseofhistoricalargumentsinHellenisticinterstatediplomacyisthearbitrationbetweenPrieneandMiletosinwhichthejurywascomposedofRhodians:I.Priene37=Syll.3599,discussedbyCurty1989.AninvaluablecollectionofepigraphicalsourcesonwhatmightbecalledkinshipdiplomacyisprovidedbyCurty1995.

(8)‘In1962IwasapproachedbyIwanamiShotentoauthoriseaJapaneseeditionandItoldthemthatIhad…additionalmaterial,whichtheycoulduse.Soin1963theJapaneseenlargedversionwaspublished.In1969theLiverpoolUniversityPressbroughtoutanewEnglishedition(theoriginalpublishershavingrelinquishedthecopyrighttome),incorporatingthenewmaterial.TodistinguishitfromthesmalleroriginalIgaveitthenewtitleofTheAwfulRevolution,whichwasintendedtorecallGibbon’sremarkthatweshould“learnthelessonsofthisawfulrevolution”.TherewerelaterSpanishandSwedisheditions;andIwanamiShotenwentonpayingmeroyaltiesforabout25yearsandsoldinallover13,000copiesinJapan.’(1992a:189)

(9)NolessthanintheworkofZenoofRhodes,analysedbyWiemer2001(cf.Thornton2004:516–17);seealsoWiemerinthisvolume.

(12)Butforacomicmomentin1946whereSisamunsubtlywardsoffanofferedcommentaryonTacitus’HistoriesfromK.Brink,warningFWWoffcollaboration,andsignsoff(31January):‘Ihopeyouaregettingonwiththegreatwork.Symeisnowback,andtherearesignsofarevivalinourOxfordSchoolofRomanHistory’.He‘hadtemporarilyforgottenthatPolybiuscamefirstinyourdoubleplan,but“was”gladyouwrote,becauseIdon’tthinkSymehaschangedhismindabouttheHistories(hehasmanyotherthingsonhand),sowehopeyouwillgoontodothatwhenPolybiusisdone.Thereisnohurry,butweareanxiousthatthefieldshouldbeoccupied’.(7February).Frankquips,‘Ifeltnodesireatthatpoint[1979]toreturntoTacitus’Histories.…’(1992a:187).Plusthequietusin1961,‘unawareoftheseearliertentativesandwithProfessorSyme’sadvice,wehaveaskedMr.ChilverandMr.WellesleyofEdinburghtocollaborateonacommentary.Ithoughtyououghttobetoldofthisatonce,sinceitmayaffectyourmorelongdistantplans.…Iwonderifyouwouldbewillingtoputit[‘materialtowardstheTacituscommentary’]atthedisposalofMr.Chilver?’,cappedincrassnessbythefollow-up:‘IamgladthatourTacitusplansarenotprovingawkwardforyou.Idonotthinkweneedtroubleyouforthematerialyouhadcollected;IimaginemostofitChilverwillalreadyhavenoted.Butitiskindofyoutooffer.’(D.M.Davin,16and20February).

(14)Cf.HCPi.181.ThecriticismofPhylarchusintheHellenicintroduction(2.56–63)isan

General Index

exceptionalcase.AsWalbankhasindicated,Polybius’polemicagainsthimwasnotonlyinspiredbyPhylarchus’ethosas‘tragic’historianbutalsobyhispartisanshipforCleomenesagainstAratus.Thus,thedigressionisapowerfulpoliticalstatement,forwhichtherewasnootherplacethantheHellenicintroduction.SeealsoJohnMarincola’scontributioninthisvolume.

(14)Plb.6.47.3–5.Conversely,itistruethatforPolybius,wherestrongindividualsareinpower,changesintheirdispositionscanresultinchangesinthenatureoftheirstates:see9.23.8–9;cf.4.2.10–11,withChampion2004a:103–5.Suchcases,however,appeartobemoreorlessconfinedforPolybiustomonarchiesorpoliteiaiinadecadentconditiontobeginwith(e.g.Boeotia,Aetolia).Forthewell-orderedstateofAchaea,atanyrate,PolybiusfeelscompelledtodigressonindividualpsychologyinordertoexplainAratusofSicyon’sdeviationsfromAchaeancollectivecharacter(4.8.1–12).Heconcedesthatrareindividuals,whoarepoliticallyandmorallysuperiortotheircontemporaries,canariseinstatesalreadyindecline;seeChampion2004a:146–51,158–63.

(14)SeeWalbank,HCPi.148–50forthechronologyofthewarandthedateoftheRomanannexation:WalbanksuggeststhatitispossiblethattheRomanexpeditiontookplacein238/7,whileTi.SemproniusGracchuswasstillconsul,thoughEutr.3.2putsitinthefollowingyear,whichmightimplythatthediplomacytookplacesoastogiveafinalsettlementin237/36.SeealsoHoyos2007:249–52,276,whodatesthediplomaticcrisistoMarch–April237.

(14)OntherelationsbetweenMegalopolisandMacedonia,seeEckstein1987b:145,andcf.Liv.32.22.8–12.

(15)ForPolybius’ideasonthemaincriterionoftruthinhistoricalwriting,seePlb.1.14.6–9andassembledreferencesatChampion2004a:22n.30.

(16)Interestingly,Polybiusgivesanother‘firststep’whenhereportsthenewsofthefallofAgrigentumearlyin261(1.20.1–2).HerepresentsthearrivalofthenewsatRomeasthemomentwhenthesenatefirstbegantothinkofendingtheCarthaginianpresenceinSicily.Consequently,theideathattheRomansweremerelyhelpingtheMamertinesin264,withnoimperialdesigns,isreinforced.Forhistoricalreconstructionsofthepreliminariestoandoutbreakofthewar,seee.g.Hoffmann1969,Petzold1969:129–79,Hampl1972:413–27,Rich1976:119–27,Eckstein1980,Hoyos1984,Eckstein1987a:73–101,Scullard1989:537–45,Lazenby1996:11–42,Hoyos1998:33–99.ForRome’simperialexpansioninthisperiod,see(fromamongavastliterature)Errington1971,Harris1979,Gruen1984,Ferrary1988,Hoyos1998,andnowEckstein2008.Kallet-Marx1995isindispensablefortheperiodfromtheAchaeanWartotheascendancyofCn.PompeiusMagnus.

(17)Other‘young’leaders—notallofthemfavouritesofPolybius,buthighachievers—includeHannibal(3.15.6),hisbrotherMago(3.71.6),theAetolianDorimachus(4.3.5),SeleucusIII(4.48.7),AgathoclesofSyracuse(15.35.1),thePtolemaicadvisersTlepolemus(16.21.1),Sosibius(16.22.2),andPolycrates(18.55.5),Flamininus(18.12.

General Index

5),theSpartansAgesipolis(23.6.1)andChaeron(24.7.1),FabiusMaximus(29.14.2),thefutureAttalusIII(33.18.1).

(17)Gruen1984:268–9listsnumerousRomancommanders,fromL.AemiliusPaullustoC.SulpiciusGalus,fromCn.OctaviustoL.LiciniusCrassus,withwhomGreekπαιδείαandprofounderuditiondidnottranslateintophilhellenisminpoliticis.

(17)ItseemsunlikelythatPolybiushadconsultedtheletterofthecommandingRhodianadmiral(cf.n.13)himself,ashehadneithermotivenoropportunitytodoso;Polybiusdidnotdeemitnecessarytobasehispolemicagainstotherhistoriographersonindependentevidence,andthenotionthataforeignerhadaccesstotheRhodianPrytaneionishardtosquarewithwhatweknowaboutHellenisticarchives:seeWiemer2001:22–4.

(19)Gruen1992:251listsL.MarciusCensorinus,Q.LutatiusCatulus,Q.AeliusTubero,M.AemiliusLepidus,Q.MuciusScaevola,Q.MetellusNumidicus,andM.ClaudiusMarcellusas‘RomanaristocratswithsincereinterestinHellenismandnotableaccomplishmentinthatsphere’.

(21)Ibid.407–8.Roeschofferssevenexamplesfromwhichweshouldinfactremovethetwodecreesof‘ThebesforthejudgesofOropus’thatwerepublishedlateronthebasisoftheRoescharchivesin1993.Gauthier1993hasdemonstratedthattheseinscriptionsnotonlybelongtooneinscriptionbutarealsopartofanEretriandecreehonouringOropianjudgeswhohavecometoThebestoruleonpendingtrialsbetweentheBoeotianandEuboeancitieswhoarelinkedbyasymbolon,i.e.ajudicialagreement.

(21)O’Gorman2000:13presentsasimilar,althoughmorecomplicated,networkofrelationshipsinTacitus:‘Tacitus’readerfollowsthecharacters(sometimesthenarrator)intheactofreading,notalwayscomingtothesameconclusion;thedifferencesaswellastheparallelsaresuggestive.Inparticular,Tacituscontinuallyrepresentshischaractersintheactofmisreading…’.Fordetailedanalysis,seeO’Gorman2000:81–97.SeetooMiltsios2009:492–8on‘illusoryexpectations’inPolybius.

(23)Theterminologyofnarratologyisnowfamiliarinclassicalscholarship.Davidson’s(1991:10–11)choiceof‘gaze’asopposedto‘focalization’doesreflecthisconcernwithPolybius’visualpresentationofperspective,butdoesnotreallymakehisanalysisanylessnarratological;andmostnolongersharehisworryaboutapplyinganarratologicalapproachtoahistoricaltext:seee.g.S.Hornblower1994:131–66,Rood1998(whichisisaparticularlygoodexampleofthefull-scaleapplicationofnarratologytohistoriography),Miltsios2009.OneofthemostinterestingandrevealingdiscussionsoffocalizationremainsFowler1990.ThebasicworkcitedonnarratologyisnowusuallyBal1997,butamuchmoreattractiveintroductionisGenette1980.

(24)Itisnonethelessstrikingthatthisjourneybeginswithasetback,andamorecomprehensiveoneinPolybius’versionthanthelaterRomantraditionontheSackofRomesuggests(Williams2001:143).BruceGibsonpointsouttomethatthereisacomparable‘narrativesynchronism’intheuseofCannaeasthedateatwhichtointerrupt

General Index

thehistoricalnarrativeforthediscussionoftheexcellenceoftheRomanconstitution(5.111.8–10;cf.6.58fortheRomanexploitationoftheirowndefeatthere).

(25)ConcerningtheimportancethatPolybiusattributestotheusefulnessoflearningfromthemistakesofothers,somethingtowhichhealreadyrefersin1.1.1–2(cf.Marincola2001:147),seealso3.62–3,andthewordsattributedtoAristaenusinLiv.32.21.29(satisexemplorumnobiscladesalienaepraebent:nequaeramusquemadmodumceterisexemplosimus).Significantly,thissamethemealsoappearsinDiod.1.1;foritsearlieroccurrencesinGreekliterature,seePani2001:74n.41.

(27)SeeDreyerinthisvolume(pp.204,206–9)fordiscussionoftheparallelsPolybiusdrawsbetweenthefamilyofPhilipIIandthatofPhilipV.

(27)SeeWalbank,HCPi.65on1.14.1;theperverseattempttoreversethisreasoningatLaqueur1938:col.1283mustberejected.IntheprokataskeuēPolybiuswasdependentonthechronologicalmethodsusedbyhissources;seeErrington1967b.

(28)TheagonesofAmphipoliswere,however,clearlyframedbyelementsoftheRomanludicritual,thussendingaclearmessagetotheGreeksastowhowasnowinpower(Flaig2000:139–40).

(28)Theresponsibilityforcourtiersinfluencingthedecisionofyoungkingsisamatterraisedontwofurtheroccasions:Philip’sattacksonThermum(5.9–12)andMessene(7.11–14).Seebelowfordiscussion.

(30)Forthecomplextraditionsofcontinuationofearlierhistoricalworksinancienthistoriography,seeMarincola1997:237–57;cf.Rood2004boncontinuationsofThucydides.ForPolybius’ownroleasacontinuator,seealso1.3.1–2and4.2.1,onstartingthemainnarrativefromtheendofAratusofSicyon’sworkatthebeginningofthe140thOlympiadin220/19BC(thoughforthecomplexitiesofthis‘continuation’,seeMeadowsinthisvolume),and1.5.1forstartingthenarrativeintheprokataskeuēwiththeFirstPunicWarin264BCwhereTimaeushadfinished.Seealso8.11.3,wherePolybiusnotesthatTheopompussetouttocontinuewhereThucydidesfinished.ThispassageispartofalongerdiscussionwherePolybiuscriticizesTheopompusforchanginghismindbyturningfromageneralhistoryofGreecetowritingaboutPhilipIIofMacedon;seefurtherShrimpton1991:40–3,M.A.Flower1994:29–32,100–1.

(30)Byhisownaccount,WalbankhadbeenaLaboursympathizersince‘atleast1922,when[he]feltstronglyonthesideoftheminers’,1992a:120;hehadjoinedtheSocialistSocietyandtheLeagueofNationsUnionin1930–1atCambridge,1992a:108.Duringaseven-weekstayinJenain1931he‘hadbecomeveryconsciousofthedangerspresentedbytheNazimovement’,1992a:121(cf.pp.115,128–9);reinforcedbyMary’smorepracticalcommitment(p.132),laterinthe1930s,hejoinedtheCommunistparty,wasHon.Sec.oftheMerseysidebranchoftheNationalCouncilforCivilLiberties(activeinwritingtolocalpaperstocounterNationalUnionofFascistspropaganda),andwasChairmanofthelocalbranchoftheLeftBookClub.Forhisreadinginthisperiod,see

General Index

below,n.33.

(32)Theargumentof1944canbeseenanticipatede.g.inWalbank1943d,andespecially1942c(areviewofRostovtzeff1941).ForWalbank’sextensivenotesonthelateRomaneconomy,seeSCAD1037/2/3/15.ByWalbank’saccount,1992a:97,acrucialroleinintroducinghimtotheideasofRostovtzeffwasplayedbytheundergraduatelecturesofMartinCharlesworth.

(32)Pind.Ol.7.InPindar,RhodosandHelioshavesevensons,andfromoneofthemtheeponymsofthethreeoldRhodiancitiesdescend:ll.71–5.AccordingtoGorgonFGrHist515F18,thepoemhadbeeninscribedwithgoldenlettersanddedicatedinthesanctuaryofLindianAthena.TheconclusionthatthededicationwasstillondisplaywhenZenowrotewouldbeunsafe,however,asitisnotmentionedinthe‘LindianChronicle’.

(33)34.8.4–10,fromStrabo3.2.7andAth.8.1,330c–331b.Walbank(HCPiii.601)canvassedaconfusionbyAthenaeuswithTurdetania(sc.theGuadalquivirvalley),aninterpretationresistedbyÉtienne1996:396=2006:556.

(33)ApointgivenprominencebyMomigliano1984:‘Firstofall,itisimpossibletothinkof[Walbank]asamanandasahistorianwithoutbearinginmindthepre-waratmosphereofdiscussiononancientandmodernproblemsofcivilization.’ForWalbank’sreading,seee.g.1992a:76(indoctrination,byNedGoddard,withtheideasofOswaldSpengler’sDeclineoftheWest:‘later,ofcourse,weallthrewofftheseideasandmanyothersemi-mysticalnotionstowhichGoddardwaspartial’),p.121(G.B.Shaw).Anearlynotebook,SCAD1037/2/3/22,containstwopagesofreactionstoToynbee,AStudyofHistoryIV.58 ff.SpenglerandToynbeefeatureinhisdiscussionofthereceptionofthemixedconstitutioninhisthird1957GrayLecture,SCAD1037/2/1/11/9,p.332(Polybius‘amongthedistantprogenitorsofOswaldSpenglerandDr.Toynbee’),thoughcf.itspublishedversion,1964a:34–5.TheintensityandbreadthofWalbank’sengagementwithcontemporaryeventscanbegaugedbyhisyear-longWorkers’EducationalAssociation(WEA)courseonWorldAffairs,runatLytham,in1945–6,SCAD1037/2/1/4;lectures(mostlycountrybycountry)areinterspersedwithweeklyupdatesoneventsacrosstheglobe;seebelowfortherangeofWalbank’smodernanalogiesinlaterwritings,p.25.

(34)ComparethewayinwhichPolybiusmisleadinglyinvolvesAsiainhisσυμπλοκή:whenheclaimsthateventsinItaly,Greece,andAsiacometogetherforthefirsttimeafterNaupactus,heisfacedwiththeproblemthatthereisnoplausiblewaytoincludeAsiainthisstoryatthistime:ithadnothingtodowitheithertheSocialWarortheHannibalicWar.Nonetheless,wearetoldthatwhenalleyesinGreeceturnedtoItaly‘verysoonthesamethinghappenedtotheislandersandthoselivingincoastalAsia’,andthatafterthisembassiesweresentfromthosewithgrievancesagainstPhilipandAttalustoRomeinfuture,ratherthantothekingsofAsiaandEgypt,andviceversa(5.105.6–8),though‘infact,manyyearsweretopassbeforeanyislandersorAsianGreekssentembassiestoRome;andnoRomanembassycrossedtheAegeanbefore200’(Walbank1972a:69;cf.Feeney2007:59).TheallianceofAttalusIofPergamumwithRomeintheFirstMacedonianWarmighthaveprovidedPolybiuswithabetterexampleofAsianeyes

General Index

turningwestrelativelysoonaftertheσυμπλοκή.

(34)OnartisticpatronageunderthearchaicGreektyrants,Barceló1993:159n.570,DeLibero1996:286–7.OnAnacreonAlexisofSamos,FGrHist539F2,Strab.14.1.16,Paus.1.2.3,Ath.13.72,599c,[Arist.]Ath.Pol.18.1.ManyotherscommittedthemselvestoPolycrates,amongthemthepoetIbycus,DemocedesofCroton,thefamousphysician,andthearchitectsEupalinusofMegaraandRhoicusofSamos.ForSyracuseunderHieroI,seeWeber1993:38–44.

(34)1944:11;forthepairingofGreekandRomandecline,cf.1983b:199,whereWalbanklocatestheachievementofdeSteCroix’sTheClassStruggleintheAncientGreekWorldin‘itstreatmentoftwodevelopmentsofmagnitude—thedestructionofGreekdemocracyfrom400BConwardsandthecausesofthedeclineandfalloftheRomanEmpire'.Walbankbrackets1943a,1944,and1946atogetherinhismemoir,1992a:188–9.

(34)Eckstein2006:86–7;cf.Eckstein1995.Cf.Plb.15.24.6(enslavementofallinhabitantsofThasos):‘Butwhowouldnotqualifyasperfectlyirrationalandinsanetheconductofaprince[sc.PhilipV],who,engaginginvastenterprisesandaspiringtouniversaldominion,withhischancesofsuccessinallhisprojectsstillunimpaired,yetinmattersofnomoment,intheveryfirstmattershewascalledupontodealwith,proclaimedtoallhisficklenessandfaithlessness?’;onexplicitlymoralcriteriaasbeingoflesservalue,seefurtherBohm1989:24.Cf.Plb.15.20.1–2:‘ItisverysurprisingthataslongasPtolemyinhislifetimecoulddispensewiththehelpofPhilipandAntiochus,theywerereadytoassisthim,butwhenhediedleavinganinfantsonwhomitwastheirnaturaldutytomaintaininpossessionofhisrealm,thenencouragingeachothertheyhastenedtodividethechild’skingdombetweenthemselvesandbetheruinoftheunhappyorphan.…’Tyche,however,ispunishingthem.

(35)Cf.1.70.7Ὁμὲνοὐ̑νπρὸςτοὺςξένουςκαὶΛιβυκὸςἐπικληθεὶςπόλεμος.FordiscussionoftherelationshipbetweentheLibyansandthemercenaries,seeHoyos2007:78–9.Polybiusalsoreferstothewarasa‘kindredwar’(πόλεμον…ἐμφύλιον,1.71.5;cf.1.71.7ἐμφυλίουστάσεωςκαὶταραχη̑ς),usingthesamephrasingthatheusedtodescribetheRomanconflictagainsttheFalisci(1.65.2).

(35)Weber1993:23–5,Gehrke1995:90–1,Meissner2007:98–100,Murray2008.OnthecareersofindividualφίλοιintheperiodofPtolemyIV,Huss2001:458–64.Thepeculiar‘charismatic’componentofHellenistickingshiphasbeenexposedbyGehrke1982.

(35)OnmightcomparethewayTacitusholdsbackthecharactersketchofSejanusuntilthebeginningofAnnals4,eventhoughhehasbeenpresentbefore.JustasinTacitustheintroductionofSejanusmarksanewbeginning,‘whenfortunesuddenlystartedtoturndisruptive’(Ann.4.1—seeMartinandWoodman1989:77;80–1),soinPolybiusnosoonerisApellesmentionedthanwelearnofhowitallturnedbadforPhilip(4.77).

(36)ReferencesinRigsby1996.Itisnoaccidentthatthephrase‘Thepoliticsofplunder’

General Index

(Scholten2000)hasalsobeenappliedtothepiracyof1550–1650(Jowitt2006)aswellastocertainmodernmisgovernments,realoralleged.