Polybius, Greek Historiography

Junto con Heródoto y Tucídides, Polibio es considerado actualmente uno de los tres grandes historiadores griegos de la Antigüedad. Desde su reaparición en la Italia renacentista sus Historias han sido consideradas por diversos pensadores modernos como una fuente de inspiración para la reflexión política y filosófica, pero también por los historiadores a partir del siglo XIX como un objeto de estudio muy significativo, en especial, por la calidad de su información sobre la expansión romana por el Mediterráneo entre los siglos III-II a.C. En las últimas dos décadas se ha incrementado el interés historiográfico por la obra de este historiador helenístico tardío. Nuevos abordajes teóricos han contribuido, en efecto, a poner en evidencia la centralidad de su forma narrativa y su marco político-cultural en la construcción discursiva de sentidos específicos para su público. En consonancia con investigaciones recientes, este libro apunta a dilucidar algunos de los vínculos existentes entre los objetivos didácticos, de formación de la élite griega y romana, y la dimensión de la memoria, la identidad y la autorrepresentación del propio historiador aqueo como político. En líneas generales, y contra la tesis de una "romanización" de su pensamiento, se busca contribuir a resituar a Polibio dentro del horizonte político-cultural propiamente helenístico.

This short paper is centred upon a recurring phrase to be found in the histories of; Polybius, Livy and Appian. I believe that the source of this expression was quite probably Gaius Acilius, who may have been the last Roman historian to include the earlier tradition of a cavalry battle, negotiations and an armistice which took place before the grand battle of Zama that we know today from Polybius` book 15, which is well-understood was very much informed by Scipionic sources and witnesses.
In addition to the way that Polybius decided which sources to rely upon, I also consider Livy`s treatment of the early part of the Zama campaign and his choice of sources.

Questions about how ancient Greek texts establish their authority, reflect on each other, and project their own truths have become central for a wide range of recent critical discourses. In this volume, an influential group of international scholars examines these themes in a variety of poetic and rhetorical genres. The result is a series of striking and original readings from different critical perspectives that display the centrality of these questions for understanding the poetic and rhetorical aims of ancient Greek texts. Characterized by a combination of close attention to philological detail and theoretical sophistication, the essays in this volume make a compelling case for this kind of focused, critically informed dialogue about the nature of ancient textual praxis. Students of classical literature will find a wealth of critical insights and challenging new readings of many familiar texts.

John Marincola defines Polybius as 'a highly intrusive explicator' of his own narrative (Authority and Tradition: 10). Indeed, Polybius does almost constantly interrupt the main narrative of events to clarify what he is doing, why he is giving the account of a certain event and not of another one, what procedure he is following, why he is criticizing a certain author. These sections always retain a historiographical flavour, and Polybius comes up with words or expressions which he uses in a new way and with a new nuance: such expressions are what, in the title, I define as 'historiographical neologisms'. In this paper, I shall examine the afore-mentioned words and expressions, such as the idea of the assumption of an ethos proper to history or the adjective ἀμιγής characterizing παράδοσις, all of which are re-invented and revisited by Polybius with the intention of establish his own authority over his colleagues, and within the previous and well-populated historiographical tradition. Finally, I shall try to demonstrate that-in doing so-Polybius aims at creating his own philosophy of history, and that he uses such neologisms to describe his new ideas on what historiography is about and how a historian should 'behave', so to say.

Frank William Walbank (1909–2008) was one of the most eminent British historians of ancient civilization and its culture in the second half of the Twentieth and at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century. As an investigator he belonged to the Cambridge school of ancient studies. Only one part of F. W. Walbank’s work is briefly examined in this paper that is his interpretation of Polybius’ “Histories” as a main narrative source on the Hellenistic and Roman history from 264 to 146 B. C. His monumental “Historical Commentary on Polybius” in three volumes (1957–1979) resulted from more than thirty years of detailed and careful research of the historical and historiographical problems raised in Polybius’ work. Alongside the Büttner-Wobst text and A. Mauersberger’s “Polybios-Lexikon”, F. W. Walbank’s “Commentary” is now an indispensable base for everyone who studies various aspects of Polybius’ text. Writing a commentary culminated in his Sather Lectures on Polybius (1972) which is the best introductory study on the famous Greek historian, his work and his concept of history.

In his Histories, Polybius at times passes judgment on the exercise of mass-violence – including declaring acts ‘right and fair in accordance with the laws of war’ (5.9), or alternatively ‘contrary to principle’ (1.88.7). This paper explores Polybius’ ethics of mass-violence, which appear prima facie difficult to delimit (Walbank 1957, 264). Thus, when critiquing Philip’s destruction of Thermum, Polybius states that ‘good men’ ought to make war: not to destroy wrong-doers, but to correct them (5.11.5). Yet, in the same book, Polybius praises an exterminatory war by Prusias against some marauding Gauls (5.111). It is possible to outline key aspects of Polybius’ ethics of mass-violence despite these apparent contradictions. First, Polybius considers the nature of the violence important in respect to both its nature and whether betrayal is involved. For example, he regards the torture conducted during the Mercenary War (e.g., 1.81) as παρανομία. Similarly, Polybius judges harshly the use of treachery, such as that involved in the massacre and expulsion of the citizens of Messene (1.7.1-4). Second, two key factors appear when Polybius condones mass-violence: an appropriate motive and the victims’ ethnicity. With regard to motive, Polybius insinuates that ‘extreme retribution was normally motivated, or at least extenuated by some particular act of deceit or betrayal’ (Konstan 2007, 176). With respect to ethnicity, Polybius’ ascription to ‘barbarians’ of παρανομία traits like excessive violence and treachery (e.g., 3.3.5, 5.111.2: Eckstein 1995, 122) establishes both a paradigm for judging violence (is it like that of ‘barbarians’?) and a potential justification for violence towards ‘barbarians’.

References:
1. Eckstein, A. (1995). Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius. Berkeley: Uni. of California Press.
2. Konstan, D. (2007). ‘Anger, Hatred and Genocide in Ancient Greece’, Common Knowledge, 13, 170-187.
3. Walbank, F. W. (1957). A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

An investigation of moral-didactic techniques and messages in ancient Greek historiography

Why did human beings first begin to write history? Lisa Irene Hau argues that a driving force among Greek historians was the desire to use the past to teach lessons about the present and for the future. She uncovers the moral messages of the ancient Greek writers of history and the techniques they used to bring them across. Hau also shows how moral didacticism was an integral part of the writing of history from its inception in the 5th century BC, how it developed over the next 500 years in parallel with the development of historiography as a genre and how the moral messages on display remained surprisingly stable across this period.