DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction Introduction From his front row seat to critical historical events in the middle of the second century BC – a period which many then and subsequently identify as the peak of the Roman Republic – the Greek historian Polybius produced what has be- come the most authoritative account of the rise of Rome to absolute power in the Mediterranean. A once-prominent leader of the Greek Achaean league who spent much of his adult life as a political hostage in Italy among the Roman elite, Polybius offers the unique perspective of an author fully trained in the Greek intellectual tradition with an insider’s view of Roman society at the peak of its power. The main historical author surviving from the Hellenistic period, Polybius offers a rare insight into the dramatic developments of an era when increased cross-cultural exchanges spurred an intellectual renaissance of rapid scientific and technological progress. The Hellenistic period saw the limits of the known world extended from Morocco to the borders of India. This at once created exciting opportunities for the expansion of human knowledge and at the same time made the com- munication of that knowledge an increasingly critical enterprise. Not only did this inter-connected world create the potential for a significantly wider audi- ence but a broad spectrum of knowledge was now more accessible to writers and students of all disciplines. Although nominally a historian, Polybius em- braced this comprehensive conception of intellectual inquiry by interweaving scientific, political, and moral thought into his account of history. A complex relationship emerges in which Polybius’ record of historical events both com- municates and is itself influenced by the remarkable breadth of knowledge afforded by the world in which he lived. It was Polybius’ fundamental view that the study of history has a critical role to play in both the creation and conveyance of this knowledge. At the same time, he extols the incomparable value of personal experience for learning life’s most important lessons. Polybius thus enters a centuries-old debate among Greece’s leading thinkers over the best way to acquire knowledge. Together with the emergence of Greek philosophy came the question of whether ab- stract theories about unseen aspects of our world could be considered more reliable than that which can be touched and seen through everyday experi- ence. Plato’s strict adherence to logos – dialectic inquiry into fundamental but abstract truths – represents perhaps the most extreme example in Greek philosophy of the distrust in lived experience; but even the more practical ap- proach of Aristotle presumes that experience itself is an insufficient basis for © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426122_002 2 Introduction true wisdom. Reactions to this during the Hellenistic period, however, resulted in a vibrant epistemological debate in which human experience gained fresh proponents as a reliable source of knowledge. Implicitly, at least, this debate informs earlier approaches to Greek histori- ography as well. When they suggest that history can teach, historians – whether intentionally or not – necessarily engage with fundamental questions about the nature of human knowledge. The exact position of history, however, in the debate between experience and abstract thought is a matter of perspective. As a record of actual events, history distinguishes itself from the theoretical realm of philosophy. At the same time, history offers its reader the potential to learn not from their own first-hand experiences but vicariously through the expe- riences of others. For Polybius, the role of history in the proper approach to learning becomes an explicit and central component of his historiographical principles. Importantly, it shapes not just his ideal for the purpose of history but even his own construction of a historical narrative. For Polybius, the ability to learn either from personal experience or from historical examples becomes a determining factor in the outcome of historical events. In this book I examine how Polybius represents the competing concepts of personal experience and learning from history in the education of future states- men. On the surface, Polybius’ simultaneous promotion of both approaches to knowledge creates a potential paradox within his epistemological world- view. Why should the study of history play such a critical role in the education of future statesmen when, as Polybius repeatedly suggests, first-hand experi- ence offers the most reliable basis of the knowledge that he so greatly values? Although Polybius has much to say on this topic, his explicit comments fail to answer this question fully and at times even further confuse the issue through apparent contradictions. Since Polybius writes not only for but about those engaged in public affairs, however, I find valuable clues within his historical narrative for how Polybius believes such individuals ought to learn important lessons. The result is a more nuanced appreciation for Polybius’ conception of the didactic purpose of history as it relates to the broader intellectual trends of his time and, simultaneously, a deeper understanding of how these principles have affected his seminal account of the rise of Rome. In Chapter 1, I examine the relationship between these two aspects of knowledge – experience and history – in Polybius’ historiographical princi- ples. My survey confirms a significant interaction in Polybius’ mind between history, experience, and what he calls “scientific study” (ἐμπειρία μεθοδική). At the same time, I show how this grand scheme encompasses the respec- tive roles of the reader of history, the historian, and the statesman: all come to be represented by what Polybius calls a pragmatikos anēr, a man of action. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman
    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes often lionizes himself by suggesting that his actions and policy required him to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Thus he contrasts Athens’ weakness around 346 B.C.E. with Macedonia’s strength, and Philip’s II unlimited power with the more constrained and cumbersome decision-making process at home, before asserting that in spite of these difficulties he succeeded in forging later a large Greek coalition to confront Philip in the battle of Chaeronea (Dem.18.234–37). [F]irst, he (Philip) ruled in his own person as full sovereign over subservient people, which is the most important factor of all in waging war . he was flush with money, and he did whatever he wished. He did not announce his intentions in official decrees, did not deliberate in public, was not hauled into the courts by sycophants, was not prosecuted for moving illegal proposals, was not accountable to anyone. In short, he was ruler, commander, in control of everything.1 For his depiction of Philip’s authority Demosthenes looks less to Macedonia than to Athens, because what makes the king powerful in his speech is his freedom from democratic checks. Nevertheless, his observations on the Macedonian royal power is more informative and helpful than Aristotle’s references to it in his Politics, though modern historians tend to privilege the philosopher for what he says or even does not say on the subject. Aristotle’s seldom mentions Macedonian kings, and when he does it is for limited, exemplary purposes, lumping them with other kings who came to power through benefaction and public service, or who were assassinated by men they had insulted.2 Moreover, according to Aristotle, the extreme of tyranny is distinguished from ideal kingship (pambasilea) by the fact that tyranny is a government that is not called to account.
    [Show full text]
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History
    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Polybius: the Histories Translated by W
    Polybius: The Histories Translated by W. R. Paton From BOOK ONE own existence. The Lacedaemonians, after AD previous chroniclers neglected to having for many years disputed the hegemony speak in praise of History in general, of Greece, at length attained it but to hold it H it might perhaps have been necessary uncontested for scarce twelve years. The for me to recommend everyone to choose for Macedonian rule in Europe extended but from study and welcome such treatises as the the Adriatic to the Danube, which would present, since there is no more ready appear a quite insignificant portion of the corrective of conduct than knowledge of the continent. Subsequently, by overthrowing the past. But all historians, one may say without Persian empire they became supreme in Asia exception, and in no half-hearted manner, but also. But though their empire was now making this the beginning and end of their regarded as the greatest in extent and power labor, have impressed on us that the soundest that had ever existed, they left the larger part education and training for a life of active of the inhabited world as yet outside it. For politics is the study of History, and that the they never even made a single attempt on surest and indeed the only method of learning Sicily, Sardinia, or Africa, and the most how to bear bravely the vicissitudes of warlike nations of Western Europe were, to fortune, is to recall the calamities of others. speak the simple truth, unknown to them. But Evidently therefore one, and least of all the Romans have subjected to their rule not myself, would think it his duty at this day to portions, but nearly the whole of the world, repeat what has been so well and so often said.
    [Show full text]
  • Contesting the Greatness of Alexander the Great: the Representation of Alexander in the Histories of Polybius and Livy
    ABSTRACT Title of Document: CONTESTING THE GREATNESS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT: THE REPRESENTATION OF ALEXANDER IN THE HISTORIES OF POLYBIUS AND LIVY Nikolaus Leo Overtoom, Master of Arts, 2011 Directed By: Professor Arthur M. Eckstein, Department of History By investigating the works of Polybius and Livy, we can discuss an important aspect of the impact of Alexander upon the reputation and image of Rome. Because of the subject of their histories and the political atmosphere in which they were writing - these authors, despite their generally positive opinions of Alexander, ultimately created scenarios where they portrayed the Romans as superior to the Macedonian king. This study has five primary goals: to produce a commentary on the various Alexander passages found in Polybius’ and Livy’s histories; to establish the generally positive opinion of Alexander held by these two writers; to illustrate that a noticeable theme of their works is the ongoing comparison between Alexander and Rome; to demonstrate Polybius’ and Livy’s belief in Roman superiority, even over Alexander; and finally to create an understanding of how this motif influences their greater narratives and alters our appreciation of their works. CONTESTING THE GREATNESS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT: THE REPRESENTATION OF ALEXANDER IN THE HISTORIES OF POLYBIUS AND LIVY By Nikolaus Leo Overtoom Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2011 Advisory Committee: Professor Arthur M. Eckstein, Chair Professor Judith P. Hallett Professor Kenneth G. Holum © Copyright by Nikolaus Leo Overtoom 2011 Dedication in amorem matris Janet L.
    [Show full text]
  • Epicurus' Kupia L\6~A XVII
    Epicurus' "Kyria Doxa" [Greek] XVII Clay, Diskin Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1972; 13, 1; ProQuest pg. 59 Epicurus' Kupia L\6~a XVII Diskin Clay N 1888 Usener published a collection of sayings Karl Wotke had I discovered in the Vatican with the title 'EmKovpov IIpocc/)(j)VT]CLc­ the 'Pronouncement of Epicurus'. In all, this new gnomologium contained some 81 pronouncements, twelve of which had been long familiar from Diogenes Laertius. The rest, except those which were already known as the pronouncements of Metrodorus, were new; or new in their Greek originaP The new Vatican collection irritated sores surrounding the ques­ tion of the genesis and authenticity of the KVpUXL L16gaL which Usener had opened a year before.2 But some of the new sayings were in fact the pronouncements of Epicurus, and they allowed a better apprecia­ tion of the care Epicurus took in refining the language of his moral teaching to its sharpest point. One of the new sayings (Sententia Vati­ cana 68) Usener spotted as the reformulation of one of Epicurus' gno­ mai known in its earlier form from Aelian and Stobaeus.3 The saying they knew as: l' '\1 'f I '\\\ I ,~\ t I CtJ O"LYOV OVx LKavov. al\l\a TOVTCtJ yE OVOEV LKaVOV was apparently not neat enough for Epicurus. If Usener is right, he reduced his thought to the curt and elegant , ~'f , 1" '\' ,~ I OVoEV LKavOV CtJ O"LYOV TO LKavov -"nothing is enough for the man for whom little is enough." Another of the new sayings from the Vatican made it clear that Epicurus not only went to pains to reformulate his own language, but that of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Polybios, the Laws of War, and Philip V of Macedon1
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Polybios, the Laws of War, and Philip V of Macedon AUTHORS Nicholson, EL JOURNAL Historia - Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte DEPOSITED IN ORE 25 September 2018 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/34104 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Historia 67, 2018/4, 434–453 DOI 10.25162/historia-2018-0017 Emma Nicholson Polybios, the Laws of War, and Philip V of Macedon1 Abstract: In his account of Philip V of Macedon’s attack of Thermos in 218 BC (5.9–12), Poly- bios uses the ‘laws of war’ as a rhetorical device to reinforce his own interpretation of the king and perspective on the situation. While this is not the only place within his work where the laws are referenced in such a way – they are, for instance, similarly used in the defence of Achaian actions after recapturing Mantinea in 226 BC (Plb. 2.58) – the Thermos episode represents the most extensive and explicit application of this motif and therefore offers us an opportunity to investigate the historian’s historiographical aims and literary workings in more detail. This arti- cle sets out to offer fresh perspectives on this well-known episode, exploring how the reference to the ‘laws’ has serious consequences for the development of the king’s character within the narrative, how it engages with wider didactic and political purposes, and what it reveals about Polybios’ historical method and literary workings.
    [Show full text]
  • The World According to Polybius by Mark Herman
    C3i Magazine Nr.1 (1992) The World According to Polybius by Mark Herman Gibbon wrote about the fall of the Roman Empire; Polybius witnessed its rise. The burning question at the beginning of the third century BC was, “why Rome?” Who were these Romans, and how did they become the preeminent Mediterranean power? Our most recent “Great Battles of History” game, “S.P.Q.R.”, covers many of the critical battles that led to Rome’s ascendency over the ancient Mediterranean. My purpose in this article is to place the game in relation to the key events that led to the longest continuous political system in the history of the world, and like Polybius, come to some conclusions on why it happened. In 321 BC Rome was defeated by the Samnites in the battle of Caudine Forks, Alexander the Great had been dead for two years, and the empire he had conquered was in disarray -- as his generals fought for the right to be one of his successors, or Diadocchi. By this year Alexander’s empire had begun to fragment into five major powers; whose attention would remain diverted from the developing situation on the Tiber -- until it was to late. Under Seleucus, Alexander’s general, the Eastern part of the empire formed, centered on Babylonia (modern Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). Ptolemy became Pharaoh in Egypt and controlled one of the key granaries of the Mediterranean. Antigonus controlled Asia Minor, and Coele Syria (modern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel). Lysimachus controlled Thrace, while Cassander controlled Macedonia proper. Greece continued to consist of independent city states dominated by Macedonia, although the Achean league was forming in the Peloponnesus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Panaetius on Polybius Outstanding Greek Authors of the Time, the Philosopher Panaetius and the Historian Polybius Belonged to His Circle
    Pázmány Péter Catholic University I. Background of the research and raising the problems Faculty of Humanities Doctoral School in History Workshop in History of Thought In the 2nd century B.C. the Roman Empire became the dominant power in the Mediterranean area. The growing number of subjected countries and first of all the conquest of Macedonia and Hellas brought considerable changes in regard to the culture of Gergely Mohay Rome, too. Scipio Aemilianus played an important role both in the military-political events and in the cultural revival. Two of the most The Influence of Panaetius on Polybius outstanding Greek authors of the time, the philosopher Panaetius and the historian Polybius belonged to his circle. It is justified in many Doctoral (Phd) Dissertation ways to suppose that they had a similar worldview and thought Piliscsaba, 2010 similarly about several ethical and political questions. This presumption is supported in the first instance by our knowledge of their lives. Both of them were citizens of Greek states deprived of their actual independence by Rome while they were still young (after the third Macedonian war). The families of them both played RESEARCH METHODS AND RESULTS important political role in their homeland. Panaetius as well as Polybius spent many years in Rome beside Scipio Aemilianus. Besides, they were present as his companions at events that were significant in the history of the period. They both probably saw these events from a point of view that was not considerably different from Scipio’s. So because of the similarity of their experiences, walk of life and aquaintanceship their political standpoint could more or less be akin about the most important political questions concerning Director of the doctoral school and the workshop: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Polybius and Livy on the Allies in the Roman Army
    POLYBIUS AND LIVY ON THE ALLIES IN THE ROMAN ARMY Paul Erdkamp* From the fourth or third century until the beginning of the rst century bc, Rome’s armies were also the armies of her allies. The socii and nomen Latinum raised at least half of the soldiers that fought wars for Rome. The Italic allies were clearly distinguished from the non-Italic troops, such as Cretan archers or Numidian horsemen, by the fact that they were governed by the formula togatorum. This can be concluded from their ‘de nition’ in the lex agraria from 111 bc: socii nominisve Latini quibus ex formula togatorum milites in terra Italia imperare solent. The formula togatorum is seen as a de ning element, distinguishing the Latin and Italic peoples from Rome’s overseas allies. Although in the second century bc a con- sciousness of Italy as a political and cultural unity gradually emerged, it was still referred to as a military alliance of Roman citizens and allies at the end of that century.1 The beginnings of this system remain in the dark, due to the inadequacies of our sources. The foedus Cassianum between Rome and the Latin League (traditionally dated to 493 bc) supposedly established a federal army under Roman command, but next to nothing is known about its functioning. The participation of the allied peoples was based on the treaties between their communities and Rome. The position of the Latin colonies was slightly different, because their obligations were probably based on the lex coloniae governing each Latin colony.2 We may assume that the role of the allies was re-de ned * I wish to thank John Rich, Luuk de Ligt and Simon Northwood for their many valuable comments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of the Boeotians: Polybius 20. 4–7 As a Literary Topos
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/2/2013, SPi The Rise and Fall of the Boeotians: Polybius 20. 4–7 as a Literary Topos Christel Müller INTRODUCTION M. Feyel’s work on Boeotia, Polybe et l’histoire de Béotie au IIIe siècle avant notre ère, published in 1942, was based above all, as its title suggests, on an analysis of Polybius’ work, and in particular on the part of Book 201 where the Achaean historian offers his reader a tableau of the situation in Boeotia between c.250 and 200 bc. Book 20, which has survived only in fragments, was devoted to the arrival in Greece of king Antiochus III. The sections that concern us appear in the first year of the 147th Olympiad, 192/91 bc,2 at the very moment when Antiochus reaches the gates of Thebes after staying at Chalcis. To summarize, we can say that Polybius offers, in an especially unfavourable light, an account of a series of events from 245 bc (the Boeo- tarchy of Abaeocritus) to 192 (the alliance of the Boeotians with Antiochus). The primary function of this passage in Polybius’ account is clear: to look back to Boeotia’s past for an explanation for such an inexplicable action.3 This passage from Book 20 is, however, almost unique: few Greek states in Polybius are given such a complete and detailed account of their decadence. Modern commentators have never really considered it totally trustworthy, decadence of course being a rather suspect concept; but this has not stopped them from taking some elements literally, while thinking that Polybius has simply 1 Plb.
    [Show full text]
  • The Histories of Polybius Book Five Translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh
    The Histories of Polybius Book Five translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh ©In parentheses Publications Greek Series Cambridge, Ontario 2002 The Histories of Polybius Book Five 1. The year of office as Strategus of the younger Aratus had now come to an end with the rising of the Pleiades; for that was the arrangement of time then observed by the Achaeans.1 Accordingly he laid down his office and was succeeded in the command of the Achaeans by Eperatus; Dorimachus being still Strategus of the Aetolians. It was at the beginning of this summer that Hannibal entered upon open war with Rome; started from New Carthage; and crossing the Iber, definitely began his expedition and march into Italy; while the Romans despatched Tiberius Sempronius to Libya with an army, and Publius Cornelius to Iberia. This year, too, Antiochus and Ptolemy, abandoning diplomacy, and the support of their mutual claims upon Coele-Syria by negotiation, began actual war with each other. As for Philip, being in need of corn and money for his army, he summoned the Achaeans to a general assembly by means of their magistrates. When the assembly had met, according to the federal law, at Aegium,2 the king saw that Aratus and his son were indisposed to act for him, because of the intrigues against them in the matter of the election, which had been carried on by Apelles; and that Eperatus was naturally inefficient, and an object of general contempt. These facts convinced the king of the folly of Apelles and Leontius, and he once more decided to stand by Aratus.
    [Show full text]
  • Hau, Greek Historians, After Reader Report
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Enlighten Hau, Lisa Irene (2013) Nothing to celebrate? The lack or disparagement of victory celebrations in the Greek historians. In:Spalinger, Anthony and Armstrong, Jeremy (eds.) Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World. Series: Culture & History of the Ancient Near East (63). Brill, Leiden, pp. 57-74. ISBN 9789004251007 Copyright © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge Content must not be changed in any way or reproduced in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder(s) When referring to this work, full bibliographic details must be given http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/85034/ Deposited on: 13 June 2014 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Nothing to celebrate? The lack or disparagement of victory celebrations in the Greek historians Lisa Irene Hau An ancient Greek battle, on land or sea, was a contest of life and death. For an individual, it is one of the most terrifying experiences imaginable. For his family, it could mean the difference between freedom and slavery; for his city-state, the difference between the enjoyment of the wealth of the enemy and extinction. 1 It is hard to imagine a better reason for celebration than victory in such a battle, unless it be victory in a long and gruelling war. Yet, the Greek historians of the Classical and Hellenistic periods preserve information about precious few victory celebrations.
    [Show full text]