¹ For the details of Polybius’ life see Walbank (1972), ch. 1; P. Pédech, ‘Notes sur la biographie de Polybe’, LEC 29 (1961), 145–56; Eckstein, A. M., ‘Notes on the Birth and Death of Polybius’, AJP 113 (1992), 387–406 Google Scholar.

² On Philopoemen’s career, Errington, R. M., Philopoemen (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar is fundamental.

³ Plut. Phil. 21.5, with Errington (prev. n.), 193–4; on Polybius’ biography of Philopoemen, see 10.21.5-8 with Errington, 232–7.

⁴ The hipparchos was second-in-command after the strategos of the League: Larsen, J. A. O., Greek Federal States (Oxford, 1968), 220-1Google Scholar. Cf. Pédech, P., ‘Polybe hipparque de la confédération achéene (170-69 av. J-C.)’, LEC 37 (1969), 252-9Google Scholar.

⁵ On these diplomatie intrigues see Gruen, E. S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1984), ii.496-9Google Scholar (with earlier bibliography).

⁶ On Polybius’ deportation and stay at Rome, see Walbank (1972), 8–10.

⁷ On the importance of the internment at Rome for Polybius’ development see Labuske, H., ‘Geschichtsschreibung im Hellenismus: Polybius und seine Konkurrenten’, Klio 66 (1984), 479-87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Pol. 36.11.1.

⁹ On the Achaean War, Gruen, E. S., ‘The Origins of the Achaean War’, JHS 96 (1976), 46–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., The Hellenistic World (above, n. 5), ii.520-3.

¹⁰ Pol. 39.5; Paus. 8.30.9.

¹¹ Paus. 8.30.8; 8.37.2. One of the stelai set up in his honour seems to have survived (it is the frontispiece to the first volume of Walbank’s commentary): see Bol, P. C. and Eckstein, F., ‘Die Polybios-Stele in Kleitor/Arkadien’, in Eckstein, F., ed., Antike Plastik, no. 15 (Berlin, 1975), 83–93 Google Scholar.

¹² [Luc] Macrob. 22; Dubuisson, M., ‘Sur la mort de Polybe’, REG 93 (1980), 72–82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Pol. 31.23.6-25.1 narrates the development of this friendship; Friedländer, P., Plato (Princeton, 1958), i.323-32Google Scholar argued that the narrative was based on the meeting of Socrates and Alcibiades in Plato’s Alcibiades Maior, but for some cautions see Walbank, HCP iii. 496. Eckstein (1995), 8 emphasizes that Polybius’ relationship with the Aemilii was not that of a Greek client towards Roman patrons.

¹⁴ Pol. 9.25.4.

¹⁵ For the destruction of Carthage see Pol. 38.21.1-22.3; on Demetrius’ escape from Rome, 31.11.1-15.13.

¹⁶ Even at the siege of Carthage in 147/6, he is attested as taking part in an attack on the gates: Amm. Marc. 24.2.16-17, with Eckstein (1995), 13–14.

¹⁷ See below, pp. 136–8.

¹⁸ Eckstein (1995), 249, ‘Indeed, the purely intellectual-technical purposes of The Histories are closely entwined with the moralizing purpose right from the opening statement of the work.’ Although Polybius frequently sees his audience as οí πολιτικοί (9.1.4-5; Walbank, HCP i.6-9), he sometimes refers to them more comprehensively as those who ‘love to’ or ‘wish to learn’, οíϕιλομαθοϋντϵς (9.2.5 et al.) or ό βουλόμϵνος καταμαθϵîν (10.47.4).

¹⁹ On Polybius’ views on the value of history, Meißner, B., ‘ Πραγματικὴ ‘Ιστορία: Polybius über den Zweck pragmatischer Geschichtsschreibung’, Saeculum 37 (1986), 313-51Google Scholar is comprehensive.

²⁰ For these see Moore, J. M., The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius (Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar.

²¹ For the Constantinian Excerpts see Lemerle, P., Le premier humanisme byzantin (Paris, 1971), 267–300 Google Scholar; on the Excerpta Antiqua, and on Polybian ‘fragments’ in general see Thompson, W. E., ‘Fragments of the Preserved Historians – Especially Polybius’, in Jameson, M. H., ed., The Greek Historians: Literature and History. Papers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek (Saratoga, Cal., 1985), 119–39Google Scholar. There is a table of fragments of Polybius at HCP iii.51-62.

²² Pol. 3.1.4: πώς καί πότϵ καί διà τί πάντα τὰ γνωριζώμϵνα μέρη τής οίκονμένης ύπὸ τὴν ‘Ρωμαίων δυναστϵίαν ὲγένϵτο.

²³ Pol. 4.28.3-4, with Walbank (1985), 315–18, who points out inconsistencies in Polybius about the exact time that these events became unified.

²⁴ Within these particular events, Polybius chooses various starting-points: for Carthage and Rome he begins with the Mamertine seizure of Messana in 264, while the account of Roman/Gallic affairs commences with Brennus’ capture of Rome in 387/6; the account of the Achaean League begins with its reestablishment in the 129th Olympiad (284/280). Polybius is careful throughout to use synchronisms to give coherence to the dating of events. Note also the Thucydides-like (above, Ch. III n. 20) anchoring of his starting-point at 1.6.1, marking the event in relation to events in Greece (battles of Aegospotami and Leuctra), Sicily (Dionysius I’s campaign against Rhegium), and Rome (seizure of the Capitol by the Gauls).

²⁵ Above, pp. 35 and 68.

²⁶ On Timaeus’ first five books, see above, Ch. IV, n. 21.

²⁷ Polybius does not say explicitly that he bases his account of the First Punic War on Fabius and Philinus, but that does not affect my point here; see Marincola (1997), 171.

²⁸ Pol. 1.5.1, 39.8.4. For more on Polybius and Timaeus see below §4.

²⁹ See 3.6-7 for his elaboration of the differences between cause, pretext, and beginning.

³⁰ Pol. 3.5.6 refers to the latter as ‘the common misfortune of all Greece’ (τὸ κοινὸν άτύχημα πάσηςτής Έλλάδος).

³¹ ‘Polybius’ Last Ten Books’, in Walbank (1985), 325–43 (orig. in Historiographia Antiqua. Commentationes . . . W. Peremans (Leuven, 1977), 139–62), esp. 330–4, minimizes the explanatory aspect of the last books, and argues that self-glorification was the principle reason for the extension; Ferrary, J.-L., Philhellénisme et imperialisme: Aspects ideologique de la conquête romaine du monde héllenistique (Rome, 1988), 289–316 Google Scholar argues, on the contrary, that Polybius did, in fact, use these books to evaluate Roman rule.

³² We do not know the number of Books for Polybius’ ‘original’ edition, nor indeed whether such a thing ever existed. An edition of 30 Books has been suggested, because in our current text, the events of 168 fall in Book 29 and it is assumed that an index volume would have followed as in the later edition. We may not, however, be justified in assuming that a ‘first’ edition, if it existed at all, was of exactly the same arrangement as the surviving work. No doubt a 30-book edition would have made the hexadic arrangement – based on the fact that Books vi and XII form digressions – proposed by Lorenz, K., Untersuchungen zum Geschichtwerk des Polyhios (Stuttgart, 1931), 61–82 Google Scholar, esp. 66ff. more attractive; but it ill accords with the work as we have it: Walbank (1972), 98–9. It seems clear that Polybius added later items to a possibly Original’ text; for a list of these (mainly geographical), see Pédech (1964), 572. On the question of composition see Walbank (1972), 13- 31; Weil, R., ‘La composition de l’histoire de Polybe’, JS, Jul.-Dec. 1988, 185–206 Google Scholar discusses the problematic passages, and emphasizes how uncertain our knowledge of Polybius’ method of composition and publication is.

³³ In addition, even in those places where Polybius used two books for an Olympiad, he might treat three years of it in one Book and one year in the other: see Walbank (1972), 108–10.

³⁴ See Walbank, F. W. ‘Synchronisms in Polybius, Books IV and V’, in Walbank (1985), 298–312 Google Scholar (orig. Polis and Imperium. Studies . . . E. T. Salmon (Toronto, 1974), 59–80). For Books 1–5, Polybius, following Ephorus’ technique (above, Ch. IV n. 23), treated various theatres separately, using synchronisms to keep readers informed of the chronology. On these synchronisms see Walbank, ‘Symploke: Its Role in Polybius’ History’, in Walbank (1985), 313–24 (orig. YCS 24 (1975), 197–212).

³⁵ For other examples see Walbank (1972), 110–14.

³⁶ On universal history see Ch. IV, n. 24; for more on Polybius’ view of universal history, see below, p. 134.

³⁷ Pédech (1964), 22–5 gives a summary of opinions on this term from Casaubon on.

³⁸ Pol. 9.1.4-6.

³⁹ Polybius adds that he had elsewhere explained his concentration on the type of history that deals with deeds alone, but as Walbank, HCP ii.l 17 notes, no earlier passage survives.

⁴⁰ Important discussions: M. Geizer, ‘Die pragmatische Geschichtsschreibung des Polybios’, in id., Kleine Schriften (Wiesbaden, 1964), iii.155-60; Pédech (1964), 21–32; Sacks (1981), 171–86; Walbank (1985), 94–8 (cf. 95–6, ‘it distinguishes a political and military narrative . . . from the more mythical types of composition’); Fornara (1983), 25–6; Meister (1990), 160–1; see also below, §4.

⁴¹ The only treatment of a politeia in a history before Polybius is that of the Oxyrhynchus historian on the constitution of Boeotia (16.1-4), but this is nothing like Polybius’ treatment of Rome.

⁴² Pol. 1.17.11; at 1.13.7-8 Polybius had said his preliminary account was necessary because Carthage and Rome were unfamiliar to the Greeks, and so in both cases he explains ‘cultural’ as well as political and military matters.

⁴³ On the importance of customs, see Pol. 6.47.1 with Lacy, J. R. F. Martinez, ‘Έθη καὶ νόμιμα: Polybius and his Concept of Culture’, Klio 73 (1991), 83–92 Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Pol. 10.23-38, 1.67; see Walbank (1972), 87–91; Marsden, E., ‘Polybius as a Military Historian’, in Gabba (1974), 267–301 Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Pol. 10.43-7; as Walbank (1972), 88 points out, the method is the one developed by Polybius himself.

⁴⁶ Pol. 3.57.6.

⁴⁷ Pol. 12.25e. 1, τὴν θέαν τών πόλϵων καὶ τών τόπων πϵρὶ τϵ ποταμών καὶ λιμενων καί καθόλου τών κατα γήν καϊ κατα θάλατταν 18ίωμάτων και διαστημάτων.

⁴⁸ Walbank (1972), 11. On Ephorus’ geographical books, FGrHist 70 T 12. It is generally thought that Polybius decided on this separate Book after his voyages in the west between 161 and 150.

⁴⁹ See, e.g., 38.8.4 (on Lusitania), 38.11.1 (Capua).

⁵⁰ See Pol. 34. 2. 1–3,4. 1–8; cf. Strabo 1. 2. 7. On the Alexandrian critics of Homeric geography see Fraser (1972), i. 526–7; on Polybius’ geography, see Walbank, F. W., ‘The Geography of Polybius’, CM 9 (1948), 155-82Google Scholar; Pédech (1964), 515–97, and for an overview placing Polybius in the context of the geographical thought of his time, id. (1976), 108–49; on Homeric allegorization in the scientific realm in general, see Burrière, F., Les Mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris, 1956), 204-27Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Pol. 34.4.1-8 = Strabo 1.2.17, where Polybius states that poetry is a mixture of history, rhetorical elaboration, and myth, aiming at (respectively) truth, vividness and pleasure. It is striking that Polybius here divided poetry into the categories that the rhetoricians apply to history itself; for further discussion and interpretation see Wunderer, C., Polybios-Forschungen. Beiträge zur Sprach-und Kultur-Geschichte, ii. Zitate und geflügelte Worte bei Polybios (Leipzig, 1901), 22-4Google Scholar; Pédech (1964), 583–4; Walbank (1985), 233–6; HCP iii.584-5. On Polybius’ use of Homer in general, see Vercruysse, M., ‘Polybe et les épopées homériques’, AncSoc 21 (1990), 293–309 Google Scholar, who points out inter alia that citations of Homer by Polybius are equal to those of all the other poets combined.

⁵² In this, of course, he calculated wrongly: Dionysius says that he was one of those historians whom no one could read through to the end (de Comp. 4). For more on Polybius’ Nachleben see below, §6.

⁵³ Pol. 16.17.9, with Meister (1975), 173–7. Cf. 16.17.10: ‘I think one should give care and concern to the narration of deeds, for it is clear that it contributes not a little but a lot to history; but it must not be the leading element nor the first thing established for sober-minded men.’ Polybius did, however, praise Ephorus as ‘admirable in his phraseology’ (12.28.10).

⁵⁴ Pol. 29.12.10; the text is corrupt: the interpretation and translation are those of Walbank, HCP iii.376.

⁵⁵ Pol. 3.69.12-13. For narrative intrusions as not dependent upon first-person remarks see above, p. 74.

⁵⁶ These parenthetical observations are ubiquitous; see, e.g. (all from Book I) 16.11, 31.8, 35.1, 35.6, 36.2-3.

⁵⁷ The expression άποδακτική Ιστορία ОC.C.ШГЅ ОПІу ОПC.Є ІП occurs only once in the history (2.37.3); Cf. аттоЬеіктікг Βίήγησις (4.40.1), άναπόδ€ΐ,κτον (7.13.2).

⁵⁸ Pédech (1964), 43–7; Walbank (1972), 57 n. 153; Sacks (1981), 171–8 sees the term as a synonym for universal history.

⁵⁹ On digressions in Polybius see Walbank (1972), 46–8.

⁶⁰ Polybius gives longer sections focalized around one group: see (from Book I) 16–17, 20–6 (Romans) and 30–4, 43–8 (Carthaginians); in preparations and battles, he varies the focalization more quickly: see, e.g., 19, 27, 38. Much of this variation may be the result of combining his main sources Fabius and Philinus if each of them narrated events primarily from their own side.

⁶¹ Pol. 2.38-43 gives the background to the Achaean League, but there is no corresponding treatment of the Aetolian League. The Aetolians are introduced with mention of their greed (43.9), and their viewpoint is given briefly at 45.3-5; Aratus’ focalization, by contrast, consists of six full chapters (46-51). It is mainly Achaea and Achaean supporters (e.g. Antigonus in 54 and 65–6) who receive the largest treatment. Philopoemen’s actions in battle are minutely narrated (67.4-68.2), while Eucleidas’ troops are simply criticized for their wrong strategy (68.3-10), a useful narrative device to conceal that Polybius does not write from their viewpoint. On Polybius’ relationship to and treatment of the Aetolians, see Lehman, G. A., ‘The “Ancient” Greek History in Polybios’ Historiae. Tendencies and Political Objectives’, SCI 10 (1990), 66–77 Google Scholar; Mendels, D., ‘Did Polybius Have “Another View” of the Aetolian League? A Note’, Anc. Soc. 15-17 (1984-6), 63–73 Google Scholar; Ferrary (above, n. 31), 150 n. 75; Champion, C., ‘Polybius, Aetolia and the Gallic Attack on Delphi (279 B.C.)’, Historia 45 (1996), 315-28Google Scholar.

⁶² Davidson (1991), 17. T. Wiedemann, ‘Rhetoric in Polybius’, in Purposes of History, 289–300 had already noticed the visual element as especially prominent in Hannibal’s speeches (298).

⁶³ Pol. 7.15.2-5 (Sardis); 3.18.3 (Dimale); 8.14.5 (Acrolissus), with the discussion of Davidson (1991), 17–18.

⁶⁴ Davidson (1991), 18.

⁶⁵ d’Huys, V., ‘How to Describe Violence in Historical Narrative’, Anc. Soc. 18 (1987), 209-50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 224–31.

⁶⁶ Pol. 15.9.3: τίς ούκ àv . . . συμπαθής ykvoiro ката την έξήγησιν;

⁶⁷ V. d’Huys, ‘Χρησιμον каі repnvóv in Polybios’ Schlachtschilderungen: einige literarische Topoi in seiner Darstellung der Schlacht bei Zama (xv, 9–16)’, in Purposes of History, 267–88. He notes (286-7) that such descriptions, though rare, are used to mark major moments in the history, so that the reader becomes συμπαθής (cf. prev. n.).

⁶⁸ Pol. 38.20.11 with Walbank, HCP iii.722.

⁶⁹ Pol. 38.21. Walbank (1985), 219 seems to me to set up a false dichotomy when he says, apropos of the curses and furies in Polybius’ account of Philip V’s fall, that they are there ‘not for an emotional, but for a moral purpose’. In fact, the former reinforces the latter when the historian has chosen the proper incidents to narrate.

⁷⁰ On the speeches in Polybius see Ziegler (1952), 1524–7 (with earlier literature cited); Pédech (1964), 255–302; Walbank, F. W., ‘Speeches in Greek Historians’, in Walbank (1985), 242-61Google Scholar (orig. J. L. Myres lecture, Oxford, 1965), esp. 248–61; Wooten, C., ‘The Speeches in Polybius: An Insight into the Nature of Hellenistic Oratory’, AJP 95 (1974), 235-51Google Scholar; Sacks (1981), 79–96; Wiedemann (above, n. 62).

⁷¹ Pol. 2.56.10; 12.25b.1.

⁷² On Timaeus’ speeches., see Pearson, L., ‘The Speeches in Timaeus’ History’, AJP 107 (1986), 350-68Google Scholar; for Polybius’ criticisms of Timaeus’ speeches see Meister (1975), 35–40. The reason for Timaeus’ failure here, as elsewhere, is that he lacked personal experience of events: see below, p. 136.

⁷³ Pol. 12.25i.4-5, Shuckburgh’s translation with the modifications of Sacks (1981), 79–80. My interpretation of this passage follows that of Sacks, 82–5.

⁷⁴ 36.1.1–7, esp. 7, καί τούτων та καιρώτατα καΐ πραγμαπκώτατα. Wooten (above, n. 70), 243 n. 14 takes this to mean that Polybius eliminated the prooemia and the perorations (his speeches often lack them), which were often filled with commonplaces and had little effect on the outcome.

⁷⁵ See below, §4.

⁷⁶ Pol. 29.12.10-11; he considers repetition unavoidable, given the scale of his work. Wooten (above, n. 70), 237–8 points out that Polybius uses the same style in the speeches as in the narrative, with simple language and normal word order.

⁷⁷ Walbank (1985), 257–8.

⁷⁸ At 12.25a.3 Polybius divides speeches into δημηγορίαι, παρακλήσας, and TTpeaßevTLKol λόγοι (at 12.25i.3 συμβουλ€υτικοί λόγοι takes the place of δημηγορίαι). Polybius is the first to mention the ambassadors’ speeches as a distinct genre, and this is no doubt because of the importance embassies took on in the Hellenistic period (Wooten (above, n. 70), 237, with n.6; id., ‘The Ambassador’s Speech: A Particularly Hellenistic Genre’, QJS 59 (1973), 209–12; and below, pp. 141–2). Dicanic speeches are not part of the schema, but it is possible that Polybius did not mean here to be complete: so Walbank (1985), 253; on the categories in Thucydides’ speeches, above, p. 82.

⁷⁹ Ziegler (1952), 1525–6 tabulates the speeches.

⁸⁰ Wooten (above, n. 70), 239–40.

⁸¹ Walbank (1985), 258 points out that with the exception of the speech by Flamininus (18.23.3-6), all the speeches by Romans are given by people who are connected with the original or adopted family of Scipio Aemilianus.

⁸² Wooten (above, n. 70), 241–8.

⁸³ For discussions of the historicity issue, see Ziegler (1952), 1527; Walbank (1985), 253–6; Pédech (1964), 257 n.6 believes that Polybius’ awareness of the criterion of ‘appropriateness’ indicates that he invented arguments; Sacks (1981), 86–7 argues, on the other hand, that read in conjunction with the earlier criticism of Timaeus, Polybius in 25i is talking about the need to select from the actual arguments and to place them within a causal nexus – the emphasis here being that Timaeus cannot do this because of his inexperience. See also the useful discussion in Champion, C., ‘The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybius and Agelaus’ Speech at Naupactus’, TAPA 127 (1997), 111-28Google Scholar, at 112–16.

⁸⁴ See Mørkholm, O., ‘The Speech of Agelaus at Naupactus, 217 B.C.’, CM 28 (1967 [1970] ), 240-53Google Scholar; id., ‘The Speech of Agelaus, Again’, Chiron 4 (1974), 127–32, who thinks the speech fictional; contra, Deininger, J., ‘Bemerkungen der Historizität der Rede des Agelaos 217 v. Chr. (Pol. 5.104)’, Chiron 3 (1973), 103-8Google Scholar, and Champion (above, n. 83), who argues that Polybius was well within the standards of ancient historiographical practice.

⁸⁵ Pol. 21.31.4-16 (Leon’s speech); 11.29.8-10 (Scipio), cf. 8, та παρα πάσιν άνθρώποις ¿μολογούμενα. The expression is reminiscent of Alcibiades on democracy (Thuc. 6.89.6) as a όμολογουμένη άνοια; other examples at Walbank, HCP ii.309.

⁸⁶ Pol. 12.25a.3: α σχ^δον ώς кєфаХаш. τών πράξζών kan каі συνέχα, την ολην Ιστορίαν. Pédech (1961), 34 translates the first phrase as ‘forme pour ainsi dire le cœur des événements’.

⁸⁷ See above, pp. 81–2.

⁸⁸ Pol. 15.10-11.

⁸⁹ On speeches lending importance to a battle, see Wiedemann (above, n. 62), 289–90, 297; on the theme of the mutability of fortune, see below, p. 146.

⁹⁰ Pol. 9.28-39; these are the most elaborate speeches in the surviving portions of the history.

⁹¹ Walbank (1985), 259 cautiously suggests that these speeches may be meant to recall Thucydides’ debate at Sparta that opened up the Peloponnesian War. We might also mention here Ruschenbusch, E., ‘Ein literarisches Vorbild für die Senatsdebatte über das Hilfsgesuch der Mamertiner’, RhM 127 (1984), 263-5Google Scholar, who suggests that the speeches at 1.10.5 are modelled on that of Alcibiades before the Spartans (Thuc. 6.90).

⁹² Sacks (1981), 91–2 believes that because of the selection process at work in the speeches, the benefit that accrues from them is simply to provide understanding, and they are not objects of emulation. While I agree in general with that assessment, there is nevertheless a usefulness implied in the way one learns from the structuring of arguments and (especially) the speakers’ own use of past history: that seems to be the point of Polybius’ argument (12.25i.6-7) that we adapt to our own times and circumstances that which we learn from earlier history.

⁹³ There is an enormous bibliography on this topic: see Walbank, F. W., ‘Polemic in Polybius’, in Walbank (1985), 262-79Google Scholar (orig. JRS 52 (1962), 1–12); Pédech (1964), passim; Meister (1975), passim; Lehmann, G.A., ‘Polybios und die griechishche Geschichtsschreibung’, in Gabba (1974), 147–200 Google Scholar; Schepens, G., ‘The Bipartite and Tripartite Divisions of History in Polybius (XII 25e – 27)’ Anc. Soc. 5 (1974), 277-87Google Scholar; id., “Έμφασις und evápyem in Polybios’ Geschichtstheorie’, RSA 5 (1975) 185–200; Mohm, S., Untersuchungen zu den historiographischen Anschauungen des Polybios (diss. Saarbrücken, 1977)Google Scholar; Sacks (1981); Boncquet, J., ‘Polybius on the Critical Evaluation of Historians’, Ane. Soc. 13-14 (1982-3), 277-91Google Scholar; G. Schepens, ‘Polemic and Methodology in Polybius’ Book XII’, in Purposes of History, 39–61; M. Vercruysse, ‘A la recherche du mensonge et de la vérité: La fonction des passages méthodologiques chez Polybe’, in Purposes of History, 17–38; Marincola (1997), 229–33.

⁹⁴ For theoretical works on historiography see above, p. 6.

⁹⁵ On pragmatic and apodeictic history, see above, pp. 122–7.

⁹⁶ I summarize here my remarks on polemic’s origins and uses at Marincola (1997), 218–24.

⁹⁷ Pol. 5.33.1-8. On ‘universal’ history as a genre see above, p. 109.

⁹⁸ See Pol. 1.4.7-11; 3.32.1-10; 5.33.1-8; 8.2.2; 8.7.6; 29.12.1-2.

⁹⁹ For criticism of Phylarchus, see Pol. 2.56-63, with Meister (1975), 93–108; Africa, T. W., Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (Berkeley, 1961), 29–35 Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Pol. 3.48.8 (Hannibal); 7.7.1 (Hieronymus); 15.34.1-2 (Agathocles); 12.24.5, 26d.6 (Timaeus).

¹⁰¹ Pol. 2.56.11, the purpose of history is δια τών άληθινών ¡Εργων καΐ λόγων eisrov πάντα χρόνον δώάξοα καί π€ΐσαι τονς φιλομαθούντας; the contrast between momentary pleasure and permanent instruction is heavily dependent on Thucydides’ formulation: see above, p. 103.

¹⁰² Pol. 15.36.1-11.

¹⁰³ Mohm (above, no. 93), 108–16 notes that reparcia is without value because it contains falsehoods.

¹⁰⁴ Pol. 1.14.1-3 (Fabius and Philinus); 16.15.5-10,16.17.8 (Zeno and Antisthenes); 12.23.4-7, 4a. 1–6, 25c.2, 12 (Timaeus’ τηκρία).

¹⁰⁵ This has been demonstrated by Woodman (1988), 70–116; for a comprehensive treatment of the issue of bias citing numerous passages, see Luce, T. J., ‘Ancient Views on the Causes of Bias in Historical Writing’, CP 84 (1989), 16–31 Google Scholar; Wiseman (1993), 126–8.

¹⁰⁶ Marincola (1997), 160–2.

¹⁰⁷ Not all ignorance is faulted, only that which is the result of failure to make the effort to find out; pardon may be granted to those who did not have the advantages of the present time: see Pol. 12.7.6, 12.12.4-5, 16.14.7-8, 16.20-8-9, 29.12.10-12.

¹⁰⁸ See (all from Book XII) 3.6, 4.2-3, 25d.l-7, 25h.1-6.

¹⁰⁹ Clearly there is some sense of the need for experience in Thucydides, for whom the experience of living through the war was partly a qualification for writing it up (5.26.5), and perhaps Polybius is only making explicit what had long been assumed. Yet his strong statements and detailed explanations suggest that the concept was not completely familiar to his audience.

¹¹⁰ On Polybius and Odysseus see Walbank (1972), 51–2; Marincola (1997a), §3 (much of what is said here will be found in greater detail there). Walbank notes Cato’s comparison of Polybius with Odysseus (35.6.4) and also cites the inscription honouring Polybius and describing him as having ‘wandered over every sea and land’ (Paus. 8.30.8).

¹¹¹ Pol. 12.27.4-28.1, esp. the end: ‘Wishing to point out for us the qualities that the man of action should possess, he presents the image of Odysseus as . . . ‘one experienced in the battles of men and the grievous sea’ [Od. 8.183]. It seems to me that the business of history also demands such a man ... I would say that it will be well with history when either men of action attempt to write it (not, as now, as if it were a hobby, but considering it to be most necessary and honourable, and devoting themselves to this task throughout their life) or those who wish to write consider the experience of affairs a necessity for history. Until then, there will be no cessation of the errors of historians.’

¹¹² Pol. 12.27a.3; the translation is that of Walbank (1972), 54.

¹¹³ Pol. 12.26e.2-27. 7; on the term see Pédech (1964), 358.

¹¹⁴ Pol. 12.25g. 1–3: ‘One who has no experience of warfare cannot write well about those things that happen in war, nor can one inexperienced in political life write of these kinds of events and circumstances . . . Whenever they try to write about cities and places, it is necessary, since they are devoid of such experience, that. . . they shall omit many things worthy of account, while making much of things which are not worthy of account.’

¹¹⁵ Pol. 10.2-5; the phrase quoted in the text comes from the summing-up at 10.5.8.

¹¹⁶ Walbank, F. W., ‘Φίλππτος Τραγωδούμ€νος: A Polybian Experiment’, in Walbank (1985), 210-23 (orig. JHS 58 (1938), 55–68)Google Scholar (but cf. above, p. 127); on Aetolian prejudice, see the works cited above, n. 61; on the focus of the later books, Walbank, ‘Polybius’ Last Ten Books’ (above, n. 31).

¹¹⁷ As Walbank (1985), 262–79 so clearly showed.

¹¹⁸ We might also point out that that few scholars have approached Polybius in an essentially literary way, that is, in an attempt to understand his work as a narrative with its own interests and purposes; this is not to say that it has not been done, only that it has not received the scale or depth of treatment accorded Herodotus and Thucydides. One important exception is now Eckstein (1995), to which this section is very much indebted.

¹¹⁹ Pol. 24.11-13; on the context of the fragments here, see Walbank, HCP iii.264-5; Pédech (1964), 417 accurately characterizes these as fictive speeches that summarize the political policy of each man.

¹²⁰ On Polybius’ evaluation of these men and their policies see the fine discussion of Eckstein (1995), 202–3. (Polybius has a similar opinion about Hiero of Syracuse, who won for his state both prosperity and security, 1.16.10-11). Philopoemen and Aristaenus might well agree with Tacitus (Agr. 42.4) that useless displays of liberty accomplished nothing either for the individual or his state.

¹²¹ Pol. 24.10.8: ούκ €ί8ώς οτι μβγάλων κακών άρχηγος ykyovz πάσι μ€ν τοΐς “Ελλησι, μάλιστα бе τοΐς Άχαιοΐς. On this incident see Derow, P.S., ‘Polybius and the Embassy of Kallikrates’, in Essays Presented to C.M. Bowra (Oxford, 1970), 12–23 Google Scholar; on the ‘beginning of evils’ motif in Herodotus and Thucydides see above, p. 84; and below, n. 139 for another Polybian example.

¹²² Pol. 24.10.1-6. Conversely, Hiero of Syracuse is praised for his support of the Carthaginians in their Mercenary War because his actions helped to forestall a dominant hegemony (i.e., that of the Romans): see Eckstein, A., ‘Polybius, Syracuse, and the Politics of Accommodation’, GRBS 26 (1985), 265-82Google Scholar.

¹²³ A very selective bibliography: Walbank, F. W., ‘Polybius and Rome’s Eastern Policy’, in Walbank (1985), 138-56Google Scholar (orig. JRS 53 (1963), 1–13); id., ‘Polybius between Greece and Rome’, in Walbank (1985), 280–97 (orig. in Gabba (1974), 1–31); Walbank (above, n. 116); Musti, D., Polibio e l’imperialismo romano (Naples, 1978)Google Scholar; Richardson, J. S., ‘Polybius’ View of the Roman Empire’, PBSR 47 (1979), 1–11 Google Scholar; Derow, P.S., ‘Polybius, Rome and the East’, JRS 69 (1979), 1–15 Google Scholar; Shimron, B., ‘Polybius on Rome: A Reexamination of the Evidence’, SCI 5 (1979/80), 94–117 Google Scholar; M. Dubuisson, ‘La vision polybienne de Rome’, in Purposes of History 233–43; Eckstein (1995), 84–117, 194–236; C. Champion, ‘Histories 12.4b. 1-c. 1: An Overlooked Key to Polybios’ Views on Rome’, Histos 4 (2000).

¹²⁴ See above, pp. 118–19.

¹²⁵ Pol. 31.2.7, cf. 31.11.12 for the contrast between justice and expediency.

¹²⁶ For additional examples of this kind of behaviour see Eckstein (1995), 229–33.

¹²⁷ Pol. 31.25.2-7, 35.4.1-7; in both of these incidents, Scipio Aemilianus is provided as the foil for contemporary morals.

¹²⁸ Polybius here may have been influenced by Demetrius of Phalerum’s On Fortune, since Polybius’ ‘scarcely fifty-three years’ (1.1.5) in which Fortune raised up the Romans parallels Demetrius’ ‘fifty years’ for the destruction of Macedon (Pol. 29.21.4 = FGrHist 228 F 39).

¹²⁹ HCP i. 18.

¹³⁰ On Thucydides see above, pp. 88–90.

¹³¹ Pol. 39.8.2 (the conclusion of his work): with Polybius’ words τψ τύχψ ώς CGTLV άγαθή φθονήσαι, TOLS άνθρώποις cf. Hdt. 1.32.1, то θεΐον πάν èòv φθον€ρόν те καί ταραχώδ€ς.

¹³² Parallel to this are those passages in which the power of logos is limited or ineffective. See Wiedemann (above, n. 62), 297–300 for less straightforward uses of speeches in Polybius, such as logoi that fail to persuade, logoi that cannot be heard, and logoi that are ineffectual in preventing irrational behaviour.

¹³³ Walbank is unfair to refer to these continual observations on Fortune as ‘the same trite homily’ (HCP i.19), since they are amongst the most firmly held of Polybius’ beliefs.

¹³⁴ Pol. 9.21.3-4. Important character evaluations appear at 7.11-14 (Philip V), 9.22-6 (Hannibal), 10.2-5 (Scipio Africanus), 10.21-4 (Philopoemen), 23.12-14 (a comparison of Philopoemen, Hannibal, and Africanus), 31.22 (Aemilius Paullus), and 38.21.1-3 (Scipio Aemilianus). See Pomeroy, A. J., ‘Polybius’ Death Notices’, Phoenix 40 (1986), 407-23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and on 23.12-14, Foulon, E., ‘Philopoemen, Hannibal, Scipion: trois vies parallèles’, REG 106 (1993), 333-79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁵ See the fine discussion of Eckstein (1995), 239–54.

¹³⁶ On Hannibal’s character see Pol. 9.22-6; on the bad influence of his friends, 24.5-8. Cf. the somewhat similar remark that Aratus was often forced by circumstances to say and do things opposite to what he actually intended – and which he could not even record in his Memoirs (2.47.10-11).

¹³⁷ On Philip’s character see Pol. 7.11-14.

¹³⁸ Pol. 7.14.3; 13.4.1-8.

¹³⁹ Pol. 8.8.3-9. Philip’s character declines almost into caricature from 183/2, when he begins the deportation of whole populations and the murder of the children of his earlier victims: see 23.10, esp. 10.1 with the ‘beginning of evils’(άρχή κακών) motif (above, n. 116); once this happens, Philip’s downfall is assured: Walbank, ‘Φίλιππος ΤραγωΒούμενος’ (above, n. 116), 214–17.

¹⁴⁰ Diog. Laert. 7.89 notes the importance of external affairs and associates in perverting reason: see Walbank (1972), 94; for the importance of counsellors in Hellenistic literature see the references in Pédech (1964), 234 n. 141.

¹⁴¹ See Champion (above, n. 83), 122–6 for the way in which Polybius may have deduced the particular psychological state of an individual in any given situation.

¹⁴² See above, pp. 9 and 85–6.

¹⁴³ Pol. 23.12.3-7; cf. 12.4-5: ‘Yet such a death only ended his great achievements; it did not and could not wipe them out: since no one enjoys consistent good fortune, one must be content when it is kind for the majority of one’s life, and when misfortunes are only moderate’. On the problems with the Polybian tradition on Philopoemen’s death, see Errington (above, n. 2), 190–4.

¹⁴⁴ Pol. 15.6.4-7.9. Scipio in reply says that he is aware of fortune and has taken counsel as best he can, but that the injustice of the Carthaginian violation of the treaty eliminated any trust there might be in making agreements.

¹⁴⁵ As well it might ifit had been part of the last incidents narrated in an earlier 30-Book edition (see above, n. 32); had Polybius ever issued a work with that conclusion, the emphasis on fortune and prosperity would have been even greater, though it may be worth noting that the person who figures as the final character in the 40-Book version that he eventually promulgated is Polybius himself (39.8.1-2).

¹⁴⁶ See Pol. 1.1.2.

¹⁴⁷ See above, n. 127.

¹⁴⁸ Pol. 38.21.3.

¹⁴⁹ Momigliano, A., ‘Polybius’ Reappearance in Western Europe’, in Momigliano (1955-92), vi. 103-23Google Scholar (orig. in Gabba (1974), 347–72), at p. 103. On Polybius’ Nachleben in general see Ziegler (1952), 1572–4.

¹⁵⁰ On the canon of historians see above, Ch. II, n. 172.

¹⁵¹ On Diodorus’ use of Polybius see Marincola (1997), 233–4, 241.

¹⁵² Above n. 52.

¹⁵³ See above, p. 116.

¹⁵⁴ Momigliano (above, n. 149), 103–4. There is, of course, an enormous and important bibliography on Livy’s use of Polybius: see, most recently, Tränkle, H., Livius und Polybios (Basel, 1977)Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁵ On Brutus’ epitome, Plut. Brutus 4.8; for Pliny, see NH 5.9, with Momigliano (above, n. 149), 103.

¹⁵⁶ Ammianus (24.2.16) notes that Julian was motivated by reading of Polybius and Scipio Aemilianus; for an interpretation of Ammianus’ mention here, see Marincola (1997), 256; similarly, Barnes, T. D., Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca, 1998), 66 Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ For Procopius, see Momigliano (above, n. 149), 105 with n. 2; for Agamias, see Cameron, A., Agathias (Oxford, 1970), 62 Google Scholar, 147. For Zosimus see Paschoud, F., ‘Influences et échos des conceptions historiographiques de Polybe dans l’antiquité tardive’, in Gabba (1974), 303-44Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁸ Momigliano, A., ‘Polybius Between the English and the Turks’, in Momigliano (1955-92), vi. 125–41 Google Scholar (orig. Seventh J. L. Myres Lecture, Oxford, 1974), at p. 128.