No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2014
The most famous – and most discussed – ancient statement on speeches in historiography is probably Thucydides 1.22.1, but Polybius’ discussion of speeches in Timaeus in Book 12 of his Histories follows closely. Although Polybius’ criticism of Timaeus has been fruitfully studied from very different angles, the meaning and implications of many of his statements are still debated.
I should like to thank my friends and colleagues Dr Thomas Riesenweber and Professor Otto Zwierlein for their criticism; thanks are also due to the anonymous reader for drawing attention to points that needed clarification, and to my partner, Pam Hutcheson, for diligent proof-reading of the manuscript and indispensable linguistic advice.
1 The standard treatment of speeches in Polybius is still Pédech, P., La Méthode historique de Polybe (Paris, 1964), 254–302Google Scholar; Walbank, F., Speeches in Greek Historians. The Third J.L. Myers Memorial Lecture (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar; for more recent treatments see Usher, S., ‘Oratio recta and oratio obliqua in Polybius’, GRBS 49 (2009), 487–514Google Scholar; Marincola, J., ‘Speeches in classical historiography’, in id. (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Malden, MA, Oxford and Victoria, 2007), 1.118–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 123–6; see further Wooten, C., ‘The speeches in Polybius. An insight into the nature of Hellenistic oratory’, AJPh 95 (1974), 235–51Google Scholar. On the polemical and methodological passages in Polybius, with special emphasis on book twelve and the polemic against Timaeus, see most recently Baron, C., ‘The use and abuse of historians: Polybios Book 12 and our evidence for Timaios’, AncSoc 39 (2009), 1–34Google Scholar, an interesting attempt to go beyond Polybius' polemical criticism and use it as a basis for a more balanced assessment of Timaeus’ historical work; further, Sacks, K., Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1981)Google Scholar; Nicolai, R., ‘Polibio interprete di Tucidide’, Seminari romani di cultura greca 2 (1999), 281–301Google Scholar; Vercruysse, M., ‘A la recherche du mensonge et de la vérité. La fonction des passages méthodologiques chez Polybe’, in Verdin, H., Schepens, G. and Keyser, E. de (edd.), The Purposes of History. Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries B.C. Studia Hellenistica 30 (Leuven, 1990), 17–38Google Scholar; Meister, K., Historische Kritik bei Polybios. Palingenesia 9 (Wiesbaden, 1975), 3–55Google Scholar, esp. 35–9 (on the speeches); Bocquet, J., ‘Polybius on the critical evaluation of historians’, AncSoc 13–14 (1982–3), 277–91Google Scholar; Walbank, F.W., ‘Polemic in Polybius’, JRS 52 (1962), 1–12Google Scholar; cf. also T. Wiedemann, ‘Rhetoric in Polybius’, in Verdin, Schepens and de Keyser (above), 289–300; on the speeches in Timaeus see Pearson, L., ‘The speeches in Timaeus’, AJPh 107 (1986), 320–68Google Scholar, and C. Baron's forthcoming study, Timaios of Tauromenion and Hellenistic Historiography. Scholarly interest in speeches in ancient historians has increased considerably in the last few years as is documented by such works as e.g. Scardino, C., Gestaltung und Funktion der Reden bei Herodot und Thukydides. BzA 250 (Berlin, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Pausch, D. (ed.), Stimmen der Geschichte. Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie. BzA 284 (Berlin, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 See the discussions of the relevant passages in the commentaries of Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar and Pédech, P., Polybe. Histoires XII. Texte établi, traduit et commenté (Paris, 1961)Google Scholar; further Mohm, S., Untersuchungen zu den historiographischen Anschauungen des Polybios (Diss., Saarbrücken, 1977 2), 51–67Google Scholar (a detailed discussion of previous interpretations, especially Pédech's commentary); Sacks (n. 1), 79–95; Marincola (n. 1), 123–6.
3 ‘Speeches and historical narrative in Polybius's Histories’, in D. Pausch (n. 1), 69–107.
4 25a.2–3: ἐπειδὰν γὰρ ἓν ἢ δεύτερον εὑρεθῇ ψεῦδος ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασι, καὶ τοῦτο γεγονὸς ᾖ κατὰ προαίρεσιν, δῆλον ὡς οὐδὲν ἂν ἔτι βέβαιον οὐδ’ ἀσφαλὲς γένοιτο τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ τοιούτου συγγραφέως λεγομένων. ἵνα δὲ καὶ τοὺς φιλοτιμότερον διακειμένους μεταπείσωμεν, ῥητέον ἂν εἴη περὶ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ μελέτης τῆς κατὰ τὰς δημηγορίας καὶ τὰς παρακλήσεις, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς πρεσβευτικοὺς λόγους … The fragmentary state of Book 12 often makes it difficult to establish how the individual passages were originally connected, but the structure of the argument in 12.25a is not debated; on the structure of Book 12 in general see e.g. Sacks (n. 1), 66–79; Pédech (n. 2), ix–xxxv.
5 My conclusions partly concur with those of an important article of Nicolai (n. 1) on the relationship between Polybius’ and Thucydides’ statements on speeches in historiography. He does not, however, provide any detailed discussion of the passage (mentioned rather briefly as one among many others, ibid. 284–5). Rather, he confines himself to stating (ibid. 285): ‘Non arrivo a pensare che tra τὰ ῥηθέντα e ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ’ ἀλήθειαν non ci sia alcuna distinzione e che si tratti di una semplice ridondanza retorica … ma credo che Polibio abbia introdotto la distinzione solo per enfatizzare i difetti di Timeo: la riproduzione letterale delle parole dette … non rientrava neanche tra gli obiettivi dello storico, che si proponeva al più la fedeltà ai concetti espressi.’
6 Welzhofer, H., ‘Die Reden bei Polybios’, Jahrbücher für Classische Philologie 26 (1880), 539–44Google Scholar, at 540–1, translates τὰ ῥηθέντα as ‘das wirklich gesprochene’ (‘what was actually said’) and ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ’ ἀλήθειαν as ‘in der form … wie es in wahrheit gesprochen worden’ (‘in the style in which it was actually said’).
7 Pédech (n. 2), 124; this explanation is accepted also by Mohm (n. 2), 56.
8 Mohm (n. 2), 56.
9 25b.1: Ὅτι τῆς ἱστορίας ἰδίωμα τοῦτ’ ἐστὶ τὸ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοὺς τοὺς κατ’ ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένους, οἷοί ποτ’ ἂν ὦσι, γνῶναι λόγους, δεύτερον τὴν αἰτίαν πυνθάνεσθαι, παρ’ ἣν ἢ διέπεσεν ἢ κατωρθώθη τὸ πραχθὲν ἢ ῥηθέν; 25b.4: ὁ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν παρασιωπῶν, ψευδῆ δ’ ἀντὶ τούτων ἐπιχειρήματα καὶ διεξοδικοὺς λέγων λόγους, ἀναιρεῖ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας ἴδιον; 36.1.7: ἀλλ’ οὔτε τοῖς πολιτικοῖς ἀνδράσιν οἶμαι πρέπειν πρὸς πᾶν τὸ προτεθὲν διαβούλιον εὑρησιλογεῖν καὶ διεξοδικοῖς χρῆσθαι λόγοις, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ τοῖς ἁρμόζουσι πρὸς τὸν ὑποκείμενον καιρόν, οὔτε τοῖς ἱστοριογράφοις ἐμμελετᾶν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν οὐδ’ ἐναποδείκνυσθαι τὴν αὑτῶν δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ < τὰ> κατ’ ἀλήθειαν ῥηθέντα <καθ’> ὅσον οἷόν τε πολυπραγμονήσαντας διασαφεῖν, καὶ τούτων τὰ καιριώτατα καὶ πραγματικώτατα. I will return to these passages below.
10 As I will argue below, this is true for Polybius’ use of τὰ ῥηθέντα but not for the similar expressions τοὺς κατ’ ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένους … λόγους, τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους, and <τὰ> κατ’ ἀλήθειαν ῥηθέντα in the passages he quotes to support his statement. In all of these passages it is evident from the context that Polybius is referring to the actual speeches as they were given by the historical actors. Nicolai fails to make this distinction and to take the context of the expressions into account.
11 Nicolai (n. 1), 285. Usher (n. 1), 488, seems to understand the passage in a similar way, as is suggested by his translation ‘He has not written what was said nor the actual words used’, and subsequent comment: ‘The first part of this charge would have been admitted by Thucydides, who, like Timaeus, did not hear what was actually said by speakers’; yet then he adds: ‘But Polybius does not even allow Timaeus the credit of being a responsible reporter’, which, by contrast, seems to indicate that he does, in fact, differentiate between ‘what was said’ (i.e. a reliable report of the speech) and ‘the actual words used’ (i.e. a verbatim reproduction of the speech). Unfortunately, Usher does not discuss the passage.
12 This is apparent from Walbank's paraphrase of the expression as ‘a transcript’; see Walbank (n. 2), 386. This also forces him to resort to the unconvincing explanation of πάντας τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους shortly afterwards as referring not to the speeches given by the historical actors, but to the speeches as presented by Timaeus (for a detailed refutation of this view see below). Pédech, on the other hand, directly translates τὰ ῥηθέντα as ‘la lettre’, i.e. a verbatim rendering; moreover, in his ‘commentaire’ he paraphrases τὰ ῥηθέντα γράφειν as ‘reproduire purement et simplement les paroles prononcées … ce qui suppose une transcription fidèle, au style direct’; see Pédech (n. 2), 124. Nicolai's suggestion, that the slightly tautological expression merely highlights the fact that the speeches in Timaeus’ work are not even meant to be transcripts of the actual speeches, shows that he, too, takes τὰ ῥηθέντα … ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ’ ἀλήθειαν to be an alternative expression for ‘the speeches that were given by the historical actors’. Finally, Welzhofer's (n. 6) position is not entirely clear. He translates τὰ ῥηθέντα as ‘what was really said’ (‘das wirklich gesprochene’), while rendering ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ’ ἀλήθειαν as ‘in the form/style in which it was actually said’ (‘in der form … wie es in wahrheit gesprochen worden’). Whereas his translation of τὰ ῥηθέντα leads us to believe that he takes the phrase to refer to the speeches given in general, the contrast with ὡς ἐρρήθη, ‘the form’, seems to suggest that he takes τὰ ῥηθέντα in a more specific sense as referring to the content of the speeches. The latter assumption is supported by his subsequent paraphrasis of τὰ ῥηθέντα as ‘the content’ (‘ihrem ganzen inhalt nach’). A similar interpretation of the phrase is suggested by Mohm (n. 2); cf. n. 7 above.
13 Mohm (n. 2), 56, summarizing Walbank's (n. 2) and Pédech's (n. 2) interpretations of the passage, appropriately speaks of ‘three degrees of authenticity’ (‘drei Stufen der Wahrheitstreue’).
14 See Pédech's (n. 2) translation: ‘ni même l'esprit’, which would be an appropriate paraphrasis of Thucydides’ τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης, but is an impossible translation of ὡς ἐρρήθη; similarly, Walbank (n. 2), 386: ‘the real sense of what was said’.
15 Cf. Nicolai (n. 1), 286, who rightly points out that there is a substantial difference (‘una differenza sostanziale’) between Polybius’ δεῖ and Thucydides’ τὰ δέοντα: while Thucydides is referring to speeches composed with due regard to the circumstances and the character of the speaker, Polybius’ point is that Timaeus is following the purely theoretical rules of rhetorical composition taught in the schools of declamation which have lost all contact with political reality and are a far cry from the verisimilitude which Thucydides sought to achieve.
16 Pédech (n. 2), 124.
17 Kühner–Gerth 2.2, §581.8, at 495, discuss a few cases in which ὡς seems to be used instead of the relative pronoun but conclude that in each of these cases the subordinate clause actually describes the way and method by which something was done or achieved (‘die Art und Weise … wie sich das im Hauptsatz Ausgesagte verhalte’, emphasis mine).
18 Rh. 3.1403b.19–20; cf. Eth. Nic. 4.1128a.1: οἷα δεῖ λέγειν καὶ ὥς.
19 I will return to this point below.
20 For an interesting parallel expression which provides further support to this conclusion see Xen. Ap. 1. There the narrator explains that the authors of previous Apologies resemble each other in the ‘loftiness’ (transl. Todd) of Socrates’ tone (μεγαληγορία) but that all of them failed in providing their speeches with a content (διανοίᾳ in the next quotation) sophisticated enough to match the ‘loftiness’ of the words, a failure he intends to correct (ὥστε πρέπουσαν φαίνεσθαι τὴν μεγαληγορίαν αὐτοῦ τῇ διανοίᾳ, ibid. 2, emphasis added). He remarks, however, that the fact that all the previous works concur in this ‘loftiness’ of Socrates’ tone proved that ‘it was really thus spoken by Socrates’ (transl. mine). The phrasing of this statement, which, it is clear from the context, refers exclusively to the style of the previous works, is remarkably similar to Polybius's ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ’ ἀλήθειαν· δῆλον ὅτι τῷ ὄντι οὕτως ἐρρήθη ὑπὸ Σωκράτους.
21 See e.g. Thuc. 2.27.2: ὁ μὲν Ἀρχίδαμος τοσαῦτα εἶπεν· οἱ δὲ Πλαταιῶν πρέσβεις ἀκούσαντες ταῦτα ἐσῆλθον ἐς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ τῷ πλήθει τὰ ῥηθέντα κοινώσαντες ἀπεκρίναντο … Obviously, the messengers do not repeat Archidamus’ whole speech to their people but give them a summary of the content, τὰ ῥηθέντα; similarly, ibid. 5.60.1: ὁ Ἆγις δεξάμενος τοὺς λόγους αὐτός, καὶ οὐ μετὰ τῶν πλεόνων οὐδὲ αὐτὸς βουλευσάμενος ἀλλ’ ἢ ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ κοινώσας τῶν ἐν τέλει ξυστρατευομένων, σπένδεται τέσσαρας μῆνας, ἐν οἷς ἔδει ἐπιτελέσαι αὐτοὺς τὰ ῥηθέντα, i.e. ‘the things he had ordered them to do in his speech’; in Isoc. 3.12.3 (Ἡγοῦμαι δ’ οὕτως ἂν μάλιστα παρακαλέσαι καὶ προτρέψαι πρὸς τὸ μνημονεύειν ὑμᾶς τὰ ῥηθέντα καὶ πειθαρχεῖν αὐτοῖς), τὰ ῥηθέντα is followed by a summary of the main points Isocrates might make; Xen. Hell. 4.1.13 (προσιόντων δ’ εὐθὺς εἶπεν ὁ Ἡριππίδας. Τὰ μὲν ἄλλα, ὦ Ἀγησίλαε, τὰ ῥηθέντα τί ἄν τις μακρολογοίη; τέλος δὲ λέγει Σπιθριδάτης πᾶν ποιεῖν ἂν ἡδέως ὅ τι σοι δοκοίη), with τὰ ῥηθέντα meaning ‘the several other points he made’; Pl. Phlb. 39b1 (ἀποδέχομαι τὰ ῥηθέντα οὕτως, ‘I understand what was said, i.e. the arguments proffered in the speech, as follows’).
22 Mohm (n. 2), 56 (see above).
23 To him, this interpretation was so obvious that he even stated that ‘the meaning of this passage is so clear that a misunderstanding is impossible’ (‘die stelle ist so klar, dasz kein misverständnis möglich ist’, 541).
24 GP, s.v. 2, at 193.
25 The passages cited by Denniston under II.2, at 196, do not apply because here οὐδέ modifies one word only, rather than being part of an enumeration of negative elements as in Polybius.
26 See Kühner–Gerth 2.2, §525.4, at 260. The examples listed there include Xen. Hell. 2.3.35 (διὰ τὸν χειμῶνα οὐδὲ πλεῖν, μὴ ὅτι ἀναιρεῖσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας δυνατὸν ἦν); Pl. Phdr. 240d7–e1 (καὶ λόγῳ ἐστὶν ἀκούειν οὐκ εὐπρεπές, μὴ ὅτι δὴ ἔργῳ … μεταχειρίζεσθαι).
27 Προσελθόντος δὲ καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν ἐν Αἰγίῳ καὶ διαλεχθέντος διὰ πλειόνων, τὰ ῥηθέντα μετ’ εὐνοίας ἀπεδέξαντο.
28 Τὰ μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ τούτων ῥηθέντα πρὸς τὴν σύγκλητον καὶ τὰς δοθείσας αὐτοῖς ἀποκρίσεις ὑπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου καὶ διότι πάντων τῶν φιλανθρώπων τυχόντες ἐπανῆλθον, ἐν τοῖς Ἰταλικοῖς εἴπομεν, referring to Histories 28.2.1–6, where the speeches are only summarily mentioned (ἐξ ὧν πλεονάκις ἐν τοῖς ἐκείνων πράγμασιν ἀντιρρήσεως γινομένης, καὶ διελκομένων τῶν διαβουλίων, ἐλάμβανον ἀφορμὰς οἱ βουλόμενοι λογοποιεῖν κατὰ τῆς πόλεως. οὐ μὴν ἥ γε σύγκλητος τότε προσεποιήθη τούτων οὐδέν …, 28.2.4–5).
29 Τὰ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων λεγόμενα, with a slight variation in vocabulary.
30 Πάντες δ’ οἱ παρόντες οὕτως ἀπεδέξαντο τὰ ῥηθέντα καὶ τὸν νοῦν τῆς παρακλήσεως ἐθαύμασαν (about a speech of Philopoemen); the same speech is referred to at 11.10.1 as εἷς λόγος εὐκαίρως ῥηθείς and at 11.10.7 in πάντες ἐπανῆγον ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις, τά τε ῥηθέντα καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα διαφερόντως ἀποδεδεγμένοι.
31 Συγχωρεῖν τὸν βασιλέα Θασίους ἀφρουρήτους, ἀφορολογήτους, ἀνεπισταθμεύτους, νόμοις χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἰδίοις. ἐπισημηναμένων δὲ μετὰ κραυγῆς πάντων τὰ ῥηθέντα παρήγαγον τὸν Φίλιππον εἰς τὴν πόλιν.
32 Τίνα μὲν οὖν ἦν τὰ τότε ῥηθέντα παρ’ ἑκατέρου, δυσχερὲς εἰπεῖν.
33 Τοιαῦτα μὲν ἦν τὰ ῥηθέντα παρ’ ἑκατέρων.
34 Εἶπε κατὰ τοῦ Κλεομένους τὸν ἄρτι ῥηθέντα λόγον.
35 On this characteristic of Polybius’ style see F. Kaelker, Quaestiones de elocutione Polybiana cum epimetro de hiatu in libris Diodori Siculi (Diss., Leipzig, 1880), 272–3 (with examples).
36 Cf. 2.6.6–7 (οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Σκερδιλαΐδαν πεζῇ πάλιν ἀνεχώρησαν … οὐ μικρὰν οὐδὲ τὴν τυχοῦσαν κατάπληξιν καὶ φόβον ἐνεργασάμενοι τοῖς τὰς παραλίας οἰκοῦσι τῶν Ἑλλήνων).
37 Similarly, 3.85.9 (τῆς ὁμολογουμένης ἥττης οὐ μετρίως οὐδὲ κατὰ σχῆμα τὴν περιπέτειαν ἔφερον).
38 Cf. 11.15.2 (οὐ πτοηθεὶς ἔφευγεν οὐδ’ ἀθυμήσας ἀπέστη <…> , ἀλλ’ ὑποστείλας αὑτὸν ὑπὸ τὸ τῆς φάλαγγος κέρας).
39 Cf. 31.12.5 (τὴν δὲ σύγκλητον οὐ τολμήσειν ἔτι βοηθεῖν οὐδὲ συνεπισχύειν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Λυσίαν …).
40 In order to clarify the structure I have removed the comma after γέγραφεν which obfuscates the effect of the phrasing by making οὐδ’ ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ’ ἀλήθειαν seem like a rather gratuitous apposition.
41 On indirect questions belonging to the category of ‘substantive clauses’ as objects in a sentence, see Kühner–Gerth 2.2, §547.7, at 349.
42 It is therefore the copulative force of οὐδέ which prevails (cf. Kühner–Gerth 2.2, §535.4b, at 293). I attempt to bring out the close interrelation of οὐ τὰ ῥηθέντα and οὐδ’ ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ’ ἀλήθειαν and the connective function of οὐδέ in the translation below by rendering the phrase as ‘not … and’, rather than as ‘not … and not’.
43 Cf. Meister (n. 1), 36.
44 Cf. Baron (n. 1), 8: ‘it is misleading to refer to the book as a digression on historical method, or to state that its purpose is to lay out a theory of historiography, since this obscures its highly polemical nature’.
45 Walbank (n. 2), 385–6.
46 Nicolai (n. 1), 285; cf. my remarks above.
47 Cf. Isoc. 4. 66: Ἅπαντας μὲν οὖν ἐξαριθμῶν τοὺς κινδύνους λίαν ἂν μακρολογοίην· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν μεγίστων τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ ὀλίγῳ πρότερον πειράσομαι καὶ περὶ τούτων διελθεῖν; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.72.2: κατέτριψαν ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείνην τὰς ἀλλήλων ἀρετὰς ἐξαριθμούμενοι καὶ λιπαροῦντες μὴ λαβεῖν αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀρχήν (these examples cited in LSJ, p. 587, s.v. III); in Polybius cf. τὰ παρεπόμενα τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι in 2.56.10, which will be discussed below.
48 Both Pédech and Nicolai take πάντας ἐξαριθμεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους as referring to the original historical speeches; cf. Pédech's (n. 2) translation of the phrase: ‘tous les discours prononcés’. The anonymous reviewer raises the question whether ἐξαριθμεῖται might simply mean that Timaeus ‘enumerated’ all the speeches without giving his own version of each of them. This is possible but, in my view, unlikely since Polybius specifies ἐξαριθμεῖται by adding ‘in the same way as someone might embark on a rhetorical exercise <…> giving a demonstration, as it were, of his own skills, but not an account of the things that were really spoken’. This specification makes sense only if Timaeus actually included his own version of each of the speeches given in a particular situation.
49 I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for raising the question of how this passage relates to Polybius’ statement at 25b.4, that Timaeus ‘destroys the very essence of historiography by passing over in silence [παρασιωπῶν] both the speeches that were given [τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους] and the reason [sc. why they were successful or failed] and producing [λέγων] historically inaccurate [ψευδῆ] rhetorical exercises [ἐπιχειρήματα] and long-winded discourses [διεξοδικοὺς λόγους] instead’. There is no contradiction between the passages; rather, both statements express the same idea, but with a different emphasis. In both cases οἱ ῥηθέντες λόγοι refers to the speeches that were actually pronounced by historical actors. Like 25b, 25a mentions that Timaeus has replaced these speeches with his own, but the emphasis here is on the fact that he includes all of them (πάντας ἐξαριθμεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους) (in his own versions) indiscriminately; the main focus is on Timaeus’ failure to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant speeches. 25b, by contrast, is concerned exclusively with the fact that Timaeus replaced the original speeches (τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους) with his own rhetorical creations, thus making the originals inaccessible to the reader (παρασιωπῶν) and, in so doing, preventing an adequate understanding of the course of events.
50 This aspect of Polybius’ use of speeches has been examined in detail by Usher (n. 1).
51 Thus, correctly, Nicolai (n. 1), 287 (‘la ricerca di tutti i discorsi possibili’). Nicolai is mistaken, however, when claiming that this, along with the enumeration of the circumstances of an event, is characteristic of the tragic genre (‘appartengono alla prassi del genere tragico’). Rather, Timaeus and the ‘tragic’ historiographers apply the same rhetorical techniques; what distinguishes them, as I argue above, is the effect they want to achieve with them.
52 Most recently, C. Baron (n. 1) has demonstrated how selective and distorted an image of Timaeus’ work Polybius presents. He convincingly suggests that this is deliberate because Polybius wished to ‘supplant Timaios as the Greek historian of Rome’ (5); ibid. 8–9, 26, 33–4; see already Walbank (n. 1 [1962]), 9–10.