Chapter One Learning from Experience and the Value of History in Polybius Introduction The value of Polybius’ text as a historical source for the events in the Mediterranean and especially the expansion of Roman power during the latter half of the third and first half of the second centuries B.C. is unquestioned. Polybius’ reputation as an author, on the other hand, has suffered greatly ever since the withering criticisms of his style by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (De comp. verb., 4.110). Such sentiments, reinforced by Polybius’ own claims to have composed a history of simple style (e.g. 16.17.9‐11) and dedicated above all to truth (e.g. 1.14.6), have often distracted scholars from the true depth and complexity of Polybius’ work.1 As a result, the text of this important historian has not, until recent years, been studied with the kind of historiographical approaches fruitfully applied to other ancient historians during the past few decades. Although the work of Walbank,2 for example, has been of monumental significance to the study of Polybius, ultimately his approach is a historical one, and he was generally skeptical of such literary analyses. On the other hand, the remarkable frequency with which Polybius pauses or digresses from his historical narrative in order to offer his own authorial comments has naturally drawn 1 Cf. the similar complaints of Maier (2012c), 1‐16 and McGing (2013), 181‐2. 2 In addition to the three volumes of his Commentary on Polybius (1957‐79), Walbank’s contributions have come in the form of a monograph on the historian (1972) and numerous articles, many of which have been assembled into two volumes of collected papers (1985 and 2002). 1 the attention of modern scholars.3 The consequence has been the tendency to focus entirely on the programmatic or theoretical passages of Polybius and to consider these passages largely irrelevant to the historical narrative.4 One such scholar has even argued that, because of the abundance of methodological statements, any attempts to understand his approaches to historiography based on his actual practice – that is by studying the composition of his narrative – are not only unnecessary but also “unwise.”5 This approach rests on the assumption that any inferences drawn from a study of the narrative are inherently less reliable than the programmtic statements of the author himself. While the work of these scholars has been significant in sorting out many of the difficult and sometimes apparently contradictory statements made by Polybius in such passages, however, important and enlightening aspects of his work have been too often obscured by the assumption that, if there is anything significant about a particular passage of Polybius’ work, the historian will always take the time to tell us what that is.6 Other studies, like that of Pédech (1964), have provided important analysis of the major factors influencing Polybius’ conception and composition of history or, like those of Eckstein (1995) and Champion (2004a),7 have addressed specific questions about the historian’s world‐ 3 For Polybius’ practice in utilizing such digressions, see Walbank (1972), 46‐8. On the novelty of Polybius’ assertive authorial voice, see Marincola (1997a), 10‐11. Polybius’ method of providing detailed explanations and analysis for the historical narrative has been identified by some (Pédech (1964), 43‐53; Petzold (1969), 3‐20; and Sacks (1981), 171‐8) with what the historian refers to as “apodeictic history”. 4 See e.g. Petzold (1969), Mohm (1977), Sacks (1981), and Meissner (1986). 5 Sacks (1981), 9. 6 For a more inclusive approach to the understanding of Polybius’ historiographical principles, see e.g. Dreyer (2013). 7 Eckstein (1995) shows convincingly that questions of morality (as opposed to an entirely Machiavellian approach) play a significant role in Polybius’ analysis of history and the lessons to 2 view. But the tendency still has been to regard each individual theme in Polybius’ work on its own without sufficient consideration for the overall scope and purpose of his history.8 The essential questions about Polybius’ work that I will seek to address are the historian’s views on the proper approach to history, the lessons to be learned from the past, and history’s ultimate value to society. For although not unique in defending the value of history, Polybius places particular emphasis not only on the practical benefits of history but also on the necessity of practical experience, on the part both of the reader and of the historian, in order fully to appreciate the lessons to be learned from history. This prominent role of practical experience in Polybius’ approach to history, then, creates a connection between the historian, the reader, and the subjects within his historical narrative. As I will demonstrate, the text of Polybius’ history becomes for this reason not just a compilation of practical lessons to be memorized by the reader but an ongoing commentary on the proper way to learn those lessons and to pass them on to others.9 be learned from it. Champion (2004a) provides a comprehensive analysis of Polybius’ depiction of the different peoples and nationalities of his history and shows that, while the historian will alter such depictions depending on the demands of a particular context, the Romans have much more in common with the logical Greeks of Polybius’ work than the unreasonable barbarians. 8 For recent attempts to correct the general lack of narratological approaches to Polybius in comparison to the more prominent historians Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, see Maier (2012a), 145 n. 8, to which Maier (2012b) and (2012c) should be added. Fresh and welcome approaches to Polybius can be found in the recent volume of essays on Polybius dedicated the memory of F. W. Walbank and edited by Gibson and Harrison (2013). For similar complaints that studies of Polybius have lacked the literary and historiographical treatments afforded to other historians, see e.g. Davidson (1991), 10; Marincola (2001), 113; and McGing (2013), 181‐2. 9 For a recognition of the important meta‐historical aspects of Polybius’ work, see Davidson (2009), 134. 3 I will necessarily begin here, however, with Polybius’ own views on the value of history and his promise to succeed in fulfilling this potential where those before him have failed. I will then examine more specifically both what and how, according to Polybius, the reader can learn from history. Finally, we will see that Polybius’ recommendations for the reader – most importantly the emphasis on practical experience – have much in common with the ways in which the historian himself ought to research and compose history. The purpose of the work: Polybius’ preface From the opening lines of his work, Polybius of Megalopolis emphasizes the didactic value of history and of his own work in particular. By way of a subtle praeteritio,10 in which he inverts the typical structure of the rhetorical device, Polybius suggests that if it were the case that the praise of history had been disregarded (παραλελεῖφθαι) by his predecessors in the writing of history,11 then perhaps it would be necessary for him to encourage all men to take up the study of such written accounts of the past (τῶν τοιούτων ὑπομνημάτων) on the grounds that there is no more ready means of correction for mankind than the knowledge of past events.12 Polybius then continues by noting that all prior historians have asserted that the knowledge of history is the truest education and training for public life; and, furthermore, that 10 For this rhetorical technique, also called paraleipsis or occultatio, see Rhet. Her. (4.37) with the comments of Calboli (1993), 358‐9. Kennedy (1972, 35) noted the use of this technique later by Polybius in the speeches of Eumenes to the Roman Senate, in which the king repeatedly suggests that he will say nothing about his own personal desires but then proceeds to do exactly that (21.18‐21). 11 εἰ μὲν τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν ἀναγράφουσι τὰς πράξεις παραλελεῖφθαι συνέβαινε τὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς τῆς ἱστορίας ἔπαινον (1.1.1). 12 διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἑτοιμοτέραν εἶναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις διόρθωσιν τῆς τῶν προγεγενημένων πράξεων ἐπιστήμης (1.1.1). 4 the clearest and only instructor how to endure well the changes of fortune in such a life is the knowledge of reversals suffered by others.13 Therefore no one, he concludes, and least of all himself, would think it necessary to repeat what has been said so well and so often in the past (1.1.3). This rhetorical device with which Polybius begins his work has the twofold effect of recognizing but also challenging his predecessors. First, Polybius acknowledges his place in a tradition of previous historians who have emphasized the potential benefit of history for their readership. Although the specific historians to whom Polybius refers here remain obscure, the notion was not uncommon among ancient historians.14 Most famously, Thucydides asserts that, although the lack of fantastical elements in his work may make it less pleasing (ἴσως τὸ μὴ μυθῶδες αὐτῶν ἀτερπέστερον φανεῖται, 1.22.4) to his reader, it will be sufficient if judged beneficial (ὠφέλιμα κρίνειν αὐτὰ ἀρκούντως ἕξει). We may conclude, furthermore, that Polybius is sincere in attributing such comments to others before Thucydides as well.15 He is not the first, therefore, to claim that his history will have a practical utility for current and future generations, and, by conceding this fact at the very start of his work, he 13 ἀληθινωτάτην μὲν εἶναι παιδείαν καὶ γυμνασίαν πρὸς τὰς πολιτικὰς πράξεις τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας μάθησιν, ἐναργεστάτην δὲ καὶ μόνην διδάσκαλον τοῦ δύνασθαι τὰς τῆς τύχης μεταβολὰς γενναίως ὑποφέρειν τὴν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων περιπετειῶν ὑπόμνησιν (1.1.2).