provincial towns. Examples of Scipio’s early enthusiasm, generosity, and fairness point to the Roman’s admirable aim of living a virtuous life,
which Polybius fostered (Plb. 31.24). The digression serves not only to set a model for others, but to establish credibility for the account of Scipio’s future actions (Plb. 31.30).
The account of the Third Punic War begins in Book 36, with Carthage
sending envoys to the Roman commanders, surrendering hostages, and
giving a promise to comply with orders (Plb. 36.1–6). Polybius then
turns to Greece and shows the Greeks discussing the question of whether Rome was wise to destroy Carthage or was corrupted and has become
power‐hungry (Plb. 36.9). Interestingly, the question seems to be posed primarily for the Greek audience: the views in Greece about the effects of the war are said to be many and varied ( logoi … polloi kai pantoioi), which echoes Hecataeus’ broad critique of earlier Greek histories. Some, Polybius says, think that the Romans pursued policies for their empire
( dunasteia), in an intelligent and practical manner; they removed the overhanging fear of the other city disputing their hegemony and secured the rule of wise and provident people. Others think that Romans gradually abandoned their principles, “turning towards the same craving for power [ philarchian] that had afflicted the Athenians and Spartans, and although they started later than these two states, all the indications were that they would arrive at the same goal” (Plb. 36.9, Scott‐Kilvert). They further maintain that, while dealing with the Carthaginians, the Romans practiced deceit and fraud, more the intrigues of despots than the
234
PolyBiuS on the SuPremacy of a Balanced State
constitutional actions of Rome. This cynical Roman view has resonances
with the Thucydidean and Herodotean theme of the natural law of
imperial rule. Yet Polybius gives the favored last argument to those who maintain that the Romans were not guilty of any of three categories of
crime: impiety against gods, parents, or ancestors; treachery in written or sworn agreements; and injustice toward laws or customs. The
Carthaginians are the ones who had broken oaths and treaties, while the Romans acted legally and in good faith. The historian raises here what
must have been concerns he heard voiced by fellow Greeks with the aim
to counter them and to suggest that Roman hegemony is a positive and
stabilizing force in the Mediterranean. Polybius also seems to reject the explanation that Romans are boundlessly imperialistic, but he implies
that they are a superpower with a difference. Rome is now clearly the
dominant Mediterranean power, but it is not, he implies, tyrannical in
administration of power.
The narration of the final defeat of Carthage in Book 38 gives the
author occasion for reflection on the relative fates of Carthage and Greece, Greece’s being worse, since its people had to live on with the memory of their traumatic self‐defeat. The common misfortune of all the Greeks
who successively held and lost power resulted
not merely from the number of defeats they suffered, far from it; but, by their whole conduct, they brought on themselves no misfortune, but a
disaster and disgrace as discreditable as it could be. For they showed both faithlessness and cowardice and brought on their heads all this trouble.
(Plb. 38.3.10–11)
The end story of Carthage, the main topic of this section, reveals the
self‐centered “cowardice and ignobility” of the commander Hasdrubal
(Plb. 38.8.10), recalling by contrast the shrewd and courageous
Hannibal. When the city is taken, Hasdrubal flees to Scipio for mercy
but receives instead mockery from the general – and indeed scorn from
his own wife, whom Hasdrubal had abandoned with the children. Scipio
says later to Polybius: “A glorious moment, Polybius; but I have a dread foreboding that some day the same doom will be pronounced on my
own country” (Plb. 38.21). Reflecting, at the moment of triumph, on
the possible reversal of fortune for oneself is the mark of a “great and perfect man” like Scipio (Plb. 38.21); the Roman recites Homer
( Il. 6.448–9) on the fall of Troy. This is a sublimely dramatic conclusion to the Punic Wars, reflecting the best side of human sympathy for fellow humans, as Achilles does at the end of the Iliad.
PolyBiuS on the SuPremacy of a Balanced State
235
Conclusions
Polybius’ work occupies a crucial position in the stream of Greek historical writing, as important in its way as the histories of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. First, his history is unique in being the only lengthy
extant second‐century bc account of the rise of Rome to power; and it is written by a personal witness to many of the events and by one in the
company of the Roman elite. Second, the author is a Greek among
Romans, and writing in Greek for the two major audiences of Greeks and
Romans who read Greek; he literally and figuratively “translates” events for both sides at once. He can praise and caution Romans in their
acquisition of empire, and he can remind non‐Romans of the enormous
cultural attributes that brought them to power. But he explains to the
subordinates what they have to acknowledge by maintaining their own
degree of honor and independence as much as they can, through gestures
of friendship or nonviolent resistance. Numerous Greek historians after Polybius emulate his “balancing act” in narrating history under Roman
hegemony. And, finally, Polybius’ work is special through the quality of its ideas, which emulate the keen perceptions and techniques of his
predecessors but go beyond them through subtle observations of how
character works individually and in peoples, and how military and political changes evolve when Rome clashes with diverse peoples.
Bibliography
Badian, E. 1968. Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic (2nd ed.).
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Baronowski, D. W. 2011. Polybius and Roman Imperialism. London: Bloomsbury.
Champion, C. B. 2004. Cultural Politics in Polybius’ Histories, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, University of California Press.
Dillery, J. 2009. “Roman Historians and the Greeks: Audiences and
Models.” In A. Feldherr, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Roman
Historians, 77–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eckstein, A. 1995. Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Erskine, A. 2013. “How to Rule the World: Polybius 6 Reconsidered.”
In B. Gibson and T. Harrison, eds., Polybius and His World: Essays
in Memory of F. W. Walbank, 231–45. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
236
PolyBiuS on the SuPremacy of a Balanced State
Green, P. 1990. Alexander to Actium. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Harris, W. V. 1979. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327–70 bc.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartog, F. 2010. “Polybius and the First Universal History.” In P. Liddell and A. Fear, eds., Historiae mundi: Studies in Universal History, 3–40.
London: Duckworth.
Hau, L. I. 2011. “Tyche in Polybios: Narrative Answers to a Philosophical Question.” Histos 5: 183–207.
Kallet‐Marx, R. M. 1996. Hegemony to Empire: The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 bc. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Luce, T. J. 1997. The Greek Historians. London: Routledge.
Marincola, J. 1997. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universit
y Press.
Marincola, J. 2001. Greek Historians. (Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics 31.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGing, B. C. 2010. Polybius’ Histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mellor, R. 1997. The Historians of Ancient Rome. New York: Routledge.
Schepens. G. and J. Bollansée. 2005. The Shadow of Polybius: Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek Historiography. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
Scott‐Kilvert, I. trans. 1979. The Rise of the Roman Empire: Polybius, introd. F. W. Walbank. New York: Penguin.
Shuckburgh, E. S., trans. 1962 [1889]. The Histories of Polybius.
Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.
Trompf, G. W. 1979. The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western
Thought: From Antiquity to the Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Walbank, F. W. 1972. Polybius. (Sather Classical Lectures, 42.) Berkeley: University of California Press.
Walbank, F. W. 1997. “John Marincola, Authority and Tradition in
Ancient Historiography.” Histos 1: 230–9.
Walbank, F. W. 2002. Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ziegler, K. 1979. “Polybios (3).” In Der kleine Pauly, vol. 4, 983–91.
Ziegler, K., W. Sontheimer, and H. Gärtner, eds. 1979 [1964–75]. Der kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike. Munich: DTV [= Der kleine Pauly].
8
Greek Historians in the Roman Era
Greek Literature in a Roman Context
Not surprisingly, historical writing in the Roman era evidences an ever more vigorous “throng of authors,” both Roman and Greek (see Sallust’s
tanta scriptorium turba, Sall. Hist. fr. 1.3), who receive earlier forms, methods, and styles and create novel ones. But the Greek authors must
always keep one eye on their Roman masters in formulating and writing
their narratives. In sum, the political realities of power more than ever dictated topics, shaped the treatment of them, and severely limited the freedom of speech.
The Greek historians treated here will consist of nine major figures
over the four‐century period beginning with the second Punic War (218–
201 bc), namely Fabius Pictor, Posidonius, and Diodorus Siculus of the
late republic; Nicolaus of Damascus and Dionysius from the Augustan
age; Josephus, Appian, and Arrian of the first and second centuries ad; and finally Dio Cassius and Herodian in the early third century ad, before the late Roman period. Given the number of authors and the length of
their texts, the treatment here will necessarily be more concise than that given earlier writers. A whole separate book could and perhaps should be afforded these historians. But it is important to include them here, not least to trace the continuities and shifts in the topics and themes followed in earlier historians, in particular the narratives of how public power is acquired and managed and how human nature weighs crucially in their
accounts. Chronologically Polybius should belong at the start of this
chapter, but was treated separately in view of his exceptional importance and originality.
Greek Historiography, First Edition. Thomas F. Scanlon.
© 2015 Thomas F. Scanlon. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
238
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
Universal history was the most important new genre, made compelling
by the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean. The topic was opened up
by Timaeus and developed by Polybius. Stoicism and the power of the
common good lent a unifying theme. Diodorus Siculus used the theme
of individual civilizing benefactors, and Posidonius suggested the civilizing benefit of Roman rule. Christian authors like Augustine trans-
formed this theme for religious ends, so that it reached its pure acme by abandoning time‐bound narrative for apocalyptic and prophetic revelation, envisioning the “end of history” (Sacks 1996; Momigliano 1987).
We note here in passing the ethnographies, akin to history, that were
produced to explain the newly conquered lands of the era and led to the works of Strabo (65 bc to after ad 21), Pausanias (fl. c. ad 150), and
others (Engels 2007: 541–52). We also only mention the other great his-
torically related genre, biography, epitomized by Plutarch (c. ad 50–120) but flanked by the Latin authors Nepos (110–124 bc) and Suetonius (ad
70–130) (Stadter 2007: 528–40).
Along with more global genres and the increasing power of Rome, the
relations between authors and authorities became more sensitive. Tacitus keenly observed how the transition from republic to empire deeply
affected the credibility and skill of historians, both Greek and Roman, in each era:
For many authors have recounted the eight hundred and twenty years of
the earlier period after the founding of the city, while the affairs of the Roman people were recalled with equal eloquence and liberty. After the
battle at Actium occurred [31 bc] and it became important to transfer all power to one man, those great talents withdrew. At the same time truth
was broken down in many ways, first out of ignorance of public affairs as if they were foreign, then through a passion for flattery or again a hatred toward the ruling masters. (Tac. Hist. 1.1)
For historians writing in Greek in this period, the target audience would have been mainly fellow Greek speakers of the Eastern Mediterranean, and probably the elite of the Western half who were educated in Greek, for
example politicians like Sulla, Cicero, and most emperors (Marincola
2009). Polybius was exceptionally well balanced in his praise and critique of Rome. But in general Tacitus’ analysis begs the question of whether
native Greek writers flattered their Roman rulers and magistrates, or else subtly challenged or encouraged them to learn ways of rule that were fair and sympathetic to Greek communities. Where each Greek historian lies
on this spectrum cannot be easily determined, but the Roman–Greek ten-
sions did and do challenge readers to consider the questions. A history
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
239
covering even much earlier periods does of course convey implicit models for good and bad uses of power and treatment of fellow citizens and subjects. The choice of subject (universal or Roman‐centered, specific peoples or conflicts or pan‐Mediterranean events, etc.) will suggest the approaches and aims of the authors. Why was new research on contemporary events
diminished or abandoned? Arrian and Diodorus, for instance, mostly
reworked accepted traditional sources, with widely varying quality and
results (Diodorus’ contemporary history is sadly fragmentary). The con-
text of the author and his life and times also yield insights into his aims.
Fabius Pictor
Though we have only fragments of Fabius’ work, he is, crucially, the first Roman historian and he wrote entirely in Greek. His chronicle dealt with Rome from its origins, starting with Aeneas, and ended with an account
of the Second Punic War (for details, see Mehl 2011: 43–8). He was from the distinguished Fabian family, was a member of the Senate, fought in
the Second Punic War against the Gauls in 225 bc, and was sent on an
embassy to Delphi in 216 bc, after the disastrous Roman defeat at Cannae.
His choice of Greek was partly due to the lack of literary Latin prose
models (Cato the Elder blazed that trail not long after) and partly in aid of justifying the Roman expansion to the Eastern Mediterranean (Dillery 2009). For early Roman events, Fabius uses the third‐century bc Greek
historian Diocles of Peparethus, author of an early history of Rome, and may have gleaned from Timaeus the system of dating by Olympia
ds,
cultural asides, and archival detail. Not only did he rely heavily on oral traditions – including family funeral orations – but his work may even
have been the first crystallization of many of them into writing (Ungern-Sternberg 2011; Marincola 1997: 100; Cornell 1986: 124).
Fabius of course blamed Hamilcar Barca and Hannibal for the Punic
Wars. Hannibal was in fact accompanied by his own Greek historians,
who were there to propagate his fame, and therefore Fabius and his
slightly later contemporary also writing in Greek, Cincius Alimentus,
countered Hannibal’s writers (Ungern‐Sternberg 2011: 146–7).
Especially for his account of the first two Punic Wars, but also for that of earlier Rome, Fabius was used as a source by Polybius, Livy, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. His work had been translated into Latin by the time of Cicero (Momigliano 1990: 91–2).
Polybius (1.14–15) faults Fabius for being too staunchly pro‐Roman
in his account of the Punic War. Fragment 1 (possibly derived from the
240
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
historian Diocles of Peparethus; see also D.H. 1.79–84) tells the story of Romulus’ and Remus’ identity being revealed to their father and their
revenge against the usurper, King Amulius – a tale of the characteristic bravado of Romulus, Rome’s founder. Fabius is again used to show that
even before Greek domination the Romans held the same sacred rites –
evidence that they were not “barbarians” in Greek terms (fr. 11 = D.H.
7.70–1). Elsewhere Dionysius of Halicarnassus quibbles about details in Fabius’ account, but obviously relies on his text throughout his own
books on early Rome – Roman Antiquities. Fabius’ primary legacy was to Roman historiography, where successors freely relied on Greek historians for the style or the substance of their works: for example, Sallust used Thucydides as Livy did Polybius. But Fabius also stimulated an academic-like inclination to write books from books, without examining the pri-
mary material for earlier events. After Fabius, Latin historians took up writing Roman – that is, “national” – history but remained under the
Greek Historiography Page 38
