Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:36:03.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polemic in Polybius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

F. W. Walbank
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When ancient historians wanted to take cognizance of what their predecessors had written, they seem usually, though not always, to have preferred an anonymous reference to one by name. To this practice the most noteworthy exception is Polybius. In his Histories he mentions about a score of previous writers, including philosophers, orators and historians, a large number of whom are the object of quite bitter self-righteous polemic. This harsh trait in Polybius' character appears slightly odd, when one considers his generally sanguine and optimistic view of the world he lived in and of the advantages which he himself enjoyed over his predecessors.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1-2 , November 1962 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © F. W. Walbank 1962. 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 Unless otherwise indicated references are to Polybius.

2 Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, 122 n. compares Gorgias' Epitaphios (Diels, FVS 11, 285 B 6).

3 De imit. 13, 31, 3 p. 428; ad Pomp. 6, 7–10: cf. Avenarius, G., Lukians Schrift zur Geschichts-schreibung (Diss. Frankfurt, 1954), 161–2.Google Scholar

4 cf. IX, 28 and 33 for rival views; and see in general Treves, P., Les études classiques, 1940, 167–8Google Scholar; Walbank, CQ, 1943, 9.

5 V, 10, I; XVIII, 14; XXII, 16.

6 See Jacoby on FGH 1 F 302.

7 Hdt. v, 36, 2; 125; see against Macan, Jacoby, P-W, s.v. ‘Hekataios’, col. 2669.

8 FGH III b, Suppl. II, p. 16.

9 FGH 70 T 22 = 76 F 1; on this passage see Walbank, Historia, 1960, 218 ff.

10 See Momigliano, A., Riv. stor. ant., 1959, 532 ff.Google Scholar

11 P-W, s.v. ‘Polybios’, col. 1558.

12 cf. I, 14–15; III, 26, 3–4. The doubts of Pédech, Rev. Et. Anc., 1952, 246–66, and Momigliano, Atti Accad. Lincei, 15, 1961, 318–19, seem to me unfounded.

13 On Phylarchus, see Gabba, , Studi su Filarco (Pavia, 1957)Google Scholar = Athenaeum, 1957, 3–55, 193–239; Africa, T. W., Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1961)Google Scholar; Strasburger, H., ‘Komik und Satire in der griechischen Geschichtsschreibung’ in Festgabe für Paul Kirn (1962), 30–35.Google Scholar

14 See Ullrich, H., De Polybii fontibus Rhodiis (Diss. Leipzig, 1898), 1–17.Google Scholar

15 See Walbank, Commentary on Polybius, I, 382 (on III, 48, 12).

16 Cic. ad Att. XIII, 30, 2 ‘Polybius non nominat’: cf. Münzer, P-W, s.v. ‘Postumius’, col. 906.

17 cf. Walbank, o.c. (n. 15) I, 260 (on II, 56, 2 n.), 565–7 (on V, 35–9 n.).

18 Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1958), 49.

19 cf. Walbank, o.c. (n. 15) 1, 10 ff.

20 In VIII, 10, 12 and XV, 35, 2 Polybius, though clearly no friend of Timaeus, treats him comparatively gently and even defends his invective against Agathocles. His real hostility only emerges in Book XII, which (as I argue in the forthcoming Miscellanea alessandrina in memory of A. Rostagni) was probably written after Polybius' journeys in the West.

21 XII, 8, 1–6; cf. Epicurus, fg. 171, 235 Usener.

22 P-W, s.v. ‘Timaios’, col. 1080. This view seems supported by the argument in XII, 25 a–b and by the criticisms of other speeches in 25 k, 26, 26 a and 26 b. Pédech, , Polybe xii (Paris, 1961), 123Google Scholar, however, prefers Valesius' explanation that Timaeus has used γῆ where he should have said οἰκουμένη; the references in this chapter, he argues, are to Timaeus' ignorance, not to his use of rhetoric. The passage I quote from Isocrates is against this.

23 Artemidorus said there were three (Strabo IV, 183; cf. Pliny, NH III, 33).

24 Commentary on FGH 566 F 34.

25 XII, II, I. The reference is probably to a comprehensive study correlating various chronological systems and designed as a preparation for his general history (cf. FGH 566 T I Ὀλυμπιονίκας ἤτοι χρονικὰ Πραξιδικὰ).

26 See on this Momigliano, Riv. stor. ant. 1959, 529 ff.

27 The metaphor is probably from the board-game of Five Lines (ε' γραμμαί), similar to backgammon (cf. Lamer, P-W, s.v. ‘lusoria tabula’, cols. 1970–3; Pédech, o.c. (n. 22), ad loc).

27a Pédech, o.c. (n. 22) xxxi, argues that this jealousy dates from Polybius' visit to Alexandria, which he dates between 144 and 134; it was Timaeus' high reputation there which provoked Polybius' attack. But Book XII is not the only place where Polybius declares his hostility towards Alexandrian scholarship; and in any case his criticism of the Alexandrian λογικοί in this book (25 d) is no sharper than his remarks against the New Academy at Athens. It was not merely in Alexandria that Timaeus' reputation still stood high, but also in Greece and Rome. I doubt therefore if Polybius had to wait until his Alexandrian visit for his jealousy to be aroused.

28 cf. Momigliano, o.c. (n. 10) 1959, 550.

29 ibid.

30 FGH 566, commentary, p. 527.

31 See further Walbank, Class. et Med. 1948, 171–3.

32 On Book XXXIV see Pédech, , Les études classiques, 1956, 3–24.Google Scholar

33 o.c. (n. 10) 1959, 534–49.

34 Historia, 1960, 216–34. On the formal side I would accept Pédech's definition of Polybius XII (o.c. (n. 22), XXVII) as an exposition of his views on historical method in the shape of an ἀντιγραφή; but the polemic in that book must be considered alongside his polemic elsewhere and, as Pédech recognizes, formal considerations do not provide answers to the questions considered here.

35 Polybius may also have resented the fact that, just as Theopompus abandoned Hellenica to write on Philip, so Callisthenes abandoned Hellemca to compose Ἀλεξάνδρου πράξεις (cf. Pearson, L., The Lost Historians of Alexander the Great, 1960, 33).Google Scholar

36 See above, p. 2, n. 4.

37 A paper read at the Oxford Conference of the Greek and Roman Societies on 15th August, 1961.