Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:22:05.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chronology of Polybius' Histories, Books I and II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

R. M. Errington
R. M. Errington
Affiliation:
The Queen's University, Belfast.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two important recent studies have independently tried to show that Polybius was consistent in his use of accurate Olympiad chronology in his introductory books I and II. Werner uses his demonstration as a means to his reconstruction of the early years of the Roman Republic, Pédech uses his as part of his attempt to show that Polybius, throughout the whole of his work, consistently used accurate Olympiad dating. As the arguments of each are independent and have a different ultimate purpose, it will eventually be necessary to discuss each separately. But before starting the discussion it is important to make the purpose of this article clear. The view under discussion seems to me to be fundamentally misconceived and the arguments used to support it either inconclusive or erroneous. Whatever the case may be elsewhere in his work, I can find no indication that Polybius, in his two introductory books, consistently used any system of chronology apart from that which he was able to find in his various sources. The few Olympiad dates which he does give refer without exception to the beginning or end of series of events, and are given in the form of synchronisms as an attempt to make his terminal points fixed and comprehensible to his readers.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 1-2 , November 1967 , pp. 96 - 108
Copyright
Copyright ©R. M. Errington 1967. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Werner, R., Der Beginn der römischen Republik (München, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Pédech, P., La Méthode historique de Polybe (Paris, 1964)Google Scholar.

2 Pol. XXXIX, 8, 4–6: .

3 Pol. IV, 2, 2–3.

4 Leuze, , Die römische Jahrzählung (Tübingen, 1909), 105 f.Google Scholar, avoids some of the difficulty by assuming that Polybius had a synchronic table of events. There is no evidence for this unlikely assumption, which does not, in any case, explain the lack of Olympiad dates in I and II.

5 Cf., e.g., Niese, Hermes 1878, 410; Walbank, , Commentary on Polybius I (Oxford, 1957), 184Google Scholar.

6 Pédech's view (RÉA 1952, 246 ff.) that neither Fabius nor Philinus was used, is unacceptable. Cf. Walbank, , Comm. I, 234Google Scholar.

7 Cf. Walbank, , Comm. I, 234Google Scholar.

8 Pédech, La Méthode 474 f. Werner, Der Beginn 42 f.

9 Cf. Leuze's unsatisfactory exposition, Röm. Jahrz. 107 f. Pédech's earlier study (CRAI 1955, 367–74) is presumably superseded by his discussion in La Méthode. The earlier work will not be further referred to here.

10 Cf. Oost, CP 1965, 68–9 (review of Werner): ‘Unless numbers are strictly controlled by positive and existent referents, they can be manipulated to prove almost anything (and there are next to no existent referents for early Roman history) …’

11 Pol. I, 6, 1 (Loeb tr.).

12 Comm. I, 46 f.

13 See below, pp. 104–5.

14 Arist., , Ath. Pol. 34, 2Google Scholar; Xen., , Hell. II, 1, 10Google Scholar; Diod. XIII, 104, 1.

15 Meritt, , The Athenian Year (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961), 32Google Scholar.

16 Meritt, ibid. 34.

17 Pritchett, , Ancient Athenian Calendars on Stone = University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology vol. 4, no. 4, 267–402 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963), 321–2Google Scholar.

18 Refs. in Ziehen, RE ‘Olympia,’ 6. Careful discussion of material in Sealey, CR 1960, 185–6.

19 Plut., , Agesilaus 28, 5Google Scholar; Camillus 19, 2.

20 La Méthode 441.

21 Xen., , Hell. VI, 4, 16Google Scholar.

22 Meritt, ‘The Spartan Gymnopaedia,’ CP 1931, 81.

23 Plut., , Nicias 28, 1Google Scholar, actually refers to the Syracusan month Karneios, which may or may not be the equivalent of the Spartan Karneios.

24 Paus. VIII, 27, 8: . Pédech's other points are quite inconclusive: Karneios is the second to last month of the Spartan calendar, which began with the new moon after the autumn equinox (P. quotes no evidence for this), which makes the full moon of Karneios that of 14th August. However true this outline knowledge may be, individual ancient calendars were potentially subject to so many irregular disruptions that general knowledge cannot safely be applied to any one particular year. The same consideration applies to Pédech's citation of the Boeotian calendar for support: Hippodromios is the 8th Boeotian month in a year beginning after the winter solstice; 14th August, 371 is the 8th full moon after the winter solstice of 372. Again, technical ignorance prevents our accepting this as conclusive. But—most important—even if Pédech is right on these two matters (which cannot be either conclusively proved or denied), it does not; alter the fact that his other evidence shows that Leuctra was before the Gymnopaedia, before the Karneia, and before the co-terminous beginning of the Olympiad year: therefore in Ol. 102.1.

25 Pol. IV, 2, 2–3.

26 La Méthode 466.

27 La Méthode 475.

28 Pol. II, 20, 6. cf. Walbank, Comm. I, ad loc.

29 Pol. II, 19, 7–20, 6.

30 For refs. cf. Broughton, , MRR I, 187 ffGoogle Scholar.

31 Pol. II, 19, 8; Liv., Epit. XII; Oros. III, 22, 13–14; cf. Broughton, , MRR I, 188Google Scholar; but cf. Syme, review of MRR in CP 1955, 127 f.

32 Mommsen, , Röm. Forsch. II, 365–77Google Scholar; cf. Staatsrecht II, 195, n. 1; Sanctis, De, Storia II, 376Google Scholar, n. 2; Beloch, RG 133. Cf. Walbank, , Comm. I, 188Google Scholar.

33 Salmon, E. T., CP 1935, 23 f.Google Scholar Cf. Walbank, , Comm. I, 189Google Scholar.

34 Florus 1, 8, 21; Dion. Hal. XIX, 13, 1; Eutrop. II, 10; Cass. Dio, frg. 38; Pol. II, 20, 2–3.

35 Front., , Str. 1, 2, 7Google Scholar, records that an Aemilius Paulus (sic) fought as consul against Boii bello Etrusco. ‘Paulus’ has long been recognized as a mistake for ‘Papus’, and Beloch (RG 454) has shown that he is probably the consul of 282.

36 Cf. comprehensive discussion in Holzapfel, Römische Chronologie 79 f. (table on p. 106).

37 La Méthode 479 f. (table on p. 477).

38 Cf. above, p. 96.

39 Pol. II, 41, 11; Werner, Der Beginn 58.

40 Werner, Der Beginn 59 f. Cf. Walbank, , Comm. 1, 49 ffGoogle Scholar.

41 Pp. 105–6, below.

42 Cf. his use at III, 1, 1: ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μὲν τῆς ὅλης συντάξεως, τρίτῃ δὲ ταύτης ἀνώτερον βύβλῳ . There seems to be no good reason why Polybius should count by a different system in chronological matters.

43 Cf. discussion and bibliography in Walbank, , Comm. I, 64 fGoogle Scholar. Werner, Der Beginn 62 ff.

44 Der Beginn 68–9.

45 Der Beginn 69.

46 Cf. Beloch, RG 140; Walbank, , Comm. 1, 46 fGoogle Scholar.

47 Der Beginn 69–79.

48 Der Beginn 90–91.

49 Tabled above, p. 103.

50 See above, pp. 101–2.

5l Der Beginn 91 ff.

52 Pol. II, 20, 4–5.

53 Dion. Hal. XIX, 13, 2. If Beloch (RG 454) is correct in his identification of the Aemilius Papus (MSS. ‘Paulus’) of Front., , Str. 1, 2, 7Google Scholar, who fought against Boii and Etruscans, with the consul of 282, this would also comfortably agree with Polybius' information. Werner (Der Beginn 94, n. 2) is certainly incorrect in seeing here L. Aemilius Barbula (cos. 281).

54 Pol. II, 21, 1.

55 Der Beginn 95–6.

56 Pol. II, 23, 1; Werner, Der Beginn 99 ff.

57 Der Beginn 100–101.

58 On the First Punic and Gallic Wars, Walbank's cautious discussion of the evidence for chronology (Comm. I, ad locc.) seems to make this principle clear.

59 Pol. IV, 2, 3 (Loeb tr.).

60 Cf. Pol. XXXIX, 8, 5 (quoted in n. 2 above).

61 Pol. III, 1, 1.

62 Pol. II, 20, 6. Discussed above pp. 101–2 and pp. 105–6.

63 Pol. II, 23, 1. Discussed above pp. 106–7.

64 Pol. I, 6, 1. Discussed above pp. 97–8.

65 I hope to show elsewhere that the series of Achaean dates in book II is also most satisfactorily explained by inclusive counting.